See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284284812

Design and erection of the 6 bottom outlets of Cerro del Águila dam for flood
routing during construction and future sediment flushing

Conference Paper · October 2015

CITATIONS READS
0 889

1 author:

Selim M. Sayah
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
37 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cerro Del Águila hydro Plant View project

HPP Cerro del Águila View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Selim M. Sayah on 21 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design and erection of the 6 bottom outlets of Cerro del
Águila dam for flood routing during construction and future
sediment flushing

S. M. Sayah, S. Calvo S. Bonanni, A. Fenelli

Lombardi Eng. Ltd. Astaldi S.p.A.
Via R. Simen 19 Via G.V.Bona 65
6648 Minusio 00156 Roma
Switzerland Italy

Introduction
Cerro del Águila project in Peru represents the final step of the Mantaro River major hydropower scheme cascade
development. This 510 MW hydropower scheme, presently under construction, will include an 88 m high and 270 m
long RCC gravity dam equipped with 6 mobile gates providing a total capacity of the surface spillway of around
7’000 m3/s. The additional bottom outlets increase the maximum total capacity to 12’000 m3/s.
During the initial design study, several scenarios were considered with the construction company concerning the best
and most economical design for river diversion. Moreover, the owner highlighted the need to provide adequate
solution for easy and rapid sediment flushing capacity of the dam knowing that the river can yield annually more
than 3.5 Mm3 of sediment. The deposited sediments should be flushed periodically knowing that the reservoir dead
volume is less than 0.6 Mm3. Taking into consideration the above mentioned two constraints the first related to
economic aspects and the other concerns technical issues, the designer, Lombardi SA, proposed to equip the six
central blocks of the dam with large bottom outlets. Each of the six devices is 4.6 m wide, 6.0 m high at the inlet
with a wider section of 6.0x9.2 m (WxH) after the slide gates. Additionally, each bottom outlet is equipped with
specially designed two slide gates in the smaller section. Considering the need for adequate lining to prevent surface
erosion during the future frequent annual flushing, a complete steel liner was adopted.
The capacity of the bottom outlets was selected based on two main criteria: 1/ Since the cofferdam level and its
subsequent diversion tunnel were designed based on a flood return period of less than one year, the bottom outlets
should be able to operate even during the construction of the dam and route strong floods; 2/ Additionally, during
future flushing process and in order to optimize the sediment transport capacity, the flow in the bottom outlet should
be a free surface flow. Presently the six bottom outlets are almost accomplished and they were able to route several
floods during the construction of the dam thus avoiding delays. In the present paper, a detailed explanation of the
design of this special scheme is provided, highlighting some major key components, and an overview of the present
bottom outlet erection works is presented.

1. Highlights regarding the bottom outlet design

The main characteristics of Cerro del Águila bottom outlets (Figs. 1 and 2) are as follow:
a) The bottom outlet capacity is more than 40% of the total discharge capacity of the dam: it reaches 4’560 m³/s
out on a total of 12’000 m³/s. This high capacity has been designed in order to manage properly the sediment
flushing. The contribution of the bottom outlets to the total discharge has consequently allowed keeping the
surface spillway gates more compact.
b) The elevation of the bottom outlet has been investigated and chosen in order to avoid plugging of the tunnel
during sediment flushing; different elevations have been considered and tested on the physical model, in order to
find the most suitable configuration. The final elevation of the bottom outlet sill has been set at 1’495.00 m asl,
i.e. 65 m below the max retention level of 1’560.00 m asl during a PMF and 23 m above the dam foundation.
c) The gate typology has also been considered in order to choose the most suitable for the actual conditions. Radial
gates and sliding gates have been taken into account, but preference was given to the sliding gates. While the
former need a big volume inside the dam body, the latter are more compact and easier to install. Moreover, the
 considerations regarding the dam stability played a notable role in favour of the sliding gates (fewer voids). It
has to be evidenced that this kind of gate has found to be suitable for use in high-head bottom outlet for control
of discharge and prevention of silting [1]. In fact, high friction coefficients between the gate and its sliding
trucks, together with properly designed details in hydraulic control system, allow a great stability of the gate also
during partial openings, avoiding vibrations and pulsation.
d) Due to the importance played by sediment management, a particular device was designed. In fact, deposited
sediments might block the entrance of the bottom outlets. Thus, when the gates open, a vacuum can be formed
downstream of the sediments and upstream of the gates. It was deemed important to avoid the vacuum formation
by the installation of special vents/syphon (hydraulic in this case) that can introduce water in this section and
thus flush the consolidated sediments (see Chapter 3.4).

