Feasibility Report Kathai-II Hydropower Project Project Civil Design

M/s Agro Industrial Solutions Feasibility Report
Kathai-II Hydropower Project Project Civil Design
CHAPTER – 8 PROJECT CIVIL DESIGN
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter covers the design of major civil engineering structures for Kathai-II
Hydropower Project, except the Powerhouse. The Powerhouse is dealt with in great detail
in a separate chapter. Consistent with the requirements of Feasibility Study, design
includes the selection of location and types of structures, their layout and dimensions,
hydraulic and structural stability calculations. The objective is to provide structures that
perform their designated tasks optimally over the life of the project, while withstanding the
effects of forces they may be subjected to, continuously or occasionally. Additionally, these
structures should be economical, robust and easily constructable using materials and
techniques readily available at project site.
The chapter begins by providing an overview of the selected layout of the scheme covering
all of the major structures from the Diversion Weir to the Tailrace Channel. This is followed
by detailed sections on each of the major civil structures. In each section, detailed
description of the structure and reasons for various design decisions are followed by
spelling out of the methodology for hydraulic and structural design. Parameters employed
for design calculations are explicitly stated.
To avoid repeated interruption in the flow of narrative, detailed hydraulic and structural
stability computations are provided as Design Plates at the end of the chapter for a given
structure. All references consulted for design are also listed.
It is pertinent to note that the design of structures calls upon significant data, presented
elsewhere in this report. Such data is simply used in the calculations and the reader can
refer to various sections, viz., hydrology, sedimentation, seismicity and geotechnical
sections for further details.
8.2 OVERVIEW OF KATHAI-II HYDROPOWER PROJECT
Kathai-II Hydropower Project, located in Azad Jammu and Kashmir is an 8.0 MW run of
the river type scheme. It envisages construction of a permanent Weir on Kathai Nullah
about 50 m downstream of its junction with Ranja Nar. A Lateral Intake diverts a design
discharge of 6 cumecs through a surface type Desander into a 2.9 Km long 3 m x 2.25 m
(width x depth) rectangular, reinforced concrete Headrace Channel. The channel
terminates in a Forebay structure from which two (1 m dia.) steel Penstock pipes carry the
design discharge to 2 x 4.0 MW Vertical Shaft Pelton Turbines set in a surface type
Powerhouse. The flow from the turbines is discharged through 2 short Tailrace Channels
back into the Kathai Nullah. The net head for the project is 155.39 m.
Consultants:
Barqaab Consulting Services (Pvt.) Ltd.
144
8.3 MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT
8.3.1 Diversion Weir
The Diversion Weir consists of a 25 m wide overflow section, a 12 m wide Undersluiced

section with two 2.5 m x 2.0 m (width x depth) vertical gates, and a fish ladder adjacent to
the Undersluiced section for allowing movement of fish and for discharge of environmental
flow. The crest of the Overflow Weir is at elevation 1390.5 m and a reinforced concrete
wall, with its crest set at elevation 1392.5 m, is constructed on the left bank to protect the
Desander from a 100 year flood discharge of 234 cumecs. The 100 year flood is to be
handled through passage through the Undersluice gates and discharge over the overflow
concrete Weir. Plan and cross sections of Diversion Weir are given in VOLUME-III as Dwg
No. BQB-KHPP-FR-14 to 18.
8.3.2 Intake Structure
An Intake, consisting of two 1.6 m x 0.6 m (width x depth) openings with trash rack and
vertical gates, is designed to convey 6 cumecs design discharge through a transition to a
twin chambered Desander facility. The sill level of the Intake Weir is set at 2.5 m above
the level of the apron slab for the Undersluiced section. Plan and cross sections of Intake
Structure are given in VOLUME-III as Dwg No. BQB-KHPP-FR-19 & 20.
8.3.3 Desander
An intermittent flushing, partially buried, twin chambered Desander is proposed on the left
bank to exclude particles above 0.2 mm size from the water before it enters the Headrace
Channel. The Desander has two parallel compartments each 40 m long, 5 m wide and 7
m high (maximum), capable of being operated independently. A 3 m x 1.5 m flushing
conduit/channel is designed to convey the silt deposited in the Desander back into the
nullah. Plan and cross sections of Desander are given in VOLUME-III as Dwg No. BQB-
KHPP-FR-19 to 21.
8.3.4 Flood Wall
Flood wall has been provided to protect the Intake and Desander, as well as to direct the
nullah through a well defined channel. The top elevation of flood wall has been set at
1392.75 m, so as to be above the level of design flood. Plan and cross sections of Flood
Wall are given in VOLUME-III as Dwg No. BQB-KHPP-FR-22 & 23.
8.3.5 Headrace Channel
A 2.9 Km long reinforced concrete rectangular channel with internal dimensions, 3 m x

2.25 m (width x depth) and a freeboard of 0.5 m, conveys the design discharge to the
Consultants:
145
Forebay. The Headrace Channel has a bed slope of 1:700. The channel alignment has
been selected to enable maximum length to be constructed by excavating a bench on the
stable left slopes of the Kathai valley. In certain small reaches, the Headrace Channel
needs to be placed on fill. However, these stretches are fairly short and the depth of fill is
not large (< 1 m). In populated areas the Headrace Channel will be covered. Plan Profile
and sections of Headrace Channel are given in VOLUME-III as Dwg No. BQB-KHPP-FR-
24 & 25.
8.3.6 Forebay
The Forebay is 20.45 m long, 11 m wide and 8.25 m high surface structure with a 10 m
long transition joining it to the Headrace Channel. The Forebay has an overflow type side
Weir for discharging excess flows into a shaft spillway leading to a stilling well from where
a Spillpipe carries the flow back to the nullah. It also has a 1 m x 1 m flushing outlet for
occasional discharge of silt deposited in the Forebay and also for augmenting the
discharge from the Overflow Weir, when the water flow becomes excessive. Plan and
Cross sections of Forebay are given in VOLUME-III as Dwg No. BQB-KHPP-FR-26 & 27.
8.3.7 Penstock
From Forebay two (1 m dia.) steel Penstock pipes, 435 m long, lead down to the
Powerhouse, buried for most of their lengths. Anchor blocks are provided at the locations
of vertical and horizontal bends. Support blocks at 4.5 m intervals are provided for exposed
Penstock pipes. Plan and Cross sections of Penstock and Anchor blocks are given in
VOLUME-III as Dwg No. BQB-KHPP-FR-28 to 31.
8.3.8 Tailrace Channels
Two reinforced concrete channels, 3.0 m wide x 1.75 m high, with bedslope of 1:10,
discharge flows from Turbines into the nullah. The Tailrace Channels are designed to
discharge freely into the nullah, under normal operating conditions and annual floods.
Even during extraordinary floods of volume upto the maximum 100 years design flood, the
invert level of the Tailrace at exit from the Powerhouse has been set to prevent any inflow
into the Powerhouse waterways. Plan and sections of Tailrace Channel are given in
VOLUME-III as Dwg No. BQB-KHPP-FR-43 & 44.
8.4 DESIGN OF HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES
This section deals with the hydraulic and structural design of all major civil structures for
the proposed Kathai-II Hydropower Project. The design details are commensurate with the
requirements of a Feasibility Study and enable conclusions to be drawn regarding
technical viability of the proposed structures. It forms the basis for preparation of
Consultants:
146
engineering drawings of the various structures from which cost estimates for the project
can be prepared.
The structures are listed in sequence, starting from Headworks and ending at Tailrace.
8.4.1 Diversion Works
The diversion works for Kathai-II Hydropower Project are located about 50 m downstream
of the confluence of Ranja Nar with Kathai Nullah. The location has been chosen to include
the flows of Ranja Nar in the design discharge for the project.
A lateral type Intake is proposed for the project. The Intake is located on the left bank of
Kathai Nullah to accommodate the Desander on the flat nullah terrace present there.
Moreover, the left flank of the nullah offer better topography for construction of Headrace
Channel, Forebay and the Powerhouse, than the steep right flank.
A permanent structure consisting of an overflow type concrete Weir and an Undersluiced

