DESIGN FLOOD ESTIMATION FOR

TEHRI DAM USING DETERMINISTIC AND

STATISTICAL APPROACHES

A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY-
in
HYDROLOGY

AJAY KUMAR
G~ ,IT RAL C AB
s D ~~J
ACC N G Z1r7 g
ía
01 TECN,,

o ~y LL~ SS~j99
o

DEPARTMENT OF HYDROLOGY
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE -247 667 (INDIA)
JUNE, 2012
 CANDIDATES DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work which is being presented in this dissertation entitled

"DESIGN FLOOD ESTIMATION FOR TEHRI DAM USING DETERMINISTIC

AND STATISTICAL APPROACHES" in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

award of the degree of Master of Technology in Hydrology, submitted in the Department

of Hydrology, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee is an authentic record of

my own work carried out during the period from July 2011 to June 2012 under the

guidance of Dr. N. K. Goel, Professor, Department of Hydrology, Indian Institute of

Technology Roorkee.

The matter embodied in this Thesis has not been submitted by me for the award of any

other degree.

Date:. June, 2012

r
Place: Roorkee (Ajay kv)

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my
knowledge.

Dr. N. K. oel
Professor
Department of Hydrology
I.I.T. Roorkee-247667
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge my deep obligation to my guide Dr. N. K. Goel, Professor,

Department of Hydrology, IIT Roorkee, for his continuous guidance and his patient

welcome whenever I approached him regarding any problem, which paved me on the path

to carry out this dissertation.

I cannot forget to recall with my heartiest regard, the ever ending heartfelt stream of

caring and tender of love, which my respected parents bestowed upon me. It was the power

of their blessings, which gave me strength, courage and confidence to materialize my

dreams.

I would like to extend thanks to all non-teaching staffs of the Department of

Hydrology (DOH), IIT Roorkee for their cordial cooperation and necessary helps provided

from time to time.

I gratefully acknowledge Er. Neeraj Agrawal, Tehri Hydro Development corporation

ltd., who provided me a valuable information and understanding about the Tehri project.

Thanks are also due to my wife for her moral support, as well as to my friends for

their help and encouragement.

(Ajay kumar)
 SYNOPSIS
Design flood is an important hydrological aspect which needs careful assessment for
planning and design of a storage project., For these hydrological studies long term rainfall
and discharge data are required. When the project for Tehri dam was first conceived very
scanty data was available in respect of rainfall and river discharge at Tehri dam site. In
absence of adequate data different statistical/conceptual approaches were used to make
assessment as regards the water availability and maximum design flood at Tehri.
Subsequently additional river discharge data has become available. Design flood has
therefore been updated, taking into account this additional data. In this thesis the assessment
about value of maximum design flood made earlier has been rechecked by deterministic and
statistical approaches.

The available daily data of rainfall and discharge is not sufficient for estimating
design flood. In absence of hourly rain fall and discharge data, frequency analysis is applied
to AFS to get 1000 years return period flood which equivalent to design PMF. In
deterministic approach design storm is selected. After adjustment of design storm and its
critical sequencing, it is applied to design unit hydrograph of the basin to get the direct
surface run-off hydrograph. As short duration discharge data of flood is not available, SUH
has been derived. Two approaches for generation of SUH have been considered and
probable maximum flood peak of 13700 m3/s and 14260 m3/s were obtained by adding base
flow/snow melt to the DSRO which are comparable to the previously adopted design value
of 15540 m3/s: The PMF computed on the basis of statistical approach design flood of
10000 Yr return flood works out to 6886 m3/s. This value is corresponding to Pearson type
III distribution which fits well to the AFS. Selected design flood value is 14260 m3/s and
hence PMF needs no revision.

In this study, with the help of ArcGIS software physiographic analysis has been done
for the catchment area and all the parameters required for generating the synthetic unit
hydrograph were obtained. Design storm value of 20.5 cm has been derived from analysis
of 42 years daily rainfall data.

Fit
Table of Contents
CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION ............................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... ii
SYNOPSIS....................................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES
.............................................................. ...................................................................................... vi
LISTOF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
........................................................................................................................................................ 1•
1.1 General .......................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Tehri dam ...........................................................................................:.......................................1
1.2.1 Technical description of Tehri dam ...:................................................................................. 2
1.2.2 Environmental issues ........................................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Catchment Characteristics and Reservoir ...........................................................................3
1.2.4 Tehri dam spillways .............................................................................................................3
1.3 Organization of thesis .................................................................................................................3
1.4 Objective of the study .............................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................. 5
2.1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Reviews about design flood methods ........................................................................................ 5
2.2.1 Previous Practices in India ............................. ......................................................................5
2.2.2 Current design flood estimation criteria .............................................................................. 6
2.2.3 Current design flood estimation approaches ......................................................................7
2.3 Earlier studies for Tehri .............................................................................................................. 9
2.3.1 Design Flood Studies ........................................................................................................... 9
2.3.1 Estimation of Maximum Design Flood by Frequency Analysis ............................................ 9
2.3. 2 Estimation of Probable Maximum Flood (PM F) ...............................................................12
CHAPTER 3 PHYSIOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
....................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Study area .................................................................................................................................15
3.2 Delineation of Watersheds .......................................................................................................15
3.3 Derivation of parameters for SUH ............................................................................................15
3.4 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................22
iv
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY USED
........................................................................................... ...................................................... 23
4.1 DETERMINISTIC OR HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL APPROACH FOR ESTIMATION OF DESIGN
FLOOD................................................................................................................................................23
4.1.1 Methodology for Deterministic Approach ...........................................................................23
4.1.2 Ungauged Catchments .........................................................................................................23
4.2 COMPUTATION OF FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ..................................................................................26
4.3 Methodology for Probabilistic Statistical Approach ...................................................................26
CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF DATA
.. ........................................................................................................................................... 27
5.1 Data availability .........................................................................................................................:.27
5.2 processing of discharge data .......................................................................................................27
5.2.1 Randomness and homogeneity ....:.......................................................................................31
5.2.2 Results of Trend Analysis Tests ............................................................................................32
5.3 Rainfall analysis ...........................................................................................................................33
o -
5.4 Analysis for PMF by deterministic approach ...............................................................................35
5.4.1 Deign flood computation .....................................................................................................40
5.5 Analysis for design flood by statistical approach ........................................................................44
CHAPTER 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....,..... ........ ........... 47
6.1 Comparison of results and selection of design flood ..............................................................
...47
6.2 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................47
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
:................................................................................................................................................ 49
7.1 Conclusions ................................:.................................................................................................49
7.2 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................49
REFERENCES........,............. .,..."..,,.,,.,, ..............._..,.... 51
APPENDIXA ......................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIXB ......................................................................................................................... 67

V
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Description Page No.

Table2.1 Criteria for dam classification and design flood ...........................................6

Table 2.2: Design flood ................................................................................1 0

Table 2.3 : Peak Floods at Tehri for Various recurrence intervals by different methods .....11

...............................
Table 3.1: Computation for slope S of longest stream .............................................16

Table 3.2: Physiographic parameters for SUH ......................................................16

Table 5.1: Annual flood peak series ..................................................................29

Table 5.2: Statistical Parameters of Annual Flow Series at Tehri ................................3.1

Table 5.3: Summaries of results of randomness tests ..............................................32

Table 5.4: Results of Trend Analysis Tests .........................................................33

Table 5.5: Annual maximum average rainfall ......................................................34

Table 5.6: parameters for SUH ........................................................................36

Table 5.7(a) :SUH ordinates ...........................................................................37

Table 5.7(b) Adjusted 1-hr SUH and 3-hr SUH ordinates ........................................38

Table 5.8: Computation of effective rain fall for 24-hr duration PHIS ..........................40

Table 5.9(a): Ordinates of design flood hydrograph (1st approach) ............................41

Table 5.9(b): Ordinates of design flood hydrograph (2nd approach) ...........................42

Table 5.10: design flood ordinates .............. ..................................................43

Table 5.11: Result of goodness of fit test ............................................................ 44

Table 5.12 Computation of design flood for T year return period ...............................44

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page No.

Fig. 3.1 Location map of study area....................................... ..................................... 1 7

Fig. 3.2 Digital elevation map of study area ................................................................. 18

Fig. 3.3 watershed with snow cover and points on longest streams at contours.......... 19

Fig. 3.4 contour map of the catchment area with contour interval 500 m....................20

Fig. 3.5 Catchment area drainage pattern ..................................................................... 21

Fig 4.1 Flow Chart of Deterministic/Hydro-meteorological Approach for

estimation of design flood ...................................................... ........24

...................
Fig 5.1 Tehri dam catchment area plan showing location of raingauge stations......... 28
Fig 5.2 Annual Flood Series plot............. .................................................................... 30

Fig .5.3(a) SUH for 1st approach ...................................................................................... 39

Fig .5.3(b) SUH for 2"a approach ................. ........................ 39

Fig. 5.3 design flood hydrograph .................................................................................. 43

vu
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
A flood is commonly considered to be an unusually high stage of a river. For a hydraulic
structure due consideration should be given to the design of the structure so as to prevent it
from collapsing and causing further damage by the force of water released from behind the
structure. Hence an estimate of extreme flood flow is required for the design of hydraulic
structures. The magnitude of such flood needs to be estimated in accordance with the
importance of the structure. Proper selection of design flood value is important. While a
higher value would result in an increase in the cost of hydraulic structures, an under-
estimated value shall result in failure of the structure.

The present study has been taken up reassessment of design flood for Tehri dam.
When the Tehri dam project was first conceived very scanty data of rainfall and river
discharge at Tehri dam site were available. The design flood was assessed based on these
scanty data. Subsequently additional river discharge data have become available. Design
flood has been updated, taking into account this additional data using deterministic and
statistical approaches.

1.2 Tehri dam

The Tehri Dam is a multi-purpose rock and earth-fill embankment dam on the Bhagirathi
River. near Tehri in Uttarakhand, India. It is the primary dam of the Tehri .Hydro
Development Corporation Ltd. and the Tehri hydroelectric complex. Phase I was completed
in 2006; the Tehri Dam withholds a reservoir for irrigation, municipal water supply and the
generation of 1,000 MW of hydroelectricity. Two more phases with an additional 400 MW
run-of-the-river and 1,000 MW pumped storage hydroelectricity are under construction.

A preliminary investigation for the Tehri Dam Project was completed in 1961 and its
design was completed in 1972 with a 600 MW capacity power plant based on the study.
Construction began in 1978 after feasibility studies but was delayed due to financial,
environmental and social impacts. In 1986, technical and financial assistance was provided.
by the USSR but this was interrupted years later with political instability. India was forced
to take control of the project and at first it was placed under the direction of the Irrigation
Department of Uttar Pradesh. However, in 1988 the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation
was formed to manage the dam and 75% of the funding was provided by the Federal
1
Government and 25% by the state Government. Uttar Pradesh finances the entire irrigation
portion of the project. In 1990, the project was reconsidered and the design changed to its
current multi-purpose. Construction of the first phase of Tehri Dam was completed in 2006.
The second phase of the project, the Koteshwar Dam, is nearly completed; two out of four
generators are operational. The other two are expected to be commissioned in March 2012
while the pumped storage power plannedis slated for commissioning in February 2016.

1.2.1 Technical description of Tehri dam

The dam is a 260 meters (850 ft) high rock and earth-fill embankment dam. Its length is 575
meters, crest width 20 meters, and base width 1,128 meters. The dam creates a reservoir of
2.6 cubic kilometers with a surface area of 52 square kilometers. The installed hydro
capacity is 1,000 MW along with an additional 1,000 MW of pumped storage
hydroelectricity.

The Tehri Dam and the Tehri Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Power Plant are part of
the Tehri Hydropower Complex which also includes the 400 MW Koteshwar Dam
downstream. The complex will afford irrigation to an area of 270,000 hectares, irrigation
stabilization to an area of 600,000 hectares, and a supply of 1.2x 106 m3 of drinking water
per day to the industrialized areas of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

1.2.2 Environmental issues

The Tehri Dam has been the object of protests by environmental organizations and local
people of the region. In addition to the human rights concerns, the project has spurred
concerns about the environmental consequences of locating a large dam in the fragile
ecosystem of the Himalayan foothills. There are further concerns regarding the dam's
geological stability. The Tehri dam is located in the Central Himalayan Seismic Gap, a
major geologic fault zone. This region was the site of a 6.8 magnitude earthquake in
October 1991, with an epicenter 500 kilometers from the location of the dam. Dam
proponents claim that the complex is designed to withstand an earthquake of 8.4
magnitudes, but some seismologists say that earthquakes with a magnitude of 8.5 or more
could occur in this region. Were such a catastrophe to occur, the potentially resulting dam-
break would submerge numerous towns downstream, whose populations total near half a
million. The relocation of more than 100,000 people from the area has led to protracted
legal battles over resettlement rights.

