Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
• PFCS will successfully block India’s move of internationalizing the flood water
wastage in Pakistan for propaganda and grabbing more of Pakistan’s water.
Pakistan Flood Control System (PFCS)
• Proposed system can be built in stages but it is economical enough to be built
simultaneously. Proposed dams don’t need spillways due to their role, location
and sizes. Pakistan has most of necessary skills and material to build it alone.
• Additional power infrastructure can make this system much more profitable by
producing more electricity than WAPDA’s existing hydroelectric capacity of
6444 MW.
• PFCS is designed around historical peak floods in country with 50%+ safety
factor.
• Avoiding any urban settlement and thickly populated areas is one of its main
design consideration.
• Economic feasibility: 8+ times larger yet cheaper than existing options. System
will breakeven within first monsoon month of operation. Operating at 40%
capacity, PFCS will add US$ 70+ billion annually to the national economy.
• “New Deal”?
• Strategic and geopolitical impact.
• Last but not least, PFCS doesn’t need the Kalabagh dam. Instead it addresses
Kalabagh dam’s potential drawbacks positively due to effective flood control
in all four provinces, lack of water diversion and decentralization of Water &
Power storage.
Storage Economy(MAF/Billion US$)
7
0
Diamer basha dam Kalabagh Dam Akhori Dam Bhit Dam Soan Dam
Comparison with existing capacity
Storage Capacity Comparison(MAF)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Diamer basha dam Kalabagh Dam Akhori Dam Bhit Dam Soan Dam
How this presentation is different?
In July and August 2010, Indus basin saw extremely high level of floods due to
extra-ordinary monsoon spells.
Following are some public numbers about flood damage till November 2010.
• Fatalities: 1,974
• Population affected: 20,184,550
• Cropped Areas underwater: 5,546,636 Acres
• District Affected: 78
• Damage estimates: official: $9.7 Billion, Unofficial: $43+ Billion,
Reconstruction cost: 50+ Billions
Flood Map
Indus River Hydrograph during 2010 flood(cusecs)
Kabul River Hydrograph during 2010 flood
Jhelum River Hydrograph during 2010 flood
Chenab, Ravi and Sutlej
Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi and Sutlej
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Between Kalabagh and Taunsa(July 31st, 2010)
Between Kalabagh and Taunsa(Aug 1st, 2010)
Indus river normal flow (Aug-9-2009)
Indus river during flood (Aug-12-2010)
A closer look at Mithan Kot
A closer look at Guddu Barrage(Aug-12-2010)
Northern Sindh province with normal Flow
On August 11th 2010
October 12th 2010
Scale of 2010 flood: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Scale of 2010 flood: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Scale of 2010 flood: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Scale of 2010 flood: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Scale of 2010 flood: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Scale of 2010 flood: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Scale of 2010 flood: Azad kashmir
Scale of 2010 flood: Gilgit Baltistan
Scale of 2010 flood: Punjab
Scale of 2010 flood: Punjab
Scale of 2010 flood: Punjab
Scale of 2010 flood: Balochistan
Scale of 2010 flood: Balochistan
Scale of 2010 flood: Sindh
Scale of 2010 flood: Sindh
Scale of 2010 flood: Sindh
Scale of 2010 flood: Sindh
True, and God helps those, who help themselves
Facts and Figures of 2010 flood
• 55.26 MAF (Equal to 8 full Tarbela lakes) of water passed through Kotri
barrage into Arabian sea between July 13th and October 4th 2010
• 72.87 MAF water passed through Guddu Barrage during the same
time(adjusted).
• Below Guddu, 17.61 MAF Indus flood water didn’t reach the sea, submerging
big areas in Sindh and Balochistan for next several months. (excluding Guddu
downstream right bank tributaries flood runoff)
• 73.35 MAF water passed through Taunsa and Panjnad together.
• Stagnant water in Punjab cannot be accurately calculated due to unregulated
right bank flood streams of Suleiman range.
• 3.2 MAF of accounted water stayed in Punjab. an equivalent of all right bank
catchment from Chashma to Guddu including Tochi, Zhob, Gomal, Tank,
Vehowa and the Zams stayed in Punjab and lower Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
• Total water loss during 2010 summer estimates about 85 MAF, equal to winter
storage for next 8 years at current capacity.
Flood control in Pakistan
• Pakistan doesn’t have a flood control system due to lack of storage capacity and
absence of known practical options.
