A final semester thesis done to study the feasibility of a RoR Hydropower in Tila Nadi River, Jumla with the secondary objective of providing water supply to people of Nagma Bazar, Kalikot.
Standard vs Custom Battery Packs - Decoding the Power Play
ย
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF TILA NADI HYDROPOWER PROJECT, JUMLA
1. KATHMANDU UNIVERSITY
School of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
Final Presentation
on
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF TILA NADI HYDROPOWER PROJECT,
JUMLA
Batch: 2016
Presented By (Group-5)
Anupras Niraula (020688-16)
Kamal Tolangi Rai (020698-16)
Anuska Ranabhat (020699-16)
Pratap Bikram Shahi (020702-16)
Anish Shakya (020703-16)
Aadarsha Ram Shrestha (020704-16)
Project Supervisor
Er. Manish Prakash
Assistant Professor
3/23/2021
2. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
1. INTRODUCTION
2. RATIONALE
3. OBJECTIVES
4. LIMITATIONS
5. METHODOLOGY
6. TOPOGRAPHICAL STUDY
7. GEOLOGICAL STUDY
8. HYDROLOGICAL STUDY
9. ALIGNMENT STUDY
10. HYDROPOWER COMPONENTS
11. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
12. SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY
13. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
14. WATER SUPPLY DESIGN
15. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
16. WORK SCHEDULE
3/23/2021
2
3. 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Tila Nadi Hydropower Project
โข Located 800 km west from
Kathmandu at Tila Gaupalika, Jumla,
Karnali Province.
โข Site can be accessed from Nepalgunj
via Karnali Highway (H13).
โข The gauging station (Station no. 220)
is about 1.5 km from Nagma Bazar of
Kalikot district.
โข Estimated Power Capacity: 28.80 MW
3/23/2021
3
Fig 1.1: Topographic Map of Project Site
Source: Department of Survey, Nepal
Tila Nadi
4. 2. RATIONALE
Hydropower
i. Jumla is one of the five districts not
connected to the national grid.
ii. Out of 19,291 households in Jumla
only 5,656 households have electricity
access.
iii. There are few micro and mini
hydropower plants that do not meet
the electricity demand completely.
Integration of Water supply
i. Jumla has been listed in category A
(i.e. High risk) for diarrheal cases.
ii. Ensures good quality of drinking
water.
iii. Decreases the chance of conflict over
the water right between water users
and power generators.
3/23/2021
4
5. 3. OBJECTIVES
Primary Objectives:
1. To conduct the feasibility study of
Hydropower in Tila Nadi.
2. To finalize the best alignment for the
hydropower.
3. To design hydraulic components on the
basis of selected alignment.
4. To perform economic analysis of the
project.
5. To perform socio-economic analysis of
the project area.
Secondary Objective:
1. To design transmission and distribution
network of water supply system if
discharge deemed sufficient.
3/23/2021
5
6. 4. LIMITATIONS
1. The accuracy of the design of the project is limited to the accuracy of freely
available SRTM (30m) DEM.
2. Project was only designed based on discharge data available from DHM.
3. All the other data used were based on secondary source of data collection.
4. The values of sediment diameter and properties were assumed in absence of field
data.
5. The prospect of the project to be PROR or storage type was not evaluated.
6. The components were designed only hydraulically and were not structurally
analyzed.
7. The estimate of quantity and cost are in lump sum which may not be technically
accurate.
3/23/2021
6
7. 5. METHODOLOGY
3/23/2021
7
1. Data
Collection
2. Desk Study &
Consultation
3. Topographical &
Hydrological Study
4. Hydraulic Design
of the hydropower
components
5. Selection &
Design of
Turbine
6. Design of
Powerhouse & Draft
Tube
7. Economic
Analysis
8. Socio-
Economic Study
9. Environmental
Study
10. Water
Supply Design
8. 6. TOPOGRAPHICAL STUDY
1. Topographical study of the site was
done using:
i. Digital Topographic Map of the
project site purchased from
Department of Survey .
ii. Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
of 3 Arc second used to create
contour map.
3/23/2021
8
7. GEOLOGICAL STUDY
2. The region majorly consists of gneisses
and schists.
3. The river banks have alluvial deposits of
boulders and sand, composed mainly of
granite, quartzite, gneiss, schist,
dolomite and amphibolite.
1. The area consists of two distinct
rock type viz., Proterozoic Lesser
Himalayan Metasediments underlain
by the Neoproterozoic to Palaeozoic
Higher Himalyan Crystallines
separated by the MCT.
