Hydrology Bowla Nand Prayag

Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd
300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro-Electric Project
Detailed Project Report

April 2007
Volume I Section 4
Hydrology
Halcrow Consulting India Limited


April 2007
Volume I Section 4
Hydrology

153 Okhla Industrial Estate Phase 3, New Delhi 110020
Tel +91 (11)4650 1500 Fax +91 (11)4650 1599
www.halcrow.com
Halcrow Consulting India Limited has prepared this report in
accordance with the instructions of their client, Uttaranchal Jal
Vidyut Nigam, for their sole and specific use. Any other persons
who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.
Halcrow Consulting India Limited 2015

153 Okhla Industrial Estate Phase 3, New Delhi 110020
Tel +91 (11) 4650 1500 Fax +91 (11) 4650 1599
www.halcrow.com


Volume I Section 4
Hydrology
Contents Amendment Record
This report has been issued and amended as follows:
Issue
Revision
Description
Date
Signed
Preliminary Draft
Feb 06
First Draft
Dec 06
Revised
Jan 07
Final
Apr 07
IWB
Revised using data up to 2007
Aug 07
IWB
Contents
4
Hydrology
4-1
4.1
4.2
General Context
Basin Characteristics
4-1
4-1
4.3
4.4
Climate
Availability of Water and Dependable Flows
4-2
4-4
4.5
4.6
Data analyses
Flood Risk Analysis
4-5
4-17
4.7
Design Discharge
4-26
TABLES
Table 4-1: Available Gauge & Discharge Data
Table 4-2 Summary of Flood Analysis
FIGURES
Figure 4-1: Mean Monthly Maximum & Minimum Temperatures at Joshimath
Figure 4-2: Annual Rainfall Distribution at Joshimath
Figure 4-3: Matching of Flow-Duration Curves
Figure 4-4: Long-Term Flow-Duration Curves at Chamoli by FDC Method
Figure 4-5: Comparison of FDC Method with Non-Linear Regression Analysis
Figure 4-6: 50% and 90% Dependable Years
Figure 4-7: Comparison of Long-Term Flow-Duration Curves - Present Study v 1992 DPR
Figure 4-8: Catchment Area Characteristics
ANNEXES
Annex 4.1: Observations at Chamoli
Annex 4-2: Observations at Rudraprayag
Annex 4-3: Observations at Joshimath
Annex 4-4: Data Consistency Checks
Annex 4-5: Regression Analysis: Joshimath v Chamoli
Annex 4-6: Estimated Discharge Data for Intake Site
Annex 4-7: Determination of 50% and 90% Dependable Years
Annex 4-8: Regional Flood Data
Annex 4-9: Flood Frequency Analysis
Annex 4-10: Flood Estimate by Unit Hydrograph
300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

Hydrology
4.1
General Context
The River Alaknanda, which along with Bhagirathi and other tributaries constitutes river
Ganga, originates in glacial regions of the Himalayas in the extreme northern parts of the
district of Chamoli in Uttaranchal.
The proposed barrage site is situated on the River Alaknanda at Bowala, which is
2
approximately 208 km from Rishikesh. At this site the catchment area is 5,590 km , of which
2
2,740 km is snow bound.
This chapter describes the study of the hydrology of the catchment area and the
methodology adopted for establishing various parameters, which are basic inputs for the
project planning and design. The hydrological analysis has been carried out to assess the
availability of water for power generation by establishing long term discharge data and to
establish design floods for various components of the project.
All hydrological studies have been based primarily on records, data and criteria presented in
the Detailed Project Report-1992 (DPR-1992) and on additional up-to-date available records.
The studies consist principally of:
A review of previous hydrological studies.
Updating the hydrology with recently available data.
Verification of the quality and completeness of meteorological and
hydrometric data.
Generation of a long-term flow series for the Alaknanda River at the intake
site.
Comparison with the results of previous studies
Analysis of design floods by various methods.
4.2
Basin Characteristics
Bowala Nand Prayag Barrage and Intake are located at the River Alaknanda, which is one of
the main tributaries of the River Ganges in the state of Uttaranchal. It originates from the twin
glaciers of Bhagirath Kharak and Satopanth near the holy shrine of Badrinah at an elevation
of about 3750 m a.s.l. Initially it flows in an easterly direction until it is joined by the Saraswati
River at Mana. From Mana the general direction of flow is South South-East to Joshimath
where it is joined by the major tributary of Dhauliganga. From Joshimath the river flows
South West, and then West until it joins the Bhagirathi River at Devprayag to form the
Ganga.
The catchment of River Alaknanda up to the intake site for Bowala Nand Prayag extends
from latitude 30 24N to 31 02N and longitude 79 12E to 80 15E. It is generally
mountainous, and about 50% is snow covered. The highest altitude in the catchment is over
7800 m a.s.l. (the peak of Nanda Devi) and the lowest point near the intake site is at 1025 m.
4-1

The catchment area has been remeasured from the Survey of India 1:250,000 topo sheet
with the following results.
Previous Studies
Present Study
Total Catchment Area
5,590 km
5,590 km
Snowbound Catchment
2,890 km
2,740 km
Rainfed Catchment
2,700 km2
2,850 km2
The area of snow fed catchment has been measured as the area enclosed by the 4,500m
contour. The difference between the previous and present studies is thought to be due to the
more accurate measurement for the present study, which was measured using AutoCAD.
Drawing no WH/BNPP/007 in Volume III of this report shows the catchment area of the
Project.
4.3
Climate
4.3.1
Temperature
The climate of the area is generally temperate and varies with elevation. It is warm in
summer, humid in monsoon and cool in winter months. The winter months are from
December to March. The summer or pre monsoon months are from April to May. The
monsoon months are from June to September. The post monsoon months are from October
to November. The nearest Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) observatory is at
Joshimath which is approximately 30 km from the Intake Site at an elevation of 1875m. The
lowest temperature at Joshimath of -15 C was recorded in the month of January 1974 and
the highest temperature of 34 C was recorded in the month of June 1978. The mean
monthly maximum and minimum temperatures at Joshimath are shown in Figure 4.1.
Temperatures at the intake site, which is about 850m lower than Joshimath, will be about
5.5 C higher than the temperatures at Joshimath on average.
Figure 4-1: Mean Monthly Maximum & Minimum Temperatures at Joshimath
30
Maximum Mean Monthly Temperature

Minimum Mean Monthly Temperature
25.0
25
23.7
23.5
23.1
22.4
20.3
20
17.5
Temperature ( C)
21.3
16.2
15
16.5
14.6
13.6
10.9
12.0
16.9
16.7
10.9
13.5
10.7
10
6.6
6.3
5
2.0
4.0
3.0
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
4-2

4.3.2
Precipitation
There are several rain gauge stations established in the upper part of the catchment area,
however, due to the difficulty of access the records from these stations are generally
incomplete, particularly during the winter months. The rain guage at Joshimath provides a
rainfall record from 1958 to 2003 which is more or less complete, and which, due to its
central location in the catchment, gives an indication of the annual rainfall distribution.
The mean annual rainfall in the catchment estimated from isohyetal map of IMD is 1050 mm.
The maximum rainfall is observed in monsoon months. In monsoon months rainfall is due to
south west monsoons which normally strike the Garhwal Himalayas towards the end of June
and withdraws from the region towards the end of September. The precipitation is due to the
passage of depressions and or cyclonic storms from the Bay of Bengal over the region.
These disturbances after originating from the Bay of Bengal move in north west direction,
after reaching west Madhya Pradesh, south Rajasthan move in a north to northeast direction
and strike the Garhwal Himalayas. The winter precipitation in the basin is due to western
disturbances advancing from Afghanistan and West Pakistan.
Figure 4-2: Annual Rainfall Distribution at Joshimath
300
245.9
Mean Monthly Rainfall (mm)
250
214.0
200
150
115.1
112.9
103.4
98.1
100
77.5
60.5
43.5
50
33.7
15.5
0
Jan
4.3.3
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Source of Runoff
The catchment is fed by both snow and rain. A significant percentage of the runoff is from
snow- and glacier-melt which constitute a potential reservoir. Winter precipitation which
occurs in the form of snow accumulates until early summer. As summer advances, the
accumulation melts to release water in to the stream. Glaciers and permanent snowfields are
located at altitudes above about 4800 m. During winter season the seasonal snowline drops
to a height of about 2000 m.
4-3
Nov

4.3.4
Evaporation
No records of lake evaporation or pan evaporation are available for the project area.
However, since the project is planned as a run of river scheme, with provision only for daily
storage for peaking, the evaporation losses can be safely neglected.
4.4
Availability of Water and Dependable Flows
4.4.1
Available Data
Though no gauge discharge data is available for the barrage site, data from 1971 to 1982 is
available at Chamoli, which is located 5 km downstream of the barrage site. Discharge data
of River Ganga at Raiwala is also available from 1945-46 to 1978-79. At Raiwala the
catchment of River Ganga is 22,936 km2 (out of this 5,988 km2 is snow bound).
Data is also available for the gauging stations at Rudraprayag, downstream of the project
site and at Joshimath, upstream of the project site. The locations of stations and the period
of availability of discharge data for the Alaknanda and the Ganga Rivers is given below.
Table 4-1: Available Gauge & Discharge Data
River
Location of
Catchment
Station
Area
From
To
km2
Alaknanda
Joshimath
Alaknanda
Chamoli
4,508
1971-72
2006-07
5,590
(at Bowala)
1970-71
1981-82
Alaknanda
Ganga
Rudraprayag
9,042
1977-78
2006-07
Raiwala
22,936
1945-46
1978-79
The DPR of 1992 has used the discharges from 1970-71 to 1981-82 at Chamoli, for
computing the annual run off for the Project. But since the data is for a short period the
record has been extended by transferring discharges from Raiwala.
For this the runoff of ten day period at Chamoli has been compared with the corresponding
runoff at Raiwala, taking into account the time lag.
The stations at Joshimath and Rudraprayag are much closer to Bowala than Raiwala and
are of sufficient duration (36 years and 30 years respectively) to provide a reliable record, so
it is proposed to use the data from these stations to augment the time series at Chamoli.
Discharge data for Joshimath, Chamoli and Rudraprayag is presented in Annexes 4-1, 4-2
and 4-3.
The hydrological parameters for the scheme in the present study are thus estimated directly
from the discharges observed on the Alaknanda River and there is no need to subvent this
material with rainfall or snowmelt observations. These data have been used only to indicate
the wider climatological context of the Project, as reported above, and for checking the
consistency of the discharge data by rainfall-runoff relationship.
4-4

4.5
Data analyses
Hydrological time series may exhibit trends referred to as inconsistencies or nonhomogeneities. Inconsistencies result from changes in the amount of systematic errors
married with recording of data, such as those arising from changes in instrumentation or
observational practices. Non-homogeneity of the data is defined as the change in statistics of
the data set which are caused by natural or man-made changes like change in landuse,
water use and climatic change.
The quality and quantity of the data for the station Joshimath are controlled and assured in
data analysis. It refers to the internal and external pre-processing of data. The external is
checked and verified from the double mass curve analysis where as, internally the data itself
is analysed by conducting the tests as described in the following sub-sections. In toto, 33
years of annual flood data are available for analysis.
4.5.1
Test for randomness

A random series is the one in which the value of the next discrete value is unknown. There
are number of statistical tests to check the randomness of the data series i.e. turning point
test, difference sign test, Run test, Serial rank Correlation test .etc. The Turning Point Test is
applied to check the randomness of the series at 5% significance level. The number of
turning points is the total number of crest or trough in the sample of peak annual flood
values.
Qt is the turning point and is defined in the form,
Qt is crest when
Qt-1 < Qt > Qt +1
Qt is trough when Qt -1 > Qt < Qt +1

The randomness of data is determined by the normal variate of the data and is given by,
where,
is the total number of crests and troughs.
=
is the mean such that
2
(N 2)
3
and N is the sample size
is the standard deviation of the sample.
If < 1.9, the series is random at 5% significant level. The computations for the same have
been tabulated and results are depicted in Annex - 4-4
4.5.2
Test for trend: Spearmans rank correlation method

The presence or absence of trend is determined by using Spearmans rank correlation
method. The co-efficient is denoted by .The 33 years of peak annual flood data are
converted to ranks before computing the coefficient and then, the data is sorted in
descending order ranking the highest value as one. The differeneces Di between the ranks
of each observation on the two variables are calculated and. The Spearmans rank
correlation coefficient ,
is expressed as,
4-5

= 1
6 Di2
n n2 1
The test statistics t is given by,
n2
t =
2
1
Where n represents the number of observations in both the equation. The test variable t has
a Students t-distribution with degree of freedom, = n 2 .
The critical region with a 5% signifacnce level in the Students t- distribution is expressed as,
{ , t ( , 2.5%)}U {t ( , 97.5%), + }
Therefore, the data has no trend if
t ( , 2.5%) < t < t ( , 97.5%)

In the current study, the method is applied for the data of Joshimath duly transposed to BNP
site and no trend is found in the peak annual flood data. The results of the same have been
tabulated in Annex-4-5
4.5.3
Test for outliers

Outliers are the observations that deviate significantly from the remaining data points of the
sample set. The test for ouliers holds a stand while assessing the retention, modification and
deletion of these outliers because any such treatment would affect the statistical parameters
of the data.
The skewness, Sk of the annual peak flood of BNP set rules to check the outliers
categorizing them into high outliers and low outliers and the following expressions define the
limits of skewness that is applicable for the data set.
If Sk < -0.4 then, check for Low outliers first
If Sk > +0.4 then, check for High outliers first
If -0.4< Sk <+0.4 then, check for High outliers first
The threshold values of the outliers are governed by the following equations:
Low outlier threshold
= exp[ Rp(log)Avg - Kn * Rp(log) ]
High outlier threshold = exp[ Rp(log)Avg +Kn * Rp(log) ]

where, Rp(log)Avg is the mean of log transformed annual peak flood.
Rp(log) is standard deviation of Rp(log) series
n is the number of years
Kn is the outlier test values for 10% significance level for a Normal distribution
4-6

4.5.4
Test for stability of variance: F-test

F-test is taken to assess the stability of variance in which the same sample of data is split up
into two different series randomly chosen without affecting the order of the data set.
However, in the current study the bar chart showing the peak annual rainfall series is
indicative of peaks to be considered in the first series or the second one. The first and
second subsets are termed as X1 and X2.
The variances of each of the two series are represented as
s12 and s 22 .
The test statistics is given by,
s12
Ft = 2
s2
The investigation of the data series of BNP results in differences in the variance and
therefore, a confidence limit for stability of the variance using Fisher F distribution is also
observed and found that the test statistics are confined to the domain which is essentially
based on the degree of freedom of each data series.
From the Fisher-F distribution, the critical region with 5% significance level is set as,
{0,
F ( 1 , 2 , 2.5%)}U
{ F ( 1 , 2 , 97.5%), }
where, 1 and 2 are the respective numbers of degrees of freedom of the numerator and
the denominator.
1 = n1 1 and 2 = n 2 1
where,
n1 and n 2 are the numbers of observation in each sub-set.
The results of the F-test for all the abovementioned three stations have been computed and
are shown in Annex-4-6 which also includes the result of t-test described below.
4.5.5
Test for stability of mean: t-test

The same parted series investigated on F-test is subjected to the test for stability of the
mean and is widely known as t-Test. This test is based on null hypothesis that when the two
data series aforesaid are normally distributed then, the difference between the mean values
of the two series is equal to zero. Assuming this to be true the test statistic has a Students t
distribution.
The subsets X1 and X2 used in the F-test are tested for stability of mean.
Taking
X1
and
t=
where ,
ni
X 2 as the averages , the test statistic is given by,

X1 X 2
(n 1)s 12 + (n 2 1)s 22
1
n1 + n 2 2
1
1
+
n1 n 2
0.5
is the number of data in the subset

