4. 4
ProjectSiteDetails
Site parameters Value
Top of the reservoir level 203.00 m
Reservoir Capacity 141,547.8 m3
Water available for irrigation 327,000 Acres
Catchment Area 64,880 sq km
Spillway type Gated ogee spillway
Air temperature Min 11-12 °C (in the month of Dec-Jan)
Max 40-45 °C (in the months of May)
Wind Speed range 9-20 km/h, no major typhoon occurrence in
the area
Rainfall Min 80 mm to Max 240 mm
Dam Parameters Value
Location 22º14’25’’N, 76º09’45’’
Active Capacity 27,877 m3
Estimated surface available 11 Sq km
Height of dam from foundation 57.00 m
Maximum water level 199.62 m
Full reservoir level 196.60 m
Flood Cushion 3.60 m
Spillway crest level 179.60 m
Gross storage 0.987 billion m3
Live storage 0.299 billion m3
Design flood 88.315 Cumecs
Maximum observed flood since 2007 38.028 Cumecs (2013-2014)
Powerhouse 520 MW (8 Nos of 65 MW)
Earthquake monitoring station Operational
Omkareshwar
5. 5
Salient Featuresof the ProposedOmkareshwarFloatingSolarPark
World’s Largest 600 MW Floating Solar Power Park at the Omkareshwar Reservoir.
In principle approval for secured financing in place for the Floating Park Infrastructure
Estimated investment for the Park ~ INR 30,000 Million
Detailed Feasibility finalized for the Floating Solar PV Park
Off-take arrangements to be secured and confirmed prior to the issuance of the final RfP
6. 6
ProjectAttractiveness …….1
1. RUMSL as an experienced Solar Park Developer with 1000 MW of installed capacity and another 1500 MW successfully transacted
and under implementation
2. Technology Agnostic
3. Certainty of Power Offtake:
• Availability of accredited procurer – Indian Railway (prospective).
• State Government commitment of power procurement through State Discoms.
4. Payment ensured through payment security mechanism:
• Letter of credit.
• Payment Security Fund.
5. No delays due to land/ site acquisition:
• Requisite approvals in place for availability of Reservoir.
• Land lease for substations, manufacturing & storage facilities in place.
• Assembly & launch areas identified.
6. Environment & Social: No/ limited E&S concerns expected
7. 7
ProjectAttractiveness …….2
1. Planned development of evacuation infrastructure by RUMSL.
2. Avoidance of project delay due to effective State and Central Government level coordination by RUMSL.
3. MNRE Grant to be availed for reducing solar park charges.
4. Bidders will be able to access all project documents via the Data Room.
5. Multiple studies undertaken to reduce risk during project development/ operation i.e. (Detailed Project Report and Detailed Technical
Due Diligence).
6. Omkareshwar Floating Solar Park is likely to become a major tourist hub attracting large scale visibility.
9. 9
SiteSurvey
The site surveys were undertaken to acquire information on the waterbed in the form of a contour maps. Details related to the depth of the
waterbed with reference to the datum level was collected in two stages:
• Stage 1: Involved conducting a recce study using a Single Beam Echo Sounder (SBES) for larger identified area.
• Stage 2: Involved bathymetry study with Multi-beam Echo Sounder (MBES).
Survey Study area
Salient features
1. Single beam Recce-survey:
• Data collected using Real-Time Kinematic
Differential GPS (RTK DGPS) and Single
Beam Dual Frequency Echo Sounder, Survey
lines at 100 m, covering 20 sq. km, bank to
bank
• Information on the reservoir bed at very
coarse level, preliminary assessment helped
in selecting suitable site of 12 Sq. km for
600 MW FSPV on which further detailed
studies were conducted. Results will provide
the following:
✓ Broad details on the reservoir bed topography
✓ depth of the water at different locations
✓ Presence of submerged islands, presence of
obstacles such as submerged
poles/pillars/trees
✓ Rough estimate on the depth of soft/loose
sediments present on reservoir bed
10. 10
SiteSurvey
Salient features
2. Multibeam Bathymetry Survey:
• Using multi-beam echosounder for full coverage of the selected area with at least 25% overlap at suitable line spacing
• 100% coverage, area covered >12 sq. km
• Detailed reservoir bed topography, sedimentation regions,
• Detailed information on the submerged islands size, shape, length, heights
• Identification of steep changes in the elevation of the reservoir bed
3. Geo physical:
• Reservoir bed imaging using Side Scan Sonar (SSS) covering about 12 sq. km
✓ Underwater morphology
✓ Sediments characteristics, presence of debris
✓ Identification of underwater/ sunken objects
✓ Presence of boulders, rock outcrops, submerged structures.
✓ Geomorphological features of the reservoir bed using Sub Bottom Profiler (SBP) covering about 12 sq. km
4. Water velocity measurement
• 15 days measurement of current speed, magnitude and direction, its variation over time
• Velocity simulation for dam gates opening during flood scenarios considering reservoir water surface elevation at FRL and MWL
11. 11
SiteSurvey
Salient features
5. Geotechnical Survey:
• Reservoir bed soil characteristics using Vibrocorer
✓ Type of the reservoir bed material and its classification as per Unified Soil Classification System
✓ Assessment of the strength parameters tri-axial shear, direct shear, cohesion and angle of repose.