Fig 7.1: Rock classification of catchment area
Source: NP Soter
9. 3/23/2021
9
1. Catchment area : 1749.31 sq.km
2. Average annual precipitation : 819.48mm
(Thiessen Polygon method)
3. Q40 for design : 37 m3/s
4. Flood return period:
I. Gumbelโs Method:
๐ฅ๐ = ๐ฅ + ๐พ๐๐โ1
Q100= 459.21m3/s
II. Log Pearson Distribution III Method:
z= log(x), ๐ง๐ = ๐ง + ๐พ๐๐๐ง
๐๐ง =
โ ๐งโ๐ง 2
๐โ1
Q100= 484.14 m3/s
8. HYDROLOGICAL STUDY
5. Basin Characteristics:
S.N
Elevation
(m)
Area
(km2)
% of
given
elevation
Perimeter
(km)
1 Below 3000 57.08 3.00 487.00
2
Between
3000 to
5000
1282.63 73.00 753.00
3 Above 5000 409.59 23.00 165.00
Whole
Catchment
1749.31 100.00 248.79
13. S.N Particulars Alignment-I Alignment-II Remarks
1 Location
Intake
29ห13โ13โ N, 81ห56โ31.57โ E
(RL = 2153 amsl)
29ห12โ00โ N, 81ห54โ57.6โ E
(RL = 2165 amsl)
Salient feature
Powerhouse
23ห12โ4โ N, 81ห55โ30โ E
(RL = 2248 amsl)
23ห13โ8.4โ N, 81ห56โ31.2โ E
(RL = 2060 amsl)
2 Gross Head 95m 105m Alignment-II
3 Accessibility
Connected to Karnali
Highway
No road access Alignment-I
4 No. of bends
Only one major bend at
1.88km d/s from headwork
Has got multiple bends Alignment-I
5 No. of streams crossing
No stream crosses the
alignment
Five streams cross the
alignment
Alignment-I
6
Power generation (โด =
85%)
28.80MW 32.40MW Alignment-II
3/23/2021
13
9.1 Alignment Comparison
14. 3/23/2021
14
S.N Particulars Alignment-I Alignment-II Remarks
7 Total length of alignment 3.64 km 3.82 km Alignment-I
8 Effect on forest No adverse effect on forest Trees need to be cut-down Alignment-I
9 Effect on human
settlement
No damage to human
settlement
No damage to human
settlement
Alignment-I & -II
10 Slope Less steep (wider contours) More steep (crowded
contours)
Alignment-I
โข Thus, Alignment-I is selected (available discharge is 37 m3/s)
โข The hydropower plant is a Medium head (60-150m) and Medium capacity plant (25-
100MW) on the basis of head and capacity respectively.
15. 9.2 Comparison Between Pipe Vs. Canal
i. Design of canal required higher water
velocity which could lead to scouring and
underground seepage so was rejected.
ii. Preliminary canal design parameters
iii. As per IS 10430:2000 Criteria for Design
of Lined Canals, maximum velocity in
lined canals should not exceed 2.7 m/s.
Per the preliminary design, the velocity
was calculated to be greater than 2.7m/s,
so canal was unsuitable for the project.
Canal
Section
Dimensions(B*D) m Velocity
(m/s)
Rectangular 4.29*2.14 4.42
Trapezoidal 4.53*3.01 4.58
3/23/2021
15
9.3 Comparison Between Pipe Vs. Tunnel
i. Sufficient geological data was
unavailable.
ii. Maximum overburden pressure for the
proposed tunnel alignment was only 91m
which is very low for tunnel construction.
iii. The tunnel construction cost more than
pipe conveyance system.
325.06
300.67
285 290 295 300 305 310 315 320 325 330
Tunnel(4m dia)
Pipeline(5m dia)
Cost (Million NRs)
Particulars
Cost Comparison
Fig 9.3: Cost Comparison between Tunnel and Pipe
16. 9.4 General Layout Of Hydropower Components
3/23/2021
16
Fig 9.4: Components layout on selected alignment (Alignment-I)
Weir
17. 10. HYDROPOWER COMPONENTS
1. Diversion weir
2. Undersluice and Stilling Basin
3. Intake and Trashrack
4. Headrace Pipe
5. Gravel Trap
6. Settling Basin
7. Surge Tank
8. Penstock
9. Anchor Blocks and Support Piers
10. Turbine Selection
11. Powerhouse and Draft Tube
3/23/2021
17
18. 10.1 Diversion Weir
i. Location:
Latitude: 29ห13โ11.5โ N,
Longitude: 81ห56โ32.34โ E
ii. Type: Ogee-shaped
iii. Height of weir: 12m
iv. Length of weir crest: 117m
v. Width of weir base: 18m
vi. Average RL of river bed = 2153m
amsl
vii. RL of crest level = 2165m amsl
vii. Head Over Crest,
๐ป๐ =
๐
๐ถ๐๐ฟ๐ค
2
3
=
484.139
2.2โ117
2
3
= 1.53๐
vii. RL of D/S = 2149m amsl
3/23/2021
18
20. Fig 10.2: Cross-section of Ogee-shaped diversion weir with
stilling basin
3/23/2021
20
RL : Reduced Level, HFL : High Flood Level
NWL : Normal Water Level
21. 10.2 Undersluice and Stilling Basin
Undersluice
i. 20% of 100 years return period flood
discharge for undersluice (Q)= 96.83
m3/s
ii. Total Length of undersluice crest (L)
= 10.5 m
iii. Length of Undersluice crest (Lw) =
8m
iv. No of bays = 2
v. Width of each bay = 4m
vi. Total width (B) = 8m
vii. Head Over Crest, ๐ป๐ = 2.7๐
viii.Height of opening of undersluice
=1.5m
3/23/2021
21
Stilling Basin
i. Height of chute block = 0.25m
