C - 9 Design Features - R0 - Revised Design Chapter

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti PSP .
CHAPTER - 9
DESIGN FEATURES OF MAJOR COMPONENTS
DOCUMENT RECORD
Project Name Saundatti Pumped Storage Project
Name of Client Greenko MP01 IREP Private Limited
Doc No AA/POWER/2209/DPR/VOL I - Chapter 9
Doc Title Design Features of Major Components
Rev No Date of Issue Description
R1 25-01-2022 Design Features of Major Components
(Chapter-9; Volume-I of DPR)
R0 14-10-2021 Design Features of Major Components
(Chapter-9; Volume-I of DPR)
Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 1

Table of Contents
CHAPTER - 9 DESIGN FEATURES OF MAJOR COMPONENTS.....................................................................................1
9.1 General................................................................................................................................................................................1
9.2 Alternative Studies.........................................................................................................................................................2
9.3 Geological & Geotechnical Appraisal.......................................................................................................................2
9.3.1 Reservoirs:...............................................................................................................................................................2
9.4 Head Works.......................................................................................................................................................................3
9.4.1 Site Selection for Reservoirs.............................................................................................................................3
9.4.2 Alternatives for Type of Dam............................................................................................................................4
9.4.2.1 Roller-Compacted Concrete Dam (RCC Dam)...................................................................................4
9.4.2.2 Asphalt Faced Rock :ill Dam (AFRD)....................................................................................................4
9.4.2.3 Rock :ill Dam..................................................................................................................................................5
9.4.2.4 Optimization of dam...................................................................................................................................6
9.5 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LAYOUTS...........................................................................................................................7
9.5.1 Alternative-1...........................................................................................................................................................8
9.5.1.1 Geological & Geotechnical Appraisal:..................................................................................................9
9.5.1.2 Advantages of Alternative – 1...............................................................................................................10
9.5.1.3 Disadvantages of Alternative – 1.........................................................................................................11
9.5.2 Alternative-2.........................................................................................................................................................11
9.5.2.1 Geological & Geotechnical Appraisal.................................................................................................12
9.5.2.2 Advantages of Alternative – 2...............................................................................................................12
9.5.2.3 Disadvantages of Alternative – 2.........................................................................................................12
9.5.3 Comparison of the Alternative I & II...........................................................................................................13
9.5.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................13
9.5.5 Seismicity...............................................................................................................................................................14
9.6 Saundatti Rock:ill Embankment (Upper Reservoir).......................................................................................14
9.6.1 General....................................................................................................................................................................14
9.6.2 Rock:ill Dam..........................................................................................................................................................15
9.6.3 Stability Analysis of Rock:ill dam.................................................................................................................15
9.6.4 Free Board.............................................................................................................................................................17
9.6.5 Bottom Outlet.......................................................................................................................................................17
9.6.6 Upper Reservoir Main Technical Parameters..........................................................................................18
9.7 Intake Structure............................................................................................................................................................19

9.7.1 Hydraulic Design.................................................................................................................................................20
9.7.2 Slope Support Design........................................................................................................................................21
9.8 Hydraulic Design...........................................................................................................................................................21
9.8.1 Hydraulic Data.....................................................................................................................................................21
9.8.2 Hydraulic Loss......................................................................................................................................................21
9.8.2.1 Major Losses...............................................................................................................................................21
9.8.2.2 Minor Losses...............................................................................................................................................22
9.8.2.3 Trash Rack Losses.....................................................................................................................................22
9.8.2.4 Entrance Losses.........................................................................................................................................22
9.8.2.5 Loss in the Gate Groove..........................................................................................................................22
9.8.2.6 Bend Losses.................................................................................................................................................23
9.8.2.7 Transition Losses......................................................................................................................................23
9.8.2.8 Loss through Valves................................................................................................................................24
9.9 Transient Analysis........................................................................................................................................................27
9.9.1 Turbine/Generation Mode..............................................................................................................................28
9.9.2 Pumping Mode.....................................................................................................................................................28
9.9.3 Water Hammer Results....................................................................................................................................29
9.10 Water Conductor System........................................................................................................................................32
9.10.1 General.................................................................................................................................................................32
9.10.2 Economic Diameter of Pressure Shaft.....................................................................................................32
9.10.3 Rock Support & Grouting Details of water conductor system........................................................35
9.10.3.1 Top Inclined Pressure Shaft...............................................................................................................35
9.10.3.2 Vertical Pressure Shaft.........................................................................................................................39
9.10.3.3 Bottom Horizontal Pressure shaft...................................................................................................39
9.10.4 Penstock Bifurcation.......................................................................................................................................48
9.10.5 Steel Liner of Water Conductor System...................................................................................................49
9.11 Power House................................................................................................................................................................50
9.11.1 General.................................................................................................................................................................50
9.11.2 General design of the power house...........................................................................................................51
9.11.2.1 Selection of site and general layout.................................................................................................51
9.11.2.2 Layout and main dimensions.............................................................................................................52
9.11.3 Structural design of the powerhouse.......................................................................................................54
9.11.3.1 General considerations........................................................................................................................54
9.11.3.2 Material properties................................................................................................................................54
9.11.3.3 Loadings Unit weights..........................................................................................................................54

9.11.3.4 Method of design....................................................................................................................................57
9.12 Stability of cut slopes...............................................................................................................................................58
9.12.1 Cut slope details...............................................................................................................................................58
9.13 Tail Race Tunnel.........................................................................................................................................................77
9.14 Outlet Structure..........................................................................................................................................................85
9.14.1 Hydraulic Design..............................................................................................................................................85
9.14.2 Tail Pool and Tail Race Channel.................................................................................................................86
9.15 STORM WATER DRAINS.........................................................................................................................................87
9.16 DESIGN OF HYDROMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT............................................................................................87
9.16.1 GENERAL.............................................................................................................................................................87
9.16.2 Intake Trash Racks..........................................................................................................................................87
9.16.3 Intake Maintenance Gates............................................................................................................................88
9.16.4 Intake Service Gates........................................................................................................................................88
9.16.5 Outlet Service Gates........................................................................................................................................89
9.16.6 Outlet Stoplog Gates........................................................................................................................................90
9.16.7 Outlet Trash Racks...........................................................................................................................................90
9.16.8 Instrumentation And Control System......................................................................................................91
Table of Figures
Figure 9.1: Diagram Showing Energy Elevations along Water Conductor System during Shutoff of
Generation & Pumping Mode along WCS of Large Unit..............................................................................................31
Figure 9.2: Curve Showing Diameter vs Cost of Tunnel for Selection of Economic Diameter....................35
Index of Tables
Table 9.1: Salient Features of Proposed Upper Reservoir............................................................................................6
Table 9.2: Comparison of the Salient Features of Alternatives- 1 and 2...............................................................13
Table 9.3: Minimum Target FOS Values.............................................................................................................................15
Table 9.4: Upper Reservoir - Summary of the results of stability analysis..........................................................16
Table 9.5: Key parameters of the proposed Upper Reservoir & Upper Dam......................................................19
Table 9.6: Summary of Head loss & Coef:icients worked out in the Proposed Water Conductor System
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................24
Table 9.7: Net Heads Adopted in the Project...................................................................................................................26
Table 9.8: Water Conductor System Parameters used in Transient Analysis.....................................................27
Table 9.9: Time Sequence Applied for Case-1: Shutoff of Generation...................................................................28
Table 9.10: Time Sequence Applied for Case-3: Start of Generation.....................................................................28

Table 9.11: Time Sequence Applied for Case-2: Shutoff of Pumping.....................................................................28
Table 9.12: Time Sequence Applied for Case-4: Start of Pumping.........................................................................29
Table 9.13: Summary of Results from the transient analysis...................................................................................29
Table 9.14: Maximum Energy Head & rate of pressure rise at Turbine...............................................................29
Table 9.15: Various diameter of Tunnel considered for the Selection of Economic Diameter....................34
Table 9.16: Support Recommended for 6.0 m diameter Top Inclined Pressure shaft....................................36
Table 9.17: Summary of Steel Liner Thickness along Water Conductor System of Large Unit...................49
Table 9.18: Summary of Steel Liner Thickness along Water Conductor System of Small Unit...................50
Table 9.19: Details of cut slopes...........................................................................................................................................58
Table 9.20: Technical Parameters of Intake Trash Racks...........................................................................................88
Table 9.21: Technical Parameters of Intake Maintenance Gate...............................................................................88
Table 9.22: Technical Parameters of Intake Service Gate...........................................................................................89
Table 9.23: Main Technical Parameters of Outlet Service Gate................................................................................89
Table 9.24: Technical Parameters of Outlet Stoplog Gate..........................................................................................90
Table 9.25: Technical Parameters of Outlet Trash Racks...........................................................................................91

CHAPTER - 9 DESIGN FEATURES OF MAJOR COMPONENTS
9.1 General
Saundatti PSP is located Belagavi district of Karnataka. It envisages creation of Upper reservoir near
Village Somapura which comes under Tallur Grama Panchayat, Saundatti Taluk about 80 Kms from
Belagavi whereas the existing Renukasagar reservoir as lower Reservoir is located across river
Malaprabha near Navilutheertha Village of Saundatti Taluk in Belagavi District. The scheme will
involve construction of 5776 m long rock:ill embankment dam for creation of Saundatti upper
reservoir of 1.03 TMC gross capacity. The lower reservoir is existing Renukasagar reservoir.
The scheme envisages utilization of 206.72m rated head and total design discharge of 683.12 Cumecs
for generation of 1260 MW (4 units of 252 MW + 2 units of 126 MW).
The major project components are:
• Rock:ill embankment varying from 10m to 43m height for creation of Saundatti upper
reservoir with 1.03 TMC gross storage capacity.
• Intake Structure.
• 5 nos. each of 1029.43m long and 6.0m dia. circular steel lined Penstock / Pressure Shaft (ie.,
consisting of 173.55m top inclined pressure shaft,235.19m long vertical pressure shaft
including top & bottom vertical bends and 620.69m long bottom Horizontal pressure shaft) in
which 4 nos. will feed 4 units (units 3 to 6) each of 252 MW and 1 no. will get bifurcated in to
two each 4.25 m diameter & 72.01 m near to power house to feed 2 units (units 1 & 2) each of
126 MW.
• A surface Power house having an installation of four nos. reversible Francis turbine each of
252 MW capacity (All units are variable speed turbines) operating under a rated head of
206.72 m in generating mode & 216.42 m in pumping mode and two nos. reversible Francis
turbine each of 126 MW capacity (both units are variable speed turbines) operating under a
rated head of 206.22 m in generating mode & 216.22 m in pumping mode.
• Six numbers of 227.97m long tail race tunnel connecting the tail race outlet structure and the
draft tube of the power house out of which unit 3 to 6 has a tunnel dia of 7.0 m whereas two
small units consists of 5.0m dia.
• Tailrace Outlet structure.
• 45m wide lined tail race channel with FSD of 6.0m and 1749.10m long will lead the water from
outlet structure to the lower reservoir.

The scheme will involve construction of 10 to 43m high rock:ill embankment for creation of Saundatti
upper reservoir of 1.03 TMC gross capacity. The Saundatti PSP is proposed in between two reservoirs
i.e. Saundatti Upper Reservoir (to be constructed newly) and existing Renuka Sagar Reservoir as lower
reservoir. One-time :illing of the reservoir with water will be pumped from existing Renuka Sagar
Reservoir. The design discharge for the proposed scheme is 683.12 Cumecs with the rated head of
206.72 m.
General layout of the project and the L-section along the water conductor system are shown in the
drawing number AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/001 to 003.
9.2 Alternative Studies
The Saundatti PSP – Pumped Storage Project is proposed in between two reservoirs i.e. Saundatti
Upper (to be constructed newly) & Existing Renuka sagar Reservoir as Lower Reservoir. The scheme is
proposed to operate between upper reservoir FRL: +855.0 m and lower reservoir FRL: +633.83 m.
The proposed layout of the project has been :inalized after considering various alternatives from the
topographical, geological & geotechnical constraints. The proposed
Saundatti PSP envisages construction of
➢ Upper Dam (for formation of upper reservoir)
➢ Bottom Outlet Structure
➢ Intake Structure
➢ Steel Lined Intake tunnel / Buried Penstock / Pressure Shaft (Vertical & Horizontal)
➢ Surface Power House
➢ Tailrace tunnel
➢ Adit to Pressure Shaft / Escape tunnel
➢ Tailrace Outlet Structure
➢ Tailrace channel
9.3 Geological & Geotechnical Appraisal
Topographical maps D43D1 (48M/1) and D43C13 (48I/13) of Survey of India were referred for
preliminary investigation, reconnaissance and for :inalizing the proposed project layout.
9.3.1 Reservoirs:
Detailed geological mapping (1:1000 scale) of the reservoir and its surrounding areas was carried out
over 4.50 Sq. Km area to delineate rock outcrops, litho-contacts, attitude of discontinuities & to record

geotechnical parameters of the rock mass, and also delineate overburden and record its geotechnical
characteristics. From the geological map it is apparent that on the plateau top and its near vertical to
steeply sloping cliffs aligned in almost E – W direction towards south, south-west and southeast of
upper reservoir, quartzite outcrops are exposed. At many locations along the cliffs and moderate to
steep slopes :lanking plateau top, gently dipping quartzite beds exhibit several benches varying in
width for a couple of meters and occurring adjacent to successive vertical cliffs.
The plateau surface at places is near :lat, however, in majority of cases exhibits gentle slopes. Quartzite
outcrops sre exposed intermittently, and covered in majority of cases with thin venier of overburden,
although at places particularly in low lying areas or along the ephemeral streamlet alignment 0.50m to
+3.0m thick overburden could be observed. Rock blocks / boulders of variable shape and sizes are
spread over at many places. In the areas where bed rock is exposed, sparsely located small trees and
bushes could be noticed, however, in the areas having soil development or accumulation of
overburden the density of bushes and trees is more.
The top layer/venier of overburden comprises of rock fragments and interspaces occupied by
admixture of light brown clay-silt – sand. In the areas where the thickness of overburden varies from
0.50m to +3.0m, at places quartzite fragments and admixture of gravel, sand, silt & soil are in equal
proportion, whereas the :iner fraction is more than 90 volume percent in some areas.
In general, on surface quartzite is having light yellow to pink-brown staining but fresh outcrops having
light grey to white colours are observed at many locations. Bedding planes (S0) could be identi:ied by
colour laminations and variation in grain size, however, at places differential weathering has given rise
to alternate groove & ridge structure representing bedding structure resulted possibly due to variation
in mineral assemblage or grain size.
Thickness of quartzite in the upper reservoir area has been estimated to be varying from 95m to
110m, based on the geomorphic expressions, presence of sparsely exposed & highly weathered granite
outcrops along the pediment zone extending along the cliffs, and the contact of quartzite with
underlying granite in the surrounding areas.
9.4 Head Works
9.4.1 Site Selection for Reservoirs
A Reconnaissance Survey has been carried out around the project area. Based on the site survey and
study of SOI topo sheets, the site selected for the standalone storage component of Saundatti PSP is the
ideal location available in the vicinity, suitable for formation of Upper reservoir & Existing Lower
reservoir with shortest water conductor system. The site for head works has been selected based on
the following criteria.

➢ To meet the storage requirement for a minimum 9.0 hours peaking generation.
➢ To keep the submergence area minimal.
➢ Shortest possible water conductor system.
➢ Site Topography & Geology.
9.4.2 Alternatives for Type of Dam
Roller compacted concrete, Asphalt Facing Rock:ill Dams and Rock:ill Dam with central impervious
clay core are the three types of dams considered for formation of embankment of upper & lower
reservoir. The following aspects were taken into consideration for selecting the type of embankment.
➢ Material costs for construction of embankments
➢ Time spent for construction of embankment viz., total construction time, man-hours,
requirement of infrastructure facilities etc.,
➢ Time and costs used for trial tests.
➢ Preparation for construction, e.g., excavation, foundation, diversion and construction of

batching and crusher plants.
9.4.2.1Roller-Compacted Concrete Dam (RCC Dam)
Roller-compacted concrete dams have many similarities with conventional gravity concrete dams. The
dam is built to required height and depth where it can resist the expected forces from the water by its
weight. But instead of using rock-:ill or earth:ill, RCC Dam consist of concrete which is spread in thin
layers and compacted by vibrator rollers. It is important to provide the RCC Dam with suf:icient
resistance to water leakage (seepage). The method of using a concrete with higher binder close to the
upstream face will decrease the permeability by creating a water tight barrier of concrete with higher
quality. RCC Dam is much heavier and thus demand better bedrock allowing the stresses produced by
the dam weight and the water pressure. If the bedrock is heavily foliated, the foundation will suffer
from shearing failure. Before and during construction of RCC Dam, the geological conditions at the site
must be investigated much more thoroughly than a Rock:ill dam. The cost of construction and the
requirement of infrastructure facilities are higher for RCC Dam compared to Rock:ill dam.
9.4.2.2Asphalt Faced Rock 4ill Dam (AFRD)
Asphalt concrete faced rock:ill dam (AFRD) in which asphaltic concrete acts as upstream impervious
facing (as water barrier) for rock:ill embankment dam. AFRD is considered a technically viable option
and is also fast in construction in comparison with conventional Rock:ill dam with central impervious
clay core. AFRD offers an additionally advantage of possibility of using lower quality rock:ill shell
material as there is no direct water contact and moreover placement of material is fast because of

homogenous nature of rock:ill shell. Further, asphaltic concrete facing dam is also having advantage
from other type of reinforcing concrete facing alternatives as being more :lexible and capable of
accommodating more reasonable de:lection of dam and faster in laying with modern construction
equipment and technique.
In the pumped storage scheme generally, drawdown is in order of 20m to 30m and that also in period
of 6-8 hours which may be inferred in present case also from the Table:9.1. In such case, upstream
impervious facing sealing embankment dam found more appropriate than Rock:ill Dam with central
impervious clay core sealing as keeping water barrier on the upstream face of the embankment is pore
pressure free and is neither subject to steady seepage nor to rapid drawdown effects. Moreover, other
additional advantage offered by such type of dam is that after drawdown of the reservoir, the facing is
readily accessible for inspection, maintenance and repair. Therefore, in view of the above AFRD
appears to be a one of the suitable options because of necessity of rapid drawdown conditions in
pumped storage schemes. However, this aspect will be further studied/explored for optimization
during detailed design stage.
9.4.2.3Rock 4ill Dam
The main characteristics with the Rock:ill is that the dam type enables usage of local materials
excavated from the project components and the compulsory excavations in the rock:ill dam body, as
opposed to using expensive material from quarries which may have to be transported a long way etc.
However, there are some quality requirements on the aggregates which have to be met in order to be
able to use them in the dam body. The quality is mainly determined by the local geology and highlights
the importance of good geological surroundings in order to exploit all advantages with the dam type.
Clay for formation of impervious core is available in adequate quantities very near to the project site
and excavated materials from the project components being proposed for shell of the Dam, Rock:ill
with central impervious clay core is proposed for the Saundatti Upper Reservoir which are economical
and faster to construct comparing to RCC Dam. Moreover, the rock:ill dams have many advantages
comparing to RCC Dam. The main advantages are:
➢ Rock:ill dams can be constructed on any given foundation condition and the excavation for
foundation need not be up to rock level, where the bed rock is deep seated. Foundation
excavation is negligible in most of the dams.
➢ Soil/rock materials locally available are used with negligible processing.
➢ Use of costly manufactured items like cement and steel is eliminated and there is saving on
transportation costs also.
➢ Rock:ill dams are more resistant to seismic forces.

➢ With modern earth moving machineries, the dam can be completed in less time compared to a
rigid dam.
Considering the merits & demerits of Rock:ill dam with different type of sealing arrangements
(surface & central core sealing) & RCC Dam options, Rock:ill dam with central impervious clay core is
selected for formation of upper reservoir.
Table 9.1: Salient Features of Proposed Upper Reservoir
Sl. No Description Upper Reservoir Lower Reservoir

(Newly proposed) (Existing)
1 Latitude 15° 51' 21.84" N 15° 49' 17.15" N
2 Longitude 75° 00' 19.50" E 75° 05' 48.23" E
3 Live Storage 1.00 TMC 29.34 TMC
4 Dead Storage 0.03 TMC 8.35 TMC
5 Gross Storage 1.03 TMC 37.69 TMC
6 Top of Dam EL +858.00 m EL +638.00 m
7 Full Reservoir level (FRL) EL +855.00 m EL +633.83 m
8 Min. Draw Down Level (MDDL) EL +825.00m EL +623.93m
9 Length of Embankment 5776 m 154.53 m
9.4.2.4Optimization of dam
The cost of constructing embankment dams is directly proportional to the size of earthworks needed
to build them the latter of which depends upon the cross-section of embankment dams. As a result, the
smaller sections of embankment dams are proportionally associated with less earthworks and less
construction costs, whereas the larger sections require more earthworks and more construction costs.
However, the smaller sections require more surface area compared to the larger sections to store the
same amount of water. Moreover, the increase in base width with the increase in height of the dam is
exponential with every increment in the height of the embankment. As such, attaining the most
optimal section for embankment dams to satisfy stability and executive requirements and minimize
the size of earthworks is highly site speci:ic.
The Saundatti Upper Reservoir is envisaged to have a gross storage of 1.03 TMC and a live storage of
1.00 TMC for the intended operation of the pumped storage project.
Three alternative studies were carried out to optimise the layout and height of the embankment.