2
 -Since 2005, filling of the reservoir has led to the reduced flow of Bhagirathi water
from the normal 1,000 cubic feet per second (28 m3/s) to a mere 200 cubic feet per second
(5.7 m3/s). This reduction has been central to local protest against the dam, since the
Bhagirathi is considered part of the sacred Ganges whose waters are crucial to Hindu
beliefs. At some points during the year, the tampering with Bhagirathi waters means this
tributary stops flowing. This has created resentment among many Hindus, as the sanctity of
the Ganges has been greatly compromised for the generation of electricity. Though the
officials say that when the reservoir is filled to its maximum capacity the flow of the river
will again become normal. In spite of concerns and protests, the operation of the Tehri Dam
continues without disruption.

1.2.3 Catchment Characteristics and Reservoir

The catchment area up to the dam site is 7295 km2 out of which 2328 km2 is estimated as
snow bound catchment. It has been assumed that there is perennial snow at 4500 m above
MSL. The maximum and minimum elevation of the catchment area is about 7000 m and
600 m respectively. The catchment of Tehri dam lies in Himalayan region with sparse
vegetations.- The catchment area of river Bhagirathi up to Tehri dam is bonded between
latitudes 300 20' 20" N to 31° 27'30" •N and longitude 78° 9' 15" E to -78° 28' 54" E. The
catchment receives rainfall mostly from south-west monsoon, but distribution is uneven.
Light showers are also received during the winter months. The average annual rainfall
varies from 1016 to 2630 mm. The atmospheric temperature at Tehri varies from 2° C in
January to 40°C in June.

The reservoir area at FRL (Full Reservoir Level) is 42 km2. The reservoir extends up
to Dharasu, which . is about 45 km upstream of dam site on river Bhagirathi and up to
Ghansyali on river Bhilangana, which is about 25 km upstream. Gross and live storages of
the reservoir are 3549 and 2616 MCM.

1.2.4 Tehri dam spillways

Tehri dam spillways have been designed for a maximum flow of 15,540 m3/s. The routed
flood discharge corresponding to MWL of 850 m through the spillways is of the order of
13,040 m3/s.

1.3 Organization of thesis

A brief description about the design flood, Tehri dam, its catchments, importance, technical
description and environmental issues - related with the dam are given in chapter 1. In

3
chapter-2, literature review related to various design flood estimation aspects such as
previous practices used in India, Current design flood criteria, Current design flood
estimation approaches in use and the emerging techniques along with review of earlier
studies for Tehri design flood are presented. Physiographic analysis of the catchment is
given in Chapter-3 from where important parameters required for synthetic unit hydrograph
have been obtained. In Chapter-4, a brief description of methodology used is given. In
Chapter-5 detailed analysis of data for obtaining the design flood estimation and some
details of calculation are kept at last in Appendix. Results and discussion along with
conclusion and recommendations are given in Chapter 6 and 7 respectively.

L4 Objective of the study

The objectives of the study are as follows:

1. Data collection and processing
2. Physiographic analysis of the catchment area
3. Estimation of PMF value using SUH
4. Computation of design flood using statistical approach

4
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 General
Literature review related to design flood estimation aspects such as previous practices used
in India, Current design flood criteria, current• design flood estimation approaches in use and
the emerging techniques along with review of earlier studies for Tehri design flood are
presented in this chapter.

2.2 Reviews about design flood methods

2.2.1 Previous Practices in India
Empirical formulae
During the period 1900-1930, empiricism in hydrology became more evident. During this
period hundreds of empirical formulae were developed in studies by deriving regional
values arrived at on the basis of statistical correlation of observed flood peaks. Some of the-
commonly used formulae for flood estimation in India are Dicken, Ryves and Inglis. The
catchment area of the basin is the only independent variable considered in these formulae.
These formulae do not consider return period. As such these formulae, cannot be used with
any distinction to estimate flood of various frequencies, as may be required by the design.
criteria to be adopted for different type of structures: Further, these formulae did not
consider rainfall characteristics directly, which, undoubtedly; play a very important role in
any flood formation process. Thus these formulae are not 'useful for assessment of peak._:
flood and its hydrograph for large/ important projects where danger to life/property may be--
involved. Nevertheless these formulas are generally being used by many State governments
for minor/medium projects with small catchment area up to around 15.00,Km2.

Determination of design flood estimation using Envelope Curves

In early fifties, Kanwar Singh and Karpov collected data of various Indian Rivers and drew
two envelope curves one to suit basins of southern India and the other for those of northern
and central India. The PMF figures for a number of projects estimated by CWC and other
organizations have been utilized for developing envelope curves for PMF peaks. Three
curves namely; Upper envelope curve,- Average curve and - lower- envelope curve were
developed as follows:

5
 Upper envelopes Q, = 1585 A0.35

Average Line, Qa„ = 398 A°425

Lower envelope, Q, = 100 A°.5

Where, Q is PMF in m3/s and A is catchment area in km2.

These curves have been recommended to be used for prioritizing the existing large
dams for further detailed investigations for dam safety assurance.

Rational Formula
In rational formula, the peak flood due to storm rainfall of a given frequency and specified
duration is expressed as follows:

Q=0.278 CIA

Where, Q is the peak discharge in m3/s, I is the uniform rate of rainfall intensity for a
duration equal to or greater than the time of concentration in mm/hr, and A is the drainage
area in Km2, C is runoff co-efficient representing surface characteristic and ranges between
0 and 1. For an impervious surface C is equal to 1.

2.2.2 Current design flood estimation criteria

Two Indian organizations namely Central Water Commission (CWC) and Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS) have given criteria for design flood estimation. According to the criteria
dams are classified by two parameters, Gross Storage and Hydraulic Head and design flood
will be estimated as follows:

Table2.1 Criteria for dam classification and design flood

Classification Gross Storage, S Hydraulic Head, H Inflow design

(Mm3) (m) flood

Small Between 0.5 and 10 Between 7.5 and 12 100 year flood

Intermediate Between 10 and 60 Between 12 and 30 SPF

Large Greater than 60 Greater than 30 PMF

M
It is assumed that a 10000-year return period flood may be very close to the probable
maximum flood. Similarly, SPF may be considered to be equivalent to a 1000-year return
period flood.

2.2.3 Current design flood estimation approaches .

The commonly used design floods estimation approaches which are currently in use are

i. Probabilistic/Statistical approach
ii. Deterministic/ Hydro-meteorological approach
iii. Regional Flood Frequency approach

2.2.3.1 Probabilistic/Statistical Approach (Index Flood Method)

This approach is based upon flood frequency analysis of either annual flood series or partial
duration series of flood data. For large structures, this approach is used to cross check the
design flood estimated by hydro-meteorological approach. For smaller structures involving
flood estimation up to 50 years return period or less, this approach is used independently
also. The approach has been practiced world-over for more than 50 years.

2.2.3.2 Deterministic/Hydro-meteorological Approach

In the Hydro-meteorological Approach, attempt is made to analyze the causative factors

responsible for production of severe floods. Even though many of the components elude
precise physical definition, the method is found to be very, convenient and sufficiently
accurate for practical purposes. The design flood computation mainly involves estimation of
L-moments based approaches are in vogue. The regional flood formulae for a number of
subzones of a design storm hyetograph. and derivation of catchment response function. The
catchment response function used can be either a lumped system model or a distributed
lumped system model. In the . former, a unit hydrograph is assumed to represent the entire
catchment area and in the distributed model, the catchment is divided into smaller sub-
regions, and the- unit hydrographs of each sub-region applied with channel and/or reservoir
routing will define the catchment response. The main advantage of this method is, it gives a
complete flood hydrograph and this allows making a realistic determination of the
moderating effect while passing through a reservoir or a river reach. The method has certain
limitations also such as requires long term Hydro-meteorological data and knowledge of

,7
rainfall process etc. Hydro-meteorological approach preferably based on site specific
information is suggested for the estimation of design flood of intermediate and large dams,
especially when the storage has a significant effect on modifying the design flood
hydrograph as it flows through the reservoir. In this approach probable maximum storm or
SPS for the same is usually given by India Meteorological Department.

The main steps in determining as described are,

i. Determination of response function i.e. unit hydrograph of the Basins/Sub-

basins
ii. Storm analysis of extreme storms to determine PMP
iii. Computation of design flood hydrograph

Design Storm
Design storm determination is the most important part of the Hydro-meteorological
approach. The design storm can be a SPS or PMP or a T-Year storm.

2.2.3.4 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis

If the annual flood peak discharge series of a site are not available but annual peak values of
nearby sites in the region are available then regional flood frequency approach can be used
for estimation of Design Flood for ungauged basins or sites. USGS index flood method and
India has been developed by Kumar (2009). The identified commonly used methods for
Regional flood frequency analysis are,
I. USGS Method
2. Pooled Curve Method
3. Analytical Method
4. L-moments Approach

0
2.3 Earlier studies for Tehri

2.3.1 Design Flood Studies

Maximum flood discharge of 15300 m3/s was estimated at the stage of project conception in
1969. It was based on empirical approach and on the frequency studies carried out on
annual flood peaks of Raiwala and then reduced to Tehri dam site in proportion to
catchment areas._ The inflow .hydrograph was developed on the basis of 1964 flood
hydrograph at the Girder Bridge. Unit hydrograph approach could not be used due to
inconsistent data of both the run-off and the rainfall.

The study was revised and up-dated from time to time under the guidance of Board
of Consultants for Tehri dam project and the CWC. In the year 1974, Memo No. 2A was
presented before the Board of Consultants proposing a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) of
15540 m3/s. The same was ' adopted in the revised project report of 1979. The Board's
approval was subject to comments from the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) and
CWC. The PMF was re-estimated in. May 198.1 by increasing the one-day rain-fall depth of
24 hrs, rainfall by 15% and 10% as recommended by IMD and CWC respectively. The
revised PMF worked out as 16000 and 15340 m3/s provisionally approved by the Board
earlier. These PMF studies were based on the conventional method of working out unit
hydrograph from the observed hydrographs.

2.3.1 Estimation of Maximum-Design Flood by Frequency Analysis

Design flood has been worked out by frequency analysis approach and reported in
1969 project report. It was reassessed• in detail and a. note was put up to Board of
Consultants for Tehri in June, 1983. The flood frequency studies have been carried out by
the following four methods.

(i) Index station method,

(ii) Log of peaks method,
(iii) Langbein's Log-Deviation method,
(iv) . Regional Flood Frequency Analysis.

In the first three methods, the Raiwala annual flood discharges are transferred to Tehri
dam site in proportion to catchment areas. While in the fourth method, runoff data of other
homogeneous catchments has been made use of Results, obtained by different methods for
various return periods are given in Table 2.1

9
 The design flood studies have been reviewed by the Soviet Consultant and the flood
discharges of different return period for the design of different structures are tabulated
below;

Table 2.2: Design flood

% probability 0.01 0.1 1 2 10

Return- 10,000 1,000 100 50 10

period(years)

Discharge 15540 12850 9600 8620 6300

(m3/sec)

10
 • U 00 O en 'd"
U
00 ..
N
. 00 - M
enr

09 -
--+
• •
--~ •
--~
C

— 00 O

N-00 -I .~-4
.N
Q 4~ rte +r~
' s~ ,"

O~ C3 \O d .~ M 00
00
,, l~ 00 01 . - --
M
.Q rn O C .-
CC ed ay.m, 'i:
• p 4--+ N M 00 00 00
O rn 5 N In O
l~ 00 0i O M
N
R~ b
• A~ C7 ` V
O ~ D
..r
_4 N 00 00
O N1
0 O 00
a+ O v~ N ~D 0
00 000
'.0 00 C' .-r
C— \o
—

O to N O
U_ ~O N

- -
r. . -4

— c~ 0) 01 'fit' 00
E

l~ N vl CV
o0 .-~ p °
Cl) _0 a
~ cn.

O O
N 00 \O 'C
. 00
U M O N- Vl M
3 Ilo o~ °
W

w c~ 0
o N- 0 0
0 N- 0°
00 a, 00
y N c 4=N-C')
-4

~ o 0 2 0°o
2.3. 2 Estimation of Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)
The first estimation of probable maximum flood (PMF) of river Bhagirathi at Tehri by hydro-
meteorological approach using design storm superimposition on design hydrograph was done
in 1974, when a figure of 15540 m3/s for PMF was approved by the Board of Consultants
subject to comments of India Meteorological Department (IMD) and Central Water
Commission (CWC). Considering the comments subsequently received from these.
organizations, the PMF was re-estimated in 1981. The revised PMF values worked out as
16000 and 15350 in3/s by increasing one-day rainfall depth to 24 hour rainfall by 15% and
10% as recommended by IMD & CWC respectively. As these values did not differ from the
value of 15540 m3/s provisionally approved by the Board of Consultants earlier, the same
was adopted as confirmed value for PMF.