• Reservoir sediment characteristics using Standard Penetration Test
✓ Type of the sediment material collected and USCS
✓ Assessment of the strength parameters tri-axial shear, direct shear, cohesion and angle of repose.
• Reservoir water quality analysis
✓ Analysis of reservoir water for the presence of any chemicals, minerals, salinity
6. Topography Study
• Mapping of ground levels with all features referenced to Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the study area
12. 12
SiteSurvey
Single Beam vs Multibeam Bathymetry Survey
Single Beam Survey (To identify the most appropriate area for
FSPV)
• 100 X 100 Metre Grid
• Total area covered - 25 Square Kilometers
Multi Beam Survey (To map reservoir bed details for FSPV
installation)
• 40 X 40 Metre Grid with 100% coverage of reservoir bed details
with 25% overlap
• Total area covered - 12 Square Kilometers
13. 13
• Recce survey was conducted at Kaveri
branch covering an area of 25 sq. km
from west bank to east bank of the
reservoir
• Areas not suitable for FSPV i.e
protruding islands, inaccessible areas,
shallow depths were identified
• Max draw down level (MDDL) was
considered
• Based on the above and considering a
safe buffer of 1.5 m below MDDL
(192.0), area equivalent to 12 sq. km
was considered for further detailed
exploration of the reservoir
SingleBeamRecce Survey …….1
Note: Detailed Maps files will be provided in the Data Room
14. 14
Results:
• Shallow depth was found from South-East (SE) direction to North-West (NW).
• Depth varies from 1.0 m to 4.0 m approximately, except a small creek having depth 5.0 metre to 10.0 metre approximately
• On both shore side area shallow depth are observed varying from 0.6 to 4.0 metre approx.
• Shallow depth areas were observed, where the depth varied from 2.8 to 4.8 metres with some trees in-between the location 625883.460E,
2453953.800N and 624814.99E, 2454964.940N in approximately a 100 metres corridor.
• Shallow water area found in NE direction, depth varies from 3.9 metre to 4.6 metre between location 622749.840E, 2457330.930 N and
622341.740E, 2457577.390N around 50 metre corridor.
• Rest all the area having sufficient depth varies from 5.0 metre to 26.7 metre. Depth increases from NE to SW up to centre and then
decreases towards SW direction.
SingleBeamRecce Survey ……..2
15. 15
MultibeamBathymetry Analysis …….1
Multibeam bathymetry chart of the entire survey area of 12 sq. km
Note: Detailed Maps files will be provided in the Data Room
• Highly undulated and rugged riverbed
• Gentle to moderate gradients (up to 10º)
• Steep to very steep gradients (up to 50º)
along the river channels and the periphery of
Islands
• Comparatively less rugged than the upper half
• Steep to very steep gradients (up to 44º) along the
river channels and at the periphery of Islands
Gentle to moderate
gradients (up to 10º) in the
southwestern and south-
eastern regions
16. 16
MultibeamBathymetric analysis …….2
Minimum
Water depth
1.7m
Maximum Water
depth 35.8m
Maximum
Water depth
18.3m
Minimum
Water depth
2.0m
• Area 1: Highlights an undulated
riverbed across the entire surveyed
corridor.
• Bathymetry varies between 1.7m to
35.8 m. (w.r.t MDDL of 193.54 m)
Survey Area – 1
• Area 2: Highlights a smooth riverbed
with gradual gradient towards centre of
survey corridor.
• Undulated river-bed recorded at centre
towards the southwest side
• Bathymetry varies between 2.0m to
18.3m. (w.r.t MDDL of 193.4 m)
Survey Area – 2
Minimum Water depth
1.4m
Maximum Water
depth 25.6m
• Area 3: Highlights a smooth riverbed
near the banks. Rest of the area
recorded as undulated riverbed.
• Bathymetry varies in survey area-3
between 1.4m to 25.6 m (w.r.t MDDL of
193.54 m)
Survey Area – 2
Survey Area – 1
Survey Area – 3
Survey Area – 2
Survey Area – 1
Survey Area – 3
17. 17
Geo-physical Survey- Riverbedfeatures …….1
Type 1: Low Reflective Sediments
(Silty Fine Sand)
Type 2: Medium Reflective sediments
(Isolated sediment patches)
Type 3 : High reflective Sediments
(Weathered Bedrock)
Bed type Observations during survey
Type -1
Low Reflective
Sediments (Silty
Fine Sand)
• A large percentage of the reflections detected in
survey corridors are low reflective sediments
classified as Type 1.
• Type 1 sediments consist of fine sands and silts.
• Survey corridors were found to contain most of
these sediments.
Type -2
Medium Reflective
sediments
(Isolated sediment
patches)
• These sediments were recorded as isolated
sediment patches within the survey corridor.
• Based on data interpretation, they are Hard
sediments/Boulder bed, with Medium reflectivity.
• These sediments were recorded near the reservoir
banks and in the center of the survey corridor.
Type -3
High reflective
Sediments
(Weathered
Bedrock)
• Sediments showing high reflectivity to the sonar
frequency are classified as Type-3. These sediments
were identified as weathered bed rock.
• These sediments were recorded at reservoir banks
within the survey corridor.