Sl. Description Top of Bund Maximum Base Length Surface
No (m) Height Width (m) Area/Land
(m) (m) (Sqkm)
1 Alternative - 1 EL + 853.00 38.0 186.00 6183.2 2.12
2 Alternative - 2 EL + 858.00 43.0 206.00 5776.5 1.64
3 Alternative - 3 EL + 863.00 48.0 262.00 5776.5 1.64
Alternative – 1: The maximum height of the embankment is enviisaged as 38.0m with TBL at EL +
853.00m. The base width required for the embankment is 186.00 m. The layout for formation of upper
reservior with 38.0m heigh embankment requires a surface area of 2.12 Sqkm to have a live store
1.0TMC. The cost for formation of embankment is Rs 1548.49 Crores.
858.00m. The base width required for the embankment is 206.00 m . The layout for formation of
upper reservior with 43.0m heigh embankment requires a surface area of 1.64 Sqkm to have a live
store 1.0TMC. The cost for formation of embankment is Rs 1444.89 Crores.
863.00m which requires :latter slopes compare to Alt-1&2. The base width required for the
embankment is 262.00 m . The layout for formation of upper reservior with 48.0m heigh embankment
requires a surface area of 1.64 Sqkm to have a live storage of 1.0TMC. The cost for formation of
embankment is Rs 2037.64 Crores.
As can be seen that the formation of upper reservoir with Top of bund at EL + 858.00 is found to be
economical and the same is adopted.
9.5 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LAYOUTS
After :inalisng the parameters of Upper & Lower Reservoirs, the pumped storage component of
Saundatti PSP is proposed to be developed between upper reservoir FRL of EL +855.0 m and lower
reservoir FRL of EL +633.83m. Accordingly, alternatives were worked out to develop a best possible
layout. Alternatives of project layout have been studied based on the topographical, geological &
geotechnical constraints. All the alternatives have been studied and discussed below with 4 units of
252 MW and 2 units of 126 MW of variable head Francis turbines and the same location for upper and
lower reservoir for the project. The power house and water conductor system has only been altered
accordingly. The layout comprising the Project area with all the alternative schemes are shown in the
drawing numbers

1 Alternative - 1 Surface Powerhouse with Dwg. No. AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/01
Pressure shaft no Surge Tank
2 Alternative - 2 Underground Powerhouse Dwg. No. AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/32
complex
Alternative-1 with surface powerhouse: The water conductor system comprises of :ive nos. of steel
lined penstock tunnel/pressure shaft and a surface power house. The water after generation will be
lead into lower reservoir through a Tailrace tunnel connected to Tailrace channel.
Alternative-2 with underground powerhouse: The water conductor system comprises of :ive nos.
steel lined penstock tunnel/pressure shaft and an underground power house. 6 numbers independent
Draft Tube tunnels from each machine will be connected to a common tail race surge chamber. From
the tail race surge chamber 3 numbers of each 8.2 m diameter & 617.72 m long tail race tunnels will
lead the water to lower reservoir through outlet structure.
Two alternative project layouts could emerge after considering the topography, lateral & vertical rock
covers, geological setup and geotechnical parameters of the rock mass which will be available at the
foundation grade of different project components. Both the alternatives have been studied and
discussed below with the locations of upper and lower reservoir for the project are same. Different
possible combinations of the Water Conductor System and surface vs. underground Power House
Complex have been considered in developing different alternative project layouts as discussed below.
9.5.1 Alternative-1
Five power intakes have been provided in the upper reservoir with :ive independent steel lined
penstock tunnel/pressure shaft of an average length of 1029.43 m and 6.0m dia. each to convey the
water to the surface powerhouse. Four penstocks will be feeding 4 units of 252 MW and one penstock
bifurcated in to two will be feeding 2 units of 126 MW each.
The four pump turbines of 252 MW will be fed by 6.0m diameter independent penstocks, where as one
6.0m diameter penstock bifurcating in to two 4.25m dia. penstocks will feed 2 units each of 126 MW.
The diameter of the branch pipes is arrived at based on equal velocity criteria.
The layout plan and L-section are shown in drawing nos. AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/01 &
AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/03.
The requirement of surge tank in the water conductor system has been assessed based on the
following thumb rule:
• Criteria for requirement surge tank based on L/H Ratio:
• Surge tank is not required when L/H ratio is less than 5

• Surge tank may be required when L/H ratio is in between 5 & 10 to control mass oscillation in
Water Conductor System
• Surge tank is required when L/H ratio exceeds 10

Where,
L = Length of pressurized tunnel
H = Net head for power generation
L/H = 1029.43/206.72 = 4.98
The L/H ratio of this alternative is worked out to 4.98 which is less than 5. Hence, surge shaft is not
required in this alternative based on the above criteria. However, the transient analysis of this
alternative has been assessed to check the maximum pressure rise which is estimated is 28.83% at
turbine, which will be adopted in the design of pressure shaft.
Criteria for requirement of surge tank based on Water Acceleration time (TW):
The provision of a surge tank should be investigated if an acceleration time in water conductor system
is 3 to 5.
Σ (Li*Vi) = (1029.43* 4.83) = 2.450

g Ho 9.81* 206.82
Where,
L = length (m), V = velocity (m/s), g = acceleration due to gravity & Ho is the Rated head on Turbine.
In this alternative the water acceleration time worked is out to 2.450 which is less than 3.0. Hence
based on this criteria the surge shaft is not required in this alternative.
The water after power generation will be conveyed through 227.97m long independent Tailrace
tunnels to discharge water in to Lower reservoir.
9.5.1.1Geological & Geotechnical Appraisal:

The alternative-1 of Project Layout (refer Drawing No. AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/01) comprises of a
Water Conductor System (L= 1029.43m) with a combination of embedded & buried penstocks each of
163.30m & 37.14m length respectively, followed by a 207.94m long vertical Pressure Shaft (VPS) and
620.69m long bottom horizontal Pressure Shaft (HPS). The entire WCS from Power Intake will be steel
lined with 6.0m dia of each Penstock/Pressure Shaft which will feed to a surface Power House housing
4 units of 252 MW and 2 units of 126 MW each. Water will be released from the Draft Tube tunnels
through four numbers of Tail Race Tunnels (TRT) each of 7.0m :inished dia. and through two numbers
of Tail Race Tunnels each of 5.0m :inished dia. in to the Tail Race Channel (TRC) leading to lower
reservoir. There is no requirement of Surge Shaft / Chamber in the upstream and downstream of the
proposed surface Power House.

A geological longitudinal section along the proposed project layout was prepared (refer Plate No.- 01)
and geotechnical parameters, viz., RMR, Q-Values, Cohesion & angle of friction were determined.
Following inferences have been drawn from the longitudinal geological section and slope stability
analysis of the proposed open excavation along the sides of the proposed surface Power House.
➢ Five numbers of horizontal steel lined Penstock tunnels with 6.0m dia extending from power
intake to RD 155.34m (i.e. upto the toe of Rock:ill Embankment) with invert level 811.40 m
will have a shallow overburden of about 2.0 m. The foundation grade rock will be quartzite
with the basic RMR ranging from 56-71 (Class II to Class III) & Q-values are estimated to be
vary from 3.25 to 4.5 (poor to fair category). (refer Plate No.- 01).
➢ The buried steel lined Penstock extending From the toe of Rock:ill dam to the top vertical
pressure shaft having the same foundation grade of quartzite with the RMR value ranging from
51-66 and the Q value ranging from from 3.25 to 4.5 (poor to fair category).
➢ Red granite with the RMR range of 48 to 60 followed by the fresh granite with the RMR range
varying from 69-79 belonging to class II. The lateral cover at the top of the vertical shaft is
about 50 m and increases further as the shaft goes down.
➢ The bottom horizontal pressure shaft will negotiate through the fresh granite with the RMR
value ranging from 64-74 falling in the rock class II category. At one chainage fractured rock
mass is expected to be encountered.
➢ At the location of the surface power house is the depth of the overburden is about 6.0 m
followed by highly to completely weathered granite of depth about 15.0m. Underneath the
highly to completely weathered granite is the moderately weather granite of depth about 4.0
m. the foundation grade of the power house is the fresh granite with the RMR ranging from
69-79 falling in the class II category.
➢ The excavation for the tail race tunnel will negotiate through fresh granite with the RMR range
64-74 falling in the class II category. At the outlet portal of the tail race tunnel the rock cover is
about 19m and the overburden depth is about 6.0m.
9.5.1.2Advantages of Alternative – 1
The proposed layout envisages housing of surface powerhouse. The alignment of pressure
shaft/penstock is a combination of embedded penstock & buried penstock. The total length of the
pressure shaft/penstock is 1029.43m. The initial stretch of the pressure shaft/penstock is 163.30m
embedded below the rock:ill dam of Intake followed by 37.14m long buried (cut & cover) penstock.
The buried penstock meet with 207.94m VPS followed by 620.69m long horizontal pressure shaft.

This combination gives the biggest advantage in omitting of surge shaft/surge chamber which will
result in reduction in construction time and project cost. The dif:iculty of tunneling is reduced greatly
by having a buried penstock of 37.14m which gives additional :lexibility in the construction. This also
creates multiple numbers of working faces and hence the construction schedule/ program is
optimized.
9.5.1.3Disadvantages of Alternative – 1
The average ground level at the surface Powerhouse is EL +655.0m. As the proposed power house
involves little deeper excavation, intricate supporting arrangements for the cut slopes involving
anchors etc., are to be provided.
The sub surface investigations are in progress and with the availability of complete geological and
geotechnical data, a surface pit type powerhouse as contemplated for the present scheme, the
suitability of proposing Shaft Type Powerhouse will also be examined after completing the geological
appraisal of the powerhouse area. This option envisages construction of Powerhouse out falling
directly into the lower reservoir connected by a Tail Race Channel. The average ground level at this
location is about EL +640.0m. The layout plan and L-section are shown in drawing nos.
AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/01 & AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/03.
9.5.2 Alternative-2
Five power intakes have been provided to takeoff from the Upper reservoir with :ive independent steel
lined penstock tunnel/pressure shaft of 445.45m long and 6.0m diameter and one independent
pressure shaft will bifurcate into two no of 4.25m diameter to convey water to the underground
powerhouse. A short Draft tube tunnel of 126.37m connects the Powerhouse & a common tail race
Surge Chamber of size 25.0 m (W)x 160.0 m (L). Three tunnels of 617.72 m long, 8.2 m diameter horse
shoe Tailrace tunnel takes off from the Surge Chamber to the Tailrace outlet and further lead water
into lower reservoir. Four penstocks/pressure shafts will be feeding 4 units of 252 MW and one
penstock/pressure shaft bifurcated in to two will be feeding 2 units of 126 MW each.
The location of the power house cavern was :inalized keeping in to consideration two factors, viz.,
shortest possible access to the underground powerhouse, and minimum possible length of Pressure
Shaft. Further, with the proposed location of power house the location of transformer cavern and
surge chamber are :irmed up in consideration of the requirements of rock columns in between. The
Main Access Tunnel to Power house, Ventilation/cable tunnel and other construction adits are also
planned for this proposed underground power house complex.
Since, in this alternative the length of Tailrace Tunnel is very long hence, the requirement of TRT surge
chamber has been estimated based on the thumb rule of L/H Ratio:

Where,
L = Length of Tailrace Tunnel

H = Net Head on turbine
L/H = 617.72/46.83 =13.19
For this alternative the L/H ratio in the Tailrace Tunnel is worked out to 13.19 which is greater than 5.
Hence, a Tailrace Surge chamber has been proposed in this alternative.
The layout plan are shown in drawing no. AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/31.
9.5.2.1Geological & Geotechnical Appraisal
Based on the large scale geological mapping and geotechnical parameters recorded, a geological
longitudinal section along the proposed project layout was prepared (refer Plate No. 02) and
geotechnical parameters, viz., RMR, Q-Values, Cohesion & angle of friction were determined. From the
longitudinal section following inferences have been drawn.
➢The location of the power intake, buried penstock and vertical pressure shaft are sameas the
alternative-1.
➢The location of the underground Power House is governed by the location of thePower Intake
position and length of the Penstock. The average ground level at the proposed underground Power
House location is EL + 800.0 m. The crown of the Power House is EL + 623.90 m. The vertical rock
cover above the Power House varies between 182.45m to 169.75m, which is more than one and half
times of the height of the cavern thus the ensuring the stability of the crown on the prima-facie.
➢The PH cavern will be excavated through the fresh granite with the RMR range of 6474 falling in the
class II rock.
➢The GIS cum transformer cavern is about 40 m from the power house with thedimension of 15 m
(W) x 26.3 m (H) x 202.70 m (L). the foundation grade of the GIS cum transformer cavern is fresh
granite.
➢The tail race tunnel will negotiate through class II with the RMR ranging from 64-74. At the outlet
portal of the tail race tunnel the rock cover is about 19m and the overburden depth is about 6.0m.
9.5.2.2Advantages of Alternative – 2
The length of pressure shaft/penstock is similar to alternative-1 in the proposed layout envisaged with
housing of underground powerhouse complex.
9.5.2.3Disadvantages of Alternative – 2
This alternative requires 800.0 m long Main Access Tunnel and Adits of 1770m to reach the project
components, excavation of which will take longer duration to reach the Power House and start works

at Power House. In case of underground system, power house is not a single cavern alone, it consists of
a transformer cavern increasing the vulnerability of underground complex and surge chambers which
in turn impacts the construction time of the project.
9.5.3 Comparison of the Alternative I & II
A comparison of the salient features of alternative -1 and 2 are given in Table 9.2
Table 9.2: Comparison of the Salient Features of Alternatives- 1 and 2
Component Alternative - 1 Alternative - 2

Power Intake 5 Nos 5 Nos
Sttel lined pressure 5 pentocks, 6.0m dia 1029.43 m 5 pentocks, 6.0m dia 455.45m
shaft/penstock each each
Power House Surface Powerhouse Underground Powerhouse
Project Components Alternative - 1 Alternative - 2
Draft Tube Tunnel - 126.37m
Downstream Surge Chamber - Underground surge chamber
160.0 x 25 x 64m
Tailrace Tunnel 6 nos, 227.97m long & 3 Nos, 617.72 m long &
4no's of 7.0m dia & 2no of 5.0m 3no's of 8.2m dia Horse Shoe
dia Horse Shoe Shaped TRT Shaped TRT
TRT Outlet 6 Nos 3 Nos
Tailrace Channel 1749.10m 1780.0m
Construction Period 36 Months 54 Months
9.5.4 Conclusion
In layout of alternative-1 it is prudent that the upstream surge tank is not required and in alternative-2
it is accommodated a long tail race tunnel which requires a tail race surge chamber to protect the tail
race tunnel from water hammer effect due to :luctuation in load. However, in alternative-1 the
maximum pressure rise at turbine worked out to 28.83% without surge tank. Since, due to the short
length of water conductor system in alternative-1 and the pressure rise is within the limits hence,
surge shaft has been eliminated which reduces the cost of the project as well as the construction time.
This being technically feasible and economically viable, the same is adopted.
The following conclusions are drawn from the above alternatives
➢ Water availability will remain same for all alternatives, as upper & lower reservoirs are same for
all alternatives.

➢ The various levels viz., FRL & MDDL being kept same for all the alternatives, there is very small
variation in energy generation because of small variation in net head.
➢ Construction period is the least for alternative-1, while alternative-2 has maximum.
➢ Project cost is least for alternative-1 compared to other alternative.
➢ As the proposed project is a part of Integrated renewable energy scheme, the construction time for
the project shall be in line with the solar and wind power developments. Considering the
economics of the cost for the integrated project, the scheme under alternative – 1 is found to be
technically feasible and the same is adopted.
Consequent upon selection of project layout (Alternative-1), the scheme has been further optimised
and reported in the following chapters and other volumes of this DPR
9.5.5 Seismicity
As per seismic Zoning map of India, the project area lies in Zone-III. The design seismic coef:icients as
per IS: 1893 for Zone III recommended seismic coef:icient of 0.04 has been adopted. Considering the
type of the structure (Dam-all types), an importance factor of 3.0 has been considered in the design.
Accordingly, the horizontal seismic co-ef:icient works out to be 0.12, which is considered adequate.
The vertical seismic co-ef:icient where applicable will be taken as half of the horizontal co-ef:icient.
Project Speci4ic Seismic Studies:
For better understanding of the Seismicity of project area, NGRI has been entrusted the job to carry
out the site-speci:ic design parameters study for evaluating seismic design parameters for the project
components. The approved seismic design parameters by NCSDP shall be utilised in detailed design of
the project.
9.6 Saundatti Rock4ill Embankment (Upper Reservoir)
9.6.1 General
The upper reservoir dam site is proposed at Latitude 15° 51' 21.84" N and Longitude 75°00' 19.50" E.
The Existing lower reservoir is located at Latitude 15° 49' 17.15" N and Longitude 75° 05' 48.23" E.
The dam proposed at this location envisages construction 5776 m long rock:ill embankment dam for
the formation of upper reservoir. The gross storage capacity of the upper reservoir is 1.03 TMC with a
live storage of 1.00 TMC keeping the FRL and MDDL at EL + 855.0 m and EL + 825.00 m respectively.
The gross storage capacity of the lower reservoir is 29.34 TMC with a live storage of 8.35 TMC keeping
the FRL and MDDL at EL + 633.83m and EL + 623.93 m respectively.

9.6.2 Rock4ill Dam
Rock:ill dam with central impervious clay core is adopted for formation of Upper reservoir of
Saundatti PSP. The maximum height of the upper dam is about 43m and the max crest length is about
5776m can provide adequate live storage.
Rock:ill embankment is designed with central impervious clay core with 0.25H:1.0V slope with 2%
extra moisture and a casing zone with slope 2.25H:1.0V U/S face and 1.75H:1.0V on D/S face. As the
height at maximum section is 43m, berms are provided with 6.0m width on the U/S face & D/S face at
EL 843.00 & EL 828.00 m. The top width of the rock:ill dam is kept as 10.0 m. Parapet wall on
upstream side and guard stones on D/S on top of bund have been provided.
9.6.3 Stability Analysis of Rock4ill dam
The stability analysis of Rock:ill dam section has been done as per IS: 7894 – 1978: “Guidelines for
Design of Large Earth and Rock:ill Dams” for worst loading combinations and using the seismic co-
ef:icient as mentioned above.
The analysis has been performed using Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model. There are many analysis
methods such as Method of Slices, Bishop’s method, Janbu’s method and Morgenstern Method etc.
Morgenstern Method is used in the stability analysis of Saundatti dam using GEOSLOPE software.
GEOSLOPE is developed by GEO-SLOPE International, Canada, based on the principle of limit

equilibrium which incorporates a :inite element method which is developed specially for the
deformation and stability of embankment structures.
Stability analysis of embankment dam is made for the following load cases and the minimum desired
values of factors of safety for various loading conditions as prescribed in IS 7894-1975 are ensured in
the stability analysis of embankment. The minimum targeted FOS values are shown in Table 9.3
Table 9.3: Minimum Target FOS Values
Sl.No Loading Condition Min FOS Slope
1 End of construction 1.0 Upstream

2 End of construction 1.0 Downstream
3 Sudden drawdown 1.3 Upstream
4 Steady seepage 1.5 Downstream
5 Earthquake Condition:
(a) Steady seepage 1.0 Downstream
(b) Reservoir full 1.0 Upstream

Load Combination Embankment Slope SFMIN
End of Construction upstream + downstream 1.00
Steady State Seepage (Full downstream 1.50

Reservoir)
Steady State Seepage (Full downstream 1.00

Reservoir) with Earthquake
Sudden Draw Down Upstream 1.30
Sudden Draw Down + Upstream 1.00

earthquake
The dam stability evaluation has been performed considering the total and effective stresses
(depending on the load combination) induced inside the dam embankment. Stability analysis of
Rock:ill Dam and calculations and methodology adopted are enclosed in Annexure –9.1.
Table 9.4: Upper Reservoir - Summary of the results of stability analysis
Minimum
Slope Shear strength Factor of
Condition acceptable
considered parameters Safety
Factor of Safety
Undrained (total)
End of construction Upstream 2.139 1.0
strengths
Undrained (total)
End of construction Downstream 1.772 1.0
strengths
Drained (effective)
Steady seepage Downstream 1.720 1.5
strengths
Steady seepage Drained (effective)
(considering seismic Downstream strengths 1.239 1.0
load)
Sudden drawdown Drained (effective)
Upstream 1.659 1.3
strengths
Sudden drawdown
Drained (effective)
(considering seismic Upstream 1.071 1.0
strengths
load)
Steady seepage Undrained (total)
Downstream 1.714 1.5
strengths
Steady seepage
Undrained (total)
(considering seismic Downstream 1.240 1.0
strengths
load)
Sudden drawdown Upstream Undrained (total) 1.658 1.3

Minimum
Slope Shear strength Factor of
Condition acceptable
considered parameters Safety
Factor of Safety
strengths
Sudden drawdown
Undrained (total)
(considering seismic Upstream 1.071 1.0
strengths
load)
9.6.4 Free Board
The free board has been computed with reference to the IS:10635:1993, “Freeboard requirement in
embankment dams – Guidelines”. The free Board has been worked out to 2.448 m above FRL for upper
reservoir. However, the top of the dam for upper reservoir have been adopted at EL. 858.00 m (i.e. 3.0
m above the FRL). Detailed calculations for freeboard of upper dam is enclosed in the Annexure –
9.2(a) and 9.2(b) respectively.
9.6.5 Bottom Outlet
For Drawdown of Reservoir, option of spillway and bottom outlet were studied and in the prevailing
circumstances of very small :lood discharge, spillway provision was not required. Therefore, provision
of bottom outlet has been provided.
The bottom outlet requirement for Gandhisagar PSP is investigated for the following considerations
➢To pass the PMF
➢Pumping operations are continued for a longer duration
The PMF of the upper dam work out to 78.00 Cumec. The design storm duration is taken as 1.0 Hr. The
corresponding volume for upper dam works out to 0.259 MCM. The maximum rise in the water level
above FRL in the upper reservoir is negligible. As the volume of :lood is very small, the same can be
contained in the reservoir itself and hence, no separate spillway provision is required to be provided
for the probable maximum :lood. However, a low-level bottom outlet has been proposed for Upper
Reservoir for reservoir drawdown in case of any emergency. Detailed hydraulic calculations and the
reservoir routing curves are provided in Annexure 9.3.
The drawdown of reservoir is proposed to be done through an embedded steel pipe having
approximate length of 186.0 m. At up-stream side of the embedded Steel Pipe, it is proposed to have
an inclined Trash Rack and a Vertical slide gate. A Butter:ly Valve and a Howell Bunger valve (HBV) are
proposed to install at exit of the Steel Pipe.
The HB valve breaks up the :low into a hollow aerated jet which allows dissipating large amounts of

kinetic energy over short distances when compared with pipe outlets. Enhanced jet development
before impact, reduces the hydrodynamic loads acting upon dissipating structures or the riverbed.
Howell-Bunger valves are cavitation and water hammer resistant, velocity limitless, and electronically
controllable water control systems.
The Butter:ly Valve is an auxiliary arrangement which will be used during maintenance time of Howell
Bunger Valve. In same way the vertical slide gate shall be closed during repair, maintenance of Steel
pipe, Butter:ly valve and Howell Bunger Valve. The bottom outlet arrangement details are provided in
the drawing No. AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/030.
9.6.6 Upper Reservoir Main Technical Parameters
The upper reservoir is formed by constructing a 43.0m high Rock:ill Embankment which can provide
adequate live storage.
Rock:ill embankment is designed with central impervious clay core with 0.25H:1.0V slope
with 2% extra moisture and a casing zone with slope 2.25H:1.0V U/S face and 1.75H:1.0V on D/S face.
As the height at maximum section is 43m, berms are provided with 6.0m width on the U/S face & D/S
face at EL 843.00 & EL 828.00 m. The top width of the rock:ill dam is kept as 10.0 m. Parapet wall on
upstream side and guard stones on D/S on top of bund have been provided.
Stability analysis of earth dam is made for U/S slope for full reservoir condition and sudden draw
down condition taking maximum upstream water level with and without earthquake. Downstream
slopes are tested for steady seepage conditions, with and without earthquake condition.
The Cut-off trench is taken 1.0m into the rock or continuous impervious strata. Grout -curtain in rock
will be, after the foundations for cut-off trenches are exposed. Also, 9.0m deep consolidation grouting
shall be carried out at 6.0m c/c.
In reaches where rock:ill embankment rests directly on rock, the foundation treatment consists of a
key 2.0 m depth with bottom width of 4.0 m and the surface shall be treated for fractures and joints
and transition zone provided wherever necessary.
Drainage arrangements shall be as per IS 9429 – 1999. Inclined sand :ilters are provided behind the
central core. The horizontal :ilters of 500 mm shall be extended upto D/S rock toe.
The minimum desired values of factors of safety for various loading conditions as prescribed in IS
7894-1975 are ensured in the stability analysis of embankment.
The key parameters of the Upper reservoir & upper dam are presented in Table 9.5.