section is constructed across the nullah to divert the design flow into the Headrace
Channel. A divide wall and a fish ladder separate the two sections. A floodwall is proposed
at the left flank to protect the Desander and Intake structure from flood flows. The crest
level of the floodwall has been fixed at elevation 1392.5 m to enable a discharge of 234
cumecs, corresponding to 100 years flood, to pass through the Weir Site with a 0.5 m
freeboard to the top of the wall crest. Computations presented in Design Plate 8.1 show
that the flow through two 2.5m x 2 m (width x depth) gates in the Undersluiced section and
flow over the 25.5 m long overflow section successfully achieves this objective.
The crest level of the overflow section has been fixed at elevation 1390.5 m. This height
has been chosen after studying the nullah bed levels for a distance of 100 m, upstream of
the Weir axis. A small pond will be created upstream of the Weir, which helps in ensuring
complete submergence of the Intake openings, assists in a steady flow to the Powerhouse
and reduces the amount of silt entering the Intake.
A fish ladder has been provided between the divide wall and the overflow Weir to allow
movement of fish in the stream and for releasing environmental flows downstream of the
Weir.
Design issues concerning different components of the diversion works are addressed in
individual section that follows.
Consultants:
147
8.4.2 Overflow Weir
Hydraulic Design
The profile of the ogee type overflow Weir has been developed from USBR standards. The
design depth of flow over the Weir has been obtained from the hydrology section of this
report. The stilling basin located at the base of the Weir has been designed as per USBR
publication “Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins”.
The seepage gradient is determined using Bligh’s Creep Theory.
Design Plate 8.2 presents all hydraulic calculations regarding the overflow Weir.
Structural Stability Analysis
The Overflow Weir is checked for stability against the following forces:
 Gravity
 Hydrostatic force
 Silt pressure
 Hydrodynamic (Nappe) forces
 Seismic forces (Static vertical and horizontal)
 Seismic forces (Hydrodynamic)
 Uplift forces.
The following load combinations are considered:
 Normal – Pool at normal operating level + Uplift + Silt pressure

 Unusual – Pool at normal operating level + Earthquake (O.B).
 Extreme– Pool at design flood level + Uplift.
While checking for stability, the criteria specified in USACE manual “Gravity Dams” is
followed.
Design Plate 8.3 presents the stability analysis for the Overflow Weir.
8.4.3 Undersluices
Hydraulic Design
See the subsection on the hydraulic design of Overflow Weir. An additional calculation
regarding the velocity of flow through the sluiceway is calculated and checked against the
scour velocity for the sediment deposited upstream of the sluice gates.
Consultants:
148
Design Plate 8.4 presents the relevant calculations.
Structural Stability Analysis
See the subsection on structural stability analysis of Overflow Weir.
Design Plate 8.5 presents the stability analysis.
8.4.4 Flood Wall
The Flood Wall is checked for safety against sliding, overturning and bearing capacity
failure for the following load combinations:
i. Normal – Pool at normal operating level + earth pressure + uplift.

ii. Unusual – Pool at sudden drawdown + earth pressure + uplift.
iii. Extreme – Pool at normal operating level + earth pressure + uplift + earthquake
While checking for stability, the criteria specified in USACE manual “Design of Floodwalls”
is followed.
Design Plate 8.6 presents the stability analysis.
8.4.5 Intake Structure
The Intake Structure is located on the left bank of the Kathai Nullah, about 20 m upstream
of the Undersluiced section. It has two gated openings, each 1.60 m x 0.6 m (width x depth)
located at the crest of a broad crested Weir. The crest of the Weir is set about 2.5 above
the Undersluiced section apron slab. This is to allow most sediment to settle on the
Undersluiced apron slab and relatively clear water to enter the Intake. The two openings
are separated by a divide wall which extends all through the transition to be monolithic
with divide wall of the twin chambered Desander. This enables the two compartments of
the Desander to be operated independently.
The axis of the Intake/transition makes an angle of 30 degrees with the longitudnal axis
through the diversion works. This enables relatively straight flow all the way from the Intake
to the end of the Desander. It also enables Desander and transitions of adequate lengths
to be constructed.
The canal head regulator and the transition have been designed to achieve a hydraulic
jump. The advantage of this arrangement is to make the inflow into the Intake independent
of the tail water and to achieve relatively low velocity within a short distance, before
entrance into the Desander.
Consultants:
149
Hydraulic Design
Design Plate 8.7 presents calculations for determining the size of openings to admit the
design flow.
Design Plate 8.8 determines the location of the hydraulic jump, the approximate water
profile in the transition and the entrance velocity for the Desander.
8.4.6 Desander
The Desander is a critical component for efficient operation of the turbines. Inadequately
designed or operated Desander considerably shortens the life of turbine blade as well as
increased losses due to friction in the gravity based water conductor as well pressure flow
in the Penstock. Design Plate 8.9 gives a comparison of head losses in a 2.8 Km
Headrace Channel, between heavily silted water and water carrying moderate amount of
silt. The direct loss in terms of cost of blade replacement and indirect in terms of lost
revenue, can be significant.
The Desander has been located just downstream of the Intake at the only possible location
for a structure of its size. A partially buried, double chambered Dufour type Desander has
been selected. Each chamber is 40 m x 5 m, with a maximum depth of 7 m. The basis of
this selection is the fact that the design discharge is available for only 33 % of the time in
a year. This implies that the flushing discharge to clear the Desander of the accumulated
silt will only come at the expense of discharge meant for power generation. A double
chambered Desander enables partial flow to be still available for power generation. The
flushing of the two chambers can be staggered. Similarly, the need for flushing decreases
with the increased capacity to store silt. This again means less shutdown of turbines and
hence more revenue.
The hydraulic design of Desander has been carried out in accordance with the procedure
given in AHEC guidelines and which has been adopted from Emil Mosoryi publication
“High Head Power Plants”. The hydraulic design of Desander is presented in Design
Plates 8.10 & 8.10.1. A simple calculation for determining the frequency of flushing is
given in Design Plate 8.11. This is based on uniform inflow of sediments into the
Desander, which is not possible. Hence, this calculation may not be considered as an
operational advice, rather it should be interpreted as a justification for the decision to
choose a somewhat larger structure than warranted by the hydraulic and sediment data.
The flushing conduit/channel slopes steeply to discharge into the nullah. Structural
calculations for the Desander, which is a massive reinforced concrete structure, include
checking for flotation of the structure when empty, under a hydrostatic head and checking
for seismic stability of the structure in transverse directions (Design Plate 8.12). For
seismic stability, PCA publication, “Design of Liquid-Containing Concrete Structures for
Consultants:
150
Earthquake Forces” and UBC-97 has been used for analysis. As the Desander is a partially
buried structure, the earth pressures under earthquake loading are determined using
Seed-Whitman’s formula.
8.4.7 Headrace Channel
The Headrace Channel, in terms of scope of work and material quantities, forms the
biggest structure in the proposed Kathai-II Hydropower Project. The alignment has been
chosen to ensure minimum relocation/ removal of existing infrastructure, as well as enable
speedy construction with minimum technical bottlenecks. Fortunately, the left flank of
Kathai valley on which the Headrace Channel has been proposed, has stable slopes. As
laid out on the topographic survey map developed for the Feasibility Study, most of the
channel can be constructed by cutting a bench on the slopes and constructing the channel
on firm terrain. In reaches the channel will have to be constructed on fill, but the total length
of these stretches is not excessive and similarly the depth of fill is usually less than 1 m.
In such cases, the channel can be laid on category ‘D’ mass concrete or supported by
short reinforced concrete piers spaced at approximately 3 m intervals, with the intervening
space occupied by well compacted backfill.
A rectangular section has been chosen as the most appropriate shape for the reinforced
concrete Headrace Channel. Although standard iterative calculations involving Manning
formula are carried out in determining the basic dimensions for the channel (Design Plate
8.13), the basic dimensions have been amended in light of its location in a seismically
active zone and to increase the durability of concrete lining. Similarly, assigning a bed
slope of 1:720 is based on published data on reinforced concrete channels of similar
capacity in hilly terrain (Water Power Engineering by William Barrows).
Category ‘C’ structural concrete is provided for the channel as it will result in substantial
saving in the cost of the Headrace Channel.
Cross-drainage arrangement for the passage of water under the Headrace Channel has
been developed for the biggest nullah crossing the Headrace Channel route. It can be
easily adapted for other nullahs. Similarly, rain channel arrangement for the upslope end
of the channel is based on details provided in USBR publication.
8.4.8 Forebay
The Forebay is a reinforced concrete tank connected to the Headrace Channel by a

transition. It is located at a relatively mild sloping terrain so that a flat terrace can be carved
out on the hill slope and the Forebay placed on it as a free standing structure. The width
of the terrace should be enough to enable a clear space between its wall and the ground
slope. Slope stability measures are addressed in the geotechnical section.
Consultants:
151
The Forebay site has also been chosen to provide relatively short and direct access to
Powerhouse. Consideration is also given to the suitability of alignment of spill pipe, while
deciding on the location of the Forebay.
The hydraulic design of the Forebay includes the following:-
i. Sizing of the Forebay to act as a reservoir during start up of the machine.