Fig. 1. Downstream view of the six bottom outlets of Cerro del Águila Dam during construction (February 2015).

Fig. 2. Typical section of the bottom outlet of Cerro del Águila Dam.
2. Optimization of river diversion
In this section on overview of the general concept of the river diversion is provided. An initial study showed that in
order to construct a river diversion scheme that is capable of diverting floods with return period up to Tr=20 years
two long diversion tunnels will be needed (the first tunnel around 350 m long and the other parallel tunnel is 600 m
long) with a cofferdam of around 50 m height. This alternative was disregarded to the benefit of a less costly scheme
with one single tunnel capable of diverting floods with less than one year return period, combined with the flood
routing of the bottom outlets.

2.1 Hydrology of the dam site

In Fig. 3 are given the daily flow discharge and the flood statistics as a function of the return periods based the
existing measurements station at Pongor Station related to related to 47 years of daily flow data (1962-2008).
Based on the monthly peak flow analysis, the maximum flood intensity to be diverted or partially routed through the
bottom outlets amounts to around 1’800 m3/s. The statistical analysis shows that said values corresponds to a return
period equal to approx. Tr=3 years, while to peak flood intensity corresponding to the typical return period of
Tr=20 years is 3’500 m3/s.

Fig. 3. Hydrology at Cerro de Águila dam site of Mantaro River: (left) monthly flow values; (right) return periods.

2.2 Insufficient capacity of the diversion scheme

The graphic in Fig. 4 indicates that in order to reach the capacity related to return period of around Tr=20 years using
one single diversion tunnel (Section around 100 m2) the cofferdam should be around 50 m high which is considered
unjustified economically and practically wise. A decision was taken thus to fix the cofferdam height at around 15 m
which will correspond to a diversion scheme with a discharge capacity equal to approx. 715 m3/s which corresponds
to a return period less than one year. Therefore, it was expected to have several inundation of the dam site during the
rainy season. Theses floods will be routed using the bottom outlets of the dam.

Fig. 4. River diversion design: (left) capacity of the diversion tunnel; (right) Inlet structure during operation.
2.3 Routing through the bottom outlets
The flood routing capacity of the bottom outlets during the construction of the dam was investigated based on
numerical, analytical, and physical model. It was demonstrated that the bottom outlets should operate with free
surface flow (see Chapter 3.1). Only four bottom outlets were selected for flood routing during the rainy season. The
other two will plugged in order to carry out the steel lining. As given in Fig. 5, the discharge capacity with free
surface flow of the 4 bottom outlets is equal to approx. 1’500 m3/s. The latter value combined with the discharge
capacity of the diversion for equal water elevation (~1510 m asl) a total discharge for flood routing culminates at
approx. 3’000 m3/s. This value is considered acceptable.

3. Bottom outlet design

3.1 Discharge capacity
The Cerro del Águila bottom outlet is composed by six conduits, integrated in the dam body. Their sill is located at
the elevation of 1495.00 m asl and they are controlled each by two slide gates. The dimension of the first 15 m long
stretch, between intake and gate, is B×a=4.60 × 6.00 m while the second section is 25 m long and larger (6.00 x 7.50
m). The discharge capacity of the bottom outlet is described by following classical relationships:

. . . . 2 . – free surface flow for lower head

. . . . 2 . ∆ – pressurized discharge, for higher heads

where:
 n [-]: number of conduits;
 Cd [-]: flow coefficient, variable depending on hydraulic head and gate opening (free surface: Cd ~ 0.48);
 a [m]: gate height (6.00 m);
 B [m]: gate width (4.60 m);
 H [m]: hydraulic head of the reservoir, expressed from the gate’s horizontal axis (1498.00 m asl);
 ΔH [m]: head losses from intake to gate;
 g: acceleration of gravity (g = 9.81 m/s2)
The head losses ΔH are mainly determined by the intake head losses, the wall friction along the conduit and the local
losses in correspondence of the gate. The global head loss in correspondence of the gate chamber results:

∆ 0.4. 0.4. /1354

2 . 2 . .

where S is the gate cross section.

Fig. 5. Hydraulic discharge capacity of 2 Bottom outlets as a function of gate opening and retention level – Numerical (curves)
and model test results (red dots).