4-7

Xi
is the mean of the subset i
si2
is the variance of the subset i
From the Students- t distribution, the critical region with 5% significance level is set as,
{ ,
t ( , 2.5%)}U { t ( , 97.5%), + }
where, is the number of degrees of freedom,
= n1 + n 2 2
From the above statistics, the stability is inferred and the results of test for all the three
stations are included in Annex- 4-7
4.5.6
Consistency Check.
This examines the mean 10-daily discharge time series at Joshimath, Chamoli and
Rudraprag and has the objective of assessing data quality and therefore the confidence that
can be attached to the results, particularly with respect to the assurance of the flows
available for diversion. These time-series are initially examined to ensure that they are
statistically stationary, that is that they contain no systematic trends or inconsistencies over
the period of record, which would otherwise lead to bias and potential inaccuracies in the
results of interest. The consistency check has been carried out using both internal checks
(runoff-runoff relationships by regression analysis and double mass curve methods) and
external checks (rainfall-runoff relationship).
a) Regression Analysis
This test has been performed by simple regression analysis of the data from different
stations over the common period of record. Both linear and non-linear regression methods
were explored and the best-fit curves gave the following result:
Stations
Best fit equation
R2
Coefficient of
Correlation
R
Joshimath v Rudraprayag
y = 0.2453x
1.1139
0.84
0.92
Joshimath v Chamoli
y = 1.3382x
0.9039
0.91
0.95
Chamoli v Rudraprayag
y = 0.5996x - 6.6157
0.90
0.95
Details of this analysis are given in Annex 4-8. These coefficients of correlation show that the
data from the three stations have a satisfactory degree of consistency.
b) Double Mass Curve
The double mass curves for Joshimath v Chamoli v Joshimath and Joshimath v Rudraprayag
have been prepared. The calculations are appended in Annex 4- 4 of this report. From the
trend of the double mass curves it can be concluded that the data from the three stations is
generally consistent, although the year 1998-99 shows an anomaly between the stations at
Joshimath and Rudraprayag.
c) Rainfall-Runoff
4-8

The calculations are appended in Annex 4-4 of this report. The runoff from the snow fed
catchment has been calculated using the method described in Ref [1]. This figure is
deducted from the total runoff calculated from the gauge & discharge data to give the runoff
from the rainfed area, which is then compared with the mean annual rainfall at Joshimath
with the following result:
Mean Annual Runoff at Joshimath (rain fed catchment) = 1120mm
Mean Annual Rainfall at Joshimath
= 1160mm
This shows that the discharges measured at Joshimath are consistent with the rainfall and
may be used for further analysis
With the consistency of the gauge and discharge data established, the next step is to
augment the discharge data for Chamoli by estimating the flows from 1982 to 2002 using the
data at the Rudraprag and Joshimath stations.
4.5.7
Procedures used to extend the daily flows observed at Chamoli using data at the Joshimath
gauge upstream.
Three methods of extending the discharge series at Chamoli have been considered:
a) Catchment Area Ratio
The discharges at Bowala intake site were calculated by factoring the discharges at
Joshimath by the Catchment Area Ratio (5590/4672 = 1.196). The results are presented in
Annex 4-6 of this report.
b) Seasonal Non-Linear Regression Analysis
The discharge series at Chamoli was extended using data from Joshimath by means of a
non-linear regression analysis on a seasonal basis. The calculations are presented in Annex
4-5 of this report.
c) Method of Matching Flow-Duration Curves (FDC Method)
Hughes and Smatkhin. (1996) (see Reference [2]) have shown that rather than use
regression analysis directly to estimate the target flows, there are very significant statistical
advantages to matching the flow duration curves. The reasons for this are:
the regression model smoothes the distribution of the estimated flows

(unless the error term is included);
the relationship between flows at 2 sites is rarely linear, as is assumed

in simple regression;
the use of the flow duration curves overcomes the non-linear issue and
exploits a knowledge of the probability distribution of the flows at the 2
sites (which is what the FDCs are).
The flow records available at the two sites are as below, the target being the data to be
treated and the control the data means for doing so. In this case the objective is to extend
the target time series at Chamoli for the period after September 1982 (when observations at
Chamoli stopped) using the data from Joshimath.
Control Site:
Joshimath
1971 2002
4-9

Target Site:
Chamoli.
1971 1982
Between 1971 and 1982 (the common observation period) 408 paired 10-daily observations
at the two sites are available. For the present application and given the available common
sample size at the two sites (408), the FDCs were computed using every set of paired data
(i.e. giving 408 ordinates at intervals of 0. 25%)
The procedure is illustrated below in Figure 4-3. Given (for example) a mean 10-daily flow of
600 m3/s at the control station, this has an exceedance probability of 21%. The flow with the
same exceedance probability at the target station is 369 m3/s. Where discharge values in the
extended time series at the control site lie between points on the FDC for the common period
the values at the target site are obtained by linear interpolation between the adjacent points.
Where discharge values are greater than the maximum value of the FDC for the common
period values at the target site are obtained by extrapolation using the average ratio between
the two staions.
Figure 4-3: Matching of Flow-Duration Curves
1600
1400
Control Station
Target Station
Discharge (cumecs)
1200
1000
800
600
600
21%
400
369
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% Exceedence
Proceeding in this way the missing period of data at the target site (in this case post-1982)
can be estimated.
This method overcomes the non-linear aspects and data smoothing that are usually the
inevitable consequences of simple regression analysis.
Thus there is no fixed ratio between flows at the 2 locations across the whole flow range
thus reflecting reality. Instead the ratio varies as a function of the mutual distribution of flows
in terms of the FDCs. This approach is simple and statistically efficient and accurate.
4-10

As a diagnostic check, however, the mean ratio of the flows between the 2 sites should
remain the same over the common and treatment periods, unless one was wetter (drier) than
the other. Here:
1978-1982 (common observations = 408):
ratio target / control = 1.19
1982-2002 (estimated observations = 708):
ratio target / control = 1.20
The long term flow duration curve at Chamoli (from 1971 to 2002) generated in this way,
using data from Joshimath, is compared with the corresponding data derived using data from
Rudraprayag (from 1978 to 2002) in Figure 4-4, below:
4-11

Figure 4-4: Long-Term Flow-Duration Curves at Chamoli by FDC Method

1200
1000
Data transferred from Rudraprayag
Data transferred from Joshimath
Discharge (m3/s)
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Exceedance Probability
It can be seen that the differences between two Flow-Duration Curves are small. In view of
the relatively short period of common record between Rudraprayag and Chamoli the values
derived from Joshimath are considered to be more reliable.
4.5.8
Comparison of Different Methods for Estimating Discharges at the Intake Site

The discharges at the intake calculated by the above methods are compared in Figure 4.5
below. The coefficient of correlation for the regression analysis was found to be lower than
for the other methods so the results from the regression analysis were discarded. The results
from FDC method compared well with those based on catchment area ratio, however when
the results are compared in chronological order the values for the same period were found to
vary considerably.
In view of this, and because the catchment at Joshimath is 84% of the catchment at Bowala
intake, it is proposed to adopt the discharges determined by catchment area ratio for the
discharge series at the intake site. The estimated 10-daily timeseries at the Intake Site are
presented in Annex 4-6.
.
4-12

Figure 4-5 a): Comparison of FDC Method with Non-Linear Regression Analysis
Discharge Estimated by FDC Method
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
y = 1.0294x
2
R = 0.9656
200
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Discharge Estimated by Regression Analysis
Figure 4-5 b): Comparison of FDC Method with Catchment Area Ratio Method
1600
Transferred by FDC Method
1400
1200
1000
y = 1.01x
2
R = 0.99
800
600
400
200
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Transferred by Catchment Area Ratio
4-13

Figure 4-5 c): Comparison of FDC Method with Catchment Area Ratio Method
1600
1400
1200
Transferred by Cathment Area Ratio
Transferred by FDC Method
Discharge (m /s)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
4-14

4.5.9
Determination of 50% and 90% Dependable Years

The estimated discharges at the Barrage Site are ranked in descending order according to
the total annual discharge and the exceedance probability for each year is calculated using
Weibulls formula.
The 50% and 90% dependable years are found to be 1983-84 and 1971-72.
The resulting values are presented in Annex 4-7 and Figure 4-6.
Figure 4-6: 50% and 90% Dependable Years
900
800
700
50% year (1983-84)

90% year (1971-72)
Discharge (m3/s)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
4-15

Comparison with Previous Studies

The discharges at the barrage site estimated by the above procedure are expressed as a
long-term flow-duration curve for comparison with the corresponding data that was presented
in the 1992 DPR in Figure 4-7, below.
It can be seen that, although the two curves generally lie close together the discharges
estimated using the latest data from Joshimath are lower than those from the 1992 DPR
during the lean season, but higher during the monsoon season. The most significant
difference is in the values for 90% dependable discharge, which is 35m3/s in the present
analysis, compared with 41m3/s in the 1992 DPR.
Figure 4-7:
Comparison of Long-Term Flow-Duration Curves

Present Study v 1992 DPR
1800
1600
Discharge (m3/s)
4.5.10
1400
1992 DPR (Data Transferred from Raiwala)
1200
Proposed Discharge Series at Intake

(Data Transferred from Joshimath)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Exceedance Probability
4-16
100%

4.6
Flood Risk Analysis
4.6.1
General Issues
It is inevitably difficult to compute floods of such magnitude as those of the Ganga tributaries
with accuracy, and uncertainties over historic flood peaks cannot be avoided. Factors that
complicate a full understanding of the flood characteristics of the basin include the fact that
large areas of the upper basin are snow-bound, at high elevations the terrain is excluded
from normal cloud ranges, and there are many man-made influences on floods, such as
major dams or diversions. Each catchment tends to be individual and not closely similar to
another.
Several approaches can be used to estimate floods of different return periods. These
include:
4.6.2
Flood Frequency Analysis
Unit Hydrograph Method
Empirical Formula
Hydrological Data
The observed peak annual discharges for a number of sites in the region have been made
available and these are given Annex 4-8. The sites for which data is available include
Joshimath, Rudraprayag and Raiwala on the Alaknanda and Ganga rivers.
Daily rainfall records are available for Joshimath and Badrinath stations both of which lie
within the catchment area.
4.6.3
Flood Frequency Analysis

The peak annual flood data for a record of 33 years are transposed to BNP on the basis of
catchment area ratio raising it to a power of 0.75. In order to obtain the instantaneous flood
peaks, the observed flood peaks are increased by 30%. The flood frequency analysis is
conducted by applying, analysis of extremes for annual series (Gumbel type-I and Log
Pearson type III) and analysis of exceedances for partial duration series)
1)
Analysis of extremes
a)
Gumbel type-I
The peak annual discharge values are sorted and fitted in extreme value
Gumbel type-I and Log Pearson Type-III.
distribution i.e.,
The simplified relation of Gumbels distribution is given by,

XT = Xext(avg) + KT * Sext
where,
XT
estimated flood for a period T
Xext(avg)
mean of observed extreme floods
KT
Gumbel's factor for varying T

4-17

Sext
standard deviation of extreme flood records
The probability of exceedance is given by Gringertons formula,
p=
where,
m
N + 1 2
rank
= 0.44
plotting position number by Gringerton

number of years
The return period, T is the reciprocal of probability of exceedance. The reduced variate y is
calculated as,
y = [ (ln ln(1 p )]
From the mean yN, standard deviation N of Gumbel variate y and recorded length N, the
factor KT is expressed as,
y yN
K T =
N
* S ext
The computations for XT have been shown for each station in Annexure 4-9 which also
includes results of analysis of exceedance.
b) Log-Pearson type-III
This method is defined by three standard statistical parameters: the mean, standard
deviation and coefficient of skew. These parameters are determined from the logs of 33
years annual peak flood of BNP.
The aforesaid parameters are derived as,
ym =
y
N
ym is the mean of logs (peak annual flood)

N is the length of record
( y ym ) 2
y =
N 1
is the standard deviation of the logs
y ym
Sk =
(N 1) (N 2) y
N
S k is the coefficient of skew of the logs

4-18

Using these three parameters, the magnitude of the flood of the desired frequency can be
determined from the equation,
yT = y m + K T * y
yT = log Q = the logarithm of the flood magnitude.
K T = a frequency factor for a particular return period and coefficient of skew

If the skew of the sample data happens to be equal to zero, the plot of the log-Pearson fit to
the data will be a straight line.
If the skew is negative the plot will be a curve with a downward concavity.
If the skew is positive, the plot will be a curve with upward concavity.
The resulting skew from the analysis is found to be negative and the the characteristics of
the curve conforms to downward concavity. The results are shown below :
Return Period
in years
Flood
3
(m /sec)
2
5
10
25
50
100
200
500
1000
1547
2041
2336
2678
2915
3138
3455
3618
3814
Based on the Chi-square test results the Log Pearson type-III distribution results are
adopted.
The detail computations are shown in Annexure 4-9
2)
Analysis of exceedances
The analysis of exceedance is based on the assumption of thereshold value selected from
the full series of data in such a way that the number of values above the threshold equals the
number of years of data. The flood value referring to this exceedance is termed as, Xexc.
The relationship between the above two methods is shown by Langbein (Chow, 1964) and
the expression for the same is,
1
T
1
= 1 exp p
T
where, T is the return period of annual extremes and

duration series.
Tp
is the return period for the partial
4-19

The computations for XT and Xexc have been shown for each station in Annexure 4-9 which
also includes results of analysis of exceedance.
4.6.4
Unit Hydrograph Approach

The unit hydrograph approach is dependent on rainfall uniformly covering the catchment
area, and the area for which this is applicable is normally constrained by this consideration.
Areal rainfall during the Indian monsoon can be widespread and can be fairly uniform over
quite large areas. However, where there are large variations in elevation such as in mountain
areas, rainfall will inevitably vary because of orographic effects at different elevations. In this
case, the snow-bound upper catchment adds to the mountain complication when considering
the use of a unit hydrograph approach.
For the synthetic unit hydrograph, hydrometeorological approach is adopted for developing a
regional method for estimating design flood for small and medium catchments in various
hydrometeorologically homogenous sub-zones. In this approach, the effective rainfall is the
input derived from design storm and then it is applied to the unit hydrograph as a transfer
function to obtain the design flood as output.
Well-researched estimates of storm rainfall intensities for critical durations are needed for the
unit hydrograph approach, and these are likely to be available for much of India. However,
catchment storm loss rates are usually difficult to determine without onerous analysis of a
good network of raingauges together with a lengthy and accurate flood record at the site of
interest. Cumulative uncertainties in storm cell characteristics, catchment losses and prestorm catchment state all add to overall limitations in the confidence with which this approach
can be used to derive standard return period floods. In recognition of this fact, flood
hydrographs in countries such as the UK use flood peak frequency analysis to scale back
UH-derived design flood hydrographs.
The synthetic unit hydrograph in the present study is a unit hydrograph of unit duration for
the studied catchment of Alaknanda. The analysis to obtain the synthetic unit hydrograph is
described in three phases below:
Physiographic parameters of the catchment
Derivation of 1-hour Unit hydrograph
Estimation of flood
4-20

U.G =
Tr =
Tm =
tp =
Qp =
Unit Hydrograph
Unit rainfall duration adopted in a specific study (hours)
Time from the start of rise to the peak of the U.G.(hours)
Time from centre of the effective rainfall duration to U.G. peak (hours)
Peak discharge of unit hydrograph (cumecs)
W 50 =
Width of U.G. measured at 50% of the peak discharge ordinate (hour)
W 75 =
Width of U.G. measured at 75% of the peak discharge ordinate (hour)

Width of rising limb of U.G. measured at 50% of the peak discharge
ordinate (hour)
Width of rising limb of U.G. measured at 75% of the peak discharge
ordinate (hour)
W R50 =
W R75 =
TB =
Base width of U.G (hours)
qp =
Discharge per unit area ,Qp /A (cumecs/sq.km)
a) Physiographic parameters of the catchment

Catchment Area (A):
The toposheet is digitised for the desired catchment with gauging site is located watershed
boundary duly marked on it. The area enclosed in this boundary is measured.
Length of the Main Stream (L):
4-21