• Existing dams and proposed Kalabagh dam is too small to handle the amount of
inflow in 2010 flood.
• Kalabagh could have stored only 7.5% of total water but not without upstream
damage in Nowshera and above.
• In future, due to global warming, region expects increased frequency and intensity
of flash floods coupled with higher glacier melt runoff. Proposed theory of
Redistribution precipitation (Seasonal Shift) link increases the need of a serious
solution for flood control.
• In absence of a comprehensive plan, such floods can hit the backbone of country’s
economy after ever few years.
• This was not the last flood. Floods will certainly happen again, in a year, or a
decade, or later. No one can say it will never happen again.
• By taking solid steps, Pakistan can change such disasters into a blessing by saving
$30-50 billions of flood damage per decade, and earning much bigger amount by
increased agricultural productivity, extra power generation and food security
What can be controlled?
• Eastern rivers (Ravi and Sutlej) are controlled by India. Pakistan doesn’t have
suitable topography to handle floods in these rivers. Although huge flood canals
can be built to divert a portion of flood water into Cholistan desert to recharge
underground aquifers and tobas (ponds) for later use.
• Chenab is a special case. India cannot control it due to lack of rights, and Pakistan
doesn’t have a suitable site to control it along its length in Pakistan. It is similar to
Indian situation about Yarlung Tsangpo River (Brahmaputra River) in Arunachal
Pradesh where India doesn’t have a suitable site to control the 17 times bigger
river(by annual average flow rate), yet it doesn’t want China to build any reservoir
or ROR power project.
• In presence of Kashmir conflict, there is no short term solution for Chenab
flooding. Proposed Chiniot dam in Punjab (1MAF) can help, but it is too small for
super floods.
• Kabul, Jhelum and Indus rivers contribute 83% of Pakistan’s share of Indus system
water.
• We will focus on these three rivers, and will discuss the possible options to avoid
future floods, while using flood water for agriculture and power generation.
• West Side Tributaries of Indus from Tarbela to Arabian sea carry a significant
amount of non perennial flood water. Linking of ongoing and future Medium and
small dams(Kurram Tangi, Gomal Zam, Tank Zam, Baran dam etc) along western
slopes can control and harvest flash floods.
This wasn’t the biggest flood
• 2010 flood wasn’t the biggest for all Pakistani rivers. Jhelum (at Mangla)
saw 10,90,000 cusecs on Sept 10th 1992 as compared to 2,67,000 cusecs
peak on July 31st 2010.
• Chenab’s (Marala) maximum for 2010 was 2,16,000. 26 August 1957 flood
at Marala was 11,00,000 followed by 8,70,795 on 5/7/1959 and 8,45,090
on August 28th 1992.
• Ravi’s (Jassar)2010 peak was 21,000 vs 6,80,000 in 1955. flood of 1988
overflew at Jassar, with a record of 5,76,000 at Shahdara downstream.
• Sutlej stayed around 53,000 in 2010, in contrast to 5,98,872 in 1955 and
3,99,453 in 1988
• We are not ready for any such record flood.
• In future, as Pakistani population and cities grow, the damage will grow for
same intensity of floods.
Past 10 Floods through Kotri
• 1976: 64 MAF
• 1983: 43.8 MAF
• 1988 :44.7 MAF
• 1991: 42.0 MAF
• 1992: 69.19 MAF
• 1994: 81. 21 MAF
• 1995: 61. 09 MAF
• 2005: 24.5 MAF
• 2007: 15.82 MAF
• 2010: 55.8 MAF (excludes 33-35 MAF stagnant water)
• Total 535 MAF, worth 1.07 Trillion US dollars.
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Marala_outflow_1992 Marala_outflow_1997 Marala_wave1_2010 Marala_wave2_2010
Flood control on Indus river
• Akhori Dam is a 6.0 MAF off channel storage project. Its proposed 400 ft high
5 KM long main dam and (7 km long saddle dam) makes its construction
much bigger than Tarbela.
• With option of 7-8 times larger design capacity of Soan reservoir, Pakistan my
not need Akhori dam, and same resources can be used to build Rohtas and
Khyber dam.
• World Bank team carried out inspection of Akhori and Sanjwal dam locations
in 1968 . Team head Dr Lieftnick in his report, rejected Akhori Dam for a
height of 250 ft due to foundation problems,.