Side scan sonar reveals riverbed of varying reflectivity to 100 kHz frequency
18. 18
Geo-physical Survey- Riverbedfeatures …….2
scattered to numerous boulders in the north-eastern
portion
possible Hardground/ROCK with intermittently occurring
pockets of gravelly SILT/CLAY in the north-western portion
Fine sediments (mainly SILT/CLAY) in the south-eastern
portion
sonar contact (linear object) in the southern portion
• Fine sediments with scattered to numerous possible boulders are observed throughout the surveyed area
• Patches of coarse sediments are observed mainly in the north-western and west-southwestern portions
• Scattered patches of hardground are observed mainly in the north-western, southern, central and south-eastern portions
• Possible Hardground/ROCK exposures with intermittently occurring pockets of sediments are observed mainly along the periphery of the islands and
the surveyed area boundary in the north-western, western, southwestern and south-eastern portions of the surveyed area
• Total of two hundred and sixty-two sonar contacts were identified in the entire surveyed area, some of the contacts listed may be remnants of existing
huts or other structures that were originally present in the area and were submerged in the reservoir that resulted from the construction of the dam.
These may be partially covered by sediments hence may not present as geometrical shapes in the side scan sonar records.
19. 19
UNIT A:
• Uppermost parallel reflector identified within the
surveyed corridor.
• Acoustically transparent sediments interpreted as
parallel bedded silty sands with clays.
• Faint internal reflection configuration attributed to
changes in stiffness, type of sediments (Silty fine
Sand) and density, increasing with depth.
• Internal reflection configuration neither uniform nor
present everywhere.
UNIT B (Occurs directly below the UNIT ‘A’ ):
• Exhibits medium to high acoustic impedance to
seismic energies, inhibiting further penetration of
acoustic signals
• Interpreted as weathered bedrock & recorded down
to the limit of penetration of acoustic signal.
Geo-physical Survey- ShallowStratigraphy …1
Apart from the above, no other significant features or
anomalies associated with shallow gas were evident from
the records within the survey corridor, which could be
hazardous to the marine construction activities. Note: Detailed PDF files will be provided in the Data Room
20. 20
• Uppermost layer to be made up of predominantly
fine sediments (mainly SILT/CLAY) in most parts and
coarser sediments (mainly clayey SAND) in some
portions
• Base of these sediments forms the prominent seism
stratigraphic reflector interpreted as the top of
possible Hardground/ ROCK.
Geo-physical Survey- ShallowStratigraphy …2
• Maximum depth of prominent reflector is 3m below the riverbed,
observed near the south-central portion of the surveyed area.
• Minimum depth of 0m (possible hardground exposures/rock with
intermittently occurring pockets of fine/coarse sediments),
mainly along the periphery of the surveyed area and islands.
• Few scattered areas (with minimum depth of 0m) are also
observed in the north-western, southwestern and southern parts
of the surveyed area.
prominent seismic stratigraphic reflector in the north-western region of the surveyed area
possible hardground exposures/ outcropping rock with intermittently occurring pockets of gravelly sandy
SILT/CLAY in the south-eastern region of the surveyed area.
21. 21
Geotechnical Survey …1
Soil sampling and analysis
Type of survey Details Soil
samples
Reservoir bed sample
using Vibrocorer
(Transaction Advisory)
• 500 X 500 m
grid size
• Soil sediment
collection
depth up to
3m
47 Nos
Soil sample using rotary
rigs
(Detailed Project
Report)
• Bore hole
samples
• at 5m avg
depth
10 Nos
Soil sample using
Standard Penetration
Test
(World Bank Pre
Feasibility Study)
• 500 X 500 m
grid size
• Soil sediment
collection
depth up to
3m
41 Nos
Water samples were collected from same location at three different depths
22. 22
Geotechnical Survey …2
6%
25%
46%
23%
Soil grain size
distribution (in mm)
Gravel >/= 4.75
Sand 4.75 to 0.075
Silt 0.075 to 0.002
Clay < /= 0.005
Reservoir bed soil characteristics
Group symbol
USCS
% Major division (typical names)
CH 73%
clays of high plasticity liquid limits more than 50% (inorganic clays
of high plasticity, fat clays, sandy clays of high plasticity)
CL 15%
clays of low plasticity liquid limits less than 50% (inorganic clays of
low to medium plasticity, gravely, sandy and silty clays)
GP 2%
clean gravels less than 5% passes 200 sieve (Poorly graded gravels,
gravel sand mixtures or sand gravel cobbel mixtures)
SM 8%
sand with fines, more than 12% passes no. 200 sieve (silty sands,
silt sand mixtures)
SP 2% Poorly graded sand, gravely sands
Laboratory tests were carried out to obtain
physical properties like soil classification, grain
size distribution including hydrometric
analysis, organic material content, dry density,
Atterberg limits, water content, undrained
shear test, shear parameters (cohesion, angle
of friction). Mechanical analysis and Atterberg
Limits were conducted according to IS2720
relevant parts.
