Civil and Hydraulic Structures Design Final Report

Timbil - Dura Mini Hydropower Project Civil/Hydraulic Structures Draft Final Report
Amhara National Regional State
Water and Energy Development Bureau

(BoWED)
Feasibility Study and Detail Design

Of
Timble-Dura Mini Hydropower Project
Volume I: Civil /Hydraulic Structures Design

Final Report
February, 2024
Bahir Dar
Client: Water and Energy Development Bureau (BoWED)

Address:
P.O.Box: 88
Telephone: 0528-200853/855
Fax: 251-08-20-65-68/204676/202040
Consultant: Lihket Design & Supervision Corporation
(LDSC)
Address:
P.O.Box: 1921
Telephone: +251-582-181023/ 180638/181201/181254
Fax: (058) 2180550/ (058) 2180560
E-mail:Lihiket2023@gmail.com
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page i

Timbil - Dura Mini Hydropower Project Civil/Hydraulic Structures Draft Final
Report
FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE
Volume I: Hydrology Report

Volume II: Civil/Hydraulic Structures Design
Volume III: Electro- Mechanical Design
Volume IV: Watershed Management
Volume V: Financial and Economic Analysis
Volume VI: Geological and Geotechnical Foundation Investigation
Volume VII: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page ii

Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE......................................................ii

List of Abbreviations and Symbols...................................................................................................viii
1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Renewable Energy Concept..............................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives..........................................................................................................................3
1.2.1 Main Objectives.........................................................................................................3
1.2.2 Specific Objectives....................................................................................................3
2 TAIL WATER RATING CURVE COMPUTATION.............................................................................4
2.1 Manning’s Roughness coefficient.....................................................................................6
2.2 Discharge of the river........................................................................................................6
3 HEAD WORK DESIGN.......................................................................................................................7
3.1 Description of the study area............................................................................................7
3.1.1 Location of the study area..........................................................................................7
3.2 Head work site Selection and location..............................................................................8
3.3 Geology of the Head Work/Weir Axis Area......................................................................8
3.3.1 River Center...............................................................................................................9
3.4 Weir Axis Foundation Recommendation........................................................................10
3.5 River Bed condition........................................................................................................10
3.6 River Banks condition.....................................................................................................11
3.6.1 Right Bank Geology................................................................................................11
3.6.2 Left Bank Geology...................................................................................................11
3.7 Headwork Type Selection...............................................................................................12
3.8 Hydraulic Design of Headwork Structure.......................................................................12
3.8.1 Diversion Weir Dimensions.....................................................................................12
3.8.2 a) Weir Height Determination..................................................................................12
3.8.3 b). Crest height and Length of weir.........................................................................14
c). Bottom and crest width of the weir...................................................................................15
3.8.4 Weir Hydraulics and Flood Level Determination....................................................17
3.8.5 Ogee Profile of the Weir Shape...............................................................................19
LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page iii
Report
3.9 Hydraulic Jump Analysis................................................................................................20

3.10 Structural Design of Headwork Structure.......................................................................23
3.10.1 Cutoff Walls & Impervious Apron Floor design......................................................23
3.10.2 Uplift Pressure Analysis & Floor thickness design.................................................25
3.10.3 Design of impervious floor thickness......................................................................27
3.11 Stability Analysis of weir................................................................................................32
3.11.1 WEIR CAPPING.....................................................................................................36
3.12 Design of Retaining Walls and Divide Walls..................................................................37
3.13 Design of Outlet works...................................................................................................42
3.13.1 Under sluice.............................................................................................................42
3.13.2 Canal outlets............................................................................................................44
3.13.3 Divide Wall..............................................................................................................45
3.13.4 Design of Breast wall and Operation Slab...............................................................47
4 HYDROPOWER SYSTEM/ HEADRACE CHANNEL, DESILTING BASIN, FOREBAY,
PENSTOCK AND POWER HOUSE DESIGN..........................................................................................49
4.1 Design Flows...................................................................................................................51
4.2 Intake Structure Design...................................................................................................51
4.3 Intake Channel/ Feeder Channel Design.........................................................................52
4.3.1 Design Standards.....................................................................................................52
4.4 Settling Basin (Desander, Sand Trap, Siltation Basin)....................................................53
4.5 Headrace (Open Canal)...................................................................................................53
4.6 Fore-bay (Head Tank, Head Pond, Surge Tank) Design.................................................57
4.6.1 Trash racks...............................................................................................................58
4.7 Penstock Design..............................................................................................................59
4.7.1 Material selection.....................................................................................................59
4.7.2 Optimizing Penstock Diameter................................................................................64
4.7.3 Water Hammer Analysis..........................................................................................67
4.7.4 Penstock Wall Thickness Design.............................................................................68
4.7.5 Support Pier Design.................................................................................................69
4.8 Power House Design.......................................................................................................71
5 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M).......................................................................................77
LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page iv

Report
5.1 How to turn on and turn off MHP in normal condition..................................................77

5.1.1 Pre-operational Check points...................................................................................77
5.2 How to turn off MHP in emergency condition................................................................78
5.3 How to run an MHP successfully....................................................................................79
5.4 Important precautionary measures to be adopted by operators.......................................79
6 BILL OF QUANTITIES AND COST ESTIMATIONS.....................................................................81
7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION...................................................................................97
7.1 Conclusion......................................................................................................................97
7.2 Recommendation............................................................................................................97
8 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................98
9 Annexes.............................................................................................................................................100
TABLE OF FIGURES
Table 2-1: River discharge computation at different stages of flow................................................6

Table 3-1: Weir Axis Cutoff Depth Based on Chain age and Geological Cross Section...............10
Table 3-2: weir height determination.............................................................................................13
Table 3-3: Bottom and crest width of the weir..............................................................................15
Table 3-4 Weir Hydraulics and Flood Level Determination summery table.................................18
Table 3-5: Hydraulic jump determination analysis table...............................................................21
Table 3-6 Back water curve length (BL)........................................................................................25
Table 3-7 required data to design Uplift Pressure Analysis & impervious Floor thickness..........26
Table3-8 Design of impervious floor thickness summer table......................................................27
Table 3-9 Pressure at key points of D/s cutoff...............................................................................30
Table 3-10 Stability analysis of weir required data’s.....................................................................32
Table 3-11 Forces acting on the weir.............................................................................................33
Table 3-12 checking for sliding, overturning and Tension............................................................35
Table 3-13 Forces acting on the u/s wing wall..............................................................................39
Table 3-14 checking of the overturning, sliding and tension.........................................................40
Table 3-15 stability analysis of d/s wing wall................................................................................41
Table 3-16 D/s wing wall stability, sliding and tension.................................................................42
Table 3-17 under sluice - structural design summery table...........................................................43
Table 3-18 Intake -size structural design analysis table.................................................................44
Table 3-19 Divide wall Input data’s analysis table........................................................................46
Table 4-1 Manning's Coefficient (N).............................................................................................52
Table 4-2 Permissible Velocity......................................................................................................52
Table 4-3 Penstock Material Composition.....................................................................................59
LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page v

Report
4-4 over all penstock design optimization analysis.......................................................................65

Table 4-5 Water Hammer calculated parameters value..................................................................68
Table 4-6 Penstock wall thickness analysis result.........................................................................69
Table 4-7 Stage Discharge Analysis of Dura River at Power house location................................75
Table 5-1 General Item Bill of quantities and Cost Estimation.....................................................81
Table 5-2 Head Work Bill of quantities and Cost Estimation........................................................82
Table 5-3 Headrace channel, Desilting Basin, Forebay, Penstock and Power House Bill of
quantities and Cost Estimation......................................................................................................87
Table 5-4 Total Bill of quantities Summary...................................................................................95
Table 8-1 Electro Mechanical Bill of Quantities and cost estimation.........................................100
Table 8-2 Flexural Design of Support pier..................................................................................105
Table 8-3 Pier Footing Structural Design....................................................................................106
Table 8-4 Forebay Hydraulic Design details...............................................................................107
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 typical scheme of a renewable energy source based on the waterpower.......................2
Figure 2-1: Tail Water Rating Curve................................................................................................4
Figure 2-2: Longitudinal average river bed slope............................................................................4
Figure 2-3: Tail water rating curve and maximum flood level........................................................5
Figure 3-1: Study area location map................................................................................................7
Figure 3-2: Timbil River at the proposed headwork site.................................................................9
Figure 3-3: River Center Photo........................................................................................................9
Figure 3-4 Geological Cross Section along the Weir Axis............................................................10
Figure 3-5: Ogee weir Nappe profile of downstream face,...........................................................20
Figure 3-6: Comparison of Jump height curve (JHC) & Tail water rating curve (TWC)..............23
Figure 3-7: Khosla’s based Schematic Profiles of proposed headwork,........................................32
Figure 3-8 D/s wing wall...............................................................................................................40
Figure 4-1 Typical Arrangement of Small Hydropower Station....................................................50
Figure 4-2 typical Intake Structures...............................................................................................52
Figure 4-3 Ductile Iron Pipe..........................................................................................................60
Figure 4-4 Concrete Penstock with Spun Rubber Ring Joints.......................................................61
Figure 4-5 GRP Penstock...............................................................................................................61
Figure 4-6 Spiral Welded Mild Steel Piping, Photo courtesy of steelpipes.org.............................62
Figure 4-7 Figure 38: PVC Piping Photo courtesy of Home Power..............................................63
Figure 4-8 Figure 39: HDPE Penstock..........................................................................................63
Figure 4-9 Bending Moment Profile of pier Footing M22............................................................69
Figure 4-10 Bending Moment profile of M11...............................................................................70
Figure 4-11 Support Pier Section View.........................................................................................71
Figure 4-12 Typical Power House.................................................................................................71
LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page vi

Report
Figure 4-13 power house sub structure for impulse turbine type..................................................72
Figure 4-14 Foundation for Impulse and Reaction Turbines.........................................................73
Figure 4-15 Power House Plan View.............................................................................................76
LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page vii
Report
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
A flow cross section (m2).

a Net interval between two bars of a rack of a rack (m). AF
actualization factor (-).
Af horizontal area of the fore-bay (m2).
AGS area of the watershed of the stream-gauging station (km2). AHP area of
the watershed of the hydropower scheme (km2).
AP average price of the kWh (cost unit).
ARAC Cross-section of the air vessel (m2).
As superficial area (m2). B/C benefit/cost ratio (-). Bf fore-bay width (m).
BH hydraulic torque (N.m).
BR resistant or electrical torque (N.m). Bs superficial width (m).
a Length bar of a rack in the flow direction (m).
bo inlet runner height (m).
C Discharge coefficient (-); runner speed (m/s); parameter of flow approximation (-); Hazen-Williams
coefficient (m0.37/s); present value of the capital costs (cost unit).
b Thickness or diameter of a rack bar (m); wave celerity in open channel or in a pressure pipe (m/s); specific
runner speed (-).
Cd discharge coefficient of a rack (-).
CE equivalent tariff of energy (cost unit). CEC coefficient of energy cost (-).
Ci capital costs in year i (cost unit). CMP pipe material coefficient (-).
Cp pipe material cost per unit weight (cost unit).
Cr ratio area between free and total or gross rack area (-).
Cvd Weir discharge coefficient (-).
Cvalv valve discharge coefficient (-).

D Pipe diameter (m); average number of days per year during which mean daily flows are equal or greater
than a given flow (days/year).
D1; D2 inlet and outlet diameter of a turbine runner (m). D50 reference dimension of a settling solid particle (m).
DN nozzle diameter (m).
Do optimum diameter or economic diameter (m).
E Young's modulus of elasticity of the conduit walls (N/m2); Euler number (-).
Eb modulus of elasticity of rack bars (N/m2).
E mean annual energy production (GWh).
f Darcy-Weisbach friction factor (-); frequency of the electric grid (Hz). fb rack bar oscillation
frequency (Hz).
Fr0 Froude number of the flow (-).
Fr1 Froude number related to the wave propagation of a bore (-). fs swirl frequency (Hz).
g Gravitational acceleration (m/s2).
H annual flow depth (mm); specific energy flow (m); head (m); head over the rack (m); piezometric head (m).
h Water depth (canal) (m).
Ha atmospheric piezometric head (m).
Hd downstream water level or outlet level added by kinetic head (m). HF final head (energy) (m).
hG depth of the gravity center (m).
LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page

viii
Report
ABSTRACT
This design report presents a feasibility study and detail design of a mini-hydroelectric power plant for seasonal base
load at the 11 villages in Abeba kebele, 8 villages in Tiru Berhan kebele and 1 village in Guwanguwa Woreda, Awi
Zone, Amhara Region. The study was premised on the need to mitigate the insufficient and untouched electricity
supply being experienced by the EELPA. The use of backup diesel and petrol generating sets was noted to increase
the overall operating costs of the users due to the need to purchase fuel, in addition to the associated maintenance
cost. The presence of River Timble within these Kebeles brought to fore the need to explore the establishment of a
hydropower plant as a fundamental need response and means of minimizing the complexity of life standard. The
methodology adopted included determination of the proposed Kebeles electricity demand using future 30years
household forecast, determination of the river run-off via data obtained from Abay Tafases, flow rate with the use of
float and river geometry, while the head was obtained by Global Positioning System (GPS) and Differential GPS.
Furthermore, the hydroelectric power potential, site layout for equipment installation and project cost were
determined. The results indicated that the monthly highest (peak) load was 318 kW. River Timble has a flow rate of
1.12 m3/s at January, maximum Gross head of 72.98m, 66.5m net head and hydropower net output power will
exported to off grid is 318.36KW. The cost of the designed mini hydro power plant is 136,440,241.22 (One hundred
thirty six million four hundred forty Thousand two hundred forty one 22/100) ETB without vat.
LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page ix

Report
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Renewable Energy Concept

The renewable energy concept is practical associated to the following remarks:
• Inexhaustible energetic sources, in spite of being limited or conditioned;
• Low polluted energy with small environmental impacts;
• Relevant component of a sustainable development.
Nowadays, the policy in most of the countries is devoted to assure additional generating energy
from renewable, in particular with small hydropower schemes, which can contribute with a
cheap source, as well as to encourage internationally competitive small industries across a wide
range of new energy sources options and technologies.
The hydraulic power is one of the oldest energy sources of the mankind, namely for irrigation
and industry. Nowadays, small hydro is one of the most valuable answers to the question of how
to offer to isolated rural communities the benefits of electrification and the progress associated
with it, as well as to improve the quality of life. The hydroelectric power plant utilizes a natural
or artificial fall of a river. The water flow energy is used to turn the wheel of a turbine and
returns again to the river. This type of electricity production does not consume water, thus it is
usually considered a renewable energy source. The flow will continue to fall downhill and the
water will continue to be available as a resource for men and environment needs, thanks to the
natural hydrologic cycle.
The economic utilization of renewable energies is now based on new technologies and on
environmental protection techniques. Small hydropower, with its multiple advantages, as a
decentralized, low-cost and reliable form of energy, is in the forefront of many developing
countries to achieve energy self- sufficiency.
LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 1

Report
Figure 1-1 typical scheme of a renewable energy source based on the waterpower.
For environmental protection it must be considered, in each small hydro project, the ecological
or reserved flow in order to protect downstream the wildlife habitats and to encourage or
maintain the migration through fish-passages.
It will be enhanced the main advantages to develop small hydro comparing with other electricity
sources:
 It saves consumption of fossil, fuel, and firewood.
 It is self-sufficient without the need of fuel importation.
 It does not contribute for environment damages by resettlement, as it occurs with large
dams and reservoirs.
It can be a good private capital investment in developing or developed

Countries.
 It offers a decentralized electrification at a low running cost and with long life.
A small-scale project can also induce tourist activities and can benefit both rural and small urban
areas with a friendly water scenario (Helena RAMOS, 2000).

Report
1.2 Objectives
1.2.1 Main Objectives
Access adequate Electric power supply to 11 villages in Abeba kebele, 8 villages in Tiru Berhan
kebele and 1 village in Bizrakani kebele based on the stakeholders fundamental Load demands
for the future 30 years design life.
1.2.2 Specific Objectives

 Design Properly the Civil, Hydraulic and Electro-Mechanical Structures and Components
using standards and guidelines.
 Doing Multi-disciplinary studies to produce efficient and environmental friendly
Hydropower Project.