• A 400 ft high design at same site, may become too expensive.
Flood control on Jhelum River
• Mangla Dam stores about 4 MAF of water, but being the single storage
dam on Jhelum, it is not flexible enough to handle additional flood water
especially in late summer. Most major floods hit Mangla when it is already
full.
• Pakistan has minimal control on flooding in Chenab, Ravi and Sutlej. A
flood in Jhelum river, coupled with flood in these three rivers can be very
dangerous (like in 1992).
• PFCS suggests “Rohtas Dam” with 9 MAF storage to handle super floods
up to twice the size of 1992 flood of Jhelum.
• Available storage limit is huge, and it can balance Chenab flow during high
flow season and large floods.
• Location of Rohtas dam can offer a lake up to 16 MAF size, and southern
Bunhar river valley can make another 9 MAF lake, but such big reservoirs
are not needed.
• Next few slides show the amount of water to handle. Please note that
Jhelum and Chenab usually flood simultaneously, and their combined flow
rate at Tarimmu and below can become bigger than Indus river’s
maximum combined flow rate during 2010 flood.
Flood of 1992
1000000
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Mangla_inflow_1992 Mangla_outflow_1992
Flood control in Kabul river basin
• Seismicity of site is favorable (g factor 0.03-0.1, Source GSP Seismic Hazard Map of Pakistan)
• In World bank’s report, figure of 8.5 MAF was used based upon a design of three parallel canals
running for three months, needing water-lifting at some locations. It would have needed 15-17
unlined high maintenance parallel canals for transporting total flood water during flood season.
It makes sense why this project didn’t get due attention . 45 years later, options of lined channel
and large diameter tunnel boring can help exploit full potential of this site.
Soan Dam site Geology
Dam axis lies on Pliocene and Miocene sedimentary rocks, same as the site of proposed
Kalabagh dam. (Source: Geological Map of Pakistan, DG GSP)
Soan Dam site Geology
Soan Dam
• Soan reservoir, made a dam 1 km upstream from Dhok Pathan bridge offers up to 46.6
MAF gross storage. A 113 meters deep lake can hold 38.4 MAF water. Several dam
locations are available between Markhal to upstream Dhok Pathan from 395 m to 415
masl.
• A dam at this location will not distribute any water from Indus river. It will collect during
flood season and drain back to system at right time.
• Proposed Grand Indus canal at 50000 cusecs can increase its effective capacity to 48.4
MAF for same height of 113 m.
• dam at this site will be relatively low cost. Material requirements are 60% of Tarbela
dam.
• Mangla’s main dam and dykes length is more than 10 KM. 30 KM long Hirakud Dam on
Mahanadi river in India (built in 1957) is four times longer than biggest possible Soan
Dam.
Soan Reservoir
•Following table shows possible capacity of Soan reservoir (using SRTM DEM V4.1)
Required Dam elevation from contour Lake Lake capacity at Possible gross
#
length (KM) river bed(m) elevation(m) area(Acres) level(acre feet) capacity (MAF)
1 3.2 95 390 234889 22933956 22.9
2 3.78 100 395 258212 26978420 27
3 5.1 105 400 278367 31379494 31.4
4 5.67 110 405 299656 36120496 36.1
5 6.72 115 410 319837 41201640 41.2
5 7.66 120 415 340677 46619241 46.6
•Following table shows possible capacity of Soan reservoir (using ASTER GDEM)
lake depth Soan Dam bounded acres block volume Cumulative AF MAF
0 300 1622
10 310 7071 142608.665 8694.65 0.00869465
20 320 16512 386879.115 395573.765 0.39557377
30 330 35521 853601.365 1249175.13 1.24917513
40 340 55405 1491641.03 2740816.16 2.74081616
50 350 94613 2461045.29 5201861.45 5.20186145
60 360 134786 3763290.595 8965152.045 8.96515205
70 370 175522 5090602.74 14055754.79 14.0557548
80 380 220448 6495887.85 20551642.64 20.5516426
90 390 262908 7929455.18 28481097.82 28.4810978
100 400 303820 9297172.84 37778270.66 37.7782707
110 405 325862 5164714.575 42942985.23 42.9429852
Design parameters
• Soan Dam needs an Earth filled main length with low dykes extending on both sides.
• main length is 3 km long and 40 to 132m high.