ii. Ensuring sufficient capacity to absorb the water hammer shock during sudden
shutting off of machine.
iii. Ensuring of quiescent flow to enable efficient entry into Penstock.
iv. To act as a final settling tank for any sediments before entry into Penstocks.
v. To ensure safe and efficient discharge into Spill Pipe of any excess inflows into the
water conductor system.
The structural calculations include checking the stability of the Forebay tank for earthquake
forces in the transverse direction. The earthquake is assumed to occur under normal
operating conditions. The seismic analysis is carried out in accordance with the procedure
specified in PCA publication “Design of Liquid-Containing Concrete Structures for
Earthquake Forces” and provisions of UBC-97.
The relevant parameters are obtained from relevant chapters of this report.
Design Plate 8.14 presents the hydraulic design of the Forebay tank whereas Design
Plate 8.15 presents the seismic stability calculations for the Forebay tank.
8.4.9 Penstock and Anchor Blocks
Penstock
Steel and Glass Reinforced Plastic were considered for the Penstocks. GRP pipes
appeared to be an attractive option, considering their resistance to corrosion and lower
cost of transport and installation at site. It has special advantage over steel for buried
pipes. Unfortunately, because of the hydraulic requirements, the upper section of the
Penstock is exposed and considering that the project is in a seismically active zone, no
material is a match for steel because of latter’s ductility. In the lower sections, where the
pressures are higher, the greater shell thicknesses required for GRP Penstocks would
make them less economically viable. Hence, it was decided to stick with the tested welded
steel Penstock.
Two 1 m dia. steel Penstock pipes have been chosen to convey the design discharge to
the turbines at the Powerhouse. The procedure for selecting the economical size of
Penstock is given in USBR publication EM-3 (Welded Steel Penstocks). However, this
procedure is not justified at the Feasibility Level Design Stage. Instead, the optimum
Consultants:
152
Penstock diameter is determined using Fahlbusch formula (Hydaulic Structures; 4th edition
by Norake et.al). The calculations are presented in Design Plate 8.16.
Next the pipe shell thickness is determined under various heads, assuming water hammer
increase of 0.50 times the net head. For both, exposed and buried sections, the minimum
shell thicknesses specified by USBR are checked. Corrosion resistance treatment for
Penstock lengths buried under earth is suggested. Design Plate 8.17 presents detailed
calculations.
Approximate head losses due to flow through Penstock and due to bends are computed
in Design Plate 8.18. Results are compared with published values for similar type of
hydroelectric projects.
Anchor Blocks and Supports
The location of Anchor Blocks has been based on the optimum hydraulic gradient line from
the Forebay to entrance into the Powerhouse. Horizontal bends are also kept to a small
number. The Penstock profile also enables long stretches to be buried. However, it has
been ensured that maximum spacing between successive Anchor Blocks does not exceed
150 m in the upper reaches and 100 m in the lower stretch, except, when the Penstock is
buried (High-Head Power Plants by Emil Mosonyi, Chapter 93).
The forces on the Anchor Block are calculated in accordance with the formulae given in
the above reference. Two cases are considered:-
 Full flow with water hammer effect included.

 Normal flow with seismic force applied in longitudinal direction.
Checks are applied in both cases against sliding, overturning and bearing capacity failure
of underlying soil. The geotechnical parameters are as per recommendation of the
specialist.
8.4.10 Tailrace Channel
Two reinforced concrete conduits/channels with bed slope 1:10 carry the outflows from the
turbines back into the nullah. The invert levels of the Tailrace Channels at exit from the
Powerhouse have been selected so that under normal operation and annual flood, the
Tailrace Channels discharge freely into the nullah. For a 100 year flood, it is expected that
the water may come up to within 0.5 m of the invert level of the Tailrace at its exit from the
Powerhouse, but will not enter the main waterways of the Powerhouse. As an additional
measure, gates can be installed on each Tailrace Channel.
Consultants:
153
Erosion protection measures are suggested at locations, where the Tailrace Channels
discharge into the nullah.
The design of the Tailrace Channels is empirical, based on study of similar structures
constructed. Hence, no design calculations are presented.
8.4.11 Net Head
The net head available for design is calculated after subtracting the Penstock losses from
the head difference between the Forebay full supply level (which accounts for all losses in
structures upstream of Forebay, including, Intake, Desander and the Headrace) and the
level of Tailrace exit. This works out to 155.39 m.
8.5 PROJECT COLONY
A Project Colony has been proposed about 500 meters NE upstream of Powerhouse on
left bank of Kathai Nullah. The colony falls in the area of Garmanda Village, near Chinari
Town.
8.5.1 Purpose of Project Colony:
 To provide temporary residence to the consultant staff during project execution.

 To provide permanent residence to the operational staff appointed on powerhouse
after the project.
 To provide accommodation for the officials, visiting powerhouse.
8.5.2 Features of Project Colony
Total area of project colony is 3200 m2. It consists of one (01) Rest House of total area
631 m2, Six (06) small housing units, each of total area 121 m2, one (01) Park of total area
454 m2, one (01) Mosque of total area 93.81 m2, two (02) small shops of total area 30.36
m2, two Servant quarters each of total area 69.3 m2, one (01) guard room of total area
14.79 m2, a boundary wall and paved road network of 4m wide and 165 m long. Buildings
will be of brick and concrete masonry. The colony will be provided with electricity, water
supply and sewerage system facilities. Electricity supply to the colony will be from the local
grid as the colony will be constructed before the Powerhouse. As there is no gas supply in
the region, LPG cylinders will be used in the colony.
Access to colony from outside and from colony to Powerhouse will be provided through
paved road network. Plans and Elevations of different colony components are shown in
VOLUME-III as BQB-KHPP-FR-45 to 53.
Consultants:
154
DESIGN PLATES
Consultants:
155
Design Plate 8.1: Routing of Design Flood Discharge through Diversion Structure
Design Data:
Design flood Q100 = 234 m3/s

Maximum elevation to which water can rise without overtopping bank = 1392.75 m.a.s.l
Elevation of overflow section crest = 1390.50 m
Length of overflow section = 25.5 m
Elevation of sluice gate sill = 1386.00 m
No. of sluice gates = 2
Width of sluice gate = 2.5 m
Height of sluice gate = 2 m
Design Calculations:
Two cases are considered for routing of design flood:
Case a) Both sluice gates opened fully.
Discharge over Weir is given by the formula

Qw=CLH3/2
Qw = where
Qw = Discharge over Weir
C = 2.4
L = Length of Weir
H = Head above crest
Discharge through sluice gate is given by the formula
Qg = CDL √2gH where,

Qg = Discharge through sluice gate
g
C = 0.85
L = Width of sluice gate
D = Height of sluice gate
H = Effective head (Difference between u/s and d/s levels)
Assuming the water level to be at elevation 1392.40 m, the discharge over the Weir is
Qw = 2.4x25.5x1.93/2= 160 m3/s
The discharge through two sluice gates is
Qg = 2 x 0.85 x 2.0 x 2.5 x √2 x 9.8 x 4.40 = 79.0 m3/s
Consultants:
156
Hence, capacity of section at water elev. 1392.40 = 160 + 79 = 239 m3/s > Q100 = 234 m3/s.
Freeboard for bank over topping = 1392.75 -1392.40 = 0.35 m.
Case b) One gate fully opened and the other fully shut.
Assuming the water level to be elevation at 1392.60 m the discharge over the Weir is
Qw = 2.4 x25.5x 2.10 = 186.2 m3/s