Report
2 TAIL WATER RATING CURVE COMPUTATION
The tail water rating curve or the stage discharge is important for the determination of maximum
flood level before the construction of a hydraulic structure. The tail water depth compared to the
hydraulic jump sequent depth (Y2) will be applied to design the appropriate energy dissipating
terminal structures. There is a need to determine the slope of the river at proposed diversion
headwork location.
Hence, the average longitudinal river bed slope at the headwork site is determined by linear
fitting using the ground surveying data and it was found to be 0.018 m/m as shown in figure
shown below.
TWD At Wier Site

1,726.0
1,724.0
Stage, H (m)
1,722.0
Table: TWD Computation ...
1,720.0
1,718.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Discharge, Q (m3/s)
Figure 2-2: Tail Water Rating Curve
Figure 2-3: Longitudinal average river bed slope

Report
The river channel is well defined and the river bed is covered with mixture of transported boulder
and alluvial deposit. The Manning`s roughness coefficient is taken from standard table based on
the river material. The river reach at the proposed headwork site has straight nature and made of
mixture of transported boulder and alluvial deposit with rough surface appearance. The river
bank is also stable rocky at left side and defined earthen formation to the left side. Hence, a
manning`s roughness coefficient (n = 0.035) has been adopted to compute rating curve.
The river cross-section at headwork site was surveyed over 52m chain age and the computation
of tail water rating curve is done with help of Manning’s uniform flow equation is presented in
Table below.
Manning equation for flow velocity:

1
V = ×R 2/3× √ S
 n , Where, R = Hydraulic radius = (Area/Perimeter)
Where; R – is hydraulic radius (m), n- is Manning`s roughness coefficient (n = 0.035), S-is
longitudinal average river bed slope (0.010).
The river water level is taken at every 1m intervals points and the rating curve has been
computed considering average water surface slope as the river bed slope at the head work site.
Tail water depth and Post Jump (m)
4.0 TWD and Post jump comparison

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 TWD
Post Jump
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Discharge, Q (m3/s)
Figure 2-4: Tail water rating curve and maximum flood level
From the above table and tail water rating curves (TWRC), the tail water depth (Y 3) equivalent to
the peak flood discharge (416.34m3/s) is found to be 4.46 m (1725.019m a.m.sl). The

Report
downstream retaining wall top level is fixed considering this level plus free board height.
Similarly, the design flood discharge has a corresponding flow velocity of 4.31m/s.
2.1 Manning’s Roughness coefficient

The Manning’s roughness coefficient is taken from standard table based on the river nature.
The river banks defined and relatively smooth. Manning’s roughness coefficient (n =0.035) is
adopted.
2.2 Discharge of the river
Input data:
Manning's roughness coefficient, n =0.035
Average river bed slope, S = 0.010.01
1
V = ×R 2/3× √ S
n , Where, R = Hydraulic radius = (Area/Perimeter)
Q=V ∗A
Table 2-1: River discharge computation at different stages of flow
Design discharge
minimum river bed level 1720.56 from Hydrology = 416.343
No River Stage, H Tail Man Water Wette Hyd Long Vel Dischar
width (m) water ning' Area, A d rauli itudi ocit ge, Q
(m) depth s (m2) perim c nal y, V (m3/s)
Roug eter, Radi Slope (m/s
hnes P(m) us, , S )
s, n R (m/m
(m) )
1 0 1720.557 0.000 0.035 0 0.36 0.00 0.010 0.00 0.00
2 6.290 1720.807 0.250 0.035 0.713 8.945 0.08 0.010 0.53 0.38
3 12.110 1721.057 0.500 0.035 3.049 10.104 0.30 0.010 1.28 3.90
4 14.220 1721.307 0.750 0.035 5.641 11.262 0.50 0.010 1.79 10.12
5 22.052 1721.557 1.000 0.035 8.559 13.18 0.65 0.010 2.13 18.25
6 34.275 1721.807 1.250 0.035 12.013 15.447 0.78 0.010 2.52 28.89
7 47.760 1722.057 1.500 0.035 15.995 17.497 0.91 0.010 2.68 42.84
8 60.730 1722.307 1.750 0.035 20.454 19.486 1.05 0.010 2.94 60.08
9 73.020 1722.557 2.000 0.035 25.388 21.475 1.18 0.010 3.18 80.72
10 96.150 1722.807 2.250 0.035 30.759 23.152 1.33 0.010 3.44 105.71
11 105.652 1723.057 2.500 0.035 36.632 25.758 1.42 0.010 3.60 131.74
12 116.720 1723.307 2.750 0.035 43.171 28.477 1.52 0.010 3.75 162.02

Report
13 117.720 1723.557 3.000 0.035 50.379 31.196 1.61 0.010 3.91 197.20
14 118.720 1723.807 3.250 0.035 58.386 35.183 1.66 0.010 3.99 232.73
15 119.720 1724.057 3.500 0.035 67.445 39.449 1.71 0.010 4.07 274.24
16 120.720 1724.307 3.750 0.035 77.527 43.303 1.79 0.010 4.19 325.07
17 121.720 1724.557 4.000 0.035 88.522 46.954 1.89 0.010 4.34 384.18
18 122.720 1724.807 4.250 0.035 92.52 49.224 1.88 0.010 4.33 520.72
19 123.720 1725.057 4.500 0.035 97.254 52.123 1.87 0.010 4.31 419.17
20 124.720 1725.307 4.750 0.035 102.22 55.133 1.85 0.010 4.29 438.72
21 125.720 1725.557 5.000 0.035 106.215 58.846 1.80 0.010 4.22 447.78
3 HEAD WORK DESIGN
3.1 Description of the study area

3.1.1 Location of the study area
The study area Timbile watershed is situated near Chagni town. Chagni is located in North
Western Ethiopia. Located in the Awi Zone of the Amhara Region, this town has a longitude and
latitude of 10°57′N 36°30′E / 10.950°N 36.500°E and an elevation of 1583 meters above sea
level. Based on figures from the Central Statistical Agency in 2005, Chagni has an estimated
total population of 30,938, of whom 16,035 are men and 14,903 are women. The 1994 census
reported this town had a total population of 17,777 of whom 8,437 were men and 9,340 were
women. The following figure shows the location of the study watershed.

Report
Figure 3-5: Study area location map
3.2 Head work site Selection and location

The headwork site is situated at 230222.451mE, 1220230.615mN UTM-Adindan projected
coordinate and river bed elevation of 1720.56m above mean sea level. At this site the river
course is relatively well defined, natured with fixed left river bank.
For this project a simple river bed level weir structure has been proposed for diverting the water
to the main canal. The headwork site geological surface and subsurface conditions have been
investigated based on the nature of the proposed structure.
At the headwork site the river bed is made of recent alluvial deposit that is mainly comprising
gravel, cobble, sand and some boulder size sediment. From the nature of the river and the
surrounding geological setting, this sediment deposit could continue more than 2.7m depth from
the top bed level. There is no indicative exposure of rocky formation in both upstream and
downstream direction from the propose weir site. the headwork structure should be design for
pervious foundation (alluvial deposit) foundation condition.

Report
Therefore, diversion headwork structure is better to incorporate apron floor slab, upstream and
downstream positive cutoff walls and other protection works. This will help for controlling
seepage and minimizing uplift pressure to ensure required stability conditions and project
sustainability.
3.3 Geology of the Head Work/Weir Axis Area

The head work area includes both banks and the river center of the weir axis alignment
foundation area and its surroundings. The surface geological formations of these area are both
soil and rock formation. The weir axis area is covered with very shallow depth soil formation and
below it highly to moderately weathered basalt rock exists on both backs and slightly weathered
basalt rock formation exposes on the river center. Each of the geological formation are described
bravely below based on the geomorphological location Moreover, a summarized geological X-
section at the diversion site has been prepared and presented Figure below.
Figure 3-6: Timbil River at the proposed headwork site
Moreover, a summarized geological X-section at the diversion site has been prepared and
presented Figure below.
3.3.1 River Center

The river route path is dominantly covered by rock formation. As observed from surface
exposure of the river flow path both downstream and up stream of the dam weir axis; moderately
to slightly weathered basalt rock formation exists river center. The rock formation has a different
orientation joints/fractures but they are tight.

Report
Figure 3-7: River Center Photo
3.4 Weir Axis Foundation Recommendation

The foundation of the weir axis is recommended based on the geological formation of the weir
axis site. As indicated above based on surface exposure and test pit subsurface geological
investigation observations actual engineering property of the weir axis foundations was drawn. It
is draw based on the geomorphology and the geological formation of the axis. The
geomorphology indicates the surface shape of the weir axis, it is drawn based on survey date
taken following the proposed weir axis alignment and AutoCAD software. The geological
formation of the weir axis is based on surface geological formation exposure at both river banks
and river center and the subsurface investigation observations of test pit.

Report
Figure 3-8 Geological Cross Section along the Weir Axis
Table 3-2: Weir Axis Cutoff Depth Based on Chain age and Geological Cross Section
Chain age (m) 0 10 19 29 39 48 58 67 77 87 96

Cutoff depth (m) 2.196 2.376 1.48 0.36 0.16 0.56 0.46 0.96 2.2 2.4 2.7
3.5 River Bed condition

At the proposed headwork site, the river course is relatively well defined, nearly straight, alluvial
deposit that is mainly comprising gravel, cobble, sand and some boulder size sediment. From the
nature of the river and the surrounding geological setting, this sediment deposit could continue
more than 3m depth from the top bed level. There is no indicative exposure of rocky formation
in both upstream and downstream direction from the propose weir site. The headwork structure
should be design for pervious foundation (alluvial deposit) foundation condition.
3.6 River Banks condition

3.6.1 Right Bank Geology
This bank is gentle slope and has not clear boundary of the bank. The surface geological
formation of this abutment is very shallow depth silty clay with sand, gravel and cobble size
texture soil formation. Below it highly to moderately weathered basalt rock formation exists. As
move from abutment to river the soil thickness decrease. On the river bank and river center
slightly weathered of tightly jointed light gray color basalt rock formation exposes.

Report
On this bank one test pit is conducted to know the subsurface geological formation. From this pit
observation 0.1m depth silty clay with sand, gravel and cobble size residual soil formation exists.
Below it moderately weathered light yellowish color basalt rock formation exists.
3.6.2 Left Bank Geology

This bank is also similar geomorphological and geological characteristics of that of right bank. It
has a gently slope topography with no clear bank boundary. Both soil and rock geological
formation are axis on left bank of the river at the weir axis area. The soil formation is very
shallow depth silty clay with sand, gravel and cobble size texture residual soil. The rock
formation is moderately to slightly weathering basalt rock. As move toward the river the
thickness of the soil formation decreases and instead of it moderately too slightly weathered
basalt rock formation exposed. At the river bank moderately weathered different direction joint
basalt rock formation exist.
On this bank very few contact springs are outflow but it has not base flow. They are exits at the
contact boundary of the soil and moderately weathered basalt rock to that of slightly too fresh
rock formation. So, during the construction time they must be treated by collected and
discharged in to the river at the end area of the weir axis unless otherwise they cause a stability
problem after construction on the structure by exerting pore water pressure.
During designing appropriate retaining wall in this right bank in upstream direction has to be
considered in order to
3.7 Headwork Type Selection

The first governing criteria for choosing the diversion weirs headwork type is the suitability of
local topographic condition in conjunction with its geologic formation requirements. In principle
diversion weirs are preferable for topographic conditions with reasonable minimum elevation
difference between the minimum River bed and the target peak command area. Diversion weirs
are solid obstructions put across the river to raise or heading up its water level and divert the
water into the conveyance canal. They are frequently used for irrigation as well as hydropower
purposes.

Report
Looking the availability of natural construction materials and considering the river features and
flood discharge magnitude, ogee type of diversion weir is proposed with cyclopean concrete
body. Because it is hydraulically efficient to convey high flood discharge and to roll down
possible incoming boulders with economical dimension of retaining structures.
3.8 Hydraulic Design of Headwork Structure

3.8.1 Diversion Weir Dimensions
3.8.2 a) Weir Height Determination
The major factors that have to been considered in determining the weir crest level includes; Peak
command area elevation, Deriving head of the intake structure, Main canal length and slope,
Head Losses at different structures and Lowest River bed level at proposed weir axis.
The weir height is determined based on the maximum command area elevation which is required
to irrigate the maximum possible irrigable area and consists of head losses: Across the head
regulator, due to slope of main canal required to drive the full supply level in the main canal.
The analysis is shown as follow:
 River bed level=1720.56m.a.s.l.

 Maximum command area elevation= 1719.187m.a.s.l
 Maximum Flood elevation= 1725.019m.a.s.l.
 Distance from the head work to chainage 00+060=60m
 Slope from chainage 00+060=1:520=0.025
 Distance from the 060 up to forebay =2577.79m
 Head loss due to slope from chainage 060 up the forebay=1:100=0.001
 Head regulator loss=0.1
 Canal flow depth from starting to chainage00+60 =0.64m
 Canal flow depth from starting to chainage00+60 up to the end of the forebay=0.59m
 Free board=0.5
 Canal outlet level=1719.187m+ 0.200 m + 0.150m=1952.02masl
 Weir crust level= 1939.25masl+0.67m+0.1m+0.4m=1952.42masl
 weir height=1952.42-1938.25masl=2.7m

Report
Table 3-3: weir height determination
REQUIRED DATA VALUE UNIT

Average Minimum River bed level= 1720.557 m
Average river bed level 1720.557
Water depth in the first command area = d 0.64 m
Water depth in headrace Canal= dMC 0.590
length of headrace canal starting from chainage 00+060 60 m
length of headrace canal from chainage 00+060+2+577.79 2577.79
Bed slope of the main canal 060-2+577.79 0.001
Bed slope of the headrace canal from starting chainage
00+060 0.0025 m/m
Peak irrigable land level in the command area (RS) 1719.187 m
Tell water level from rating curve for QD, TWD 1725.019 m
Design discharge from pervious QD = 416.343 m3/s
Hydraulic loss
Head loss across head regulator = 0.100 m
Head loss at the Turn out = 0.000 m
Operational head losses 0.100 m
Thus, tell water depth (TWD) in meter 4.462 m
OUT PUT
Total Hydraulic loss =0.200m
Head loss along Headrace Channel, hf= from 00+060+2+577.79 =2.578
Head loss along Right side MC, hf= from 00+060 =0.150m
Sum of head loss =2.578+0.15=2.728

Water level of the field at the highest elevation of the command=1719.827m
. Sill level at the starting point of the Main canal=1722.55m
Inlet Sill level----"Inlet sill ≥ Scouring Sluice sill + >1m= more than 1/6 maximum flood depth
of the river”
A. Intake sill depth above scouring sluice sill level for small weir ≥ 0.5=0.50m
B. Scouring sluice Sill level =0.5 then, 1721.057m
C. Inlet sill level should be ≥ ; 1. Scouring sluice sill level + >0.6m and= 1721.557m
2.1/6 of Max flood depth river bed level=0.500 m

Report
D. Design water intake level. Water level in the intake =1722.755m

E. Inlet sill, which should equal to or greater than as calculated in "C"=1721.655 m
F. Intake Depth As calculated before in sheet "Intake Size”, ------------ H=1.100m
G. Intake Width As calculated before in sheet "Intake Size”, ----------- B=1.700m
H. Check inlet sill level as per "C" i.e. “E" ≥ "C"------------- OK
Final Input
1. Water level at the starting point of MC =1722.555m
2. Scouring Sluice sill level =1721.0573m
3. Inlet (off take) Sill level =1721.655m
4. Design water intake level =1722.755m
5. Scouring sluice depth from sill level =0.6m
6. Scouring Sluice Crest level =1721.655m
3.8.3 b). Crest height and Length of weir

Adequate crest length is required to overpass the design flood discharge, 416m 3/s. For sack of
comparison, the Lacey regime width and the actual river width was done.
 Lacey’s regime width, L=4.75∗√ Q ,=4.75∗√ 416.34 = 96.9m.
However, the actual river section width of the over flow section of the river is equal to 52.0m
excluding underlie and divide wall parts, hence this value is adopted for the designing of the weir
body.
OUT PUT
Elevation of crest height of weir = Design water intake level + driving head
Driving head ≥ 0.15m take =0.50
=1722.755+0.5 =1723.25m
Crest height of weir = Elevation of Crest height of weir - Average minimum river bed level
=1723.25-1719.187=2.70m

Report
The water way as per Lacey's wetted perimeter equation =P =4.75√Qd = 1.2-1.4*P
=135.7m
Available driving head = Weir crest level- Inlet (Off take) Sill level
=1723.25-1721.655 =1.60m
Minimum driving head for main Canal full supply discharge ≥ 0.15, take, =0.50m
= Available driving head -intake depth
=1.60-1.10=0.5m
Final Input
1. Weir Crest Level =WCL=1723.255m
2. Weir crest level (WCL) _Bottom of get=1723.25m
3. Bottom intake level =1721.65m
4. Weir Height (H) =2.70m
Input Data: -
P: Height of weir (m) = 2.70
He: specific energy head (m) =1.41
 Specific weight of weir body (2.3 for cyclopean concrete)
 Bottom width, =7 m (adopted total base width).
The stable weir dimensions are adopted after it attains the minimum required safety margin of
structural stability analysis in all critical loading conditions. Hence a 7.0 m bottom width has
been adopted which can be tested for adequacy during stability analysis.
Check for Afflux
U/s HFL = U/s bed level +weir height +HD=1720.56+2.70+1.20=1724.46m
U/s TEL =U/s HFL +approach velocity head =1724.46+1.63 =1726.09m
D/s HFL=River bed +Tail water depth=1720.56+4.46=1725.02m
D/s TEL=U/S HFL+ approach velocity head=1724.46+0.11 =1725.13m

Report
Approach velocity =Ha2 = Va2 /2g =
Va=1.45, g=9.8=1.45^2 /2*9.81 =0.11m
D/s TEL=D/sHFL+V22/2g, =1725.02+0.11=1725.13m
Afflux = U/s TEL- D/s TEL =1726.09m-1725.13m=1.0m
3.8.4 Weir Hydraulics and Flood Level Determination

Flow over the weir crest is computed by using weir formula. It is primarily important to
determine the water depth over the crest (Hd) and specific energy head over the crest (He).
Weir flow equation is used to determine total head over crest level (He).
𝐻𝑒 = (𝐶∗𝐿) ^2/3 = 1.41m
Where: C- is discharge coefficient (2.20 for ogee weir type), L-effective length of weir (50.8) m,
Q – is design discharge (416.34m3/s)
Again, the total energy head is sum of water depth and velocity head over weir crest level.
That is; He =Hd +Ha
=1.2+1.6.3=2.83

Report
Table 3-4 Weir Hydraulics and Flood Level Determination summery table
R=1.35*(q2/2)(1/3) (m)
U/s HFL=RBL+H+(He-
D/S TEL=D/S HFL+ha

D/s HFL=RBL+TWD
U/s TEL=U/sHFL+ha
Tail water depth (m)

He=(Q/CL)2/3 (m)
ha=v2/(2*g) (m)
q=Q/L(m3/s/m)
Q
v=q/R (m/s)
Stage, H (m)
ha ) (m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m3/s)
1720.80 0.00 0.18 1723.28

0.376 0.026 0.040 0.002 1723.282 0.250 1720.807 1720.809
7 7 0 4
1721.05 0.07 0.39 1723.38
3.901 0.125 0.191 0.008 1723.374 0.500 1721.057 1721.065
7 5 4 2
1721.30 0.19 0.54 1723.49
10.118 0.236 0.360 0.015 1723.478 0.750 1721.307 1721.322
7 5 1 3
1721.55 0.35 0.65 1723.60
18.253 0.349 0.533 0.022 1723.585 1.000 1721.557 1721.579
7 1 8 7
1721.80 0.55 0.76 1723.73
28.891 0.474 0.724 0.030 1723.702 1.250 1721.807 1721.837
7 6 7 2
1722.05 0.82 0.87 1723.87
42.845 0.617 0.942 0.039 1723.835 1.500 1722.057 1722.096
7 4 5 4
1725.01 8.00 1.86 1726.06
416.343 2.810 4.288 0.178 1725.889 4.462 1725.019 1725.197
9 7 7 7
1722.30 1.15 0.97 1724.03
60.078 0.773 1.180 0.049 1723.981 2.000 1722.557 1722.606
7 5 9 0
1722.55 1.55 1.08 1724.19
80.722 0.941 1.437 0.060 1724.139 2.000 1722.557 1722.617
7 2 1 9
1722.80 105.713 1.127 2.03 1.720 1.18 0.071 1724.313 1724.38 2.250 1722.807 1722.879