ii. Width of chute block = 0.18m
iii. Spacing of chute block = 0.25m
iv. Spacing of first chute block = 0.12m
v. Height of dented sill = 0.80m
vi. Width of dented sill = 0.60m
vii. Spacing of dented sill = 0.60m
viii.Top width of dented sill = 0.08m
23. 10.3 Intake and Trashrack
Intake
i. Location:
Latitude: 29ห13โ13โ N,
Longitude: 81ห56โ31.57โE
ii. Type: Bell-mouth (submerged)
iii. Design discharge, Q = 37m3/s and
accounting 20% additional flow
44.4m3/s
iv. No of intake = 2
v. Discharge through each intake = 22.2
m3/s
vi. Diameter of pipe (D) = 3.5 m
vii. Total height = 5.50 m
viii.Width of opening = 2.92m
ix. Angle of inclination of headrace
pipe = 0.69
x. Suction head to avoid vortex
formation = 4.4m
xi. Head loss at intake, Hf = 0.007m
xii. Invert level = 2155 amsl (2m above
river bed)
3/23/2021
23
24. Trashrack:
i. Material = Steel
ii. Spacing of trash bars =
100mm
iii. Thickness of bars = 20mm
iv. Angle of inclination with the
horizontal = 70โฐ
v. Submerged depth of trashrack
= 5.50m
vi. Width of end piers = 0.3m
vii. Width of pier between 2 bell-
mouth intakes = 0.5 m
viii.Head loss, Hf = 0.0167m
3/23/2021
24
Fig 10.4: Bellmouth Intake with Trashrack
26. 10.4 Headrace Pipeline
I. Intake to Gravel trap
i. Diameter = 3.5m
ii. Length = 40m
iii. Thickness = 16mm
iv. Head loss in pipe, hf = 0.03m
v. Slope = 1 in 40
II. Gravel trap to Settling basin
i. Diameter = 5m
ii. Length = 1102m
iii. Thickness = 16mm
iv. Head loss in pipe, hf = 0.665m
v. Slope = 1 in 400
3/23/2021
26
III. Settling basin to Surge tank
i. Velocity = 1.88 m/s
ii. Diameter of pipe = 5 m
iii. Length = 1930m
iv. Thickness = 16mm
v. Frictional loss, โ๐(๐๐๐๐๐) = 0.631m
vi. Bend Loss, โ๐ฟ(๐๐๐๐) = 0.3783 ๐
vii. Entrance Loss, hL(entrance) = 0.009 ๐
viii.Slope = 1 in 217
ix. Pipe Diameter Optimization using DOED
Guideline:
๐ท = 1.12
๐0.45
๐ป๐
0.12 = 1.12
370.45
9.030.12
= 4.4๐
27. 3/23/2021
27
Fig 10.7: Headrace Pipeline Optimization Curve
0.00
500.00
1000.00
1500.00
2000.00
2500.00
2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25
Cost
(Nrs.)
Millions
Diameter (m)
Total Cost Energy Loss Cost Penstock Construtction Cost
Headrace pipe Construction Cost
28. 10.5 Gravel Trap
i. Location:
Latitude: 29ยฐ 13' 1.2"N,
Longitude: 81ยฐ 56' 16.8"E
ii. Design discharge, Q = 37m3/s and
accounting 20% additional flow
44.4m3/s
iii. Size of particles to be settled = 2mm
iv. No. of bays = 2
v. Width of gravel trap = 5 m
vi. Height of gravel trap = 7.62 m
vii. Inlet angle = 30ยฐ
viii.Outlet Angle = 45ยฐ
viii. Settling velocity = 0.3 m/s
ix. Detention time = 58.47s
x. Total length of gravel trap = 38m
xi. Suction head = 2.62m
xii. Type of flushing = Continuous
xiii. Size of flushing opening = 2m*1m
xiv. Slope of flushing canal = 0.002
xv. Flushing velocity = 2.96 m/s
xvi. Inclination of Hopper (Lateral Slope)
= 30โฐ
xvii.Vertical height of Hopper = 2.6m
xviii.Total head loss in Gravel trap =
3.664*10-5 m
3/23/2021
28
31. 10.6 Settling Basin
i. Location:
Latitude: 29ยฐ 12' 50.4"N
Longitude: 81ยฐ 55' 55.2"E
ii. Discharge = 1.2*37 = 44.4 m3/s
iii. Particle size to be settled = 0.2mm
iv. Theoretical Settling velocity = 0.0217
m/s and for actual shape of sediment
only 65% of theoretical velocity is
taken i.e. 0.0142m/s
v. No. of bays = 2
vi. Total length of settling basin = 273.3m
vii. Total Width of settling basin = 37.8m
viii.Total depth of settling basin = 12m
ix. Freeboard = 1m
x. Thickness of baffle wall = 0.8m
xi. Thickness of side wall = 0.5m
xii. Suction Head = 3m
xiii.Detention time = 12min
xiv. Size of flushing canal = 4m*2m
xv. Flushing discharge = 0.2*40.7 =
8.9m3/s
xvi. Total head loss (Transition + Settling
zone loss) = 0.0489m
3/23/2021
31
35. 10.7 Surge Tank
i. Location:
Latitude: 29ยฐ 12' 10.8"N
Longitude: 81ยฐ 54' 54"E
ii. Discharge = 37 m3/s
iii. Diameter of surge tank = 17m
iv. Thickness of wall = 0.5m
v. Max. up surge up on 100% load
rejection = +7.45m
vi. Max. down surge up on 100%
demand = -5.96m
vii. Height of surge tank = 21m
viii. Freeboard = 3 m
ix. Submergence head = 5.4m
3/23/2021
35
Fig 10.14: Surge Tank
0.5m Thickness
17m ฯ
36. 10.8 Penstock
i. Material: Steel (IS 226/75)
ii. Gross head: 95m
iii. Length of penstock: 246.77m
iv. Thickness of pipe: 20mm
v. Factor of safety: 3
vi. Diameter of penstock: 3.6m
vii. Head loss in penstock: 0.41m
viii.Assumed Project life = 50 years
ix. Total Cost of Penstock = Rs.