This implies the longest length of the main river from the farthest. watershed boundary of the
catchment area to the gauging site. The centre of gravity of the catchment is found out by
graphical method for closed polygon. The stream may or may not pass through the centre of
gravity but the nearest point to the centre of gravity is considered to find the length of the
main river from the centre of gravity to the point of study (Lc).
Equivalent Stream Slope (S):
One of the physiographical parameters is slope. The slope may be equivalent slope or
statistical slope. In this report equivalent stream slope has been used for developing SUG
relations.
The L section is broadly divided into segments representing broad ranges of the slopes of
the segments. Following formula is used to compute equivalent slope (S).
S=
L (D
i
( i 1)
+ Di )
Elevations of river bed at intersection points of contours reckoned from the bed elevation at
points of interest considered as datum and D (i-1) and Di are the heights of successive bed
location at contour arid intersections. Details of catchment plan and elevation are shown in
Figure 4-9 below.
b) Derivation of 1-hour Unit hydrograph
The empirical relation for unit hydrograph derivation is referred from [4] and the same
formulae are listed below:
tp =
2.498*(L*Lc/S)^0.156
qp =
1.048*tp^-0.178
W 50 =
1.954*(L*Lc/S)^0.099
W 75 =
0.972*(L*Lc/S)^0.124
W R50 =
0.189*(W50)^1.769
W R75 =
0.419*(W75)^1.246
TB =
7.845*tp^0.453
Tm =
tp+0.5
Qp =
qp*A
TD =
1.1*tp
The 1-hour unit graph is obtained from the above parameters and is convoluted to obtain the
flood peaks and total flood for various return periods applying the storm depth corresponding
to the return period. The 50 and 100 years 24 hours rainfall depths are adopted from Flood
estimation report, Zone-7, CWC.
The design storm study of Vishnugad Pipalkoti H.E. project was carried out by Indian
Meteorological Department, New Delhi and SPS hyetograph maps for 1-day, 2-day and 3day SPS have been depicted in the report. In the present study, since the base perios of unit
hydrograph is less than 24-hours, the 1-Day SPS value is referred from the report .The
4-22

catchment area is superimposed over the catchment drawn for Vishnugad Pipalkoti H E
Project and 1-day SPS value is estimated as 15.6 cm and the same is adopted for computing
SPF.
The moisture adjustment factor, MAF for the zone is estimated as 1.57 by IMD for Vishnugad
Pipalkoti H.E. project and the same value is adopted for BNP to estimte the PMP.The
adopted value of PMP is 24.5 cm
Design Loss Rate:
As recommended in the CWC report, the design loss has been adopted as 0.5 cm/hr.The
base flow and snowmelt contribution are adopted @ 0.05 Cumec/SqKm (rainfed area).As a
result, the base flow estimated is 143 cumecs and 180 cumec is the considered snowmelt
contribution added to the base flow to compute the total flood.
4-23

Figure 4-8: Catchment Area Characteristics
4-24

c) Estimation of flood.
The effective rainfall for design storm duration is to be applied to the unit hydrograph of a
catchment to obtain the design flood of required return period. The procedure for computing
design flood peak and design flood hydrograph for T year returns period by synthetic unit
hydrograph approach is as under :
d) Computation of design flood peak
Flood peaks of 50 and 100 years return period have been computed with a prior analysis of
24 hours rainfall for the corresponding return periods duly obtained from the isopluvial lines
as given in Plate-9 and Plate-10 for 50 and 100 years respectively. Detailed steps for flood
peak estimation are followed using [4]. The SPF and PMF hydrographs are generated using
SPS and PMP respectively. The PMP values are referred from 1-day PMP atlas, IMD, 1988
and the SPS is obtained using the moisture adjustment factor value for the zone reported in
PMP atlas IMD,1988.
The computation of flood by Synthetic Unit Hydrograph equation is attached in Annex 4-10.
4.6.5
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)

For a catchment of nearly 5,600 km2, design floods of PMF level are best derived from the
enveloping curve of the world maximum observed floods. The latest version of this
publication is World catalogue of Maximum Observed Floods, compiled for IASH by Reg
Herschy in 2003 (Ref [2]). It shows that the enveloping world maximum curve, which is
clearly heavily influenced by Indian historic floods, has the simplified formula of:
0.43
Q = 500A
m /s, where A is the catchment area in km , and this has the Francou index, k,
of approximately 6.
For the 2,850 km2 rain-fed catchment area at Bowala Nand Prayag, this formula results in a
PMF of 15,300 m3/s.
The PMF is also estimated from the PMP storm in Annex 4-10 by synthetic unit hydrograph
3
method. This estimate gives a figure of 17,400 m /s which corresponds reasonably well with
the value above derived from the enveloping curve.
4.6.6
Summary of Flood Analysis

Table 4-2 Summary of Flood Analysis
Flood
PMF
Based on
Enveloping
Curve
Based on
Flood Frequency
Analysis
15,300
Based on
Unit Hydrograph
17367
SPF
9780
500 year
3,930
100 year
3,240
8709
50 year
2,950
5335
4-25

Given the relatively short length of record for annual flood peaks it is considered that the
flood peaks estimated by flood frequency analysis are not reliable and it is proposed to adopt
the more conservative values for flood peaks given by the unit hydrograph method for the
design of Bowala Nand Prayag HEP. This gives the following values, as compared with the
values proposed in the 1992 DPR:
Annual Flood Peak for return periods (m3/s)
Present Study
1992 DPR
50 years
100 years
500 years
7,210
8,240
10,630
7,041
8,207
1000 years
9,610
4.7
Design Discharge
4.7.1
Design Discharge for Barrage

According to the CWC Manual on Estimation of Design Flood, for weirs and barrages, which
are diversion structures having small storage capacities, the risk of loss of life and property
down stream would rarely be increased by failure of the structure. Apart from the damage to
the structure itself the failure would cause disruption of water supply to the power station.
Existing practice for design of barrages and weirs is based on BIS Code, IS 6966 (Part I),
1989: Hydraulic Design of Barrages and Weirs. For purposes of design of items other, than
free board, a design flood of 50- year frequency may normally suffice. In such cases where
risks and hazards are involved, a review of this criteria based on site conditions may be
necessary.
For deciding the free board, a minimum of 500-year frequency flood or the standard project
flood (SPF) may be desirable.
In the case of Bowala Nand Prayag the SPF has the same magnitude as the 500-year flood
and accordingly it is proposed to adopt the 500-year flood for determining the dimensions,
3
and hence the freeboard, of the barrage. This flood has a magnitude of 10,630m /s.
4.7.2
Design Discharge for Diversion Works

For construction of the Barrage and Intake structure a working season from 1 October to 31
May is assumed. Over this period, average monthly river flows typically lie in the range 30
3
150 m /s. Monthly peak discharges at Chamoli for the months of October through March for
the years 1971 to 1981 are available and these have been used in a flood frequency analysis
to determine floods of various return periods during the working season. The results are
given in below
4-26

Figure 4-9: Flood Frequencies during Non-Monsoon

Season
Semi-log Flood Frequencies for Bowala
(Non-Monsoon Period)
Return Period
10
20
50
500
100
95% Confidence
Upper Boundary
y = 152.23x + 126.06
R2 = 0.8844
300
Flow - m /s
400
200
100
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Log Return Period
Taking the 95% upper confidence boundary, the non-monsoon floods for various return
periods are:
Return Period (years)
10
20
50
100
Flood Discharge (01 Oct 31 May)
264
314
364
430
481
The design flood for the diversion works is typically taken as the flood of return period 10
times the period for which the temporary works are at risk from flooding. This would suggest
the use of the following design discharges for various construction periods for the Barrage
and Intake Structure:
Construction Period (years)
Flood Return Period (years)
20
30
40
50
Design Discharge
364
393
414
430
4-27

4.8
Sediment Studies
4.8.1
Available Data
Daily records of suspended sediment have been obtained from the G&D station at
Rudraprayag on Alaknanda River from June 1994 to May 1998 and from the G&D station at
Nand Prayag on Alaknanda River from March 2007 to May 2008.
4.8.2
Sediment Concentrations
The annual variation in the concentration of suspended sediment is presented in Figure 4-10
and the variation in the concentration of suspended sediment as a function of the river flow is
given in Figure 4-11. The amount of suspended sediment is dependent on a number of
factors including the rate of erosion in the catchment area, landslips which can deposit large
volumes of material into the river channel and human activities. Consequently the amount of
suspended sediment is highly variable.
4.8.3
Petrographic Analysis
Petrographic analyses of samples of suspended sediments have been carried out by GSI
Laboratory in Faridabad giving the following composition:
Due to the high quartz content the sediments in the Alaknanda River will be highly abrasive,
so it is important that the desilting basins operate effectively to remove suspended
sediments. Consideration should also be given to applying a protective coating to the turbine
runners when the specifications are prepared.
4-28

Figure 4-10: Annual Variation in Suspended Sediment at Intake Site
Variation in Suspended Sediment at Intake Site
50,000
45,000
40,000
Sediment (ppm)
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Figure 4-11: Variation in Suspended Sediment with Discharge
80,000
Sediment Concentration (ppm)
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Discharge at Intake (m /s)
4-29

References
[1]
Hydrological Modelling of Snow & Glacier Covered Basins. Proc. National Academy of
Science India, special issue 2001
[2]
Hughes D. A and V Smatkhin. (1996) Daily flow time series patching: A spatial interpolation
approach based on flow duration curves. Hydrological Sciences Journal. Vol 41 (6). pp 852
871.
[3]
Herschy R . (2003) World catalogue of Maximum Observed Floods, IASH
[4]
Flood Estimation Report for Western Himalayas- Zone 7, CWC
4-30

Annex 4-1
Average 10 Daily Discharge Data at Chamoli Site
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
Annex 4-1
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
359
592
589
540
404
455
595
498
377
262
160
119
254
216
149
116
74
76
67
61
57
54
50
48
49
48
47
51
48
67
66
74
68
128
98
213
192
305
372
577
630
620
573
581
515
493
437
210
166
116
95
83
75
70
72
63
60
56
55
55
52
52
52
53
57
74
80
97
185
360
376
223
286
592
571
626
646
627
598
615
512
514
363
259
170
106
82
73
62
53
50
44
40
38
36
36
34
32
30
32
32
51
57
72
107
143
116
99
131
219
190
283
434
536
565
513
396
298
180
135
115
119
93
83
73
66
64
63
61
61
59
60
62
64
64
69
72
84
113
104
131
142
203
180
196
277
315
285
390
373
386
400
344
345
279
197
179
147
101
81
71
64
57
52
49
45
43
43
42
43
45
45
44
48
54
71
132
134
163
187
281
344
262
480
615
919
698
504
344
468
294
200
172
139
104
88
73
60
52
49
47
44
41
42
41
39
39
40
40
43
53
43
59
68
88
183
222
175
369
519
605
564
627
551
482
387
315
239
166
115
96
90
68
56
48
42
42
44
39
35
34
34
35
46
55
48
55
129
119
211
282
314
391
356
516
636
528
590
703
546
548
410
278
216
156
121
102
76
65
57
47
41
41
40
39
38
37
35
37
38
40
43
67
94
126
147
164
112
150
249
500
442
551
515
495
486
348
296
166
123
86
68
46
43
41
39
36
32
29
32
32
30
29
28
31
33
29
38
42
52
71
116
127
131
210
294
430
485
534
539
636
412
331
265
175
141
100
80
64
55
54
46
41
37
33
28
26
26
25
24
23
24
25
30
40
83
87
133
149
204
217
221
335
477
572
702
807
536
378
268
183
140
132
95
76
68
51
30
26
26
24
25
23
23
22
22
20
25
28
43
65
78
90
126
130
103
263
354
331
445
503
511
609
597
455
270
221
154
4-31

Annex 4-2
Average 10 Daily Discharge Data of Alaknanda at Rudraprayag (CA = 9930km2)
Year
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
Page 1/2
1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92
238.5
328.4
148.9
301.2
355.0
319.0
365.4
512.1
223.6
260.9
356.0
290.0
341.9
378.0
566.7
203.8
391.2
235.1
345.7
304.3
482.9
267.8
484.3
291.3
529.5
356.2
282.5
288.5
352.2
663.9
432.8
494.5
761.2
707.7
578.3
455.5
427.0
461.2
369.3
772.6
412.6
453.0
360.9
787.8
666.5
860.6
998.5
593.3
795.5
643.9
632.5
523.2
643.8
481.8
538.8
599.9
696.9
321.3
948.1
825.9
875.5
904.6
759.0
754.4
862.4
756.7
429.6
476.4
720.2
1100.9
526.4
1046.7
681.7
1008.2
821.5
954.2
835.3
773.4
882.6
1140.1
800.6
691.1
731.3
651.7
1366.4
1081.4
1225.6
800.0
884.5
1105.0
1038.8
718.6
1179.4
1253.4
1334.6
948.2
777.5
596.9
582.5
1172.6
727.3
1269.5
612.5
937.3
1075.8
927.8
671.9
1235.3
704.9
1064.8
1082.9
1252.6
692.9
919.6
1161.7
737.1
1249.2
899.5
1155.4
1005.4
765.0
1045.8
678.4
678.9
707.6
825.9
818.8
664.7
800.2
610.4
842.5
914.1
1145.9
909.5
1037.1
613.2
947.1
513.0
603.6
434.8
580.6
723.4
711.9
616.9
509.8
725.0
503.5
785.1
789.1
806.9
586.1
560.6
299.8
469.8
382.3
272.2
672.4
394.8
477.4
367.0
573.5
361.1
428.4
687.0
628.6
411.8
294.4
182.3
441.7
388.9
334.2
548.6
291.5
420.9
306.6
331.1
386.8
314.6
457.6
464.9
244.7
239.5
211.3
304.6
323.6
237.3
338.4
218.5
334.4
225.4
202.7
268.3
242.5
290.6
362.1
227.7
208.6
198.4
229.6
299.9
201.5
281.2
155.9
432.7
191.2
147.9
206.6
202.6
229.5
260.8
182.3
162.9
174.5
343.5
280.2
174.2
222.5
150.9
279.1
141.2
116.8
180.4
176.7
167.5
197.9
157.0
138.0
159.9
199.2
282.4
149.8
166.1
114.5
212.4
117.7
99.8
157.2
153.6
152.4
163.4
145.4
141.4
128.4
179.5
190.5
126.8
133.5
107.7
160.6
112.1
90.5
138.1
135.7
143.2
143.5
121.0
155.7
105.0
127.1
95.9
110.8
111.6
102.2
132.5
102.2
81.1
121.4
121.7
136.9
126.4
117.8
138.0
96.7
108.0
91.4
99.9
106.0
94.4
128.4
96.8
70.0
109.5
113.0
124.9
116.5
106.3
100.0
76.5
99.6
90.6
90.4
99.4
83.5
114.4
94.6
73.8
99.8
101.1
113.1
109.0
99.4
94.7
72.8
99.0
92.9
90.5
92.3
80.0
112.2
94.2
68.8
98.9
99.3
109.5
110.7
96.9
87.9
74.2
95.7
85.1
86.3
88.0
90.3
108.9
87.3
62.7
111.6
94.3
121.2
107.7
84.7
86.1
68.6
99.5
73.4
81.5
83.9
75.0
102.4
86.4
60.3
101.1
90.8
109.4
110.2
78.7
81.6
65.0
102.6
79.9
84.3
79.6
70.1
89.1
73.2
53.9
89.1
89.1
103.3
108.8
77.0
67.5
67.0
99.9
77.1
80.8
76.4
69.3
82.9
72.1
50.5
84.1
87.5
97.1
107.6
86.0
61.9
63.5
98.1
81.1
77.7
72.1
64.8
82.1
76.8
52.8
79.0
91.5
98.9
96.1
86.7
89.0
60.9
101.3
76.8
75.2
76.6
68.1
82.6
74.4
55.8
73.0
88.5
95.1
92.0
99.2
91.7
76.6
109.0
101.8
80.4
75.2
74.5
72.8
70.6
67.8
75.9
95.9
108.0
93.6
202.1
84.5
57.8
108.1
111.3
84.5
84.2
68.4
90.7
72.5
117.8
74.6
97.2
115.7
100.4
131.2
98.1
72.6
115.6
144.8
101.8
97.6
79.0
100.6
82.1
93.2
86.1
132.2
128.9
116.0
136.3
109.7
88.7
113.7
168.6
107.7
85.8
81.1
95.6
104.9
92.7
94.2
118.8
146.2
114.1
198.0
113.6
117.1
191.5
167.4
146.6
97.0
105.1
133.6
102.0
132.1
97.5
166.7
158.9
131.0
155.2
131.5
137.1
201.8
175.7
176.2
114.2
115.1
161.2
136.8
141.9
104.9
194.6
177.5
161.8
167.0
130.8
199.3
240.3
213.2
233.2
181.2
138.2
194.3
185.9
190.9
124.4
197.0
221.3
185.4
239.4
185.9
178.3
270.1
205.8
267.9
236.5
163.0
280.7
149.6
279.8
206.5
335.1
254.3
286.7
257.7
141.8
199.7
331.2
222.3
266.4
324.4
245.3
264.7
229.6
313.2
262.4
349.5
297.4
218.3
4-32