Physical properties of soil
Organic content (%) 11 to 20
Dry density, gm/cm3 0.67 to 1.34
Atterberg Limits
Avg. Liquid limit (%)
Avg. Plastic limit (%)
Avg. Plasticity Index
57.2
27.6
29.6
Avg. Water Content (%) 52
*USCS Unified Soil Classification System
Reservoir water quality
Water quality
parameters
Min Max Average
Remarks/Permissible Limits
(limits as per IS 456-2000)
pH 6.55 8.07 7.67 > 6 (Moderately Alkaline)
Total Dissolved Solids 168 208 190.2 2000 mg/lt
Calcium as CA 6.4 34.1 29.5
Nitrate <1.0
Chloride Content 4 30.8 6.9
No limit specified in IS 456.
However, value ranged between <
2000 mg/l Specified for Class I in
CIRIA Sp. Publication No. 31.
Sulphates as SO4 5.2 6.8 6.0 NA
Total Suspended Solids 1 30 10.9 NA
Suspended Sediments 5 0 10.9 NA
Organic Matter 5 48 7.1 200 mg/l
Salinity 0.001 9 0.07
Sulphate as SO3 4.4 5.7 5.04 < 400 mg/l
23. 23
Geotechnical Survey ……..3
Approach
• A geotechnical survey was conducted on twelve boreholes (BH-1 to BH-12) up to five meters below reservoir bottom depth.
• Sub-surface investigation completed as per IS: 1892-1979 using rotary rigs (Calyx, 8 HP, Engine).
• Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) carried out at every 1.5 m vertical interval up to bedrock (in accordance with IS 2131-1981).
• Sampling points were spaced at 500m X 500m interval in both directions, core samples from upto 3 metres have been taken.
• Each sample retrieved from SPT spoon inspected for visual identification of strata and then subjected to laboratory testing.
• Laboratory tests included mechanical analysis and Atterberg Limits (as per IS-2720).
Bore Hole
(BH) No.
East North
BH termination depth
(Metres.)
BH-01 619575.581 2458394.121 5.00
BH-02 620561.221 2458225.263 5.45
BH-03 621482.308 2457835.905 5.45
BH-04 622232.535 2457174.725 5.45
BH-05 622887.456 2456419.028 5.25
BH-06 623599.302 2455716.692 5.26
BH-07 624402.309 2455120.723 5.12
BH-08 625009.799 2454326.395 5.00
BH-09 625664.296 2453678.504 5.45
BH-10 624293.690 2456488.234 5.25
BH-11 625143.841 2457014.773 5.25
BH-12 626063.453 2457407.599 5.00
24. 24
Anchors proposed
Findings
• For deeper areas - the non-penetrating gravity anchors would be
the optimal solution
• For the shallow parts on top of rock - the Southwest side borehole
10, 11 & 12 or in the Northwest part of boreholes 7, 8 & 9, the
standard solution is to use rock bolts.
• Embedment anchors can be optimal choice for locations with
cohesive sediments which are best suited to, though not too stiff to
impede penetration
• Final decision will be based on detailed installation planning post
determination of anchor positions.
BH 1: Rock Bolt Anchor
BH 2: to BH6: Non penetrating Gravity Anchor
BH 7 to BH 12: Combination of Non penetrating Gravity and
Rock Bolts
25. 25
Water Current VelocityMeasurement
ADCP 1 ADCP 2
Max current measures in
15 days observation
Average Current velocity
- Surface layer
- Mid layer
- Bottom layer
Max. 0.336 m/s at surface on 5th
June 2021
0.037
0.028
0.026
Max. 0.295 m/s at surface on 5th June
2021
0.033
0.028
0.028
Current Direction
- Surface layer
- Mid layer
- Bottom layer
SE, ESE & SSE, NW, WNW
E, ESE, SE & NW, NNW, WNW
SE, SSE, ESE & NW, NNW, WNW
E, ESE,SE, SSE & N, NNW, NW, WNW
E, ESE, SE, E & N, W
E, ESE,SE, SSE & N, NNW, NW,W,
WSW
Occurrence
0-0.01 m/s
> 0.01 m/s
97 %
Due to rain/extreme weather/
discharge from dam
97 %
Due to rain/extreme weather/
discharge from dam
Current magnitude more at the surface level and
decreases gradually towards bottom
more at the surface level and decreases
gradually towards bottom
Current rose plot (surface speed vs
direction) at ADCP 1
Current rose plot (mid depth speed
vs direction) at ADCP 1
Current rose plot (near bottom depth
vs direction) at ADCP 1
Current rose plot (surface speed vs
direction) at ADCP 2
Current rose plot (mid depth speed
vs direction) at ADCP 2
Current rose plot (near bottom speed
vs direction) at ADCP 2
ADCP No Location Depth wrt CD
(m)
Location 01
76° 11.164’E
22° 12.935’N 15.9
Location 02
76° 12.706’E
22° 11.221’N
7.9
Velocity and Current direction of water flow at
the surface, at half of the water depth, and 0.5
m above the reservoir bed for fifteen days
upstream
26. 26
Simulationof water velocity
HEC- RAS 5.0.3, by US Army of Corps of Engineers (USACE) developed at the Hydrologic Engineering Center was used for conducting the velocity
simulation studies. Flow mesh cell size 150 X 150 m u/s, 250X250 m d/s was created. Dam was introduced as connection between the upstream and
downstream flow area.