Table 9.5: Key parameters of the proposed Upper Reservoir & Upper Dam
Sl. No. Parameter Unit Value
1 Live Storage TMC 1.00
2 Dead Storage TMC 0.03
3 Gross Storage TMC 1.03
4 Top of bund m EL +858
5 Full Reservoir Level (FRL) m EL +855
6 Minimum Draw Down Level (MDDL) m EL +825
7 Length of rock:ill embankment m 5776
8 Height of Rock:ill Embankment m 43.00
9 Upstream Slope m 2.25H : 1V
10 Downstream Slope m 1.75H : 1V
11 Upstream Berm m EL +843.00 & EL +828.00
12 Downstream Berm m EL +843.00 & EL +828.00
9.7 Intake Structure
The intake structure of Saundatti PSP is proposed with Diffuser type and will be constructed in the
upper reservoir. Generally, for normal hydroelectric projects, the bell mouth entrance is ideal for
generation (turbine) mode when water enters. In this case there is a minimal losses as water
accelerates through the bell-mouth and in to the penstock. But in pumped storage project, this design
may not be suitable for pumped storage operation as when in pumping mode water :lows in the
opposite direction through the bell-mouth transition. Water discharging from the penstock will not
follow the bell-mouth and will continue as a column of water with minimum divergence.
Therefore, it is proposed to have long and gradual diffuser type of section at a shallow angle so that the
discharging pump mode :low can be maintained with an even velocity distribution and decelerate with
minimal losses.
Five separate intakes are provided to feed the steel lined pressure shaft independently.
The intake has been provided with a trash-rack structure at the upstream end.
A Gated structure is proposed downstream of intake entry for housing the hydro mechanical Gates and
their operating mechanism. Each intake entry is equipped with an independent gate which is joined at
the hoisting platform level. Accordingly, there will be one number of service gate for each opening and
one number of maintenance gate for all the openings.

Submergence of Intake is checked for a discharge corresponding to design discharge to prevent vortex
formation and entry of air in to the system as per IS: 9761 and accordingly the MDDL and center line
of intake is kept at EL +825.00m and EL +812.375 m respectively. Also, it is proposed Antivortex
devices in front of trash rack structures to reduces vortex formation during operation of plant. The
details of intake structure along with trash rack arrangement is shown in drawing No.
AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/006&007.
9.7.1 Hydraulic Design
In Saundatti PSP, :ive individual diffuser/horizontal type of intakes have been proposed to feed the
steel lined pressure shaft independently. The :ive independent trashracks in front of each intake
structure has been proposed which will be positioned at 15o inclined with vertical with reference to
the IS:11388-2012. Accordingly, the trashrack has been designed for velocity of 1.01 m/s with design
discharge of 136.56 m3/s. The :lare angle of 13.5o has been adopted for the intake wall between the
start of intake and tunnel to minimize the head loss and to avoid cavitation in the intake tunnel. Based
on this criteria, :ive numbers of each 23.50 (W) X 7.5 m (H) intake with trash rack arrangement of 2
panels of each 6.80 m (W) X 7.76 m (H) & one number panel of 6.90 m (W) X 7.76 m (H) has been
proposed. The hydraulic calculations for sizing of intake & trashrack is attached as Annexure-9.4.
The minimum submergence of the intake has been checked with reference to the Clause No. 5.2 of
IS:9761-1995 for a discharge corresponding to design discharge to prevent vortex formation and entry
of air in to the system. Accordingly, the MDDL 825.0 m has been :ixed in the upper reservoir based on
the requirement of minimum submergence to prevent vortex formation and entry of air in to the
tunnel. Center line elevation & invert level of intake has been provided at El. 812.375 m & El.809.375
respectively. The detailed hydraulic calculations for submergence are attached in the Annexure-9.4.
Also, an antivortex devises have been proposed in front of the intake structure with 1.5 m thick beams
at a spacing of 1.5 m to reduces vortex formation during operation of plant. The drawing details of an
Intake structure showing Plan & sections are given in the drawing. no. AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/006 &
007.
An air vent pipe of 1000 mm diameter has been proposed at just downstream of the service gate of
Intake structure. This avoids the negative pressures in the Intake tunnel and expels the air during
:illing of the Intake tunnel. The sizing of air vent pipe calculations are attached as Annexure 9.5.
A Gated structure is proposed downstream of intake entry for housing the hydro mechanical Gates and
their operating mechanism. Each intake entry is equipped with an independent gate which is joined at
the hoisting platform level. Accordingly, there will be one number of service gate for each opening and
one number of maintenance gate for all the openings.

9.7.2 Slope Support Design
The existing ground elevation at the proposed power intake is at EL 834.00 and to reach the invert
level of the Power Intake i.e. EL 811.40, open excavation will be carried out. The depth of the
overburden at the power intake site is in the range of few cm to 1.2m.
The soil (overburden) pro:ile in the area exhibits cohesiveness and can withstand vertical cut slopes.
However, the slope cut in the overburden will be excavated with 1H:1V slope and 1V:4H slope shall be
adopted in the bedrock excavation. Rock slope will be supported with 6.0 m long rock bolts @ 1.5m
along with 75mm shotcrete with wire mesh. Drainage holes shall be provided in the rock cut slope to
avoid the accumulation of the pore water pressure during raining. The drawings for the slope cut are
shown in drawing no: AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/007.
Adequate treatment as per site conditions after excavation of foundations will be provided.
9.8 Hydraulic Design
9.8.1 Hydraulic Data
Salient features of the reservoir are as follows:
Description Upper Reservoir Lower Reservoir

Gross Storage Capacity 1.030 TMC 37.690 TMC
FRL EL +855.00 m EL +633.83 m
MDDL EL +825.00 m EL +623.93 m
9.8.2 Hydraulic Loss
Hydraulic loss in the water conductor system is arrived as follows:
9.8.2.1Major Losses
Friction losses in pipes are calculated with Manning’s formula:
Where:
Hf = Head losses (m);
n = Roughness coef:icient; - 0.011 is used as the WCS is steel lined
L = Length of the pipe (m);
R = Hydraulic Radius of the pipe (m);
V = Average water velocity in pipe (m/s);

9.8.2.2Minor Losses
The minor losses are estimated with the following equation:
Where:
K = Head loss coef:icient.
The Minor head loss coef:icients are estimated as follows:
9.8.2.3Trash Rack Losses

The Head Loss through Trash rack is calculated by the following equation:
Where:
kt = The trash rack loss coef:icient
= 1.45 – 0.45 R – R^2
R = Ratio of Net area through the rack bars to the gross area of racks & support.
V = Velocity of :low through trash rack, computed on net area (m/s).
g = Acceleration due to gravity (9.81m/s2).
9.8.2.4Entrance Losses
The Head Loss through entrance is calculated by the following equation:
V2
H ( e ) =ke
2g
Where:
He = head loss at the entrance (m)
Ke = loss coef:icient for entrance
V = velocity at the entrance (m/s)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
9.8.2.5Loss in the Gate Groove

The Head Loss due to intake gate groove is calculated by the following equation:

Where:
Hg= gate head loss (m)
Kg = loss coef:icient for gate
V = velocity through gate (m/sec)
The value of “Ke” is considered as 0.10
9.8.2.6Bend Losses
The losses due to bend shall be calculated as per the following formula
2
V
H ( b ) =kb
2g
Where:
Hb = head loss due to bend (m)
Kb = bend loss coef:icient which depends upon the bend radius; conduit diameter and the
angle through which bend turns.
V = velocity through conduit (m/s)
9.8.2.7Transition Losses
(A) Contraction Losses
The losses due to gradual contraction shall be computed from the following equation
Where:
Kc = loss coef:icient for contraction
V1 = velocity before contraction (m/sec)
V2 = velocity after contraction (m/sec)
(B) Expansion Losses
The losses due to gradual expansion shall be computed from the following equation

Where:
Kc = loss coef:icient for expansion
V1 = velocity before expansion (m/s)
V2 = velocity after expansion (m/s)
9.8.2.8 Loss through Valves

The losses due to valve have been calculated as per the following formula
V2
H ( b ) =kb
2g
Where:
Hb = Valve head loss (m)
K = loss coef:icient for Valve
V = Velocity through Valve (m/s)
Detailed Head Loss calculations for the project in generation mode and Pumping mode are
appended in Annexure 9.6. The head losses of the project have been worked out using
design discharges for generation mode and pumping mode with various capacity machines
are 136.56 m3/s (large unit) & 68.44 m3/s (small unit) and 130.77 m3/s (large unit) & 64.35
m3/s (small unit) respectively. The summary of head losses along-with head loss coef:icients
for generation as well as pumping modes and the corresponding net heads are provided in
the Table 9.6 & Table 9.7 respectively.
Table 9.6: Summary of Head loss & Coef/icients worked out in the Proposed Water Conductor System
Head Loss Coeff. Used Generation Mode Pumping Mode
Si. Head Loss at Various Small Large

(Generation (Pumping Large Unit Small Unit
No. Components of WCS Unit Unit
Mode) Mode)
Head Loss in 'm' Head Loss in ‘m’
Losses due to Trashrack

1 0.345 - 0.0136 0.0136 - -
at Intake
Friction Loss between

2 Trashrack & Start of 0.0140 0.0140 0.0121 0.0121 0.0111 0.0111
penstock
Contraction Losses (at

3 Start of Upper Reservoir 0.100 0.2273 0.0703 0.0703 0.1429 0.1429
Intake)


Mode) Mode)
Friction Loss upto Gate

4 0.014 0.0140 0.0128 0.0128 0.0252 0.0118
groove
Friction Loss at trans-

5 ition from rectangular 0.014 0.0140 0.0350 0.0350 0.0150 0.0321
gate to circular
Transition loss from

6 0.100 0.0933 0.0344 0.0344 0.0298 0.0298
square to Rectangle
Transition loss from

7 0.012 0.0123 0.0018 0.0018 0.0017 0.0017
square to circular
8 Loss at the Gate 0.100 0.1000 0.2160 0.2155 0.1976 0.1976
Loss at Bend :1 Bend at

9 0.030 0.0300 0.0700 0.0720 0.0660 0.0660
start
10 Loss at Bend : 90o 0.120 0.1200 0.2860 0.2860 0.2620 0.2620
Loss in the Conduit due

11 0.011 0.0110 1.6590 1.5456 1.5322 1.4278
to friction
Branch Unit Pressure

12 0.011 - 0.1983 - 0.1753
Shaft
13 Branch Losses 0.320 - 0.3808 - 0.4638
Horizontal Bend at
14 0.020 - 0.0237 - 0.0210
Branch
15 Contraction at MIV 0.100 0.2559 0.3767 0.2747 1.2053 0.6581
Friction loss in Trans-

16 0.011 - 0.0320 - - -
ition
17 Loss in Butter Fly Valve 0.130 0.130 0.6400 0.5110 0.5903 0.4664
18 TRT - Friction Loss 0.014 0.014 0.2641 0.3991 0.2422 0.1193
Bend Losses-TRT Outlet

19 0.025 0.025 0.0161 0.0155 0.0147 0.0137
(curve-1) - at end
TRT Transition Loss

20 0.012 0.100 0.0008 0.0008 0.0060 0.0058
(Outlet)
Friction Loss at TRT

21 0.014 0.014 0.0083 0.0312 0.0076 0.0111
Transition


Mode) Mode)
22 TRT Outlet Gate Loss 0.100 0.100 0.1153 0.1109 0.1058 0.0980
Transition Losses (from

23 0.041 0.100 0.0074 0.0157 0.0166 0.0152
gate to TRT)
Friction Loss at TRT

24 Transition (from gate to 0.014 0.014 0.0163 0.0555 0.0149 0.0288
TRT)
Transition Losses (at

25 0.279 0.100 0.0793 0.0605 0.0338 0.0318
Outlet Structure)
Friction Loss at Outlet

26 0.014 0.014 0.0063 0.0020 0.0067 0.0083
Structure Transition
Losses due to Trashrack

27 - 0.345 - - 0.0110 0.0090
at Outlet
Losses in Tail Race Channel - - - - 0.2756 0.2756
Total Loss 3.9791 4.3791 4.8141 4.5841
Added extra 10% for

0.4000 0.5000 0.4800 0.4600
Minor Losses
TOTAL HEAD LOSS 4.3791 4.8790 5.2941 5.0441
≈ 4.40 4.90 5.30 5.10
Table 9.7: Net Heads Adopted in the Project
Generation Mode Pumping Mode

Description
Large Unit Small Unit Large Unit Small Unit
FRL of Upper Reservoir 855.00 855.00 855.00 855.00
MDDL at Upper Reservoir 825.00 825.00 825.00 825.00
FRL for Rated Power 840.00 840.00 840.00 840.00
FRL at Lower Reservoir 633.83 633.83 633.83 633.83
MDDL at Lower Reservoir 623.93 623.93 623.93 623.93
TWL for Rated Power 628.88 628.88 628.88 628.88
Total Gross Head 226.67 226.17 236.37 236.17

Generation Mode Pumping Mode
Description
Large Unit Small Unit Large Unit Small Unit
Total Head Loss 4.40 4.90 5.30 5.10
Rated Net Head 206.72 206.22 216.42 216.22
9.9 Transient Analysis
A transient is a temporary :low and pressure condition that occurs in a hydraulic system between an
initial steady-state condition and a :inal steady state condition. Two most common causes of transient
initiation are the moving system boundaries viz. turbines and valves. In hydropower projects with
pressurized pipe network, the :low through turbine is controlled through guide vanes/valves. Rapid
opening or closing of guide vanes/valves results in hydraulic transients in water conductor system.
The water hammer study of Saundatti PSP has been analysed using WHAMO Software for longest
(maximum length) water conductor system with large unit and without surge tank. The transient
model has been analysed considering complete water conductor system from the Intake of Upper
reservoir considering upper reservoir as reservoir for turbine/generation mode and the water levels
at the exit of the outlet structure have been considered for pumping mode. The transient analysis of
the project has been carried out with reference to the IS:7396:1985 & IS:7357:1974.
The following water conductor system parameters have been adopted for the WHAMO analysis:
Table 9.8: Water Conductor System Parameters used in Transient Analysis
Rated Capacity of the project = 1260 MW (4x252 MW + 2x126 MW)

Rated design discharge of the project = 136.56 Cumec (for large unit) & 68.44
(Generation Mode) Cumec (for small unit)
Rated design discharge of the project (Pump = 130.77 Cumec (for large unit) & 64.35
Mode) Cumec (for small unit)
Full Reservoir Level (FRL) at Upper Reservoir = El. 855.00 m
Minimum Draw Down Level (MDDL) at Upper = El. 825.00 m
Reservoir
Full Reservoir Level (FRL) at Lower Reservoir = El.633.83 m
Minimum Draw Down Level (MDDL) at Lower = El. 623.93 m
Reservoir
Total Length of Water Conductor System = 6.0 m Ø 1029.43 m long Pressure Shaft &
7.0 mϕ, 227.97 m long TRT (for large
unit)
Type of Turbine & Nos. = Reversible Francis Turbines & 4 Nos.
(large), 2 Nos. (small)

9.9.1 Turbine/Generation Mode
The transient study has been carried out under emergency operating condition and the model has
been analysed for the following cases during turbine/generation mode:
Table 9.9: Time Sequence Applied for Case-1: Shutoff of Generation
for longest WCS with large unit

Transient Cases
Time (s) Guide Vane/valve Opening (%)
Shutoff of Generation at FRL of Upper Reser- 0 100
voir (i.e. El. 855.00 m)
10 0
Shutoff of Generation at MDDL of Lower 0 100

Reservoir (i.e. El. 623.93 m)
10 0
Table 9.10: Time Sequence Applied for Case-3: Start of Generation
For longest WCS with Large Unit

Transient Cases
Load Acceptance (0-100) at MDDL of Upper 0 0
20 100
1000 100
Load Acceptance (0-100) at FRL of Lower 0 0

20 100
1000 100
9.9.2 Pumping Mode
The transient study has been carried out under emergency operating condition and the model has
been analysed for the following cases during pumping mode:
Table 9.11: Time Sequence Applied for Case-2: Shutoff of Pumping

Transient Cases
0 100
Shutoff of Pumping at FRL of Lower
13.5 0
Shutoff of Pumping at MDDL of Upper 0 100

Reservoir (i.e. El.825.00 m) 13.5 0
Table 9.12: Time Sequence Applied for Case-4: Start of Pumping

Transient Cases
0 0
Load Acceptance (0-100) at MDDL of 20 100

Lower Reservoir (i.e. El. 623.93 m)
1000 100
0 0
Load Acceptance (0-100) at FRL of 20 100

Upper Reservoir (i.e. El. 855.00 m)
1000 100
9.9.3 Water Hammer Results
The transient results during for the above cases have been described in the following tables.
Table 9.13: Summary of Results from the transient analysis
Location of Water Con- Centre Line El- For Longest WCS

ductor System evation
Max. Head Min. Head
Top of Vertical Bend El. 802.65 m El. 871.24 m El. 813.42 m
Centre Line of Turbine
El. 587.00 m El. 932.26 m El. 769.04 m
(Penstock Side)
Centre Line of Turbine
El. 573.75 m El. 633.83 m El. 611.34 m
(Draft Side)
Rate of pressure rise at the center of Turbine (penstock side) in the case of Shutoff of Power
generation is provided in the table below.
Table 9.14: Maximum Energy Head & rate of pressure rise at Turbine
Description Large Unit/Longest WCS

Static Head Ps = 855.00 m – 587.00 m = 268.00 m
Dynamic Head PD = 932.26 m – 855.00 m = 77.26 m
Rate of Pressure Rise PD/Ps = 28.83%

The pictorial diagram of the transient results along the maximum length of water conductor system
for Large Unit (along Unit No.3) is shown in the Figure-9.1. The detailed input data used in WHAMO &
their results for large unit is shown in the Annexure-9.7(a). From the results above, it is concluded that
the maximum Pressure head at turbine for large unit has been calculated as El. 932.26 m and the
corresponding percentage of pressure rise has been worked out to 28.83% for load rejection case
during generation. It is found that, the arrived values are within the permissible limit as speci:ied in
the Cl. No. 5.6 of IS:12837-1989. Also, there is no negative pressure has been observed in the water
conductor system during generation mode as well as in the pumping mode. Hence, there is no
possibility of cavitation in the tunnel anywhere. Hence, with reference to the above transient results
the surge shaft has been eliminated in the Saundatti PSP. To withstand the tunnel for the maximum
water hammer pressures, the tunnel has been steel lined throughout based on the transient pressures
occur in the tunnel.