Annex 4-2
Average 10 Daily Discharge Data of Alaknanda at Rudraprayag (CA = 9930km2)
Year
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
Page 2/2
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
245.9
340.0
309.3
705.7
380.2
213.3
580.6
307.7
555.6
385.7
450.4
627.2
208.7
215.5
361.7
475.1
495.7
356.5
691.2
663.5
314.7
472.6
586.3
701.6
568.6
590.7
747.7
319.5
408.3
268.4
632.9
487.3
817.2
402.6
988.2
649.0
1062.9
808.9
832.2
719.7
653.3
803.1
372.8
1056.7
349.4
410.6
603.4
1087.2
721.3
586.7
766.7
1348.5
1255.7
857.2
829.9
860.3
1025.4
990.2
1335.2
981.8
745.4
1014.9
1029.3
900.2
1223.9
934.0
1280.0
1320.2
1219.2
1338.1
797.3
1159.0
982.6
1427.9
1258.5
968.8
777.3
1403.0
1068.9
1233.9
1205.5
1178.3
1502.0
1313.9
1742.7
830.7
1278.8
1025.9
1717.2
1482.5
1160.9
818.3
1257.3
1220.5
1356.0
1225.7
1573.3
1674.3
1237.8
1264.4
967.9
1406.3
1675.9
1709.2
1159.4
1157.3
709.0
1083.3
926.4
1470.0
916.6
1857.9
1342.1
1351.1
1429.0
937.4
1321.2
1549.3
1214.3
1086.8
1215.4
654.4
1482.4
1039.2
1173.6
692.1
1432.0
1173.4
1015.0
1214.9
900.2
1504.5
1209.6
1125.2
1376.8
1006.1
960.2
1342.6
1270.6
1054.4
691.9
968.5
944.2
1052.1
756.1
961.8
1261.4
802.1
1099.1
1009.1
793.4
812.4
715.1
618.3
637.5
664.9
755.1
960.7
665.5
456.8
1045.8
935.0
613.6
977.5
822.6
455.7
399.5
424.9
410.4
447.9
425.8
801.2
726.9
438.9
318.1
304.5
733.8
543.0
1142.2
599.1
328.3
280.6
228.1
259.6
392.8
221.2
586.1
488.0
282.8
247.0
179.0
428.0
278.5
646.6
317.7
238.8
201.9
174.8
213.2
277.8
182.8
764.8
292.7
230.2
201.9
164.9
380.9
228.7
279.8
257.8
195.9
153.7
144.9
166.9
143.9
153.1
558.9
263.0
216.7
169.5
128.1
266.5
184.1
231.2
222.5
167.6
122.4
118.1
137.7
122.5
133.1
504.0
211.0
210.3
137.3
96.6
233.6
160.0
204.8
160.8
150.6
112.0
97.1
121.7
107.8
122.1
409.2
182.5
194.7
109.5
949.8
167.1
147.2
169.4
146.5
134.3
102.7
86.2
101.9
101.1
118.1
343.8
153.1
131.0
104.5
119.8
150.2
132.0
177.5
117.9
122.5
91.9
78.3
91.9
91.9
119.1
316.0
131.7
95.7
87.6
117.0
142.1
103.0
149.3
98.5
112.1
101.8
71.2
76.6
76.1
118.1
294.7
120.9
87.2
81.1
109.9
130.3
103.6
139.5
93.4
104.7
95.9
67.7
72.0
69.6
105.4
260.9
201.9
83.1
77.3
101.3
113.8
92.7
130.6
81.3
104.2
87.8
65.3
67.1
65.3
100.5
219.9
98.2
93.6
72.8
94.7
104.8
87.7
124.1
77.4
97.2
88.2
61.4
62.6
64.8
91.2
194.6
83.2
115.0
74.6
87.3
98.5
84.2
124.3
70.4
87.3
88.3
58.6
62.6
63.3
87.8
180.4
87.7
112.8
71.2
83.0
94.6
88.0
118.7
67.4
83.4
83.5
52.0
53.2
59.8
84.2
163.7
93.1
108.8
78.2
83.5
92.5
92.5
112.6
65.8
74.5
79.3
59.8
56.0
57.6
82.9
156.6
86.5
107.8
83.4
88.6
90.1
101.3
108.7
72.2
76.9
80.3
54.4
63.8
57.2
87.3
148.8
76.4
105.7
83.8
102.0
87.8
93.6
101.7
67.4
79.3
79.0
54.0
61.1
56.7
99.2
88.2
77.1
100.2
142.6
116.4
82.3
111.0
90.7
79.5
87.0
85.8
52.6
75.6
57.6
103.8
54.2
76.2
96.5
116.3
101.8
89.1
133.1
104.1
123.0
109.5
89.4
74.8
89.6
62.0
103.7
61.4
88.7
94.7
112.9
111.1
88.8
120.1
102.5
210.9
95.2
104.9
79.2
95.0
79.2
115.0
96.3
114.8
85.1
121.2
125.9
88.4
188.9
105.8
130.6
131.4
91.1
76.3
162.5
82.7
151.1
121.5
126.9
90.4
155.1
148.7
95.6
132.9
118.4
162.1
205.2
97.1
96.9
220.4
103.1
215.2
182.8
156.9
107.2
178.7
188.4
109.9
174.4
207.5
146.3
305.6
154.6
119.8
280.7
121.6
245.5
285.0
191.8
191.2
244.4
172.3
114.7
216.4
224.1
178.0
193.3
152.8
466.4
238.4
109.3
258.8
334.4
396.1
239.3
640.1
253.3
186.4
216.5
310.2
223.9
319.2
323.1
203.8
345.6
167.4
642.9
481.2
524.8
228.3
416.1
301.3
211.8
199.2
344.7
271.7
4-33

Average 10 Daily Discharge Data at Joshimath Site (CA =4508 km)
1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89
Year
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Annex 4-3
Page : 1/2
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
259
247
236
225
174
251
252
239
212
177
137
122
114
110
87
88
61
50
45
43
41
43
44
39
36
38
35
35
36
43
48
61
64
75
131
163
132
150
169
266
188
193
217
200
204
298
298
171
139
158
117
104
88
74
68
68
53
47
44
40
37
36
37
35
40
45
53
61
109
212
154
136
188
299
246
258
258
268
242
262
229
215
212
211
133
89
75
68
72
62
55
56
53
46
41
43
40
39
36
41
45
52
63
70
93
156
137
115
150
229
175
229
332
392
367
338
269
230
189
170
140
135
95
76
68
60
53
46
41
39
37
38
41
39
39
42
44
56
84
83
125
141
224
213
261
379
466
402
577
502
528
553
503
418
325
217
183
150
116
92
76
70
68
57
47
42
35
32
32
33
33
35
35
41
47
59
114
122
170
208
294
233
229
333
478
573
535
411
383
397
300
182
140
102
87
76
69
64
60
53
47
41
40
39
36
35
39
41
42
49
55
47
56
62
86
111
203
142
355
550
603
546
592
474
398
376
242
172
107
88
84
78
62
55
49
42
36
36
34
33
32
30
33
36
39
39
42
86
89
153
268
315
370
371
486
569
436
512
599
412
429
337
240
233
159
109
107
83
63
75
63
56
56
45
42
40
39
37
38
38
42
51
63
88
123
142
170
122
152
311
535
472
565
517
502
481
381
341
185
114
124
96
68
62
52
45
41
36
34
33
32
31
29
30
27
28
27
30
37
43
63
151
175
217
309
434
556
572
641
667
620
431
379
300
153
122
106
80
66
56
48
40
33
28
26
27
24
26
25
28
33
29
32
36
39
35
51
116
127
166
4-34
178
180
287
293
354
415
389
347
227
180
173
129
81
66
54
42
35
30
21
18
16
15
13
14
14
15
14
17
16
22
35
47
59
67
67
77
106
201
206
320
348
350
400
358
286
157
127
78
52
39
33
29
26
22
21
20
18
17
16
16
16
16
16
18
20
23
28
33
35
48
113
116
235
188
274
353
324
515
533
624
548
438
349
239
123
99
70
55
49
43
37
37
36
36
36
34
33
31
32
37
35
46
40
48
57
117
235
345
478
496
447
464
373
458
453
500
473
389
292
145
12
88
88
64
54
46
36
34
31
31
28
33
27
27
29
34
33
39
38
59
73
94
119
246
237
286
364
351
432
418
409
453
449
350
268
211
175
151
103
80
65
55
49
44
40
40
38
37
35
35
34
34
36
36
40
59
81
131
240
149
176
409
626
502
572
698
587
592
419
375
256
214
148
127
97
85
75
63
56
52
51
49
48
46
45
44
44
43
44
47
55
55
80
83
80
111
299
329
363
526
476
634
518
474
528
434
339
285
155
101
81
73
64
56
52
50
47
45
44
40
37
34
37
44
56
58
66
103
121
157
211
328
355
304
505
540
632
709
622
544
454
351
232
237
132
117
114
100
85
71
59
46
40
34
30
31
39
35
35
38
40
42
54
58
62
69
146
219

Average 10 Daily Discharge Data at Joshimath Site (CA =4508 km)
Year
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Annex 4-3
Page : 2/2
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
284
247
283
294
438
540
339
370
445
297
212
174
116
88
79
64
53
45
40
38
33
31
29
29
28
28
27
29
31
35
39
68
109
116
272
309
364
311
503
474
508
410
422
428
355
352
274
233
170
149
113
89
78
66
49
41
38
35
33
30
30
30
29
31
38
47
49
56
99
153
210
278
351
409
437
526
467
533
417
362
338
319
252
192
165
140
104
95
68
63
59
49
44
42
37
34
29
30
27
31
38
42
65
45
103
120
184
168
186
326
345
283
373
423
432
401
372
345
306
205
181
136
121
104
92
84
74
66
58
54
51
47
46
50
46
44
46
49
52
76
150
224
140
233
269
372
321
379
425
356
400
353
342
299
244
177
132
104
91
63
46
39
36
29
26
25
22
20
19
19
20
19
22
26
36
38
36
94
102
273
284
294
422
439
456
544
415
361
375
337
215
148
123
94
76
49
36
27
25
22
39
17
16
17
16
16
16
16
17
23
20
25
53
85
199
165
301
493
205
370
503
516
582
366
371
377
236
174
137
103
66
53
48
37
29
26
23
20
18
18
16
15
18
18
26
40
39
81
109
143
153
251
311
481
625
400
579
594
607
618
423
400
285
213
138
103
76
60
46
38
35
31
27
24
22
21
19
18
18
16
18
18
22
26
51
63
48
104
158
189
344
389
471
569
391
341
263
280
216
143
94
78
67
57
47
43
41
38
36
33
36
33
34
33
31
36
40
41
61
72
143
158
182
413
427
397
875
1158
1262
1200
1188
1084
1154
1068
1003
1012
898
847
912
852
496
386
377
369
168
54
50
47
42
42
41
43
43
44
53
72
161
186
182
279
4-35
180
335
477
459
444
417
415
390
319
249
248
232
141
84
73
59
52
47
51
67
60
55
54
54
57
53
55
55
53
54
82
89
110
183
297
368
352
419
406
375
461
444
191
132
137
135
78
31
21
39
15
70
50
32
24
22
21
13
9
8
10
9
10
15
13
22
19
33
66
117
282
239
351
436
504
691
715
738
625
570
440
317
236
152
95
69
45
41
37
31
28
26
25
27
32
32
32
31
34
24
46
60
69
86
103
112
161
222
293
357
456
570
576
503
499
344
290
268
224
140
106
107
111
92
85
76
67
59
55
51
51
52
52
52
58
56
55
59
78
106
140
158
229
299
379
387
386
406
411
478
514
517
504
485
427
346
216
183
171
108
101
91
82
72
64
60
55
50
52
53
54
41
46
51
53
55
64
56
74
132
165
199
214
322
282
317
435
507
407
343
343
293
256
245
193
167
154
137
117
100
92
90
89
78
78
84
88
85
83
77
91
85
83
94
94
98
144
240
515
508
554
542
600
461
376
384
307
251
172
138
100
91
81
75
64
53
43
35
33
36
33
33
33
33
27
30
37
46
43
89
118
179
269
151
199
371
443
418
293
251
258
128
117
91
85
70
57
44
42
37
34
32
31
28
25
24
23
24
24
24
26
37
47
50
57
89
132
150

Computation of snowmelt contribution : BNP

Rainfed catchment area =
Snowfed catchment area =
Total catchment area =
Degree day factor =
2850
2740
5590
0.00575
km2
km2
km2
m/ 0C/ Day
Average
temperature of
area between
Elevation
(a) and (b)
Snowmelt
area
Snowmelt
Snowmelt
( 0 C)
(km 2 )
(m 3 )
3.36
3.14
2.99
2.29
1.11
1.61
1.31
1138.75
974.23
900.33
701.94
336.93
273.36
216.47
660986696
527889298
464294199
277638893
64679903
76058333
49026007
(mm)
241.236
192.660
169.450
101.328
23.606
27.759
17.893
0.89
160.82
24551798
8.961
0
0
0
0
0.69
1.03
1.28
2.37
168.46
231.4
430.49
764.39
20021787
40925743
94840665
312476458
7.307
14.936
34.613
114.043
Lowest
Elevation
of
snowmelt
Elevation
where
snowmelt
stops
Mean
Temparature ( 0C )
at Elevation
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
(a)
4000
4000
4000
4000
3900
3200
2800
(b)
5273
5133
5067
4878
4395
3765
3328
Corresponding to (a) Corresponding to (b)

6.73
0
6.28
0
5.98
0
4.59
0
2.23
0
3.23
0
2.63
0
Jan
2600
3018
1.77
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
2800
3400
3950
4000
3218
3848
4548
4939
1.38
2.05
2.55
4.74
Month
4-36

Flow contributed by rainfed area

Degree day factor =
2850
2740
5590
0.00575
km2
km2
km2
m/ 0C/ Day
Discharge
at Joshimath
Volume
of
flow
Snowmelt
(m 3 /sec)
(m 3 )
(m 3 )
Flow
contributed
by rainfed
area
(m 3 )
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
346
550
534
294
131
72
896991604
1424472361
1384150675
762824309
340723447
186901815
660986696
527889298
464294199
277638893
64679903
76058333
236004908
896583064
919856477
485185416
276043544
110843482
(mm)
82.809
314.591
322.757
170.240
96.857
38.892
Dec
49
127744504
49026007
78718497
27.621
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
36
33
40
73
174
94247071
86566155
102846250
188727851
450574875
24551798
20021787
40925743
94840665
312476458
69695274
66544368
61920508
93887186
138098418
24.454
23.349
21.726
32.943
48.456
1204.695
Month
Flow
contributed
by rainfed
area
4-37

Monthly flow ratio : [ Qrainfed/Qtotal ]

2850
2740
5590
Degree day factor = 0.00575
Discharge
at
Joshimath
Volume
of
flow
(m 3 /sec)
(m 3 )
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
346
550
534
294
131
72
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Month
Total
Runoff
km2
km2
km2
m/ 0C/ Day
Snowmelt
Flow
contributed by
rainfed area
Flow
contributed by
rainfed area
Ratio
(FlowArainfed/
Total Flow)
(m 3 )
(m 3 )
896991604
1424472361
1384150675
762824309
340723447
186901815
(mm)
160.464
254.825
247.612
136.462
60.952
33.435
660986696
527889298
464294199
277638893
64679903
76058333
236004908
896583064
919856477
485185416
276043544
110843482
(mm)
82.809
314.591
322.757
170.240
96.857
38.892
0.263
0.629
0.665
0.636
0.810
0.593
49
127744504
22.852
49026007
78718497
27.621
0.616
36
33
40
73
174
94247071
86566155
102846250
188727851
450574875
16.860
15.486
18.398
33.762
80.604
24551798
20021787
40925743
94840665
312476458
69695274
66544368
61920508
93887186
138098418
24.454
23.349
21.726
32.943
48.456
1204.695
0.739
0.769
0.602
0.497
0.306
4-38

Rainfall-Runoff excluding snowmelt for Monsoon : BNP
Years
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Monsoon
Rainfall
(mm)
979.500
779.600
737.400
655.900
681.200
510.100
700.000
664.200
289.800
488.700
335.500
641.500
787.900
453.100
537.000
504.200
728.000
364.200
603.100
674.800
185.700
694.300
656.000
379.600
343.000
749.000
755.000
621.000
635.000
Monsoon
Runoff
(mm)
377.852
422.151
477.162
301.618
305.993
424.367
379.441
420.882
365.390
396.849
374.072
325.214
377.667
366.650
350.607
424.620
384.270
426.558
350.375
426.825
437.026
402.775
374.635
458.535
435.906
491.033
382.523
721.790
489.197
434.669
498.675
395.268
Runoff Factor
0.39
0.54
0.65
0.46
0.45
0.83
0.54
0.63
1.26
0.81
1.11
0.51
0.48
0.81
0.65
0.84
0.53
1.17
0.58
0.56
2.47
0.63
0.75
1.01
2.10
0.65
0.58
0.80
0.62
4-39