23 numbers of radial crest gates, 20 X 18 m were considered
Upstream boundary condition: Two simulation scenarios were done, by keeping the upstream waster surface elevation:
1. When the reservoir is at FRL (196.6)
2. When the reservoir is at MWL (199.6)
Downstream boundary condition: normal depth of 0.01 m
Flow simulations were carried out for 25, 50, 75 and 100% releases through 23 numbers radial crest gates by controlling the gate opening height.
Flood release scenarios
Simulated velocity (m/sec) for MRL (199.6) Simulated velocity (m/sec) for FRL (196.6)
Max Min Mean Max Min Mean
100% of Maximum flood discharge (88,000
cusecs)
2.472 0.041 0.513 2.432 0.035 0.415
70% of Maximum flood
discharge (60,000 cusecs)
2.424 0.041 0.525 2.446 0.017 0.426
50% of Maximum flood discharge
(40,000 cusecs)
1.850 0.030 0.370 1.849 0.00 0.369
25% of Maximum flood
discharge (20,000 cusecs)
1.564 0.023 0.342 1.69 0.00 0.314
27. 27
Simulatedwatervelocities
100% of Maximum flood discharge 75% of Maximum flood discharge
50% of Maximum flood discharge 25% of Maximum flood discharge
100% of Maximum flood discharge 75% of Maximum flood discharge
50% of Maximum flood discharge 25% of Maximum flood discharge
When the reservoir is at FRL (196.6) When the reservoir is at MWL (199.6)
29. 29
• Capacity of the Reservoir: Calculating the surface area requirements per MW Floating Solar: 2 Hectares/ MWp post removal of all
obstructions.
- True capacity – capacity post removal of obstructions in the reservoir like islands, patches of vegetation etc.
- Post removal of all obstructions, floating solar plots (FS plots) mapped to discover the 'true capacity’.
• Orientation of Plots:
- Can be either South oriented or East-West oriented and depends upon generation & simulated anchoring & mooring requirements.
- In both cases, FS plots would be of regular shape (a rectangle/square).
• Design of Plots:
- Industry best practice - assemble and install 5 MW AC plots which consist of two equal sub-plots of 2.5 MW AC.
- 2.5 MW AC allows the use of existing BoS (central inverters, transformers etc.) from the market without customisation
- DC capacity oversized by 40% (for every 2.5 MW AC sub-plot, the DC array capacity is 3.5 MWp).
- Use of 425 Wp solar panels, which save space.
- Dimensions of 2.5 MW AC sub-plots - 250 metres by 115 Metres.
• Buffer between Plots (island):
- Buffer of 25 Metres between two plots of 5 MW AC (to accomodate station keeping arrangements)
- Provide adequate assembly and towing areas for each package and each plot/sub-plot
To arrive at the capacity and area of the reservoir, the plot sizing has been done based on some standard rules
Reservoir Plotting- Approach
30. 30
Reservoir Plotting- Design
Units
No of Blocks
AC
Capacity
(MW)
5
MW
2.5 MW
A 17 6 100
B 18 4 100
C 20 0 100
D 15 10 100
E 20 0 100
F 20 0 100
Total 110 20 600
• Assessed Capacity
is 600 MW (AC)
• Six units of
capacities 100 MW
identified
31. 31
Tourism spot is being developed to promote solar tourism at Gunjari near the Northwestern Half of Unit 1.
Reservoir Plotting- Allocationfor upcomingBoatClub
33. 33
TechnologyOptions
Advantages
• Low freight cost
• Ability to cope with
environmental forcings
• Evaporative cooling
Disadvantages
• No local manufacturing
• Energy generation – low
tilt
• Scalability
• Suited for off-shore
Typology - Membrane Typology - Modular
Advantages
• High stability
• Ability to cope with env.
forcings & extreme weather
conditions
• Ease of O&M
Disadvantages
• No local manufacturing
• Higher Cost
Typology - Hybrid
Advantages
• High stability
• Ability to cope with env.
forcing
• Ease of O&M
Disadvantages
• No local manufacturing
• Higher Cost
Typology – Pure Float
Advantages
• Scalability
• Most popular in India
• Local manufacturing
available
• Relatively lower Cost
Disadvantages
• Ability to cope with env.
factors
• High freight costs
• Anchoring only from
periphery
For RfP, all the technology options will be open. For the purpose of cost estimation, Pure Float technology has been considered.