2
3
2
The discharge over the fish ladder = 2.4 x1.75x2.10 = 12.8 m3/s
The discharge through one sluice gate is
Qg = 0.85x 2.5x 2x √2 x9.8x 4.60 = 40.4 m3/s
Capacity of section at water elev. 1392.60 (0.15 m below top of flood wall) = 186.2+ 12.8+40.4 =
239.4 m3 /s > Q100 = 234 m3/s
Therefore, even with only a single sluice gate opened, the design flood can be routed through
the diversion structure without any overtopping of the flood wall. The freeboard in this case is
0.15 m. In practice, freeboard will be more, as velocity head has been ignored in the
calculations.
References:
1 Guidelines for Hydraulic Design of Small Hydroplants : AHEC, IIT, Roorkee
2 Design of Small Dams : USBR
Consultants:
157
Design Plate 8.2: Hydraulic Design of Overflow Weir.
Design Data:
Overflow Weir crest level = 1390.5 m

Design flood level = 1392.4 m
U/S slope of Weir = 1:3
Flood discharge over Weir = 160 m3/s
Width of overflow Weir = 25.5 m
a) Determination of Weir Profile.
The d/s Weir profile is calculated as per the procedure given in USBR publication “Design of
Small Dams”. The equation for determining lower nappe profile is:
n
y x
 K   where K = 0.50 and n = 1.85 for Weirs with u/s slope equal to 1:3.
H H
Substituting these values, the above equation becomes:
1.85
y x
 0.5 
H H
Taking H = 1.90 m, the above equation can be further simplified to:
x  1.96 y0.54
The following values are obtained for the lower nappe profile from the above equation:
x (m) y (m)
0 0
0.82 0.2
1.35 0.5
1.74 0.8
1.96 1.0
2.44 1.5
2.85 2.0
3.21 2.5
3.55 3.0
3.86 3.5
4.14 4.0
b) Energy Dissipation at the Toe of Spillway.
160
The discharge per unit width of Weir, q, is = 6.3 m3/s/m
25.5
Now, the depth and the velocity of flow at the toe of the Weir can be obtained from the
equations:
v1 Cv 2gP  H  y1  and q  y1v1 where
v1 = velocity at toe of Weir y1 = depth at toe of Weir
Cv = 0.94 P = 4.5 m H = 1.9 m
Consultants:
158
 0.94  2  9.8  4.5  1.9  y1 

6.3
Hence,
y1
q 6 .3
By trial and error, y1 = 0.63 m and v1  = = 10 m/s
y1 0.63
The Froude number is given by the formula:
v1 10
F1  = = 4.0
gy1 9.8  0.63
Hence, a USBR type IV basin is appropriate. Provide chute blocks at start of stilling basin.
The sequent depth (y2) required for the formation of hydraulic jump at toe of the Weir is given by
the formula:
y1 0.63
y2  1  8F12  1 =  1  8  42  1 = 2.58 m
2 2
Required length of stilling basin for USBR type IV = 5y2  y1  = 5(2.58 – 0.63) =
9.75 m.
Provided length = 12.6 m > 9.75 m OK
References:
1 Irrigation Engineering by H.M. Raghunath
2 Design of Small Dams; USBR Publication
Consultants:
159
Design Plate 8.3: Structural Stability Analysis of Overflow Weir.
Basic Parameters
Materials
Unit weight of concrete 24 KN/m3
Unit weight of water 9.8 KN/m3
Submerged unit weight of soil 8.3 KN/m3
Foundation
Cohesion 0 Kpa
Angle of internal friction 30 degrees
Reservoir
Normal Operation
Upstream Elevation 1390.50 m
Downstream Elevation 1386.50 m
Flood Level
Seismo-Tectonic
Operating Basis Earthquake
PGA Stability Analysis 0.20g Horizontal direction
0.10g Vertical direction
Load Combinations
1) Usual loading combination

Dead load + Pool at Normal Operating Level + Uplift
2) Unusual loading combination

Dead load + Pool at Normal Operating Level + Uplift + Operating Basis Earthquake
3) Extreme loading combination

Dead load + Pool at Flood Level + Uplift
Check for Seepage Gradient:
Using Bligh’s line of creep theory, seepage/percolation gradient, i , is given by the formula:
Hs
i where Hs = u/s pool level – d/s pool level = 1390.5 -1386.5 = 4 m
L
and L = Total Length of Creep = Creep Length along u/s cutoff + Creep Length along d/s cutoff
+ Length of apron.
L = (3+0.6+2.2) + (3+0.6+2.2) + 20.9 = 32.5 m
4 1
Hence, i  
32.5 8.1
Consultants:
160
1
Permissible i = , where C = Bligh creep coefficient = 7 for rivers with gravel and boulders.
C
1 1
Calculated seepage gradient is < , hence OK
8. 1 7
1) Load Case I – Usual loading combination

Summary of Forces and Moments (Per m length of Weir)
S/No. Description Magnitude Moment Arm Overturning Resisting

Moment Moment
KN m KN-m KN-m
1 Self-weight of Weir 874 14.5 12673
2 Submerged weight of 490 - - -
Soil above sliding plane
(only for sliding stability)
3 Weight of water on u/s 121.5 19 2308.5
Slab
4 Hydrostatic force u/s 99 2.3 227.7
5 Uplift 445 13.5 6007.5
∑ 6235.2 14981.5
Overturning Stability Analysis
Overturning moment = 6235.2 KN-m

Resisting moment = 14981.5 KN-m
FOS (Overturning) = 2.4
Sliding Stability Analysis
Sliding plane at level of bottom of cutoff
Net vertical force = 1040.5 KN

Coefficent of Friction = 0.577
Horizontal force resisting
sliding 600 KN
Sliding Force = 99 KN
FOS (Sliding) = 6.1
Flotation Stability Anaysis
Net downward force = 995.5 KN

Net Upward force = 445 KN
FOS (Flotation) 2.2
Consultants:
161
2) Load Case II– Unusual loading case

Dead load + Pool at Normal Operating Level + Uplift +Operating Basis Earthquake

Moment Moment
KN m KN-m KN-m
3 Weight of water on u/s 121.5 19 2308.5
Slab
5 Earthquake force due 174.6 3 523.8
to Weir (horizontal)
6 Earthquake force due 87.2 14.5 1264.4
to Weir (vertical))
7 Earthquake force due to 16.0 3.3 52.8
pool (horizontal)
8 Earthquake force due to 12.2 21.5 262.3
pool (Vertical)
8 Uplift 445 13.5 6007.5
∑ 8338.5 14981.5


Horizontal force
resisting sliding = 543.0 KN
Sliding Force = 289.6 KN
FOS (Sliding) = 1.88
Flotation Stability Analysis
Net downward force = 995.5 KN

Net upward force = 544.4 KN
FOS (Flotation) = 1.8
Consultants:
162
3) Load Case III – Extreme loading combination


Moment Moment
KN m KN-m KN-m
3 Weight of water on u/s 170 19 3230
Slab
5 Hydrostatic force d/s 19.6 1.5 29.4
6 Weight of water on 260 6.5 1690
apron slab
7 Uplift 1050 13.5 14175
∑ 14597.1 17622.4


Net vertical force = 744 KN

sliding 429.3 KN
FOS (Sliding) = 2.4
Flotation Stability Analysis
Net downward force = 1304 KN

Net upward force = 1050 KN
FOS (Flotation) = 1.2
Consultants:
163
Design Plate 8.4: Hydraulic Design of Undersluiced Section.
Design Data:
Upstream head = 4.5 m