Test for Randomness : BNP

The number of crests and troughs in the data series of peak Discharge determines the randomness of the same.
using the method below :
Let Qt be the peak annualDischarge to be counted as crest or trough
Qt is crest when Qt-1 < Qt > Qt+1
Qt is trough when Qt-1 > Qt < Qt+1
Years
Rt
Score
Total number of crest and troughs, =
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
589.05
623.70
639.54
559.35
396.00
909.81
620.73
695.97
545.49
629.64
798.93
602.91
592.08
525.48
515.07
748.67
643.85
694.70
556.26
570.06
620.53
592.91
550.65
710.77
639.83
688.36
645.89
892.94
697.51
641.35
862.12
588.00
Total Score, =
N=
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
21
32
Total number of data, N =

For N =
32
Mean =
(2/3)*(N-2) =
21
32
20.00
Variance = (16N-)/90 = 5.45556

=
2.336
Normal variate = (-Mean)/ =
0.428
<<<
than
1.96
Standard deviation =
Since the normal deviate is
less
(Value corresponding to 5% probability)
1.96
the series is random
Spearman's test for absence of trend : BNP

Years
Peak Discharge BNP
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
Avg
n=
589.050
623.700
639.540
559.350
396.000
909.810
620.730
695.970
545.490
629.640
798.930
602.910
592.077
525.483
515.073
748.667
643.852
694.703
556.264
570.065
620.525
592.906
550.646
710.771
639.826
688.363
645.886
892.938
697.514
641.351
862.122
588.002
643.380
32
Observed rank
Kx
10
16
18
7
1
32
15
25
4
17
29
13
11
3
2
28
21
24
6
8
14
12
5
27
19
23
22
31
26
20
30
9
Sorted
Peak Discharge
909.810
892.938
862.122
798.930
748.667
710.771
697.514
695.970
694.703
688.363
645.886
643.852
641.351
639.826
639.540
629.640
623.700
620.730
620.525
602.910
592.906
592.077
589.050
588.002
570.065
559.350
556.264
550.646
545.490
525.483
515.073
396.000
Sorted Rank
Ky
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Spearman's coefficient of rank correlation
Test Statistic
Since t =
1.564
t=
1.564
D = (Kx-Ky)
81
196
225
9
16
676
64
289
25
49
324
1
4
121
169
144
16
36
169
144
49
100
324
9
36
9
25
9
9
100
1
529
Student t-distribution
Percentile points of student t-distribution for
significance level ( = 5%) or 95% confidence level
p = P(t < tp)
0.025
0.975
df
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
18
20
24
30
40
60
100
160
-2.78
-2.57
-2.54
-2.36
-2.31
-2.26
-2.23
-2.20
-2.18
-2.14
-2.12
-2.10
-2.09
-2.06
-2.04
-2.02
-2.00
-1.98
-1.97
-1.96
Note : For any missing value in the list of df, the next higher value is adopted.
D2 =
3958
Rsp = 0.274560117
for degree of freedom, df = (n-2) =
2.78
2.57
2.54
2.36
2.31
2.26
2.23
2.20
2.18
2.14
2.12
2.10
2.09
2.06
2.04
2.02
2.00
1.98
1.97
1.96
30
lies in the range [-2.04,+2.04] for df = 30, there is no trend in the series.
4-40

Test for Outliers : BNP
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
Peak Discharge BNP
Log Transformed
Peak Discharge_BNP
589.050
623.700
639.540
559.350
396.000
909.810
620.730
695.970
545.490
629.640
798.930
602.910
592.077
525.483
515.073
748.667
643.852
694.703
556.264
570.065
620.525
592.906
550.646
710.771
639.826
688.363
645.886
892.938
697.514
641.351
862.122
588.002
6.379
6.436
6.461
6.327
5.981
6.813
6.431
6.545
6.302
6.445
6.683
6.402
6.384
6.264
6.244
6.618
6.467
6.543
6.321
6.346
6.431
6.385
6.311
6.566
6.461
6.534
6.471
6.795
6.548
6.464
6.759
6.377
Average =
St.Dev =
Skewness =
6.453
0.169
0.017
6.5
Mean of log transformed annual peak Discharge=
Rp(log)Avg =
Standard Deviation of Rp(log) series =
Rp(log) =
0.169
Skewness Coefficients of Logs =
Sk =
0.017
Number of years =
n=
32
Check for ouliers

If Sk < -0.4 then,check for Low outliers first
If Sk > +0.4 then, check for High outliers first
If -0.4 < Sk < +0.4 then, check for High outliers first
Threshold for ouliers
Low outlier threshold =
Olow =
exp[ Rp(log)Avg - Kn * Rp(log) ]
410.030
mm
High outlier threshold =
Ohigh =
exp[ Rp(log)Avg +Kn * Rp(log) ]
982.044
mm
Kn =
2.591
Kn is the outlier test values for 10% significance level for a Normal distribution
4-41

F-Test (Stability of Variance) & t-Test (Stability of Mean) : BNP
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
Rpeak_BNP 1
589.050
623.700
639.540
559.350
396.000
909.810
620.730
695.970
545.490
629.640
798.930
602.910
592.077
525.483
515.073
748.667
Rpeak_BNP 2
643.852
694.703
556.264
570.065
620.525
592.906
550.646
710.771
639.826
688.363
645.886
892.938
697.514
641.351
862.122
588.002
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Rpeak_BNP 1
624.526238
14658.16585
16
15
1.523783723
0.212062047
2.403447072
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
F
P(F<=f) one-tail
F Critical one-tail
Rpeak_BNP 2
662.2333584
9619.584216
16
15
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Rpeak_BNP 1
624.526238
14658.16585
16
0
29
-0.968008433
0.170522234
1.699126996
0.341044468
2.045229611
Rpeak_BNP 2
662.2333584
9619.584216
16
First series of peak rainfall for F-Test & t-Test : Barmer

1000
Rpeak_BNP 1
900
Note : For any missing value in the list of df, the next higher value is adopted.
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87
Second series of peak rainfall for F-Test & t-Test : Barmer

1000
900
Rpeak_BNP 2
800
Peak Rainfall (mm)
Student t-distribution
Percentile points of student t-distribution for
significance level ( = 5%) or 95% confidence level
p = P(t < tp)
0.025
0.975
df
4
-2.78
2.78
5
-2.57
2.57
6
-2.54
2.54
7
-2.36
2.36
8
-2.31
2.31
9
-2.26
2.26
10
-2.23
2.23
11
-2.20
2.20
12
-2.18
2.18
14
-2.14
2.14
16
-2.12
2.12
18
-2.10
2.10
20
-2.09
2.09
24
-2.06
2.06
30
-2.04
2.04
40
-2.02
2.02
60
-2.00
2.00
100
-1.98
1.98
160
-1.97
1.97
-1.96
1.96
Peak Rainfall (mm)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
4-42

Peak Discharge excluding 1976-77

F-Test Two-Sample for Variances
Rpeak_BNP 2
662.2333584
9619.584216
16
15
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Rpeak_BNP 1
605.5073206
9504.276751
15
0
29
-1.614271847
0.058649159
1.699126996
0.117298318
2.045229611
Rpeak_BNP 2
662.2333584
9619.584216
16
First series of peak rainfall excluding 1990 for F-Test & t-Test : Barmer
900
Rpeak_BNP 1
800
Peak Rainfall (mm)
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
Rpeak_BNP 1
605.5073206
9504.276751
15
14
0.988013259
0.493435748
0.40600842
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
F
P(F<=f) one-tail
F Critical one-tail
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1971-72 1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76 1977-78
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81
1981-82 1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
First series of peak rainfall excluding 1990 for F-Test & t-Test : Barmer
1000
Rpeak_BNP 2
900
800
Peak Rainfall (mm)
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
Rpeak_BNP 1
589.050
623.700
639.540
559.350
396.000
620.730
695.970
545.490
629.640
798.930
602.910
592.077
525.483
515.073
748.667
Rpeak_BNP 2
643.852
694.703
556.264
570.065
620.525
592.906
550.646
710.771
639.826
688.363
645.886
892.938
697.514
641.351
862.122
588.002
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
4-43

Annex 4-4: Data Consistency Check

a) Regression Analysis
i) Joshimath v Rudraprayag
Discharge data (1977-2002)
1400
1200
Joshimath
1000
800
600
400
y = 0.2453x 1.1139
R2 = 0.8421
200
0
0
500
1000
Rudra prayag
1500
2000
ii) Joshimath v Chamoli

Discharge Data (1971-82)
700
600
Joshimath
500
400
300
200
y = 1.3382x 0.9039
R2 = 0.9057
100
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Chamoli
4-44

iii) Chamoli v Rudraprayag

Discharge Data(1977-82)
900
800
700
Chamoli
600
500
400
300
200
y = 0.5996x - 6.6157
R2 = 0.8967
100
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Rudraprayag
4-45

b) Double Mass Curve
Annual Discharge (Mm3)

Year
Joshimath
Chamoli
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
3,557
3,890
4,004
4,403
6,156
5,105
5,713
5,996
5,313
5,658
3,510
3,266
5,546
5,544
5,271
6,178
6,364
6,290
4,957
5,759
5,592
5,451
4,622
4,804
5,240
5,762
4,906
16,181
5,621
3,784
6,346
5,932
6,328
5,767
5,701
3,663
6,245
7,124
6,836
5,330
5,017
6,181
6,358
6,553
4,872
5,159
5,420
Rudraprayag
9,991
9,751
8,855
10,431
10,449
9,393
9,479
8,126
9,114
10,054
8,747
10,270
9,246
11,384
11,640
11,275
9,654
12,220
11,520
12,095
10,899
17,623
14,827
12,832
12,992
11,673
14,411
12,056
15,641
12,438
4-46

Joshimath v Chamoli
Joshimath
0.000
3556.674
7446.701
11450.643
15853.620
22009.272
27114.670
32827.609
38823.558
44136.349
49794.792
53304.302
Chamoli
0.000
6245.004
13368.636
20204.940
25535.400
30552.252
36733.308
43091.316
49644.672
54516.984
59675.748
65095.560
Average
0.000
6245.004
13368.636
20204.940
25535.400
30552.252
36733.308
43091.316
49644.672
54516.984
59675.748
65095.560
Average Linear
0.000
5113.799
10947.072
16545.064
20909.977
25018.088
30079.522
35285.856
40652.152
44641.905
48866.222
53304.302
Residual Mass
0.000
-1557.125
-3500.372
-5094.422
-5056.357
-3008.816
-2964.852
-2458.246
-1828.594
-505.556
928.570
0.000
Average
0
9,991
19,743
28,598
39,029
49,478
58,871
68,351
76,477
85,591
95,644
104,392
114,661
123,908
135,291
146,932
158,207
167,860
180,080
191,600
203,695
214,594
232,218
247,044
259,876
272,868
284,541
298,952
311,008
326,649
339,088
Average Linear
0
5,041
9,960
14,427
19,689
24,961
29,700
34,482
38,581
43,179
48,251
52,664
57,845
62,509
68,252
74,125
79,813
84,683
90,847
96,659
102,761
108,259
117,150
124,630
131,103
137,658
143,546
150,817
156,899
164,789
171,064
Residual Mass
0
672
1,749
2,595
2,991
1,229
-244
520
1,965
2,638
3,744
5,695
6,804
7,096
7,112
6,831
6,595
6,346
4,986
4,414
4,074
3,482
10,773
8,914
6,224
6,016
6,059
5,116
4,802
2,612
0
Joshimath v Rudraprayag
Joshimath
0
5,713
11,709
17,022
22,680
26,190
29,455
35,002
40,546
45,817
51,995
58,359
64,649
69,606
75,364
80,956
86,407
91,029
95,833
101,073
106,835
111,741
127,923
133,544
137,328
143,673
149,605
155,933
161,700
167,401
171,064
Rudraprayag
0
9,991
19,743
28,598
39,029
49,478
58,871
68,351
76,477
85,591
95,644
104,392
114,661
123,908
135,291
146,932
158,207
167,860
180,080
191,600
203,695
214,594
232,218
247,044
259,876
272,868
284,541
298,952
311,008
326,649
339,088
4-47

Double Mass Curves

i) Joshimath v Chamoli
Double Mass Curve Analysis Joshimath v Chamoli
Accumulated annual discharge at

Joshimath
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Accumulated annual discharge at Chamoli
70,000
Residual Mass Curve
1000
Residual of accumulated discharge (Mm
2000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Accum ulated annual disharge (Mm 3) of Cham oli
60,000
4-48

ii) Joshimath v Rudraprayag
Accumulated annual discharge

at Joshimath
Double Mass Curve Analysis Joshimath v Rudraprayag

180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0
50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

Accumulated annual discharge at Rudraprayag
Residual Mass Curve
Residual of accumulated discharge

(Mm 3)
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-2000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Accum ulated annual disharge (Mm 3) of Joshim ath
4-49

Annex 4-5
Seasonal Regression Analysis for 1971-82
1000
900
800
y = 8.8877x0.6591
R2 = 0.437
700
Chamoli
600
500
400
300
June-Sep
200
0.8865
y = 1.9129x
R2 = 0.8261
100
Oct - Feb
Mar - May
y = 1.8229x0.8693
R2 = 0.81
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Joshimath
4-50
600
700

Annex 4-6
BOWALA NAND PRAYAG HEP
Page 1/2
DISCHARGE DATA AT INTAKE - 10-DAILY AVERAGES

Year
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
1971-72
321
306
292
278
216
311
312
296
263
220
169
152
141
136
108
109
76
62
56
54
51
53
55
48
45
47
43
43
44
53
60
76
79
93
162
203
1972-73
164
186
210
330
233
239
269
248
254
369
369
212
173
196
145
129
109
91
85
84
66
58
55
50
45
45
46
44
50
56
66
76
135
263
191
168
1973-74
234
370
305
320
320
333
300
325
284
266
263
262
165
111
93
85
90
77
69
69
66
57
50
54
49
48
45
51
56
65
79
87
115
194
170
143
1974-75
185
284
218
284
411
486
455
419
334
285
234
210
174
167
117
94
85
74
65
57
51
48
46
48
51
48
49
52
54
69
104
103
155
175
278
264
1975-76
324
470
577
498
716
623
655
686
624
518
403
270
226
186
144
115
94
86
84
70
58
51
43
40
39
41
41
44
44
50
58
73
142
151
211
258
1976-77
365
289
284
413
592
711
664
510
475
492
372
226
174
127
108
94
86
80
74
65
58
51
49
49
45
44
48
50
53
61
68
58
70
77
107
138
1977-78
251
177
440
682
748
678
734
587
494
466
300
214
132
109
105
97
77
68
61
52
45
44
42
41
40
37
41
44
48
48
53
106
111
190
332
391
1978-79
459
460
603
706
540
635
742
511
532
418
298
289
198
135
133
103
78
93
78
69
69
55
52
50
48
46
47
47
52
63
78
109
152
177
211
152
1979-80
188
386
663
585
701
641
622
596
473
423
230
141
154
119
85
76
65
56
51
45
42
40
39
38
36
37
33
35
34
37
45
54
78
188
217
269
1980-81
383
539
689
710
795
827
768
535
470
372
189
152
131
99
82
70
60
49
41
34
33
33
30
33
31
35
40
36
39
44
49
43
63
144
157
206
1981-82
221
223
356
363
439
515
483
430
281
223
215
160
100
82
67
52
43
37
26
22
20
19
17
17
17
19
18
21
20
27
43
59
73
84
83
96
1982-83
132
250
255
397
431
434
496
444
355
194
157
97
64
49
41
36
33
27
26
25
23
21
20
20
20
20
20
22
25
28
34
40
43
59
140
144
1983-84
291
234
340
438
402
639
661
774
680
543
433
296
152
123
87
68
61
53
46
46
45
44
44
42
41
38
39
46
44
56
50
60
71
145
292
428
1984-85
593
615
554
575
463
568
561
620
587
482
362
180
139
109
109
80
67
57
44
42
39
38
34
41
34
34
36
42
40
49
47
73
90
117
148
305
1985-86
293
355
452
436
536
519
507
561
557
434
333
261
217
188
128
99
80
69
61
54
50
50
47
46
43
43
43
42
44
44
49
73
101
163
297
185
1986-87
219
507
776
622
709
865
728
735
520
465
318
265
183
157
121
106
93
78
70
64
63
60
59
58
56
55
54
54
54
58
68
68
99
103
99
137
1987-88
371
408
450
652
590
786
642
588
655
538
420
353
193
125
100
90
79
69
64
62
59
56
54
50
46
43
46
55
69
71
82
127
150
195
262
407
1988-89
441
377
626
670
784
879
771
674
563
435
288
294
164
145
142
124
106
88
73
57
50
42
37
38
48
43
43
47
49
52
66
71
76
85
181
272
Annual Total (Mm3)
4432
4835
4980
5496
7676
6374
7136
7466
6629
7060
4378
4081
6947
7029
6572
7703
7959
7857
Average Discharge
140.5
153.3
157.9
174.3
243.4
202.1
226.3
236.8
210.2
223.9
138.8
129.4
220.3
222.9
208.4
244.3
252.4
249.2
4-51