On the basis of the previous considerations, the comprehensive hydraulic capacity QB of the six bottom outlets is
computed by the following equation:
 2 . .
. . . .
1 0.4. .

Fig. 5 shows the relationship between head, gate opening and bottom outlet discharge. The maximal hydraulic
capacity of 4’560 m³/s is gained at the maximum retention level of 1560.00 m asl.

3.2 Aeration requirements

Due to the reservoir depth, the conduits maximal flow velocity can reach values of more than 30 m/s. Downstream of
the bottom outlet gates, the transition from pressurized flow to free surface flow takes place. Air entrainment must be
granted in order to ensure a successfully transition, avoiding cavitation damages of the structures and vibration of the
gates. Current experience suggests excluding an air entrainment from the downstream conduit: the flow can choke
the outlet and stop the air inflow; this kind of flow aeration can occur only for small discharges. The air sources are
consequently placed immediately downstream the gates. The air intakes are placed on the downstream dam slope, the
conduits descend vertically through the dam body down to the gate caverns.

The aeration conduits are designed considering the resulting air entrainment and a maximal permitted air velocity of
about 50 m/s. The bottom outlet design procedure requires knowing how much air is needed by the flow and has to
be entrained to the system. The air demand β is defined as the fraction of air entrainment Qa and the water flow Qw:

A water-air mixed flow arises through the water intake, whose depth is considerably greater than the one from pure
water flow. Different phenomena such as turbulences, standing waves and rising water level after aeration can occur.
Many studies have been conducted in order to find empirical laws describing the air demand β.
They distinguish free surface flow from spray flow and choked flow (Table 1).

Free surface flow Spray flow Choked flow

Air demand Conditions Air demand Conditions Air demand Source

12%≤ aeff ≤100% aeff ≤ 0.06 Rabben (1984), cited

β=0.94·(A*a/Au)0.9· Fc0.62 β = (A*a/Au) · Fc0.62 β=0.019·(A*a/Au)0.099· Fc0.969
Fc ≤ 40 Fc > 20 in 4

Sharma (1976; ref.

β = 0.09·Fc aeff > 15% β = 0.20·Fc aeff ≤ 15%
5)

β = 0.0024·(Fc - 1)1.4 β=0.0033·(Fc-1)1.4 Wisner, cited in 4

USACE (1987; ref.

β = 0.03·(Fc - 1)1.06 (general aeration relationship)
3)
Campbell et al.,
β = 0.04·(Fc - 1)0.85 (general aeration relationship)
cited in 2

β = 0.05·(Fc0.5 - 1) (general aeration relationship) Levin, cited in 2

Table 1. Review of the literature formulas describing the air demand of bottom outlet conduits.

In Table 1 the symbols read as follows:

 Fc [-]: Froude number (Fc= [(2H/(cc a)]½).
*
 A a [m²]: inner surface of the air conduit.
 Au [m²]: inner surface of the bottom outlet conduit past the gates.
 aeff [%]: gate opening.

In Fig. 6 it is given the relationship between air demand β and Froude number Fc.
 100.00

10.00
Qa/Qw [-]

1.00

0.10

0.01
1 10 100
Frc [-]
Fig. 6. Bottom outlet aeration - relationship between air demand β = Qa/Qw and the Froude number Fc.

A minimal Fc of 5.1 results for the biggest flow (1’200 m³/s) at full open gate, while the largest Fc (58.2) is observed
at the small openings of the gate and for 6 m³/s. The minimal estimation of air demand β is given by Levin and
ranges between 0.05 and 0.12. The maximal air demand β results from Sharma and correspondent values are in a
range from 0.46 to 10.2.

Fig. 7 presents the relationship between water flow in the conduit and resulting air demand according to the different
theories. The minimal air demand, according to Levin, varies between 2 and 80 m³/s, while the maximal one
(according to Sharma) varies between 70 and more than 500 m³/s.

Fig. 7. : Bottom outlet aeration - Relationship between water flow and air intake.

As evidenced in Fig. 8, the air demand values predicted by USACE relationships can be regarded as an average of
high and low values. The maximal air demand Qa,max corresponds to about the 15% of maximal water flow Qw,max
and is about 165 m³/s. With a maximum allowed air velocity va of 50 m/s, the calculated conduit area is 165/50=3.3
m². Taking into account a safety factor of 1.5, the air conduit will need an inner surface of 5.0 m².
 Fig. 8. Bottom outlet aeration – Relationship between the fraction of adsorbed air in respect to the water flow and the bottom
outlet capacity.