During the meeting held on 5th Feb. 1988 to review the progress of techno-economic -:
clearance of Tehri Project (Stage-1) it was pointed out by CWC that the computation of PMF
need to be checked using short-interval rainfall data for developing design unit hydrograph
through conceptual modeling. Further, it may be checked with IMD whether or not they feel
to review their previously reported PMF value based on 1924 storm.

The Central Water Commission subsequently desired that the floods of 1988 monsoon
may be analyzed for further checking of the approved design flood value in view of the latest
environmental conditions of the catchment. A note on the design flood studies for Tehri Dam
Project was submitted to the Central Water Commission, New Delhi in May, 1998. It was
aimed at checking the previously obtained probable maximum flood (PMF) value of 15540
m3/s with the PMF to be obtained using a conceptual model based on the observed short- -
interval rainfall-runoff data of the catchment. It was achieved through the Clark's model
using observed data of the two flood events of the years 1964 and 1972. The data, on
calibration of the model had suggested 19 hours and 0.40 respectively as the Clark's Tc and
RT parameter values for the catchment corresponding to which the design unit hydrograph
obtained was used for determining the PMF. The PMF worked out as 15204 m3/s and 15923
m3/s for the 1-day and 2-day critically sequenced probable. maximum storms respectively.
These values compare quite well with the previously adopted PMF of 15540 m3/s. The
Central Water Commission finally approved the PMF of 15540 m3/s to be adopted as the
design flood for the Tehri Dam Project.

Fis
Adopted design value of PMF

In view of above-mentioned studies the figure for PMF assessed as 15540 m3/s remains
unchanged and was finally adopted for design of spillway. The figure adopted for PMF
corresponds to a flood of 1 in 10,000 year's frequency.

13
CHAPTER 3 PHYSI®GRAPHIC ANALYSIS

3.1 Study area

The study area i.e. catchments of Bhagirathi and Bhillangana rivers, is located in the districts
Tehri and Uttarkashi of Garhwal region in Uttarakhand. The catchments lie between
longitude 78°915 E and 79°2455 E and 'latitude 30020'20 N and '31°2730 N and is in
lesser and Great Himalayan region as shown in Figure 3.1. The latitude and longitude of dam
site are 3002246 N and 78°2854 E respectively. Catchment for the dam site has two
components, one for Bhagirathi and other for Bhillangana which meets at 1.5 kilometer
upstream of the dam site.

3.2 Delineation of Watersheds

The physiographic analysis of the catchment has been undertaken to ascertain the total
catchment area of the basin up to the project site. The analysis has been carried out using
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) obtained through ASTER (Advanced Space borne Thermal
Emission and Reflection Radiometer Sensor) as shown in fig 3.2. The DEM was, analyzed
using ArcGIS and all the data were projected using UTM WGS 1984 projection system. The
delineated watersheds of Bhagirathi and Bhillangana rivers are shown i GN
t. Lie
Parameters for synthetic unit hydrograph were derived from the same DEM Gz17g7
'Q
ACC No.....<.....c .. P

3.3 Derivation of parameters for SUH oatoi?h~f

Z Z...
Physiographic parameters were obtained with the help of ArcGIS. Catchm /.afire
site is derived by delineation of DEM. As SUH study has been made by two approaches, first
by considering whole Catchment area of dam site and second by analyzing both the basins
separately and superimposing the results. So parameters are derived for Bhagirathi basin,
Bhillangana basin, and for total study area separately. Area has been taken for rainfed only;
snowfed area has been computed with the help of derived contour map. In earlier studies it
was found that snow cover were present above altitudes varying from 3000 m to 4500 m. So
area above 4500 contour has been taken for snow cover. Contour map of the study area has
been developed for contour interval 500 m shown in Fig.3.4. The drainage pattern shown in
Fig.3.5 has been derived for finding longest stream. Computation for Lc and statistical stream
slope S has been done with the help of watershed and drainage map shown in Fig.3.3.

15
 Table 3.1: Computation for parameter of slope S of longest stream

Li (km) (Di+Di-1)Li
SL. NO. RL (m) Di (m) Di-1 + Di
Bhagiathi Bhilangna Bhagiathi Bhilangna

1 686 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 1000 314 314 49.5 29.37 15543 9222.18

3 1500 500 814 33.32 14.51 27122.48 11811.14

4 2000 500 1000 17.58 8.95 17580 8950

5 2500 500 1000 18.78 11 18780 11000

6 3000 500 1000 19.59 9.27 19590 9270

7 3500 500 1000 14.07 6.6 14070 6600

8 4000 500 1000 16.76 5.37 16760 5370

9 4500 500 1000 13.23 2.4 13230 2400

= 182.83 87.47 142675.48 64623.32

Table 3.2: Physiographic parameters for SUH

SL.NO. Basin A (km) L (km) L (km) S (m/ km)

1 Bhillangana 1482 87.47 45.83 8.45

2 Bhagirathi 2928 182.83 80.21 4.27

3 Total 4410 182.83 81.82 4.27

16
 81`0'0•E 62°0'0'E 63°0.0E

_
3°orr~
J

..:...y4_ .
7 ~~~]f• ~
c~' T '3; .
~ i-c•r ... ~ ~d c te. -}• ~-, ti. r~at .
'
-
':

-1

ii ______ __
0 37.5 75 15D KCort:eteis
t i i

7T°0'p r iS°0'PF, 79°0'0'F. SO`0'q'F. R7'q'0'F. S:°0'0•F 93'0'0'E

Fig. 3.1 Location map of study area

17
W
0
O
Oi

W
O
0
M

W
0
0
m

F•

M M
 0
z0
P

1l

w
0
0
rn

W
0

Q
w
0
0

Q C
p C ?
❑ Z
O. Q fo U)
=
to
®o
 O P
m
v p

Sxl

IS
t=7

O
E. N
m

u
W
p N Q W
0
G7
W Q Q
0 O 0 O 0 0 co O O O O 0 O
O O O q O q
O Q O p
O O
O O
p O
O
0
►
1 O = O r (V N CO
rJ Q t!~ Lo (O W ti Cn r
8fI1111 ill J 10
00
0 0
o
m
14I ml

0 W
0 0

0
0
m O
W m
v
op

o } W
o
~
a~oiIii0

m
3.4 Results and Discussion
The total catchment of the basin up to project site works out to be 7295 km2 out of which
2885 km2 area is snowfed. Length of longest stream up to dam site is found to be 182.83 km
for whole catchment: The DEM of the study area shows that the topography of the region
varies from 615 m to 6911 m above MSL. The snowfed area is about 39% of the total
catchment area. In the earlier studies total catchment area snowfed area were found to be
7287 km2 and 2424 km2 respectively, where as Length of longest stream up to dam site was
found to be 187 k m .

22
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY USED

4.1 Deterministic or hydro-meteorological approach for estimation of

design flood
The design flood computation mainly involves estimation of a design storm hyetograph and
derivation of catchment response function.

4.1.1 Methodology for Deterministic Approach

Different steps involved are,
1) Determination of response function of the Basins/Sub-basins
2) Storm analysis of extreme storms to determine PMP and SPS
3) Computation of flood hydrograph
i. Direct Runoff Hydrograph by Convolution of Unit Hydrograph and Design
Rainfall
ii. Calculation of Base flow Hydrograph
iii. Flood Routing
iv. Final Design Flood Hydrograph by adding Direct runoff hydrograph and Base
flow Hydrograph

4.1.2 Ungauged Catchments

In this case derivation of Unit Hydrograph is carried out synthetically using the Catchment
Characteristics. Synthetic unit hydrograph can be derived by using formulae developed by
CWC as adopted in `Flood Estimation Reports' for various sub-zones of India.

As per the CWC sub zonal reports the synthetic unit hydrographs can be calculated. It
can be used for small and medium catchments. As per CWC report entitled `Estimation of
design Flood', 2001, the reports are of finding use even for large catchments.

The design storm is the magnitude of rainfall and its distribution which is used to
estimate the desired level of design flood. The design storm has three components namely:

(i) The rainfall amount

(ii) The areal distribution of rainfall and
(iii) The time distribution of rainfall

23
 I SCANNING OF HISTORICAL RECORDS OF DATA

PHYSIOGRAPHIC AND
STATISTICAL
AERIAL DISTRIBUTION OF
SELECTION OF FEATURES OF THE
POINT RAINFALL OF REGION
CANDIDATE STORM
HEAVIEST STORM
INTERVAL

DISTRIBUTION STUDY

TO PREPARE ENVELOPING
STORM
DEPTH AREA CURVE OF
EVALUATION OF SPS TRANSPOSITION
ONE DAY, TWO DAY,
THREE DAY STORM

EVALUATION OF PMP

1 -
SELECTION OF STORMS DESIGN RAINFALL
FOR UH DERIVATION HYDROGRAPH

'Lv
CONCURRENT SRRG DATA
FOR FLOOD PERIOD
DEDUCTION FOR LOSSES

DERIVATION OF UNIT
HYDROGRAPH

H
ESTIMATED FLOOD
CALIBRATION HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES

DESIGN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH

ORDINATES

Fig 401 Flow Chart of Deterministic/Hydro-meteorological Approach for Estimation of

Design Flood.

24
In India generally guide to Hydro-Meteorological practices of WMO is being followed. The
analysis of storms tracks is being done by Indian Meteorological Department. For tropical
areas the storm analysis is also being done by Indian Institute of Tropical management
Pune. The IMD has come out 1 day PMP atlas with the assistance of WAPCOS.

Steps involved
Design storm determination is the most important part of the Hydro-meteorological
approach. The brief procedure for deriving design storm is indicated below.
1. Identification, selection and processing of heaviest storms including cloud burst
2. Duration of design storm
3. Selection of candidate storm
4. Rainstorm analysis (DD analysis)
5. Areal distribution of storm —DAD curves
6. Storm transposition (SPS)
7. Barrier adjustment (BAF)
8. Storm maximization (IMF)
9. Time distribution of storm
10. Envelopment of heaviest storms
11. Probable maximum precipitation (PMP)

Identification, selection and processing of heaviest storms including cloud -burst:

From the heavy storms data available including data of cloud burst the selection of few
candidate storm will be met which could be potentially used for development of design
storm parameters. After -processing of the storm data, selection of appropriate storms will be
made. .

Critical Arrangement of Rainfall

Ordinate of the rainfall excess arranged in critical sequence considering peak with peak and
the sequence reversed. Thus the design flood hydrograph is obtained by convolution of unit
hydrograph ordinates and adding base flow to the same. In case.of PMF the latest practice is
to consider two bells within each 24 hour period. The above practice is generally adopted in
India and other countries with small procedural variation and appears quite reasonable.

25
4.2 Computation of flood hydrograph

Direct Runoff Hydrograph by Convolution

Direct surface runoff ordinates are obtained by following the principle of linearity and
superposition to UH ordinates.

Calculation of Base flow for Ungauged Catchments

If observed data is not available, base flow for adjacent basins converted to flow rate per
unit area of catchment may be used. In case the data are not available, flat rate of 0.01
m3/s/sq.km is recommended by CWC manual.
The final design flood hydrograph will be obtained after adding the direct runoff
hydrograph and the baseflow hydrograph. The flood peak and volume of the final design
hydrograph will be used as design peak and design volume.

4.3 Methodology for Probabilistic Statistical Approach

The main steps involved in Probabilistic approach are,
i. Data Processing
ii. Parameter Estimation for different distributions (Normal, Lognormal, Pearson
III, Log Pearson III, Gumbel and GEV etc.) using Method of moments, method
of maximum likelihood, Probability weighted moments and L-moments
approach,
iii. Goodness of fit tests to find the best fit distribution,
iv. T-year flood calculation using the selected best fit distribution
v. Graphic representation of original series and selected distribution with its
confidence bands.

26
CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF DATA

5.1 Data availability

The basic data for rainfall and discharge were obtained from Tehri hydro development
corporation (THDC). The daily discharge data of river Bhagirathi at Tehri dam site is
available. The length of available data is from 1964 to 2004 i.e. 41 years. These
observations have been taken by the Central Water Commission (CWC). Short duration
hourly discharge data is not available.

Daily rainfall data of 19 Ordinary Rain Gauges (ORG) stations located in the
catchment is available for the period 1964 to 1993. Beside these 19 stations, 7 new self
recording raingauge station's data for the period 1988 to 1999 is available and these
observations also have been taken by the Central Water Commission (CWC). As their.
continuous record was not available and hence short duration rainfall data corresponding to
the flood events could not be obtained. An another dataset of rainfall observations taken by
India meteorological department (IMD) at its 5 stations for the period 1993 to 2005 is
available out of which 3 stations are at outside the catchment. However, these data, are
neither continuous nor complete. Few SRRG data is also available for hourly rainfall. The
location map of raingauge stations are shown in Fig. 5.1.