7 3 2 4
1723.05 2.53 1.27 1724.56
131.743 1.305 1.991 0.083 1724.480 2.500 1723.057 1723.140
7 4 2 2
1723.30 3.11 1.36 1724.75
162.016 1.498 2.286 0.095 1724.660 2.750 1723.307 1723.402
7 6 3 5

Report
3.8.5 Ogee Profile of the Weir Shape
The Ogee weir nape profile is designed based on napped profile for upstream and downstream
face at control section in order to increase is discharging capacity.
Typical ogee profile of control section.
We have to first compute the control section weir hydraulic parameters.
 Water depth over crest, Hd= 1.2 m
 Weir height, H = 2.7 m
Then detail of ogee profile can be designed by using nape profile equation shown above.
• U/s horizontal total distance, Xc =0.282*Hd= 0.338 m,
• U/s horizontal mid distance, X1=0.175*Hd= 0.210 m,
• U/s vertical distance to edge, Yc=0.124*Hd= 0.149 m,
• Major radius for u/s curve, R1=0.5*Hd= 0.6 m,
• Minor radius for u/s curve, R2=0.2*Hd= 0.24 m,
Control section weir profile summery table
Ogee Profile
Control section weir profile
Design variables & parameters formula value
Depth over crest Hd 1.200 m
Xc
u/s Tt X distance extend =0.282Hd 0.338 m
u/s mid X distance extend X1=0.175Hd 0.210 m
u/s Y to face edge Yc=0.124Hd 0.149 m
Major Radius for u/s curve R1=0.5*Hd 0.600 m
Minor Radius for u/s curve R2=0.2*Hd 0.240 m

Report
d/s ogee Nape profile

y=b*X^1.85, b 0.4282 X^1.85
dy/dx=So=1.85b*X^0.85, b2=1.85*b 0.7922 X^0.85
d/s chute Slope, so So (V:H) 0.12 0.67
Point of Tangency Xo 0.109
Yo=Y(Xo) 0.007
Figure 3-9: Ogee weir Nappe profile of downstream face,

3.9 Hydraulic Jump Analysis
As discussed in the geologic report, the river bed and banks are basalt rock formation. Both left
and right-side banks are rocky, a wing walls are required at u/s and d/s sides in order to protect
bank overtopping and the possible scouring effects during peak flood flow.
The length of wing walls is determined based on the length of Jump, and it is calculated as
shown below.
By considering Weir crest length of 52m, Weir height (H) of 2.7 m the Pre-jump depth (y 1) and
post-jump depth (y2) will be computed based on open channel flow hydraulics.
The location of Hydraulic jump can be computed by using crump method. The basic assumption
for crumps formula is it neglects small energy head loss in the chute flow. The crump method of
locating hydraulic jump can be solved by either using standard table or by equating the hydraulic
jump headless to the difference of U/s TEL and D/s TEL.
• Specific discharge, q=Q/Le= 416.34/ 50.8= 8.19m2/s
• Critical flow depth, Yc = (q^2/g)^1/3 = 1.89 m

Table 3-5 Hydraulic jump determination table
REQUIRED DATA VALUE UNIT

Upstream river bed level (U/S RBL )= 1720.56 m
Weir height (H) = 2.70 m
Weir crest level (WCL) = 1723.26 m
Thus tell water depth (TWD)= 4.46 m
Design discharge from pervious QD = 384.05 m3/s
Effective Length Leff = 50.80 m
Downstream river bed level (D/S RBL) = 1720.56 m

Report
He =( Q/Cle)2/3---------------------------------------------------------------He 2.82 m
design discharge per meter width ----------------------------------------(q) 7.56 m3/s/m
HaV =( Va2/2g) = (Q/Y1)2/2g-------------------------------------------Hav 1.62 m
Hd 1.20 m
Steps and Procedures Weir profile layout
①Apply energy equation b/n ❶& ❷Ef1=Ef1 & find Y1

, i.e. U/SRBL+H+Hd+Hav = U/S RBL+Y1+Hav
② Calculate Froude number for U/S i.e. Fr1 =V1/√gy1
③ Calculate Velocity head for U/S i.e. Hav1 =V12/2g, V1=q/Y1
④ Calculate Y2 for D/S i.e. Y2=0.5Y1 [√ (1+8Fr12)-1]
⑤ Calculate Velocity head for D/S i.e. Hav2 =V22/2g, V2=q/Y2
⑥ Calculate Head Loss HL = Ef1-Ef2 -------where
Ef1 = Y1+V12/2g ------And------ Ef2 = Y2+V22/2g
⑦ Check the difference (D) = Y2-TWD, if D=0, or 0 ≤ D ≤ 0.4 "Ok"
Otherwise depress D/S RBL by D & Repeat the above steps ❶
⑧ Critical depth (Yc) = 3√ (q2/g)
Output data’s summery table

Table 3-6: Hydraulic jump determination analysis table
From Procedures Step--① ❶--H+He 3.90 m

By changing --Y1 0.37 m
Goal seek until it equals
with ❶ 24.81 m
Step--② V1 21.90 m/s

Fr1 11.49 m
24.44
Step--③ Hav1 26 m
Step--④ Y2 5.84 m

Report
Step--⑤ V2 1.390 m/s

Hav2 0.098 m
HL
Step--⑥ 18.88 m
Ef1 24.81 m
Ef2 5.93 m
Step--⑦ D 1.37 Ok
TWD 4.46 m
Case-2- as Step ⑧ stated- Assume the river bed is
Depress by "D" lowered by---D 1.37 m
❶--H+He 2.53 m
By changing --Y1 0.52 m
Step--① Goal seek until it equals
with ❶ 21.56 m
Step--② V1 20.38 m/s

Fr1 10.31 m
Step--③ Hav1 21.16 m
Step--④ Y2 5.61 m
Step--⑤ V2 1.45 m/s

Hav2 0.11 m
HL
Step--⑥ 15.84 m
Ef1 21.56 m
Ef2 5.72 m
Step--⑦ D 1.15
TWD 4.46 m
Step--⑧ Yc 1.89 m
D/S Water depth above -1.76 Not
crest Submerge

Report
The discharge per unit width ----------------------------- q =CdH3/2 =1.7*2.84=8.12m3/s/m

Where--------------H =U/S TEL-WCL = 1726.09 - 1723.25 =2.84m
Cd =1.70
U/S TEL =1726.09m
D/S TEL =1725.13m
HL = 0.97m
Ef2=1.96m
Location of the Jump -- D/S TEL - Ef2=1725.13+1.96=1723.17m
Figure 3-10: Comparison of Jump height curve (JHC) & Tail water rating curve (TWC)
The post jump curves totally above tail water curve; this condition may possibly cause scouring
effect on the week river bed materials. The headwork foundation is alluvial formation with
boulders, cobbles and gravel mix can only resist some degree of scouring flow effect.
3.10 Structural Design of Headwork Structure

3.10.1 Cutoff Walls & Impervious Apron Floor design
To maintain normal function of a diversion weir for its intended design period, appropriate
structural components are necessary to maintain critical stability requirements prevailing around
the structure. These protective structures are required both on the u/s and d/s of a weir depending
on nature of foundation condition to prevent possibility of a scour hole migrating towards the
Cut-offs and eventually undermining the entire structure. Thus, provision of sufficient Cut-off
walls and Apron floor structures to be provided depending on the nature of erosive river flow as
well as looseness of the river bed material.

Report
Cut-off is a wall used for controlling piping in pervious foundation material. The required depth
of this wall to satisfy the safe exit gradient can be calculated once foundation type and
dimensions of the structure are known. The two prominent Cut-offs are the downstream cutoff
and the upstream cutoff walls. A downstream erosion Cut-off is usually required to protect the
structure from downstream retrogression.
Depth of normal scour is given by the Regime scour depth method developed by Lacey’s
equation. Accordingly, if the waterway provided is less than the regime width, the regime scour
depth can be:
Discharge (Q) =416.34m3/sec
Weir crest length (L) =52m
Intensity of discharge =Q/L =230.7/52=8m^3/se/m
Medium Silty from table (dmm) is ------d=0.85mm
Silt factor f =1.76√d=1.76√0.8 =1.76 √0.85=16.2
Scour depth(R) = 1.35(q^2/f) ^ (1/3) =1.35(8^2/1.62=5m
Nominal D/S Cut off depth Recommended by the designer------------------------- CDD/S=0.5
 Because of the foundation is sound rock to key the weir with the rock use a nominal
depth of 0.5- 1m excluding apron thickness
Nominal U/S Cut off Depth Recommended by the designer--------------------------- CDU/S =0.5
 By considering the foundation is rock as that of D/S cut of here use 0.5-0.8m depth of cut
off to key the weir. Excluding apron thickness
U/S HFL =1724.46m a.m.s.l
D/s HFL =1725.02m a.m.s.l
D/S RBL=1720.56m a.m.s.l
Downstream cut-off (D/S Cut-off) ------------------------------- 1.5*R =1.5*5=7.5
UP stream cut-off (D/S Cut-off) ------------------------------- 1.25*R =1.25*5=6.25

Report
D/S Cutoff level = D/S HFL-1.5R=1725.02-7.5 =1718.18m
U/S Cutoff level = U/S HFL-1.25R=1724.46-6.25=1719.56m
❶- D/S Cut off depth=D/S RBL-D/S Cutoff level =1720.56-1718.18m=0.5m
❷- U/S Cut off depth = U\S RBL-U/S Cutoff level =1720.56-1719.56=
❸ - Both U/S & D/S Cutoff Thickness---------------T=0.5
Figure 3-11 Back water curve length (BL)
Back water curve length (BL)
Back water length------------Y=(Xs-2∆o)1/2 +2∆o------ -4.24

Goal seeks until=0.00 ►
By changing ---------------------------X ► 198. m
12
river slope 0.01 m
∆o -0.56
TWD 4.46 m
Hd 1.20 m
WEIR HEIGHT (H) = 2.70 m
3.10.2 Uplift Pressure Analysis & Floor thickness design

The subsurface flow and seepage uplift pressure are prominent physical factors exerted to the
diversion structure founded onto alluvial foundation.
The subsurface flow of water through a porous medium can be represented by the partial
differential equation called the Laplacian equation, which forms the mathematical basis for most
models or methods of seepage analysis. Several methods have been developed to solve Laplace's
equation for various cases of seepage.

Report
The base of the impervious floor is subjected to uplift pressures as the water seeps through below
it. The uplift upstream of the weir is balanced by the weight of water standing above the floor in
the pond, whereas on the downstream side there may not be any such balancing water weight.
The design consideration must assume the worst possible loading conditions, i.e. when the gates
are closed and the downstream side is practically dry.
The impervious base floor may crack or rupture if its weight is not sufficient to resist the uplift
pressure. Any rupture thus developed in turn reduces the effective length of the impervious floor
(i.e. reduction in creep length), which increases the exit gradient.
The critical exit gradient is formed when the upward seepage pressure force on the grain is just
equal to the submerged weight of the grain at the exit of structure. When upward thrust of
seepage flow passing beneath a structure is greater than submerged weight of the soil resisting
the upward thrust on the d/s side of end cut off wall, piping will occur and bed material will be
washed upwards and into river flow. The most popular methods for determining Exit gradient
(GE) are Khosla approximation method. Khosla determined that for a standard form of structure
with a floor length (b) and vertical cut-off (d), the exit gradient at the downstream side is given
by:
The thickness of the downstream horizontal apron was fixed based on with Khosla’s Theory.
Since it is most advanced and numerically rigorous one.
Prior to computing Khosla Analysis, we have to first determine dimensions to schematic profile
of diversion headwork.
Table 3-7 required data to design Uplift Pressure Analysis & impervious Floor thickness
REQUIRED DATA VALUE Unit

River bed level U/S 1720.56 m
TWL 4.46 m
Depth of flow after jump = Y2 5.61 m
River bed level D/S 1720.56 m
Weir crest level 1723.25 m
U/S HFL 1724.457 m

Report
D/S HFL 1725.02 m

Cisterna level 1719.18 m
Pre jump water depth =Y1 0.398 m
Weir Bottom width 3.113 m
U/S Cutt off depth (d1) 0.500 m
D/S Cutt off depth (d1) 0.500 m
Thickness of both U/S & D/S Cut off 0.500 m
Creep coefficient for mixture of rocks with “C"
= 9.000 m
River bed form mixture of Boulder & gravel m
U/S Apron length 1.000 m
Thickness of both U/S apron 0.50 m
3.10.3 Design of impervious floor thickness

From practical point of view, the u/s apron (impervious floor) mostly covered by river deposit,
one thickness cover of the structure, and uplift pressure is also counter balanced by the weight of
the standing water. Hence provide nominal thickness of 1 m u/s of the weir during High flood
condition with a hydraulic jump form in the basin under the maximum flow condition
t= 4/3*(Hr/G-1)
Hr =Hw-Hw/L*(Lp)
Table3-8 Design of impervious floor thickness summer table
point G Hw L Lp Hr Lc t
A 2.3 -0.56 -5.05 4.11 -1.019 9.61 Safe -1.04
B 2.3 -0.56 -5.05 5.279 -1.148 9.61 Safe -1.18
C 2.3 -0.56 -5.05 6.446 -1.278 9.61 Safe -1.31
D 2.3 -0.56 -5.05 7.613 -1.407 9.61 Safe -1.44

Report
Check for the exit gradient

VAL Uni REMA
REQUIRED DATA
UE t RK
from
B =Total Length of impervious apron = 8.11 m
drawing
d2 =D/S cut off 0.5 m
Hw = -0.56 m
16.2
α= b/d =
25
9.12
From khosla's pressure curve where λ = (1+ sqrt(1+α^2))*0.5
8
Hence, GE = Hw/d2*(1/(π*√λ)) = -0.12 0.25 Safe
The maximum permissible exit gradient for mixture of gravel,

boulder, cobble and sand is 0.25 which is greater than the
GE=0.10 then the structure is safe against piping.
2.Checking the thickness of the impervious floor by khosla’s
Pressure at key points of u/s cutoff

1.pressure calculation
Let the floor thickness in the upstream be 0.50m and near the downstream
cutoff be 0.70m.
Assumed u/s floor thickness = 0.5 m
A.up stream sheet pile =
let the thickness
= 0.5 m
of sheet pile
d1 = = 0.5 m
8.11
b= = m
25
16.2
α= b/d = =
25
From khosla's pressure curve where =
λ = (1+ sqrt(1+α^2))*0.5 i.e
8.62
λ = %
8
0.76
(λ -2)/λ = %
8
0.88
(λ -1 )/λ = %
4

Report
φE = (1/π)cos-- 22.1
1 = %
(λ-2)/λ 16
φD = (1/π)cos-- 15.4
1 = %
(λ-1)/λ 77
77.8
φC1 = 100 - φE = %
84
84.5
φD1 = 100 - φD = %
23
φE1 = 100 %
6.63
φD1 - φC1 = %
8
%
6.63
Correction for floor thickness = (+ve
8
)
Where 0.5 is the nominal thickness of u/s apron.
Percolation head, HW= crest level- D/S River bed level 2.7 m
correction for interference of d/s cutoff on фC1 = C =
19√D/b'*(d+D)/b
D = D/S depth of pile whose influence has to be Determined on

0.5 m
the adjacent pile depth d. =
8.11
b’=distance b/n two piles = m
25
8.11
b=Total floor length ~b’ = m
25
d= depth of pile on which the effects of another Depth (D) is to
0.5 m
be calculated
for concrete take G = 2.3
%
0.58
C= (+ve
1
)
85.1
Corrected φC1 = %
04
2.29
The residual pressure head at C1=Hw* Corrected фC1 =
8
1.76 0.
Floor Thickness at Point C1 =(t) =corrected C1/(G-1) = Take the min
8 5
From practical point of view, the u/s apron (impervious floor) mostly covered
by river deposit, thickness of the structure, and since uplift pressure is counter
balanced by the weight of the standing water nominal thickness of 0.5m is
provided.