34. 34
Secondary mooring line
Primary mooring line
Buoy
Anchor (fixed type)
Load considered per primary
mooring line ~ 12.5 MT
N
General representationof PureFloat system
35. 35
HELICAL
ANCHOR PRECURSIVE EARTH
DRIVEN
DRAG ANCHORS
DEAD WEIGHT
Anchor Types
Proposed anchor design
• BH 2 to BH 6: Dead weight anchor applicable if force is within 1.5-2.5 MT
• Remaining Bore holes: Helical/ Percursive Anchors applicable for force in excess of 2.5
MT
The design of anchors would depend
on
- Bearing capacity of the soil
(Survey results)
- Force exerted on anchor
(Simulation studies)
36. 36
Mooringsystems
WEIGHT
MOORI
NG
CHAIN
EYE
BOL
T
ANCHO
R
BUOY
High High
High High
High Medium
Low
High Medium
Chain
Wire
High Molecular
Weigh Polyethylene
Mooring Lines
Nylon
Polyester
Damage
Resistance
Fatigue
Resistance
Strength
Weight
Material
stiffness
High High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium Medium
Medium Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Types of mooring lines
• Chain based mooring system are considered robust but are susceptible to
corrosion and wear
• Wire based mooring lines may be protected from corrosion (grease/
cathodic protection) but can get damaged due to contact/ bending
• Aramid/HMPE based mooring lines are susceptible to compression fatigue
• Nylon rope based mooring lines, dependent on construction, may be
fatigue resistant
• Polyester based mooring lines are considered to be relatively durable
• All the options are available
• Combination of Chain and Polyester Rope to be considered
37. 37
Technical Standards
PV Modules
• Terrestrial photovoltaic (PV)
modules – design
qualification (IEC 61215)
• Degrees of protection - IP
Codes (IEC 60529)
• Salt mist corrosion testing of
modules (IEC 61701)
• Junction boxes for PV
modules – safety
requirements & tests (IEC
62790)
• Photovoltaic (PV) module
safety qualification (IEC
61730)
• Ammonia corrosion testing
(IEC 62716)
• Photovoltaic modules – cyclic
(dynamic) mechanical load
testing (IEC 62782)
• PV modules transportation
testing (IEC 62759)
• Test methods for detection of
Potential Induced
Degradation (IEC 62804 – 1)
• Light induced degradation
test (IEC 63202)
Flotation devices (General and
environment)
• Standards for floating wind turbine
structures (DNV GL-ST-0119)
• Standards for tidal turbines (DNV
GL-ST-0164)
• General principles on reliability for
structures (ISO 2394)
• Recommended practice for design,
development and operation of
floating solar photovoltaic systems
(DNV GL RP 0584)
• Code of practice for design loads
(other than earthquake) for
buildings and structures (IS 875)
• Criteria for Earthquake resistant
design of structures (IS 1893)
• Minimum design loads and
associated criteria for buildings
and other structures (ASCE 7)
Recommended practice for design
against accidental loads (DNV GL-
RP-C204)
• Recommended Practice for
Environmental conditions and
Environmental loads (DNV GL-RP-
C205)
Flotation devices
(Structural Design)
• Plain and reinforced
concrete – code of
practice (IS 456)
• General construction in
steel – code of practice
(IS 800)
• Code of practice for the
use of cold-formed
Light Gauge Steel
structural members in
general building
construction (IS 801)
• Code of practice for
use of aluminum alloys
in structures (IS 8147)
• Structural plastics
design manual (ASCE
Manual)
• Composite components
(DNVGL-ST-C501)
Flotation devices
(Anchoring &
Moorings)
• Design and analysis of
station-keeping
systems for floating
structures (API RP
2SK)
• Specification for
mooring chain (API
Spec 2F)
• In-service inspection
of mooring hardware
for floating structures
(API RP 2I)
• Mooring integrity
management (API RP
2MIM)
• Design of inshore
moorings and floating
structures (BS 6349-
6)
• DNV Standards
Inverters
• Standard for interconnecting
distributed resources with electrical
power systems (IEEE 1547)
• Low-voltage switchgear and control
gear assemblies (IEC 61439-1 & 2)
• Safety of power connectors for use
in PV power systems (IEC 62109-1 &
2)
• Utility interconnected PV inverters –
test procedures for islanding
prevention measures (IEC 62116)
• Procedure for measuring efficiency
(IEC 61683)
• Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)
(IEC 61000-6-2 & 4)
• Safety requirements for power
electronic converter system and
equipment (IEC 62477)
• Characteristics of utility interface
(IEC 61727)
• BoS components for PV Systems
(IEC 62093)
• PV power generating systems – EMC
requirements and test methods for
power conversion equipment (IEC
62920)
• No relevant Indian standard that covers the design of plastics such as HDPE
• In case of plastic -based flotation device, factor of safety may be adopted using principles outlined in Plastic design manual by ASCE and ISO 2394
• Wind tunnel testing in an atmospheric boundary layer wind tunnel is recommended
• The standards available for plastics are not specific to design of flotation devices
• UV testing for a minimum of 2000 h is recommended, with the change in physical less than 5% of the initial value after test.
39. 39
Approach
Resource Assessment& Annual EnergyYieldEstimation
Solar Radiation Resource Assessment & Energy Yield
Estimation
Conversion to
typical Metrology
Year (TMY) data
format
Optimize
representative
database for energy
yield estimation
Intensity distribution
pattern of global &
diffuse irradiance
Assessment of solar
irradiance and
metrological data
Satellite Data
NASA SSE Data
Time Series Data
Meteonorm 7.2
PV Syst (Dynamic)
simulation
Site Characteristics
• Optimum tilt
• Site Azimuth
• Ambient Temp.