5.2 processing of discharge data

The 41 year long term observed annual maxima flood peaks has been selected from the
daily discharge data Tehri dam site. Annual flood peaks are increased by 20 % in order to
make it instantaneous annual flood peak series, which have been used for analysis. The time
series of annual flow volumes has been plotted shown in Fig. 5.2. The visual inspection of
the plot did not reveal any rising or falling trend. However, 1978 flow volume were quite
high as compared to the flow volumes of other years. This variation may be due to the part
of natural variability of the data. The Annual flood peak series are given in table 5.2 and
statistical parameters of the annual flow volume series are given in Table 5.3.

27
 iil'll~AG3A~

~skntt ~~
>~j isvar3

tuatec ~
Ncrrrf~ ~

iosr,ryvrp PFnyt!?Y'
hrnrl Ga» i

~ ►tu khFri+ Q a~ 4D LEGEND

a+t3
mb Gan arY+ti Snow sound Cftt+rnone
Eaisiirag Rcs➢ Gauge Stc on $y",*e+
Gha 1 (1D MO)
Qs E)sstbng CPOw9e S~NOA Aulorr 2fic ( 7 N05J
I a Goucir $I1 On Atonsatc(5
enstalkd 6atpre Maaa300n D988
'mo 1-6CIL yulcnkr+r3t

Fig_ S. I Tehri Dam Catchment Area I'Ian showing Location of

Raingauge Stations

28
 Table 5.1: Annual flood peak series

inst. Maximum annual inst. Maximum annual

year date year date
daily disch daily disch.

1964 24-Jul 2208.00 1985 21-Aug 1334.29

1965 15-Jul 1452.00 1986 12-Aug 2598.92

1966 25-Jul 2904.00 1987 26-Jul 896.46

1967 27-Aug 2218.06 1988 25-Sep 1687.56

1968 19-Aug 1521.84 1989 22-Aug 1203.70

1969 19-Aug 1592.04 1990 ' 2-Aug 1474.27

1970 13-Aug 1730.26 1991 8-Aug 1174.25

1971 1-Jul 2340.60 1992 16-Aug 1850.51

1972 15-Sep 1756.75 1993 16-Jul 1860.72

1973 12-Aug 2300.82 1994 20-Jul 2288.66

1974 4-Aug 1843.51 1995 2-Aug 2004.52

1975 22-Aug 1558.46 1996 15-Aug 1290.85

1976 20-Jul 1445.10 1997 3-Aug 2601.68

1977 24-Jul 1818.56 1998 10-Aug 2062.87

1978 2-Sep 4403.08 1999 10-Aug 1260.86

1979 21-Jul 2295.02 2000 17-Jul 1189.85

1980 26-Jul 1635.77 2001 23-Jul 1763.66

1981 7-Aug 1523.98 2002 13-Sep 1911.46

1982 20-Jul 1565.45 2003 8-Aug 1758.37

1983 11-Aug 1675.34 2004 8-Aug 1492.70

1984 21-Jul 1182.77

29
 c.i
c6
x
CO
E

0
0
N

U)
O
O
N

O
O
O

Ln
0)
a)

o
O. 0)
rn
1
N
.
L
N
vl O
O 00 CO m
O
LL
CO

o
•Q rn

Ln
n
rn
ti

0
n
rn

Ln
tD

o o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o
° o
° o o
° o
° O
° °
Co. O
° O
° °
0 Un
ul
° m N NN ,mss
%T m °

(s,awnD)•~sip
 Table 5.2: Statistical Parameters of Annual Flow Series at Tehri

Series Type
S1.No. Parameter Original Log
transformed
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1. mean(Xm a,,) = 1821.40 7.4629
2. standard deviation(6) = 605.45 0.2929
3. Co-efficient of variation(C) = 0.332 0.0392
4. Co-efficient of skewness(Cs) = 2.069 0.5816
5. Co-efficient of kurtosis(Ck) = 7.248 1.5066
6. Co-efficient of co-relation(ri) = 0.0778 0.1116
7. median= 1730.25 7.456

5.2.1 Randomness and homogeneity

There are a number of statistical tests to check the randomness of the data series such as
turning point test, median crossing test, rank difference test, run test, Wald-Wolfowitz test,
runs above and below median test, rank Von-Neuman ratio test etc (Lye and Lin, 1994).
The results of these tests are summarized in Table 5.7. All the tests indicate that the annual
flow series at Tehri is random. Details of tests are given in Appendix A.

The lag one autocorrelation coefficient, rl, for the original series is 0.0778. As per
Anderson's Correlogram test 95% confidence level limits of rl for random series works out
to be -0.3310 and 0.2810. The rl for the series lies between these limits. Hence from
statistical point of view, the series may be considered as random.

', 31
 Table 5.3: Summaries of results of randomness tests

Sr. Test Computed value of Critical Remarks

No. test statistics at 5% value
Significance Level

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Turning point test -0.5155 1.96 Random

2. Median crossing test -1.5881 1.96 Random

3. Rank difference test -0.5986 1.96 Random

4. Length of Run test 5.81 11.07 Random

5. Wald-Wolfowitz test 0.0101 1.96 Random

6. Runs above and below 0.0021 1.96 Random

median test

7. Rank Von Neuman ratio test -0.589 1.96 Random

8. Von-Neuman ratio test -0.562 1.96 Random

9. Auto Correlation test 0.658 1.96 Random

5.2.2 Results of Trend Analysis Tests

In order to check the possibility of any falling or rising trend in the series, Kendall's rank
correlation test, Mann-Kendall test and Spearman's rho tests were applied. The results are
given in Table 5.8. All the three tests indicate that there is no trend in the flow series at 5%
significance level.

32
 Table 5.4: Results of Trend Analysis Tests

S.N. Test Computed value Critical value of test Remarks

of test statistics statistics at 5%
Significance Level

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Kendall's rank -1.101 1.96 No trend

correlation test
2. Mann-Kendall -1.089 1.96 No trend
test
3. Spearman's rho 1.147 1.96 No trend
test

503 Rainfall analysis

The rainfall data of all the stations, except the stations maintained by India Meteorological
Department, were neither continuous nor complete. Systematic pattern of observations
could not be seen. Also, data of rainfall at different rain gauges were available for different
years in different periods. An inventory of rainfall data availability is given in Appendix C.
However, average of all the raingauge station data of the catchment has been taken for
computing the annual maximum rainfall. The three station data of Barkote, Naitwar, and
Purola has not included in the computation as they lies outside the catchment. The annual
maximum rainfall data series is tabulated in table 5.9. The highest maximum rainfall of the
catchment area over 42 years is found to be 20.5 cm.

33
 Table 5.5: Annual maximum average rainfall

annual maximum daily annual maximum daily

year year
rainfall rainfall

1964 79.54 1985 29

1965 76.2 1986 31.72

1966 69.01 1987 28.02

1967 29.21 1988 52.83

1968 42.6 1989 48.35

1969 38 1990 38.05

1970 53.2 1991 28.84

1971 43.23 1992 43.3

1972 55.41 1993 43.56

1973 66.17 1994 45.14

1974 37.95 1995 205

1975 34.85 1996 41.63

1976 51.67 1997 70.28

1977 37.3 1998 58.33

1978 54.14 1999 35.75

1979 46.88 2000 147.9

1980 28.96 2001 92.9

1981 61.04 2002, 155.7

1982 78.69 2003 105.95

1983 67.95 2004 67.5

1984 39.47 2005 77

34
5.4 Analysis for PMF by deterministic approach
The probable maximum flood (PMF) is estimated using the hydro-meteorological
approach. For the PMF calculations the worst possible maximum storm (PMS) pattern is
estimated. This is then applied to the unit hydrograph of the catchment to obtain the PMF.
For the estimation of the PMS, an attempt is made to analyze the causative factors
responsible for the production of severe floods. The computations mainly involve
estimation of .a design storm hyetograph (from past long-term rainfall data within the
catchment).

From the historical records, maximum ever recorded rainfall was storm of 27-30
September 1924. This was the biggest storm of Ganga basin. In the previous studies this
storm were used for PMF computation. In our study 20.5 cm rainfall is used.

In this study synthetic unit hydrograph (SUH) is developed PMF computation. From
the physiographic analysis of the catchment SUH parameters have been derived with two
different approaches. In the first SUH is derived for the whole catchment and in second
approach SUH is first generated for Bhillangana and Bhaghirathi basin separately .and then
superimposed to get the SUH of total- catchment area. Synthetic unit hydrograph has been
computed by CWC method. The parameters for SUH are a below, computation is given in
table 5.10.

A [km2] Total rainfed catchment area up to diversion site

L [km] = Length of longest main stream along the river course

Lc [kin] = Length of longest main stream from a point apposite to centeroid of the
catchment area to the point of study

S [m/km] = Equivalent stream slope = E [(Di+Di-1)*Li]/L^2

Tr [hr] = Unit duration

tp [hr] = Time from the centre of effective rainfall duration to the peak

Tm [hr] = Time from the start of rise to the peak of U.G

TB = Base width of U.G.in hour.

35
 qp [m3/s/km2] = peak rate of discharge (m3/s/sq.km.)

Table 5.6: parameters for SUH

VALUES for

PARAMETERS FORMULA Total

Bhagirathi Bhilangna
catchment

A - 4410 2928 1482

L - 182.83 182.83 87.47

Lc - 81.82 80.21 48.83

S 4.27 4.27 8.45

tp 2.498*(L*Lc/S)^0.156 8.92 8.90 6.60

qp 1.048 *tp^-0.178 0.71 0.71 0.75

W50 1.954*( L*Lc/S)^0.099 4.38 4.37 3.62

W75 0.972*( L*Lc/S)^0.124 2.67 2.67 2.10

WR50 0.I89*( W50)^1.769 2.58 2.57 1.84

WR75 0.419*( W75)^1.246 1.43 1.42 1.06

TB 7.845*tp^0.453 21.14 21.11 18.44

Tm tp+0.5 9.42 9.40 7.10

Qp qp*A 3130.40 2080 1110

The. SUH ordinates derived by parameters above is given in table 5.11(a) from
which after adjustment for getting unit rainfall, the developed 1-hr SUH and 3-hr SUH is
tabulated in table 5.11(b).

36
 Table 5.7(a) :SUH ordinates

Discharge (m3/s)
Time (hr)
SL.NO.

Total Bhagirathi Bhilangna Total Bhagirathi Bhilangna

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

2 6.84 6.82 5.26 1565 1040 555

3 8.00 7.97 6.04 2348 1560 833

4 9.42 9.40 7.10 3130 2080 1110

5 10.67 10.64 8.14 2348 1560 833

6 11.23 11.20 8.88 1565 1040 555

7 21.14 21.11 18.44 0 0 0

37
 Table 5.7(b) Adjusted 1-hr SUH and 3-hr SUH ordinates

1-hr SUG (m3/s) ordinates 3-hr SUG (m3/s)

ordinates
Time Bhag
Total
(hr) +Bhilan 1st 2nd
(Approach- Bhagirati Bhi langna
1) (Approach- approach approach
2)
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 118.75 69.71 51.52 121.23 39.58 40.41
2 237.49 148.37 108.20 256.56 118.75 125.93
3 351.29 233.15 157.14 390.29 235.85 256.03
4 472.51 317.93 211.24 529.17 353.77 392.01
5 588.79 390.94 267.92 658.85 470.87 526.11
6 714.96 478.07 370.96 849.04 592.10 679.02
7 860.91 576.98 571.90 1148.89 721.57 885.59
8 1045.96 730.06 468.86 1198.92 873.96 1065.61
9 1548.66 984.40 386.42 .1370.82 1151.87 1239.54
10 1236.95 805.42 329.75 1135.17 1277.22 1234.97
11 974.71 659.41 285.95 945.36 1253.47 1150.45
12 827.27 612.31 244.73 857.04 1013.00 979.19
13 715.94 471.01 206.09 677.10 839.33 826.50
14 617.98 412.13 164.87 577.00 720.41 703.71
15 530.90 353.25 131.38 484.64 621.62 579.58

16 442.83 292.02 92.74 384.76 530.58 482.14

17 358.71 235.50 51.52 287.03 444.16 385.48
18 317.65 181.34 15.46 196.79 373.07 289.53
19 190.49 117.75 0.00 117.75 288.96 200.52
20 96.98 63.59 0.00 63.59 201.71 126.04
21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.82 60.45
22 32.33 21.20
23 0.00 0.00

38
 SUH-1
1400.00
1200.00 - - -
u
E 1000.00
800.00
L-
cc
600.00
N 400.00 ®~—suh1
200.00
0.00
0 10 20 30
Time (hr)

Fig .5.3(a) SUH for 1st approach

SUH-2
1400.00
1200.00
(U 1000.00
800.00
N
600.00
y 400.00 °~ u h-2
200.00
0.00
0 10 20 30
Time (hr)

Fig .5.3(b) SUH for 2nd approach

39
5.4.1 Deign flood computation
Considering initial Loss of 1 cm for first hour and then Loss rate of 0.1 cm/hr with base
flow/ snowmelt as 260 m3/sec, design flood has been computed in tabular form in table
5.14. The design storm is taken as 20.5 cm uniformly all over the catchment. However in
CWC report for design flood estimation the heaviest 24 hr rainfall recorded at SRRG station
Tehri is 91 cm. on 21-7-1971 which is a very low value. Computation of effective rain fall
for 24-hr duration PMS is given in table 5.13.