Report
Table 3-9 Pressure at key points of D/s cutoff
Location A B C D
The residual pressure head (RP) = 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29
Horizontal creep length b/n C1 and E-----(b) 8.11 8.11 8.11 8.11
Horizontal creep length--(L)-- b/n (C1 from A & 3.06 4.61 5.77 6.9
B )&( E from C & D)
The pressure at each location (P ) = 1.38 0.91 0.55 0.20
(RP-[(RPC1-RPE)/b]*L =
Thickness at each point =P/(G-1)*1.3 (i.e with an extra 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.2
thickness 30%)
Previously calculated Thickness at each point (by 2.42 2.2 2.1 1.98
Blighs)=
TAK = 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.2
E
pressure calculation
Let the floor thickness in the upstream be 0.50m and near the
downstream cutoff be 0.70m.
Assumed u/s floor thickness = = 1.98 m
A. downstream sheet pile =
let the thickness of sheet pile = 0.5 m
d2 = = 0.5 m
b= = 8.113 m
α= b/d = = 16.225
From khosla's pressure curve where λ = (1+ sqrt(1+α^2))*0.5 i.e
λ = 8.628
(λ -2)/λ 0.768
(λ -1 )/λ = 0.884
--1
φE = (1/pi)cos (λ-2)/λ = 22.116 %
φD = (1/pi)cos--1(λ-1)/λ = 15.477 %
φC = 0 %

Report
φE - Φd = 6.638 %
%(-
Correction for floor thickness = 26.256
ve)
Percolation head, HW= crest level- D/S River bed level 2.7
correction for interference of d/s cutoff on фE = C =

19√D/b'*(d+D)/b
D = depth of pile whose influence has to be Determined on the

0.5
adjacent pile depth d. =
b’=distance b/n two piles = 8.1125

b=Total floor length ~b’ = 8.1125
d= depth of pile on which the effects of another Depth (D) is to

2
be calculated
for concrete take G = 2.3

%(-
C= 1.45360547
ve)
Corrected φE = -5.5942345 %
-
The residual pressure head at E =Hw* Corrected фE =
0.15104433
Take
-
Floor Thickness at Point E =(t) =corrected E/(G-1) = the 1.98
0.11618795
max
Figure 3-12: Khosla’s based Schematic Profiles of proposed headwork,

Report
3.11 Stability Analysis of weir

The structural stability analysis of weir is done for both the high flood level and pool level
loading conditions. The followings are the major forces considered in the design of the weir
overflow section by which the stability analysis was based on; Self-weight of the structure,
External water pressure, Silt pressure and Uplift pressure.
In this project the proposed weir type is Ogee. The Ogee weir dimensions and section profiles is
based on common developed formulas in X and Y Directions of upstream &downstream faces.
These formulas already considers the stability scenarios one the designed structures. Therefore it
is capable of all reacting pressures with these dimensions.
3.11.1 WEIR CAPPING

In order to avoid cracking and shearing of the weir, apron and under sluice during overflowing
and incoming of boulders, proper capping with RCC is necessary. Thickness considered in this
design case is 20cm and minimum rein for cement area is taken as 0.85% of the strength of steel.
Area of steel per 1 meter width is given by (Asteel =PMin% of steel *W*t).
Strength of the steel------------------------------------------fy 300 N/mm2

Spacing of the Bar (C/C) ----------------------------------fy 300 mm
Percent of the Rein for cement Area--------------------% 39
Area of the steel-----------------------------------------------
0.0013 %
fy
Assumed RCC Thickness--------------------------------tRCC 200 mm
20 cm
Hence, Asteel per unit length 260 mm2
Thus, Provide Ø 12 mm
Actual area of steel, asteel 376.99 mm2 Ok!
Covering of Reinforcement 50 mm
Gross Covering Depth 56 mm
Effective Depth of RCC, (De = t-(50-φ/2)) 144 mm
Hence, Actual Spacing must less than 3*De 432 mm Ok!
This capping
detail is

Report
provided for the

weir and checks
the design
drawing for
"Therefore, the actual provided steel area is 376.99 mm2/m i.e. > 461.58, provide reinforcement
bars Dia.12mm @ 200mmC/C in both directions. Which has yield strength of 300N/mm2.
"
N.B: "The spacing @ c/c should be account the diameter of the reinforcement when
Intermediate smaller or larger size of the reinforcement is applied during actual operation. This
capping should also apply for divide wall with reinforcement size of 12 mm with C/c spacing of
200 mm. This capping detail is provided for the weir, apron, under sluice and Divide wall and
check the design drawing for further information".
3.12 Design of Retaining Walls and Divide Walls

The High flood level (HFL) and existing topographical condition at the headwork site are the
most governing parameters for fixing the retaining wall heights. The upstream and downstream
retaining walls should be high enough with provision of adequate freeboard to protect flood
overtopping to both left and right sides. So, the height of a retaining wall can be determined by
adding free board to the elevation difference of HFL and bank level. Other dimensions like top
and bottom width of all retaining walls at different section are determined to satisfy the required
structural stability safety factor.

Report
Retaining walls input data’s DATA
Weir wall height =2.70 m

The head over the weir = h =1.20m.
Sequent depth D2=5.61m.
U/s river bed =1720.56m
Depth of depression=1.37m
U/S Retaining wall length=3.00
D/S Retaining wall length=8.24
D/S High flood level (D/S HFL) =1725.02m
U/S High flood level (U/S HFL) =1724.46m
Upstream wing wall
Free board =0.50m
The height of wall is =4.40m
Top width=0.40m
Bottom width=2.64m
i.e., the top Elevation of the u/s retaining wall is
U/s river bed + height of wall =1720.56+4.40=1724.96m.
Bottom Thickness min. =0.55m
Max. =0.73m

Report
Therefore, the max footing height=0.55~=0.5m
Stability Analysis of U/s wing wall

Top width=B1=0.40 m.
Bottom width B =2.64 m.
Height of wall Hs=4.40m.
Foundation Thickness (t) =0.50m.
Ym of masonry (gm) = 23KN/m3
Ys of silt (Fill)gsilt=17KN/m3
Yco of masonry (gRCC) =25KN/m3
Angle of Repose (f1) =30Deg.
Ka= (1-sinf)/ (1+sinf) K=0.33
bt =D/2-D=0.25m
bh =10-15cm=0.15m
Table 3-10 Forces acting on the u/s wing wall
Bering capacity of Foundation material gravel material is 200 KN/m2
Lever
Forces (KN.m) arm Moment about toe (KN.m)
Item Description
Vertical Horizontal Overturnin
(m.) Resisting
+ve -ve +ve -ve g
1. Vertical force
1.1. Self-weight(W1) 40.48 0.2 8.10
113.3
1.2. Self-Weight(W2) 4 1.15 129.97
1.3. Silt pressure (Ps2) 83.78 1.89 158.62
2. Horizontal force
2.2. Active pressure
(Ps1) 27.92 1.47 -40.96
237.6 0.0 0.0 -
TOTAL 0 0 0 27.93 296.68 -40.96
Table 3-11 checking of the overturning, sliding and tension
I) Overturning Stability Fo=SMr/SMo 7.24 Safe 1.50

Report
II) Sliding Stability Fss=ɳΣFv/FH 5.11 Safe 1.50

ΣM=Mr+M
III) Overstressing Stability 255.72
o
SM/SFv 1.076
L/2 1.32
e= 0.243 safe 0.44
P=SV/
IV) Bearing Capacity
B(1+6e/B)
K
Max compression stress at the
= Pmax = 139.85 Safe 200 N/
toe
m
Tension develop at the heel = Pmin = 40.15 Safe 200
Free board =0.50m

The height of the wall is =6.34m
Top width=0.60m
Bottom width =3.80
i.e., the top elevation of the d/s retaining wall is
U/s river bed + height of wall =1720.56+6.34=1725.52m
Bottom Thickness min. =0.79
Max. =1.06
Therefore, the max footing height=1.10~=1.0m
Figure 3-13 D/s wing wall

Report
Table 3-12 stability analysis of d/s wing wall
Stability Analysis of d/s wing wall
Top width B1= 0.40 m.

Bottom width B= 3.80 m.
Height of wall Hs= 6.34 m.
Foundation Thickness t= 1.10 m.
Ym of masonry gm= 23 KN/m2
Ys of silt gsilt= 17 KN/m2
Yco of masonry gRCC= 25
Angle of Repose f1 = 30 Deg.
Ka=(1-sinf)/(1+sinf) K= 0.33
bt =D/2-D 0.55 m
bh =10-15cm 0.15 m
Bering capacity of Foundation material gravel material is 200 KN/m2
Lever Moment about

Forces(KN) arm toe(KN.m)
Item Description
Vertical Horizontal Resistin
(m.) Overturning
+ve -ve +ve -ve g
1. Vertical force
1.1. Self-weight(W1) 58.29 0.2 11.66
247.8
1.2. Self-Weight(W2) 6 1.53 380.19
183.2
1.3. Silt pressure (Ps2) 0 2.67 488.74
2. Horizontal force
-
2.2. Active pressure 61.06694
(Ps1) 8 2.11 -128.97
489.3 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 5 0 0 -61.07 880.58 -128.97

Report
Table 3-13 D/s wing wall stability, sliding and tension
Overturning Saf
I) Stability Fo=SMr/SMo 6.83 e 1.50
Sliding Saf
II) Stability Fss=ɳΣFv/FH 4.81 e 1.50
Overstressing ΣM=Mr+M
Ill)) Stability o 751.6
SM/SFv 1.54
L/2 1.90
e= 0.3649 safe 0.63
Bearing P=SV/B(1+6e/
V) Capacity B)
Max compression stress
at the toe = Pmax= 202.85 200
Tension develop at the Saf
heel = Pmin= 54.59 e 200
3.13 Design of Outlet works

3.13.1 Under sluice
The under sluice is mainly provided here to remove silt deposition as a result of barrier structure.
Hence, the skill level of the under sluice is fixed to washout the sediment deposited so to
increase the efficiency of water abstracting to the off taking canal through the head regulator.
The skill level of under sluice is usually recommended to be at 0.5 m depth below the canal off
take sill level. This relative depth should be optimized to satisfy the required hydraulic head to
scour the silt deposit and minimum head to control unnecessary base flow seepage loss through
under sluice because of high driving head. In addition to the supply of desilted water to the
intake, this is also
Considering rectangular notch profile of flow of water at the under sluice, the discharge passing
is computed considering the following points.
 The capacity should be at least two times the off take canal flow to ensure proper
scouring.
 Capacity of passing about 15% of the maximum flood discharge at high floods.

Report
 During construction, it should be able to pass the prevailing (at least base flow)
discharge of the river.
Table 3-14 under sluice - structural design summery table
UNDER SLUICE - STRUCTURAL DESIGN

1. Design Input Data
Gate Opening Depth H 2.2 m
Gate Opening Width
3.8 m
D
Spindle Length
3.55 m
L
2. Constants
Density of Steel 7850 kg/m3
Unit weight of water 1 ton/m3
Unit weight of Masonry 2.3 ton/m3
Unit weight of Concrete 2.4 ton/m3
Unit weight of silt (Sediment) 1.2 ton/m3
Allowable tensile stress and Bending Stress 16500 ton/m2
b/a k
1.4 45.06
1.3 41.42
Where 1 38.5
t = thickness of the sheet metal (cm) d/L (a) k
P = Hydrostatic pressure (N/cm2) 1 38.19
K = non-dimensional factor
a = minor support length which related with K 1
δ = Bending Stress in flat Plate, (N/cm2)
3.Scouring Gates structural design
Force of Water on sheet
0.18 ton/m2
metal---------------------------------Ph1
Force of silt on sheet
0.216 ton/m2
metal--------------------------------------Ps
Total Force Acting on Sheet
0.396 ton/m2
metal------------------------------P
P 0.396 N/cm2
Allowable Bending Stress--------------------------------------
16500 N/cm2
ABS
Maximum Silt Depth
0.6 m
---------------------------------------------Hs
Thickness of the steel 0.182 cm

Report
plate----------------------------------------t
Say 2 mm
Groove space -----------------------------------------------------
0.05 m
GS
Weight of steel plat gate-------------------------------------
7.1435 kg
Wsp
Friction force b/n steel and silt ---------------------------------
0.13 ton/m2
fF
Shutting (buckling) force
0.072 ton/m2
-----------------------------------------SF
Moment of
5.102 cm4
inertia--------------------------------------------------IM
Inside
3.193 cm
diameter------------------------------------------------------d
Outside diameter D = d + P/2 (pitch height) use 6.35 mm 3.828 cm
Say 40 mm
Weight of spindle ----------------------------- 0.032 ton
32.085 Kg
Total weight------------------------------------------------------
39.228 kg
WT
Tensile force
0.241 ton
-------------------------------------------------------Ft
Let -------------------------------------------------------d = D -
33.65 mm
6.35
0.034 cm
270.93 tone/
Tensile stress
6 m2
Check ok!
3.13.2 Canal outlets

The sill level of canal off take is fixed based on the optimum route alignment and the maximum
irrigated command level including minor and major hydraulic losses in the conveyance system.
Table 3-15 Intake -size structural design analysis table
INTAKE - STRUCTURAL DESIGN

1 Design Input Data
Gate Opening Depth H 1.1 m
Gate Opening Width D 1.5 m

Report
Spindle Length L 3.40 m

2 Constants
Density of Steel 7850 kg/m3
Unit weight of water 1 ton/m3
Unit weight of Masonry 2.3 ton/m3
Unit weight of Concrete 2.4 ton/m3
Unit weight of silt (Sediment) 1.2 ton/m3
Allowable tensile stress and Bending Stress 16500 ton/m2
b/a k
1.4 45.06
1.3 41.42
Where 1 38.5
t = thickness of the sheet metal (cm) d/L (a) k
P = Hydrostatic pressure (N/cm2) 0.73 34.23
K = non-dimensional factor
a = minor support length which related with K 1
δ = Bending Stress in flat Plate, (N/cm2)
3 Scouring Gates structural design
Force of Water on sheet metal---------------------------------Ph1 0.825 ton/m2
Force of silt on sheet metal--------------------------------------Ps 0.990 ton/m2
Total Force Acting on Sheet metal------------------------------P 1.815 ton/m2
P 1.815 N/cm2
Allowable Bending Stress--------------------------------------ABS 16500.000 N/cm2
Maximum Silt Depth ---------------------------------------------Hs 1.100 m
Thickness of the steel plate----------------------------------------t 0.920 cm
Say 10.000 mm
Groove space -----------------------------------------------------GS 0.050 m
Weight of steel plat gate-------------------------------------Wsp 144.44 kg
Friction force b/n steel and silt ---------------------------------fF 0.594 ton/m2
Shutting (buckling) force -----------------------------------------SF 0.330 ton/m2
Moment of inertia--------------------------------------------------IM 4.680 cm4
Inside diameter------------------------------------------------------d 3.125 cm
Outside diameter D = d + P/2 (pitch height) use 6.35 mm 3.760 cm
Say 40.0 mm
Weight of spindle ----------------------------- 0.030 ton
29.646 Kg

Report
Total weight------------------------------------------------------WT 174.086 kg

Tensile force -------------------------------------------------------Ft 1.098 ton
Let -------------------------------------------------------d = D - 6.35 33.650 mm
0.034 m
Tensile stress 1235.368 tone/m2
Check ok!
3.13.3 Divide Wall

The divide wall separates the under sluice from the main weir portion and allows a silt free water
flow to the head regulator by depositing the silt in the under-sluice pocket. The force components
of this structure is its self-weight, silt and water pressures The critical forces are when one side
of the divide is under force while the other side is free. This critical case is true when water is on
both sides of the divide wall and silt is maximum on the under-sluice side.
The divide wall is treated as cantilever wall consists as shown below. Based on this principle, the
analysis is shown as follow as:
Table 3-16 Divide wall Input data’s analysis table
Ym of masonry γm 23 KN/m2
Ys of silt γs 12 KN/m2
Yco of Concrete γc 24 KN/m2
Top weir width = T 2.30 m.
Thickness of divide wall b 0.60 m.
Bottom Weir Bottom Width B 5.10 m.
Foundation Thickness t 0.50 m.
Angle of Repose f 30 Deg.
Ka = (1-sinf)/(1+sinf) Ka 0.33 3.0

Hw
Height of wall all 4.40 m.
Yw of water γw 10 KN/m2
D/S reverse curve Ro 2.24 m.
Positi
Depth of Water on D.Wall= on of
Weir height+Hd Hw 3.90 m. jump

Report
Depth of Silt on D.Wall = Weir 1722. 1723.

height Hs 2.70 m. 02 56
Bering capacity of Foundation Adju
material 1000 KN/m2 st d
Moment about
Leve
Item Forces (KN) toe(KN.m)
r arm
Description Vertical Horizontal Resisting Overturning
+ve -ve +ve -ve (m.) +ve -ve
1. Vertical force
364.3
Self-weight(W1) 2 4.82 1755.22
106.2
Self-Weight(W2) 3 2.01 213.71
101.8
Self-Weight(W3) 0 1.51 153.61
2. Horizontal force
76.0
Hydrostatic Pressure (Ph) 5 1.30 98.87
14.5
Silt pressure (Ps) 8 1.30 18.95
572.3 0.0 0.0 90.6
TOTAL 5 0 0 3 2122.54 117.82
Overturnin
g Factor of 18.02 Safe
Safety, Fo
η= 0.65 4.10 Safe
Sliding, Fs 2004.7
ΣM = M r + Mo
2
Safe
e 0.95
Tension !
L/6 1.10
Vertical Stress P=

Report
SV/B(1+6e/B)
Saf
Max compression stress at the toe = Pmax 238.00
e
Saf
Tension develop at the heel = P -13.55
e
3.13.4 Design of Breast wall and Operation Slab

In order to avoid cracking and shearing of the weir, apron and under sluice during overflowing
and incoming of boulders, proper capping with RCC is necessary. Thickness considered in this
design case is 20cm and minimum rein for cement area is taken as 0.85% of the strength of steel.
Area of steel per 1 meter width is given by (A steel =PMin% of steel *W*t)
Strength of the steel---------------------------fy 300 N/mm2

Spacing of the Bar (C/C) -------------------fy 300 mm
Percent of the Reinforcement Area--------% 85
Area of the steel-----------------------------fy 0.0028 %
Assumed RCC Thickness----------------tRCC 200 mm
20 cm
Hence, Asteel per unit length 566.66 mm2
Thus, Provide Ø 14 mm
Actual area of steel, asteel 513.13 mm2
Covering of Reinforcement 50 mm
Gross Covering Depth 57 mm
Effective Depth of RCC, (De = t-(50-φ/2)) 143 mm
Hence, Actual Spacing must less than 3*De 429 mm Ok!
"Therefore, the actual provided steel area is 376.99 mm2/m i.e. > 461.58, provide reinforcement
bars Dia.12mm @ 200mmC/C in both directions. Which has yield strength of 300N/mm2."

Report
4 HYDROPOWER SYSTEM/ HEADRACE CHANNEL, DESILTING

BASIN, FOREBAY, PENSTOCK AND POWER HOUSE DESIGN

Report
Figure 4-14 Typical Arrangement of Small Hydropower Station

Report
4.1 Design Flows

The actual measured flow at January 22/05/2015 E.C Timble River has 1.12m3/s flow. During
this season the upstream project Timble Mehal diversion irrigation project was fully functional.
This flow is a firm and also installed design flow to design the power supply system as a whole.
The regionalized flows using the Dura River gauged station data. 66.7% of Exceedence are more
than 9m3/s. these flows series are most likely flood scenarios. If we use these flows as a plant
capacity flow the project scale and complexity highly increase and also the power plant
investment costs are very high. The cost benefit ration also got highly negative. Therefore the
92.7% of exceeded flow 1.12m3/s is used as a total design discharge. 0.8m3/s 100% exceeded
flow is used as firm and plant capacity design discharge which will available throughout the
year.
Table 4-17 Feild River Fow Measurement
Measured Flow
Cross section Area 1 0.92 m2
Cross section Area 2 1.63 m2
Average Area 1.27 m2
V 0.50 m/s
M3/
0.64
Q s
M3/
Discharge 1.12
s
M3/
0.80
Power channel design flow s
M3/
Irrigation Project 0.32 s
Total Headrace channel Design M3/
Discharge 1.12 s
4.2 Intake Structure Design

The intake structure may be of the side intake type that is perpendicular to river direction, or of
the Tyrolean intake design which is along the weir but is susceptible to sedimentation during
flooding and requires more maintenance (; RAMOS, 2000 G.C). All detail analysis of this
structure were in the headwork design portion.

