MOHMAND DAM HPP

Detailed Design of Identified Hydropower

Potential of Irrigation Facilities (Left & Right
Banks)

Layout Studies & Recommended Layout for

Small Hydropower Scheme on
Right Bank Irrigation Tunnel (RBIT)

DECEMBER 2019
LEFT AND RIGHT BANK IRRIGATION TUNNELS – GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

DECEMBER 2019
 PREVIOUS ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR HYDROPOWER SCHEMES
ON IRRIGATION TUNNELS - COMMENTS
MDCG comments on engineering studies of hydropower schemes on left & right bank
irrigation tunnels (LBIT and RBIT):

 Studies were not part of Terms of Reference of previous MDCG engineering services
contract.

 Hydropower schemes were identified during planning of irrigation studies.

 Previous engineering studies of hydropower schemes were desk studies only with no
specific site visits to verify the suitability of selected sites.

 Available topographic survey maps of the study areas were not detailed/precise. In addition,
for some of areas, topographic maps were not available for proper planning studies.

 Geologic mapping and geotechnical investigations were not carried out for any of the
hydropower schemes.
DECEMBER 2019
 PREVIOUS ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR HYDROPOWER
SCHEMES ON IRRIGATION TUNNELS - COMMENTS

 Preliminary power and energy studies and conceptual layout studies of hydropower
schemes were based on 2012-13 irrigation water demand. Although irrigation
demands were revised in 2016, these studies were not revised.
 The location and invert level of the tunnel outlet portals were not finalized in relation
to the irrigation canals.
 No hydrological data of nullah was available to design the LBIT nullah crossing.
 Conceptual level drawings of hydropower schemes were prepared to make
recommendations for subsequent and more detailed engineering studies. Cost
estimates were not performed and costs were not included in the Project Cost.
 The intake structures for the irrigation tunnels were ungated. Gates would be
required for the hydropower schemes.

DECEMBER 2019
 PRESENT SUDIES FOR POWER SCHEME ON
RIGHT BANK IRRIGATION TUNNEL (RBIT)

 Collection and review of previous studies data/reports.

 Proposed layout options.

 Reconnaissance visit of sites identified in previous and present studies. Generally, the sites were found suitable for
development of small hydropower schemes.

 Preliminary design of identified scheme layout options based on previously available data and topographic maps,
hydraulic head loss calculations, power and energy studies, quantities take off, cost estimates, and economical analysis

 Performed drone topographic surveys along RBIT to generate more accurate topographic maps.

 An alternative location for the RBIT outlet was suggested by irrigation engineers to avoid huge canal crossings at nullah
locations.

 Instead of ungated and submerged intake structure, A new gated intake structure for RBIT with the invert at El. 503.0
masl is proposed in the proximity of the intake location instead of the ungated deep setting intake configuration
contemplated in previous studies.

 Several alternative RBIT alignments were evaluated based on the drone survey topographic maps and proposed new
intake locations and configuration to finalize the tunnel alignment.

DECEMBER 2019
 ALTERNATIVE RBIT ALIGNMENTS

S.E

DECEMBER 2019
 LOCATION OF SELECTED RBIT INTAKE SITE

Location of Intake
Structure

DECEMBER 2019
 LOCATION OF SELECTED RBIT OUTLET PORTAL

Location of Outlet Portal

DECEMBER 2019
 SELECTED RBIT ALIGNMENT

DECEMBER 2019
 GEOLOGICAL PLAN AND PROFILE ALONG RBIT

DECEMBER 2019
 RBIT HYDROPOWER SCHEME LAYOUT OPTIONS

 OPTION 1 - Underground powerhouse, about 100 m D/S of intake structure

- OPTION 2 - Surface powerhouse at tunnel outlet portal.

DECEMBER 2019
 OPTION 1 - UNDERGROUND POWERHOUSE

DECEMBER 2019
 OPTION 2 - SURFACE POWERHOUSE

Proposed Location of Surge Tank

DECEMBER 2019
 STUDIES PERFORMED TO SELECT HYDROPOWER OPTION

 Layout studies including tunnel alignment selection

 Head loss computations
 Power & energy studies
 Water transient analysis
 Quantities take off and preliminary cost estimation
 Preliminary economic analysis
 Comparative analysis of layout options
DECEMBER 2019
 OPTION 1 - FLOW, POWER & ENERGY (10-DAILY)

3.5 4

Flow 3.5
3

3
2.5
Discharge (cumecs)

2.5

Power (MW)/Energy (GWh)

2

1.5

1.5

1
Energy 1

0.5
0.5

0 0
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct. Nov. Dec

DECEMBER 2019
 OPTION 2 - FLOW, POWER & ENERGY (10-DAILY)

3.5 4

Flow 3.5
3

3
2.5
Discharge (cumecs)

2.5

Power (MW)/Energy (GWh)

2

1.5

1.5

1
Energy
1

0.5
0.5

0 0
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct. Nov. Dec

DECEMBER 2019
 TYPICAL POWERHOUSE PLAN VIEWS

DECEMBER 2019
 TYPICAL POWERHOUSE SECTIONS

DECEMBER 2019
 COMPARISON OF RBIT POWERHOUSE OPTIONS
No. Description OPTION 1 OPTION 2 Remarks
(underground PH) (Surface PH)

1 Power & energy 3.35 MW 3.38 MW

estimates 14.30 GWh 14.45 GWh
2 Length of pressure 125 m 3574 m
tunnel
3 Surge shaft Not Required Required - 102 m high Not practically and economically
viable due to too high and
earthquake load
4 Operational stability Complies Does not comply Option 2 does not comply with the
(Tm/Tw>2) operation stability criteria as the
water start up time is too high
compared to the mechanical start
up time. A surge tank (not
technically viable) would be
required to meet the stability
NOVEMBER 2019 criteria.
 COMPARISON OF RBIT POWERHOUSE OPTIONS
No Description OPTION 1 OPTION 2 Remarks
(underground PH) (Surface PH)

6 Rock Trap Not Required Required In addition a tunnel to provide

access to the power tunnel just
upstream from the rock trap and
a metal door would be required.

7 Transmission Line Approx. 1 km. Approx. 4 km

8 Prelim. Cost Estimate 8.48 M-US$ -
(Civil+E&M+Tr.)
9 Prelim. Economic 14.68% -
value (EIRR)
10 Land for Powerhouse Land for powerhouse not Land for powerhouse
to to be acquired. to be acquired
acquire/Environmental
Costs
NOVEMBER 2019
 COMPARISON OF POWERHOUSE OPTIONS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 Two powerhouse locations were evaluated:

• Option 1 : Underground powerhouse near the water intake

• Option 2: Surface powerhouse at the tunnel outlet portal

 Difference in net head for the two options is less than 1% and the same applies to the installed capacity
and energy production.
 The length of the pressurized power conveyance system is 125 m for Option 1 and 3574 m for Option 2.
 A 102 m high surge tank above ground would be required for Option 2 to meet standard operation stability
criteria. Above ground Surge tank of so much height with high seismic load will not be technically viable.
 Without surge tank, Option 2 would not meet operation stability criteria.
 Lower environmental impacts and shorter transmission line for Option 1
 Land acquisition not required for Option 1 powerhouse.

Based on above comparison Option 1 with Underground Powerhouse be Recommended

DECEMBER 2019