Table 5.8: Computation of effective rain fall for 24-hr duration PMS

critical
rainfall rainfall Effective critical
Time distribution losses sequence
depth in 3-hr (cm) rainfall sequence for
(his) coeff. for 1st
(cm) interval (cm) 2nd approach
approach
3 0.36 7.38 7.38 1.2 6.18 0.52 0.52
6 0.53 10.865 3.485 0.3 3.185 0.93 0.93
9 0.67 13.735 2.87 0.3 2.57 1.545 1.34
12 0.76 15.58 1.845 0.3 1.545 3.185 2.57
15 0.84 17.22 1.64 0.3 1.34 6.18 3.185
18 0.9 18.45 1.23 0.3 0.93 2.57 6.18
21 0.96 19.68 1.23 0.3 0.93 1.34 1.545
24 1 20.5 0.82 0.3 0.52 0.93 0.93

40
 O1 M N N 110 c0 M — ~D
bA - M M O 01 M .-- 00 t O .-- O O O
O 00 N d M 00 M d1 — '1- Lr e ~O
O 0 N N- t- N - N- Q' 00 N O 00 N N
Q +r, N 00 00 c- 'D M N vl 00 \O O 00
M N- -- M O •-+ — O vn N — M

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

01 M N N 110 00 M .- 110 ON
7 M O M -+ CO N
O O
N N- - 00 N N 00 00
N N vl N M CD M N M kr M N
.- Vl .-- M . — O\ tr) N —

.-+ M O1\ N- \10 '

01 p M 1-0 -; O —. c —
N- N cC 'O
r- 'n O N' N-
N 'n — 0 'n en 00

'.0
_ 0
_ N- I
00
O ,~ d O\
N- — O
M p
M —
C
.-• '.O M 'n N ON 00
Q1 Vr M M 01 N

M 01 O O \D en 00
N- M 110 en d' V1 Q\ '.O
O '-' •--; O M l~ l~ N
N '.0 N I'O O O oG '.0
— N - O N

r+ N- 00 '.D '.D —4 01
U'1 1p Lr en r+ 00 M
00 U'1 +--i t!'1 M '.D Vl C\
h C 00 O .-Z
vn `p t1 ir — '.O d- N
O
U — M N- '.O M N

- M l- M N N M
— M O O 'O M O
00 00 00 N- 00 N O
~, 00 \O Q1 00 N
• ~,~ 00 ,O N N- 00 vn
Cd vn 00 '.O N ON .-
N- .-+ M M — *- M

00 00 d' M 'I
V 00

v~ 0 M N- [~ o O M O
— N

N O M N - '.O
O --~ M O\ N- '.D I
M vl N 00 O vn 'O
r-+ V'1 O d' N- f O\
N — O\ 'n M 00
In '.D 00 .- —
'--' ' N C N N- 'D
O'
lri 00 C N N C N O
O N N- 00 '.O M M
N O O N N C C

s-~ pll 00 00 Ol, O .-+ N

~~+ O o
00 O — O N
M O M 00
N
M rn O N N- to

N- O M \O O~ N v~
O M ~O O~ rte, N N N M M M M d d'
 N M N oho iVm') N O O~ oho
M Q1 N N O
00 01 01 _ N 6,
UO d C in l0 00 O\ Qll M N 00 '-' N
N M 00 00

3 o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

O O 00
O N OO tn cq
' H
Q O .M, ~D M M v1 O

O~
M O f
O oC -4 N O C1 a1
N N O
O
O O M M - M 'D
N '.O O\ N

•
M - 00 O
-

00 O N M M M 00 N in O
- O N '.O O + ON M O
~O O 00 O_1\ I'O 00 00 l~ O
',
d [- '.D
[V
tn 00 Ii' N v~ N
d'

N
O 00 N N N tn
O 06 O kn '.O O\ ç "i O

~t O O h
oo \0 C O O
O d' O "-' t- 00 00
M Q1 - - N M

M O •--~ ct '.O O N N O
01 O ac N O a c.
O O M M M \O O
N '.O O N

N O O M t O
O O M t d O O '

d
s-y O O O V'1 Ln O
M ' M
N
N '.D
N N 0
00
O,\ v1 N
O O

O M ~O O~ ' .N N N O
M M Cr M ' 't'


The estimated design flood hydrograph for both the approaches are tabulated in table
5.15. This hydrograph is plotted and shown in figure 5.3. The design peak value is 13800
m3 /s for first approach and it is 14260 m3 /s for second approach.

Table 5.10: design flood ordinates

Design Design flood Design Design

Time Time
flood 1 2 flood I flood 2

0 248.35 248.35 24 13 138.77 14259.98

3 382.6419 393.1354 27 10135.46 11529.01

6 787.2313 851.1981 30 6897.005 7584.914

9 1774.012 1879.13 33 3586.048 4047.9

12 3523.972 3489.835 36 1584.291 1619.885

15 6648.356 5693.549 39 735.3609 622.65

18 10531.2 9192.241 42 349.1166 316.2146

21 13799.88 12393.7 45 260 260

Chart Title
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
M 6000 —*—Design flood 1
0
4000 - M Design flood 2
2000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Time(hr)

Fig. 5.3 design flood hydrograph

.'43
5.5 Analysis for design flood by statistical approach
From the analysis of AFS derived from daily discharge data of 41 years (1964-2004) it is
found that AFS is random and trend free. So frequency analysis can be applied to get the T
year return period flood.
A flood of 10000 year return period is equivalent to PMF. There is a number of
probability distributions f (x); which has been suggested by many statisticians. Of these, the
more common are normal, log normal, Pearson type III, Gumbel distribution. In this study
design flood for T- year return period has been computed in tabular form in table 5.16.
Which one of these distributions fits well in given data set has been checked using
D-index test. The D-index value for Pearson type III distribution is least among others given
in table 5.15,So, Pearson type III distribution is found best Flood corresponding to 10000
year return period is estimated as 6886m3/s.

Table 5.11: Result of goodness of fit test

Distribution D Index

normal 1.99

Iog normal 2.06

PT 3 1.64

By! 1.80

LPT 3 1.81

Table 5.12 Computation of design flood for T year return period

normal distribution

Sr. No. Return Period, T p q KT(for cs=0) XT=[Xmean + (5x*KT)]

1 25 0.04 0.96 1.75 2881.38

2 50 0.02 0.98 2.05 2973.72
3 100 0.01 0.99 2.33 3229.85
4 500. 0.002 0.998 2.88 3564.01
5 1000 0.001 0.999 3.09 3692.41
6 10000 0.0001 0.9999 3.72 4073.12

44
 log normal distribution

Sr. No. Return Period, T p q KT(for cs=0) XT=e^(Ymean+KT*Sy)

1 25 0.04 0.96 1.75 2909.33

2 50 0.02 0.98 2.05 3179.39
3 100 0.01 0.99 2.33 3443.55
4 500 0.002 0.998 2.88 4047.74
5 -1000 0.001 0.999 3.09 4307.14
6 10000 0.0001 0.9999. 3.72 5178.14

PT III distribution

Sr. No. Return Period,.T p q KT(for c5=2.07) XT=[Xmean + (Sx*KT)]

1 25 0.04 0.96 2.23 3169.50

2 50. 0.02 0.98 2.93 3597.14
3 100 0.01 0.99 3.64 4025.73
4 500 0.002 0.998 5.29 5023.37
5 1000 0.001 0.999 6.00 5453.79
6 10000 0.0001 0.9999 8.36 6885.81

LPT 3 distribution

Sr. No. Return Period, T p q KT(for c5=0.5816) XT=e^(Ymean+KT*Sy)

1 25 0.04 0.96 1.93 3069.51

2 50 0.02 0.98 2.35 3467.99
3 100 0.01 0.99 2.74 3889.91
4 500 0.002 0.998 3.59 4980.84
5 1000 0.001 0.999 3.93 5506.66
6 10000 0.0001 0.9999 5.01 7548.11
Gumbel EV1 distrubution

Sr. No. Return Period, T p q YT=-In(-In(1-p)) XT=(u + a*YT)

1 2S 0.04 0.96 3.1985 3058.37

2 50 0.02 0.98 3.9019 3390.30
3 100 0.01 0.99 4.6001 3719.77
4 500 0.002 0.998 6.2136 4481.14
5 1000 0.001 0.999 6.9073 4808.46
6 10000 0.0001 0.9999 9.2103 5895.23

45
CHAPTER 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Comparison of results and selection of design flood

Design flood estimated by deterministic approach using synthetic unit hydrograph with
different approaches gives the PMF value as 13700 m3/s and 14260 m3/s. The difference in
value is due to the different shape of the catchment boundary. In the first approach
catchment shape is wider than the second. At dam site there is confluence of two main
rivers, having comparable rainfed area 1482 km2 and 2928 km2. The higher value is
resulting from superimposing responses of both rivers. In first approach response of
Bhillingana River is not considered. So design value may be considered as 14260 m3/s. Also
in selection of any design value higher side is preferable. Hence, deterministic approach
gives design PMF value as 14260 m3/s. Which is close to the earlier estimated Design
value of 15540 m3/s.

The Deign value estimated by statistical approach using log Pearson type III
distribution for 10000 Year return period is 7548 m3/s. But goodness of fit test suggest to
adopt 6886 m3/s as the Pearson type III distribution fits best to the AFS. As this value is
very less hence flood of 10000 year return period computed from 41 AFS data cannot be
considered as design flood. Statistical approach needs revision with larger data series.

Hence, estimated design flood value is 14260 m3/s.

6.2 Discussion
In CWC's `Flood estimation report western Himalayas Zone 7', heaviest 24-hr rainfall
record for Tehri is given as 91mm. But in earlier studies 290 mm of rainfall record of year
1924 were used for Tehri dam site. In present study of rainfall analysis average of
catchment station's daily rainfall above 100 mm were found. There was 8 incident of
average rainfall above 100 mm over the period of 42 years and all the 8 incident falls during
1995 to 2005. The adopted, value for this study is 205 mm which is the average of daily
station value on 4'h Sept. 1995.

Base flow and snow melt contribution is taken as 260 m3/s. This is the average daily
value of rainfall volume falling over the entire catchment. However, the base flow

47
recommended by CWC is at the rate of 0.01 m3/s per km2 and in earlier study of design
flood estimation this was taken as 270 m3/s.

Computation of design flood using SUH has been done by 3-hr SUH for 3-hr
interval. If rainfall with 1-hr SUH will applied, result will be finer.

48
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

7.1 Conclusions
With the help of synthetic unit hydrograph deign flood hydrograph is obtained. The
estimated probable maximum flood peak of 14260 m3/s is comparable to the previously
adopted design value of 15540 m3/s. So adopted design flood value needs no revision.
~e design flood computed on the basis of statistical approach for 10,000 Year

return period works out to 6886 m3/s which is about half of adopted design value. This
should be comparable to the value obtained from deterministic approach as PMF value
found to be equivalent of flood with 10,000 Year return period. Hence, statistical approach

needs rechecked.
Synthetic unit hydrograph for smaller and defined catchment area gives better results.
For physiographic analysis ArcGIS is found to be a very effective tool. These advanced

software made analysis easy.

7.2 Recommendation
For precise estimation of design flood short duration rainfall and discharge ea
ta is
required. In absence of adequate data different statistical/conceptual approaches
to make assessment as regards the water availability and maximum design flood for the
d which is in
project. Now as Tehri dam is Asia's highest and world's fourth highest dam an
ion the
eration
seismic Zone IV, it needs proper assessment of design values for safety and op
Daily rainfall data of 18 rain gauge stations located in the catchment has been
collected since 1963. However, this data was neither continuous nor complet= Out was not
there were seven self-recording rain gauge stations buta~e1to le
corresponding iflood events could not
available an d hence short duration rainfall data
be obtained. Most of these self-recording rain gauges went out of order.For hourly rainfall
and discharge data it is highly recommended to establish a proper. rain gauge and discharge

network in the catchment area.

The shape of reservoir for Tehri dam is unique. It is about 70 km long and 2 to 4 km
wide. Out of this, 45 km is along Bhagirathi River and 25 km along Bhillingana River.
River confluence is•. at dam site from opposite direction. Under these conditions study of

flood wave at dam site is recommended.

49
 REFERENCES

1. WMO, (1986). "Manual for Estimation of Probable Maximum Precipitation." WMO

- No. 332, World Meteorological Organization.

2. Rakesh Kumar., Chandranath Chatterjee 2005 Regional Flood Frequency analysis

using L-moments for North Brahmaputra Region of India, Journal of Hydrologic

Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 1, 2005.