Figure 9.1: Diagram Showing Energy Elevations along Water Conductor System during Shutoff of Generation & Pumping Mode along WCS of Large Unit

9.10 Water Conductor System
9.10.1 General
Water under pressure is conveyed to the turbines through steel lined top inclined pressure shaft
followed by, steel lined vertical pressure shaft, & steel lined bottom horizontal pressure shaft upto
Main Inlet Valve (MIV). The steel liner is proposed in view of the high strength and :lexibility required
under different operational modes of the machine also no surge shaft is provided in the water
conductor system.
A 6.0 m diameter circular Pressure shaft takes off from Intake Structure to feed the generating units
housed in a surface Power House. 5 nos. of Pressure tunnels each of 6.0 m diameter will lead water
from intake to the powerhouse out of which one of the penstock is bifucated into two smaller units of
4.25m dia to feed the two smaller units. 5 numbers of top inclined pressure shafts (173.55 m long will
be connected at top vertical bend of each individual Vertical pressure shaft.) 5 nos. of vertical pressure
shaft each of an average height of 235.19m including top and bottom vertical bends will be connected
to the bottom horizontal pressure shaft. From this, 5 numbers of bottom horizontal pressure shafts, in
which 4 numbers of an average length of 620.69 m & 6.0 m diameter each will feed water to 4 number
of Francis turbines (i.e. for units 3 to 4) of 252 MW (i.e. for large units) and 1 number of 6.0 m
diameter bottom horizontal pressure shaft will be bifurcated into two of 4.25 dia. after a length of
562.73 m and lead water to two horizontal unit pressure shafts of each 72.01 m long to feed the unit
capacity of 126 MW each (i.e. smaller units 1 & 2).
The plan & L-section details for large unit & small unit of the water conductor system/ pressure shaft
is shown in the Drawing nos. AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/001 & 003 respectively.
9.10.2 Economic Diameter of Pressure Shaft
Economical diameter of the pressure shaft is calculated to ensure that the annual cost, which includes
the cost of power lost/required due to friction during generation/pumping, the annual depreciation and
the annual cost of maintenance is minimum. The mathematical procedure is elaborated in IS:11625-
1986 (Criteria for Hydraulic Design of Penstocks). Based on this procedure, the following equations have
been used for computation of ‘D’.
Cost of Excavation: -
Cost of Concrete Lining: -

Cost of Steel line in Penstock: -
Annual Cost of Power Lost in generation due to head loss: -
Annual Cost of Power Required in Pumping due to head loss: -
Where,
D = Diameter of the penstock in ‘m’
Pe = Unit cost of excavation in ‘Rupees/m3’
Pc = Unit cost of concrete lining in ‘Rupees/m3’
Cs = Cost of steel in ‘Rupees/kg’
i = Percentage by which steel in penstock is overweight due to provision of stiffeners,

corrosion allowance etc.
σj = Allowable stress in steel in ‘N/mm2’
ej = Joint ef:iciency of penstock
QG = Discharge through penstock in ‘m3/s’
n = Rugosity coef:icient in Manning’s formula
EG = Turbine-Generator Ef:iciency
Ep = Pump-Motor Ef:iciency
Lf = Load Factor during Generation/Pumping
PkWh,G = Cost of 1 kWh of energy in Rupees during generation
PkWh,P = Cost of 1 kWh of energy in Rupees during pumping
For sizing the economic diameter of pressure shaft, various sizes starting from 4.0 m to
10.0 m has been selected and the calculations have been carried based on the above formulas. The
detailed calculations are provided in the Annexure-9.8. From the calculations a graph has been
developed between annual charges on capital cost & the corresponding diameter. From the graph it is

observed that, the annual charges are minimum at 6.0 m diameter. Hence, 6.0 m diameter has been
selected for the project based on economic diameter analysis. The table showing the various diameters
and the corresponding cost vs Diameter curve is shown below in the Table 9.15 & Figure 9.1
respectively.
Table 9.15: Various diameter of Tunnel considered for the Selection of Economic Diameter
Cost of
Cost of Cost of Cost of Annual Cost of Total
Pumping
Diameter Excavation concrete Penstock Cost (Rs. Generation Annual
S.no Loss (Rs.
in “m” (Rs. In Lining (Rs. (Rs. In In Loss (Rs. In Cost (Rs. In
In
Lakhs/-) In Lakhs/-) Lakhs/-) Lakhs/-) Lakhs/-) Lakhs/-)
Lakhs/-)
D CE CC EP CG CP
6=0.11[3
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9=[6+7+8]
+4+5]
1 4.00 0.56 0.71 5.18 0.71 4.03 2.39 7.13
2 4.50 0.70 0.89 6.55 0.90 2.15 1.27 4.32
3 5.00 0.87 1.10 8.09 1.11 1.23 0.73 3.07
4 5.50 1.05 1.33 9.79 1.34 0.74 0.44 2.52
5 6.00 1.25 1.59 11.65 1.59 0.46 0.27 2.32
6 6.50 1.47 1.86 13.67 1.87 0.30 0.18 2.35
7 7.00 1.70 2.16 15.86 2.17 0.20 0.12 2.49
8 7.50 1.95 2.48 18.21 2.49 0.14 0.08 2.71
9 8.00 2.22 2.82 20.71 2.83 0.10 0.06 2.99
10 8.50 2.51 3.19 23.38 3.20 0.07 0.04 3.31
11 9.00 2.81 3.57 26.22 3.59 0.05 0.03 3.67
12 9.50 3.13 3.98 29.21 4.00 0.04 0.02 4.06
13 10.00 3.47 4.41 32.37 4.43 0.03 0.02 4.48

Figure 9.2: Curve Showing Diameter vs Cost of Tunnel for Selection of Economic
Diameter
9.10.3 Rock Support & Grouting Details of water conductor system
9.10.3.1 Top Inclined Pressure Shaft

Based on the investigations carried out, the water conductor system will negotiate different rock types
of variable strength with different rock conditions along its length.
General rock mass classi:ication for each rock conditions have been carried out considering the
orientation of tunnel, tunnel grade rock mass, tunneling drive direction and recorded geotechnical
parameters of different discontinuities and other geotechnical parameter of rock mass, viz., strength,
weathering condition, RQD & ground water condition.
Design of Support system
The support system is proposed according to the prevalent rock classes estimated during geological
mapping and based on estimated rock quality on RMR basis.
The details of the typical support system for various rock mass classes for 6.0m diameter underground
excavations on the basis RMR classi:ications is presented in Table-9.16.

Table 9.16: Support Recommended for 6.0 m diameter Top Inclined Pressure shaft
RMR Value Excavation Rock Bolts Shotcrete Steel ribs
81-100 Class-I Full Face 25.0 mm diameter, 3.0 m Spot SFRS No Steel ribs
(Very long spot grouted anchors
Good Rock)
61-80 Full face and Systematic 25 mm 50 mm thick No Steel ribs
Class II complete support diameter grouted rock SFRS in the
anchors of 3.0 m long @ crown only.
(Good Rock) 1.75 m c/c staggered at
1.75 c/c along the tunnel
in the crown (top
120°only)
41-60 Full face and Systematic 25 mm 100 mm Thick No Steel ribs

Class III complete support diameter grouted rock SFRS in crown
anchors of 3.0 m long and walls.
(Fair Rock) @1.50 m c/c staggered at
1.50 c/c along the tunnel
21-40 Full face and Systematic 25 mm 100 mm No Steel ribs

Class IV complete support diameter grouted rock thick SFRS in
anchors of 5.0 m long the crown
(Poor Rock) @1.50 m c/c staggered at and side
1.00 c/c along the tunnel walls.
< 20 Heading and Systematic 25 mm 100 mm thick ISMB 250 @

Class V benching diameter grouted rock shotcrete in 750 mm c/c
excavation Install anchors of 3.0 m long the crown with 75 mm
(Very Poor support @1.50 m c/c staggered at and side walls. thick precast
Rock) concurrently with 1.00 c/c along the tunnel lagging
excavation.
Shotcrete as soon
as possible after
blasting.
By Wedge analysis
To ascertain the adequacy of the typical support system proposed earlier on the basis of empirical
method, wedge analyses have been carried out using Unwedge software with the mapped joint sets
data. Detailed analyses indicate that wedges are formed on the :loor, left wall, right wall and
roof/crown of the tunnel.

Fig: Plot of the discontinuities at the top inclined pressure shaft
The critical wedges and their corresponding joint combinations without providing support system is
presented below.
Combination no. Joint Combination Position of critical FOS (Without support)

wedges
5 J1,J2b,J3a Upper Right 0.152
10 J1,J2b,J4 Upper Left 0.335
17 J2b,J3a,J3b Roof Wedge 0.081
Design of Support System:

Based on the geological report, top inclined pressure shaft will negotiate mostly through Class III rock.
The support system based on the empirical approach for class III rock i.e. 100 mm thick Shotcrete
(SFRS) and 25mm dia 3.0 m long grouted anchor bars at spacing of 1.5 m x 1.5 m is applied in wedge
analysis. The support system is checked to satisfy the above critical wedge failures.
The pictorial representation of the wedges is also presented.

Table shows the critical wedges with their corresponding factor of safety after installing the support
system.

wedges
10 J1,J2b,J4 Upper Left 13.70
The detailed analysis of the wedges of the top inclined pressure shaft is presented in Annexure-
9.9(a).

The top inclined pressure shaft suppport system comprises of grouted rock anchors, SFRS and steel
ribs. Forepoling will be carried out as per requirement while boring in class V type of rock. Probe
drilling shall be resorted for identifying the problem areas and suitable prior remedial measure shall
be kept ready before hand.
The top inclined pressure shaft is provided with 650 mm thick cement concrete lining considering the
minimum thickness required for the installation of the steel liner. Back:ill concrete of M20 grade is
used to back:ill the gap behind the steel liner.
9.10.3.2 Vertical Pressure Shaft

Each pressure shaft comprises of 207.94 m long vertical shaft with top and bottom bends. Surface
excavation shall be carried out till the junction of the top bend and the vertical pressure shaft.
Excavation in the overburden shall be carried out in 1V:1H and in the bed rock it will carried out in
1H:6V.
Rock support system for the open cut rock slope includes shotcrete with wire mesh and grouted rock
anchors. Systematic drainage holes shall be provided in the bed rock. Drawing showing the details of
the support system for the excavation for the vertical pressure shaft is shown in drawing no:
AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/009.
The Pressure Shaft will be excavated from the top with a pilot hole and from the bottom with a raise
climber. The vertical shaft will be provided with steel liner throughout the length and minimum
650.00 mm thick concrete back:illing. Concrete grade of M20 will be used to back:ill the gap behind
the steel liner.
9.10.3.3 Bottom Horizontal Pressure shaft

The bottom horizontal pressure shaft 6.0 m diameter steel lined will lead water from :ive vertical
pressure shafts and feed water Francis turbines. Four number horizontal pressure shafts straight join
to four bigger units of 252 MW and one after bifurcation will connect to two smaller units of 126 MW.
The bottom pressure tunnel is provided with 650 mm thick cement concrete lining considering the
minimum thickness required for the installation of the steel liner. Back:ill concrete of M20 grade is
used to back:ill the gap behind the steel liner.
Design of Support system
mapping and based on estimated rock quality on RMR basis.The details of the typical support system
for various rock mass classes for 6.0m diameter underground excavations on the basis RMR
classi:ications is presented in Table-9.16.

By Wedge Analysis
To ascertain the adequacy of the typical support system proposed earlier on the basis of empirical
method, wedge analyses have been carried out using Unwedge software with the mapped joint sets
data. Detailed analyses indicate that wedges are formed on the :loor, left wall, right wall and
roof/crown of the tunnel.
Unwedge analysis is carried out for the bottom horizontal pressure tunnel to :ind out the possible
wedges.

wedges
37 S2,S3,S4 Upper Right 1.00
26 S1,J2a,J4b Upper Left 0.549
106 J2a,J3a,J4a Roof Wedge 0.123
Wedge analysis is carried out with the support system of Class III. The support system based on the
empirical approach for class III rock i.e. 100 mm thick Shotcrete (SFRS) and 25mm dia 3.0 m long
grouted anchor bars at spacing of 1.5 m x 1.5 m is applied in wedge analysis. The support system is
checked to satisfy the above critical wedge failures. The pictorial representation of the wedges is also
presented.

The details of the typical support system for various rock mass classes is like top inclined pressures
tunnel.
The support system is proposed according to the prevalent rock classes estimated during of same
diameter of 6.0m diameter proposed in Table-9.16.
Wedge analysis carried out with the support system as envisaged from empirical method based on
RMR basis. The table below summarized FOS with support for the critical wedges.

wedges
26 S1,J2a,J4b Upper Left 7.342
Thus, all these unstable wedges become stable when the support measures proposed in table are
provided. The details analysis of the wedges of the bottom horizontal pressure shaft is presented in
Annexure 9.9(b).
Grouting:
Consolidation Grouting and Contact Grouting is proposed in the entire length of the tunnel. Contact
grouting should be done at the bottom part of the steel liner also to avoid the cavities between the
steel liner and the concrete back:ill. The grouting details are provided based on the general practice
and IS codes. The details of the grouting holes and location are provided in the drawings.
Numerical analysis:
The tunnel is modeled in phase2 with graded mesh and 3 noded triangle mesh element at the actual
ground elevation. Minimum of 15 m on all the sides of the tunnel opening is considered in the model
which is about 2 times the tunnel opening. The boundary conditions are restrained in both the
directions in all the four sides. Gravity stress loading is applied on the tunnel. Phase2 model of the
tunnel model is as shown below.
Description Class II
Blast zone 2m from the tunnel Other zone
boundary
Input
Intact rock UCS σci (MPa) 59 59
Hoek Brown constant mi 16.80 16.80

(intact)
Modulus of Elasticity E (MPa) 40000 40000

(Intact)

Average RMR RMR 69 69
GSI 64 64
Disturbance factor D 0.3 0
Hoek Brown material mb 3.70163 4.6444

constant (rock mass)
Hoek Brown material s 0.01174 0.01832

constant
Hoek Brown material a 0.5000 0.5000

constant

Numerical analysis is carried out in Phase2 software to :ind the displacement of the tunnel. Based on
the RMR method of assessment of tunneling media the rock mass is expected to negotiate fair to good
rock conditions with RMR ranging from 64 to 74 under this category of rocks. Generalized Hoek and
Brown material model is used for the analysis.
A blast damage zone of 2.0 m is considered from the tunnel boundary with the disturbance factor of
D=0.3. Intact rock properties are taken from the rock mechanics test carried out on the core samples.
Analysis and Results
The displacement of the tunnel before the installation of the support system is as shown below. The
maximum displacement observed was 1.4 mm. The displacement is less than 1% of the tunnel
opening which is 9.2 m.

The support system calculated by the wedge analysis, is incorporated in the model to :ind the post
support behavior of the tunnel.
The support system considered is
i) 100 mm thick Shotcrete with :ibre reinforcement.
ii) 25 dia grouted rock anchor, 4.0 m long, 1.5x1.5 m spacing with capacity of 15.5 T.

Based on the wedge analysis carried out the support system is required for the supporting the wedges.
The model with the support system is given below.

The displacement plot after the support system installed is as below.
After the installation of the support system, the displacement and length of the plastic zone is reduced.
Conclusion

From the wedge analysis, the unstable wedges along the periphery of the tunnel is found and
stabilized with the support system. Later numerical analysis is carried out to :ind the displacement of
the tunnel. The tunnel displacement is within the permissible limit.
List of drawings pertinent to the rock support system and grouting is tabulated below:
S. No. Drawing Title Drawing Number
Intake tunnel/Pressure shaft 6.0m ø- Excavation AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/008

1.
and Rock Support details
Vertical Pressure shaft 6.0 m ø- Excavation and AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/009

2.
Rock Support details
Intake tunnel/Pressure shaft 4.25 m ø- AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/010

3.
Excavation and Rock Support details
Intake tunnel/Pressure shaft 6.0 m ø- Grouting AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/011

4.
details
5. Vertical Pressure shaft 6.0 m ø- Grouting details AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/012
Intake tunnel/Pressure shaft 4.25 m ø- Grouting AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/013

6.
details
9.10.4 Penstock Bifurcation
Out of 5 water ways, one number of horizontal pressure shaft will be bifurcated into two branches, and
each branch shall carry water to feed 1 unit each of 126 MW. Velocity of :low in the branches is kept
equal to the velocity in the main penstock in order to minimise the head loss and turbulence at
bifurcation point. Hence, 4.25 m diameter is found to be suitable in keeping view to maintain the same
velocity in main & branch pressure shaft. The detailed calculations for sizing of branch pressure shaft
is provided in the following table:
Description Main Pressure Shaft Unit Pressure Shaft (Unit-1 & 2)
Design Discharge, Q 136.56 m3/s 68.44 m3/s
Diameter, D 6.0 m 4.25 m
Cross sectional area, A 28.274 m2 14.18 m2
Velocity of :low, V 4.84 m/s 4.83 m/s

9.10.5 Steel Liner of Water Conductor System
The entire length of upstream water conductor system from end of intake gate to MIV has been
proposed with steel liner. The structural design of steel liner of water conductor system has been
worked out based on criteria provided in the IS:11639 (Part-2)-1995. Accordingly, the thickness of
steel liner is assessed keeping in view the internal pressure including water hammer effect. The rock
participation of 15% has been accounted for the design steel liner in pressure shaft from the end of
adit-1 junction to MIV since, the fault zone has been encountered at 60 m u/s from the adit-1. The
remaining upper portion i.e. top inclined pressure shaft, vertical pressure shaft & bottom horizontal
pressure shaft upto adit-1 have been designed without rock participation. The rock participation has
been worked out based on the IS: 4880 (Part-VII) -2011. The detailed calculations for rock
participation is presented in the Annexure-9.10(a). Two types steels grades have been used for this
water conductor system viz., ASTM-537 Cl-2 steel has been used upto half of the top vertical pressure
shaft and ASTM-517 Gr-F grade steel has been used for the remaining portion of WCS upto MIV
considering the water hammer pressures in the water conductor system.
The detailed calculations of steel liner thickness in the water conductor system for large unit and for
smaller unit are provided in the Annexure-9.10(b) and Annexure-9.10(c) respectively. The
thickness of plate varies from 18 mm to 38 mm with ASTM 537 Class-II and the thickness varies from
28 mm to 42 mm with ASTM 517 Grade-F steel. The arrangement details of steel liner for Large Unit &
Small unit along the water conductor system has been shown in the Drawing. No.
AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/014. The maximum length of each ferrule will be 2.5 m. However, before
erection, two ferrules of 2.5 m will be joined together in the shop and each ferrule of 5m will be
transported for erection. All the joints will be welded joints. All shop welding of the longitudinal joints
will be double V-butt welds. The field welds will be single V-butt welds with backing strip. All the shop
welds will be checked by radiographic examination while all field welds will be tested by ultrasonic
examination. Hydraulic testing of ferrules will be carried at 1.5 times the design head before erection.
The summary of steel liner for large unit & small unit along water conductor system have been
provided in the Table-9.17 & Table-9.18 respectively.
Table 9.17: Summary of Steel Liner Thickness along Water Conductor System of Large Unit
Chainage of Water Thickness of

Si.No. El. at Start El. at End Steel Grade
Conductor System Steel Liner
'm' 'm' 'm' 'mm'
1 0.00 - 199.76 812.38 784.67 18.00
ASTM 537
2 199.76 - 219.76 784.67 764.67 22.00
Cl.2
3 219.76 - 239.76 764.67 744.67 26.00

4 239.76 - 259.76 744.67 724.67 30.00
5 259.76 - 279.76 724.67 704.67 34.00
6 279.76 - 299.76 704.67 684.67 38.00
7 299.76 - 359.76 684.67 624.67 34.00
8 359.76 - 379.43 624.67 605.00 38.00
ASTM 517,
9 379.43 - 507.71 605.00 587.00 40.00
Gr-F
10 507.71 - 663.31 587.00 587.00 42.00
11 663.31 - 1028.40 587.00 587.00 38.00
Table 9.18: Summary of Steel Liner Thickness along Water Conductor System of Small Unit
Chainage of Water Thickness of

Si.No. El. at Start El. at End Steel Grade
Conductor System Steel Liner
'm' 'm' 'm' 'mm'
1 0.00 - 196.64 812.38 784.85 18.00
2 196.64 - 216.82 784.85 764.67 22.00
3 216.82 - 236.82 764.67 744.67 ASTM 537 26.00
4 236.82 - 256.82 744.67 724.67 Cl.2 30.00
5 256.82 276.82 724.67 704.67 34.00
6 276.82 - 296.82 704.67 684.67 38.00
7 296.82 - 356.82 684.67 624.67 34.00
8 356.82 - 376.49 624.67 605.00 38.00
9 376.49 - 504.77 605.00 587.00 40.00
10 504.77 - 671.27 587.00 587.00 ASTM 517, 42.00
11 671.27 - 973.66 587.00 587.00 Gr-F 38.00
12 973.66 - 988.66 587.00 587.00 34.00
13 988.66 - 998.66 587.00 587.00 30.00
14 998.66 - 1037.42 587.00 587.00 28.00
9.11 Power House
9.11.1 General
The surface powerhouse has been planned to accommodate 6 units of Francis reversible type Turbines
corresponding to 1260MW installed capacity. The layout of Powerhouse has been prepared as per the
recommendations contained in IS 12800 (Part 2/sec1): 1989. Detailed calculations for arriving the
powerhouse dimensions are for larger and smaller are enclosed in Annexure 9.11(a) & 9.11(b)
respectively.
The powerhouse complex size is 151.45m (L) x 25.5m (W) x 51.2m (H). The center line of the turbine

is proposed at EL + 587.0 m corresponding to minimum Tail water level (MDDL) of El +623.930 m at
Tailrace outfall. The service bay level has been :ixed at El.
601.20 m with size of 30 m (L) X 26.5 m (W) . the unloading bay is proposed at El. 625.20 m with size
of 15 m (L) X 26.5m (W) and located on right side to the power house. The crane beam level has been
proposed at El. 613.70 m.
The powerhouse will be of indoor type so that all the erection and maintenance will be taken up in the
powerhouse itself. Due considerations to the surface drainage, ventilation, lighting etc., has been given
while :ixing the size and location of various components. The location of Gantry columns is :inalized
considering the economy and the machine layout.
Machine Hall
There are four main :loors in the machine hall. The lowest :loor is at El.568.50 m and houses the main
inlet valve (MIV) for the units. Cooling water pumps, dewatering & drainage pumps shall be located on
the MIV :loor. The larger units are spaced at 26.0m c/c, while the smaller units are spaced at 23.0m
c/c. The Pump Turbine :loor is provided at EL. 591.050 m and houses the various pump turbine
auxiliaries and oil pressure units for governors including MIV for each unit. The generator :loor is
provided at EL 595.80 m and houses various Unit Auxiliary boards (UAB's) neutral grounding cubicles,
HP lubrication system, marshaling panels, etc. Necessary hatches for erection and removal of MIV shall
be provided at various :loors in the machine hall. The machine hall :loor is at EL. 601.20 m. This is the
main operating :loor and houses the unit control boards, control panels and excitation panels etc. The
provision and arrangement of various electromechanicals /electrical equipment, control equipment
and other auxiliaries are discussed in detail in Electro-mechanical chapter. The entrance for the
machine hall shall be through the lift & stair case provided from the unloading bay.
Transformer Building
The transformer building of size 165.35m (L) x 15.0m (W) x 21 m (H) is located downstream of the
powerhouse at EL 625.20 m. The building will be founded on rock. GIS :loor has been kept at EL
635.15 m. An EOT crane of capacity 10T with crane beam at EL. 646.55m has been provided in the
transformer building for handling various equipment. The structural framework of the building shall
be of RCC with Beams, slabs & columns and the covering Roof shall be structural steel Truss.
9.11.2 General design of the power house
9.11.2.1 Selection of site and general layout

Location of surface power house has been selected to avoid possible in:luences from
slope excavation during power house construction, whilst keeping the length of the waterways as
short as possible to avoid surge shaft.