3.3 Intake geometry

The intake geometry is important in order to:
 maintain a positive pressure;
 avoid cavitation;
 keep total head losses low, increasing progressively along the water path;
 minimize the dimensions to keep gates small.
The intake is constituted by a stretch of rectangular cross-section, with diminishing height and width along the flow
direction. The transition curves are elliptic and join vertically the intake structure and horizontally the conduit. The
contraction is realized on the 4 sides of the conduit and is described by the following function (ref. 2):

(X - 1)² + (3Y + 1)² = 1

where X=x/a or X=x/b depend on the considered section. The transition curves origins (X,Y)=(0,0) are located
across the elongation of the conduit.

3.4 Syphon
The syphon placed in front of the bottom outlet entrances is intended to start the cleaning of the inlet, when clogged
by sediments. If the sediments are stiff, when the control gate opens, there is the risk of vacuum formation
downstream of the sediment cone, if no water supply is provided. This is precisely the scope of this syphon.

Fig. 9. Bottom outlet – Syphon - Schematic of operation.

Moreover, if the syphon outlet is oriented upstream, the water jet streaming out of the pipe (around 34 m/s, with
normal operating level of 1556.00 m asl) will hit the sediment cone, causing its erosion and the flushing of the
bottom outlet entrance. A basic operating sketch is represented in Fig. 9 [7][8].
4. Steel lining and gates
4.1 Steel lining
The bottom outlet conduit is steel lined, in order to avoid erosion the concrete structures due to high velocities of the
flow discharges. Upstream of the gates, the steel lining is placed on all the wet surfaces, while, downstream of the
gates, the lining is placed only on the bottom and on the side walls.
Dimensioning of the steel lining typically has to face the loads due to the following service conditions:
 construction;
 internal pressure;
 external pressure.
During construction, the self-weight of the lining has to be taken into account, for all the construction phases
(shipping, handling, storing and erecting); external pressure are also to be considered during construction phase,
caused both by wet concrete during pour phase and due to grouting operation, which are performed in order to fill all
possible gaps and voids between the steel and the concrete structures. Internal pressure arises from head caused by
reservoir level. External pressures arise during emptying operations of the reservoir. In such a case, water infiltrated
in the space between concrete and steel, in which permeability is very low, may still have a positive pressure that
will act from external to internal faces of the lining, considering the conduit is empty.

Bottom outlet steel lining is realized by means of steel plates ASTM A 572 Gr. 50, which characteristics are:
 Tensile stress = 450 MPa
 Yield stress = 345 MPa
The lining design is based on the theory of plates and shells by Timoshenko (formulas and coefficients can be found
in DIN 19704 standard, ref. 6), in order to determine the steel plate thickness to withstand both internal and external
pressure (σ). The formula taken into consideration reads as follows:
. . . /
100
where:
 k [-]: coefficient, depending on b/a ratio, point to be checked and type edges constraints
 P [MPa]: design pressure (P=0.6 MPa for upstream part; P= 0.09 MPa for downstream part)
 a, b [mm]: dimensions of the panel (a=b=480 mm for upstream part; a=b=1000 mm)
 tc [mm]: plate calculation thickness, taking into account corrosion (tc = 20 - 2 = 18 mm)

For the upstream part of the lining, resulting stress at the panel borders σ3x = σ4x = 213.3 MPa, less than allowable
stress (230 MPa). Stress in longitudinal direction is σ3y = σ4y = 0.3×σ3x = 64.0 MPa. Equivalent stress (according to
Hencky-von Mises formula) is σ3eq = 251.5 MPa, less than allowable (according to DIN 19704, AL case, 1.125 · 230
= 258 MPa). For the downstream part, the stresses are: σ3x = 139 MPa, σ3y = 42.0 MPa. Equivalent stress (according
to Hencky-von Mises formula) is 251.5 MPa, less than allowable (258 MPa).

The maximum panel dimensions which can withstand the pressures give information also on the maximum spacing
of the stiffeners (480 mm). Stiffeners resistance has also been checked taking into account also the collaboration with
surrounding concrete.