Annex 4-6
Page 2/2

Year
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
1989-90
353
306
352
364
543
669
421
458
551
369
262
215
144
110
98
79
65
56
50
47
41
39
36
36
34
35
34
35
39
44
49
84
135
143
337
383
1990-91
452
386
623
587
629
508
523
530
440
436
340
289
211
184
140
110
96
82
61
51
47
44
40
38
37
37
36
39
47
59
61
69
123
190
260
345
1991-92
435
507
542
652
579
661
517
449
419
396
312
238
204
173
129
118
84
78
73
61
54
52
46
42
36
37
34
39
48
52
81
56
128
148
228
208
1992-93
230
405
428
351
463
524
536
497
461
428
379
254
224
169
151
129
114
104
91
82
72
67
64
58
57
62
57
55
57
61
64
94
186
277
174
289
1993-94
334
461
398
470
527
442
496
437
423
371
303
219
164
129
113
78
57
48
45
36
32
31
28
25
24
23
25
24
28
32
45
47
45
116
127
339
1994-95
353
365
523
544
566
675
515
448
465
418
267
183
153
117
94
61
45
34
31
28
48
21
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
28
25
31
65
106
247
205
1995-96
373
611
254
459
624
640
721
454
460
467
293
215
170
128
82
66
60
46
36
32
28
24
22
22
20
19
22
22
33
50
49
101
135
177
189
311
1996-97
385
596
776
496
718
737
752
767
525
496
353
264
171
128
94
74
57
47
43
38
33
30
27
26
24
23
22
20
23
23
27
32
63
78
60
129
1997-98
196
234
426
483
584
705
485
423
326
348
268
178
116
97
82
71
58
54
51
48
45
42
44
41
42
41
38
45
50
51
76
89
178
196
225
512
1998-99
530
492
1085
1436
1565
1487
1474
1344
1431
1324
1244
1255
1114
1050
1131
1056
614
479
467
457
209
67
62
58
52
53
51
53
53
55
65
90
200
231
226
345
1999-00
223
416
591
569
550
517
515
483
395
309
307
288
174
104
91
73
65
59
63
82
75
68
67
67
71
66
68
68
66
66
102
111
136
227
368
457
2000-01
437
520
504
465
571
550
237
164
170
167
97
39
26
48
18
86
62
39
30
28
26
16
11
10
12
11
12
19
16
27
24
40
82
145
350
296
2001-02
435
541
625
857
887
915
775
707
545
393
293
188
118
86
55
50
46
38
34
32
31
34
40
40
39
39
42
30
57
75
85
107
128
139
200
276
2002-03
363
443
590
706
714
624
619
426
359
332
277
174
131
133
138
114
106
94
79
73
68
63
63
64
64
65
72
70
68
73
96
132
173
196
284
370
2003-04
470
480
479
503
510
592
637
642
625
602
529
429
268
227
212
134
125
112
102
89
79
74
68
62
65
66
68
51
57
63
65
69
79
69
92
163
2004-05
204
246
266
399
350
393
540
629
505
426
425
364
317
304
240
207
190
169
145
124
114
112
110
97
96
104
109
105
102
96
113
106
103
117
116
121
2005-06
178
298
638
630
687
672
744
571
466
477
381
311
214
172
123
113
101
93
80
66
53
43
41
45
41
41
42
41
34
38
46
57
54
110
147
222
2006-07
334
187
246
460
549
518
364
311
320
159
145
113
106
87
70
55
52
46
42
40
39
35
31
30
28
30
30
30
32
46
58
62
70
110
164
186
Annual Total (Mm3)
6214
7173
6968
6797
5770
6005
6542
7179
6146
20189
7007
4720
7921
7406
7883
7170
7105
4580
Average Discharge
197.0
227.5
220.9
215.5
183.0
190.4
207.5
227.6
194.9
640.2
222.2
149.7
251.2
234.9
250.0
227.4
225.3
145.2
4-52

Annex 4-7

Ranking
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
Page 1/2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2.7%
1998-99
530
492
1085
1436
1565
1487
1474
1344
1431
1324
1244
1255
1114
1050
1131
1056
614
479
467
457
209
67
62
58
52
53
51
53
53
55
65
90
200
231
226
345
5.4%
1987-88
371
408
450
652
590
786
642
588
655
538
420
353
193
125
100
90
79
69
64
62
59
56
54
50
46
43
46
55
69
71
82
127
150
195
262
407
8.1%
2001-02
435
541
625
857
887
915
775
707
545
393
293
188
118
86
55
50
46
38
34
32
31
34
40
40
39
39
42
30
57
75
85
107
128
139
200
276
10.8%
2003-04
470
480
479
503
510
592
637
642
625
602
529
429
268
227
212
134
125
112
102
89
79
74
68
62
65
66
68
51
57
63
65
69
79
69
92
163
13.5%
1988-89
441
377
626
670
784
879
771
674
563
435
288
294
164
145
142
124
106
88
73
57
50
42
37
38
48
43
43
47
49
52
66
71
76
85
181
272
16.2%
1986-87
219
507
776
622
709
865
728
735
520
465
318
265
183
157
121
106
93
78
70
64
63
60
59
58
56
55
54
54
54
58
68
68
99
103
99
137
18.9%
1975-76
324
470
577
498
716
623
655
686
624
518
403
270
226
186
144
115
94
86
84
70
58
51
43
40
39
41
41
44
44
50
58
73
142
151
211
258
21.6%
1978-79
459
460
603
706
540
635
742
511
532
418
298
289
198
135
133
103
78
93
78
69
69
55
52
50
48
46
47
47
52
63
78
109
152
177
211
152
24.3%
2002-03
363
443
590
706
714
624
619
426
359
332
277
174
131
133
138
114
106
94
79
73
68
63
63
64
64
65
72
70
68
73
96
132
173
196
284
370
27.0%
2004-05
204
246
266
399
350
393
540
629
505
426
425
364
317
304
240
207
190
169
145
124
114
112
110
97
96
104
109
105
102
96
113
106
103
117
116
121
29.7%
1996-97
385
596
776
496
718
737
752
767
525
496
353
264
171
128
94
74
57
47
43
38
33
30
27
26
24
23
22
20
23
23
27
32
63
78
60
129
32.4%
1990-91
452
386
623
587
629
508
523
530
440
436
340
289
211
184
140
110
96
82
61
51
47
44
40
38
37
37
36
39
47
59
61
69
123
190
260
345
35.1%
1977-78
251
177
440
682
748
678
734
587
494
466
300
214
132
109
105
97
77
68
61
52
45
44
42
41
40
37
41
44
48
48
53
106
111
190
332
391
37.8%
2005-06
178
298
638
630
687
672
744
571
466
477
381
311
214
172
123
113
101
93
80
66
53
43
41
45
41
41
42
41
34
38
46
57
54
110
147
222
40.5%
1980-81
383
539
689
710
795
827
768
535
470
372
189
152
131
99
82
70
60
49
41
34
33
33
30
33
31
35
40
36
39
44
49
43
63
144
157
206
43.2%
1984-85
593
615
554
575
463
568
561
620
587
482
362
180
139
109
109
80
67
57
44
42
39
38
34
41
34
34
36
42
40
49
47
73
90
117
148
305
45.9%
1999-00
223
416
591
569
550
517
515
483
395
309
307
288
174
104
91
73
65
59
63
82
75
68
67
67
71
66
68
68
66
66
102
111
136
227
368
457
48.6%
1991-92
435
507
542
652
579
661
517
449
419
396
312
238
204
173
129
118
84
78
73
61
54
52
46
42
36
37
34
39
48
52
81
56
128
148
228
208
51.4%
1983-84
291
234
340
438
402
639
661
774
680
543
433
296
152
123
87
68
61
53
46
46
45
44
44
42
41
38
39
46
44
56
50
60
71
145
292
428
Annual Total (Mm3)
20189
7959
7921
7883
7857
7703
7676
7466
7406
7179
7173
7170
7136
7105
7060
7029
7007
6968
6947
Average Discharge
640.2
252.4
251.2
250.0
249.2
244.3
243.4
236.8
234.9
227.6
227.5
227.4
226.3
225.3
223.9
222.9
222.2
220.9
220.3
4-53

Annex 4-7

Ranking
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
Page 2/2
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
54.1%
1992-93
230
405
428
351
463
524
536
497
461
428
379
254
224
169
151
129
114
104
91
82
72
67
64
58
57
62
57
55
57
61
64
94
186
277
174
289
56.8%
1979-80
188
386
663
585
701
641
622
596
473
423
230
141
154
119
85
76
65
56
51
45
42
40
39
38
36
37
33
35
34
37
45
54
78
188
217
269
59.5%
1985-86
293
355
452
436
536
519
507
561
557
434
333
261
217
188
128
99
80
69
61
54
50
50
47
46
43
43
43
42
44
44
49
73
101
163
297
185
62.2%
1995-96
373
611
254
459
624
640
721
454
460
467
293
215
170
128
82
66
60
46
36
32
28
24
22
22
20
19
22
22
33
50
49
101
135
177
189
311
64.9%
1976-77
365
289
284
413
592
711
664
510
475
492
372
226
174
127
108
94
86
80
74
65
58
51
49
49
45
44
48
50
53
61
68
58
70
77
107
138
67.6%
1989-90
353
306
352
364
543
669
421
458
551
369
262
215
144
110
98
79
65
56
50
47
41
39
36
36
34
35
34
35
39
44
49
84
135
143
337
383
70.3%
1997-98
196
234
426
483
584
705
485
423
326
348
268
178
116
97
82
71
58
54
51
48
45
42
44
41
42
41
38
45
50
51
76
89
178
196
225
512
73.0%
1994-95
353
365
523
544
566
675
515
448
465
418
267
183
153
117
94
61
45
34
31
28
48
21
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
28
25
31
65
106
247
205
75.7%
1993-94
334
461
398
470
527
442
496
437
423
371
303
219
164
129
113
78
57
48
45
36
32
31
28
25
24
23
25
24
28
32
45
47
45
116
127
339
78.4%
1974-75
185
284
218
284
411
486
455
419
334
285
234
210
174
167
117
94
85
74
65
57
51
48
46
48
51
48
49
52
54
69
104
103
155
175
278
264
81.1%
1973-74
234
370
305
320
320
333
300
325
284
266
263
262
165
111
93
85
90
77
69
69
66
57
50
54
49
48
45
51
56
65
79
87
115
194
170
143
83.8%
1972-73
164
186
210
330
233
239
269
248
254
369
369
212
173
196
145
129
109
91
85
84
66
58
55
50
45
45
46
44
50
56
66
76
135
263
191
168
86.5%
2000-01
437
520
504
465
571
550
237
164
170
167
97
39
26
48
18
86
62
39
30
28
26
16
11
10
12
11
12
19
16
27
24
40
82
145
350
296
89.2%
2006-07
334
187
246
460
549
518
364
311
320
159
145
113
106
87
70
55
52
46
42
40
39
35
31
30
28
30
30
30
32
46
58
62
70
110
164
186
91.9%
1971-72
321
306
292
278
216
311
312
296
263
220
169
152
141
136
108
109
76
62
56
54
51
53
55
48
45
47
43
43
44
53
60
76
79
93
162
203
94.6%
1981-82
221
223
356
363
439
515
483
430
281
223
215
160
100
82
67
52
43
37
26
22
20
19
17
17
17
19
18
21
20
27
43
59
73
84
83
96
97.3%
1982-83
132
250
255
397
431
434
496
444
355
194
157
97
64
49
41
36
33
27
26
25
23
21
20
20
20
20
20
22
25
28
34
40
43
59
140
144
Annual Total (Mm3)
6797
6629
6572
6542
6374
6214
6146
6005
5770
5496
4980
4835
4720
4580
4432
4378
4081
Average Discharge
215.5
210.2
208.4
207.5
202.1
197.0
194.9
190.4
183.0
174.3
157.9
153.3
149.7
145.2
140.5
138.8
129.4
4-54


Regional Flood data
Observed Peak Annual Discharges
River
Site
Catchment
Year
1901
1902
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
Ganga
Raiwala
22,396
11,407
9,163
8,578
9,078
7,091
7,545
11,502
7,406
8,334
11,886
6,942
8,334
3,539
9,248
7,406
4,725
8,415
4,665
6,295
8,173
9,073
7,406
5,481
19,134
9,679
3,697
7,241
3,697
4,545
5,997
3,470
6,155
5,267
9,024
Baghirathi
Tehri
7,511
Annex 4-8
Page 1/3
Yamuna
Tejewala
11,120
Tons
Kishau
4,885
Ravi
Madhopur
6,075
Beas
Pong
12,540
Sarda
Gandak
Alaknanda
Mandakini
Banbasa
Bhainsalotan Rudraprayag Rudraprayag
14,975
?
9,933
1,600
11,959
9,515
9,323
5,689
9,707
13,729
11,959
7,497
14,158
2,272
3,373
5,366
2,387
8,317
10,268
2,342
7,553
2,265
2,549
2,874
1,812
3,037
1,354
3,037
2,331
8,479
8,752
15,757
7,149
12,720
3,200
3,135
1,557
1,812
2,037
4,389
3,285
4,440
3,885
2,185
11,851
7,932
9,035
10,809
6,733
7,323
9,803
9,611
9,419
11,642
6,796
8,580
10,675
6,353
14,781
4-55
Alaknanda
Satluj
Joshimath
Bakhra Dam
4,508
56,885
3,653
5,635
3,659
6,705
5,661
7,079
4,332
3,766
5,125
1,982
5,182
4,248
4,587
4,446
3,398
6,711
5,412
3,455
4,000
2,398
4,588
6,938
2,033
5,040
3,299
4,332


Regional Flood data
River
Site
Catchment
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Ganga
Raiwala
22,396
5,288
3,320
3,231
3,535
2,346
2,429
3,154
6,649
4,404
4,229
5,100
4,741
4,345
4,890
3,618
6,181
4,758
3,919
5,469
6,384
4,644
6,382
4,551
4,056
4,498
3,883
4,854
5,759
6,266
3,756
2,521
4,740
5,919
3,319
Annex 4-8
Page 2/3
Baghirathi
Tehri
7,511
3,210
4,000
1,250
3,300
1,780
2,480
Yamuna
Tejewala
11,120
2,152
3,358
10,081
2,487
1,237
2,631
2,418
6,468
4,248
2,869
2,754
4,657
15,942
3,846
4,210
3,660
8,771
3,721
4,373
7,151
13,241
12,752
8,982
4,234
5,103
2,274
4,231
6,193
6,069
1,992
1,440
2,901
4,240
3,375
Tons
Kishau
4,885
1,388
595
744
782
804
1,128
1,730
1,680
6,890
1,950
1,818
1,090
8,240
5,780
2,920
657
906
355
895
2,355
816
697
1,108
1,305
1,880
1,800
Ravi
Madhopur
6,075
3,139
5,465
342
2,651
1,966
3,262
2,944
391
2,662
3,242
3,242
2,931
15,959
2,855
3,766
6,272
2,003
2,860
10,109
4,113
17,471
6,570
13,366
3,625
11,105
5,601
6,529
5,287
Beas
Pong
12,540
11,553
9,713
4,757
4,389
6,385
5,140
7,292
11,709
14,994
12,884
5,947
12,516
16,990
6,385
5,947
6,824
8,240
6,654
8,976
10,534
5,564
8,240
7,504
4,870
5,607
9,231
11,072
6,626
6,177
5,947
5,699
8,572
6,541
3,483
Sarda
Gandak
Alaknanda
Mandakini
Banbasa
14,975
?
9,933
1,600
5,352
8,570
6,541
11,225
10,760
14,655
3,766
10,809
3,794
6,403
3,285
7,758
7,923
9,803
8,048
6,569
8,807
6,897
6,739
6,238
5,635
10,507
5,069
9,515
10,902
11,642
6,626
9,904
8,835
11,017
7,192
13,277
8,353
5,012
9,416
10,421
9,320
8,693
19,535
6,252
17,204
7,476
4,439
12,282
10,421
9,129
5,862
8,202
10,740
8,848
6,371
14,923
9,168
9,416
10,122
10,548
4,524
10,251
12,374
7,038
7,249
9,359
8,928
11,482
2,081
7,311
13,450
1,058
4-56
Alaknanda
Satluj
Joshimath
Bakhra Dam
4,508
56,885
5,182
4,007
3,138
5,805
3,093
1,723
3,656
6,598
5,274
2,294
2,384
3,819
7,808
4,531
3,256
4,984
9,203