The longitudinal axis of the power house is almost parallel to the contour lines. The layout of tailrace
tunnel and tailrace channel alignment. Unloading bay at EL625.20 placed higher to erection bay at
EL601.20 to optimise excavation and ease in approach.
The control room building is placed d/s parallel to the B-Line of the power house at elevation of
machine hall/ erection bay EL 601.20. The location of outdoor GIS building & switchyard have been
located further d/s on the terraces at elevation EL625.20 m & EL634.95 m respectively. Switchyard
area of about 27 m x 96 m. and connected by approach road to power house with a gradient of less
than 5%. Control cables from GIS building/ switchyard to the power house will be laid for the
electrical connections to the terminals of the transformers.
9.11.2.2 Layout and main dimensions

General concept of designs
The lower reservoir MDDL 623.93 m is utilised for the setting out of centre line of turbine at EL 587.00
to retain reasonable suction head in pumping up as per IS 12800 (Pt-II). The general arrangements of
:loors and dimensioning of EM equipment’s are also :irmed up in accordance of IS 12800 (Pt-II)
provisions.
Main dimensions of the power station
Unit spacing: 26.0/23.0 m (252/126 MW)
Superstructure height (foundation to roof top): 40.02 m
Machine hall (height/ length/ width): 18.42/151.45/25.5 m
Sub-structure (max. height / max. length / max. width): 21.6/155.5/25.5 m
Erection bay (length / width): 30.00/25.5 m
Hoist of main crane hook above erection bay :loor: 14.45 m
Unloading Bay (length / width): 15.00/26.5 m
Arrangement of 4loors and rooms
Horizontal layout
The :loors of the power house will contain the following items of electro-mechanical equipment or
rooms:
Saundatti PSP-Arrangement of 4loors and rooms with description
Elevation Technical description of component
567.80m Dewatering pump sump bottom elevation
569.80m Drainage pump sump bottom elevation

569.30m Bottom of draft tube: Draft tube dewatering piping
583.45m Turbine inlet valve (MIV) :loor
Foundation for butter:ly valve, drainage for penstock, access to drainage and
dewatering sumps, Cooling water panel, DT drain valve access, Oil sump tank for
governor and MIV.
587.00m Centre line axis of spiral casing and distribution manifold:
Spiral casing, turbine runner, C/L of butter:ly valve, branch for service water.
591.05m Turbine :loor:
Turbine pit, cooling water pumps and piping, HS lubrication unit, drainage and
dewatering pumps & valves, compressor depression system, HP air compressor
system, LP air Compressor system, brake and jack panel, brake dust collector,
gauge panel, HMC/governor and Electrical control panel for MIV.
595.80m Generator :loor:
Generator-motor with auxiliary equipments, NG cubicle, Excitation transformers,

unit auxiliary boards, Inert gas bank(for generator-motor :ire protection).
601.20m Machine hall :loor & it's upstream annexure :loor:
AC excitation panels (VSI), Generator circuit breakers with LVAT cubicle, phase
reversal disconnecting switch, drainage and dewatering starter panel, DCDB,
Battery charger, control and relay panels, PLCC/FOTE panel, :lood pumps and
control panel.
601.20m Single phase generator transformers (for 240MW units) with spare limb, three
phase generator transformers (for 120MW units), Nitrogen injection :ire
protection system (NIFPS), Station transformers
625.20m GIS Equipment and Outdoor yard
601.20m Erection bay :loor for main equipment assembly
613.70m Top of beam for EOT crane at erection bay
625.20m Unloading bay, approach road
646.25m Top of beam for EOT crane at unloading bay
Vertical connections in the powerhouse
The erection bay (:loor level 601.20 Mt.) is connected to the un loading bay (:loor level 625.20 Mt.) by
a staircase/service lift. Another four stair cases are located in machine hall :loor of the power house
(facing downstream) where connects all :loors between elevations 591.05 Mt. EL MIV :loor and 601.20
Mt. EL Machine hall :loor. Two openings of 3.0 m X 4.0 m and 4.8 m X 6.1 m, for equipment service and

access for handling of main inlet valve respectively have been provided for each unit in the machine
hall :loor, generator :loor and turbine :loor, to facilitate erection and maintenance.
9.11.3 Structural design of the powerhouse
9.11.3.1 General considerations

All calculations have been done in accordance with the respective Indian standards for Limit State
design. Corresponding material properties will be as speci:ied below.
9.11.3.2 Material properties

Concrete
In accordance with IS 456:2000, concrete will be grade M 25 (speci:ied Characteristic compressive

strength of 150 mm cubes at 28 days: 25 N/mm2), unless otherwise speci:ied.
Steel reinforcement
Reinforcement will be grade Fe 415/500 (0.2% proof stress or a yield stress of 415/500
N/mm2), cold worked, high-yield strength deformed bars, in accordance with IS:1786. Nominal clear
cover shall be as per IS456:2000 (Clause 26.4), except where concrete in contact with water or ground
water, in which case the cover to the longitudinal bars shall be increased to 50 mm.
Structural steel (for metal works)
Structural steel will be standard quality steel conforming to IS 226 or fusion welding quality steel
conforming to IS 2062.
9.11.3.3 Loadings Unit weights

Unit weights will be in accordance with IS 1911, but to allow for unavoidable variations, the following
values will be assumed for design:
- Mass concrete: 2400 kg/m3
- Reinforced concrete: 2500 kg/m3
- Rock: 2600 kg/m3
- Steel: 7850 kg/m3
- Common burnt brick clay: 1920 kg/m3
Live Loads
The live loads include uniformly distributed floor loads, equipment standing loads, equipment
wheel loads, trucks, crane lifting loads and similar items. The uniform floor live load will be
disregarded for areas occupied by equipment whose weight is specifically included in the dead
load. However, uniform live load must be considered for accessible areas beneath equipment,

such as beneath a raised water tank on legs. The following minimum uniform live loads shall be
used:
➢ Stairs, corridors, offices, locker rooms, laboratories: 5 kN/m2
➢ Walkways and platforms: 5 kN/m2
➢ Turbine floor and turbine distributor floor: 15 kN/m2
➢ Generator floor: 15 kN/m2
➢ Control room floor and battery room floor: 10 kN/m2
➢ Unloading Bay: 5 kN/m2\\\
➢ Erection bay (EL 601.20 m): 50 kN/m2
➢ Machine Hall (EL 601.20 m): 25 kN/m2
➢ Storage area, Mechanical workshop: 15 kN/m2
➢ Roof: 1.5 kN/m2
➢ Elsewhere: 5 kN/m2
Wind loads
Wind loads are de:ined as per the provisions of IS 875 (Part 3): 1987: The Saundatti site is located at
250 km from the coast. The basic wind speed Vb. for a 50-year return period, is 33 m/s (see Fig. 1 of
the code). As per Clause 5.3.2, the Terrain is Category 3.
The power house is a Class C structure as it is longer than 50 m. As per IS 875 (part 3), the importance
factor, k1, is 1.05. The terrain, height, and structure size factors, k2, is 1.115. The topography factor, k3,
equals 1 + Cs, where C =0.36 for slopes steeper than 17° (this is the case for the power house). The
factors is given by Fig. 14 and, for the topography prevalent at the power house, was determined to be
0.3. Therefore, the topography factor, k3, is 1.18.
The design wind velocity is Vz= Vb x kl x k2 x k3, and the design wind pressure in N/mm2 is equal to
by pz= 0.6 Vz2. For wind parallel to the longer power house side, i.e. for Ɵ=0°:
• The windward pressure coef:icient is +0.7, the leeward pressure coef:icient is -0.4.
• The pressure coef:icient for the roof is -0.8 on the windward half and -0.6 on the leeward half
of the roof.
For a wind direction perpendicular to the long power house side, i.e.: for Ɵ =90°,

• The windward pressure coef:icient (Cpe) is +0.8, the leeward pressure coef:icient is -0.l, and
each sidewall has a pressure coef:icient of -0.5.
• The pressure coef:icient for the roof is -0.8 on the windward half and -0.8 on the leeward half
of the roof.
The power house erection bay doors can be assumed closed during strong winds. Therefore, for the
calculation of the internal pressure coef:icients, the power house will be considered to have medium-
sized openings of between 5 to 20% of the wall area. It will be examined for values of internal pressure
coef:icient (Cpi) of +0.5 and -0.5, to determine which causes the greater effect on the individual
structural elements.
The wind load, F, acting in a direction normal to such as element is:
F= (Cpe - Cpi) x A x Pd where A is the surface area of the structural element and Pd is its
corresponding design wind pressure.
Seismic loads:
The horizontal Seismic coef:icient Ah for a structure shall be determined by the following expression
as per IS1893(Part-1):2002
Ah=ZI/2R x (Sa/g)
Where
Z= Zone factor as per (Table-2) =0.10
I=Importance factor as per Table-6 (Clause:6.4.2) =1.5
R=Response reduction factor as per (Table-7) (Clause:6.4.2) =3
T=Fundamental Natural Period as per (Clause-7.6.2) Ta =0.075h0.75
Sa/g=Average response acceleration coef:icient as per Fig-2
Horizontal seismic coef:icient Ah
Total Weight of the structure to be considered for seismic 1.0DL+0.5LL
Total Seismic Base shear=W x Ah
All the above-mentioned loads (Dead Load, Live Load, wind Load/Seismic Load & Crane Loads) are
been applied in STAAD Pro considering a single bay of the Power House and the structure is being
analysed for different load combinations as per the relevant codal provisions and based on the STAAD
analysis results the Column sizing has been :inalised and Designed. The de:lections are also checked
based on the analysis results and are kept within the allowable limits. All the detailed load calculations
and results are attached in separate Annexure 9.12.

9.11.3.4 Method of design
General
The limit state method will generally be used for structural design, adopting characteristic and design
values and partial safety factors for loads and material strengths, as speci:ied in IS 456-2000, Clause-5,
to ensure an adequate Degree of safety and serviceability.
For the serviceability limit state, all elements of concrete will then be checked for de:lection and crack
limitations, as per IS: 456-2000, Clause-42 and Clause-43, and in accordance with Clause-23.2.1, for
vertical de:lection limits, and Section Clause-26.3 for Spacing of reinforcement.
Note, however. that instead of crack width calculations, as per Annex-F of IS 456:2000, one can limit
the reinforcing steel tensile stress to 195 N/mm2 for the service level combination. This corresponds
approximately to an average crack width limitation of 0.3 mm, as given in IS 456-2000 Clause-35.3.2.
For-walls and slabs exposed to moisture, or in contact with soil or ground water, the crack limit will be
0.2 mm, and this can be allowed for by limiting the tensile stress of the reinforcing steel to130 N/mm2.
Design stresses
Design bond stresses to be assumed for M 25 concrete are as follows:
➢ Plain bars: 1.4 N/mm2
➢ Deformed bars: 2.24 N/mm2
Compression (Flexural): as per Clause-38 of IS 456:2000
Compression (Direct): as per Clause-39 of IS 456: 2000
Shear: this value depends on the quantity of longitudinal tension reinforcement and concrete grade
provided. but shall not exceed 2.8 N/mm2 for M 20 concrete.
Torsion (pure and combined with shear): as per Clause-40 of IS 456:2000.
For structural steel conforming to IS 226 or IS 2062, the permissible axial, bending, shear, bearing and
combined stresses shall be as given in IS 800. section III.
Applicable codes and standards
The following codes and standards are applicable to this section of the design report:
1. IS 456: Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete (fourth revision-(2000)
2. IS 2062: Speci:ication for structural steel (fusion welded quality) - (latest quality)
3. IS 800: Code of practice for the use of structural steel in general building construction (latest
revision)
4. IS 875: Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures (latest
revision)
5. IS 1786: Speci:ication for high strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement
(latest revision)
6. IS 1893: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures (latest revision)

7. IS 4326: Code of practice for earthquake resistant design and construction of buildings (latest
revision)
8. IS 1905: Code of practice for structural safety of buildings. masonry walls (latestrevision)
9. IS 1911: Schedule of unit weights of building materials (latest revision)
10. IS 4247: Code of practice for the structural design of surface hydel power stations: Part 1 - data for
design; Part 2 - Superstructure
11. IS 7207: Criteria for the design of generator foundations for hydel power stations
12. IS 7418: Criteria of design for spiral casings (concrete and steel)
13. IS 807: Code of practice for design, manufacture, erection and testing (structural portion) of cranes
and hoists
14. All other relevant standards or codes
9.12 Stability of cut slopes
9.12.1 Cut slope details
The average ground elevation at the proposed power house is varies from EL 661 to EL 652 and the
deepest excavation is proposed at EL 568.50 including the draft tube pit. The height of vertical
excavation is about 92 m.
The foundation grade of the proposed power house is at EL 568.50 and service bay is at EL 601.20.
The excavation below the service bay shall be :illed upto spiral case and turbine :loor. Thus, out of the
92m vertical excavation, about 60 m would be the permanent cut slope.
At the proposed location of the power house, it is estimated that the thickness of the slope wash
material is about 5 m to 7m and the depth of the weathered zone below the slope wash material is
about 25 to 40 m. The foundation grade rock for the proposed power house will be fresh granite.
Excavation of cut slopes in slopewash is proposed to be carried out in 1H: 1V slope. Below the
slopewash material, excavation in the weathered zone will be carried out in 1H:4V, with a bench of 4 m
and vertical depth of 10m. Below the weathered zone excavation will be carried out in 1H: 6V slope
down to the deepest foundation with 4m wide berm after each 12m vertical bench excavation. The
details of the average cuts slope around the power house pit excavation is given in table below.
Table 9.19: Details of cut slopes
S.
Slope segment Slope direction Slope Angle
No
1 Right Slope (West) 090° 62°
2 Left Slope (East) 270° 57°
3 Upstream Slope (North) 180° 62°
4 Downstream Slope (South) 360° 67°

Based on the geological mapping in and around the power house area, the following discontinuity data
are collected.
Joint Dip Dip Direction
S1 41 0
0.130
S2 250 0040
S3 300 2620
S4 470 1790
J2a 720 1180
J2b 800 3050
J3a 720 2450
J3b 800 0590
J4a 780 1680
J4b 800 3570
Right Slope (West Slope)
Stereonet plot of the right side slope (west slope) is given below.
Dip
Joint Dip
Direction
S1 41° 013°
S2 25° 004°
S3 30° 262°
S4 47° 179°
J2a 72° 118°
J2b 80° 305°
J3a 72° 245°
J3b 80° 059°
J4a 78° 168°
J4b 80° 357°
West
62° 090°
Slope
The kinematic analysis is carried out for the proposed excavated slope to study the possibility of
planar and wedge failure.

The stereo plot exhibits that for segment west slope (Slope direction N090°), S3 joint set is nearly
parallel to the cut slope but dipping in opposite direction, thus not satisfying the criteria required for
planar failure. Hence the possibility of planar failure is ruled out.
From the above stereonet plot for the north slope as shown above, the following joint set combinations
may trigger wedge failure.
I. S4 and J3b
SWedge from Rocscience is used to study the factor of study along the possible wedge failure
combinations. The detailed analysis of the power house rock cut slope stability is attached as
Annexure-9.13.
From the above study, the rock support system comprising of 6.0 m long grouted rock anchors at
1.5x1.5m spacing, 75mm thick shotcrete with wiremesh is provided. Also systematic 6.5 m long
drainage holes @3.0 m c/c will be provided to keep the sloped safe from developing pore pressure
during rainy season.
Left Slope (East Slope)
Stereonet plot of the left-side slope (east slope) is given below.

Joint Dip Dip Direction
S1 41° 013°
S2 25° 004°
S3 30° 262°
S4 47° 179°
J2a 72° 118°
J2b 80° 305°
J3a 72° 245°
J3b 80° 059°
J4a 78° 168°
J4b 80° 357°
East
Slope 57° 270°
In the East slope (Slope direction N270°) the average strike of S3 joint set is near parallel to the trend
of the cut slope, but the dip amount (Ψp) S3=30° is less than the friction angle (Ø=40°) of the rock.
Hence not satisfying the criteria for the planar failure.
The possibility of the wedge formation for the proposed cut slope is studied and it is found that there
is no possibility of wedge formation in the east cut slope.

Upstream Slope (North Slope)
Dip
Joint Dip
Direction
S1 41° 013°
S2 25° 004°
S3 30° 262°
S4 47° 179°
J2a 72° 118°
J2b 80° 305°
J3a 72° 245°
J3b 80° 059°
J4a 78° 168°
J4b 80° 357°
North
62° 180°
Slope
The stereoplot exhibits that for North Slope (Slope direction N180°) the average strike of S4 joints is
parallel to the trend of the proposed cut slope and dip amount (Ψp) (S4=47°) is greater than the
friction angle Ø=40°, Therefore, only S4 joint set ful:ils the criteria for planar failure {as (Ψf =62° >
Ψp=47°) and Ψp=47° > Ø=40°}.
From the above stereonet plot for the north slope as shown above, the following joint set combinations
may trigger wedge failure.
I. J2a and J3a
II. S4 and J2a
III. S4 and J3a
Downstream slope (South Slope)
Stereonet plot of the downstream slope (South) is given below.

Dip
Joint Dip
Direction
S1 41° 013°
S2 25° 004°
S3 30° 262°
S4 47° 179°
J2a 72° 118°
J2b 80° 305°
J3a 72° 245°
J3b 80° 059°
J4a 78° 168°
J4b 80° 357°
South
67° 360°
Slope
The possibility of failure along the joint planes is studied and the results are summarized below.
For south slope (Slope direction N360°) the average strike of S1 joint set is near parallel to the trend of
the cut slope. Also, the dip amount (Ψp) S1=41° is greater than the friction angle (Ø=40°) of the rock
mass and slope angle of cut slopes (Ψf =67°) is greater than the dip amount (Ψp=41°). Hence the
planar failure is possible along joint S1.
Also, the joint set S2 is parallel to the trend of the cut slope, but the dip amount (Ψp) S2=25° is less the
friction angle, hence ruling out the possibility of the planar failure.
The possibility of the wedge formation for the proposed cut slope is studied and it is found that the
following combination of joint sets may trigger the wedge failure.
I. S1 and J2b
1.5x1.5m spacing, 75mm thick shotcrete with wiremesh is provided. Also, systematic 6.5 m long
drainage holes @3.0 m c/c will be provided to keep the sloped safe from developing pore pressure
during rainy season.
The details of the power house plan at various elevations and sections are shown in drawing no:
AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/016 to 022.

Slope stability Analysis of the Power House Cut Slope
1.West Side Slope: (LS):
A. Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM):
The stability analysis is carried out using the limit equilibrium method. This procedure involves
comparing the available shear strength along the sliding surface with the force required to maintain
the slope in equilibrium. Bishops method is adopted for the slope stability analysis. The analysis is
carried out using Slide software.
Model:
The proposed powerhouse pit is lies in the rock class III based on the surface mapping. The GSI value
of the proposed pit area is about 64.
The effect of blasting over the cut slope is considered in the design of the support system. The blast
damage zone is considered to be 2.0 m from the face of the excavation. The disturbance factor (D) is
considered to be 0.7 in the face.
Generalized Hoek Brown strength criteria are adopted for the material model. The input parameters
are taken from the rock mechanics test carried out. The derived rock mass properties are as tabulated
below
Input Blast damage Zone Inside zone
Intact rock UCS σci (MPa) 55.00 55.00
Hoek Brown constant (intact) mi 32.0 32.0
Unit weight Y (KPa) 27.35 27.35

Modulus of Elasticity (Intact) E (MPa) 40000 40000
GSI 64 64
Disturbance factor D 0.7 0.0
Hoek Brown constant (rock mass) mb 4.42696 8.84650
Hoek Brown constant (rock mass) s 0.00542 0.01832
Hoek Brown constant (rock mass) a 0.5000 0.5000
The slide model with the properties of the material is shown as below.

Support Design
Grouted rock anchors (GRA) and self-drilling anchors are proposed to be used in the rock excavation
and overburden excavation respectively. The support capacities of the various bolt considered in the
analysis are summarized below.
25 dia GRA , 6.0 m long - 155 kN
25 dia SDA, 6.0 m long - 150 kN
Bond length of these anchors is considered to be 70% of the total length of the anchors. The cut slope
will be supported by 75mm thick shotcrete. The shotcrete is modelled as the material model.
Various combinations of the support system are analysed by varying the spacing and length. The slide
model with the proposed support system is shown below.

Slope stability Analysis:
The model generated is analysed for the no support conditions initially. The minimum factor of safety
is 0.628 is passing through the overburden.
In the overburden, 6.0 m long SDA @ 1.5mx1.5m spacing is planned. In the rock, the 6.0 m long GRA @
1.5mx1.5m is planned. The factor of safety after the installation of the support system is 1.559. The
following :igure shows the slip circle along the global minimum circle.
The same support system is analysed with the earthquake condition also. The horizontal earthquake
acceleration is 0.12g and vertical earthquake acceleration is 0.08g as per the site speci:ic seismic
parameter study. The factor of safety with the earthquake case is 1.228.

The summary of the factor of safety various combinations is as below
Condition-1 Condition-2 Condition-3

S. No Slope Direction
Without support With support Condition-2+EQ
West Side Slope

1 0.628 1.559 1.228
(LS)
1.5x1.5m spacing, 75mm thick shotcrete with wiremesh is provided. The output of the designed
support system is incorporated in the powerhouse drawings.
2.East Side Slope: (LS):
B. Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM):
Model:

below

GSI 64 64

Support Design



East Side
1 0.596 1.887 1.565
Slope (LS)
1.5x1.5m spacing, 75mm thick shotcrete with wiremesh is provided. The output of the designed
3.North Side Slope: (CS):
C. Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM):
Model:

below

GSI 64 64

Support Design
25 dia GRA, 6.0 m long - 155 kN
25 dia SDA, 6.0 m long - 150kN



North Side
1 0.445 3.958 3.329
Slope (CS)

1.5mx1.5m spacing, 75mm thick shotcrete with wiremesh is provided. The output of the designed
4.South Side Slope: (CS):
D. Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM):
Model:
below

GSI 64 64

Support Design



South Side
1 0.749 2.518 1.830
Slope (CS)
1.5mx1.5m spacing, 75mm thick shotcrete with wiremesh is provided. The output of the designed
9.13 Tail Race Tunnel
Four nos. each of 7.0 m dia and two nos. each of 5.0m circular shaped tail race tunnels start off from
the machines in the power house. The draft tube liner at the outlet is connected to the Tail Race
Tunnel. These tunnels are sized in such a way that they will allow a smooth passage of water from the
machine. The length of each tunnel is about 227.97m. A vertical slide gate type with a hydraulic hoist
has been proposed at the end of each of the Tail Race Tunnel. These gates shall be operated during the
maintenance of the generating units, from a platform at the top of TRT outlet at EL. 642.50m.