90,465,688.36
3/23/2021
36
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25
Cost
(Nrs.)
Millions
Diameter (m)
Penstock Diameter Optimization Curve
Total Cost Energy Loss Cost Penstock Construtction Cost Optimum
Fig 10.15: Penstock optimization graph (Diameter vs cost)
Penstock Construction Cost
37. Anchor Blocks
A. General Section
i. Height of Anchor Block in U/S face
(H) = 8 m
ii. Height of Anchor Block in D/S face
(h) = 6 m
iii. Length of Anchor Block (L) = 7 m
iv. Width of Anchor Block (W) = 8 m
v. No. of Anchor Blocks = 3
3/23/2021
37
10.9 Anchor Blocks and Support Piers
B. Critical Section
i. Height of Anchor Block in U/S face
(H) = 8 m
ii. Height of Anchor Block in D/S face
(h) = 6 m
iii. Length of Anchor Block (L) = 13 m
iv. Width of Anchor Block (W) = 15 m
v. No. of Anchor Blocks = 2
40. Support piers
i. Slant Height of Support Pier in U/S face =
2.3 m
ii. Slant Top Length of Support Pier = 0.5 m
iii. Base Length of Support Pier = 2 m
3/23/2021
40
iv. Width of Support Pier = 9 m
v. Slant Base Length of Support
Pier = 2.21 m
vi. No. of support pier = 8
Fig 10.18: Support Piers
41. 10.10 Turbine Selection
I. According to Head and Discharge
1. Gross head = 107 m
2. Net head = 93.49m
3. Efficiency of turbine = 85%
4. Discharge =37 m3/s
5. Power generated = 28.80 MW
6. The turbine selected is Francis turbine
3/23/2021
41
7. Number of poles = 12
8. Frequency = 50 Hz
9. Specific Speed = 196.40 rpm
10. Number of units = 3
11. Diameter of runner = 2.80m
42. 3/23/2021
42
Fig 10.19: Turbine Selection Chart based on head and Discharge
(Source: Chen, Jian & Yang, H.X. & Liu, C.P. & Lau, C.H. & Lo, M. (2013). A novel vertical axis water turbine for power
generation from water pipelines).
43. Dimensioning of power house
i. Location:
Latitude: 29ยฐ 12' 3.6"N
Longitude: 81ยฐ 54' 57.6"E
ii. Width of column (w) = 0.8m
iii. Depth of column (d) = 0.8m
Length
i. Unit Spacing = 17.43 m
ii. Number of units = 3
iii. Length of erection bay = 13.74 m
iv. Total Length = 75.63 m
3/23/2021
43
Width
i. D/S from central axis of turbine = 7.19 m
ii. U/S from central axis of turbine = 9.44 m
iii. Total width of Power House = 18.23 m
Height
i. Height of Turbine floor = 10.50 m
ii. Clearance for largest package = 8 m
iii. Roof clearance = 4 m
iv. Height of generator room = 14.80m
v. Height of draft tube chamber = 6.87 m
vi. Total Height = 32.17m
10.11 Powerhouse and Draft Tube
44. Draft Tube
i. Submergence Head, ๐ป๐ = โ0.24 ๐
i.e. the central line of turbine should lie at least 0.24m below the tailrace water level
ii. Draft Tube Dimensions:
iii. Exit Velocity =
๐
๐ตโ
=
12.33
8.25โ2.58
= 0.58๐/๐
iv. Minimum submergence required at exit =
๐๐
2
2๐
= 0.03 ๐
v. The total volume of pondage was 8280 m3 and area 6073.47 m2.
vi. The water level was maintained at 2058 amsl.