Report
Figure 4-15 typical Intake Structures
For TimbiI mini-hydropower project side intake structure was designed

4.3 Intake Channel/ Feeder Channel Design
4.3.1 Design Standards
Table 4-18 Manning's Coefficient (N)
SL. NO. TYPE OF MATERIAL VALUE OF

N
1. STONE MASONRY WITH PLASTER 0.014
2. R.C.C./PCC Lining 0.018
Table 4-19 Permissible Velocity
Sl. No. Type of material Intake Channel Head Race channel
Min. Max. Min. Max.
1. Stone masonry with 1.5 m/s 2.0 m/s 1.0 2.0

plaster
2. R.C.C./ PCC Lining 1.5 m/s 3.0 m/s 1.0 3.0

Report
4.4 Settling Basin (Desander, Sand Trap, Siltation Basin)

The settling basin is used to trap sand or suspended silt from the water before entering the
penstock. It may be built at the intake structure or at the fore bay. Its main function is to ensure
that all suspended materials that could damage the water turbine is removed. The minimum
specification for safe turbine operation is 0.5 – 1.0 mm diameter of suspended materials. It is
designed to have sediment marginal settling speed of 0.1 m/s while flow velocity in settling basin
should be less than 0.3 m/s (RAMOS, 2000 G.C). These design specs are met by sizing the
length, width and depth properly.
For this project Manual Cleaning Type was selected. This type of De-silting Tank is provided for
small Project.
4.5 Headrace (Open Canal)

The headrace is a channel leading water to a fore-bay or turbine. The headrace follows the
contour of the hillside so as to preserve the elevation of the diverted water, but with sufficient
slope to move the water at the right velocity without spilling water along the bends and capable
of providing the needed volumetric flow rate given the cross-section of the channel. Since it is
open and not pressurized, the head loss is basically the elevation change from the top of the
water surface at the diversion weir and the end of the headrace before the fore-bay and penstock.

Table 4-20 Cannel Hydraulics Analysis of the Headrace Channel
Duty For Discharg Discharg

Discharg
Distance Full e for e With in
Sl. No. Chain age Name of off taking Canal e For
Km Irrigation Hydro Section
Irrigation
(m3/s/Ha) Power (QR)
Start End m3/sec m3/sec m3/sec
1 0 60 Intake Channel /Feeder Channel 0.80 0.32 1.12

2 81 2620 Head Race Canal 2.1 0.80 0.32 1.12
3 2620 2635 Actual Head Race Channel 0.80 0.00 0.80
4 0 110 Spillway Channel 1.60 0.00 1.60
5 0 35 Escape Channel 0.80 0.32 1.12
6 0 - Primary Canal 0.00 0.80 0.80
7 110 160 Spill Way end Chute 1.60 0.00 1.60
Tail race channel 0.80 0.00 0.80

Designed Channel Section
Manning's coefficient
Manning's coefficient of rugosity Side
0.015 0.014 of rugosity For 0.025 0
For concrete Slope
Earthen clay soil
C.V.R
Full Area Hydraulic (V / Actual
Bed Wetted Critical
Supply Recommended of Mean Velocity Vo) Section
Bed Slope (S) Width Perimeter Velocity
Depth Depth Flow Radius (V) (0.95 Capacity
(B) (P) (Vo)
(D) (A) (R) to (QD)
1.05)
m/m m m m m2 m m m/sec m/sec m3/sec
0.00 1.20 0.59 0.59 0.70 2.37 0.30 1.59 0.39 4.09 1.12
0.00 1.40 0.71 0.71 0.99 2.82 0.35 1.13 0.44 2.57 1.12
0.00 1.20 0.64 0.64 0.77 2.49 0.31 1.04 0.41 2.52 0.80
0.00 1.30 0.64 0.64 0.83 2.57 0.32 1.94 0.41 4.74 1.60
0.20 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.19 2.19 0.09 5.86 0.12 48.26 1.12
0.00 1.20 0.64 0.64 0.77 2.49 0.31 1.04 0.41 2.52 0.80
0.14 1.30 0.17 0.17 0.22 1.64 0.14 7.15 0.18 40.34 1.60
0.01 1.00 0.42 0.42 0.42 1.85 0.23 1.89 0.31 6.01 0.80

Free
Channel Name B/D QD-Qr Board Remark
(FB)
m3/sec m
Intake Channel /Feeder Channel 2.04 0.00 0.5 Lined masonry Rectangular
Head Race Canal 1.97 0.00 0.5 Lined masonry Rectangular
Actual Head Race Channel 1.86 0.00 0.4 Lined masonry Rectangular
Concrete Lined Rectangular
Spillway Channel 2.04 0.00 0.5
Channel
Concrete Lined Rectangular
Escape Channel 20.94 0.00 0.5
Channel
Masonry and Concrete chute
Primary Canal 1.86 0.00 0.4
rectangular channel
Masonry and Concrete
Spill Way end Chute 7.55 0.00 0.5
rectangular channel
Masonry and Concrete
Tail race channel 2.36 0.00 0.4
Rectangular channel

Timbil - Dura Mini Hydropower Project Civil/Hydraulic Structures Final
Report
4.6 Fore-bay (Head Tank, Head Pond, Surge Tank) Design

The Fore-bay or head tank is a small pond at the top of a penstock or pipeline; serves as final
settling basin, provides submergence of penstock inlet and accommodation of trash rack / screen
and overflow / spillway arrangement. In the event that the water turbine is closed and stops
operation, the flowing water from the headrace to the Fore-bay is dumped via a spillway back into
the river. It acts like a surge tank also to protect the pressurized penstock from water hammer
effects when water is suddenly stopped from flowing freely by the inlet valves.
Sudden turbine discharge variations will provoke water level oscillations along the diversion canal.
A fore bay can be considered as a regulation reservoir (PINHEIRO, 1989), in order to reduce the
water level variations and to improve the canal response to turbine discharge variations and, can
also operate as a protection against silt or floating particles.
When the plant demands a greater discharge, the water level quickly draws down while the canal
cannot supply enough flow. Otherwise, when the plant shutdown a hydraulic bore will propagate
upstream while the canal is still supplying the fore bay. This last event can induce secondary
oscillatory waves and the canal wall overflow.
A Fore-bay positioned at downstream end of a canal has its dimensions conditioned by the
following factors (PINHEIRO, 1989):
 To assure conditions to install the penstock intake with its equipment (e.g. trash-rack, level
detectors, sluices, gates, and weirs) always the minimum submergence criteria.
 To limit the flow oscillations along the canal by turbine discharge variations.
 To assure the regulation function (e.g. to allow the transient turbine demand satisfaction
independent of the flow regime).
Typically Lf >2.5 Bf (being Lf the fore bay length and Bf the fore bay width) and the velocity in
the fore bay is less than 0.5 m/s, in order to induce settling of the harmful solid particles.
The most important element to be calculated in the design of the fore-bay tank is the submergence
Head. The submergence head or the depth of water above penstock pipe, should fulfill the criteria
(Submergence head) hs >=1.5 V2/2g
Where, V refers to the velocity of water in the penstock, which in this case is 1.81 m/s;

Report
Therefore,
hs ≥1.5 V2/2g
hs ≥1.5× 1.81/2×9.8
hs ≥0.25 m
In other words, the submergence head of the fore-bay tank should be 0.25 meters.
Similarly while designing the fore-bay tank it is also necessary to construct the diameter of the air
vent or d air vent which is given as,
d2airvent = Q √ [(F/E) (D / teffective) 3]
Where,
d2airvent = internal diameter of air vent in mm
It is already known from the survey that the maximum flow of water through turbine is 0.8 m3/s,
“E” is the Young's modulus for A36 steel penstock material is 200 GPa for the, D is the diameter
of the penstock and “F” is the safety factor. In this case, it has been chosen as 10 because our
design consists of exposed pipes. Therefore;
d2airvent = 800√ [(10/200,000) (750/ 4)3]
d=120.5mm. The diameter of the air vent to be constructed is therefore 120 mm.
4.6.1 Trash racks

One of the major functions of the intake is to minimize the amount of debris
and sediment carried
by the incoming water, so trash racks are placed at the entrance to the intake
to prevent the ingress
of floating debris and large stones. A trash rack is made up of one or more
panels, fabricated from a Series of evenly spaced parallel metal bars. If the
watercourse, in the flood season, entrains large
debris, it is convenient to install, in front of the ordinary grill, a special one,
with removable and

Report
widely spaced bars (from 100 mm to 300 mm between bars) to reduce the
work of the automatic
trash rack cleaning equipment (Abdulmenan, 2020).
Trash racks are fabricated with stainless steel or plastic bars. Since the plastic bars can be made in
airfoil sections, less turbulence and lower head losses result. The bar spacing varies from a clear
width of 12 mm for small high head Pelton turbines to a maximum of 150 mm for large propeller
turbines. The trash rack should have a net area (the total area less the bars frontal area) so that the
water velocity does not exceed 0.75 m/s on small intakes, or 1.5 m/s on larger intakes, to avoid
attracting floating debris to the trash rack. Trash racks can be either be bolted to the support frame
with stainless steel bolts or slid into vertical slots, to be removed and replaced by stop logs when
closure for maintenance or repair is needed. In large trash racks it must be assumed that the grill
may
be clogged and the supporting structure must be designed to resist the total water pressure exerted
over the whole area without excessive deformation. (Guide on How to Develop a Small Hydro
Site ESHA 2004) Therefore for this project 100mm clear spaced stainless steel trash rack bars are
proposed.
The trash rack is designed so the approach velocity (V 0) remains between 0.60
m/s and 1.50 m/s.
The maximum possible spacing between the bars is generally specified by the
turbine
manufacturers. Typical values are 20-30 mm for Peloton turbines, 40-50 mm
for Francis turbines and
80-100 mm for Kaplan turbines. For this project Cross flow turbine is proposed
as single unit. Cross flow turbine is nearly seems as pelton turbine therefore
25mm spacing between bars proposed for this project at the inlet position of
penstock (Abdulmenan, 2020).
4.7 Penstock Design

4.7.1 Material selection
For small hydro applications, there are multiple options for penstock material composition,
with pros and cons associated with each. The table below lists potential materials for penstock

Report
composition, with mild steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and
medium-density polyethylene (MDPE) being the most commonly used materials.(Hydro Hand
Book)
Table 4-21 Penstock Material Composition
Penstock Material Options

Materia Frictio Weigh Corrosio Cos Jointin Pressur
Remar
l n Loss t n t g e
k
Ductile
Iron 4 1 4 2 5 4
Concrete 1 1 5 3 3 1
GRP 5 5 3 1 4 5
Propose
Mild d
3 3 3 4 4 5
Steel Penstock
Material
PVC 5 5 4 4 4 4
HDPE 5 5 5 3 2 4
MDPE 5 5 5 3 2 5
1 = Poor5 = Excellent
Table adapted from Micro hydro Design Manual, a Guide to Small-scale Water Power Schemes, A. Harvey
1993.
Ductile iron: These pipes can have an internal coating of cement, affording better corrosion
protection and low friction loss. Ductile iron is a heavy material, however, which leads to a
difficult and more costly installation. Ductile iron allows for multiple jointing options,
including mechanical joints (bolted gland), push-in spigot and socket with a flexible seal, or
occasionally flanged.

Report
Figure 4-16 Ductile Iron Pipe
Concrete: Several factors come into play with concrete penstocks which make them typically
unsuitable for use, even at moderate pressure. Concrete’s friction loss characteristics can be
highly variable. Further, the material’s excessive weight makes transportation and installation
difficult. However, steel reinforced concrete pipes, particularly when they are pre-stressed,
can serve as a cost-effective alternative for low and medium head sites. Concrete penstocks
typically have rubber ring joints (Abdulmenan, 2020).
Figure 4-17 Concrete Penstock with Spun Rubber Ring Joints
Photo courtesy of Hynds Water
Glass-reinforced plastic (GRP): GRP can be a material option depending on the cost and
availability. The pipes are comprised of resin reinforced with spirally wound glass fiber and
inert filler such as sand. GRP pipes are suited for high pressure applications and have a low
weight and minimal corrosion and friction loss. Typically, joints are spigot and socket with
a flexible seal. The pipe is fragile and requires careful installation. To provide the best
protection, it is recommended that GRP pipes are buried and backfilled with fine material.
Evidence suggests that GRP may be weakened over a long period of time, due to water
absorption via osmosis.

Report
Figure 4-18 GRP Penstock
Mild steel: Mild steel is likely the most widely utilized penstock material for small hydro
systems. Its low cost and ease of acquisition add to its appeal. Mild steel provides a greater
versatility for pipe diameter and thickness. It has moderate friction loss. Mild steel
penstocks are resistant to mechanical damage but can be more susceptible to corrosion
when the pipelines are buried. While these pipes are heavy, they can easily be manufactured
in smaller segments, thus making transportation and installation easier. The jointing on mild
steel pipes can be achieved by on-site welding, flanges, or mechanical joints. Therefore for
this project A-36 Steel pipe is proposed. The pipe thickness was analysis in the next section.
Figure 4-19 Spiral Welded Mild Steel Piping, Photo courtesy of steelpipes.org
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC): PVC is a commonly used penstock material. It has low friction
loss and a high resistance to corrosion. PVC is available in a large range of sizes and pressure
ratings and the cost is relatively low. Additionally, the material is lightweight, increasing the
ease of transportation and installation. However, PVC is relatively fragile and susceptible to
mechanical damage from impacts, particularly at low temperatures. Further, PVC will
deteriorate when exposed to ultraviolet light; the sun exposure will cause surface cracking,
which in turn, will have a significant consequence on the pressure rating of the pipe. As such,
the pipe must always have protection from direct sunlight by burying, covering with foliage,
wrapping, or painting. PVC also requires continuous support along the length of the penstock
due to its high vulnerability to stress fatigue. If the PVC is allowed to bend, there will be an
introduction of internal forces against the wall of the pipe; further, vibrations induced by
water flow can be enough to cause a stress fatigue failure after only about 5 to 10 years of

Report
operation. Because of this, it is recommended that PVC pipe be run along the ground or
preferably buried. PVC pipe segments can be joined using spigot and socket with PVC pipe
cement or using spigot and socket with a flexible sealing ring (Agency, 2021).
Figure 4-20 Figure 38: PVC Piping Photo courtesy of Home Power
High and medium density polyethylene (HDPE and MDPE): HDPE and MDPE pipes have
minimal friction losses and are highly resistant to corrosion. The materials provide a good
alternative to PVC although material cost is somewhat greater. HDPE and MDPE pipes are
available in sizes from less than an inch to over three feet in diameter. Installation is relatively
easy, particularly in smaller-scale applications. Jointing is generally achieved by heating the
ends of the segments and fusing them together using special equipment. Because this method
is more labor-Intensive, installation cost will be higher. For smaller diameter pipes,
mechanical compression fitting joints can prove to be a cost-effective alternative to fused
joints (RAMOS, 2000 G.C).

Report
Figure 4-21 Figure 39: HDPE Penstock
4.7.2 Optimizing Penstock Diameter

The losses occurring in the penstock have the potential to significantly affect the power available to
the turbine. When sizing a penstock, the pipe length and diameter, design flow, and gross head
must be considered as they contribute to the head loss in the system.
In general, the pipe length, design flow and gross head are fixed variables, meaning they
are unalterable. As such, the primary alternative to reduce head loss in the system is to adjust the
penstock diameter to minimize the velocity in the pipe, and thus, the friction created. However, an
increased penstock diameter leads to additional material cost; therefore, an optimum balance
should be considered between the two.
When sizing a penstock, a good place to start is calculating a rough diameter of pipe that would
adequately pass a flow velocity of 3.0 meters per second. The flow velocity can be calculated by
dividing the flow rate by the area of the pipe opening, taking care to ensure that units are identical.
When beginning the design process with an initial 3.0 m/s flow velocity, this relationship can be
used to obtain a preliminary inside pipe diameter.
Once an initial pipe diameter is reached, head loss analysis can take place to further refine the
penstock sizing. According to Canyon Hydro, a good rule of thumb is to size the pipe such that no
more than 10% to 20% of the gross head is lost due to pipe friction (RAMOS, 2000 G.C).
All detail optimization are tabulated as follows.
4.7.2.1 Over all penstock design optimization analysis
Penstock Friction loss Analysis Method
In fluid dynamics, the Darcy–Weisbach equation is a phenomenological equation, which relates the
major head loss, or pressure loss, due to fluid friction along a given length of pipe to the average
velocity. This equation is valid for fully developed, steady, incompressible single-phase flow.
The Darcy–Weisbach equation can be written in two forms (pressure loss form or head loss form).
The head loss form can be written as:

Report
Major Head Loss - head form
Where:
Δh = the head loss due to friction (m)
fD = the Darcy friction factor (unit less)
L = the pipe length (m)
D = the hydraulic diameter of the pipe D (m)
g = the gravitational constant (m/s2)
V = the mean flow velocity V (m/s)
4-22 over all penstock design optimization analysis
Available Gross Head (m) 72.98

Design Flow (m3/s) 0.80
Coefficient factors
Acceleration due to Gravity (m/s2) 9.81
Density Of Water (kg/m3) 1000.00
Overall efficiency Eo 0.51
E- Civil Work 0.87
E- Penstock 0.93
E- Turbine 0.75
E -Generator 0.90
E- drive System (it depends on the Gear box) 0.98
E- Line (It depends on the transmissions length) 0.98
E- Transformers 0.97
Voltage Drop 0.97
Gross Power (Watt) 291081.33
Gross Power (Kilo-Watt) 291.08
Effective Head (Net Head) He
Intake Water Level 1722.48
HL1 (Loss From Intake To fore-bay) (m) 2.66
HL2=(Loss at penstock) 2.22
HL3=Loss at Tail race and Draft Tube)
Diameter of Penstock DP(m) 0.75
Coefficient on DP f 0.02

Report
coefficient Of Roughness n (Steel Pipe) 0.01

Penstock In Elevation 1719.38
Penstock Exit Elevation 1649.38
Horizontal Penstock Length m (CAD) 453.00
Length of Penstock Lp (m) 458.38
Cross-sectional Area Of Penstock m2 0.44
VP-Velocity at Penstock (m/s) 1.81
Friction Loss at penstock: Darcy-Weisbach
equation 2.02
(hf)=fx(LpxDp)xVp2/2g
coefficient on the form at the inlet fe 0.50
Hi -Inlet Loss (m) 0.08
fv- coefficient on the type of valve 0.10
HV-Valve Loss (m) 0.02
Others Loss 0.11
Total Head loss Status evaluation Safe
H-Net Head (m) 66.50
Et-Hydraulic Turbine Efficiency 0.75
P-Net Mechanical Power Output (Watt) 391409.75
P-Net Mechanical Power Output produced at
391.41
turbine shaft (Kilo-Watt)
Eg-Mechanical drive(gear, clutch),Generator and