Gate size = 2.5 m x 2.0 m
No. of gates =2
Minimum scour velocity for sediments > 1.5 m/s
The flow through the gate is given by the formula:
Q  CA H 0 where
H0 = Upstream head
A = Area of opening
C = Coefficent of discharge depending on u/s head, opening and d/s conditions
Now H0 = 4.5 m
Assume gate opening = 1.0 m (both gates) and C = 1.6
Q  2  1.6  2.5  1  4.5 = 17.0 m3/s
17
Discharge per unit width = = 3.4 m3/s
5
With gate opening of 1m, the velocity = 3.4 m/s >> 1.5 m/s OK
Consultants:
164
Design Plate 8.5: Structural Stability Analysis of Undersluice.
Basic Parameters
Materials
Unit weight of concrete 24 KN/m3
Unit weight of water 9.8 KN/m3
Foundation
Cohesion 0 Kpa
Angle of internal friction 30 degrees
Reservoir
Normal Operation
Flood Level
Seismo-Tectonic
Operating Basis Earthquake
PGA Stability Analysis 0.20g Horizontal direction
0.10g Vertical direction
Load Combinations
1) Usual loading combination

2) Unusual loading combination

Dead load + Pool at Normal Operating Level + Uplift +Operating Basis earthquake
3) Extreme loading combination

1) Load Case I – Usual loading combination

Dead load + Pool at normal operating level (Gates closed) + Uplift
Summary of Forces and Moments (Per 3.5 m strip)

Moment Moment
KN m KN-m KN-m
1 Self-weight of slab 2200 20.5 45100

2 Self-weight of pier 1200 14 16800
3 Self-weight of breast 135 14 1890
Wall (0.5m)
4 Weight of stop logs, gate 200 14.5 2900
and platform (Estimated)
Consultants:
165

Slab
7 Weight of water on d/s 460 6 2760
slab
8 Hydrostatic force u/s 350 1.5 525
9 Hydrostatic force d/s 17 0.5 8.5
10 Uplift 4300 27 116100
∑ 116625 163900
Overturning moment = 116625 KN-m

Resisting moment = 163900 KN-m

sliding 6229 KN

FOS (Flotation) 2
2) Load Case II – Unusual loading combination

Dead load + Pool at Normal Operating Level (Gates closed) + Uplift + Operating Basis
earthquake

Moment Moment
KN m KN-m KN-m

Wall (0.5m)
Consultants:
166

Slab
slab
9 Hydrostatic force d/s 17 0.5 8.5
Horizontal earthquake force
10 due 260 7 1820
to pier + breast wall
11 Vertical earthquake force due 130 13.7 1781
to pier + breast wall
Horizontal earthquake force
12 due 74 2.5 185
to pool
13 Vertical earthquake force due 333 27.3 9091
to pool
14 Uplift 4300 27 116100
∑ 129502 163900


sliding 5962 KN
FOS (Sliding) = 8.9

FOS (Flotation) 1.8
3) Load Case III – Extreme loading combination


Moment Moment
KN m KN-m KN-m
Wall (0.5m)
Consultants:
167

Slab
slab
9 Hydrostatic force d/s 170 1.5 255
10 Uplift 5600 27 151200
∑ 152740 212500


sliding 7204 KN

FOS (Flotation) 2
Consultants:
168
Design Plate 8.6: Stability Analysis of Floodwall
Design Data:
Unit weight of water = 9.8 KN/m3

Unit weight of concrete = 24 KN/m3
Unit weight of backfill = 20.4 KN/m3
Angle Ø for backfill = 35 Degrees
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure = 0.4
(Lateral earth pressure calculated by Rankine's formula)
Coefficient of sliding friction = 0.5
Normal operating level = 1390.5 m
Top of backfill = 1390.5 m
Seismic coefficient = 0.20 g
(Earthquake force due to backfill calculated using See-Whitman formula)
Load Conditions:
a) Normal - Pool at normal operating level + earth pressure (unsaturated backfill) + uplift
b) Unusual - Pool at drawdown + earth pressure (submerged backfill) + uplift
c) Extreme - Pool at normal operating level + earth pressure (unsaturated backfill) + uplift +
earthquake (operating basis)
a) Normal - Pool at Normal Operating Level + Earth Pressure (Unsaturated Backfill) +

Uplift
Summary of Forces and Moments (per m length of wall)
S/No Description Magnitude Moment arm Overturning Resisting

moment moment
KN m KN-m KN-m
1 Weight of wall stem 63 2.75 173.3

2 Weight of wall base 139.2 2.75 382.8
3 Weight of wall key 25.2 0.75 18.9
4 Weight of water on base 34.5 1.17 40.4
slab
5 Weight of backfill on 71.9 4.33 311.3
base slab
6 Hydrostatic force on wall 30.6 0.833 25.5
7 Lateral earth pressure on 25.5 0.833 21.2
wall
8 Uplift 67.4 1.83 123.3
∑ 144.5 933.3
Consultants:
169


sliding 133.2 KN
FOS (Sliding) = 31
b) Unusual - Pool at Drawdown + Earth Pressure (Submerged Backfill) + Uplift
S/No. Description Magnitude Moment arm Overturning Resisting

moment moment
KN m KN-m KN-m
base slab
wall (submerged backfill)
6 Uplift 67.4 3.67 247.4
∑ 283.8 886.3


sliding 115.95 KN
FOS (Sliding) = 2.7
Consultants:
170
c) Extreme - Pool at Normal Operating Level + Earth Pressure (Unsaturated Backfill)

+ Uplift + Earthquake (Operating Basis)
S/No. Description Magnitude Moment arm Overturning Resisting

moment moment
KN m KN-m KN-m
4 Weight of water on base 34.5 1.17 40.4
slab
base slab
wall
7 Lateral pressure due to 7.3 1.68 12.3
earthquake force
8 Lateral earthquake force 59.7 1.02 60.9
due to wall (backfill on
base slab included)
9 Uplift 67.4 1.83 123.3
∑ 217.7 926.7


sliding 133.2 KN
FOS (Sliding) = 1.4
Consultants:
171
Design Plate 8.7: Hydraulic Design of Intake.
Design Data:
Design discharge = 3 m3/s

Normal operating pond level = 1390.50 m
Crest level of Intake Weir = 1388.50 m
Width of opening = 1.6 m
Height of opening = 0.6 m
The discharge though Intake is given by the formula:
Q= CDL(√2g(H− h))
Where,
Q = Discharge through opening

C = 0.65
D = Height of opening = 0.6 m
L = Width of opening = 1.6 m
H = Head at centre of opening = 1.7 m
h = Head losses due to trash rack, entrance = 0.2 m
Q= 0.65 x 0.6x1.6 x √2x 9.8x(1.7− 0.2)

= 3.4 m3/s > Qdesign = 3 m3/s
References:
1. Design of Small Dams: USBR
Consultants:
172
Design Plate 8.8: Hydraulic Design of Transition Connecting Intake to Desander.
Design Data:

Bed level in main pond = 1386.0 m
Normal operating pond level = 1390.5 m
Bed level at start of transition = 1386.60 m
The Intake has been designed as semi-modular outlet. The modular limit for this type of structure
has been taken as 0.65.
Depth of water u/s of the Intake = 1390.5 -1386.0 = 4.5 m

Depth of water d/s of the Intake after energy dissipation = 0.65 x 4.5 = 2.9 m
Hence, water level at entrance to transition = 1386.60 + 2.90 = 1389.50
Cross-sectional area at transition entrance = 2.5 x 2.9 = 7.25 m2
Velocity (transition entrance) = 3/7.25 = 0.41 m/s
Cross-sectional area at transition exit = 3 x 3.2 = 9.6 m2
Velocity (transition exit) = 3/9.6 = 0.31 m/s
References:
1. Fluid Mechanics for Civil Engineers by N. B. Webber
Consultants:
173
Design Plate 8.9: Calculation to Show the Impact of Silt Laden Water on Energy Loss in
Open Channel Flow.
Design Data:
Channel length = 2880 m

Channel lining = Smooth concrete; n = 0.0161
Width of channel =3m
Depth of flow in channel = 1.75 m
Assuming an absolutely straight reach of channel, the discharge is given by Manning’s formula:
2 1
AR 3 S 2
Q where Q = Design discharge = 6 m3/s
n
A  3 1.75 = 5.25 m2
A
R where P(Wetted Perimeter) = 2 1.75  3 = 6.5 m
P
5.25
R = 0.81
6 .5
H
Now S  where H = Head loss and L = Length of channel = 2880 m.
L
For clear water or water carrying small silt load , n = 0.0161
For water carrying heavy silt load, n = 0.0161 + 0.002 = 0.0181
Now considering case i) n = 0.0161
1
H 2 6  0.0161