3/23/2021
44
Description Dimensions
Outlet width, B 8.25m
Draft tube depth, H 6.87m
Length of draft tube, L 13.19m
Outlet height, h 2.58m
49. 10.12 Hydraulic Gradient Line
3/23/2021
49
Fig 10.24: Hydraulic Gradient Line
RL : Reduced Normal Level, EGL : Existing Ground Level, TEL : Total Energy Line
NWL : Water Level, HGL : Hydraulic Gradient Line
50. 11. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
3/23/2021
50
S.N. Detail Breakdown
Amount
(NRs)
Amount in words (NRs)
%
coverage
1 Civil Construction Cost 1,548,963,825
One billion, five hundred forty-eight million, nine
hundred sixty-three thousand, eight hundred and twenty-
five
32.6%
2
Hydro-Mechanical
Equipment
965,500,200
Nine hundred sixty-five million, five hundred thousand
and two hundred
20.3%
3
Electro-Mechanical
Equipment
1,000,000,000 One billion 21.1%
4
Project Development
Cost
70,289,281
Seventy million, two hundred eighty-nine thousand, two
hundred and eighty-one
1.5%
5 Land Purchase 70,289,281
Seventy million, two hundred eighty-nine thousand, two
hundred and eighty-one
1.5%
6
Site Office and
Infrastructure
Development Cost
175,723,202
One hundred seventy-five million, seven hundred
twenty-three thousand, two hundred and two
3.7%
11.1 Detail Project Cost Breakdown
51. 3/23/2021
51
S.N. Detail Breakdown
Amount
(NRs)
Amount in words (NRs)
%
coverage
7
Office Equipment and
Vehicle
70,289,281
Seventy million, two hundred eighty-nine thousand, two
hundred and eighty-one
1.5%
8
Environment
Mitigation
17,572,321
Seventeen million, five hundred seventy-two thousand,
three hundred and twenty-one
0.4%
9
Project Engineering
and Supervision
105,433,921
One hundred five million, four hundred thirty-three
thousand, nine hundred and twenty-one
2.2%
10 VAT 523,127,971
Five hundred twenty-three million, one hundred twenty-
seven thousand, nine hundred and seventy-one
11.0%
11 Contingencies 201,203,066
Two hundred one million, two hundred three thousand
and sixty-six
4.2%
Total 4,748,392,349
Four billion, seven hundred forty-eight million, three
hundred ninety-two thousand, three hundred and
forty-nine
100.0%
52. 32.6
20.3
21.1
1.5
1.5
3.7
1.5
0.4
2.2
11
4.2
Detail Cost Breakdown Civil Construction Cost
Hydro-Mechanical Equipment
Electro-Mechanical
Equipment
Project Development Cost
Land Purchase Cost
Site Office & Infrastructure
Development Cost
Office Equipment & Vehicle
Environmental Mitigation
Project Engineering &
Supervision
VAT
Contegencies
3/23/2021
52
Fig 11.1: Percentage coverage by various components
53. 11.2 Annual Energy Generation:
182.91 GWh
11.3 Annual Revenue: NRs 1093.81
million
11.4 Annual Expense: NRs 123.33
million
11.5 Construction Period: 3 years
11.6 Generation Period: 30 years
11.7 Project Investment: Equity=30%
Loan= 70%
11.8 Loan Interest: 4% per annum
11.9 Income Tax: 20% of the income
11.10 Discounted Rate: 8% per annum
3/23/2021
53
Fig 11.2: Discounted Payback Period
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Discounted
Cost
(NRs
in
Millions) Years
Discounted Payback
Cost
11.11 Net Present Value: NRs 3133.6
million>1(Profitable)
11.12 IRR: 15%> 8% discount rate(Profitable)
11.13 B/C Ratio: 1.27>1(Profitable)
11.14 Discounted Payback Period: 12 years
54. 11.15 Sensitivity analysis
3/23/2021
54
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
B/C
Ratio
Variation(%)
Sensitivity Analysis for B/C ratio
Cost Variation Reveue Variation
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
Net
Present
Value
in
million
NRs
Variation(%)
Sensitivity Analysis for NPV
Cost Variation Reveue Variation
Fig 11.3: Sensitivity analysis on B/C for cost and
Revenue Variation
Fig 11.4: Sensitivity of project on NPV on cost and
Revenue Variation
55. Jumla District
i. Population: 108,921
ii. Population density: 43/km2
iii. Literacy: 50%
iv. Total number of Household: 19,291
v. There are altogether 295 educational
institutes
vi. 1 governmental hospital, 20
secondary posts and 8 health posts
vii. The major castes living in the two
districts were Brahmins, Thakuri,
Chhetris, Lama and Dalits.