• Wind velocity
Solar Resource
Solar irradiance over
solar PV module under
selected design
approach
Results - Energy Yield , CUF , Performance Ratio
Energy Yield
Estimation
Define solar
PV module &
inverter
Define technical
losses (electrical,
system & optical)
Solar PV
system size
optimization
Parameters Resource Assessment
GHI NASA, Meteonorm 7.2
Meteorological data
(Wind speed,
Temperature)
NASA, Meteonorm 7.2
Yield Assessment
PV system capacity 600 MW AC
Modules Simulated Tier 1 - 445 Wp Mono-PERC module
Inverter Type Tier 1 - 2500 kVA Inverter
Orientation
Two scenarios for placement of panels has been
considered:
• Panels oriented Due South
• Panels oriented east-west
Angle of Inclination
Two Options with scenarios have been evaluated
• Due South: 10° (Scenarios: 8°,9°,11°and 12°)
• East-West: 10° (Scenarios: 8°,9°,11°and 12°)
DC:AC DC to AC ratio taken as 1:4 for PV Syst simulation
Losses
• Water Surface Albedo: Between 0.06-0.1
• Soiling Loss: 1.5% to 3%; LID:2%;
• Module Mismatch loss: 1.1%;
• Thermal loss factor: 0.4%
40. 40
Average Global Horizontal Irradiance(GH) – Omkareshwar Site
4.63
5.38
6.18
6.65 6.66
5.51
4.27
3.79
4.71
5.23
4.71
4.33
4.76
5.63
6.43
6.86 6.96
5.74
4.19 4.11
5.17
5.69
4.86
4.45
5.17
5.40
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
GHI (kWh/sq m/day) – NASA Data
Meteonorm Av - NASA Av - Meteonorm
• High solar irradiance, Average Annual GHI is in 1,870 – 1,971 kWh/sq m
- NASA data is satellite based monthly averaged daily data based gathered for 22 years on 100X100 spatial resolution: 1.71
(kWh/sq.m/day)
- Meteonorm data is interpolated on ground and satellite-based data which is available in monthly form for 29 years: 2
(kWh/sq.m/day)
42. 42
Temperature& windspeed
20.50
23.30
28.70
32.50 33.20
29.70
26.60 25.90 26.70 26.30
23.70
20.70
18.80
21.60
26.80
30.80
32.70
29.40
26.30 25.00 25.40 25.60
22.40
20.00
26.50
25.40
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Ambient Temperature (OC)
NASA Meteonorm Av - NASA Av - Meteonorm
3.15 3.40 3.32 3.35
3.77
4.14
3.63
3.33
2.67
2.08 2.19
2.65
2.50
2.90
3.50
4.10
5.50 5.70
5.40
4.50
3.30
2.20
1.80 2.00
3.14
3.60
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average Wind Speed (m/s)
NASA-at 10m Meteonorm at less than 10m Av - NASA Av - Meteonorm
• Annual average
ambient
temperature
range 25.40°C -
26.50°C
• Annual average
wind speed as per
NASA at 10 m
height is 3.14 m/s
and 3.60 m/s as
per Meteonorm
• Temperature and
wind speed feeds
in PV Syst for
energy yield
estimation
46. 46
Floating Solar Power Flow from the Park to the Off takers
Floating Solar
PV Park Site
220 kV Tx Lines STU/ CTU
Substation
Grid Connectivity
Power
Procurer
Power
Procurer
Power
Procurer
33 kV Tx Lines 33/ 220 kV
Substation
48. 48
Sub-station Location map
Omkareshwar FloatingSolar Project
Evacuation Plan for 600 MW
The power generated by proposed 6
packages will be evacuated through 33
kV lines/ cables to two 33/220 kV
substations.
• Substation 1: Saktapur (33/220
kV) for evacuating power from
packages D, E & F (300 MW)
• Evacuation Substation 2:
Chitramod (33/220 kV) for
evacuating power from packages A,
B & C (300 MW)
GPS (In Degrees Minutes Seconds)
Location GPS (N) GPS (E)
Saktapur 22011'34.5'' 76015'21.3''
Chitramod 22012'24.2'' 76006'27.5''
Saktapur
22011'34.5‘’
North
76015'21.3‘’
East
Chitramod
22012'24.2’’
North
76006'27.5‘’
East
49. 49
Evacuation Infrastructure: Overall Layoutof the FloatingSolar Parkat Omkareshwar
Unit B
Unit C
Unit D
Unit E
Unit A
Unit F
5 MW x 17 + 2.5MW x 6 AC Plots
5 MW x 18 + 2.5MW x 4 AC Plots
5 MW x 20 AC Plots
5 MW x 15 + 2.5MW x 10 AC Plots
5 MW x 20 AC Plots
5 MW x 20 AC Plots
33 kV
33 kV
33/220 kV
Chitramod
Substation
33/220 kV
Saktapur
Substation
220/400 kV Khandwa
Substation
ISTS Customer
(200 MW
equivalent
energy)
MPPMCL
(400 MW
equivalent
energy)
Solar Power Developers Jurisdiction
Solar Park Developers
Jurisdiction(RUMSL)
52. 52
RoadInfrastructure
Total of 2 Nos. sites have been identified for construction of 33/220KV Sub-Stations
33/220 KV Sub-Stations
Saktapur Site
• To evacuate power from Units D,E and F.
• Single lane road already exists, road infrastructure will be
widened and strengthened by RUMSL
Chitramod Site
• To evacuate power from Units A,B and C.
• Single lane road already exists, road infrastructure
will be widened and strengthened by RUMSL
53. 53
RoadInfrastructure
Total of 4 sites (Gunjari, Bilaya, Indhawadi & Saktapur) have been identified for assembly and launching of solar modules.
A. Gunjari
• To assemble floaters and solar PV modules for Unit A.