Regional Flood data
River
Site
Catchment
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Ganga
Raiwala
22,396
4,545
5,169
4,542
4,160
4,873
4,785
3,235
6,783
5,704
12,985
3,116
Baghirathi
Tehri
7,511
1,800
4,130
3,110
1,460
2,480
3,400
1,820
2,700
3,400
7,200
Annex 4-8
Page 3/3
Yamuna
Tejewala
11,120
2,588
2,463
7,132
5,730
5,220
8,084
5,097
8,162
7,106
20,085
Tons
Kishau
4,885
1,010
1,225
957
996
824
726
1,202
1,160
1,908
6,600
Ravi
Madhopur
6,075
Beas
Pong
12,540
15,291
4,850
12,753
2,812
12,523
12,969
14,161
7,844
Sarda
Gandak
Alaknanda
Mandakini
Banbasa
14,975
?
9,933
1,600
15,609
9,059
2,148
9,750
7,566
2,200
6,854
12,360
1,560
579
12,632
10,126
2,887
572
4,956
10,463
2,364
1,008
4,603
11,463
1,782
456
6,949
15,121
1,656
461
9,603
13,946
1,887
452
4,438
8,506
2,300
463
5,650
15,525
2,811
635
2,100
2077
2420
2028
2873
4-57
592
805
443
890
Alaknanda
Satluj
Joshimath
Bakhra Dam
4,508
56,885
365
545
525
575
950
880
920
1012
740
950
565
575
990
675
750
1100
1425
1232
946
1100
960
690
630
1120
1350
1250
1150
1800
622
1160
1025
875
750

Annex 4-9
Page 1/3
Flood frequency analysis using GUMBEL'S EV : BNP
XT = Xext(avg) + KT * Sext
Weight =
No. of Years
N =
33
Plotting Position No. by Gringerton
0.44
Degree of Freedom
32
tc =
Confidence limits
0.3
2.020
CONFIDENCE BAND
GUMBEL'S DISTRIBUTION
m
Xext
Probability
percent
LogT
XT
SEx
XC (+)
XC (-)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3161.112
2502.547
2370.834
2195.217
2163.605
2037.161
2019.599
1966.914
1931.791
1931.791
1800.078
1777.247
1738.612
1685.926
1668.365
1668.365
1661.340
1615.679
1545.432
1536.652
1317.130
1317.130
1299.568
1211.760
1185.417
1106.389
1092.340
1009.800
1009.800
992.238
957.114
921.991
641.003
0.0169
0.0471
0.0773
0.1075
0.1377
0.1679
0.1981
0.2283
0.2585
0.2886
0.3188
0.3490
0.3792
0.4094
0.4396
0.4698
0.5000
0.5302
0.5604
0.5906
0.6208
0.6510
0.6812
0.7114
0.7415
0.7717
0.8019
0.8321
0.8623
0.8925
0.9227
0.9529
0.9831
1.691
4.710
7.729
10.749
13.768
16.787
19.807
22.826
25.845
28.865
31.884
34.903
37.923
40.942
43.961
46.981
50.000
53.019
56.039
59.058
62.077
65.097
68.116
71.135
74.155
77.174
80.193
83.213
86.232
89.251
92.271
95.290
98.309
59.143
21.231
12.938
9.303
7.263
5.957
5.049
4.381
3.869
3.464
3.136
2.865
2.637
2.442
2.275
2.129
2.000
1.886
1.784
1.693
1.611
1.536
1.468
1.406
1.349
1.296
1.247
1.202
1.160
1.120
1.084
1.049
1.017
1.7719
1.3270
1.1119
0.9686
0.8611
0.7750
0.7032
0.6416
0.5876
0.5396
0.4964
0.4571
0.4211
0.3878
0.3569
0.3281
0.3010
0.2756
0.2515
0.2287
0.2071
0.1864
0.1668
0.1479
0.1299
0.1125
0.0959
0.0798
0.0643
0.0494
0.0349
0.0210
0.0074
4.0714
3.0314
2.5202
2.1741
1.9097
1.6941
1.5108
1.3505
1.2073
1.0771
0.9572
0.8456
0.7407
0.6412
0.5462
0.4549
0.3665
0.2805
0.1962
0.1132
0.0309
-0.0513
-0.1337
-0.2172
-0.3024
-0.3902
-0.4819
-0.5792
-0.6845
-0.8022
-0.9401
-1.1169
-1.4061
3268.361
2788.223
2552.198
2392.407
2270.346
2170.809
2086.209
2012.203
1946.067
1885.974
1830.636
1779.108
1730.667
1684.750
1640.897
1598.732
1557.928
1518.202
1479.294
1440.961
1402.965
1365.062
1326.992
1288.465
1249.137
1208.584
1166.246
1121.345
1072.705
1018.389
954.731
873.077
739.582
360.467
274.155
232.476
204.753
183.976
167.389
153.626
141.914
131.777
122.901
115.078
108.159
102.044
96.662
91.964
87.921
84.514
81.735
79.582
78.057
77.164
76.909
77.297
78.339
80.048
82.451
85.594
89.562
94.501
100.688
108.680
119.857
139.746
3996.504
3342.016
3021.800
2806.008
2641.977
2508.934
2396.534
2298.870
2212.256
2134.235
2063.093
1997.590
1936.797
1880.007
1826.665
1776.332
1728.646
1683.307
1640.050
1598.637
1558.837
1520.418
1483.133
1446.709
1410.834
1375.134
1339.147
1302.259
1263.598
1221.778
1174.265
1115.188
1021.869
2540.218
2234.430
2082.596
1978.806
1898.715
1832.684
1775.885
1725.536
1679.878
1637.713
1598.179
1560.626
1524.538
1489.493
1455.130
1421.131
1387.210
1353.097
1318.538
1283.286
1247.093
1209.705
1170.851
1130.220
1087.441
1042.034
993.346
940.430
881.812
814.999
735.197
630.966
457.296
Xext(avg) =
Sext =
1637.467
518.264
YN =
N =
0.5388
1.1226
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
S 1.14
1.10
S tan dardError, SEX = ext 1 +
(Y YN ) + 2 (Y YN ) 2
N
N N
Degree
RT [Years]
5
10
20
30
40
50
100
500
1000
5000
10000
100000
1600000
of
freedom , = N 1
RESULTS
0.5
Computation for XT
YT
XT
59.143
21.231
500
4.071
3.031
6.214
3268.361
2788.223
?
Sext/N =
461.664
X500=
4257.323
XT from Graph
3
XT (m /sec)
T
10
2430.590
20
2841.252
50
3384.117
100
3794.779
500
4748.307
1000
5158.969
10000
6523.158
100000
7887.348
Discharge (m3/sec)
2081.19
2427.64
2759.96
2951.13
3085.91
3190.11
3512.45
4257.32
4577.56
5320.76
5640.78
6703.83
7983.83
4-58

Annex 4-9
Page 2/3
Flood frequency_Gumbel: BNP

4500
4000
3500
XT and Xc
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
XT
Upper confidence limit
Lower confidence limit
Xext
0
-2
-1
Reduced Variate Y
XT
4000
3500
Rainfall
3000
y = 592.46Ln(x) + 1066.4
2
R = 0.965
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
XT (m3/sec)
Log. (XT (m3/sec))
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
Return Periods [Years]
4-59

Annex 4-9
Page 3/3
Log Pearson Type III Distribution

Alaknanda
Bowala
5,590
Weight =
1.3
S.No
Year
Peak Flow in cumecs
y = log Q
(y-ym)2
(y-ym)3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
641
957
922
1010
1668
1545
1616
1777
1300
1668
992
1010
1739
2.81
2.98
2.96
3.00
3.22
3.19
3.21
3.25
3.11
3.22
3.00
3.00
3.24
0.141
0.040
0.047
0.032
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.034
0.032
0.003
-0.053
-0.008
-0.010
-0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.006
-0.006
0.000
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1185
1317
1932
2503
2164
1661
1932
1686
1212
1106
1967
2371
2195
2020
3161
1092
2037
1800
1537
1317
3.07
3.12
3.29
3.40
3.34
3.22
3.29
3.23
3.08
3.04
3.29
3.37
3.34
3.31
3.50
3.04
3.31
3.26
3.19
3.12
0.012
0.004
0.011
0.047
0.024
0.001
0.011
0.002
0.010
0.019
0.013
0.037
0.025
0.015
0.101
0.021
0.016
0.005
0.000
0.004
-0.001
0.000
0.001
0.010
0.004
0.000
0.001
0.000
-0.001
-0.003
0.001
0.007
0.004
0.002
0.032
-0.003
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
Mean
Standard deviation
Coefficient of Skew
Log Pearson Type III Distribution

Return Period in
yT = ym + (KT* Sy)
KT
years
2
0.051
3.190
5
0.853
3.310
10
1.244
3.368
25
1.640
3.428
50
1.885
3.465
100
2.098
3.496
200
2.378
3.539
500
2.511
3.558
1000
2.664
3.581
xT = 10yT
1547
2041
2336
2678
2915
3137
3455
3618
3814
where ym & Sy are the mean and standard deviation of the logarithm of the sample
KT is taken corresponding to coefficient of skewness
Log Pearson Type III (Bowala)

4500
4000
3500
Design Flood Peak
River
Site
Catchment
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Return Period
700
800
900
1000
1100
3.18
0.15
-0.31
4-60

Annex4-10
Page 1/15
Flood Analysis by Unit Hydrograph Method for HPP : BNP
1
Data
The following units are consistently used unless specified otherwise
Length
Area
Rainfall
Discharge
Level
Slope
Hour
Second
1.1
m
2
km
mm
3
m /s or cumec
m
m/km
h or hour
s or sec
Catchment characteristics
River
Alaknanda
Arainfed
Catchment area
Asnowfed
L
Lc
S
DLR
Length of longest stream

Length of the stream from CG
Equivalent stream slope
Design Loss Rate
1.2
Sl No.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2
0
30.583
57.289
82.811
101.287
116.169
Reduced
levels of river
Bed (m)
3
762
1524
2287
3049
3811
4573
km
2740
116
71
28
0.5
km
km
km
m/km
cm/h
Ref. Zone-7 Flood

estimation report, CWC
( Ref. Toposheet )
Computation of Equivalent Slope

Reduced
distance
starting from
Site( km)
2850
Length of Height
each
above
segment datum (m) (Di-1+Di) Li*(Di-1+Di)
(km) Li
Di
(m)
(km*m)
4
0
30.583
26.706
25.522
18.476
14.882
5
0
762
1525
2287
3049
3811
116.169
Slope =
762
2287
3812
5336
6860
23304
61077
97290
98588
102091
382349
28
m/km
4-61

Annex4-10
Page 2/15
2
Synthetic 1-hr Unit Hydrogarph parameters

Catchment area
Length of longest stream
Length of the stream from CG
Equivalent stream slope
Design Loss Rate
A
L
Lc
S
DLR
2850
116
71
28
0.5
km
km
km
m/km
cm/h
Ref. Zone 7_Flood Estimation Report, CWC
6.053
2.498*(L*Lc/S)^0.156
0.761
1.048*tp^-0.178
W 50 =
3.427
1.954*(L*Lc/S)^0.099
W 75 =
1.964
W R50 =
1.670
0.972*(L*Lc/S)^0.124
0.189*(W 50 )^1.769
W R75 =
0.972
0.419*(W 75 )^1.246
TB =
Tm =
Qp =
16.921
6.553
2167.766
TD =
6.659
7.845*tp^0.453
tp+0.5
qp*A
1.1*tp
Key Points Ordinate

Time
1 -hr SUH Ordinates

0.0*Qp =
0
T0
T50
T75
4.8835
5.5815
0.50*Qp = 1083.883
0.75*Qp = 1625.825
T100
T75l
6.5532
7.5458
Qp
= 2167.766
0.75*Qp = 1625.825
T50l
TB
8.3101
16.9212
0.50*Qp = 1083.883
0.0*Qp =
0
Unit Hydrograph by Sub Zone-7 report
Discharge (cumec)
2.1
tp =
qp =
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
CWC Method
Adjusted
Ordinates
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Time (Hrs)
4-62

Annex4-10
Page 3/15
Rainfall Excess
Rainfall excess for
T [Years]
50
100
SPS
PMP
50
Years
Clock-hr
Areal Rainfall Ratio of 12-hr to 24 hr rainfall
Areal Rainfall
P12/P24
correction
with Clock-hr
(cm)
factor
correction (cm)
Bell-1
Bell-2
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
11.84
12.58
15.61
24.5
Storm Distribution
(cm)
Bell-1
Bell-2
11.8
12.6
17.9
28.2
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
8.2
8.7
12.4
19.4
3.7
3.9
5.6
8.8
Storm
rainfall
(cm)
1.418
2.835
4.016
4.725
5.198
5.552
6.024
6.379
6.851
7.324
7.678
8.151
Bell-1
1-hr rainfall
increment
(cm)
1.4175
1.4175
1.1813
0.7088
0.4725
0.3544
0.4725
0.3544
0.4725
0.4725
0.3544
0.4725
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
0.92
0.92
0.68
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Storm
rainfall
(cm)
0.6
1.3
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
Bell-2
1-hr rainfall
increment
(cm)
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Time distribution and rainfall increments
Hours
Distribution
co-efficient
Design
Loss rate
(cm/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.17
0.35
0.49
0.58
0.64
0.68
0.74
0.78
0.84
0.90
0.94
1.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
0.142
0.142
0.035
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Critical sequence of rainfall excess
Time
(hour)
1-hr UH
(cumec/cm)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
0.0
20.0
60.0
130.0
400.0
1610.0
2165.6
1784.0
1026.8
380.0
160.0
70.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
5.0
2.0
0.0
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.92
0.92
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bell-1
Rainfall Excess
(cm)
Reversed
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.92
0.92
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bell-2
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
Rainfall
Excess (cm)
Reversed
0.03
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.03
4-63

Annex4-10
Page 4/15
Flood Hydrograph
Flood estimation for return period RT =
Peak Flood =
Q50 =
50
Years
5335
Cumec
24
Direct
Runoff
(cumec)
Base
Flow
(cumec)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
31
101
271
866
2396
4137
5012
4423
3088
1825
951
477
228
121
70
40
22
11
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rainfall Excess (cm)

Time
(hour)
1-hr UH
(cumec/cm)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
0
20
60
130
400
1610
2166
1784
1027
380
160
70
40
30
20
10
5
2
0
1
0.209
0
4
13
27
84
336
452
372
214
79
33
15
8
6
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BELL-1 (hours)
2
3
0.918
0.918
0
18
55
119
367
1477
1987
1637
942
349
147
64
37
28
18
9
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
55
119
367
1477
1987
1637
942
349
147
64
37
28
18
9
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0.681
0
14
41
89
273
1097
1475
1215
700
259
109
48
27
20
14
7
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0.142
0
3
8
18
57
228
307
253
145
54
23
10
6
4
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0.142
0
3
8
18
57
228
307
253
145
54
23
10
6
4
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0.035
0
1
2
5
14
56
75
62
36
13
6
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BELL-2 (hours)
14
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4-64
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Flood
(cumec)
323
328
354
424
595
1189
2720
4460
5335
4746
3411
2148
1275
801
552
444
393
363
345
334
328
325
324
323
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5335.427

Annex 4-10
Page 5/15
Discharge [Cumec]
HYDROGRAPH [FLOOD] : 50 years 24 hours

5800
5600
5400
5200
5000
4800
4600
4400
4200
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Total Flood
(cumec)
10
11
12
13
Time [hour]
4-65
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Rainfall Excess
Rainfall excess for
T [Years]
Clock-hr
correction
factor
50
100
SPS
PMP
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
100
Years
Areal Rainfall
Areal Rainfall
with Clock-hr
(cm)
correction (cm)
11.84
16.5
15.61
24.5
11.8
16.5
17.9
28.2
Ratio of 12-hr to 24 hr
rainfall P12/P24
Bell-1
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
Bell-2
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Annex4-10
Page 6/15
Storm Distribution
(cm)
Bell-1
8.2
11.4
12.4
19.4
Bell-2
3.7
5.1
5.6
8.8