3. C.W.C., 2001, Estimation of Design Flood- Recommended Procedures. India

4. Clark, C., 2008, New Guide to Flood Estimation in England and wales Review and

Update 10th National Hydrology Symposium Exeter United Kingdom.

5. Gurung, J., and Lama, L. T. (2008). "Regional GLOFs Risk Reduction Initiative in

the Himalayas: Preparatory Assessment Report, Nepal."

6. ICE. (1996). "Floods and reservoir safety." Institution of Civil Engineers.

7. IH. (2000). "Flood Estimation Handbook." Institute of Hydrology.

8. Outburst Floods (GLOF) Risk Reduction in the Himalayas - Preparatory Assessment

Study Report Sutlej Basin - Himachal Pradesh India." New Delhi.

9. Grade R. J., 2005, River "Morphology" New Age International Publishers.

10..C.W.C., July 2010, Development of Hydrological Design Aids (Surface Water)

under Hydrology Project-II.

11. Engman E.T., and Gurney R.J., 1991,Remote Sensing in Hydrology, Chapman and

Hall India, Madras.

12. Subramanya K., 2010, Engineering Hydrology, McGra Hill,New Delhi.

13. Ojha C. S. P., Berndtsson R. and Bhunya P., 2009, Engineering Hydrology, Oxford,

New Delhi.

51
14. Brass R. L., 1990, Hydrology an Introduction to Hydrologic Science, Addiion

Wesley Publication.

15. Aldama Alvaro. A. and Ramirez A. I.,2002, The. Extremes of The extremes:

Extraordinary floods, IAHS Publication No — 271, 2002.

16. THDC,1990, Updated Hydrological studies for Tehri dam, Design report No.

THDC-DEO-90/1.

17. Akshay R.T. et al., June 2011, Design flood estimation for upper Krishna basin,

IJEST.

18. C. W. C., 1994, Flood estimation report western Himalayas Zone 7.

52
 APPENDIX A Calculations of Trend Analysis
Median crossing test
If Q<Median then 0; and m
SR. no. Year Flood peak
if Q>Median then 1
1 1964 2208.00 1 1
2 1965 1452.00 0 1
3 1966 2904.00 1
4 1967 2218M6 1 1
5 1968 1521.84 0
6 1969 1592.04 0
7 1970 1730.26 0 1
8 1971 2340.60 1
9 1972 1756.75 1
10 1973 2300.82 1
11 1974 1843.51 1 1
12 1975 1558.46 0
13 1976 1445. 1 0 0 1
14 1977 1818.56 1
15 1978 4403.08 1
16 1979 2295.02 1 1
17 1980 1635.77 0
18 1981 1523.98 0
19 1982 1565.45 0
20 1983 1675.34 0
21 1984 1182.77 0'
22 1985 1334.29 0 1
23 1986 2598.92 1 1
24 1987 896.46 0
25 1988 1687.56 0
26 1989 1203.70 0
27 1990 1474.27 0
28 1991 1174.25 0 1
29 1992 1850.51 1
30 1993 1860.72 1
31 1994 2288.66 1
32 1995 2004.52 1 1
33 1996 1290.85 0 1
34 1997 2601.68 1
35 1998 2062.87 1 1
36 1999 1260.86 0
37 2000 1189.85 0 1
38 2001 1763.66 1
39 2002 1911.46 1
40 2003 1758.37 1 1
41 2004 1492.70 0
m= 15

Median = 1441.88
m= 15
E(m)= (n-1)/2 = 20
Var(m)= ((n-1)/4) = 10.00
Z= (m-E(m))/(Var(m))^0 5 __.. -1.5811
As Abs(Z)< 1.96 at 5% significant level so, no trend is accepted.

53
turning point test (Kendall's test)

SR. no. Year annual max. flood(X1) Turning Point

1 1964 2208.00
2 1965 1452.00 T
3 1966 2904.00 P
4 1967 2218.06
5 1968 1521.84 T
6 1969 1592.04
7 1970 1730.26
8 1971 2340.60 P
9 1972 1756.75 T
10 1973 2300.82 P
11 1974 1843.51
12 1975 1558.46
13 1976 1445.10 T
14 1977 1818.56
15 1978 4403.08 P
16 1979 2295.02
17 1980 1635.77
18 1981 1523.98 T
19 1982 1565.45
20 1983 1675.34 P
21 1984 1182.77 T
22 1985 1334.29
23 1986 2598.92 P
24 1987 896.46 T
25 1988 1687.56 P
26 1989 1203.70 T
27 1990 1474.27 P
28 1991 1174.25 T
29 1992 1850.51
30 1993 1860.72
31 1994 2288.66 P
32 1995 2004.52
33 1996 1290.85 T
34 1997 2601.68 P
35 1998 2062.87
36 1999 1260.86
37 2000 1189.85 T
38 2001 1763.66
39 2002 1911.46 P
40 2003 1758.37
41 2004 1492.70

no of obs, n '41
no of turning point, p `22
E(P) = 2(n-2)/3 = s _. _ 126.00
Var(P) _ (16n-29)/90 = ..I 6.97
Z = (P- E(P))/(Var(P))1/?= _ ... -1.5155
since Abs(Z)< 1.96 at 5% significant level, Time series is random.

54.
•
Rank difference test

[R(Xi)-R(X1_1)]
2
SR. no. Year Flood peak RANK, R(X1) [R(X1)-R(X 1 )]
1 1964 2208.00 10
2 1965 1452.00 32 22 484
3 1966 2904.00 2 30 900
4 1967 2218.06 9 7 49
5 1968 1521.84 29 20 400
6 1969 1592.04 25 4 16
7 1970 1730.26 21 4 . 16
8 1971 2340.60 5 16 256
9 1972 1756.75 20 15 225
10 1973 2300.82 6 14 196
11 1974 1843.51 16 10 100
12 1975 1558.46 27 11 121
13 1976 1445.10 33 6 36
14 1977 1818.56 17 16 256
15 1978 4403.08 1 16 256
16 1979 2295.02 7 6 36
17 1980 1635.77 24 17 289
18 1981 1523.98 28 4 16
19 1982 1565.45 26 2 4
20 1983 1675.34 23 3 9
21 1984 1182.77 39 16 256
22 1985 1334.29 34 5 25
23 1986 2598.92 4 30 900
24 1987 896.46 41 37 1369
25 1988 1687.56 22 19 361
26 1989 1203.70 37 15 225
27 1990 1474.27 31 6 36
28 1991 1174.25 40 9 81
29 1992 1850.51 15 25 625
30 1993 1860.72 14 1 1
31 1994 2288.66 8 6 36
32 1995 2004.52 12 4 16
33 1996 1290.85 35 23 529
34 1997 2601.68 3 32 1024
35 1998 2062.87 11 8 64
36 1999 1260.86 36 25 625
37 2000 1189.85 38 2 4
38 2001 1763.66 18 20 400
39 2002 1911.46 13 5 25
40 2003 1758.37 19 6 36
41 2004 1492.70 30 11 121
528 10424
, ! f

n= 41
U = 528
E(U) = 560 `.
Var(U) _ [(n-2)(n+1)(4n-7)/90]1/2 53.455
Z = (U-E(U))/Var(U) _ -0.5986___
As Abs(Z)< 1.96 at 5% significant level so, no trend is accepted.

55
Kendall's rank co-relation test
annual max. no. of time the value
SR. no. Year
exceeded by subsequent
1 1964 2208.00 9
2 1965 1452.00 30
3 1966 2904.00 1
4 1967 2218.06 7
5 1968 1521.84 25
6 1969 1592.04 21
7 1970 1730.26 17
8 1971 2340.60 3
9 1972 1756.75 15
10 1973 2300.82 3
11 1974 1843.51 10
12 1975 1558.46 17
13 1976 1445.10 20
14 1977 1818.56 10
15 1978 4403.08 0
16 1979 2295.02 2
17 1980 1635.77 12
18 1981 1523.98 13
19 1982 1565.45 12
20 1983 1675.34 11
21 1984 1182.77 18
22 1985 1334.29 13
23 1986 2598.92 1
24 1987 896.46 17
25 1988 1687.56 9
26 1989 1203.70 13
27 1990 1474.27 10
28 1991 1174.25 13
29 1992 1850.51 6
30 1993 ' 1860.72 5
31 1994 2288.66 1
32 1995 2004.52 2
33 1996 1290.85 6
34 1997 2601.68 0
35 1998 2062.87 0
36 1999 1260.86 4
37 2000 1189.85 4
38 2001 1763.66 1
39 2002 1911.46 0
40 2003 1758.37 0
41 2004 1492.70 0
Kendall's Rank P= 361

361
n= 41
T=4P/(n(n-1))-1= -0.1195
Var(T) = {2(2n+5)}/{9n(n-1)} = ;0.0118
Z = {T-E(T)}/{Var(T)}"2 = -1.10073
As Abs(Z)< 1.96 at 5% significant level so, no trend is accepted.

56
Linear regression tet
annual
(X~ - Xmean)
Year i max.
SR. no.(X•) (X• - Xmean) (X-- Xmean)2 ('' -' mean) (Y 'Ymean
Z
flood (Y;) (Yi'Ymean)
1964 1 2208.00 -20.00 400 386.60 149456.08 -7731.91
1965 2 1452.00 -19.00 361 -369.40 136459.68 7018.69
1966 3 2904.00 -18.00 324 1082.60 1172013.02 -19486.72
1967 4 2218.06 -17.00 289 396.65 157332.41 -6743.08
1968 5 1521.84 -16.00 256 -299.56 89738.89 4793.03
1969 6 1592.04 -15.00 225 -229.36 52608.07. 3440.47
1970 7 1730.26 -14.00 196 -91.15 8308.05 1276.08
1971 8 2340.60 -13.00 169 519.20 269563.97 -6749.54
1972 9 1756.75 -12.00 144 -64.65 4179.95 775.83
1973 10 2300.82 -11.00 121 479.42 229839.22 -5273.57
1974 11 1843.51 -10.00 100 22.11 488.74 -221.07
1975 12 1558.46 -9.00 81 -262.94 69137.71 2366.46
1976 13 1445.10 -8.00 64 -376.30 141605.08 3010.44
1977 14 1818.56 -7.00 49 -2.84 8.07 19.88
1978 15 4403.08 -6.00 36 2581.67 6665027.73 -15490.03
1979 16 2295.02 -5.00 25 473.62 224315.43 -2368.10
1980 17 1635.77 -4.00 16 -185.64 34460.91 742.55
1981 18 1523.98 -3.00 9 -297.43 88463.71 892.29
1982 19 1565.45 -2.00 4 -255.96 65513.73 511.91
1983 20 1675.34 -1.00 1 -146.06 21333.67 146.06
1984 21 1182.77 0.00 0 -638.64 407856.58 0.00
1985 22 1334.29 1.00 1 -487.11 237278.59 . -487.11
1986 23 2598.92 2.00 4 777.52 604536.57 1555.04
1987 24 896.46 3.00 9 -924.94 855522.33 -2774.83
1988 25 1687.56 4.00 16 -133.84 17914.35 -535.38
1989 26 1203.70 5.00 25 -617.71 381563.79 -3088.54.
1990 27 1474.27 6.00 36 -347.13 120500.97 -2082.80
1991 28 1174.25 7.00 49 -647.16 418811.54 -4530.10
1992 29 1850.51 8.00 64 29.10 847.01 232.83
1993 30 1860.72 9.00 81 39.32 1545.71 353.84
1994 31 2288.66 10.00 100 467.26 218331.44 4672.60
1995 32 2004.52 11.00 121 183.11 33529.82 2014.23
.1996 33 1290.85 12.00 144 -530.55 281485.96 -6366.63
1997 34 2601.68 13.00 169 780.28 608836.10 10143.63
1998 35 2062.87 14.00 196 241.47 58306.55 3380.55
1999 36 1260.86 15.00 225 -560.54 314205.65 -8408.11
2000 37 1189.85 16.00 256 -631.56 398863.61 -10104.90
2001 38 1763.66 17.00 289 -57.74 3333.97 -981.59
2002 39 1911.46 18.00 324 90.05 8109.27 1620.93
2003 40 1758.37 19.00 361 -63.03 3973.10 -1197.62
2004 41 1492.70 20.00 400 -328.70 108044.02 -6574.01
= 74677.58 0.00 5740 0.00 14663251.05 -62228.32

57
)(mean = 21
Ymean — 1821.4045
SX = 11.9791
SY = 605.4596
CORBEL = -0.2145
b = E(Xi - xmean)(Yi-Ymean)/(Xi -
Xmean)2 = -10.84
a = Ymean-Xmean*b = 1745.50
2.L 2 E(Y,-Ymean)2-b2E(Xi - Xlnea„)2 = 13 98 8623.29