• Road to be constructed from nearest village to the
assembly/ launch site.
B. Bilaya
• To assemble floaters and solar PV modules from Units
B,C, and F.
• Single lane road already exists, road infrastructure
will be widened and strengthened by RUMSL
Assembly Areas and launch sites
54. 54
RoadInfrastructure
C. Indhawadi
• To assemble floaters and solar PV modules for Unit D.
• Single lane road already exists, road infrastructure will be
widened and strengthened by RUMSL
D. Saktapur
• To assemble floaters and solar PV modules from Units D.
• Single lane road already exists, road infrastructure will be
widened and strengthened by RUMSL
Assembly Areas and launch sites
56. 56
FSPV Project
Developer
Site Specific
Project Off Taker
• NHDC
• NVDA
Developer
RUMSL
• MPPTCL
• PGCIL
Park Operator
Evacuation
• Government of
Madhya Pradesh
• MOP/ MNRE
EPC
Financing
Institution
• MPERC
• CERC
Regulatory
Policy
• MPPMCL
• Inter-state Off
taker (s)
Power Purchase
Agreement (PPA)
Implementation Service and
Connectivity Agreements
Connectivity
Agreement
Coordination Agreement
Upfront and Operating (incl
Lease) charges
Tariff
CTU/ STU Tariff
Lease Charges
Commercial Arrangements
Transaction Structure ……1
Coordination/ Approvals
Commercial Arrangement
Payment
Coordination
Agreement
Lease
Agreement
57. 57
Key Contracts
PPA Main WUPA/ LUPA Unit WUPA/ LUPA ISA
SPD
(Project developer)
Power procurer
(MPPMCL & ….. )
• Unit-wise PPAs
• Each procurer to
have separate PPA
GoMP
(NVDA, NRE Dept)
SPPD
(RUMSL)
SPPD
(RUMSL)
SPD
(Project Developer)
• Unit-wise LUPA
• Each Unit LUPA to
have above three
parties
SPDs
(Project developers)
Power procurers
(MPPMCL & …..)
• Park wise CA amongst
above parties
• Meant for proper
coordination from PPA
signing to project life on
all techno-commercial
matters
SPPD
(RUMSL)
SPD
(Project developer)
CA
SPPD
(RUMSL)
• Unit-wise ISA
• Primarily to deal with
evacuation
infrastructure related
issue
• Park-wise main
WUPA/ LUPA
• RTU / access is
provided to SPPD
(RUMSL) from
Revenue Dept.,
through NVDA, NRE
Dept., GoMP
WUPA: water use permission agreement LUPA: land use permission agreement; ISA: implementation support agreement;
CA: coordination agreement
Transaction Structure ……2
SPPD
(RUMSL)
GoMP
(NVDA, NRE Dept)
58. 58
Roles& responsibilities of SolarPower Park Developer (SPPD) & Solar Project
Developer (SPD)
Essential Responsibilities
• Providing necessary land and water bodies for project
• Developing approach road, water and drainage etc.
• Developing internal infrastructure system, including power evacuation system
• Identify procurers and develop necessary Project Agreements
Responsibilities of SPPD
Essential Responsibilities
• Erection, Procurement and Commissioning of project
• To maintain environment and social safeguards
• Right of Access to SPPD
• Connect to the evacuation infrastructure developed by SPPD
• Insurance of the project and related structure
• To maintain necessary approval for creating and maintaining project
Responsibilities of SPD
59. 59
(Bid Process timelines)
Key Timelines
Sl. Activity Date Remarks
1 Release of Draft RFP, IM and preliminary data (Data Room) 2nd Nov. 2021 Bidders shall have access to RFP and
information in data room after online
registration
2 Facilitated Site Visit (1 day) 16th Nov. 2021 Site visit to be arranged by RUMSL
3 1st Pre-bid Meeting 22nd Nov. 2021 Pre-bid meeting (Virtual / @Bhopal)
Last date of query submission by Bidders on RFP* 25th Nov. 2021
4 Issuance of revised RFP and draft Project Agreements 3rd Dec. 2021 To be uploaded in Data Room
5 2nd Pre-bid Meeting 20th Dec. 2021 Pre-bid meeting (Virtual / @Bhopal)
Last date for query submission by Bidders on Project
Agreements
22nd Dec. 2021
6 Issuance of Preliminary Envt. Screening Report 30th Dec. 2021 To be uploaded in Data Room
7 Issuance of final RFP and Project Agreements 30th Dec. 2021 All information including Draft ESIA Report
8 Issuance of Final ESIA Report 25th Jan 2022 To be uploaded in Data Room
9 Submission of Bids 31st Jan 2022 Online Technical and Financial Bid submission
10 Opening of Technical Bids 1st Feb. 2022 Virtual Opening
11 Evaluation of Technical Bids 15th Feb. 2022 Including clarifications from Bidders
12 Evaluation of Financial Bids (for technically qualified Bidders) 20th Feb. 2022 After presentation to Bid Evaluation Committee
13 Reverse Auction & Selection of Successful Bidder for respective
Package
25th Feb. 2022 To be informed to the Selected Bidders
separately
14 Signing of PPA and Project Agreements 1st March 2022 To be informed to the Selected Bidders
separately