0.84
transformer Efficiencies
E- Overall Hydropower plant Efficiencies 0.61
Pelec is the electrical power exported to the Off-grid

318356.77
(Watts)
Pelec is the electrical power exported to the Off- grid

318.36
(Kilo-Watts)
Total Demand Estimated Load (KW) 318.00
System Achievement Safe

Report
4.7.3 Water Hammer Analysis

Sudden shutdowns of hydroelectric plants or changes in water flow through hydraulic turbines may
cause problems ranging from rupture of penstocks due to water hammer to runner speed changes
that cause the line current of the generators to vary from the desired frequency.
- Regulating the water flow and coping with sudden closure of gates and valves require
special equipment such as governors, pressure relief valves, and surge tanks.
- Solving the problems of pressure control and speed regulation requires a thorough
understanding of the basic theory of water hammer.
- Water hammer is a phenomenon of pressure change in closed pipes caused when flowing
water in a pipeline is decelerated or accelerated by closing or opening a valve or changing
the velocity of the water rapidly in some other manner.
- The phenomenon is accompanied by a series of positive and negative pressure waves which
travel back and forth in the pipe system until they are damped out by friction.
- When a valve in a pipe or penstock carrying water is closed, the pressure head immediately
upstream of the valve is increased, and a pulse of high pressure is propagated upstream to
the nearest open water surface.
- On the downstream side of the valve a lowered pressure moves in a downstream direction
to the nearest open water surface.
- Flow is changing from one steady-state to another over a very, very short time. Causes of
rapid changes in flow (acceleration/deceleration): Sudden opening or closing of control
valves
- Starting or stopping of pumps Rejecting or accepting load by hydraulic turbine
- Rapid change in velocity results in change in momentum causing pressure fluctuations
(waves) –Water Hammer
4.7.3.1 Elastic water column (EWC) theory

According to Parmakian (1955), the velocity of the pressure wave, c, in a pipe is given by the
following formula:

Report
Where ρ = density of the water; K = volume modulus of water; d = diameter of pipe; t = thickness
of pipe; E = pipe’s Young's modulus of elasticity; C1 = factor for anchorage and support of pipe
- C1= 0.95 for pipe anchored at upper end and without expansion joints
- C1 = 0.91 for pipe anchored against longitudinal movement
- C1 = 0.85 for pipe with expansion joints.
The maximum water hammer head is computed (Allievi) as:
For Timbil Mini Hydropower Penstock a pressure wave to travel 458 m length of A-36 steel
Penstock pipe after a rapid valve closure in a 0.75m diameter with expansion joint, 4mm wall
thickness, steel pipeline. The initial flow velocity was 1.812 m/s. E for steel is 200 Gpa. K is 2.2
Gpa. The detail pressure wave velocity C, the maximum Water hammer head and increase in
pressure tabulate in table 4-7below.
Table 4-23 Water Hammer calculated parameters value
Maximu
Penstoc Penstoc Velocity of Increase
Wall E A-36 m Water
k k pressure Vo In
Thicknes Steel K Gpa Hammer
Length Diamete wave C (m/s) Pressure
sm Gpa Head
m rm m/s (kn/m2)
hwm (m)
458.00 0.75 0.00 200.00 2.20 893.92 1.81 165.09 1619.56
4.7.4 Penstock Wall Thickness Design

Wall thickness of the penstock is calculated considering the static pressure owing to the difference
in water level from the weir crest level to the powerhouse’s tailrace plus (gross head) the dynamic
pressure in the event of the rapid closure of the intake valve before the turbine which is taken as
40% of the static pressure to comprise the designed internal bursting pressure or Water Hammer
(Jha, 2020). The thickness is calculated as follows:
2 × (tensile force) = (diameter) × (static pressure of water from crest to tailrace) 2 × T =
D × (9.81 × H)
2 × [t × (allowable stress for A-36 steel)] = D × (9.81 × H)
2 × [t × (0.60 by code) × (248,000 Mpa yield strength of A-36)] = D × (9.81 × H)

If we include 40% allowance for rapid closure (Water Hammer Pressure Standard value

Report
considered for mini hydropower project) and 10% corrosion allowance, the equation
becomes:
Hence, the minimum penstock wall thickness in mm for an A-36 steel material is given by:
t = [5.0764 × 10-5] × D × H × 1000

The thickness ts includes a 15% additional safety allowance:
ts = t × 1.15
Table 4-24 Penstock wall thickness analysis result
Penstock Wall Thickness Values

t=Penstock A-36 Steel Pipe minimum Thickness
2.77
mm
Penstock Pipe Diameter (m) 0.75
Gross static head m 72.88
t=Penstock Pipe Analysis Thickness mm 3.19
t=Penstock Pipe Design Thickness mm 4.00
4.7.5 Support Pier Design

The penstock alignment pass through Undulated hill topography. To make the penstock slope or
grade with in the required range cut and fill of the original ground level. Therefore for the fill part
Concrete pier series are used to fill the gap. For the shorter depth fill masonry supporting structures
were used. The detail limit state modeling and design moments of the concrete piers shown below.

Report
Figure 4-22 Bending Moment Profile of pier Footing M22
Figure 4-23 Bending Moment profile of M11

Report
Figure 4-24 Support Pier Section View
4.8 Power House Design

The main function of the Powerhouse is to provide shelter for the electro-mechanical equipment
(turbine, generator, control panels, etc.). The size of the powerhouse and the layout is
determined by taking into account convenience during installation, operation and maintenance
(Jha, 2020).
The following points should be considered when designing the powerhouse.

Report
Figure 4-25 Typical Power House
(1) Location of Powerhouse

The location of the powerhouse must avoid the level and section where the water flows to
avoid scouring and to prevent inundation of the powerhouse during high flows. The flood
water level could be assumed based on the information listed below that could be used in
determining the ground elevation of the powerhouse with sufficient margin for error:
 Information obtained from local residents

 Ground elevation of nearby structures (roads, embankments and bridges, etc.)
 Traces of flooding and vegetation boundary
(2) Foundation of Powerhouse

The foundations of the powerhouse must be strong enough to withstand the installation of heavy
loads like the electro-mechanical equipment. For a mini-hydropower plant, a compacted
gravel layer may be sufficient because of the relatively lightweight equipment (approximately 2
– 3 tons/m2) (Singhal, 2021 G.C; TESSEMA, 2019).

In the case of the impulse turbine, as the water that passes through a runner is directly discharged
into the tailrace as shown in Figure 4, the water flow under the turbine will be turbulent.
Therefore, the clearance between the powerhouse slab and water surface at the afterbay needs to
be secured at least 30 to 50cm.
Figure 4-26 power house sub structure for impulse turbine type
The water depth at the afterbay can be calculated by the following equation.
hc = {(1.1×Qd2)/(9.8×b2)}1/3

Report
Where,
hc ： 0.42m Water depth at afterbay (m)
Qd ：0.8 Maximum plant discharge (m3/sec)
b ： 1m Width of tailrace channel (m)
 The designed Tailrace Total depth is 0.92m therefore it is in very safe margin.
The water level at the tailrace bay should be higher than the estimated flood water level. The detail
is narrated in its topic.
The foundation is classified into two types:

A. Impulse Turbine
- Pelton turbine, Turgo turbine or Cross-Flow Turbine, etc.

B. Reaction Turbine
- Francis turbine or Propeller turbine, etc.

For this project Impulse Turbine (Cross flow Turbine) is proposed.
Figure 4-27 Foundation for Impulse and Reaction Turbines
(1) Location of Tailrace

The location of the tailrace is determined using the same conditions as the powerhouse location
because it is located adjacent to the powerhouse. It is decided by the following considerations:
(1)Flood Water Level
The tailrace channel should be preferably placed above the expected flood water level. When

Report
the base elevation of the tailrace is planned to be lower than the flood level, the location and
base elevation of the tailrace must be decided in consideration of (a) suitable measures to deal
with the inundation or seepage of water into the powerhouse due to flooding, and (b) a method
to remove sediment which may occur in the tailrace canal.

Timbil - Dura Mini Hydropower Project Civil/Hydraulic Structures Final Report
Table 4-25 Stage Discharge Analysis of Dura River at Power house location
HFL
H Hydraulic roughness Design Near
P.Area CUM friction Rated Discharge
NO. Elevation difference perimeter Coefficient Flood Tail
(m2) Area(m2) Slope s (m3/s)=1/n*A*(Rh^2/3)*SO^0.5
(m) (m) n m3/s Race
Channel
1 1642.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.02 539.00 0.00
2 1642.66 0.50 7.14 7.14 25.46 0.05 0.02 539.00 7.84
3 1643.16 0.50 13.96 21.10 30.52 0.05 0.02 539.00 42.25
4 1643.66 0.50 16.54 37.64 39.65 0.05 0.02 539.00 93.12
5 1644.16 0.50 22.05 59.68 47.63 0.05 0.02 539.00 177.67
1645.42
6 1644.66 0.50 24.35 84.04 50.73 0.05 0.02 539.00 301.34
7 1645.16 0.50 25.83 109.87 53.83 0.05 0.02 539.00 452.82
8 1645.66 0.50 27.83 137.70 59.50 0.05 0.02 539.00 617.06
9 1646.16 0.50 30.95 168.65 66.14 0.05 0.02 539.00 806.18
10 1646.66 0.50 34.62 203.27 74.79 0.05 0.02 539.00 1013.89
As it is seen in the above table 4-6 the power hose is located 2.16m higher than the estimated 100 years return period design discharge
HFL. Therefore the power house location is free from flood submergence effects.

(2) Existence of Riverbed Fluctuation at Tailrace

When riverbed fluctuation is expected to take place in the future, the location of the water
outlet must be selected so as to avoid any trouble to its operation due to sedimentation near
the tailrace.
(3) Possibility of Scouring
Careful attention must be made to avoid the scouring of the riverbed and nearby ground. The
selection of a location where protective measures can be easily applied is essential.
(4) Flow Direction of River Water
The tailrace must be directed (in principle, facing downstream) so as not to disrupt the smooth
flow of the river water or a location which allows the direction of the tailrace as that of the
river flow should be selected.
Figure 4-28 Power House Plan View

5 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M)
5.1 How to turn on and turn off MHP in normal condition

5.1.1 Pre-operational Check points
Prior to the operation commencement, the following facilities and equipment must be checked by
operators to ensure that they are in proper operating condition. Especially for long-term operation,
it is of particular importance that the following are checked thoroughly.
• Transmission and distribution lines

• Line and pole damage
• Waterway facilities
• Structural damage
• Sand sedimentation in front of the intake
• Trash rack
• Sand sedimentation in the settling basin and the Forebay
• Turbine, generator, and controller
Start-up of operation is as follows

• Close the flushing gate of the intake weir
• Open the intake gate and intake water into the waterway system
• Open the inlet valve gradually
• If there is a guide vane, open the inlet valve fully, and then open the guide vane gradually
• Use a controller (e.g. ELC) if one exists. Confirm that voltage and frequency or rotating
speed (RPM) increase up to the regulated value by guide vane (or inlet valve)
• Turn the load switch on (parallel in)
• Control the inlet valve or guide vane so that voltage and frequency are within the regulated
range.
Other necessary actions

• Bearing lubricant condition: Bearings are delicate parts that maintain stable operation of the
units. Periodic application of grease is important for stable and long-term use of the
bearings and main units. When lubrication of bearings is insufficient for operations, this
means that the bearings have burned out and must be replaced.

• Cooling water of dummy load for ELC Generator frequency output is controlled by the
ELC. The ELC uses a dummy load (a resistance unit) to consume electric power over the
necessary load supply at that time. If the dummy load is cooled by water, operators should
confirm the water level of the dummy load before operation begins. (The typical cooling
methods of dummy loads are water cooling and air cooling.)
• Protection relays for emergency stop are not activated when a series of failures occurs in the
units; protection relays (and automatic cut-off by circuit breakers) are activated for an
emergency shutdown of the units. Once the failures are corrected, they can be manually
reset by the operators. The excitation current of the AVR system increases the terminal
voltage of the generator. When it reaches its approximate rated voltage (and frequency or
rotation speed reaches its rated value), operators turn on the load switch (generator circuit
breaker) to connect the generator to the transmission (distribution) lines.
Turn off MHP in normal condition

Stopping Operation steps
In order to avoid longer runaway speed of the turbine and the generator, the procedures for
stopping operation are as follows:
• Close the inlet valve or the guide vane

• Cut load switch off (load rejection)
• Close the inlet valve and the guide vane completely
• Close the intake gate
• If the load is suddenly cut due to an accident, the operator must close the inlet valve or the
guide vane immediately to avoid prolonged periods of the runaway speed of the turbine and
the generator
5.2 How to turn off MHP in emergency condition

Steps prior to turn off the MHP in emergency
During emergency situation the following steps must be followed:
First of all close the governor/guide van
• Close the main gate value or butterfly valve
• Turn off main breaker in the control panel

• Disconnect the transformer links

• Open the spillway gate and shut down the fore-bay gate
• Close the intake gate if possible
• Use fire extinguisher/sand in fire situation
• Use safety glasses, safety gales, mask, safety shoes etc.
• Use alternate supply for lighting etc.
5.3 How to run an MHP successfully

Steps for successful operation
Following are the stepwise approach for successful running of MHP:
• Control the inlet valve or guide vane so that voltage and frequency are within their
regulated range
• Check for equipment and noise vibration, and stop operations if necessary
• Check the temperature of the equipment
• Check the equipment conditions. Stop operation and apply the appropriate(c-5).
• Record operation results and equipment condition
• Operators must always check the condition of facilities and equipment. If trouble is found or an
accident occurs, they must inform the person in charge and try to solve the problem.
• Operators must try to prevent any accidents. Preventative measures such as equipment repair and
the improvement of the facilities should be implemented as necessary.
• Note the readings of machine time to time
• Record keeping of bills and its follow up
• Patrolling on channel time to time
5.4 Important precautionary measures to be adopted by operators

The operators of MHP must maintain control over the equipment so that the supply of quality
electricity may be realized in order to maintain equipment conditions and ensure safety factors as
follows:
MHP Patrol and Role of Operators

Micro-hydropower plants must be operated and maintained in strict compliance with O&M
(Operation and Maintenance). In general, operators of mini hydropower plants should understand
the following items.

Role of Operators
• Operators must efficiently conduct O&M of micro hydropower plants in strict compliance
with the rules and regulations
• Operators must familiarize themselves with all plant components and their respective
performance/functions. Furthermore, they should also be familiar with prompt recovery
emergency measures if an accident occur
• The role and features of this manual should be in mind before the start of MHP operation.

6 BILL OF QUANTITIES AND COST ESTIMATIONS

Table 6-26 General Item Bill of quantities and Cost Estimation
Bill No.1 Bill of Quantity and Cost Estimation of general items

Uni Quantit Unit rate
S/No Item of work Total cost
t y (ETB)
1 Allow for mobilization L.S 1 620,000.00 620,000.00
2 Allow for demobilization L.S 1 542,500.00 542,500.00
Camp (Staff residence, Office, Store, Café,
3
Kitchen, Toilet & Shower)
3.1 Living Room ( As Per the Drawing ) No 8 155,000.00 1,240,000.00
3.2 Office ( As Per the Drawing ) No 3 155,000.00 465,000.00
3.3 Store ( As Per the Drawing ) No 2 310,000.00 620,000.00
Cafeteria, Kitchen and Servant Room ( As
3.4 No 3 387,500.00 1,162,500.00
Per the Drawing )
3.5 Guard House ( As Per the Drawing ) No 1 46,500.00 46,500.00
3.6 Toilet and Shower ( As Per the Drawing ) No 3 155,000.00 465,000.00
3.7 Fencing ( As Per the Drawing ) m 240 1,710.67 410,561.28
3.8 Laboratory No 1 310,000.00 310,000.00
3.9 Health Center No 1 310,000.00 310,000.00
Provide project indicator post starting from
4 LS 3 31,000.00 93,000.00
the construction time
Provision of as built drawings , operation
5 LS 1 155,000.00 155,000.00
and maintenance manual for the project
6 Access road Km 6 139,500.00 837,000.00
Sub Total 7,277,061.28
Table 6-27 Head Work Bill of quantities and Cost Estimation

Item NO 2. Head Work ( weir, Under Sluice and off take/ Out let Structure)
S.N UNI QUANT UNITE AMOUNT (ETH.
O ITEM OF WORK TE ITY PRICE BIRR)
part
Head work Structure
-1
1.0 Weir Body
1.1 Excavation
Clear the area of the earthworks and
1.1.
road works from bush, trees and m2 280.00 60.00 16,800.00
1
shrubs
1.1.
Ordinary Soil Excavation m3 22.50 250.00 5,625.00
2
1.1. cart away excavated material up to
m3 56.00 200.00 11,200.00
3 100m distance
1.1.
Back fill and compaction m3 56.00 250.00 14,000.00
4
1.1.
soft rock excavation m3 15.00 1,200.00 18,000.00
5
1.1.
Hard rock Excavation m3 215.00 1,800.00 387,000.00
6
1.1.
lean concrete c-10 m3 8.40 6,500.00 54,600.00
7
1.1.
Concrete C-25 (1:2:3) m3 26.52 9,217.58 244,450.13
8
1.1. Cyclopean concrete(40%
m3 275.20 12,340.86 3,396,204.67
9 C,60%Graded Stone)
1.2.
concrete formwork m2 250.30 230.00 57,569.00
10
1.2. Reinforcement bar, φ12 for weir
Kg 3,500.00 279.45 978,075.00
11 body anchor
sub total 5,183,523.80
D/S Apron and U/S & D/S Cut
2
off
2.1 U/S CUT-OFF
2.1.
Excavation
1
2.1.
2
2.1.
3
2.1.
Hard rock excavation m3 5.00 1,800.00 9,000.00
4
2.1.
5


m2 33.20 200.00 6,640.00
6 100m distance
Concrete Work
2.1.
Concrete C-25 (1:2:3) m3 19.60 9,217.58 180,664.50
7
2.1.
Reinforcement bar, φ12 KG 210.00 279.45 58,684.50
8
sub total 272,189.00
2.2 D/S CUT-OFF
Excavation
2.2.
Ordinary Soil Excavation m3 2.00 250.00 500.00
1
2.2.
2
2.2.
3
m3 27.72 200.00 5,544.00
4 100m distance
2.2.
5
Concrete Work
2.2.
lean concrete c-10 m3 0.50 6,500.00 3,250.00
6
2.2.
Concrete C-25 (1:2:3) m3 16.80 9,217.58 154,855.29
7
2.2.
Reinforcement bar, φ12 KG 210.00 279.45 58,684.50
8
3 D/S APRONE
3.1 EXCAVATION
3.1.
1
3.1.
2
3.1.
3
m3 230.00 55.00 12,650.00
4 100m distance
STONE WORK
3.1.
Masonry (1:3) m3 15.00 4,552.49 68,287.35
5
3.1.
lean concrete c-10 m3 0.50 6,500.00 3,250.00
6