2880 5.25  0.813
2
6  0.0161 53.7
1
H 2  = 1.14
5.25  0.81
2
3
H = 1.3 m
For case ii) n = 0.0181
6  0.0181 53.7
1
H 2
= 1.28
5.25  0.813
2
H = 1.64 m
0.34
Hence, the additional loss of head in silt laden water =  100 = 26 %.
1 .3
Consultants:
174
Design Plate 8.10: Hydraulic Design of Desander
Design Data:
No. of Chambers = 2
Design discharge per chamber = 3 m3/s
Target sediment size > 0.2 mm
Sediment storage zone top elevation = 1385.25 m
Effective cross-sectional area at end of Desander u/s transition = 5x (1389.25–1385.25) = 5x4 =

20 m2
Velocity of water at entrance to settling zone = 3/20 = 0.15 m/s
Required flow velocity in Desander is given by the formula:
U < ad0.5 where ,

U = Velocity through tank (m/s)
d = Target sediment size in mm
a = 0.44 for 1.0 mm > d > 0.10 mm
U < 0.44 x 0.20.5= 0.196 m/s
Actual velocity = 0.15 m/s < 0.196 m/s

Required depth of basin D=Q/BU
where,
Q = Discharge through chamber
B = Width of chamber
U = Desired velocity
Required depth D= 3/(5x0.196) = 3.06 m

Provided depth = 4 m > 3.06 m
Fall velocity ωo for d = 0.2 mm (Temperature = 10o C) = 2.5 cm/s = 0.025 m/s (Page 39, AHEC
Guidelines)
Adjust for effects of turbulence

ω = ωo – ω' where
ω' = αU and α = 0.132/D0.5 = 0.132/40.5 = 0.066
ω' = 0.066 x 0.15 = 0.01
ω = 0.025 – 0.01 = 0.015 m/s
Detention time t = D/ω = 4/0.15 = 267 s

Length of setlling basin L = Ut = 0.15 x 267 = 40 m
References:
1. Guidelines for Hydraulic Design of Small Hydroplants: AHEC, IIT, Roorkee
Consultants:
175
Design Plate 8.10.1: Hydraulic Design of Desander for Flows Under Low Temperature
Conditions (Near 00 C).
Design Data:
No. of Chambers = 2
Design Discharge per Chamber = 1.0 m3/s (During low flows months in winter: See Hydraulic
Section)
Target sediment size ≥ 0.2 mm
Sediment storage zone top elevator = 1385.25 m
Effective Cross-Sectional Area at end of Desander u/s transition = 20 m2.

Velocity of water at entrance to setting zone = 1/20 = 0.05 m/s
Required flow velocity = 0.196 m/s (Design Plate 8.10)
Actual velocity = 0.05 m/s < 0.196 m/s
Required depth of basin

D = 1/(5X0.196) = 1.62 m
Provided depth = 4 m > 1.02 m
Fall Velocity W 0 for d = 0.2 mm (Temperature = 00 C)

= 1.5 cm/s = 0.015 m/s (page 39, AHEC Guidelines)
Adjust for effects of turbulence

W = W 0 –W’ where,
W’ = αU and α = 0.132/D0.5 = 0.132/40.5 = 0.066
W’ = 0.066 X 0.05 = 0.0033
W = 0.015 – 0.0033 = 0.0117 m/s
Detention time t = D/W = 4/0.0117 = 342 s
Length of settling basin

L = Ut = 0.05 x 342 = 17.1 m
Hence the length of settling basin corresponding to Q = 3 m3/s and temperature = 100 C,
Governs (40 m = Design Plate 8.10)
Consultants:
176
Design Plate 8.11: Desander Flushing Frequency.
Design Data:
Suspended sediment load at Weir Site = 4670 Kg/day
Lu
The suspended sediment attracted to Undersluiced section, W u = K W where
Lw
Lu= Length of Undersluiced section = 6 m

Lw= Length of Weir = 33 m
W = Suspended sediment load at Weir Site = 4670 Kg/day
K = Factor to account for assymetrical distribution of Weir sediment across Undersluices = 1.2
6
Wu  1.2   4670 =1019 Kg/day
33
Assuming that 75 % of the suspended sediment in the Undersluiced section enters the head race,
through Intake, the load for the Desander = 0.75 x 1019 =764 Kg/day.
The load for each chamber = 0.5 x 764 = 382 Kg/day. Assuming, a sediment density of 1500
382
Kg/m3, the volume of sediment deposited each day = = 0.25 m3.
1500
The effective sediment capacity for each chamber (40 m long x 5 m wide x 0.6m deep (average
depth of storage zone) = 50 m3.
50
This capacity will be reached in = 200 days.
0.25
Hence, the Desander will need to be flushed every 6 months or so. The two chambers can be
flushed on different days, enabling uninterrupted partial flow to be available for power generation.
Consultants:
177
Design Plate 8.12: Stability Analysis of Desander
Design Data:
a) General

Unit weight of soil = 20.4 KN/m3
Coefficent of lateral earth pressure = 0.4
Allowable bearing capacity of foundation material = 300 KN/m2
Full supply level in Desander = 1389.25 m
Top elevation of backfill = 1387.0 m
Base level of Desander = 1382.10 m
b) Seismic
UBC-97 rigid method is used for earthquake force calculation in Desander. The earthquake
force due to backfill is calculated by Seed-Whitman formula.
Seismic coefficient C = 0.20
Importance factor I = 1.0
As per UBC-97, section 1634.4, tanks with supported bottoms at, or below grade can be treated
as rigid structures.
In case of long Desander structure, the analysis will be carried out considering a unit length of 1
m, as is done with retaining walls.
Seismic lateral force is given by the formula:
F  CIW
C = Seismic coefficient = 0.20
I = Importance factor = 1.0
W = Weight of tank + contained water per m length of Desander
Weight of concrete walls W1 =

0.6  0.9
24  [{2  ( )  1.3}  {2  4.9  0.6}  {4  3  0.6}  {2  2  0.6}  {7.9  0.8}] = 570 KN
2
Weight of soil under the Desander above line through its base
1
W2 = 20.4  (4   2.1  2.1) = 180 KN
2
Consultants:
178
Weight of water in Desander per m length

(5  1.5)
W3 = 9.8  [{2  5  5.15}  {2   1.5}] = 600.3 KN
2
W = W1 + W2 + W3 = 570 + 180 + 600.3 = 1350.3 KN
F  0.2 1.0 1350.3 = 270 KN
Location of seismic force = 3.95 m above line through Desander base
Force due to lateral earth pressure, R is given by Rankine’s formula:
1
R KH 2
2
Where,
K = Coefficent of lateral earth pressure = 0.4
γ = Unit weight of backfill = 20.4 KN/m3
H = Depth of backfill pressing against Desander wall = 1387 – 1382.1 = 4.9 m
1
R  0.4  20.4  4.92 = 98 KN
2
Location of lateral earth pressure = 1.63 m above tank base.
Earthquake force due to earth pressure, R1, is calculated using Seed-Whitman’s formula.
3 a
R1  ( )( max )H 2 
8 g
R1  0.375  0.20  4.9 2  20.4 = 36.7 KN
Location of earthquake force due to earth pressure = 0.6  4.9 = 2.94 m above Desander base.
Checking for Desander overturning (Ignoring the passive resistance of backfill)
M overturn  {( 270  3.95)  (98  1.63)  (36.7  2.94)} = 1334.1 KN-m
Mresist  1350.3  6 = 8103.6 KN-m
8103.6
FOS against overturning = = 6.0
1334.1
Checking for bearing capacity
Soil reaction V = 1350.3 KN