vii. Major occupations: Fishery,
Agriculture and Gravel mining
Tila Rural Municipality
i. Total Population: 13,607
ii. Area: 175 km2
Kalikot District
i. Population: 136,948
ii. Population density: 79/km2
iii. Literacy: 67.14%
iv. Total number of household: 23,008
3/23/2021
55
12. SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY
56. 3/23/2021
56
98.58
1.42
Jumla's distribution of fuel for cooking % (2011)
Firewood others
29.32
0.32
0.02
44.31
25.40
0.63
% Source of lighting (Jumla)
Electricity Kerosene Bio-gas
Solar Others Not Stated
Fig 12.2: Distribution of household use of fuel for
cooking in Jumla District
Fig 12.1: Sources of Lighting in Jumla District
57. 3/23/2021
57
11.62
1.43
0.04
37.14
49.17
0.60
% Source of lighting (Kalikot)
Electricity Kerosene Bio-gas
Solar Others Not Stated
Fig 12.4: Sources of Lighting in Kalikot District
Fig 12.3: Sources of water supply in Jumla District
80.04
0.14
0.41 14.8
3.59
0.38 0.62
Jumla Water Supply Situation % (2011)
Tap/Pipe Covered Well Uncovered Well
Spout Water River/Stream Others
Not Stated
58. 3/23/2021
58
98.58
2.02
% Distribution of fuel for cooking
(Kalikot)
Firewood others
58.01
0.97
1.45
34.85
3.87
0.27 0.58
Kalikot Water Supply SItuation % (2011)
Tap/Piped Covered Well Uncovered Well
Spout Water River/stream Others
Not Stated
Fig 12.5: Distribution of household use of fuel for
cooking in Kalikot District
Fig 12.6: Sources of water supply in Kalikot District
59. 12.1 Positive Impacts And Promotion
S.N. Positive Impacts Promotion Measures
1 The problem of load shedding will be
significantly decreased.
Proper management of electricity generated
along with subsidized rates to local population.
2 Generation of employment opportunities. Recognizing population in need of employment
created by the hydropower.
3 Improvement in the working conditions of women
employed in local agro-processing mills as
mechanical automation replaced labor-intensive
manual processing.
Subsidizing the cost of electricity for few years
to the industries established around the project
area.
4 Improvement in different sectors such as
education, irrigation, water supply, tourism etc.
Providing separate lines to educational
institutes, conducting different vocational
training and integration of water supply.
5 Increase in local and regional economy The royalty obtained from the hydropower plant
can be invested in the same region to launch
other infrastructures of development
3/23/2021
59
60. 3/23/2021
60
12.2 Negative Impacts And Mitigation
S.N. Negative Impact Mitigation measures
1 Impact on fish migration and fishery downstream
of the dam.
Construction of fish hatchery on the d/s of the
project and limit fishing on the U/S of the
reservoir.
2 Rise in water level may cause negative impacts on
sports such as rafting.
The project will work with rafting companies to
locate new area for rafting or provide jobs for
those affected by the hydropower project.
3 Insufficient water may be available immediately at
the downstream of the project which may be used
by local population for propose of drinking,
cleaning or irrigation.
Integrating the project for water supply and
irrigation as well as release of sufficient water
d/s for the intended purposes
61. 13. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
i. IEE is to be conducted for hydropower
with power generation ranging from
1MW to 50MW (Schedule 1, EPR
1997)
ii. The physical and biological
environment were only studied.
iii. The study was carried on the basis of
available secondary sources like EIA
report of Karnali Highway, District
Profile of Jumla and IEE reports of
Hydropower Projects of similar nature
and scale.
iv. Jumla falls in the Sub-alpine climate
zone (elevation 3000m to 4000m)
with partly cloudy wet seasons, and
cool and mostly clear dry seasons.
v. The vegetation that grow in this
region are usually coniferous.
vi. Different valuable medicinal and
aromatic plants like Yarshaghumba,
Pachaula, Jatamashi, Sugandhawal,
Padamchal, etc. are found in this
region.
vii. Domestic animals : cow, yak, buffalo,
sheep, pig and goat
3/23/2021
61
62. 13.1 Positive Impacts And Promotion
S.N. Positive Impacts Promotion Measures
1 Enhances aquatic habitat in dry season
and prevents damage to the vegetation
during wet season
1. Providing control in the fluctuation in water flow
2. Release of sufficient water in the d/s region esp in
the dry season
2 Reduction in greenhouse gas emission. 1. Introducing the local people with electrical
equipment and induction stoves
3/23/2021
62
vii. Wild animals : musk deer, red panda, snow leopard, Himalayan black
bear, Indian leopard, jackal, Himalayan tahr, yellow-throated
marten, otter, dhole, gray langur, and rhesus macaque ghoral
viii.Birds : Himalayan Snowcock, Chukar Partridge, Himalayan Monal, Kalij
Pheasant, Blood pheasant, Great-crested, Black-necked Grebes, etc.
63. 13.2 Negative Impacts And Mitigation
S.N. Negative impacts Magnitude Duration Mitigation measures
1 Cut and fill have to be
carried out that might change
the topography of the site
Moderate Long
term
1. Construction of slope stabilizing
structures.
2. Proper landscaping and re-vegetation
inside the projectโs premises.