S =[ELi2 /(n-1)]^0.5 = 598.90

Sb = S2/E(X1 - Xmean)2 = 62.49

Sb = 'ISb2 = 7.90
Tb=b/Sb= -1.37

58
I onoth ref run tact

SR. no. Year Flood peak Run Run length, S

1 1964 2208.00 A 1
2 1965 1452.00 B 1
3 1966 2904.00 A
4 1967 2218.06 A 2
5 1968 1521.84 B
6 1969 1592.04 B 3
7 1970 1730.26 B
8 1971 2340.60 A
9 1972 1756.75 A
10 1973 2300.82 A 4
11 1974 1843.51
12 1975 1558.46
13 1976 1445.10 B 2
14 1977 1818.56 A
15 1978 4403.08 A 3
16 1979 2295.02 A
17 1980 1635.77 B
18 1981 1523.98 B
19 1982 1565.45 B
20 1983 1675.34 B 6
21 1984 1182.77 B
22 1985 1334.29
23 1986 2598.92 A 1
24 1987 896.46
25 1988 1687.56
26 1989 1203.70 B 5
27 1990 1474.27
28 1991 1174.25
29 1992 1850.51
30 1993 1860.72 A 4
31 1994 2288.66 A
32 1995 2004.52
33 1996 1290.85 B 1
34 1997 2601.68 A
2062.87 A 2
35 1998
36 1999 1260.86 B
37 2000 1189.85 B 2
38 2001 1763.66
39 2002 1911.46 A 3
40 2003 1758.37
41 2004 1492.70 B 1
median 1441.88
E(ms) = ( n+3-s)/25+i

S ms E(ms) E(m.,)]2/E(m5)
1 5 10.75 3.08 X2(1)= 11.07 for s' = 6 at 5% significance level
2 4 5.25 0.30
3 3 2.56 0.07 As l[m5-E(ms)]2/E(m5) <X2(S -1) at 5%
4 2 1.25 0.45 significance level, hence the series has no
5 1 0.61 0.25 trend.
6 1 0.30 1.67
1= 5.81

59
Wald-Wolfowitz test
SR. no. Year Flood peak (X) x2 X1 3 X•4 X•*X•_
1 1964 2208.00 4.88E+06 1.08E1-10 2.38E+13
2 1965 1452.00 2. 1 E+06 3.06E+09 4.44E+12 3206016.00
3 1966 2904.00 8.43E+06 2.45E+10 711E+13 4216608.00
4 1967 2218.06 4.92 +06 1.09E+1O 2.42E+13 6441234.62
5 1968 1521.84 2.32E+06 3.52E+09 5.36E+12 3375526.34
6 1969 1592.04 2.53E+06 4.04E+09 6.42E+12 2422830.15
7 1970 1730.26 2.99E+06 5.18E+09 8.96E+12 2754636.76
8 1971 2340.60 5.48E+06 1.28E+10 3.00E+13 4049837.19
9 1972 1756.75 3.09E+06 5.42E+09 9.52E+12 4111853.73
10 1973 2300.82 5.29E+06 1.22E+10 2.80E+13 4041970.14
11 1974 1843.51 3.40E+06 6.27E+09 1.16E+13 4241589.28
12 1975 1558.46 2.43E+06 3.79E+09 5.90E+12 2873047.09
13 1976 1445.10 2.09E+06 3.02E+09 4.36E+12 2252136.33
14 1977 1818.56 3.31E+06 + 9 1.09E+13 2628006.84
15 1978 4403.08 1.94E+07 8.54E+10 3.76E+14 8007275.50
16 1979 2295.02 5.27E+06 1.21E+10 2.77E+13 10105165.09
17 1980 1635.77 2.68E+06 4.38E+09 7.16E+12 3754126.82
18 1981 1523.98 2.32E+06 3.54E+09 5.39E+12 2492871.17
19 1982 1565.45 2.45E+06 3.84E+09 6.OIE+12 2385705.18
20 1983 1675.34 2.81 Ei-06 4.70E+09 7.88E+12 2622663.91
21 1984 1182.77 l.40E+06 .65 + 9 1.96E+12 1981543.27
22 1985 1334.29. 1.78E+06 + 3.17E-'-12 1578151.88
23 1986 2598.92 6.75E+06 1.76E+10 4.56E+13 3467723.50
24 1987 896.46 8.04E+05 7.20E+08 6.4 + 2329831.41
25 1988 1687.56 2.85E+06 4.81E+09 8.I1E+12 1512830.04
26 1989 1203.70 1.45E+06 1.74E+09 2. OE+ 2 2031309.22
27 1990 1474.27 2.17E+06 3.20E+09 4.72E+12 1774575.31
28 1991 1174.25 1.38E+06 1.62E+09 1.90E+12 1731160.95
29 1992 1850.51 3.42E-'-06 6.34E+09 1.17E+13 2172955.32
30 1993 1860.72 3.46E+06 6.44E+09 1.20E-'-13 3443277.25
31 1994 2288.66 5.24E+06 1.20E+10 2.74E+13 4258562.88
32 1995 2004.52 4.02E+06 8.05E+09 1.61E+13 4587663.61
33 1996 1290.85 1.67E+06 2.15E-'-09 2.78E+12 2587533.49
34 1997 2601.68 6.77E+06 1.76E+10 4.58E+13 3358388.99
35 1998 2062.87 4.26E+06 8.78E+09 1.81E+13 5366941.08
36 1999 1260.86 1.59E+06 2.00E+09 2.53E+12 2601001.04
37 2000 .1189.85 1.42E+06 1.68E+09 2.00E+12 1500236.51
38 2001 1763.66 3.11E+06 5.49E+09 9.68E+12 2098492.08
39 2002 1911.46 3.65E+06 6.98E+09 1.33E+13 3371166.13
40 2003 1758.37 3.09E+06 5.44E+09 9.56E+12 3361050.71
41 2004 1492.70 2.23E+06 3.33E+09 4.96E+12 2624728.92
= 7.47E+04 1.51E+08 3.45E+11 9.19E+14
4

r= LX "r A i

R = lXi*Xi_1+X1*X,. 1 1370181202
-..__..
E(R) = (SI^2 - S2) /(n-1) - 135651505.4 ! 4
Var(R) =
1)}^2+(S1^4-451^282+48183+SZ^2-254)/(n--1)/(n 11.84054E+16
o = Var(R)^0.5 = :135666630.2
Z={R- E(R)}/(Var(R))^0.5= '0.0101
As Abs(Z)< 1.96 at 5% significant level so, no trend is accepted.
Run above and below median test

SR. no. Year Flood peak(X) Run

1 1964 2208.00 A
2 1965 1452.00 B
3 1966 2904.00 A
4 1967 2218.06 A
5 1968 1521.84 B
6 1969 1592.04 B
7 1970 1730.26 B
8 1971 2340.60 A
9 1972 1756.75 A
10 1973 2300.82 A
11 1974 1843.51 A
12 1975 1558.46 B
13 1976 1445.10 B
14 1977 1818.56 A
15 1978 4403.08 A
16 1979 2295.02 A
17 1980 1635.77 B
18 1981 1523.98 B
19 1982 1565.45 B
20 1983 1675.34 B
21 1984 1182.77 B
22 1985 1334.29 B
23 1986 2598.92 A
24 1987 896.46 B
25 1988 1687.56 B
26 1989 1203.70 B
27 1990 1474.27 B
28 1991 1174.25 - B
29 1992 1850.51 A
30 1993 1860.72 A
31 1994 2288.66 A
32 1995 2004.52 A
33 1996 1290.85 B
34 1997 2601.68 A
35 1998 2062.87 A
36 1999 1260.86 B
37 2000 1189.85 B
38 2001 1763.66 A
39 2002 1911.46 A
40 2003 1758.37 A
41 2004 1492.70 B
16
RUNAB =
N1= 20
N2= 21
Z = ABS(RUNAB-[(2*N1*N2)/(N1+N2)+1])/(2*N1*N2(2*N1*N2-N1-
N2)/[(N1+N2)(2*(N1+N2-1)]^.05) _ 10.00212
As Abs(Z)< 1.96 at 5% significant level so, no trend is accepted.

M
Rank von neuman ratio test
SR. no. Year Flood peak RANK, R(X1) [R(Xi)-R(X;.1)] [R(Xi)-R(XF1)]2
1 1964 2208.00 10
2 1965 1452.00 32 22 484
3 1966 2904.00 2 30 900
4 1967 2218.06 9 7 49
5 1968 1521.84 29 20 400
6 1969 1592.04 25 4 16
7 1970 1730.26 21 4 16
8 1971 2340.60 5 16 256
9 1972 1756.75 20 15 225
10- 1973 2300.82 6 14 196
11 1974 1843.51 16 10 100
12 1975 1558.46 27 11 121
13 1976 1445.10 33 6 36
14 1977 1818.56 17 16 256
15 1978 4403.08 1 16 256
16 1979 2295.02 7 6 36
17 1980 1635.77 24 17 289
18 1981 1523.98 28 4 16
19 1982 1565.45 26 2 4
20 1983 1675.34 23 3 9
21 1984 1182.77 39 16 256
22 1985 1334.29 34 5 25
23 1986 2598.92 4 30 900
24 1987 896.46 41 37 1369
25 1988 1687.56 22 19 361
26 1989 1203.70 37 15 225
27 1990 1474.27 31 6 36
28 1991 1174.25 40 9 81
29 1992 - 1850.51 - 15 25 625
30 1993 1860.72 14 1 1
31 1994 . 2288.66 8 6 36
32 1995 2004.52 12 4 16
33 1996 1290.85 35 23 529
34 1997 2601.68 3 32 1024
35 1998 2062.87 11 8 64
36 1999 1260.86 36 25 625
37 2000 1189.85 38• 2 4
38 2001 1763.66 18 20 400
39 2002 1911.46 13 5 25
40 2003 1758.37 19 6 36
41 2004 1492.70 30 11 121
528 10424

V = (Z[R(X~)-R(X1-1)) 2)/(n(n2 1)/12) = 1.816f

E(V) = 2 = 2.00
Var(V) =4/n = 0.0981
Z = (V-E(V))/(Var(V))^0.5 = -0.589
As Ab < 1.96 at 5% significant level so, no trend is accepted.

62
Von neuman ratio test
annual max. (Xi-Xi-i)2
SR. no: Year (X1 - Xmean) (Xi - Xmean)2
1 1964 2208.00 386.60 149456.0806
2 1965 1452.00 -369.40 136459.6846 571536.00
3 1966. 2904.00 1082.60 1172013.0166 2108304.00
4 1967 2218.06 396.65 157332.4125 470519.17
5 1968 1521.84 -299.56 89738.8897 484716.72
6 1969 1592.04 . -229.36 52608.0739 4928.04
7 1970 1730.26 -91.15 8308.0491 19103.66
8 1971 2340.60 519.20 269563.9672 372519.80
9 1972 1756.75 -64.65 4179.9458 340878.49
10 1973 2300.82 479.42 229839.2216 296009.99
11 1974 1843.51 22.11 488.7416 209130.61
12 1975 1558.46 -262.94 69137.7065 81252.36
13 1976 1445.10 -376.30 141605.0767 12851.40
14 1977 1818.56 -2.84 8.0684 139475.36
15 1978 4403.08 2581.67 6665027.7339 6679702.28
16 1979 2295.02 473.62 224315.4308 4443883.23
17 1980 1635.77 -185.64 34460.9101 434618.47
18 1981 1523.98 -297.43 88463.7126 12497.45
19 1982 1565.45 -255.96 65513.7299 1719.93
20 1983 1675.34 -146.06 21333.6697 12077.13
21 1984 1182.77 -638.64 407856.5791 242631.12
22. 1985 1334.29 -487.11 237278.5877 22959.52
23 1986 2598.92 777.52 604536.5729 1599294.10
24 1987 896.46 -924.94 855522.3281 2898383.67
25 1988 1687.56 -133.84 17914.3502 625839.21
26 1989 1203.70 -617.71 381563.7910 234124.37
27 1990 1474.27 -347.13 120500.9726 73211.37
28 1991 1174.25 -647.16 418811.5355 90014.40
29 1992 1850.51 29.10 847.0137 457327.59
30 1993 1860.72 . 39.32 1545.7085 104.28
31 1994 2288.66 467.26 218331.4403 183136.07
32 1995 2004.52 183.11 33529.8214 80740.09
33 1996 1290.85 -530.55 281485.9553 509316.30
34 1997 2601.68 780.28 608836.0981 1718280.53
35 1998 2062.87 241.47 58306.5536 290318.37
36 1999 1260.86 -560.54 314205.6521 643216.83
37 2000 1189.85 -631.56 398863.6127 5043.27
38 2001 1763.66 -57.74 3333.9653 329264.80
39 2002 1911.46 90.05 8109.2727 21842.48
40 2003 1758.37 -63.03 3973.0961 23434.71
41 2004 1492.70 -328.70 108044.0187 70579.49
74677.58 0.00 14663251.0472 26814786.66

V = I((X1 Xi-i)2 /I(XjXmean)2= 1.829]

E(V)=2= 2.000,
Var(V) =4(n-2)/(n^2-1) = 0.305;
Z = (V-E(V))/(Var(V))^0.5 = -0.562.
As Abs(Z)< 1.96 at 5% significant level so, no trend is accepted.