(8103.6  1334.1)
Location of soil reaction = = 5.0 m from outer edge of Desander
1350.3
Consultants:
179
Eccentricity, e = 6 – 5.0 = 1.0 m
V Ve V Ve
Now q max   and q min   where
A Z A Z
q max = Maximum base pressure and qmin = Minimum base pressure
A = Area of cross-section = 12x1 = 12m2
1  12 2
Z = Section modulus = = 24 m3
6
1350.3 1350.3  1.0
q max   = 168.8 KN/m2 < 300 KN/m2 OK
12 24
1350.3 1350.3  1.0
q min   = 56.3 KN/m2 > 0. Hence, no tension develops anywhere below
12 24
the Desander.
Checking floating stability of Desander.
Assuming water to be at level of backfill and the Desander empty, the uplift force on the
Desander = 9.8 x 4.9 x 12 = 576 KN
Weight of empty Desander + soil enclosed by it = 570 + 180 = 750 KN
750
Hence, FOS against flotation of Desander = = 1.3 > 1.1 OK
576
References:
1 Design of Liquid Containing Concrete Structures for earthquake forces by Javeed A. Munshi;
PCA Publication.
2 Foundation Engineering Handbook by Robert W Day.
Consultants:
180
Design Plate 8.13 : Hydraulic Design of Headrace
Design Data:
Length of channel = 2880 m

Longitudnal bed slope = 1 : 720
Design flow = 6.0 m3/s
Freeboard = 0.5 m
From Manning's formula:
Q = A/n x R2/3 x S1/2 where,
Q = Discharge
A = Cross-sectional area of flow
R = Hydraulic radius
S = Channel slope
n = 0.018 (For concrete channels, with normal trowel finish, and making allowance for presence
of fine sediments in water and the meandering nature of head race. - Open channel hydraulics by
Ven Te Chow)
6 = A/0.018 x R2/3 x (1/720)1/2

6 = A/0.018 x R2/3 x 0.0726
AR2/3 = (6x0.018/0.03726) = 2.9
Assuming a rectangular section, 2.5 m x 2 m, with depth of flow 1.5 m.
A = 2.5 x 1.5 = 3.75 m2

R=0.75/(2.5+2x1.5) = 3.75/5.5 = 0.68
AR2/3 = 3.75 x 0.682/3 = 3.75 x 0.77 = 2.89
Hence, a rectangular concrete section 2.5 m wide x 2 m high with depth of flow of 1.5 m is
adequate.
Flow velocity = 6/(2.5 x 1.5) = 1.6 m/s
A rectangular section 3 m wide x 2.25 m high with depth of flow of 1.75 m is chosen.
Flow velocity = 6/(3x1.75) = 1.14 m/s
Consultants:
181
The choice of somewhat larger section than required has been made, based on the following
considerations:
 Category C concrete is used for head race for economy purposes. The lower velocity will
increase the durability of the lining.
 The head race has a meandering nature because of topography. The lower velocity will
reduce the head losses between the Desander and the Forebay.
 A wider section gives more stability against earthquake forces.
References:
1. Open Channel Hydraulics by Ven Te Chow

2. Water Power Engineering by H. K. Barrows
Consultants:
182
Design Plate 8.14: Hydraulic Design of Forebay Tank.
Design Data:

Plan dimensions of Forebay = 21 m x 11 m
Full supply level in Forebay = 1385.00
Top invert level of Penstock = 1379.75
Crest level of escape Weir = 1385.50
Width of escape Weir = 6 m
Penstock diameter = 1 m
Flushing gate size = 1 m x 1m
Checks:
1. Required live storage volume of Forebay = 6 x 120 = 720 m3 (equivalent to 2 minutes of

plant discharge for Mechanical governors)
2. Available volume = (1385 -1379.75) x9x11 + 0.5x(1385–1379.75) x 9.35x11 =790 m3 >
720 m3
3. Live storage drawdown below crest of escape Weir = 1389.5 -1379.75 = 5.75 m > 2 m
4. Location of Penstock in face perpendicular to flow - Not possible due to topography.
5. Water elevation above Penstock top invert level (Normal operation) = 1385 -1379.75
= 5.25 m > 4 x dia. of Penstock.
6. Full discharge capacity of escape Weir Q=CAH3/2 where,
C = 1.7 ; A = 6 x 0.6 = 3.6 m2 ; H=1m
Q=1.7x3.6x13/2 = 6.1 m3/s > plant discharge.
Hence, the escape Weir can safely divert flow to the spill pipe, in case of one or both valves being
closed.
References:
1. Guidelines for Hydraulic Design of Small Hydroplants: AHEC, IIT, Roorkee

Consultants:
183
Design Plate 8.15 : Seismic Stability Analysis of Forebay Tank
Design Data:
a) General:
External dimensions of Forebay = 20.45 m x 11 m x 8.95 m
Depth of water = 6.75 m
Wall thickness = 0.5 m
Base slab thickness = 0.7 m
Allowable bearing capacity = 300 KN/m2
Coefficent of friction against sliding = 0.5
b) Seismic:
UBC-97 rigid structure method will be used for analysis.
Seismic coefficient = 0.20 (Geophysicist report)
Importance factor = 1.0
As per UBC-97, section 1634.4, tanks with supported bottoms at or below grade can be treated
as rigid structures.
Design seismic lateral force is given by the formula:
FCI W where,
C = Seismic coefficient = 0.20
I = Importance factor = 1.0
W = Weight of tank + contained water
W= Weight of bottom slab + Weight of Walls + Weight of Water
Weight of bottom slab = 20.45 11 0.7  24 = 3779 KN

Weight of long walls = 2  20.45  8.95  0.5  24 = 4393 KN
Weight of short wall = 111 8.95  0.5  24 = 1181 KN
6.75
Weight of water = 12.65  10  6.75  9.8  7.8  10   9.8 = 10948 KN
2
W = 3779 + 4393 + 1181 + 10948 = 20301 KN
Considering, earthquake acting in shorter direction, the seismic force equals:

F = 0.20 x 1 x 20301 = 4060 KN
It is assumed to act at mid height of tank.
Consultants:
184
Checks:
a) Against sliding:
Sliding force = 4060 KN

Resisting force = µW = 0.5 x 20301 = 10151 KN
Re sisting Force 10151
FOS against sliding = = = 2.5
Sliding Force 4060
b) Against overturning:
 8.95 
Overturning moment Mot = 4060x  0.7  = 21011 KN-m
 2 
Resisting moment Mr = 20301x5.5 = 111656 KN-m
Mr 111656
FOS against overturning = = = 5.3
Mot 21011
c) For bearing capacity failure:
Taking moments about toe of the Forebay tank, the location of foundation reaction, V equals :
(Mr  Mot)
=
111656  21011) = 4.5.m from toe
V 20301
Eccentricity e = 5.5 – 4.5 = 1.0 m
The maximum and minimum bearing pressures are given by :
V Ve V Ve
q max   and q min  
A Z A Z
Where A = Base area and Z is its section modulus.
20.45  11  11
A = 20.45 x 11 = 225 m2 Z= = 412.4 m3
6
20301 20301  1.0
Hence, q max   = 90 + 49.2 = 139.2 KN/m2 < 300 KN/m2
225 412.4
20301 20301  1.0
q min   = 90 – 49.2 = 40.8 KN/m2 > 0 (No tension develops)
225 412.4
References:
1 Design of Liquid Containing Concrete Structures for earthquake forces by Javeed A. Munshi;
PCA Publication.
Consultants:
185
Design Plate 8.16: Determination of Penstock Diameter.
Design Data:
Rated capacity of Turbine P = 4000 Kw

Net head H = 156 m
Design Calculation:
In lieu of detailed economic analysis, the economic diameter of Penstock (to within ± 10 %) is
determined using Fahlbusch formula:
D=0.52H-0.17 (P/H)0.43
D=0.52 x 156-0.17 x (4000/156)0.43
D = 0.89 m ± 0.09
As larger diameter means smaller energy losses, the chosen diameter
D = 0.89 + 0.09 = 0.98 m ~ 1 m
References:
1. Hydraulic Structures 4th Edition by Novak, Moffat, Nalluri and Narayanan
Consultants:
186
Design Plate 8.17: Determination of Penstock Shell Thickness.
Design Data:
Design discharge Q = 3 m3/s

Length of Penstock L = 550 m
Head at entrance to Powerhouse (ignoring losses in Penstock) = 163 m
Allowable tensile stress for steel Pi = 100 N/mm2
Joint efficiency for welded steel pipe nj = 0.9
L/H = 550/163 = 3.37 < 5