4.2 Gates
The structure of the gates (panels and reinforcing beams) is calculated according DIN 19704. The load case more
demanding is the AL case (Exceptional case, according to DIN 19704), in which also seismic actions are considered.
Water load on gate sill is 83.7 m water column, of which 65 m due to the maximum retention level of the reservoir
and 18.7 m for seismic load.
The reinforcing beam, together with the related piece of skin plate which cooperates for the resistance, is calculated
as a simply supported beam.
Momentum and shear force, together with max values (respectively at midspan and at sides) are:

M(x) = p.x/2.(L - x) Mmax = p.L²/8

T(x) = p.(L/2 - x) Tmax = p.L/2
where:
 p [N/m]: water load acting on the strip between surrounding beams (631.4 N/mm);
 L [m]: gate design span (between the axis of the sliding tracks, 4960 mm).
Water load is calculated for each beam according to the scheme of Fig. 10.

Fig. 10. Bottom outlet gate: scheme for pressure load determination on each beam (units in mm).

Stresses are calculated taking into account the resistance modulus of the composed beam, as per the following Fig
11. where:
 L1 [mm]: length of skin plate cooperating with the reinforcing beam (770 mm)
 H1 [mm]: thickness of skin plate, detracted corrosion allowance (32-2 = 30 mm)
 L2 [mm]: reinforcing beam web, detracted corrosion allowance (20-2 = 18 mm)
 H2 [mm]: height of reinforcing beam web (650 mm)
 L3 [mm]: length of reinforcing beam flange (350 mm)
 H3 [mm]: thickness of reinforcing beam flange, detracted corrosion allowance (30-2=28 mm)

Fig. 11. Bottom outlet gate – Scheme for determination of static characteristic of the beam.

Static characteristics of the section are as follows, for the typical beam:
 W1 [mm³]: resistance modulus (skin plate side) = 14.8E6
 W2 [mm³]: resistance modulus (beam flange side) = 8.25E6
 E1 [mm]: distance between neutral axis and skin plate = 253.4
 E2 [mm]: distance between neutral axis and beam flange = 454.6

The unitary load acting on the beam is 0.6314 N/m, momentum at midspan is pL²/8 = 1940 kN.m, therefore stress at
skin plate is 1.94E9/14.8E6 = 131.1 MPa, while at beam flange is 1.94E9/8.25E6 = 235.2 MPa.
Skin plate and reinforcing beam are made from S355 steel, which characteristics are:
 Tensile stress = 470 MPa
 Yield stress = 345 MPa (16 ≤ t ≤ 40 mm)

Allowable stress for AL case, according to DIN 19704, is 302 MPa.

The skin plate panel is calculated by means of Timosheko equations, applied to a plate confined between the webs of
two reinforcing beams and the vertical stiffeners, with the same scheme already used to check the steel lining.
Performing the same calculation as done for the lining panels, keeping into account different geometrical dimension
of the panel (a=745 mm, b=1040 mm, t=30 mm), the resulting stresses are:
 σ3x = ± 243.1 MPa, σ3y = ± 72.8 MPa
 σ4x = ± 185.3 MPa, σ4y = ± 55.6 MPa

It is to be mentioned that, when calculating the equivalent stress, also the stresses coming from the beam action are
to be considered. In fact, part of the skin plate cooperates with the reinforcing beam, thus it is loaded consequently.
When verifying the skin plate by Timoshenko equation, the constraints surrounding plate are considered in unloaded
condition, while here the constraints are located on the beam that is deflected under the load.
In this case, stress coming from beam analysis acts in the “y” direction, therefore the stresses in this direction are
modified as follows:
 σ3y = 72.8 + 131.1 = 203.9 MPa
 σ4y = 55.6 + 131.1 = 186.7 MPa

Equivalent stresses at the edges are therefore, at points 3 and 4, 226 MPa and 186 MPa, less than allowable (310
MPa according to DIN 19704, AL case).

4.3 Gate bonnet

Gates bonnets are made by steel structures; their design is mainly based on the same concepts already explained for
gates. Since the section of the bonnets is squared, a check has also to be performed for tensions due to bending
moments at the corners and in the midspan between corners, both in the longer and in the shorter sides.

5. Erection of the bottom outlets

5.1 Civil works
The entire section of the dam body between elevation ~1493 and ~1505 m asl was concreted using conventional
vibrated concrete instead of rolled compacted concrete since the bottom outlet width is almost 2/3 of a single dam
block width. In Fig. 12 (right) is illustrated the concreting work of the bottom outlets dam section. Fig. 12 (left)
depicts the cover of the roof of the bottom outlet using prefabricated beams 9 m long. The site being equipped with a
Blondin, the installation of the prefabricated beam was carried out easily avoided delays.