The Tail Race Tunnel is proposed to be concrete lined 400mm thk in the entire reach. Necessary
transitions shall be provided at the relevant locations. Detailed Design of concrete lining is enclosed in
Annexure 9.14. Design of support system
mapping and based on estimated rock quality on RMR basis.
The details of the support system for various rock mass classes for 7.0m diameter TRT on the basis
RMR classi:ications is presented below.
RMR Value Excavatio Rock Bolts Shotcrete Steel ribs

n
81-100 Full Face 25.0 mm Spot SFRS No Steel ribs
Class-I (Very diameter, 4.0 m
Good Rock) long spot
grouted
anchors
61-80 Full face Systematic 25 50 mm No Steel ribs

Class II mm diameter thick
grouted rock SFRS in
anchors of 4.0 m the
long @ 1.75 m crown
(Good Rock) c/c staggered at only.
1.75 c/c along
the tunnel in the
crown (top
120°only)
41-60 Full face Systematic 25 100 mm Thick No Steel ribs

Class III mm diameter SFRS in crown
grouted rock and walls.
(Fair Rock)
anchors of 4.0 m
long @1.50 m
c/c staggered at
1.50 c/c along
the tunnel
21-40 Full face Systematic 25 100 mm ISMB 250 @ 750
Class IV mm diameter thick SFRS mm c/c with 75
grouted rock in the mm thick pre-cast
(Poor Rock)
anchors of 4.0 crown and lagging in the
m long @1.50 m side walls. heading.
c/ c staggered
at
1.00 c/c along
the tunnel

< 20 Heading Systematic 25 100 mm ISMB 250 @ 500
Class V (Very and mm diameter thick mm c/c with 75
benching grouted rock shotcrete in mm thick pre-cast
Poor Rock)
excavati anchors of 4.0 the crown and lagging in the
m long @1.50 m side walls. heading and
on
c/ c staggered benching
at
1.00 c/c along
the tunnel
Wedge analysis carried out with the support system as envisaged from empirical method on RMR
basis. The table below summarizes FoS without and with support for critical wedges.
Combination no. Joint Position of critical FoS (without

Combination wedges support)
26 S1,J2a,J4b Upper left 0.549

Thus, all unstable wedges become stable when the support measures proposed are provided. The
detailed analysis of the wedges of the TRT is presented in Annexure9.9(c).
Combinaon
Joint Combinaon Posion of crical wedges FoS (with support)
no.
26 S1,J2a,J4b Upper le! 8.568
List of drawings pertinent to the excavation, rock support system and grouting is tabulated below:
Numerical analysis:
which is about 2 times the tunnel opening. The boundary conditions are restrained in both the
directions in all the four sides. Gravity stress loading is applied on the tunnel. Phase2 model of the
tunnel model is as shown below.
Blast zone 2m Other
from the tunnel zone
boundary
Input
(intact)
(Intact)
GSI 64 64
constant
constant

Numerical analysis is carried out in Phase2 software to :ind the displacement of the tunnel. As per the
geological surface mapping carried out in the project area, the tunnel is expected to pass through RMR

class II rock. The tunnel media can be classi:ied under fair to good category with RMR values expected
to range from 64-74. Generalised Hoek and Brown material model is used for the analysis.
A blast damage zone of 2.0 m is considered from the tunnel boundary with the disturbance factor of
D=0.3. Intact rock properties are taken from the rock mechanics test carried out on the core samples.
The tunnel is modelled in phase2 with graded mesh and 3 noded triangle mesh element at the actual
ground elevation. The vertical rock cover is about 28m, hence on the top, the model is considered upto
to the actual top elevation. The boundary conditions applied on the tunnel are shown in the :ig. bellow.
Phase2 model of the tunnel model is as shown below.
maximum displacement observed was 4.0 mm at the spring level. The displacement is less than 1% of
the tunnel opening which is 9.8 m.
i) 100 mm thick Shotcrete with :ibre reinforcement.


Conclusion
stabilized with the support system. Later numerical analysis is carried out to :ind the displacement of
the tunnel. The tunnel displacement is within the permissible limit. The support system arrived by the
empirical approach is veri:ied and found to be safe.

List of drawings pertinent to the excavation, rock support system and grouting is tabulated below:
S. No. Drawing Title Drawing Number
Tail Race Tunnel 7.0 m ø- Excavation and Rock AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/023

1
Support details
Tail Race Tunnel 5.0 m ø- Excavation and Rock AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/024

2
Support details
3 Tail Race Tunnel 7.0 m ø- Grouting details AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/025
4 Tail Race Tunnel 5.0 m ø- Grouting details AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/026
9.14 Outlet Structure
The Outlet Structure is located at the end of the tailrace tunnel located near the proposed lower
reservoir. The outlet structure will be function as intake structure during pumping mode. One number
straight type Outlet structure for each unit having symmetrical approach has been envisaged on the
lower reservoir to pump back the design pump discharges of 651.78 cumec back into the upper
reservoir. The size and shape of the outlet located at the end of the tail race tunnel opening in the
lower reservoir is almost similar to the power intake. The tail race tunnel inlet entry is provided with a
smooth transition for entry of the required discharges.
9.14.1 Hydraulic Design
Six numbers of individual diffuser/horizontal type of intakes have been proposed at the end of six
numbers of Tail Race Tunnels (TRT) to pump the water from lower reservoir. From the six numbers
outlet structures, 4 numbers are big size which will be connected to large units TRT’s and two
numbers are small size which will be connected to small unit TRT’s. The opening of outlet structure
and trash racks arrangements are designed considering the pumping discharge of each unit.
In all the outlet structures the trash rack has been aligned at 15o inclined with vertical with reference
to the IS:11388-2012. Accordingly, the trashrack has been designed for velocity of 0.95 m/s (i.e. to
maintain the velocity at trashrack is less than or equal to 1.0 m/s) for large unit with turbine discharge
of 136.56 m3/s. Correspondingly, for small unit the trashrack has been designed for velocity of 0.88
m/s. The :lare angle of 13.12o has been adopted for the outlet structure wall between the start of
Outlet and TRT to minimize the head loss and to avoid cavitation in the Tail Race Tunnel. Based on this
criteria, four numbers of each 23.5 (W) X 8.0 m (H) outlet opening with trash rack arrangement of 2
panels of each 6.80 m (W) X 8.28 m (H) & one number panel of 6.9 m (W) X 8.28 m (H) has been
proposed for large units. Similarly, two numbers of each 20.0 (W) X 5.2 m (H) outlet opening with
trash rack arrangement of 2 panels of each 5.65 m (W) X 5.38 m (H) & one number panel of 5.7 m (W)
X 5.38 m (H) has been proposed for small units. The hydraulic calculations for sizing of outlet

structure & trashrack is attached as Annexure-9.15.
The minimum submergence of the outlet has been checked with reference to the Clause No. 5.2 of
IS:9761-1995 for a discharge corresponding to pumping design discharge to prevent vortex formation
and entry of air in to the system. Accordingly, the MDDL at the outlet structure has been :ixed at El.
623.93 m based on the requirement of minimum submergence to prevent vortex formation and entry
of air in to the tunnel. Center line elevation & invert level of outlet structure has been provided at El.
614.10 m & El. 610.60 respectively. The detailed hydraulic calculations for submergence are attached
in the Annexure-9.15. Also, an antivortex devises have been proposed in front of the outlet structure
with 1.5 m thick beams at a spacing of 1.5 m to reduce vortex formation during pumping. The drawing
details of an Outlet structure showing Plan & sections are given in the drawing. No.
AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/027 & 028.
9.14.2 Tail Pool and Tail Race Channel
The water from the machines, is lead back to the lower reservoir through a tail race channel. Water
from the draft tube of each of the machines will enter in to a tail pool constructed with RCC walls on
three sides. The tail pool is connected to a tail race channel that conveys the water into the Lower
Reservoir. The discharge capacity is determined by the Manning’s formula given below
1 (2 / 3 ) (1 / 2 )
Q=A R S
n
Where
Q = Discharging capacity in Cumecs
A = Area of :low in Sqm
n = Co-ef:icient of Rugosity
A
P
R = Hydraulic mean radius in m
S = Longitudinal slope of water surface and is taken as bed slope of channel.
The size of the tail race channel has been :ixed based on the criteria of limiting velocity (less than 2.7
m/s) in concrete lined channel in reference with clause no. 8.8.5 of IS:10430-2000. Accordingly, the
velocity in the channel is 2.22 m/s has been worked out corresponding to the design discharge of
683.12 m3/s with size of 45 m wide & 6.0 m depth of :low. Similarly, a bed slope of 1H:7000V & side
slopes 1H:1V of channel has been considered for the design of channel. The drawing details viz., Plan,
L-section & Cross sections are given in Drg. No. AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/029.

9.15 STORM WATER DRAINS
The surface water during storm to Saundatti PSP power house is contributed from upstream
catchment. The catchment area on the upstream of power house is 1.10 sqkms contributing a peak
discharge of 22.15cum. It is proposed to construct an open channel on one of the berms on the left and
right side cut slopes of the power house and divert the :lows into the tail race pool. The detailed
calculations for storm water discharge is provided in Annexure-9.16 (of Volume II: Designs).
However, the proposed layout of the drains are con:irmed upon once the power house has been
excavated and :ine tuned subject to the site conditions.
9.16 DESIGN OF HYDROMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
9.16.1 GENERAL
The Hydro mechanical equipment at Gandhisagar PSP will comprise the following:
• Intake Trash Racks
• Intake Maintenance Gates
• Intake Service Gates
• Outlet Service Gates
• Outlet Stoplog Gates
• Outlet Trash Racks
Design features and other details of these equipments are presented in the following sections.
9.16.2 Intake Trash Racks
A trash rack is proposed in front of the intake conduits to prevent the entrance of any trash. The trash
rack is designed to have minimum head loss and minimum vibration. Trash racks are proposed with
an inclination of 750 with horizontal apron. The steel :lats/bars of size 75 mm x 16 mm thick with
rounded edge @ 76 mm c/c has been provided as trash bars. The clear spacing between the trash bars
shall however be veri:ied by the supplier of the turbine machines based on the minimum spacing's of
the runner blades. Each panel of the Trash rack has been supported with suitable number of
horizontal girders so that, the unsupported length of the trash bars should not be more than the value
permitted as per IS:11388-2012. Lifting lugs have been provided to facilitate the lowering & lifting of
each trash rack panel. All the units /panels of the trash rack are interchangeable. The trash panels will
be supported on main piers, intermediate piers & rib beams of reinforced concrete. The technical
parameters of intake trash rack elements are provided in the Table 9.20.

Table 9.20: Technical Parameters of Intake Trash Racks
i No. of Vent 5
ii Clear Width between Middle Piers (m) 6.90(1 no. for each unit)
iii Clear Width between side piers (m) 6.80 (2 no. for each unit)
iv Vertical height of TRs (m) 7.50
v Sill level EL 811.40 m
vi Full Reservoir Level (FRL) EL 855.00 m
vii Top level of trash rack EL 819.90 m
viii Inclination of trash rack 75º (with horizontal)
ix Spacing between trash bars 150mm
x velocity through the racks restricted to 1.0 m/sec
9.16.3 Intake Maintenance Gates
One number of Maintenance gate for all intake openings of size each 4.95 m wide x 6.0 m high are
proposed on upstream of intake service gate to facilitate repair and maintenance of Intake service
gates. Sill level of gate is proposed at EL. 811.40m. The gates have been proposed in accordance with
IS: 4622-2003 for water head corresponding to FRL 855.0 m. The gates have an upstream skin plate
and upstream sealing. The gate will be operated by mean of one common gantry crane of adequate
capacity provided at operating EL. 858.0 m. The stoplog gate will be operated (lifting & lowering)
under balanced head condition. The technical parameters of intake maintenance gate are provided in
the Table 9.21.
Table 9.21: Technical Parameters of Intake Maintenance Gate
i Type of gate Vertical lift Fixed Wheel

ii No. of gates 1 Nos.
iii No. of opening 5 Nos.
iv Size of opening 4950 mm(W) x 6000 mm(H)
v Full Reservoir Level (FRL) El. 855.00 m
vi Sill Elevation El. 809.375 m
vii Water head 45.625 m
viii Opening & Closing Conditions Operating (Lifting & lowering) will be done
under balanced head
ix Type of Hoist Common Movable gantry crane
x Number of Hoist 1 Nos.
9.16.4 Intake Service Gates
One number of Service gate for each intake opening of size of 4.95 m wide x 6.0 m high are proposed at

start of penstock to cut-off water :low from the upper reservoir into each penstock. Sill level of gate is
proposed at EL. 811.40 m. The gates have been proposed in accordance with IS: 4622-2003 for water
head corresponding to FRL 855.0 m. The gates have downstream skin plate and downstream sealing.
The gate will be operated by means of independent rope drum hoist of adequate capacity mounted on
steel trestle provided at operating EL. 858.00 m. The gate has been designed for closure by its self
weight. The gate will be stored on dogging beams on top of operating platform at EL 858.00 m. The
service gate will be operated (lifting & lowering) under unbalanced head condition. The technical
parameters of intake service gate are provided in the Table 9.22.
Table 9.22: Technical Parameters of Intake Service Gate
i Type of gate Vertical lift Fixed Wheel type

ii No. of gates 5 Nos.
iii No. of opening 5 Nos.
iv Size of opening 4950 mm (w) x 6000 mm (h)
v Full Reservoir Level (FRL) 855.00 m
vi Sill Elevation 809.375m
vii Water head 45.625 m
Operating (Lifting & lowering) will be
viii Opening & Closing Conditions
done under unbalanced head
ix Type of Hoist Independent Rope Drum Hoist
x Number of Hoist 5 Nos.
9.16.5 Outlet Service Gates
One number of Service gate for each outlet opening are proposed at the end of TRT to cut-off water
:low from the lower reservoir into TRT. One number of service gate of size 5.8 m wide X 7.0 m high for
each of the units from 3 to 6 and one number of service gate of size 4.2 m wide X 5.0 m high for each of
the unit 1 & 2. Sill level of all the gates is proposed at EL. 610.6 m. The gates have been proposed in
accordance with IS: 46222003 for water head corresponding to FRL 633.83 m. The gates have
downstream skin plate and downstream sealing with respect to the pumping. The gate will be
operated by means of independent hydraulic hoist of adequate capacity provided at operating EL.
637.00 m. The service gate will be operated (lifting & lowering) under unbalanced head condition. The
technical parameters of outlet service gate are provided in the Table 9.23.
Table 9.23: Main Technical Parameters of Outlet Service Gate
i Type of gate Vertical lift :ixed wheel type

ii No. of gates 6
iii No. of opening 6

4200 mm (w) x 5000 mm (h) for unit-1 & 2 (2
iv Size of opening Numbers)

5800 mm (w) x 7000 mm (h) for unit-3 to Unit-6 (4
Numbers)
vi Sill Elevation 610.60 m
vii Operating (lifting & lowering) will be done
Opening & Closing Conditions
under unbalanced head condition.
viii Operation of hoist Independent Hydraulic Hoist
ix Operating level El.637.00m
9.16.6 Outlet Stoplog Gates
Two set of stoplogs for maintenance of outlet service gate has been proposed in upstream of service
gate in respect of pumping. One set of stoplog of size 5.8 m wide X 7.0 m high for 4 numbers of units
(from unit-3 to 6) and one set of stoplog of size 4.2 m wide X 5.0 m high for 2 numbers of units (Unit-1
& 2). Sill level of all the gates is proposed at EL. 610.60 m. The gates have been proposed in accordance
with IS: 46222003 for water head corresponding to FRL 633.83 m. The gates have upstream skin plate
and upstream sealing with respect to the pumping. The gate will be operated by mean of one common
gantry crane of adequate capacity provided at operating EL. 637.00 m. The stoplog gate will be
operated (lifting & lowering) under balanced head condition. The technical parameters of outlet
stoplog gate are provided in the Table 9.24.
Table 9.24: Technical Parameters of Outlet Stoplog Gate
i Type of gate Vertical lift :ixed wheel

ii No. of gates 1 set for units from 3 to 6 & 1 set for units 1 to 2
iii No. of opening 6
5800 mm (w) x 7000 mm (h) for unit-3 to Unit-6 (4
iv Size of opening Number)

4200 mm (w) x 5000 mm (h) for unit-1 & Unit-2 (2
Number)
vi Sill Elevation 610.60 m
Operating (Lifting & lowering) will be done under
vii Opening & Closing Conditions
balanced head condition
viii Operation of hoist Common Movable gantry crane
ix Operating level El.637.00 m
9.16.7 Outlet Trash Racks
A trash rack is proposed in front of the outlet structure to prevent the entrance of trash during

pumping. The trash rack is designed to have minimum head loss and minimum vibration. Trash racks
are proposed with an inclination of 750 with horizontal apron. Each panel of the Trash rack has been
supported with suitable number of horizontal girders so that the unsupported length of the trash bars
should not be more than the value permitted as per IS:11388-2012. Lifting lugs have been provided to
facilitate the lowering & lifting of each trash rack panel. All the units /panels of the trash rack are
interchangeable. The trash panels will be supported on main piers, intermediate piers & rib beams of
reinforced concrete. The technical parameters of outlet trash rack elements are provided in the Table
9.25.
Table 9.25: Technical Parameters of Outlet Trash Racks
i No. of Vent 6
6.84 m (for units 3 to 6) & 5.7 m (for units
ii Clear Width between Middle Piers (m)
- 1 & 2)
6.83 m – 2 Nos. (for units 3 to 6) & 5.65 m
iii Clear Width between side piers (m)
– 2 Nos. (for units - 1 & 2)
8.0 m (for units 3 to 6) & 5.2 m (for units -
iv Vertical height of TRs (m)
1 & 2)
v Sill level EL 610.60 m
vi Full Reservoir Level (FRL) EL 633.83 m
vii Inclination of trash rack 75º (with horizontal)
viii Spacing between trash bars 76 mm c/c
ix velocity through the racks restricted to 1.0 m/sec
9.16.8 Instrumentation And Control System
The various instruments including remote control system for the remote control operation of all gates
along-with programmable computerized automatic reservoir monitoring control system is provided in
the main control room, in addition to individual operation system provided at top of pier. The
programmable reservoir monitoring and control system shall include all necessary instrumentation
required for monitoring and control of reservoir including water level measuring systems, gate
position indication transducers, discharge measuring devices etc. The communication system shall be
through :ibre optic cable. Provision of power back up of adequate capacity will also be made (under
the scope of electromechanical works) for the operation of hydro mechanical equipment in case of
power failure. The diesel generating set shall be located in the control rooms to provide back-up
supply to gate operating equipments in case of power failures.
The drawings pertinent to the hydromechanical works are tabulate below.

S.No Title of the Drawing Drawing No.
1 Intake Structure - General Arrangement of Trashrack AA/POWER/2209/H&M/001
Intake Structure - General Arrangement of Maintenance Gate (sheet 1 AA/POWER/2209/H&M/002

2
of 2)
Intake Structure - General Arrangement of Maintenance Gate (sheet 2 AA/POWER/2209/H&M/002

3
of 2)
4 Intake Structure - General Arrangement of Service Gate (sheet 1 of 2) AA/POWER/2209/H&M/003
5 Intake Structure - General Arrangement of Service Gate (sheet 2 of 2) AA/POWER/2209/H&M/003
Outlet Structure - General Arrangement of Stoplog Gate - Large Unit AA/POWER/2209/H&M/004

6
(sheet 1 of 2)
Outlet Structure - General Arrangement of Stoplog Gate - Large Unit AA/POWER/2209/H&M/004

7
(sheet 2 of 2)
Outlet Structure - General Arrangement of Stoplog Gate - Small Unit AA/POWER/2209/H&M/005

8
(sheet 1 of 2)
Outlet Structure - General Arrangement of Stoplog Gate - Small Unit AA/POWER/2209/H&M/005

9
(sheet 2 of 2)
Outlet Structure - General Arrangement of Service Gate - Large Unit AA/POWER/2209/H&M/006

10
(sheet 1 of 2)
Outlet Structure - General Arrangement of Service Gate - Large Unit AA/POWER/2209/H&M/006

11
(sheet 2 of 2)
Outlet Structure - General Arrangement of Service Gate - Small Unit AA/POWER/2209/H&M/007

12
(sheet 1 of 2)
Outlet Structure - General Arrangement of Service Gate - Small Unit AA/POWER/2209/H&M/007

13
(sheet 2 of 2)
Outlet Structure - General Arrangement of Trashrack - Large Unit & AA/POWER/2209/H&M/008

14
Small Unit

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti PSP .
ANNEXURES
ANNEXURES
Annexure-9.1 Stability Analysis of Rockfill Dam
Annexure-9.2(a) Freeboard Requirement in Embankment Dams
(IS:10635:1993)
Annexure-9.2(b) Freeboard Requirement in Embankment Dams (USBR
Design Standards No. 13)
Annexure-9.3 Hydraulic Design of Bottom Outlet (Upper Reservoir)
Annexure-9.4 Hydraulic Calculations for Sizing of Intake & Trashrack
Annexure-9.5 Sizing of Air vent Pipe
Annexure-9.6 Head Loss Calculations of the Project
Annexure-9.7(a) Transient Analysis for Longer Water Conductor System
(for Large Unit)
Annexure-9.8 Calculations for Economic Diameter of Pressure Shaft
Annexure-9.9(a) Support Design of Top Inclined Pressure Shaft
Annexure-9.9(b) Support Design of Bottom Horizontal Pressure Shaft
Annexure-9.9(c) Support Design of Tail Race Tunnel
Annexure-9.10(a) Calculations of Rock Participation for Design of Steel
Liner
Annexure-9.10(b) Steel Liner Calculations for Pressure Shaft along Large
Unit-252MW
Annexure-9.10(c) Steel Liner Calculations for Pressure Shaft along Small
Unit-126MW
Annexure-9.11(a) Calculations for Powerhouse Dimensioning (Large Unit)
Annexure-9.11(b) Calculations for Powerhouse Dimensioning (Small Unit)
Annexure-9.12 Detailed Load Calculations and Results in Structural
Design of the Powerhouse
Annexure-9.13 Slope Stability Analysis of Powerhouse Cut Slope
Annexure-9.14 Detailed Design of concrete lining in Tail Race Tunnel
Annexure-9.15 Hydraulic calculations for sizing of outlet structure &
trashrack
Annexure-9.16 Detailed Calculations For Storm Water Discharge
________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEXURE – 9.1
STABILITY ANALYSIS OF ROCKFILL DAM
1.0. GENERAL
This design report deals with the main characteristics of the Saundatti rock fill dam and it
illustrates the assumptions and results of the stability verifications of dam.
1.1. LAYOUT AND GEOMETRY

The general layout of the dam is illustrated in the drawing AA/POWER/2209/CIVIL/004. Typical
cross section of the dam is shown in Fig 1.1.
The main geometrical characteristics of the dam are presented below.
Table 1.1: Geometrical characteristics of the dam
Description Characteristics
Max dam height 43m
Max crest length(length of dam) 5776m
Base width (upstream to 206m
downstream toe)
Upstream slope 2.25:1 (H/V)
Downstream slope 1.75:1(H/V)
Top width of Dam 10m
FRL El +855.0m
MDDL El +825.0m
Upstream Berm El +828.0m & El +843.0m
Downstream Berm El +828.0m & El +843.0m
Figure 1.1: Typical Cross section of Rockfill Dam
________________________________________________________________________________
Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Rev-R0
________________________________________________________________________________
1.2. MATERIALS OF THE DAM