63
Auto correlation test
SR. annual max. (Xi - (X1 - Lag series (Y1- (Yi - Ymean)(X1-
no. Year flood(X1) Xmean) Xmean)2 K= 1, Yj Ymean) (Yi- Ymean)2 Xmean)
1 1964 2208.00 386.60 1.49E+05
2 1965 1452.00 -369.40 1.36E+05 2208.00 378.38 143169.91 -139774.54
3 1966 2904.00 1082.60 1.17E+06 1452.00 -377.62 142598.37 -408811.88
4 1967 2218.06 396.65 1.57E+05 2904.00 1074.38 1154288.09 426153.65
5 1968 1521.84 -299.56 8.97E+04 2218.06 388.43 150880.97 -116361.04
6 1969 1592.04 -229.36 5.26E+04 1521.84 -307.78 94729.76 70594.26
7 1970 1730.26 -91.15 8.31E+03 1592.04 -237.58 56445.21 21655.24
8 1971 2340.60 519.20 2.70E+05 1730.26 -99.37 9873.60 -51590.38
9 1972 1756.75 -64.65 4.18E+03 2340.60 510.98 261098.52 -33036.01
10 1973 2300.82 479.42 2.30E+05 1756.75 -72.87 5310.04 -34935.01
11 1974 1843.51 22.11 4.89E+02 2300.82 471.20 222027.56 10417.01
12 1975 1558.46 -262.94 6.91E+04 1843.51 13.89 192.93 -3652.24
13 1976 1445.10 -376.30 1.42E+05 1558.46 -271.16 73526.66 102037.98
14 1977 1818.56 -2.84 8.07E+00 1445.10 -384.52 147857.17 1092.23
15 1978 4403.08 2581.67 6.67E+06 1818.56 -11.06 122.28 -28548.12
16 1979 2295.02 473.62 2.24E+05 4403.08 2573.45 6622665.49 1218838.00
17 1980 1635.77 -185.64 3.45E+04 2295.02 465.40 216599.02 -86395.60
18 1981 1523.98 -297.43 8.85E+04 1635.77 -193.85 37579.37 57657.70
19 1982 1565.45 -255.96 6.55E+04 1523.98 -305.65 93419.48 78232.08
20 1983 1675.34 -146.06 2.13E+04 1565.45 -264.17 69787.90 38585.39
21 1984 1182.77 -638.64 4.08E+05 1675.34 -154.28 23801.70 98527.56
22 1985 1334.29 -487.11 2.37E+05 1182.77 -646.85 418420.10 315090.67
23 1986 2598.92 777.52 6.05E+05 1334.29 -495.33 245351.81 -385128.73
24 1987 896.46 -924.94 8.56E+05 2598.92 769.30 591825.57 -711561.65
25 1988 1687.56 -133.84 1.79E+04 896.46 -933.16 870791.32 124898.60
26 1989 1203.70 -617.71 3.82E+05 1687.56 -142.06 20181.61 87752.90
27 1990 1474.27 -347.13 1.21E+05 1203.70 -625.93 391783.36 217279.26
28 1991 1174.25 -647.16 4.19E+05 1474.27 -355.35 126273.62 229967.06
29 1992 1850.51 29.10 8.47E+02 1174.25 -655.37 429515.08 -19073.68
30 1993 1860.72 39.32 1.55E+03 1850.51 20.89 436.22 821.14
31 1994 2288.66 467.26 2.18E+05 1860.72 31.10 967.09 14530.84
32 1995 2004.52 183.11 3.35E+04 2288.66 459.04 210719.56 84055.87
33 1996 1290.85 -530.55 2.81E+05 2004.52 174.89 30587.91 -92790.45
34 1997 2601.68 780.28 6.09E+05 1290.85 -538.77 290273.11 -420391.19
35 1998 2062.87 241.47 5.83E+04 2601.68 772.06 596079.73 186427.88
36 1999 1260.86 -560.54 3.14E+05 2062.87 233.25 54405.56 -130746.07
37 2000 1189.85 -631.56 3.99E+05 1260.86 -568.76 323485.66 359202.81
38 2001 1763.66 -57.74 3.33E+03 1189.85 -639.77 409310.77 36940.87
39 2002 1911.46 90.05 8.11E+03 1763.66 -65.96 4350.46 -5939.62
40 2003 1758.37 -63.03 3.97E+03 1911.46 81.83 6696.80 -5158.20
41 2004 1492.70 -328.70 1.08E+05 1758.37 -71.25 5076.56 23419.91
74677.58 0.00 1.47E+07 73184.88 0.00 14552505.94 1130284.52
tor n=41 and k=1:
rk = 0.0778
E(rk) =-1/(n-k) _ -0.0250
Var(rk)= (n-k-1)/(n-k)2 = 0.0244
Upper limit = za/Z,f(Var(rk)+E(rk ) = 0.2810
Lower limit =-za/z-f(Var(rk )+E(rk ) _ -0.3310
Z=( rk-E(rk))/(Var(rk))^o.5= 0.6583
As Abs(Z)< 1.96 at 5% significant level so, no trend is accepted. I
64
Mann-Kendall Test
no. of time the no. of time the
annual max.
SR. no. Year value is less than value exceeded by S-values
flood(X1)
subsequent values subsequent values
1 1964 2208.00 9 31 -22
2 1965 -1452.00 30 9 21
3 1966 2904.00 1 37 -36
4 1967 2218.06 7 30 -23
5 1968 1521.84 25 11 14
6 1969 1592.04 21 14 7
7 1970 1730.26 17 17 0
8 1971 2340.60 3 30 -27
9 1972 1756.75 15 17 -2
10 1973 2300.82 3 28 -25
11 1974 1843.51 10 20 -10
12 1975 1558.46 17 12 5
13 1976 1445.10 20 8 12
14 1977 1818.56 10 17 -7
15 1978 4403.08 0 26 -26
16 1979 2295.02 2 23 -21
17 1980 1635.77 12 12 0
18 1981 1523.98 13 10 3
19 1982 1565.45 12 10 2
20 .. 1983 1675.34 11 10 1
21 1984 1182.77 18 2 16
22 1985 1334.29 13 6 7
23 1986 2598.92 1 17 -16
24 1987 896.46 17 0 17
25 1988 1687.56 9 7 2
26 1989 1203.70 13 2 11
27 1990 1474.27 10 4 6
28 1991 1174.25 13 0 13
29 1992 1850.51 6 6 0
30 1993 1860.72 5 6 -1
31 1994 2288.66 1 9 -8
32 1995 2004.52 2 7 -5
33 1996 1290.85 6 2 4
34 1997 2601.68 0 7 -7
35 1998 2062.87 0 6 -6
36 1999 1260.86 4 1 3
37 2000 1189.85 4 0 4
38 2001 1763.66 1 2 -1
39 2002 1911.46 0 2 -2
40 2003 1758.37 0 1 -1
41 2004 1492.70 0 0 0
Mann-Kendall's
Rank S = -98

S= -98
Var(S) = , [(n(n-1)(2n+5)]/18= '7926.67^
For S< 0, Z = (S+1)/[(Var(S))^0.5]= -1.089
As Abs(Z)< 1.96 at 5% significant level so, no trend is accepted.:
Spearman's Rho's test
SR. no. Year Flood peak RANK, R(Xi) [R(Xi)-i] [R(Xi)-i]^2
1 1964 2208.00 10 9 81
2 1965 1452.00 32 . 30 900
3 1966 2904.00 2 -1 1
4 1967 2218.06 9 5 25
5 1968 1521.84 29 24 576
6 1969 1592.04 25 19 361
7 1970 1730.26 21 14 196
8 1971 2340.60 5 -3 9
9 1972 1756.75 20 11 121
10 1973 2300.82 6 -4 16
11 1974 1843.51 16 5 25
12 1975 1558.46 27 15 225
13 , 1976 1445.10 33 20 400
14 1977 1818.56 17 3 9
15 1978 4403.08 1 -14 196
16 1979 2295.02 7 -9 81
17 1980 1635.77 24 7 49
18 1981 1523.98 28 10 100
19 1982 1565.45 26 7 49
20 1983 1675.34 23 3 9
21 1984 1182.77 39 18 324
22 1985 1334.29 34 12 144
23 1986 2598.92 4 -19 361
24 1987 896.46 41 17 289
25 1988 1687.56 22 -3 9
26 1989 1203.70 37 11 121
27 1990 1474.27 31 4 16
28 1991 1174.25 40 12 144
29 1992 1850.51 15 -14 196
30 1993 1860.72 14 -16 256
31 1994 2288.66 8 -23 529
32 1995 2004.52 12 -20 400
33 1996 1290.85 35 2 4
34 1997 2601.68 3 -31 961
35 1998 2062.87 11 -24 576
36 1999 1260.86 36 0 0
37 2000 1189.85 38 1 1
38 2001 1763.66 18 -20 400
39 2002 1911.46 13 -26 676
40 2003 1758.37 19 -21 441
41 2004 1492.70 30 -11 121
~= 9398

D = 1-[6*1[R(X1 )-i]2/(n(n2-1))] _ €0.1814

V(D) =1/(n-1) = 0.025
=
Z,,= D/[V(D)]1/2 1.1470
As Abs(Z)< 1.96 at 5% significant level so, no trend is accepted.
 APPENDIX B Goodness of fit test

D Index test
normal
Rank X; P=m/(n+1) KT (CO) Xca i Abs(X;-Xcal)
1 4403.08 0.024 1.98 2518.00 1885.07
2 2904.00 0.048 1.67 2360.46 543.54
3 2601.68 0.071 1.49 2269.19 , 332.49
4 2598.92 0.095 1.32 2181.90 .417.02
5 2340.60 0.119 1.20 2122.16 218.44
6 2300.82 0.143 1.09 2069.32 231.50
y= 3628.06

log normal
Rank X; P=m/(n+1) KT (CO) - Xcai Abs(X;-Xcai)
1 3669.23 0.024 1.98 2594.67 1808.41
2 2420.00 0.048 1.67 2367.90 536.10
3 2168.07 0.071 1.49 2245.70 355.99
4 2165.77 0.095 1.32 2134.74 464.18
5 1950.50 0.119 1.20 2061.98 278.62
6 1917.35 0.143 1.09 1999.68 301.14
= 3744.44

PT 3
Rank X; P=m/(n+1) KT(for c2.O7) Xcai Abs(X;Xcai)
1 3669.23 0.023809524 2.76 2910.15 1492.93
2 2420.00 0.047619048 2.05 2554.01 349.99
3 2168.07 0.071428571 1.70 2374.69 227.00
4 2165.77 0.095238095 1.36 2205.73 393.19
5 1950.50 0.119047619 1.16 2104.74 235.86
6 1917.35 0.142857143 1.00 2020.73 280.09
y= 2979.06

67
 LPT 3
KT(for
Rank Xi P=m/(n+1) Xca i Abs(Xi-Xcai)
cS=0.5816

1 3669.23 0.023809524 2.25 2806.73 1596.35

2 2420.00 0.047619048 1.83 2478.83 425.17
3 2168.07 0.071428571 1.59 2315.33 ' 286.35
4 2.6577 0.095238095 1.37 2169.83 429.09
5 1950.50 0.119047619 1.23 2079.87 260.73
6 191'7:-35 0.142857143 1.10 2004.90 295.92
Y= 3293.62

EV1
Rank Xi P=m/(n+1) T Xcai Abs(Xi-Xcai)
1 3669.23 0.023809524 42.00 2755.92 1647.15
2 2420.00 0.047619048 21.00 2478.53 425.47
3 2168.07 0.071428571 14.00 2314.16 287.53
4 2165.77 0.095238095 10.50 2196.00 402.93
5 1950.50 0.119047619 8.40 2103.10 237.50
6 1917.35 0.142857143 7.00 2026.15 274.67
= 3275.26

Distribution D Index
normal 1.99
log normal 2.06
PT 3 1.64
LPT 3 1.81
EVI 1.80

Least D Index is for LPT3 distribution, so LPT3 is considered to be the best fit
distribution

C..
 iiiuiiiniuuuiiiiiii:u::i::::::
00
....IflhIuuIII.IuIIIIIIuhuIm:::nI::
I■ u

i::iiiiiuuiuiiiuuui
..nnnhunI::::Inn
iu:::u:::iiuiuioiiiiniii
iwIIIIIflhIIII IIIII
inninnnnnniinu::::::uiiu M

____:::iiii:::::uiiu::niunii
--iiuuuiunu::u::::::::iiui
____iiiiiiiiiii::uininii:::unniu
-:: ::::uiiiininini
____:iilllIUIllIHHHhIIUHHIHHhI
:uiiiu:niuuiuuiuu
uiiuuuuu:u:::u::niuiuuinuiuiniu
11
1111v HI HIIIH