3.1.
Concrete C-25 (1:2:3) m3 5.00 9,217.58 46,087.88
7
4.0 Divide wall (two divide wall)
4.1 Ordinary Soil Excavation m3 8.30 250.00 2,075.00
4.1.
1
4.1.
2
m3 86.30 55.00 4,746.50
3 100m distance
4.1.
4
STONE WORK
4.1.
Concrete C-205(1:2:3) m3 2.56 9,217.58 23,597.00
6
5.0 Under sluice (two under sluice)
5.1.
1
5.1.
2
STONE WORK
5.1.
Concrete C-25 (1:2:3) m3 0.54 9,217.58 4,995.93
3
5.1. Plain Concrete C-20 for Under
m3 0.60 9,217.58 5,530.55
4 sluice bed
6.0 Breast wall
6.1 Concrete C-25 m3 0.56 9,217.58 5,166.53
6.1.
Reinforcement φ12 Kg 26.92 200.00 5,384.42
1
6.1.
Operation slab
2
6.1.
3
Masonry support slab above of
take
6.1.
Concrete C-25 m3 0.26 9,217.58 2,400.26
4
6.1.
5

7 Retaining Wall (U/S and D/S)

7.1 U/S Retaining wall
7.1.
1
7.1.
2
7.1.
3
7.1.
4
7.1. Cart away excavated material up to
m3 112.50 200.00 22,500.00
5 100m distance
STONE WORK
7.1.
Masonry (1:3) m3 220.00 4,552.49 1,001,547.80
6
7.1.
lean concrete c-10 m3 1.30 6,500.00 8,450.00
7
7.1. Plastering internal face (to the river
m2 45.00 776.64 34,948.80
8 side)
7.1.
formwork m2 21.00 230.00 4,830.00
9
7.1. Pointing external face(to the
m2 66.65 776.64 51,766.52
10 abutment side)
sub total 1,301,054.19
8 D/S Retaining wall
8.1.
1
8.1.
2
8.1.
formwork m2 75.00 230.00 17,250.00
3
8.1.
4
8.1. Cart away excavated material up to
m3 150.00 200.00 30,000.00
5 100m distance
STONE WORK
8.1.
Masonry (1:3) m3 206.37 4,552.49 939,503.49
6
8.1.
lean concrete c-10 m3 5.89 6,500.00 38,270.92
7
8.1. Plastering internal face (to the river
m2 82.96 776.64 64,433.08
8 side)

8.1. Pointing external face(to the

m2 93.99 776.64 72,998.92
9 abutment side)
Sub Total 1,253,556.40
GATES (Supply and
9.0
installation as per the
0
drawing for detail)
Off take canal gate
9.1 consists Installation, the
0 gate consists the
following parts
9.1. 6mm thickness sheet metal,
1 1.5m X 1.1m
9.1. 40X40X10mm angle iron, 232,564.
LS 1.00 232,564.00
2 length 1.36m 00
9.1.
Spindle length 3.3m LS
3
Under sluice take canal
9.2 gate consists Installation,
0 the gate consists the
following parts
9.2. 8mm thickness sheet metal,
LS
1 1.9m X 2.2m
9.2. 40X40X10mm angle iron,
LS
2 length 2.5m
9.2.
Spindle length 3.65m LS
3 232,564.
2.00 465,128.00
9.2. 00
12mm bar for anchorage LS
4
9.2. Handle 32mm steel 1m
LS
5 length…etc
9.2. 50x 50x 10mm stiffing
LS
6 angle iron
Sub Total 697,692.00
9,4
Total Headwork cost
57,260.86

Table 6-28 Headrace channel, Desilting Basin, Forebay, Penstock and Power House Bill of quantities and Cost
Estimation
Bill No.2 Hydro power Systems (Headrace Channel, De-silting Basin,

Fore-bay, Penstock and Power House)
Item Unit Rate
Description Unit Qty Total Cost (Birr)
No. (Birr)
1 Feeder Channel
1.1 Site Clearance m2 144.00 60.00 8,640.00
3
1.3 Hard rock Excavation m 0.00
3
1.4 Soft rock Excavation m 325.12 1,200.00 390,144.00
Fill and Compaction with
1.5 m3 19.62 4,905.00
Selected Material 250.00
Masonery (60:40% Dressed
1.6 m3 66.24 301,556.94
stone :Mortar) 4,552.49
Plastering (1:3 cement Mortar
1.7 m2 188.10 146,085.98
ratio) 776.64
Subtotal 864,878.59
2 Desilting Basin
2.1 Soft rock Excavation m3 194.93 1,200.00 233,912.45
3
2.2 C-25 Concrete m 41.92 9,217.58 386,383.48
2.3 Reinforcement bars
2.4 C-10 Lean Concrete m3 4.96 7,050.00 34,992.11
2.5 Ø12mm bar c/c 150mm kg 2,373.07 256.59 608,906.77
2.6 Ø8mm bar c/c 150mm kg 991.67 256.59 254,451.63
Desilting Pipe : 250MM, PN 16
2.7
HDPE PIPE material
m 3.00 4,823.39 14,470.16
Gate Supply and Installation of
2.8 250 MM PN 16 Manual pcs 1.00 67,227.50 67,227.50
Command Butterfly Valve
Subtotal 1,600,344.10
3 Headrace Channel
3.1 Site Clearance m2 8,840.00 60.00 530,400.00
3
3.3 Hard rock Excavation m 53.18 1,800.00 95,722.11

3.4 Soft rock Excavation m3 2,658.95 1,200.00 3,190,737.05

Fill and Compaction with
3.5 m3 1,144.00 286,000.00
Selected Material 250.00
Masonry (60:40% Dressed
3.6 m3 5,531.25 25,180,960.31
stone :Mortar) 4,552.49
Plastering (1:3 cement Mortar
3.7 m2 13,153.20 10,215,301.25
ratio) 776.64
Subtotal 39,609,910.20
4 Fore-bay
4.1 Site Clearance m2 347.83 60.00 20,869.80
3
4.2 Ordinary Soil Excavation m 77.42 250.00 19,355.63
4.3 Hard rock Excavation m3 9.29 1,800.00 16,723.27
3
4.5 C-25 Concrete m 65.62 9,217.58 604,888.35
3
4.6 C-10 Lean Concrete m 17.16 7,050.00 120,975.74
4.7 Reinforcement bars -
4.7.1 Ø12mm bar c/c 150mm side walls kg 3,976.66 256.59 1,020,370.67
4.7.2 Ø8mm bar c/c 150mm side walls kg 1,596.07 256.59 409,536.65
4.7.3 Ø14mm bar c/c 150mm side wall kg 838.04 256.59 215,032.97
De-silting Pipe DN 250MM PN
4.8 m 25.00 120,584.69
16 HDPE PIPE material 4,823.39
Gate Supply and Installation of
4.9 DN 250 MM PN 16 Manual pcs 1.00 67,227.50
Command Butterfly Valve 67,227.50
Subtotal 2,998,155.33
4.10 Ogee Spillway
4.10.1 C-25 concrete m3 21.94 9,217.58 202,187.54
4.10.2 Reinforcement Bars
4.10.3 Ø12mm bar c/c 150mm side walls kg 501.66 256.59 128,721.14
4.10.4 Ø8mm bar c/c 150mm side walls kg 202.60 256.59 51,983.99
Trash Rack stainless steel
4.11
30x4mm plate C/C 25mm
Trash Rack stainless steel
4.12 kg 598.98 153,691.20
30x4mm plate C/C 25mm 256.59
Sub total 3,534,739.21
5 Escape Channel
5.1 Site Clearance m2 136.80 60.00 8,208.00
3


Fill and Compaction with Selected
5.5 Material
m3 12.60 250.00 3,150.00
5.6
stone :Mortar)
16.80 4,552.49 76,481.83
5.7 Plastering (1:3 cement Mortar ratio) m2 140.00 776.64 108,729.60
3
5.8 C-25 concrete Channel bed m 19.60 9,217.58 180,664.50
Ø12mm bar c/c 150mm channel bed
5.9 main bar
kg 1,290.15 256.59 331,038.46
5.10
longitudinal
kg 549.53 256.59 141,004.89
subtotal 1,105,174.85
6 Spillway Channel
6.1 Site Clearance m2 496.00 60.00 29,760.00
3
6.2 Ordinary Soil Excavation m 26.08 250.00 6,519.19
3
Fill and Compaction with Selected
6.5
Material
m3 213.71 250.00 53,428.11
6.6
stone :Mortar)
m3 196.42 4,552.49 894,200.09
3
6.8 C-25 concrete Channel bed m 31.50 9,217.58 290,353.66
6.9
main bar
kg 1,413.19 256.59 362,609.62
6.10
longitudinal
kg 595.55 256.59 152,812.69
subtotal 2,490,835.80
7 Penstock
7.1 Site Clearance m2 916.00 60.00 54,960.00
7.3 Hard rock Excavation m3 19.32 1,800.00 34,780.14
3
7.4 Soft rock Excavation m 966.11 1,200.00 1,159,337.98
Stainless A-36 steel Pipe including
7.5 installation with Flanged bolt kg 33,892.00 10,870,435.35
connection 320.74
Air Vent Ø150mm Steel-Pipes as
7.6 kg 1.00 26,355.67
per the drawing, 2.5mm thick 26,355.67
Supply and installation of 750 mm
924,189.3
7.7 PN 16 manual command Butterfly pcs 2.00 1,848,378.70
5
valve as per the drawing


7.8
stone :Mortar) bedding
m3 49.12 4,552.49 223,617.17
7.9 Footing
7.9.1 Ordinary Soil Excavation m3 5.88 250.00 1,470.00
3
7.9.2 Hard rock Excavation m 0.71 1,800.00 1,270.08
3
7.9.3 Soft rock Excavation m 35.28 1,200.00 42,336.00
Footing 1.2x1.2m C-25
7.9.4
CONCRETE
m3 8.64 9,217.58 79,639.86
7.9.5 Ø12mm bar c/c 135mm kg 428.92 256.59 110,057.54
7.10 Column
7.10.1 C-25 concrete m3 3.66 9,217.58 33,694.85
7.10.2 #4 Ø14mm bar kg 2,897.32 256.59 743,423.09
7.10.3 Stirrups Ø6mm C/C 180mm kg 68.00 256.59 17,447.13
7.11 Capping
7.11.1 C-25 Concrete m3 2.21 9,217.58 20,341.35
7.11.2 #6 Ø14mm bar kg 248.02 256.59 63,639.04
7.11.3 Ø8mm bar C/C190mm Stirrup kg 78.97 256.59 20,262.03
7.11.4 Thrust Bar Ø10mm kg 115.44 256.59 29,620.75
7.11.5 Thrust Angle Iron Plate 40x40x5mm kg 588.23 256.59 150,933.76
7.11.6 Nutes kg 256.59
7.11.7 Concrete Thrust Blocks m3 5.11 9,217.58 47,140.01
7.11.8 C-10 Lean Concrete bedding m3 0.57 7,050.00 4,023.96
7.12 Masonry Thrust Block
7.12.1
stone :Mortar)
m3 16.87 4,552.49 76,795.95
Cyclopean concrete(40% C-
7.12.2 20,60%Graded m3 4.95 61,087.26
Stone) bedding 12,340.86
subtotal 15,761,302.48
8 Channel structures
8.1 Division Box
8.1.1
stone :Mortar)
m3 9.41 4,552.49 42,835.98
8.1.2 Plastering (1:3 cement Mortar ratio) m2 23.79 776.64 18,476.96
116,282.0
8.1.3 pcs 4.00 465,128.00
#4 Regulator Gates 0
8.2 Drop Structures
8.2.1
stone :Mortar)
m3 18.50 4,552.49 84,229.33

8.2.3 5 cm Thick C-10 Lean Concrete m3 1.46 7,050.00 10,318.76

8.3 Supper Passages
8.3.1 Ordinary Soil Excavation m3 0.00 250.00
3
8.3.2 Hard rock Excavation m 0.00
8.3.3 Soft rock Excavation m3 32.10 1,200.00 38,520.00
8.3.4
stone :Mortar)
m3 71.62 4,552.49 326,036.59
8.3.6 C-25 Concrete m3 11.23 9,217.58 103,531.82
8.3.7 Reinforcement bars
8.3.8 Ø12mm bar c/c 150mm main bar kg 527.12 256.59 135,252.90
8.3.9
longitudinal
kg 352.98 256.59 90,571.14
8.4 Slab Culvert
8.4.1 Ordinary Soil Excavation m3 0.00 250.00
3
8.4.2 Hard rock Excavation m 0.00 1,800.00
3
8.4.3 Soft rock Excavation m 48.60 1,200.00 58,320.00
8.3.4 Slab
8.3.4.1 C-25CONCRETE m3 6.53 9,217.58 60,227.65
8.3.4.2 Ø20 mm bar c/c 190mm main bar kg 424.84 256.59 109,010.21
8.3.5 Edge Beam
8.3.5.1 C-25CONCRETE m3 3.30 9,217.58 30,418.00
Ø24 mm bar c/c 150mm main bar,
8.3.5.2
3bars/edge Beam
kg 359.79 256.59 92,318.52
8.3.5.3
stone :Mortar) Abutments
m3 43.90 4,552.49 199,863.42
8.3.5.4 C-10 Lean Concrete m3 5.94 7,050.00 41,877.00
8.3.6 Wing wall
8.3.6.1
stone :Mortar) Abutments
m3 14.63 4,552.49 66,621.14
8.3.6.2 C-10 Lean Concrete m3 1.98 7,050.00 13,959.00
subtotal 2,096,406.31
9 Power house
A. Sub Structure
9.1. Excavation & Earth Work
Site clearing to remove top soil to an
9.1.1 average depth of 20 cm
m2 62.16 60.00 3,729.60
Bulk excavation over the site adjust
9.1.2 to an average depth of 50cm
m3 23.68 250.00 5,920.00

Excavation for trench foundation not

9.1.3 exceeding 150cm
m3 23.04 250.00 5,760.00
Excavation for pad foundation to a
9.1.4 depth 2m from reduced ground level
m3 5.78 250.00 1,445.00
Back fill selected material from site
& well compacted to an average
9.1.5 depth of
50cm under hard core m3 15.00 250.00 3,750.00
Ditto 1.5 but around foundation
9.1.6 column
m3 0.32 250.00 80.00
Ditto 1.5 but around trench
9.1.7 foundation
m3 5.12 250.00 1,280.00
Cart away surplus excavated material
9.1.8 from site to a distance of appropriate
m3 19.20 160.00 3,072.00
area not less than 1km
25 cm thick basaltic or equivalent
stone hard core and blinded with m2 7.50 2,887.50
9.1.9 crushed 385.00
stone under ground floor slab
9.2. Concrete Work
20cm thick C-25 reinforced concrete
9.2.1 casted for slab
m3 6.00 9,217.58 55,305.48
C-5 concrete cast under pad
9.2.2 foundation
m2 5.76
Ditto 2.2 but under masonry
9.2.3 foundation
m2 14.16
C-25 concrete casted in to form work
& vibrated around rod reinforcement m3 1.18 10,876.74
9.2.4 to 9,217.58
grade beam
9.2.5 Ditto 2.4 but for foundation column m3 0.32 9,217.58 2,949.63
9.2.6 Ditto 2.4 but for pad foundation m3 2.88 9,217.58 26,546.63
Provide & fix 2.5 cm thick sawn
9.2.7 zigba wood form work to
9.2.8 Ditto 2.7 but for foundation column m2 0.25 420.00 105.00
9.2.9 Ditto 2.7 but for footing pads m2 2.40 420.00 1,008.00
Steel reinforcement bars according to
structural drawing price shall
9.2.10 includes
cutting, bending, placing & tying
A. Dia14 mm deformed bars kg 1,015.28 256.59 260,510.70
B. Dia12mm deformed bars kg 388.94 256.59 99,799.14
D. Dia 8mm deformed bars kg 86.83 256.59 22,278.85

9.3. Masonry Work

Basaltic or equivalent stone masonry
9.3.1 foundation bedded in cement sand
m3 14.16 4,552.49 64,463.26
mortar (1:4) below NGL
9.3.2 Ditto but above NGL /1:3/ m3 2.83 4,552.49 12,892.65
B. Super Structure
9.4. Concrete Work
C-25 concrete cast in to form work &
9.4.1 vibrated around rod reinforcement
A. In elevation column m3 0.49 9,217.58 4,512.93
B. In beams m3 1.18 9,217.58 10,876.74
C. In slab m3 6.00 9,217.58 55,305.48
Provide & fix 2.5 cm thick sawn
9.4.2 zigba wood form work to
A. In elevation column m2 0.61 420.00 257.04
2
B. In beams m 1.48 420.00 619.50
Steel reinforcement bars according to
9.4.3 structural drawing price shall include
cutting, bending, tying wires &
placing in position
A. Dia14 mm deformed bars kg 226.02 256.59 57,994.64
B. Dia 8 mm deformed bars kg 94.72 256.59 24,304.20
9.5. Block Work
20cm thick HCB wall bedded in
9.5.1 cement sand mortar (1:3)
m2 69.16 1,200.00 82,987.20
9.6. Roofing
G-28mm ega sheet roof cover
including ridge cover fixed to c/c ml 142.56 178,200.00
9.6.1 90cm 7x5 cm 1,250.00
zigba purlin (roof cover doesn’t
include over laps)
9.7. Carpentry & Joinery