Fig. 12. Civil works of the 6 bottom outlets: (right) placement of the concrete section; (left) installation of the prefabricated
beams at the crown of the bottom outlet.

Fig. 13 shows the aeration of the bottom outlet. They are all connected through concrete conducts built inside the
dam body to the gate chamber.
 Fig. 13. (right) gate chamber depicting the slots left in the first phase concrete to anchor the slide gates and the bottom outlets
aerations vent inlets in the side wall; (left) a view from the inside of the bottom outlet showing the lower flow aeration vents.

5.2 Erection of hydro-mechanical works

The erection of the steel liner of the bottom outlet is illustrated in Fig. 14. All the liner section where transported
using the Blondin. The main channel section was equipped with rails where the liner was introduced from the
downstream side of the bottom outlet and transported upstream using special carrier fixed on the rails. The heavy
gates where transported in several pieces and installed inside the bottom outlet using the travelling crane of the gate
chamber.

Fig. 14. Erection of the steel liner of the bottom outlets: (right) upstream inlet-in this picture the syphon in the crown can be seen;
(left) liner of the main downstream channel.

5.3 Flood routing through 4 bottom outlets

During the construction of the dam body only one rainy season occurred during which several floods that overtopped
the cofferdam took place. The remaining flow that was not diverted through the diversion tunnel was routed through
the 4 bottom outlet left of purpose open to avoid inundation of the dam site while the remaining two outlets (on the
right-hand side) where plugged. The strongest flood occurred in February 2015 amounted to an intensity of around
1’900 m3/s. Around the half of this flow was routed through the bottom outlets (Fig. 15.)
 Fig. 15. Flood routing through 4 bottom outlets during the construction of the dam (February 2015).

References
1. Erbisti, P., “Design of hydraulic gates”, Balkema Pub., 2004
2. Hager, W.H., et al.., “Constructions hydrauliques - Écoulements stationnaires” Traité de Génie Civil, Volume 15, 2009.
3. USACE, “Air demand - Regulated outlet works”, Hydraulic Design Criteria, 1987
4. Speerli,J. ,Hager,W., “Air-water flow in bottom outlets”, Can. J. Civ. Eng., n. 27, 2000
5. Sharma, H.R., “Air entrainment in high head gated conduits”, J. of Hydraulic Division, ASCE, vol. 102, n. 11, 1976.
6. DIN 19704, “Hydraulic steel structure”, 1976, 1998
7. Krumdieck, A., et al, “Sediment flushing at the Santo Domingo reservoir” Water Power and Dam Construction, Dec. 1979.
8. Vischer, D., “Probleme im Stauraum und flussabwaerts der Talsperre”, Talsperrenhydraulik, Teil C, ETHZ, 1981

The Authors
Selim M. Sayah accomplished his Master Degree at the Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland, and
obtained later in 2005 from the same school his Ph.D. in hydraulics at the Laboratory of Hydraulic Constructions. At present he
works as a chief design engineer at Lombardi Engineering Ltd., Department of Hydraulic Structures. His main activities are
associated with international hydropower projects with focus on hydraulic design and underground works. Currently he assumes
the role of lead design engineer and project manager of the Cerro del Águila HPP.

Stefano Calvo accomplished his Master Degree at Politecnico di Milano, Milano, in 1993, and started working from the very
beginning in hydro and electromechanical fields (gates, penstocks, turbines and related equipment). At present he’s working as a
chief design engineer at Lombardi Engineering Ltd., Department of Hydraulic Structures. His main activities are focused on
hydro-mechanical and electromechanical design of the equipment installed in hydropower schemes.

Sante Bonanni obtained his degree in hydraulic engineering at the University of Rome. At present he works as a chief design
engineer and expert in hydraulic works at Astaldi S.p.A., Engineering and Design Department. He is responsible for the design of
hydroelectric power plant worldwide with particular reference to dams. He supervised the design of the Cerro del Águila since the
initial tendering until the final draft with the designer Lombardi.

Alessandro Fenelli obtained his degree in civil engineering at the University of Pisa. At the present, he covers the role of Head of
the Energy and Electro-Mechanical System Department of Astaldi S.p.A. The Department mainly deals with electromechanical
issues of power generation projects, with particular care to renewable sources, and follows the overall phases of the projects :
feasibility study, design, procurement, execution, expediting, commissioning, and final acceptance activities. He supervised the
E&M design of the Cerro del Águila since the initial tendering until the final draft.

View publication stats