2 Land acquisition that mainly
includes cultivable lands
Moderate Long
term
Paying proper compensation to the land
owner.
3 Generation of dust and noise
due construction works like
ground excavation, levelling,
etc.
Moderate Short
term
1. Water sprinkling in the excavation
sites.
2. The spoil will be backfilled and
compacted with required watering.
3. Restriction of noise generating
activities at night.
4 Aquatic ecosystem in the
curtailed river section will be
disturbed
Moderate Long
term
Discharging sufficient water to the d/s in
dry seasons.
3/23/2021
63
64. 3/23/2021
64
S.N. Negative
impacts
Magnitude Duration Mitigation measures
5 Reduction in
water quality
Moderate Long term 1. Proper disposal of generated concrete waste in pits
and filled with soil.
2. Proper care will be taken not mix the waste
materials into the river.
3. Proper toilets and shower rooms will be provided
to the workforce.
4. Garbage and solid wastes produced by the labor-
camp will be dumped safely away from water
bodies.
5. Good construction practices and site management
will be adopted to avoid impacting soil and ground
water, and pollution of water bodies.
6. Prohibition on open defecation by the workers.
7. Spilling of lubricants and oils will be minimized
through proper care in storage and handling of the
transformers and containers of lubricants and oils.
65. 14. WATER SUPPLY DESIGN
14.1 Alignment Study
3/23/2021
65
Conveyance Pipe
Tila Nadi
Settling Basin
Fig 14.1: Alignment-I from Settling Basin
Alignment-I
67. S.N Particulars Alignment-I Alignment-II Remarks
1 Intake Location Settling Basin Tailrace
2 Period of water withdrawal
6hrs (3hr+3hr) 24hrs Alignment-II
3 Total Length 2.6 km 386 m Alignment-II
4 Diameter (Preliminary) 225 mm 140 mm Alignment-II
5
Number of Pressure Break
Valve/Tank required
1 Nil Alignment-II
6 No. of Reservoir Tank (RVT)
2 1 Alignment-II
7 Reservoir Capacity 207.26 m3 (RVT1)+ 96.72
m3 (RVT2)
96.72 m3 (RVT1) Alignment-II
3/23/2021
67
14.2 Alignment Comparison
โข Thus, Alignment-II is selected for withdrawal of water for purpose of water supply.
68. 14.3 Design Of Water Supply System
1. Number of households = 284
2. Present Population (P0) = 1488
3. Population Growth Rate = 0.93%
4. Design year = 21 years
5. Population after 21 years (P21) =
๐๐๐๐
6. Maximum demand factor = 1.8
7. Total Domestic Demand = PT*per
capita demand = 180800 lpd
8. Total Institutional demand = 3430
lpd
9. Total demand = 2.13 l/s
10. Maximum demand = 1.8*Total demand =
3.84 l/s
11. Sub-Main Distribution Line Diameter = 20
mm
12. Transmission/Supply main Line Diameter =
140 mm
13. Total Length of Transmission Line =
385.93m
14. Public Tap was designed as per the general
design provided in the โTechnical Training
Manual No.5โ (Local Development
Department, Ministry of Home and
Panchayat, SATA and UNICEF)
3/23/2021
68
71. 14.4 Reservoir Tank & Slow Sand Filter
Reservoir Tank
i. The total capacity of the reservoir required = 96.72 m3
ii. Provided volume of tank = 98.17 m3
iii. Diameter of Reservoir Tank = 5m
iv. Depth of Reservoir Tank = 5m
v. Demand pattern:
3/23/2021
71
Time % Demand
00:00 A.M.-04:00 A.M. 0
04:00 A.M.-09:00 A.M. 40
09:00 A.M.-15:00 P.M. 30
15:00 P.M.-17:00 P.M. 10
17:00 P.M.-21:00 P.M. 20
21:00 P.M.-00:00 A.M. 0
72. 3/23/2021
72
Design of Slow Sand filter
1. Rate of filtration = 150 liter/hr*m2
2. Total surface area of filter required =
92.16 ๐2
3. Number of filter bed provided = 3
(2 operational while 1 as a standby)
4. Area of each filter unit = 46.08 m2
5. Width of a single unit = 5m
6. Length of the filter = 10m
7. Depth of Supernatant Water Layer = 1m
8. Total Depth of filter = 2.6m
(including 0.2m free board)
9. Specification of sand
i. Effective size: 0.15-0.30 mm
ii. Uniformity coefficient: Max.5,
preferably below 3
74. 15. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
15.1 Conclusions
i. The hydropower potential of Tila Nadi
Hydropower project is found to be 28.8 MW
with design discharge Q40 of 37 m3/s and net
head of 93.48 m.
ii. Alignment at the right side of Tila Nadi is
found to be more feasible than the alignment
at the left side.
iii. Hydraulic design of components of
hydropower have been done following
DOED standards/guidelines and IS where
needed.
iv. The total estimated cost of the project is
NRs. 4,748,392,349 /-
v. Benefit cost (B/C) ratio of this project is
1.23>1(economically feasible).