Supply & erect wooden truss free
from harmful defects & treated with
9.7.1 anti
termite solution
A. Dia 10-12 cm eucalyptus
upper & lower chord
ml 432.00 86.00 37,152.00
B. Dia 8-10 cm eucalyptus
vertical & diagonal chord
ml 504.00 86.00 43,344.00
9.7.2 Supply & fix 5x7 cm zigba wood pcs 7.00 350.00 2,450.00

purlins fixed to wooden truss by

means of
nail
9.8. Metal work

Fixing & erecting metal doors price
shall include one coat of antirust &
9.8.1 two
coats of synthetic paint cylindrical
lock in the door & all other necessary
accessories
Door
D1 Size 160x235cm pcs 1.00 23,400.00 23,400.00
Window
W1 Size 235x210cm pcs 1.00 14,700.00 14,700.00
9.9. Finishing
Apply three cost of plastering in
compo mortar (1:2:9) price shall 69.16 53,709.32
9.8.1 include pre 776.64
cleaning & preparation of the wall
surface
Dito-pointing stone masonry
9.8.2 foundation wall.
7.02 776.64 5,452.01
9.10. glazing
4mm thick clear glass sheet to metal
beads & puttied with approved m2 4.94 4,490.85
9.10.1 quality 910.00
putty for window
9.11. Painting
Prepare the surface & apply three
coats of paint to all plastered & m2 69.16 31,120.20
9.11.1 rendered 450.00
walls, columns
Three coats of synthetic paint to
9.11.2 metal doors & windows
m2 3.76 520.00 1,955.20
subtotal 1,217,491.50
Total
10 Tailrace Channel
10.1 Site Clearance m2 -
3
10.2 Ordinary Soil Excavation m -
3
10.3 Hard rock Excavation m -
m3 36.92 44,304.00


10.5 stone :Mortar)
m3 9.20 4,552.49 41,882.91

3
10.7 C-25 Concrete m 6.60 9,217.58 60,836.01
10.8 Reinforcement bars 0.00
Ø12mm bar c/c 150mm bed slab
10.9 longitudinal
kg 601.83 256.59 154,422.84
Backfill and compaction with
m3 6.72 1,680.00
10.10 selected materials 250.00
subtotal 331,395.45
Flood protection retaining
11
wall
11.2 stone :Mortar)
m3 73.60 4,552.49 335,063.26
11.3 Pointing (1:3 cement Mortar ratio) m2 211.60 315.00 66,654.00

3
11.4 10 Cm thick lean concrete bedding m 6.44 7,050.00 45,402.00
506,735.26
72,117,369.08
6-29 Total Bill of quantities Summary
S/NO. Bill Type Total Cost

Bill No.1 Bill of Quantity and Cost Estimation of general
1
item 7,277,061.28
2 Bill NO 2. Head Work ( weir, Under Sluice and off take/
Out let Structure) 9,457,260.86
3 Bill No.3 Hydro power Systems (Headrace Channel, De-
silting Basin, Fore-bay, Penstock and Power House) 72,117,369.08
4 Electro- Mechanical 47,588,550.00
136,440,241.2
Total 2
Vat (15%) 20466036.18
Contingency (15%) 20466036.18
177,372,313.5
Grand Total Cost 9

7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Conclusion
The ogee type weir is selected in order to dissipate the higher energy due to higher discharge and
Boulders that come from river flow. It is structurally safe but the construction of Ogee type is
difficult as compared to broad crested weir type. In addition to this, divide wall thickness Is 0.8m
to be safe structurally.
This project can address 30 years furcated population fundamental electric power needs for Tiru
Birhan Kebele. And also serve as a multipurpose project by extending canalization to irrigate
330ha land.
Being of multipurpose project highly need properly prepared operation and maintenance manual.
During construction implementation schedule every civil and electrical components requires
serious supervision to make it sustainable project. After project implementation a technical
operator and maintenance team has to establish.
7.2 Recommendation
During implementation period, water diversion system has to be done in a very professional
Manner as the recommendations and design.
 Construct the canal and under sluice outlet up to the head regulator with
surrounding
Retaining walls.
 Divert the base flow to the under-sluice channel

 Construct the weir body.
 Don’t try to work in rainy seasons as there is excess run off to the river.
In the Recommendations that the following activities will be carried out by the farmers regularly
To ensure that the scheme is in proper condition to serve the intended purpose
 Flush out the accumulated silt

 Stir up the accumulated silt
 Clean the trash screens
 Grease the movable metal parts
 All the concrete and steel parts with defects should be repaired
8 REFERENCES
1. Arora, KR. (2002). Irrigation, water power and water resources engineering: Standard
Publisher Distributors
2. Baban, Rozgar. (1995). Design of diversion weirs: small scale irrigation in hot climates: John
Wiley & Sons.
3. Novák, Pavel, Moffat, AIB, Nalluri, Chandra, & Narayanan, R. (2007). Hydraulic structures:
CRC Press.
4. Design and Optimization of Irrigation Distribution Networks, FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 44, 1988;
5. Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structures, S.K. Garg, 2006;
6. Irrigation methods: Irrigation Water Management Training Manual No.5. By C. Brouwer, K.
Prins, M. Kay and M. Heibloem, FAO, 1985;
7. Irrigation Systems Design, Planning and Construction, by Adrian Laycock, 2007;
8. Irrigation Theory and Practice, By A.M. Michael, 1997;
9. Linings for Irrigation Canals, USBR Technical Report, 1963;
10. Planning, Development, Monitoring & Evaluation of Irrigated Agriculture with Farmer
Participation, FAO, 2006;
11. Technical Guideline for Design of Irrigation Canal and Related Structures, By JICA-OIDA,
2014;
12. Water Reports #22; Deficit Irrigation Practices, FAO, 2002;
13. Yield Response to Water by J.D., FAO; A.HI.K. Consultant with CaL.M.B. V. B.; J.M.G.A.
P.; M.
Smith; G.O. U. and H.K. Van Der W.; 1986.
14. Anchor, R.D. "Design of Liquid Retaining Concrete Structures", Second Edition 1992.
15. Chow V.T., 1950 " Open Channel Hydraulics" McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
16. Commission of Sustainable Agricultural and Env. Rehabilitation in Amara Region "Standard
Guideline for study and design work"
17. ESRDF, 1997 Small Scale Irrigation Project “Technical Hand book Component IVB
Irrigation Structures “1997.
18. Ethiopian Road Authority, ERA-2002 Design Manual, “Standard Drawings”
19. Ethiopian Building Code of Standard (EBCS), 1995 " EBCS-2: Structural Use of Concrete".
20. Abdulmenan, S. (2020). Hydropower Engineering I.
21. Agency, J. I. C. (2021). Guideline and Manual for Hydropower Development
Conventional Hydropower and Pumped Storage Hydropower. Vol. 1.

22. Jha, N. K. (2020). Graphical Approach in Optimization of Penstock Diameter.

23. RAMOS, H. (2000 G.C). G U I D E L I N E S F O R D E S I G N O F SMALL
HYDROPOWER PLANTS.
24. Singhal, P. M. K. (2021 G.C). Civil engineering aspects of designing SMMHP plants.
25. TESSEMA, D. (2019). DESIGN OF MICRO HYDRO POWER SYSTEM ON TEMIE
RIVER

9 ANNEXES
Table 9-30 Electro Mechanical Bill of Quantities and cost estimation
Unit Rate Total

Item Description Unit Quantity
ETB Amount
Supply and Installation of

E01
Power Generation
1 Turbine, Generator and
Associated Equipment’s
Supply and Installation of cross
flow Turbine, net head 67m and
discharge 0.8m3/s, mechanical
1.1 set 1 1,350,000.00 1,350,000.00
power 400kw ,efficiency at duty
point ≥75% with complete
associated equipment’s
Supply and Installation

Horizontal shaft Synchronous
generator, 360kw(450KVA),
1.2 Set 1 1,260,000.00 1,260,000.00
460V, 50 Hz , speed 1500 rpm
with appropriate complete

Dummy load type governor can
be controlled by IGC (Induction
1.3 Generator Controller) or ELC Set 1 202,500.00 202,500.00
(Electronic Load Controller)
with appropriate complete
Supply and Installation of Step-

up Power Transformer,
1.4 Set 1 2,055,000.00 2,055,000.00
500KVA, 4600/11 KV 50Hz
with complete accessories
Medium voltage Station
1.5 Switchboard with MV Set 1 300,000.00 300,000.00
Switchgear protection and with
Complete accessories

supplying, connecting, and

termination of the following
XLPE Copper cables with
laying underground PVC piping
system, manholes, excavation,
warning tapes, back filling and
all required civil works to finish
1.6 the work. According to mtr 8 12,000.00 96,000.00
specifications, instructions, and
demands of the supervising
engineer.
XLPE multi core Copper cable

4x120 mm2 From Generator-to
ELC control panel.
lighting protection system with

air termination which is made of
copper coated aluminum alloy
solid round rod with 25mm² x-s
areas, 1.5m length tightly bolted
1.7 set 1 225,000.00 225,000.00
& erected on the roof and
connected with down bare
copper conductor system which
is lined on isolated corrugated
iron
Lighting points and lighting

fitings and lamps power system
1.8 LS 1 110,000.00 110,000.00
in powerhouse with complete
accessories
Compound flood lighting
installation , steel column 9
1.9 meter long complete with LS 1 120,000.00 120,000.00
250Watt HPS light fittings and
lamp
Sub total 5,718,500.00
Supply and Installation
E02
Transmission Line
Supply and Installation ACSR

2 medium voltage power cable
and C.Breaker and Pole


Aluminum conductors steel
reinforced (ACSR) 50mm2 x 3
2.1 Medium Voltage Power mtr 2500 2,750.00 6,875,000.00
Cable ,11 KV Transmission line
between powerhouse and
Mender village

reinforced (ACSR) 25mm2
2.2 x3 ,Medium Voltage Power mtr 1200 1,600.00 1,920,000.00
between powerhouse and
Meramer village

reinforced (ACSR) 25mm2 x3,
between Mender – Gebreal
village

reinforced (ACSR) 50mm2
2.4 x3,Medium Voltage Power mtr 1000 2,750.00 2,750,000.00
between
Mender-Durbete village

reinforced (ACSR) 50mm2 x 3,
between Durbete village – Mehal
Mocha


between Mota Mocha –
Zerburk Village

between Durbtie– Mehal Abeba
Village

between Durbete- Kupasi
village
Supply and Installation of Wall
2.9 mounted enclused, three phase pcs 1 60,000.00 60,000.00
circuit breaker MCCB 800A
=Wall mounted enclused, three
2.1 pcs 1 45,000.00 45,000.00
phase circuit breaker MCCB
630A
Supply and erection 9 meter

Concrte pole with 3 pin/disc
2.14 No 103 23,250.00 2,394,750.00
insulators, MS cross arm, MS
nuts &bolts, stay clamps, and all

other necessary accessories.

Sub total 23,700,750.00
E03
Distribution Line
Supply and Installation of ABC
3 Overhead Wire Cable 0.6/1kv
400V XLPE Power Cable
3.1 ABC 3X4mm2 mtr 4340 300 1,302,000.00
3.2 ABC 3X2.5mm2 mtr 5550 100 555,000.00
3.3 ABC 3X6mm2 mtr 1550 450 697,500.00
2
3.4 ABC 3X10mm mtr 2130 670 1,427,100.00
2
3.5 ABC 3X16mm mtr 2100 980 2,058,000.00
2
3.6 ABC 3X50mm mtr 230 2,500.00 575,000.00
Supply and erection, installation 1 650000 650000
of Step-down Power
3.7 Transformer, 100KVA, 11/0.4 set
KV 50 Hz, with complete
accessories

of Step-down Power
accessories

of Step-down Power
accessories
Supply and Installation of wall
3.1 mounted three phase circuit pcs 20 360 7,200.00
breaker MCB 25A
25 45200 1130000
Supply and installation of MS
pipe earthing set 20mm dia 2.5m
long MS rod earthing set along
3.12 No
with 16 SWG thick conduct pipe
25mm dia 3m long enameled
black paint and 6 SWG GI wire

Supply and erection 8 meter 320 19250 6160000

Wooden pole with 3 pin/disc
3.13 insulators, MS cross arm, MS No
nuts &bolts, stay clamps, and all
other necessary accessories.
Sub total 18,169,300.00
Total Grand EM 47,588,550.00
Table 9-31 Flexural Design of Support pier
Sub Structure Design

No. Bays 12 115.2
Each bay Span 10
m
250
Pier Cup Depth m
m
300
Pier width m
m
250
Pier Depth m
Pier Width 300
Pier
From SAP-2000, Required Design Area of
223.41
Steel at Bottom
using dia. 24 mm bar 14
Area of single Bar 153.86
No. Bar 1.45
Actually Provided 14.00
Stirrup As/s 0.31
Bar diameter 6.00
56.5
using dia. 6, Single As= 2
185.
s= As/0.305 31
180.
use dia.6 bar single stirrup stirrup at 00 mm
353.
Pier Cup Main Reinforcement 36 mm2
14.0
Bar Diameter 0
Using Dia. 24mm, No. Bars 2.30
Provide Dia. 14 3.00 Both at top and bottom of

100
pear cup
Stirrup As/S 0.52

Bar Diameter 8.00
100.
Using Dia. 8 single stirrup, As 48 (At support)
S= 193.
As/2.14 98
190.
Provide Diameter 8 stirrup at 00 mm
Table 9-32 Pier Footing Structural Design
Footing Design
Maximum Service Load on Footing 144.41 KN
KN/
150.00
Assuming Bearing Capacity of Soil m2
Area of Footing Required 0.96 m2
Providing Square Footing , Footing

0.98 m
Dimension
Actually
1.20 m
Provided
Dead Load 918.00 KN
Live Load -773.59 KN
Pipe Load 76.47
Pier Cup Load 4.21
Colum Load 10.91
45.792
91.59 KN
Dead Load 84
27.590
55.18 KN
Live Load 63
Service Load 146.77
For single Footing 146.77
3xAllowable
Bearing
Pressure/Permis
sible
Spring Constant of Soil (Subgrade Reaction) = Deformation
Allowable Bearing Pressure 150 K/m2
Allowable Deformation 50 mm

101
KN/
9000
Spring Constant of Soil = m3
Design Bending Moment , M22,M11, at face
KNm
of column 30
Maximum Shear Force 101.6 KN
Flexural Design
Description Value Unit
M(Design Moment),Wall
30 KNm
Connection
N/
25
Concrete Compressive Strength (Fck) mm2
Steel Tensile Strength (Fst) 460 Mpa.
Section width (b) 1000 mm
Section Highs (h) 500 mm
Clear Cover ( c ) 50 mm
Assume Re-Bar Dia. 12 mm
effective depth(d) 432 mm
<0.1
0.0064
K 67 Ok!
z 429.54 mm
As 174.52 mm2
No. Bars /m 1.54 No.
Bar Spacing 647.72
Actually Provided 135 c/c ok!
Shear Carring Capacity of the section = 358.5
KN
0.166xsqrt(fc')b*d 6
> 101.6 KN
Table 9-33 Forebay Hydraulic Design details
Description/Symbols Unit Values

Design discharge = m3/s 0.80
Storage required = Minutes 3
Capacity of tank = m3 0.8x2x60
= 144.00
Submergence Head = m
Hs>1.5*Vp^2/(2*g) = 0.25
Hs>0.5Vp*sqrt (Dp) = 0.78
Minimum Bottom ht m = m 1.00
Considering Draw Down level =
h down surge=Vf*sqrt((L*Ap)/(g*Af)) = m 0.14
Dp = m 0.75
L = m 458.38

102
Vf ranges from 0.3-0.8 = m/s 0.30

Ap = m2 0.44
Af = m2 90.00
Total ht of forbay(H)=h down surge
= m 2.18
+hs+Dp+Min bottom ht+ freeboard
Take the worst case H'=Dp+hs = 1.53
Taking water depth D = m 1.6
Area A = m2 288/2
= 90.00
Area =
Taking length = m 15
Width B=A/L = m 6.00
Width B=Qf/(H*Vf) =
Freeboard = m 0.5
Transition Section Design =
L Transition 1:4 slope = 7.2
transition drop m = m 1.75
Side Flaring Width with slope 1:5 = m
Provide Length = m 15
Provide width = m 6
Provide Depth = m 1.6

103

Civil and Hydraulic Structures Design Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil and Hydraulic Structures Design Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil and Hydraulic Structures Design Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Timbil - Dura Mini Hydropower Project Civil/Hydraulic Structures Draft Final Report

Amhara National Regional State

Water and Energy Development Bureau

Feasibility Study and Detail Design

Volume I: Civil /Hydraulic Structures Design

Client: Water and Energy Development Bureau (BoWED)

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page i

FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE

Volume I: Hydrology Report

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page ii

FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE......................................................ii

3.9 Hydraulic Jump Analysis................................................................................................20

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page iv

5.1 How to turn on and turn off MHP in normal condition..................................................77

Table 2-1: River discharge computation at different stages of flow................................................6

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page v

4-4 over all penstock design optimization analysis.......................................................................65

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

A flow cross section (m2).

Cvd Weir discharge coefficient (-).

Cvalv valve discharge coefficient (-).

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page ix

1.1 Renewable Energy Concept

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 1

It can be a good private capital investment in developing or developed

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 2

1.2.2 Specific Objectives

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 3

2 TAIL WATER RATING CURVE COMPUTATION

TWD At Wier Site

Figure 2-2: Tail Water Rating Curve

Figure 2-3: Longitudinal average river bed slope

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 4

Manning equation for flow velocity:

4.0 TWD and Post jump comparison

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 5

2.1 Manning’s Roughness coefficient

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 6

3 HEAD WORK DESIGN

3.1 Description of the study area

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 7

Figure 3-5: Study area location map

3.2 Head work site Selection and location

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 8

3.3 Geology of the Head Work/Weir Axis Area

Figure 3-6: Timbil River at the proposed headwork site

3.3.1 River Center

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 9

Figure 3-7: River Center Photo

3.4 Weir Axis Foundation Recommendation

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 10

Figure 3-8 Geological Cross Section along the Weir Axis

Chain age (m) 0 10 19 29 39 48 58 67 77 87 96

3.5 River Bed condition

3.6 River Banks condition

LDSC, Irrigation & Energy, --1921 +251 058--218--06--38/10 23 Fax—058--218-0550/0560 Page 11

3.6.2 Left Bank Geology