• Left and right dykes are 2.25 and 1 km in length with average height of 22 m(for average
lake depth of 17 m)
• Soan dam needs a 90 km waterway from Tarbela lake to the reservoir, (like Ghazi
Barotha and proposed Akhori dam). a waterway with flow capacity of 250000 cusecs
can assure the maximum storage use and flood control from July to September.
• Soan reservoir will collect extra water from its own catchment area too, which spreads
from Kallar Kahar to Muree. Dead reserve and local run-off will decrease the required
size of Link canal.
• Major design challenge is to connect the reservoir with Tarbela lake. Higher level canal
will bring lesser silt, is more energy efficient, needs a shorter canal length for
connection being closer to dam site, but at cost of dam life and flood control capacity
of Tarbela dam . Adjusting the design flow rate can improve flood control without
addressing silting of Tarbela. Lower level of link canal can improve life of Tarbela dam.
• Tunnels can be used near start and end of the link canal to avoid excavation. With
available maximum TBM diameters (~15 m) , 4 parallel tunnels can provide an
alternative to excavating open channel at hard locations.
Soan link Canal level
• Optimum height of Soan link canal intake needs detailed study of
hydrological data trends as well as political aspects, but keeping it closer
to dead level can keep Tarbela reservoir ready to absorb super floods.
• Following table contains available storage capacity for each canal
withdrawal level above Tarbela’s dead level. 435-445 offers best range for
economical canal design. Please note that Diamer Basha dam’s storage will
be a plus for available volumes in column #3
Storage available in Tarbela for flood control
# Soan link canal intake level (meters)
(MAF)
1 420 6.8
2 425 6.6
3 430 6.2
4 435 5.7
5 440 5.1
6 445 4.5
7 450 3.7
8 455 3
9 460 2.2
10 465 1.3
11 470 0.5
12 472.42 0
Soan link Canal
• Pakistan has built largest fresh water link canal between Ghazi and Barotha. (base
width 58.4m, depth 9m, side slope 1:2, gradient 1/10000, flow rate 56500 cusecs)
• Duel canals for Balloki Suleimanki link use a width of 340 m for 82 km distance.
With appropriate route, slope and depth combination, Soan Link Canal requires
lesser width for lower flow speeds under 3 m sec.
• By adjusting channel geometry, i.e. cross section, depth and slope, Soan link canal
can generate up to 350k cusec flow-rates inside “man made gorge”. For last 20 km
length, that need most digging, this option is very helpful by reducing width of
canal by 60-80%.
Soan link Canal
• Concrete lining is ideal for flows above 5m/s. it will be economical to use higher
range of subcritical flow regime.
• Lining will eliminate the high maintenance overhead feared in design from 1960s.
• Upgrades in PFCS Version 2.0 will make it possible to use this canal partially around
the year, for efficient and economical water and power usage.
• Optional tunnel lengths discussed later will make things much easier. Cross
sectional geometry of SLC can be adjusted according to feasibility of its navigable
role.
SLC size choices vs. flow rates
flow
Discharge Discharge manning Free- velocity Channel Channel
(cusecs) (cumecs) gradient coeff board(m) (m/s) Depth(m) Froude lining(m)
average contour
Khyber bounded acres block volume AF MAF
390 4465
400 6988 187886.465 8694.65 0.008695
410 11851 309053.795 317748.4 0.317748
420 16521 465442.66 783191.1 0.783191
430 22055 632839.28 1416030 1.41603
440 29193 840723.44 2256754 2.256754
450 36747 1081745.7 3338500 3.3385
460 42753 1304197.5 4642697 4.642697
470 51731 1550010.02 6192707 6.192707
480 63411 1888904.51 8081612 8.081612
490 76649 2297684.3 10379296 10.3793
500 91801 2763422.25 13142718 13.14272
510 107141 3263643.51 16406362 16.40636
520 124274 3796363.075 20202725 20.20272
530 143361 4390552.175 24593277 24.59328
540 164045 5042995.43 29636272 29.63627
550 185993 5742373.39 35378646 35.37865
560 204280 6402428.565 41781074 41.78107
Munda reservoir is 12 miles away and 100+ meters higher than Khyber lake.
In future, Munda lake can be connected to Khyber lake with a steep spillway tunnel to
soften extreme floods in Swat river without wasting water or power.
Hydroelectric potential of Khyber dam