3/23/2021
74
vi. With the simple payback period of 9
years and positive value for net present
value, the project is found to be
financially feasible as well.
vii. Only two households will require
relocation so there is likely to be less
social issues.
viii. No adverse effects to the environment.
ix. Water is supplied from tailrace pondage,
and average daily demand is 3.84 l/s and
design period is 21 years.
x. A dead tree system with minimum 10m
water pressure at any point for water
distribution system with maximum pipe
diameter of 90 mm and minimum
diameter of 20 mm.
75. 3/23/2021
75
15.2 Recommendations
i. Actual field survey should be conducted.
ii. Hydraulic models of the components should be made and tested for further
optimization and design improvement.
iii. Feasibility of a project as PROR or Storage type can be conducted based on
field/primary data.
iv. Design of the treatment plant should be done after monitoring of the water quality
of the pondage water.
v. The self-sustainability of the water supply scheme should be determined by
conducting household socio-economic study.
vi. Placement of tap stand can be further made accurate by use of actual field data.
76. 16. WORK SCHEDULE
S.N Work Progress
May June July August Sep.
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 Literature review
2 Consultation and discussion
3 Proposal submission &
defense
4 Desk work
5 Mid-term presentation
6 Final report submission
(Draft)
7 Final project defense
Works completed
Works ongoing
3/23/2021
76
77. REFERENCES
1. Anupoju, S. (2016). theconstructor.org. Retrieved June 14, 2020, from
https://theconstructor.org/water-resources/canal-linings-types-advantages/11052/
2. Avery. (1989). Sediment Control at Intakes, A design guide, BHARA Process. Retrieved June 13, 2020
3. Baral, S. (2016). Fundamentals of Hydropower Engineering (Third ed.).Bhotahiti, Kathmandu:
National Book Centre Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved June 14, 2020
4. Bishwakarma, M. B. (2015). Settling Basin Design Criteria and Trap Efficiency Computation
Methods. Retrieved June 13, 2020, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280447171_Settling_Basin_Design_Criteria_and_Trap_Effic
iency_Computation_Methods
5. Chapman. (2010). Introduction to Tunnel Construction. Retrieved 2020
6. Chatterjee, A. (2001). Water Supply, Waste Disposal and Environmental Engineering. Khanna
Publishers. Retrieved 2020
7. Department of Electricity Development. (2006). Design Guidelines for Water Conveyance System of
Hydropower Project. Retrieved 2020
8. Department of Electricity Development. (2018). Guidelines for Study of Hydropower Projects.
Retrieved 2020
3/23/2021
77
78. 9. Department of Electricity Development. (2018). Powerhouse Design Guidelines for Hydropower
Projects. Retrieved 2020
10. Department of Electricity Development. (2019). Design Guidelines for Headworks of Hydropower
Projects. Retrieved 2020
11. Department of Electricity Development. (2006). Design Guidelines for Water Conveyance System of
Hydropower Projects. Retrieved June 13, 2020
12. Du, C. (2012). Water Power Magazine. Retrieved 2020, from
https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/features/featurepowerhouse-positioning
13. Garg, S. (2017). Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structures. Khanna Publisher. Retrieved 2020
14. Gerad, K. (n.d.). Environmental Engineering. Retrieved 2020
15. IS 10430:2000. Criteria for Design of Lined Canals And Guidance For Selection of Type of
Lining(First Revision). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards. Retrieved 2020
16. IS 11388:2012. Recommendations for Design of Trash Racks for Intakes. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian
Standards. Retrieved 2020
17. IS 5496:1993. Guide For Preliminary Dimensioning and Layout of Elbow Type Draft Tubes for
Surface Hydroelectric Power Stations. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards. Retrieved 2020
3/23/2021
78
79. 18. IS: 12800-1. (1993). Guidelines for Selection of Turbines. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
Retrieved 2020
19. IS: 9761-1995. Hydropower Intakes โ Criteria for Hydraulic Design (First Revision). New Delhi:
Bureau of Indian Standards. Retrieved 2020
20. Nptel. (n.d.). Retrieved 2020, from
https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/courses/105105110/pdf/m5l03.pdf
21. O.Bickel, R. &. (1997). Tunnel Engineering Handbook. New Delhi: CBS Publishers & Distributors
Pvt., Ltd. Retrieved 2020
22. Pohland, E. (2018). Pilebuck. Retrieved from https://www.pilebuck.com/engineering/field-
investigations-geotechnical-engineering/#:
23. Practical Action. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2020, from http://medbox.iiab.me/modules/en-
practical_action/Energy/Hydro%20power/civil_works_guidelines_for_micro_hydro/page71.html
24. Rajput, R. (2014). A Textbook of Fluid Mechanics. Retrieved 2020
25. Stรธle, H. (1993). Withdral of water from Himalayan rivers sediment control at intakes. Retrieved
June 13, 2020
26. Vito, V. A. (1977). Sedimentation Engineering, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering
Practice- No. 54. Retrieved June 13, 2020
3/23/2021
79