Hence, no additional protective devices are needed and the water hammer pressures will be
absorbed by the Penstock shell.
The formula for Penstock shell thickness is:
e=PD/2Pinj
where,
e = Pipe shell thickness in mm
P = Internal pressure, including, water hammer effect in N/mm2
D = Internal diameter of pipe in mm
Pi = Allowable hoop stress
nj = Joint efficiency for pipe
Two shell thicknesses have been selected for Penstock pipe. The first thickness applies to the
pipe section between the Forebay to anchor block 3 (Drawing BQB-KHPP-FR-27). The second
thickness is for the pipe section between anchor block 3 and the Powerhouse. Calculations for
both are presented.
a) Pipe thickness at entry into Powerhouse.
Net head H = 163 m

Head with 30 % increase for water hammer (AHEC guidelines : Page )
H' = 163 + 0.3 x 163 = 163 + 49 = 212 m

P = 9.81 x 212 = 2079.2 KN/m2 = 2.08 N/mm2
e=2.08x1000/2x100x0.9 = 11.6 mm. Say,

e = 12 mm
Consultants:
187
b) Pipe thickness at anchor block 3
Head at anchor block 3 = 80 m

Head with 30 % increase for water hammer H' = 80 + 0.3 x 80 = 104 m
P = 9.81 x 104 = 1020.2 KN/m2 = 1.02 N/mm2

e = 1.02x1000/2x100x0.9 = 5.7 mm. Say,
e = 8 mm
References:
1. Hydraulic Structures 4th Edition by Novak, Moffat, Nalluri and Narayanan

3. Guidelines for hydraulics Design of small Hydroplants; IHEC, IIT, Roorkee.
Consultants:
188
Design Plate 8.18: Head Losses in Penstock.
Design Data:
Design Discharge between Forebay and Tailrace exit, H = 165.05 m

No of pipe sections for Penstock -1 = 3
No of pipe sections for Penstock -2 = 3
Penstock No. Pipe Section Length (m) Diameter

1 1 150 1.0
1 2 147 1.0
1 3 145 1.0
2 1 125 1.0
2 2 182 1.0
3 3 135 1.0
Change of directions
Penstock No. Bend Location Direction Change Angle

(Degrees)
1 1 Anchor Block-1 Vertical 15
1 2 Anchor Block-2 Horizontal 10
2 2 Anchor Block-2a Horizontal 17
2 3 Anchor Block-2a Vertical 14
Head loss due to friction in Penstock flow is given by the formula:
hf = 0.08 x FLQ2/d5 where,
hf = Head loss due to friction

F = Friction factor (to be obtained from Moody’s diagram).
L = Length of Pipe
Q = Discharge
d = Pipe diameter
Consultants:
189
To use Moddy’s diagram, we calculate 1.27 x Q/d = 3.81,

and K/d = 0.0001 (where, K = surface roughness = 0.1 mm for smooth steel)
From Moody’s diagram f = 0.012. As the pipe diameter is the same (1m), f, for all sections =
0.012.
Calculating head loss due to friction for each pipe section for Penstock 1 and 2.
Penstock Section f L1 (m) Q (m3/s) D (m) Hf (m)

1 1 0.012 125 3 1 1.3
1 2 0.012 182 3 1 1.27
1 3 0.012 135 3 1 1.25
Σ 3.82 m
Penstock Section f L1 (m) Q (m3/s) D (m) Hf (m)

2 1 0.012 125 3 1 1.08
2 2 0.012 182 3 1 1.57
2 3 0.012 135 3 1 1.17
Σ 3.82 m
Head Loss due to Contraction, bends etc. is given by the formula:
ht = V2/2g (Kc + Kb) where,

ht = Head Loss due to the Contraction and bens.
V = Velocity of water in Penstock = 3.82 m/s
Kc = Coefficient due to Contraction = 0.5 at entrance into Penstock from Forebay.
Kb = Coefficient due to bends (summing up change of directions form Forebay to Powerhouse.
Kb = 0.45 for Penstock -1.
Kb = 0.50 for Penstock-2.
ht (Penstock-1) = 3.822/2 x 9.8 x (0.5+0.45) = 0.71 m.

ht (Penstock-2) = 3.822/2 x 9.8 x (0.5+0.5) = 0.75 m.
Total head loss for Penstock-1 = 3.82 + 0.71 = 4.53 m.

Total head loss for Penstock-2 = 3.82 + 0.75 = 4.57 m.
Total head loss for 2 Penstocks = 4.53 + 4.57 = 9.1 m.
% head loss = 9.1/165.05 x 100= 5.5% < 10% O.K.
References:
1. Designing and Building Mini and Micro Hydropower Schemes by Luis Rodngez and
Teodoro Sanchez.
2. Fluid Mechanics for Civil Engineering by N.B.Webber.
Consultants:
190
Consultants:
Barqaab Consulting Services (Pvt.) Ltd. 191

Feasibility Report Kathai-II Hydropower Project Project Civil Design

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

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

Feasibility Report Kathai-II Hydropower Project Project Civil Design

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

M/s Agro Industrial Solutions Feasibility Report

Kathai-II Hydropower Project Project Civil Design

CHAPTER – 8 PROJECT CIVIL DESIGN

8.2 OVERVIEW OF KATHAI-II HYDROPOWER PROJECT

8.3 MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT

8.3.1 Diversion Weir

The Diversion Weir consists of a 25 m wide overflow section, a 12 m wide Undersluiced

8.3.2 Intake Structure

8.3.4 Flood Wall

8.3.5 Headrace Channel

A 2.9 Km long reinforced concrete rectangular channel with internal dimensions, 3 m x

8.3.8 Tailrace Channels

8.4 DESIGN OF HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES

8.4.1 Diversion Works

A permanent structure consisting of an overflow type concrete Weir and an Undersluiced

8.4.2 Overflow Weir

The seepage gradient is determined using Bligh’s Creep Theory.

Structural Stability Analysis

The following load combinations are considered:

 Normal – Pool at normal operating level + Uplift + Silt pressure

Design Plate 8.4 presents the relevant calculations.

Structural Stability Analysis

See the subsection on structural stability analysis of Overflow Weir.

Design Plate 8.5 presents the stability analysis.

8.4.4 Flood Wall

i. Normal – Pool at normal operating level + earth pressure + uplift.

Design Plate 8.6 presents the stability analysis.

8.4.5 Intake Structure

8.4.7 Headrace Channel

The Forebay is a reinforced concrete tank connected to the Headrace Channel by a

The hydraulic design of the Forebay includes the following:-

i. Sizing of the Forebay to act as a reservoir during start up of the machine.

8.4.9 Penstock and Anchor Blocks

Anchor Blocks and Supports

 Full flow with water hammer effect included.

8.4.10 Tailrace Channel

8.4.11 Net Head

8.5 PROJECT COLONY

8.5.1 Purpose of Project Colony:

 To provide temporary residence to the consultant staff during project execution.

8.5.2 Features of Project Colony

Design flood Q100 = 234 m3/s

Two cases are considered for routing of design flood:

Case a) Both sluice gates opened fully.

Discharge over Weir is given by the formula

Discharge through sluice gate is given by the formula

Qg = CDL √2gH where,

Qw = 2.4x25.5x1.93/2= 160 m3/s

The discharge through two sluice gates is

Qg = 2 x 0.85 x 2.0 x 2.5 x √2 x 9.8 x 4.40 = 79.0 m3/s

Qw = 2.4 x25.5x 2.10 = 186.2 m3/s

The discharge through one sluice gate is

Qg = 0.85x 2.5x 2x √2 x9.8x 4.60 = 40.4 m3/s

Design Plate 8.2: Hydraulic Design of Overflow Weir.

Overflow Weir crest level = 1390.5 m

a) Determination of Weir Profile.

b) Energy Dissipation at the Toe of Spillway.

 0.94  2  9.8  4.5  1.9  y1 

Provided length = 12.6 m > 9.75 m OK

Design Plate 8.3: Structural Stability Analysis of Overflow Weir.

1) Usual loading combination

2) Unusual loading combination