The Saundatti embankment is a zoned rock fill dam. The material zoning is illustrated in drawing
attached. The average design parameters for core material as given in Table has been adopted for
stability analysis of dam.
1.3. DAM SECTION

The dam has been sized in accordance with the Indian Standard guidelines IS 8826-1978.
According to the Indian Standards (IS 7894-1975) Stability verifications were carried out for the
dam embankment in order to identify the safety factors relative to the potential critical slip
surfaces, and verify that the values of the safety factors satisfy the criteria of dam stability.
The section with maximum height 38m is selected for the verification of dam.
Geometrical model and material properties

The geometrical model and the material properties implemented in the analysis for the typical
section is illustrated below.
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1.2: Geometrical model and material properties
1.5 STABILITY CALCULATIONS

1.5.1 Seepage Analysis
A). General
Seepage is considered to be all movement of water from the reservoir through the embankment,
abutments, and foundation. This includes porous media (intergranular) flow, flow in fractures, and
concentrated flow through “defects” such as cracks, loose lifts, etc.
The main purposes of carrying out the seepage analysis for the project is to estimate the pore
water pressures inside the dam and in the foundation, used for the assessment of the global
stability of the dam.
B). Calculation Methodology

SEEP/W Software Model
SEEP/W is a finite element software product which is a part of GEO-SLOPE international model that
is leading of geotechnical modeling software products. It helps to analyzing groundwater seepage
and excess pore-water pressure problems within porous materials such as soil and rock. The
model comprehensive formulation allows the analysis ranging from simple, saturated steady state
problems to sophisticated, saturated-unsaturated, time-dependent problems.
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
In general, the SEEP/W program can be used for modeling a saturated-only flow or both a
saturated and unsaturated flow condition. The typical saturated-only flow problem is a confined
flow problem, such as seepage flow beneath a structure. The saturated and unsaturated flow is an
unconfined flow problem, such as a flow through an embankment dam.
In addition to traditional steady state saturated flow analysis, the saturated/unsaturated

formulation of SEEP/W makes it possible to analyze seepage as a function of time and to consider
such processes as an embankment rapid drawdown and infiltration of precipitation. This transient
feature allows analyzing such problems as the migration of a wetting front and the dissipation of
excess pore-water pressure.
After creating a computer model of the embankment dam with determined material properties and
geometrical conditions, the pore water pressures developed within the body of the dam and in the
foundation under steady state seepage has been initially estimated with the help of the SEEP/W
software.
C). Soil Properties

The important soil property used in seepage analysis is the hydraulic conductivity or coefficient of
permeability (including anisotropy). In soils, the hydraulic conductivity and the water content (or
water stored) change as a function of pore-water pressure. The ability of a soil to transport or
conduct water under both saturated and unsaturated conditions is reflected by the hydraulic
conductivity function. Soil, which consists of a collection of solid particles and interstitial voids, has
pore spaces or voids that can be filled either with water or air, or with a combination of both.
Degree of saturation of a soil is equal to the volumetric water content (VWC) over the porosity of
soil. In a saturated soil, all the voids are filled with water, and the volumetric water content is
equal to the porosity of the soil. In unsaturated soil, the volume of water stored within the void
will vary depending on matric suction within the pore water. Since there is no fixed water content
in time and space, a function is required to describe how water content changes with different
pressures in the soil.
The VWC function describes the capability of the soil to store water under changes in matric
pressure. Each type of soil has a different volumetric water content function; sand will drain faster
than silt, and silt needs less time to drain than a clay soil.
The embankment, during normal operating condition, is expected to be partially saturated and
therefore the relevant materials (dam body, rip-rap, drain, downstream toe) are modeled by
unsaturated/saturated material model, which requires the definition of the following information:
• saturated hydraulic conductivity;
• hydraulic conductivity vs. matrix suction curve;
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
• volumetric water content vs. matrix suction curve
The saturated hydraulic conductivities of dam materials is shown in Table 1.2. The functions listed
above are estimated on the basis of the grain size distribution for each materials and are
illustrated in the Figure 1.3.
Table 1.2: Hydraulic properties of dam materials
Material name Ks(m/s) K2/K1 K1 Angle

(deg)
Rockfill 1e-2 1 0
Filter 1e-3 1 0
Core 2.62e-8 1 0
Foundation 1e-7 1 0
Rip Rap 1e-2 1 0
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1.3: Matric suction vs Hydraulic Conductivity and Volumetric water

content for different materials
1.5.2 Stability Verification

A) General
This paragraph illustrates the stability verification carried out for the dam embankment in order to
identify the safety factors relative to the potential critical slip surfaces, and verify that the values of
the safety factors satisfy the criteria to guarantee dam stability.
B) Calculation Methodology
The study is carried out following the methodology and basic assumptions established in the
following guidelines and regulations:
Indian Standard, “Code of practice for stability analysis of earth dams”, IS 7894-1975;
The failure mechanism of earth fill dams is the creation of slipping surfaces involving the
embankment alone or the embankment and foundation together. Therefore, the stability
assessment was aimed at establishing which sliding surfaces are potentially unstable and assess
their safety factors under different load conditions.
The stability analysis was performed according to the limit equilibrium method which assumes a
rigid behavior of materials (Mohr-Coulomb criterion is adopted for all the materials involved in the
stability calculations). The sliding stability was assessed by means of a Sliding Safety Factor (SSF)
as a measure of the resistance of the structure against sliding. This SSF was defined as the ratio of
the maximum resisting shear to the acting shear on the slip surface.
For all the load conditions a bi-dimensional stability analysis was carried out identifying the
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
potentially most critical sliding surfaces within the dam body and foundation with the minimum
safety factor.
The calculation methods usually adopted consider the following calculation methods:
• Bishop's Simplified;
• Janbu's Simplified;
• Morgenstern-Price/GLE.
These limit equilibrium methods use different assumptions to make the number of equations
necessary to describe the equilibrium of the soil mass above the slip surface divided into a finite
number of vertical slices equal to the number of unknowns. These methods also differ with regard
to which equilibrium equations are satisfied:
Limit Equilibrium method assumptions
Method Force Equilibrium Moment Equilibrium
Vertical Horizontal
Bishop Yes No Yes
Janbu Yes Yes No
Morgenstern-Price Yes Yes Yes
Moreover:
• BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED: the resultant inter-slice forces are horizontal (i.e., there are no
inter-slice shear forces).
• JANBU'S SIMPLIFIED: the resultant inter-slice forces are horizontal. An empirical
correction factor, So, is used to account for inter-slice shear force.
• MORGENSTERN-PRICE: the direction of the resultant inter-slice forces is determined
using a suited function λ, which is assumed to be a half-sine function.
Since the Morgenstern-Price method is the most complete from a point of view of the model
assumptions, it was selected for the stability assessment.
The stability calculations were carried out using the GEOSTUDIO software. It analyses all possible
sliding surfaces centered in an assigned research mesh, calculates the safety factor for each of
them and identifies the one with the lowest SF value, on the basis of:
• The geometry of embankment and foundation;
• The properties of materials (i.e., unit weight and shear strength);
• External loads (i.e., reservoir load, earthquake).
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
The final result identifies the safety factor for each possible sliding center and which allows to find
the minimum one, together with the related sliding surface.
C) Analysis Procedure
The procedure of arriving at driving and resisting forces involves assumption of a tentative cross-
section of the embankment, a possible circular failure surface, division of the slip circle mass into a
number of slices, calculation of forces on each slice and summation of the forces. The factor of
safety against sliding for assumed failure surface is obtained.
Analysis of stability can be done either in terms of total stress or effective stress depending upon
the soil properties, loading conditions and the prevailing stage of construction.
a) Total Stress Method: This method is applicable where an embankment is constructed on

saturated clays of low permeability and no change in water content occurs in the subsoil prior to
failure. Shear Strength in this case may be given as follows.
τ = cu + σn tanφu
Where cu and fu are called undrained shear parameters.
b) Effective stress method: This method of analysis takes into account the pore water pressures
for the state at which stability is to be analysed. Shear Strength in this case may be given as
follows.
τ = c’u + (σn - u) tanφ’
D) Load combinations and safety factors
While performing the stability evaluations, the worst load conditions have been considered (i.e.
those conditions that cause the safety factor to be minimum). Each load condition defines a
scenario for which an allowable safety factor was defined according to the guidelines and the best
international practices.
Each scenario was analyzed in GEOSTUDIO to define the resulting safety factor and compare it to
the required minimum safety factor.
The analyzed scenarios included the following loading conditions and the allowable safety factors:
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Table 1.3: Load cases and Allowable Safety Factors
LOAD COMBINATION EMBANKMENT SLOPE SFMIN TYPE OF SHEAR

STRENGTH TESTS
1 = EOC upstream + downstream 1.00 Q R*
2 = SSP downstream 1.50 R S**
3 = SSP + earthquake downstream 1.00 R S**
4= SDD Upstream 1.30 R S**
5= SDD + earthquake Upstream 1.00 R S**
* To be adopted for failure plane passing through impervious foundation layer
** S Test to be adopted where the material is cohesionless and free draining
The above table can be read with the help of the following adopted acronyms:
• EOC = End Of Construction (empty reservoir);
• SSP = Steady Seepage with Reservoir Full;
• SDD = Sudden Drawdown.
The dam stability evaluation has been performed considering the total and effective stresses
(depending on the load combination) induced inside the dam embankment and the foundation
materials by the filtering water, in particular:
• Load combinations 1 (EOC): the piezometric level is set at ground level elevation;
• Load combinations 2 and 3 (SSP): the piezometric level and the relevant pore pressures are
estimated considering a constant total head of 855 m.a.s.l. as upstream boundary
condition;
• Load combinations 4 and 5 (SDD): Sudden drawdown condition has been considered from
Full Supply level (F.S.L) (855.00 m) to Minimum Draw down Level (825m).
D) Seismic Load
The analysis of the overall stability of the dam embankment was performed considering also the
effects of earthquakes through the pseudo-static method.
In the pseudo-static analysis, the seismic action will be represented by a set of horizontal and
vertical static forces equal to the product of the gravity forces and seismic coefficients.
As per IS:1983-1984, the horizontal seismic coefficient is given by the following equation:
αh = β.I.αO
β is a coefficient depending on the soil foundation system which is 1 for rock foundation.
I is a factor depending on the importance of the structures which is equal to 3 for dams
αO is the basic horizontal seismic coefficient which is 0.04 for Zone III
The horizontal coefficients works out to be
αh = 0.12
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
The vertical seismic coefficient (αv) can be taken as 1/2 of the horizontal seismic coefficient, which
is 0.06.
E) Methodology for Sudden Drawdown Analysis
The sudden drawdown analysis was done using finite element transient seepage analysis with
SEEP/W. The hydraulic properties of the materials and the variation of reservoir head with time
due to drawdown is considered in the analysis. The Factor of Safety of the embankment dam at
different times during the entire drawdown process is evaluated using SLOPE/W. The drawdown
from Full Supply Level Level to Minimum Draw Down Level is considered for the analysis.
The duration of drawdown from Full Supply Level Level to Minimum Draw Down Level is
considered as 11 hrs for the reservoir.
1.6 RESULTS
Results of slope stability analysis is carried out using Geostudio 2018 software are summarized in
Table 1.4.
Table 1.4: Summary of the results of stability analysis
Condition Slope Shear strength Factor of Minimum
considered parameters Safety acceptable
Factor of Safety
End of construction Upstream Undrained (total) 2.139 1.0
strengths
End of construction Downstream Undrained (total) 1.772 1.0

strengths
Steady seepage Downstream Drained (effective) 1.720 1.5

strengths
Steady seepage Downstream Drained (effective) 1.239 1.0

(considering seismic load) strengths
Sudden drawdown Upstream Drained (effective) 1.659 1.3

strengths
Sudden drawdown Upstream Drained (effective) 1.071 1.0

Steady seepage Downstream Undrained (total) 1.714 1.5

strengths
Steady seepage Downstream Undrained (total) 1.240 1.0


strengths
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

1.6 FOS ANALYSIS RESULTS
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Freeboard Requirement in Embankment Dams
(IS:10635:1993)
Saundatti Upper Reservoir Annexure-9.2(a)
Fetch calculations for FRL Condition (As per IS:10635)
For FRL/MWL condition
Basic wind Speed : Vb = 140.400 kmph
Design wind speed Vz = Vb*K1*K2*K3
K1 = 1.06 (Table-1 of 875-III)
(Table-2 of 875-III, terrain
K2 = 1.06 Category-3 & class-B)
K3 = 1.00
Design wind speed Vz = 157.75
= 43.82 m/sec
Calculation of Effective Fetch
α (Degrees) cos α Xi Xi cos α Xi cos α ∗ cos α

42 0.743 430.250 319.74 237.612
36 0.809 546.920 442.47 357.964
30 0.866 615.350 532.91 461.513
24 0.914 713.110 651.46 595.137
18 0.951 857.830 815.84 775.915
12 0.978 964.890 943.80 923.180
6 0.995 1065.130 1059.30 1053.492
0 1.000 1978.920 1978.92 1978.920
6 0.995 1793.710 1783.88 1774.112
12 0.978 1564.380 1530.19 1496.756
18 0.951 877.030 834.11 793.281
24 0.914 757.640 692.14 632.300
30 0.866 674.740 584.34 506.055
36 0.809 609.240 492.89 398.753
42 0.743 553.960 411.67 305.932
13.511 12290.921
Effective Fetch 909.70 m

say 0.910 km
Max. Fetch 1978.92 m

say 1.979 km
Average depth calculations

FRL GL Depth (m)
855.00 840.00 15.00
855.00 835.00 20.00
855.00 830.00 25.00
855.00 825.00 30.00
855.00 820.00 35.00
Avg depth 25.00
Typical Calculations for Normal Free Board For F.R.L Condition (As per IS:10635)
Annexure-9.2(a)
Calculations for
S.No Description Units
Normal Free Board
1 Full Tank level m 855.000
2 Maximum water level m 855.000
3 Fetch length km 1.979
4 Slope of Embankment 1 in 2.25
5 Effective Fetch km 0.910
6 Wind velocity over land (U) km/h 157.753
7 Wind coefficient 1.160
8 Wind velocity over Water (V) km/h 182.994
9 Significant wave height (Hs) m 1.600
10 Design wave height (H0) m 2.672
11 Wave period (Ts) Sec 4.000
12 Wave length (Ls) m 24.960
13 Wave steepness Ho/Ls 0.107
14 Relative Run-up R/Ho 1.800
15 Run up (R) m 4.810
16 Designed Ra ,(Rx0.5) m 2.405
17 Wind set up m 0.043
18 Compute free board m 2.448 >2m
19 Freeboard provided m 3.000
20 Top of Dam m 858.000
Freeboard Requirement in Embankment Dams
(USBR Design Standards No. 13)
Annexure-9.2(b)
Typical Calculations for Normal Free Board For F.R.L Condition
(As per USBR Design Standards No. 13 )
For FRL/MWL condition
Basic wind Speed : Vb = 140.400 kmph
= 39.00 m/sec
Calculation of Effective Fetch
α (Degrees) Xi
42 430.250
36 546.920
30 615.350
24 713.110
18 857.830
12 964.890
6 1065.130
0 1978.920
6 1793.710
12 1564.380
18 877.030
24 757.640
30 674.740
36 609.240
42 553.960
14003.10
Length of radials = 14003.10 m
= 14.00 km
No of radials = 15.00
Effective Fetch = Length of radials

No of radials
Effective Fetch = 933.54 m

say = 0.934 km
Max. Fetch = 1978.92 m

say = 1.979 km
Average depth calculations

FRL GL Depth (m)
855.00 840.00 15.00
855.00 835.00 20.00
855.00 830.00 25.00
855.00 825.00 30.00
855.00 820.00 35.00
Avg depth 25.00
Saundatti upper reservoir
Typical Calculations for Normal Free Board For F.R.L Condition(As per USBR Design
Standards No. 13 )
Annexure-9.2(b)
Calculations for
S.No Description Units
Normal Free Board
1 Full Tank level m 855.000
2 Maximum water level m 855.000
3 Fetch length km 1.979
4 Slope of Embankment 1 in 2.25
5 Effective Fetch km 0.934
6 Wind velocity over land (U) km/h 140.400
7 Wind coefficient 0.900
8 Wind velocity over water surface (V) km/h 126.360
9 Wind velocity over water (VMPH) mi/h 78.470
10 Fetch length (F) mi 1.229
11 Significant wave height (Hs) ft 3.249
12 Wave period (Ts) sec 2.449
13 Wave length(Ls) ft 30.705
14 Design wave height (Ho) m 5.426
15 Wave steepness(Ho/Ls) 0.054
16 Surf similarity factor for peak wave height (ξp) 1.365
17 Run up ( R) ft 3.902
Wind set up (s)
18 ft 0.066
19 Average depth of reservoir (D) ft 82.075

20 Free board required ft 1.430 < 6 ft
21 Freeboard provided ft 9.843
22 Top of Dam m 858.000
Reservoir routing in case of drawdown Upper Reservoir
Howell Bunger Discharge Valve – Axis EL 815 Annexure-9.3
Howell Bunger Discharge Valve – Diameter 2.4 m
Area of Pipe 4.52448 m
Perimeter 7.5408 m
Hydraulic Radius 0.6
Length of Pipe 186 m
Friction Co-eff For steel Pipe 0.011
Total No of days
Reservoir Net head (m) Reservoir
Reservoir Gross Head Discharge required to
S.no Volume Elevation in Head Loss after Losses Routing in
Volume in (m) (Cumecs) draw down
(m) Days
MCUM the reservoir
1 855.00 29.22 40.000 23.066 16.93 82.417
2 0.94 854.00 28.28 39.000 22.490 16.51 81.380 0.13 0.13
3 0.94 853.00 27.33 38.000 21.913 16.09 80.330 0.13 0.27
4 0.94 852.00 26.39 37.000 21.336 15.66 79.266 0.14 0.40
5 0.94 851.00 25.45 36.000 20.760 15.24 78.188 0.14 0.54
6 0.94 850.00 24.51 35.000 20.183 14.82 77.094 0.14 0.68
7 0.94 849.00 23.56 34.000 19.606 14.39 75.985 0.14 0.82
8 0.94 848.00 22.62 33.000 19.030 13.97 74.859 0.14 0.96
9 0.94 847.00 21.68 32.000 18.453 13.55 73.716 0.15 1.11
10 0.94 846.00 20.73 31.000 17.876 13.12 72.555 0.15 1.26
11 0.94 845.00 19.79 30.000 17.300 12.70 71.375 0.15 1.41
12 0.94 844.00 18.85 29.000 16.723 12.28 70.176 0.15 1.56
13 0.94 843.00 17.91 28.000 16.146 11.85 68.955 0.16 1.72
14 0.94 842.00 16.96 27.000 15.570 11.43 67.713 0.16 1.88
15 0.94 841.00 16.02 26.000 14.993 11.01 66.447 0.16 2.04
16 0.94 840.00 15.08 25.000 14.416 10.58 65.157 0.16 2.20
17 0.94 839.00 14.14 24.000 13.840 10.16 63.840 0.17 2.37
18 0.94 838.00 13.19 23.000 13.263 9.74 62.496 0.17 2.54
19 0.94 837.00 12.25 22.000 12.686 9.31 61.122 0.17 2.71
20 0.94 836.00 11.31 21.000 12.110 8.89 59.717 0.18 2.89
21 0.94 835.00 10.36 20.000 11.533 8.47 58.278 0.18 3.08
22 0.94 834.00 9.42 19.000 10.956 8.04 56.802 0.19 3.26
23 0.94 833.00 8.48 18.000 10.380 7.62 55.287 0.19 3.45
24 0.94 832.00 7.54 17.000 9.803 7.20 53.729 0.20 3.65
25 0.94 831.00 6.59 16.000 9.227 6.77 52.125 0.20 3.86
26 0.94 830.00 5.65 15.000 8.650 6.35 50.470 0.21 4.06
27 0.94 829.00 4.71 14.000 8.073 5.93 48.759 0.22 4.28
28 0.94 828.00 3.76 13.000 7.497 5.50 46.985 0.22 4.50
29 0.94 827.00 2.82 12.000 6.920 5.08 45.142 0.23 4.74
30 0.94 826.00 1.88 11.000 6.343 4.66 43.220 0.24 4.98
31 0.94 825.00 0.94 10.000 5.767 4.23 41.209 0.25 5.23
32 0.51 824.00 0.43 9.000 5.190 3.81 39.094 0.14 5.37
33 0.16 823.00 0.27 8.000 4.613 3.39 36.858 0.05 5.42
34 0.13 822.00 0.14 7.000 4.037 2.96 34.478 0.04 5.46
35 0.09 821.00 0.04 6.000 3.460 2.54 31.920 0.03 5.49
36 0.04 820.00 0.01 5.000 2.883 2.12 29.139 0.01 5.51
Total no of days 5.51
Reservoir routing in case of drawdown Upper Reservoir

860.00
850.00
840.00
Elevation (m)
830.00
820.00
810.00
800.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Time (Days)
Annexure-9.4(a)
Hydraulic design of Trashrack & Sizing of Intake (Upper Reservoir) - Large Unit
Design of Trashrack (As per IS:11388-2012)

Design Discharge at Trashrack/intake (Turbine Mode) = 136.56 cumecs
Height of Intake Tunnel, d = 6.00 m
Vertical Height of opening at intake = 7.50 m Assumed
H<1.5d
Trashrack Angle with vertical = 15.00 deg.