Bell-1
Hours
Distribution
co-efficient
Design
Loss rate
(cm/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.17
0.35
0.49
0.58
0.64
0.68
0.74
0.78
0.84
0.90
0.94
1.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bell-2
Storm
rainfall
(cm)
2.0
4.0
5.6
6.6
7.2
7.7
8.4
8.9
9.5
10.2
10.7
11.4
1-hr rainfall
increment
(cm)
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
Rainfall
Excess (cm)
Reversed
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
0.00
0.16
0.16
1.15
1.48
1.48
0.49
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.49
1.48
1.48
1.15
0.16
0.16
0.00
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
1.48
1.48
1.15
0.49
0.16
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.16
0.16
0.00
0.16
Storm
rainfall
(cm)
0.9
1.8
2.5
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.6
4.8
5.1
1-hr rainfall
increment
(cm)
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
0.39
0.39
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Bell-1
Time
(hour)
1-hr UH
(cumec/cm)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
0.0
20.0
60.0
130.0
400.0
1610.0
2165.6
1784.0
1026.8
380.0
160.0
70.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
5.0
2.0
0.0
0.25
0.39
0.39
Bell-2
Rainfall
Excess (cm)
Reversed
0.39
0.39
0.25
4-66

Annex4-10
Page 7/15
Peak Flood =
Q100 =
100
Years
8709
Cumec
2
0.158
3
0.158
0
3
10
21
63
255
343
283
163
60
25
11
6
5
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
10
21
63
255
343
283
163
60
25
11
6
5
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
Direct
Runoff
(cumec)
Base
Flow
(cumec)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
13
33
103
398
843
1379
2428
4689
7185
8386
7256
5043
3472
2836
2540
1920
1154
563
241
112
58
34
20
11
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Time
(hour)
1-hr UH
(cumec/cm)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
0
20
60
130
400
1610
2166
1784
1027
380
160
70
40
30
20
10
5
2
0
1
0.158
0
3
10
21
63
255
343
283
163
60
25
11
6
5
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BELL-1 (hours)
4
5
0.488
1.475
0
10
29
63
195
785
1056
870
501
185
78
34
20
15
10
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
89
192
590
2375
3195
2632
1515
561
236
103
59
44
30
15
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1.475
0
30
89
192
590
2375
3195
2632
1515
561
236
103
59
44
30
15
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1.146
0
23
69
149
458
1845
2482
2045
1177
436
183
80
46
34
23
11
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0.158
0
3
10
21
63
255
343
283
163
60
25
11
6
5
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.158
0
3
10
21
63
255
343
283
163
60
25
11
6
5
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0.394
0
8
24
51
158
635
854
703
405
150
63
28
16
12
8
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0.394
0
8
24
51
158
635
854
703
405
150
63
28
16
12
8
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0.245
0
5
15
32
98
395
531
437
252
93
39
17
10
7
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4-67
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BELL-2 (hours)
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Flood
(cumec)
323.340
326.509
336.018
356.619
426.593
721.241
1166.485
1702.710
2751.082
5012.428
7508.695
8708.922
7579.065
5365.958
3795.420
3158.873
2863.512
2243.598
1477.202
886.721
564.265
435.630
381.526
357.523
343.628
334.472
328.550
325.354
323.830
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
8708.922

Annex4-10
Page 8/15
HYDROGRAPH [FLOOD] : 100 years 24 hours
9200
Total Flood
(cumec)
8800
8400
8000
7600
7200
6800
6400
Discharge [Cumec]
6000
5600
5200
4800
4400
4000
3600
3200
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200
800
400
0
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Time [hour]
4-68
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Annex4-10
Page 9/15
Storm pattern 1-Day SPS: BNP
Isohytes
8
8-6
6-4
4-2
2
4
6
8
Average of
class
(inch)
8
7
5
3
inch
inch
inch
inch
Area
2
(km )
253
274
346
389
A1
A2
A3
A4
=
=
=
=
Fraction
of total
area
0.200
0.217
0.274
0.308
389
346
274
253
Weighted
P (inch)
1.604
1.520
1.371
0.925
km
2
km
2
km
2
km
Growth factor of rainfall
Pi/Pavg
P1 =
P2 =
P3 =
P4 =
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
y = 0.1845x
R2 = 1
GF
Linear (GF)
0
Pi (inch) [i=1..4]
Total
1262
Pavg =
5.419
P
2
4
6
8
Acumulative
389
735
1009
1262
1.000
5.419
inch
GF
0.37
0.74
1.11
1.48
1-day SPS at BNP intake =
6.12
15.6
inch
cm
The rainfall values from the isohyets in inches show that the storms are predominatly towards SW and EW directions
BNP intake lies in a region with the rainfall growth factor of 1.11 - 1.48. However, an eastward storm is indicative of low increment of rainfall.
Hence, a 2.5 % increment in growth factor corresponding to 6 inch rainfall i.e., (1.11+2.5%*1.13=1.13) is suitably adopted for BNP intake as it is in the proximity of 6 inch rainfall
and significantly, any further increment would not preserve the average rainfall.
The rainfall corresponding to the 1.33 growth factor is 6.14 inch = 15.61 cm and it is adopted as SPS for BNP intake.
Ref. Vishnugad Pipalkoti HEP DPR , 1-day SPS pattern in Vishnugad Pipalkoti HEP, Annexure-14-A, Fig.1
4-69

Annex4-10
Page 10/15
Rainfall Excess
Rainfall excess for
T [Years]
50
100
SPS
PMP
SPS
Clock-hr
Areal Rainfall
Areal Rainfall
with Clock-hr
correction
(cm)
correction (cm)
factor
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
11.84
12.58
15.61
24.5
rainfall P12/P24
11.8
12.6
17.9
28.2
Bell-1
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
Storm
rainfall
(cm)
2.1
4.3
6.1
7.2
7.9
8.4
9.1
9.7
10.4
11.1
11.6
12.4
1-hr rainfall
increment
(cm)
2.15
2.15
1.79
1.0743
0.72
0.54
0.72
0.54
0.72
0.72
0.54
0.72
Storm Distribution
(cm)
Bell-2
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Bell-1
8.2
8.7
12.4
19.4
Bell-2
3.7
3.9
5.6
8.8
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
1.65
1.65
1.29
0.57
0.22
0.04
0.22
0.04
0.22
0.22
0.04
0.22
Storm
rainfall
(cm)
1.0
1.9
2.8
3.2
3.6
3.8
4.1
4.4
4.7
5.0
5.3
5.6
1-hr rainfall
increment
(cm)
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3

Bell-1
Hours
Distribution
co-efficient
Design
Loss rate
(cm/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.17
0.35
0.49
0.58
0.64
0.68
0.74
0.78
0.84
0.90
0.94
1.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bell-2
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
0.47
0.47
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Time
(hour)
1-hr UH
(cumec/cm)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
0.0
20.0
60.0
130.0
400.0
1610.0
2165.6
1784.0
1026.8
380.0
160.0
70.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
5.0
2.0
0.0
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
0.04
0.22
0.22
1.29
1.65
1.65
0.57
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.04
0.04
Bell-1
Rainfall Excess
(cm)
Reversed
0.04
0.04
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.57
1.65
1.65
1.29
0.22
0.22
0.04
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
0.31
0.47
0.47
Bell-2
Rainfall
Excess (cm)
Reversed
0.47
0.47
0.31
4-70

Annex4-10
Page 11/15
Flood Hydrograph
Peak Flood =
SPF
QSPF =
9788.8
Cumec
9780
Cumec
1
0.038
0
1
2
5
15
62
83
68
39
15
6
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.038
3
0.218
4
0.218
5
0.218
0
1
2
5
15
62
83
68
39
15
6
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
13
28
87
350
471
388
223
83
35
15
9
7
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(say)

Time
(hour)
1-hr UH
(cumec/cm)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
0
20
60
130
400
1610
2166
1784
1027
380
160
70
40
30
20
10
5
2
0
0
4
13
28
87
350
471
388
223
83
35
15
9
7
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
13
28
87
350
471
388
223
83
35
15
9
7
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BELL-1 (hours)
6
7
0.576
1.653
0
12
35
75
231
928
1248
1028
592
219
92
40
23
17
12
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
99
215
661
2661
3579
2949
1697
628
264
116
66
50
33
17
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1.653
0
33
99
215
661
2661
3579
2949
1697
628
264
116
66
50
33
17
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1.294
0
26
78
168
518
2083
2802
2308
1329
492
207
91
52
39
26
13
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0.218
0
4
13
28
87
350
471
388
223
83
35
15
9
7
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0.218
0
4
13
28
87
350
471
388
223
83
35
15
9
7
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0.038
0
1
2
5
15
62
83
68
39
15
6
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0.467
0
9
28
61
187
752
1012
833
480
178
75
33
19
14
9
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BELL-2 (hours)
14
15
0.467
0.306
0
9
28
61
187
752
1012
833
480
178
75
33
19
14
9
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
18
40
122
493
663
546
314
116
49
21
12
9
6
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4-71
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
Direct
Runoff
(cumec)
Base
Flow
(cumec)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
12
38
122
284
684
1223
1834
2989
5459
8173
9465
8207
5689
3469
2581
2674
2716
2182
1325
636
261
118
61
38
24
13
6
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Flood
(cumec)
323
324
326
335
361
446
607
1008
1546
2157
3313
5782
8497
9789
8531
6013
3792
2905
2998
3039
2505
1648
960
584
441
384
361
347
337
330
326
324
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9789

Annex4-10
Page 12/15
Discharge [Cumec]
HYDROGRAPH [FLOOD] : SPF

10400
10000
9600
9200
8800
8400
8000
7600
7200
6800
6400
6000
5600
5200
4800
4400
4000
3600
3200
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200
800
400
0
Total Flood
(cumec)
9780 Cumec
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Time [hour]
4-72
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Rainfall Excess
Rainfall excess for
Annex4-10
Page 13/15
PMP
rainfall P12/P24
T [Years]
Clock-hr
correction
factor
Areal Rainfall
(cm)
Areal Rainfall
with Clock-hr
correction (cm)
50
100
SPS
PMP
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
11.84
12.6
15.61
24.5
11.8
12.6
17.9
28.2
Bell-1
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
Storm
rainfall
(cm)
3.4
6.7
9.6
11.2
12.4
13.2
14.3
15.2
16.3
17.4
18.3
19.4
1-hr rainfall
increment
(cm)
3.4
3.4
2.8
1.7
1.1
0.8
1.1
0.8
1.1
1.1
0.8
1.1
Storm Distribution
(cm)
Bell-2
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Bell-1
8.2
8.7
12.4
19.4
Bell-2
3.7
3.9
5.6
8.8
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
2.87
2.87
2.31
1.19
0.62
0.34
0.62
0.34
0.62
0.62
0.34
0.62
Storm
rainfall
(cm)
1.5
3.1
4.3
5.1
5.6
6.0
6.5
6.9
7.4
7.9
8.3
8.8
1-hr rainfall
increment
(cm)
1.5
1.5
1.3
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5

Bell-2
Bell-1
Hours
Distribution
co-efficient
Design
Loss rate
(cm/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.17
0.35
0.49
0.58
0.64
0.68
0.74
0.78
0.84
0.90
0.94
1.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
1.03
1.03
0.77
0.26
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
Time
(hour)
1-hr UH
(cumec/cm)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
0.0
20.0
60.0
130.0
400.0
1610.0
2165.6
1784.0
1026.8
380.0
160.0
70.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
5.0
2.0
0.0
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
0.34
0.62
0.62
2.31
2.87
2.87
1.19
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.34
0.34
Bell-1
Rainfall Excess
(cm)
Reversed
0.34
0.34
0.62
0.62
0.62
1.19
2.87
2.87
2.31
0.62
0.62
0.34
Rainfall
Excess
(cm)
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.77
1.03
1.03
0.26
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Bell-2
Rainfall
Excess (cm)
Reversed
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.26
1.03
1.03
0.77
0.01
0.01
4-73

Annex4-10
Page 14/15
Flood Hydrograph
Peak Flood =
QPMF =
PMF
17367
Cumec
2
0.343
3
0.624
0
7
21
45
137
553
743
612
353
130
55
24
14
10
7
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
37
81
250
1005
1352
1114
641
237
100
44
25
19
12
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Time
(hour)
1-hr UH
(cumec/cm)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
0
20
60
130
400
1610
2166
1784
1027
380
160
70
40
30
20
10
5
2
0
1
0.343
0
7
21
45
137
553
743
612
353
130
55
24
14
10
7
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0.624
0
12
37
81
250
1005
1352
1114
641
237
100
44
25
19
12
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0.624
0
12
37
81
250
1005
1352
1114
641
237
100
44
25
19
12
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BELL-1 (hours)
6
7
1.187
2.873
0
24
71
154
475
1910
2570
2117
1218
451
190
83
47
36
24
12
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
172
374
1149
4626
6222
5126
2950
1092
460
201
115
86
57
29
14
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
2.873
0
57
172
374
1149
4626
6222
5126
2950
1092
460
201
115
86
57
29
14
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
2.311
0
46
139
300
924
3721
5005
4123
2373
878
370
162
92
69
46
23
12
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0.624
0
12
37
81
250
1005
1352
1114
641
237
100
44
25
19
12
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0.624
0
12
37
81
250
1005
1352
1114
641
237
100
44
25
19
12
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0.343
0
7
21
45
137
553
743
612
353
130
55
24
14
10
7
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0.009
0
0
1
1
4
14
19
16
9
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0.009
0
0
1
1
4
14
19
16
9
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0.009
0
0
1
1
4
14
19
16
9
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4-74
16
0.263
0
5
16
34
105
424
570
470
270
100
42
18
11
8
5
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
BELL-2 (hours)
17
18
1.027
1.027
0
21
62
133
411
1653
2224
1832
1054
390
164
72
41
31
21
10
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
62
133
411
1653
2224
1832
1054
390
164
72
41
31
21
10
5
2
0
0
0
0
19
0.772
0
15
46
100
309
1243
1673
1378
793
293
124
54
31
23
15
8
4
1.54
0
0
0
20
0.009
0
0
1
1
4
14
19
16
9
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.04
0.02
0
0
21
0.009
0
0
1
1
4
14
19
16
9
3
1
1
0
0
0
0.09
0.04
0.02
0.0
22
0.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Direct
Runoff
(cumec)
Base
Flow
(cumec)
0
7
27
78
232
821
1688
2821
3956
5021
6877
10766
15031
17043
15018
10949
7098
4180
2389
1453
1586
3050
4831
5668
4726
2920
1410
569
258
136
87
56
32
15
6
2
0
0
0
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
323
0
Total Flood
(cumec)
323
330
351
401
555
1144
2012
3144
4280
5344
7200
11090
15354
17367
15341
11272
7422
4504
2712
1776
1909
3374
5154
5991
5049
3244
1733
892
581
460
410
380
355
339
330
325
323
323
0
17367

Annex4-10
Page 15/15
HYDROGRAPH [FLOOD] : PMF
19000
Total Flood
(cumec)
18000
17000
16000
15000
14000
Discharge [Cumec]
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Time [hour]
4-75

Hydrology Bowla Nand Prayag

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Hydrology Bowla Nand Prayag

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro-Electric Project

Detailed Project Report

Halcrow Consulting India Limited

Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd

Detailed Project Report

Halcrow Consulting India Limited

Halcrow Consulting India Limited

Halcrow Consulting India Limited 2015

Halcrow Consulting India Limited

Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd

Detailed Project Report

Contents Amendment Record

This report has been issued and amended as follows:

Revised using data up to 2007

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

Total Catchment Area

Maximum Mean Monthly Temperature

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

Mean Monthly Rainfall (mm)

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

Availability of Water and Dependable Flows

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

Test for randomness

Qt-1 < Qt > Qt +1

Qt is trough when Qt -1 > Qt < Qt +1

is the total number of crests and troughs.

is the standard deviation of the sample.

Test for trend: Spearmans rank correlation method

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

The test statistics t is given by,

t ( , 2.5%) < t < t ( , 97.5%)

Test for outliers

= exp[ Rp(log)Avg - Kn * Rp(log) ]

High outlier threshold = exp[ Rp(log)Avg +Kn * Rp(log) ]

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

Test for stability of variance: F-test

The test statistics is given by,

n1 and n 2 are the numbers of observation in each sub-set.

Test for stability of mean: t-test

X 2 as the averages , the test statistic is given by,

is the number of data in the subset

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

is the mean of the subset i

is the variance of the subset i

where, is the number of degrees of freedom,

Best fit equation

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

the regression model smoothes the distribution of the estimated flows

the relationship between flows at 2 sites is rarely linear, as is assumed

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

ratio target / control = 1.19

1982-2002 (estimated observations = 708):

ratio target / control = 1.20

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

Figure 4-4: Long-Term Flow-Duration Curves at Chamoli by FDC Method

Comparison of Different Methods for Estimating Discharges at the Intake Site

300MW Bowala Nand Prayag Hydro Electric Project

Discharge Estimated by FDC Method

Discharge Estimated by Regression Analysis

Transferred by FDC Method

Transferred by Catchment Area Ratio