Effective height of trashrack (with angle of inclination) = 7.76 m
Total Width of Opening at Intake (including pier) = 23.50 m Assumed
Width of Pier = 1.50 m
No. of piers = 2 Nos.
Clear width of Opening at intake = (23.5-1.5*2)

= 20.50 m
Provided Width-1 of Opening at Intake (excluding pier) = 6.8 m
No. of Openings at each Inake (width-1) = 2 Nos.
Width-2 of Opening at Intake (Excluding Pier) = 6.90 m
Total Width of Opening at Intake/Trashrack (excluding pier) = (6.8*2+6.9*1)

20.50 m
Provided Gross effective area of trashrack = (20.5*7.76)

2
= 159.08 m
Assuming Ratio of net area/gross area r = 0.85
Net area of trashrack (after deduction of bar area) = (159.08*0.85)

2
= 135.22 m
Velocity at Trashrack (without clogging) = (136.56/135.218)
= 1.01 m/s
Fixation of Invert Level at Intake/Trashrack

Shape of Intake tunnel - Circular-Shaped
Diameter of Intake tunnel, D = 6 m
Sectional area of Intake tunnel, A = (π*6^2/4)
= 28.27 m2
Average Velocity in Intake tunnel, v = (136.56/28.27)
= 4.83 m/s
Submergenec Calculations From Center Line of Intake Tunnel (IS:9761-1995)

Froude number Fr = V/SQRT("gD)
= 0.630 >1/3 Clause no. 5.2.2
Submergence Depth from Center Line IF{Fr>=1/3,[(0.5+2*(Fr))*d],(1.0*H)}
= (0.5+(2*0.63))*6
= 10.56 m
C/L elevation of Intake tunnel = 812.375 m
Minimu submergence required (i.e. Required MDDL) = (812.375+10.56)

822.94
Required bottom level of intake tunnel = (812.375-6/2)
809.375 m
Provided MDDL at Intake = 825.00 m
Provided MDDL>Required MDDL
Provided bottom level at Intake Tunnel = 809.375 m

Annexure-9.4(a)
Submergenec Calculations From Inteke/Trasrack Invert Level

Froude number Fr = V/SQRT("gH)
Velocity at Intake Entrance, V = 0.77 m/s
= 0.090 <1/3
Clause no. 5.2.2
IF{Fr>=1/3,[(0.5+2*(Fr))*d],(1.5*H)}
Submergence Depth from Invert Level = (1.5*7.5)
= 11.25 m
Invert elevation of Intake at Start = 811.40 m
Minimum submergence required = (811.4+11.25)
Calculated MDDL = 822.65
Provided
Therefore, The MDDL>Required
provided MDDLMDDL
MDDL > Calculated
Type & Sizinge of Intake

Type of Intake = Diffuser Type
Flare Angle of intake wall with intake tunnel wall = 13.50 deg. Assumed
Width of Intake with 13.13 deg. = (23.5-6)/2

= 8.75 m
Length of transition from start of Intake tunnel to Intake = 1/[TAN(13.5)]
= 36.45 m
Angle of Intake Slab from Intake to start of Intake Tunnel = TANINVERSE[(7.5-6)/36.45]
2.36 deg.
Provided angle<10 deg.
Annexure-9.4(b)
Hydraulic design of Trashrack & Sizing of Intake (Upper Reservoir) - Small Unit

Design Discharge at Trashrack/intake (Turbine Mode) = 136.88 cumecs
Height of Intake Tunnel, d = 6.00 m
Vertical Height of opening at intake = 7.50 m Assumed
H<1.5d

Total Width of Opening at Intake (including pier) = 23.50 m Assumed
Clear width of Opening at intake = (23.5-1.5*2)

= 20.50 m
Provided Width-1 of Opening at Intake (excluding pier) = 6.8 m
Width-2 of Opening at Intake (Excluding Pier) = 6.90 m
Total Width of Opening at Intake/Trashrack (excluding pier) = (6.8*2+6.9*1)

20.50 m

2
= 159.08 m

2
= 135.22 m
= 1.01 m/s
Fixation of Invert Level at Intake/Trashrack

Shape of Intake tunnel - Circular-Shaped
Diameter of Intake tunnel, D = 6 m
Sectional area of Intake tunnel, A = (π*6^2/4)
= 28.27 m2
Average Velocity in Intake tunnel, v = (136.88/28.27)
= 4.84 m/s
Submergenec Calculations From Center Line of Intake Tunnel (IS:9761-1995)

= 0.631 >1/3 Clause no. 5.2.2
= (0.5+(2*0.631))*6
= 10.57 m
C/L elevation of Intake tunnel = 812.375 m

822.95
Required bottom level of intake tunnel = (812.375-6/2)
809.375 m
Provided bottom level at Intake tunnel = 809.375 m

Annexure-9.4(b)
Submergenec Calculations From Inteke Invert Level

Velocity at Intake Entrance, V = 0.78 m/s
= 0.091 <1/3
Clause no. 5.2.2
IF{Fr>=1/3,[(0.5+2*(Fr))*d],(1.5*H)}
= 11.25 m
Invert elevation of Intake at Start = 811.400 m
Minimu submergence required = (811.4+11.25)
Provided
Therefore, The MDDL>Required
provided MDDLMDDL
MDDL > Calculated
Type & Sizinge of Intake

Type of Intake = Diffuser Type
Flare Angle of intake wall with intake tunnel wall = 13.50 deg. Assumed
Width of Intake with 13.13 deg. = (23.5-6)/2

= 8.75 m
Length of transition from start of Intake tunnel to Intake = 1/[TAN(13.5)]
= 36.45 m
Angle of Intake Slab from Intake to start of Intake Tunnel = TANINVERSE[(7.5-6)/36.45]
2.36 deg.
Sizing of air vent pipe Annexure-9.5
( 1) As per IS: 9761-1995 :
F = Q * S * ( D/t)3/2
750000 * c
F= Area of Air vent

Capacity of Air vent = 21 to 22% of Penstock Discharge
Q= Discharge of Air through Penstock = 30.043 cumecs
S= Factor of safety against collapse = 4
D= Diameter of Penstock = 6.00 m
t= Thickness of Penstock = 0.03 m
c= Co-efficient discharge through inlet = 0.70
F = 30.0432 x 4.00 x 187.50

750000 x 0.70
= 0.021 m2
D= 0.17 m
or say 200 mm
(2) As per IS: 11570-1985 :

Max. allowable velocity through Vent pipe (V) = 50 m/s
Discharge of Air through Air vent (Q) = 30.043 cumecs
Required Area of Air vent ( A ) = 30.043

50
= 0.601 m2
D= 0.87 m
or say 1000 mm
However Adopt the maximum i.e 1000 mm dia. Air vent.

Annexure-9.6
SAUNDATTI HEAD LOSS CALCULATIONS
1. Calcula on of Losses (Turbine Mode ) Large units
References : 1. IS: 4880 - 1976 ( Part-III ) - Code of prac!ce for design of Tunnels conveying water
Part - III, Hydraulic design.
2. IS: 2951- 1985 ( Part-I ) - Recommenda!ons for flow of liquids in closed conduits.
Part I, Head loss in straight pipes due to fric!onal resistance.
Discharge of One turbine = 136.56 Cumecs
No. of Penstocks = 5 nos
Penstock Discharge = 136.56 Cumecs
Diameter of the Penstock = 6.00 m 7.00 m
Length of the Intake Tunnel,
Penstock & Pressure shaF = 1016.46 m 225.47 m
C/S Area of the penstock (A) = 28.274 m2
Velocity of Flow (V) = (Q/A) = 4.83 m/s
Accelera!on due to gravity (g) = 9.81 m/s2
Size of Bu<erfly Valve = 4.20 m
C/S Area of the Bu<erfly Valve (A) = 13.854 m2
U/S Intake Opening = 23.50 m X 7.50 m 23.50 m X 8.00 m

Area of U/S Intake opening = 176.25 m2 188.00 m2
Velocity at entrance = 0.77 m/s 0.73 m/s
Size of Intake Gate opening = 4.95 m X 6.00 m 5.80 m X 7.00 m
Area of Intake Gate opening = 29.70 m2 40.60 m2
Velocity at Gate = 4.60 m/s 3.36 m/s
Size of rectangular entrance at Gate = 4.95 m X 6.00 m
Area at rectangular entrance = 29.70 m2
Velocity at rectangular entrance = 4.60 m/s
Losses :
1 Loss due to Trash Rack :

Total Width of Trashrack W = 23.50 m
Total Height of Trashrack H = 7.765 m
hf1 = Kt v2
2g
Kt = 1.45 - 0.45 (an/at) - (an/at)2
at = 182.48 ( For maximum Loss as per Cl:4.2 of IS-4880-III-1976 )
an = 155.106 (15% of racks area)
Kt = 0.345
Velocity in the trash rack as per IS:11388:1995. = 0.88 m/s
hf = 0.0136 m
2 Fric on Loss between Trashrack & Start of penstock

Width at Start Btr = 23.50 m
Width at End Bb = 6.00 m
Height at Start Htr = 7.50 m
Height at End Ht = 6.00 m
Area at Start atr = 176.25 m2
Area at End ab = 36.000 m2
Average area = 106.125 m2
Velocity at Start V tr = 0.775 m/s
Velocity at End Vb = 3.793 m/s
Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project

Annexure-9.6
Average Velocity v = 2.284 m/s
We<ed Perimter at start = 62.000 m
We<ed Perimter at end = 24.000 m
Average We<ed Perimter P = 43.00 m
Hydraulic Radius R = 2.468 m
Total Length L = 39.55 m
Mannings Coeff. n = 0.014
Fric!on loss (hf) hf = 0.0121 m
3 Contrac on Losses (at Start of Upper Reservoir Intake)

Width at Start B = 23.5 m
Height at Start H = 7.50 m
Area at Start A1 = 176.25 m2
Velocity at Start V1 = 0.775 m/s
Area at End A2 = 36.00 m2
Velocity at End V2 = 3.79 m/s
Loss coefficient kc = 0.10 (Kc = 0.10 as per Cl: 4.4.1 of IS:4880-1976)
Contrac!on hc = 0.0703 m
4 Fric on Loss upto GATE groove

Width at End B = 4.95 m
Height at end H 6.00 m
velocity at start = 3.793 m/s
Velocity at End = 4.598 m/s
5 Fric on Loss at transi on from rectangular gate to circular

Height at start H 6.00 m
Dia at end D = 6.00 m
6 Transi on loss from square to Rectangle


Annexure-9.6
Width at End W = 4.950 m
7 Transi on loss from square to circular

Diameter at End D = 6.000 m
Loss coefficient ke = 0.017 (Ke = 0.017 as per IS:2951-II)
Expansion loss he = 0.0018 m
8 Loss at the Gate :

hf = K g v2
2g
kg = 0.10 (Kg = 0.10 as per Cl: 4.6 of IS:4880-III)
hf = 0.216 m Consider 2 gates
9 Loss at Bend : 1 Bend at start

hb = Kb V2
2g
Kb = 0.03 (Kb = 0.03 as per IS:2951-II)

hb = 0.07 m 2 Bends
hb = Kb V2
10 Loss at Bend : 900 2g
Kb = 0.12 (Kb = 0.12 as per IS:2951-II)

hb = 0.286 m 2 Bends
11 Loss in the Conduit due to fric on :

For Lined Tunnels, As per Cl:- 4.1.1, IS-4880 (Part-III-1976)
hf = V 2 * n2 * L ( IS : 4880 ( Part-III) , Cl.4.1.2.3 )
R4/3
where
hf = Loss due to fric!on
L = Length of the Penstock = 1009.46 m
V = Velocity in the Penstock = 4.830 m
A = Area of Penstock = 28.274 m2
P = Perimeter = 18.850 m
R = Hydraulic radius (A/P) = 1.500
Co-efficient of Rugosity (n) = 0.011 ( IS : 4880 ( Part-III) , Cl.4.1.2.1 )

Annexure-9.6
hf = 4.830 ^2 x 0.011 ^2 x 1009.46
1.500 ^(4/3)
= 1.659 m
hf = 1.659 m
12 Contrac on at MIV
Dia at start D = 6.0 m
Loss coefficient ke = 0.1 (Kc = 0.10 as per Cl: 4.4.1 of IS:4880-1976)
Contrac!on he = 0.3767 m
13 Fric on loss in Contrac on

Discharge Q = 136.56 m3/s
Length L = 7 m
Diameter at start D = 6.00 m
Diameter at end = 4.20 m
Area at Start = 28.26 m2
Area at End = 13.85 m2
Average Area = 21.05 m2
Average Velocity = 7.35 m/s
Avg We<em Perimeter = 16.014 m
Fric!on Loss hf = 0.032 m
14 Loss in Bu<er Fly Valve :

hf = Kv * v2
2*g
Kv value is as per manufacturer data
Kv = 0.130
hf = 0.64 m
15 TRT (friction loss)

Length L = 225.47 m
Diameter -Circular Concrete
Lined D = 7.00 m
We<ed Area = 38.47 m2
Velocity V = 3.550 m/s
We<em Perimeter = 21.98 m
16 Bend Losses-TRT Outlet (curve-1) - at end

Area of TRT Outlet A = 38.47 m2
Velocity in Penstock V = 3.550 m/s
Radius of bend = 25.5 m
Ra!o (rb/D) = 3.643 m

Annexure-9.6
Angle of bend (α) = 15 deg
No. of Bends = 1
Loss coefficient Kb = 0.025
Bend Loss hb = 0.0161 m
17 TRT Expansion loss (outlet intake)

Area at Start As = 38.465 m2
Velocity at Start Vs = 3.550 m/s
Area at End Ae = 40.600 m2
Velocity at End Ve = 3.364 m/s
Loss coefficient Ke = 0.012 (Kecalculated as per IS:2951-II)
18 Fric on loss at TRT Expansion

Length L = 7 m
Width at End 5.80 m
Height at End = 7.00 m
19 TRT Outlet gate loss

no. of gates 2
Discharge Q 136.56 m3/s
Width B 5.80 m
Height H 7.00 m
Area A 40.6 m2
Velocity V 3.364 m/s
Gate Loss coefficient Kg 0.1 (Kg = 0.10 as per Cl: 4.6 of IS:4880-III)
Gate loss hg 0.1153 m
20 Expansion losses (at outlet intake)

Area at Start As 40.60 m2
Area at End Ae 49.00 m2
Velocity at Start Vs 3.364 m/s
Velocity at End Ve 2.787 m/s
Loss coefficient Ke 0.041 (Ke calculated as per IS:2951-II)
Expansion loss he 0.0074 m

Length L = 17.4 m

Annexure-9.6
Width at Start = 5.80 m
Height at Start = 7.00 m
Width at End = 7.00 m

Area at End Ae 188 m2

Length L = 37.4 m
Total losses = 3.9791

Add for other minor losses = 0.4000 m
HL = 4.38 Say 4.400 m

Annexure-9.6
2. Calcula on of Losses (Turbine Mode ) Small units
Discharge of One turbine = 136.56 68.44 Cumecs
Penstock Discharge = 136.56 68.44 Cumecs
Diameter of the Penstock = 6.00 4.25 7.00 5.00 m
Penstock & Pressure shaF = 940.21 76.25 225.47 m
C/S Area of the penstock (A) = 28.274 m 2

Size of Bu<erfly Valve = 3.15 m
C/S Area of the Bu<erfly Valve (A) = 7.793 m2
Bell Mouth Opening = 23.50 m X 7.50 m 20.00 m X 5.20 m

Area of bell mouth opening = 176.25 m2 104.00 m2
Size of Gate = 4.95 m X 6.00 m 4.15 m X 5.00 m
Area of Gate = 29.70 m2 20.75 m2
Losses :
1 Loss due to Trash Rack :

hf1 = Kt v 2
2g
Kt = 1.45 - 0.45 (an/at) - (an/at)2
Kt = 0.35
hf = 0.0136 m

Width at End Bb = 6.00 m
Height at End Ht = 6.00 m
Velocity at Start Vtr = 0.775 m/s
Velocity at End Vb = 3.793 m/s

Annexure-9.6
3 Contrac on Losses (at Start of Upper Reservoir Intake)


Height at end H = 6.00 m
velocity at start = 3.793
Velocity at End = 4.598
Total Length L = 6 m
5 Fric on Loss at transi on from rectangular gate to circular

Dia at end D = 6.00 m
6 Transi on loss from square to Rectangle


Annexure-9.6
7 Transi on loss from square to circular

Width at Start B = 4.95 m m
Height at Start H = 6.00m
Loss coefficient ke = 0.017 (Ke calculated as per IS:2951-II)

hf = Kg v2
2g
9 Loss at Bend : 1 Bend at start

hf = Kb V2
2g
60
Kb = 0.03 (Kb = 0.03 as per IS:2951-II)
hf = 0.0720 m 2 Bends
hf = Kb V2
10 Loss at Bend : 90 0
2g
r/d 3.17
Kb = 0.12 (Kb = 0.12 as per IS:2951-II) 900
hf = 0.2860 m 2 Bends

hf6 = V2 * n2 * L ( IS : 4880 ( Part-III) , Cl.4.1.2.3 )
R4/3
where
hf = Loss due to friction
hf6 = 4.830 ^2 x 0.011 ^2 x 940.21

1.500 ^(4/3)
= 1.546 m
hf = 1.5456 m

Annexure-9.6
12 Pressure Sha8 (fric on loss) - Branch Unit Penstock
Length L = 76.25 m
Diameter D = 4.25 m
We<ed Perimeter = 13.35 m
13 Branch Losses
Discharge -
(from Main Pressure ShaF) Qm = 136.56 m3/s
Discharge - (Sub-unit) Qs = 68.44 m3/s
Area -(Main Pressure ShaF) Am = 28.26 m2
Velocity-(Main Pressure ShaF) V = 4.83 m/s
Diameter - (Sub-unit) D = 4.25 m
Area - (Sub-unit) A = 14.18 m2
Velocity - (Sub-unit) V = 4.83 m/s
Ra!o (D2/D1) = 0.71
Ra!o (q2/q1) = 0.50
Ra!o (V2/V1) = 1.00
Angle of Bifurca!on θ (deg.) = 45.00
Branch Loss hb = 0.3808 m
14 Horizontal bend at branches

Discharge = 68.44 m3/s r/d 5.660377
Area = 14.18 m2
Velocity = 4.83 m/s
bend coefficient = 0.02 (Ke calculated as per IS:2951-II)
Bend loss = 0.0237 m
15 Contrac on at MIV
Dia at start D = 4.25
Area at Start A1 = 14.18
Velocity at Start V1 = 4.827
Area at End A2 = 7.789
Velocity at End V2 = 8.787
Loss coefficient ke = 0.1 (Kc = 0.10 as per Cl: 4.4.1 of IS:4880-1976)
Contrac!on he = 0.2747 m

hf = Kv * v 2
2*g
Kv = 0.130
hf = 0.5110 m
17 TRT (fric on loss)

Length L = 225.47 m

Annexure-9.6
Lined D = 5.00 m
We<ed Perimeter = 15.7 m
18 Bend Losses-TRT Outlet (curve-1) - at end

Ra!o (rb/D) = 4.113 m
No. of Bends = 1
19 TRT expansion loss (outlet intake)

Loss coefficient Ke = 0.01 (Kecalculated as per IS:2951-II)
Expansion he = 0.0008 m
20 Fric on loss in Expansion

Length L = 17.4 m
Width at End 4.15 m
Avg We<em Perimeter = 17 m

no. of gates 2
Width B 4.15 m
Height H 5.00 m
Area A 20.75 m2

Annexure-9.6


Length L = 39.4 m

Loss coefficient Ke 0.168 (Kecalculated as per IS:2951-II)

Length L = 20.0 m
Avg We<ed Perimeter = 35.2 m

HL = 4.879 Say 4.900 m

Annexure-9.6
3. Calcula on of Losses (Pump Mode ) Large units
Discharge of One pump = 130.77 Cumecs
Penstock Discharge = 130.77 Cumecs
Diameter of the Penstock = 6.00 m 7.00 m
Penstock & Pressure shaF = 1016.46 m 225.47 m
Size of Bu;erfly Valve = 4.20 m
C/S Area of the Bu;erfly Valve (A) = 13.854 m2

Area of Gate = 29.70 m2 40.60 m2
Losses :

Width at End Btr = 23.5 m
Width at Start Bb = 6.00 m
Height at end Htr = 7.50 m
Height at Start Ht = 6.00 m
Area at end atr = 176.25 m2
Area at Start ab = 36.000 m2
Velocity at Start = 0.742 m/s
Average We;ed Perimter P = 43.00 m
2 Expansion Losses (at Start of Upper Reservoir Intake)

Area at end A1 = 176.25 m2
Area at start A2 = 36.000 m2

Annexure-9.6

Width at start B = 4.95 m
Height at start H = 6.00 m
Area at start ab = 29.700 m2
Velocity at end = 3.633 m/s
4 Fric on Loss at transi on from circular to rectangular

Velocity at end = 4.403 m/s
5 Transi on loss from Rectangle to square

6 Expansion loss (circular to square )

Height at End H = 6.00 m
Velocity at start V2 = 4.625 m/s

Annexure-9.6

hf = K g v2
2g
8 Loss at Bend : 1 Bend at end

hf = Kb V2
2g
Kb = 0.03 (Kb = 0.03 as per IS:2951-II)

hf = 0.0660 m 2 Bends
hf = Kb V2
9 Loss at Bend : 900 2g
Kb = 0.12 (Kb = 0.12 as per IS:2951-II)

hf = 0.2620 m 2 Bends

hf = V2 * n2 * L ( IS : 4880 ( Part-III) , Cl.4.1.2.3 )
R4/3
where
hf = 4.625 ^2 x 0.011 ^2 x 1016.46

1.500 ^(4/3)
= 1.532 m
hf = 1.5322 m
11 Expansion at MIV
12 Loss in Bu9er Fly Valve :

hf = Kv * v2
2*g

Annexure-9.6
Kv = 0.130
hf = 0.5903 m
13 TRT (friction loss)

Length L = 225.47 m
Lined D = 7.00 m
We;ed Area = 38.47 m2
We;em Perimeter = 21.98 m
14 Bend Losses-TRT Outlet (curve-1) - at start

Ra!o (rb/D) = 3.000 m
No. of Bends = 1
15 TRT Contrac on loss (rectangular to circular)

Loss coefficient Kc = 0.10 (Kc = 0.10 as per Cl: 4.4.1 of IS:4880-1976)
Contrac!on loss hc = 0.0060 m
16 Fric on loss at TRT Contrac on

Length L = 7 m
Diameter at end D = 7.00 m
Width at Start 5.80 m
Height at start = 7.00 m
Area at start = 40.60 m2
Velocity at start = 3.22 m/s
Avg We;em Perimeter = 23.79 m

no. of gates 2

Annexure-9.6
Width B = 5.80 m
Height H = 7.00 m
Area A = 40.6 m2
Gate Loss coefficient Kg = 0.1 (Kg = 0.10 as per Cl: 4.6 of IS:4880-III)
Gate loss hg = 0.1058 m
18 Contraction losses (at outlet intake)

Area at Start As = 49 m2
19 Friction loss at Contraction(at outlet intake)

Average We;ed Perimter = 26.800 m
Hydraulic Radius = 1.672 m
fric!on Loss coefficient = 0.014
Length = 17.400
Fric!on Loss = 0.0149 m

Area at Start As 188 m2
Loss coefficient Kc 0.100 (Kc = 0.10 as per Cl: 4.4.1 of IS:4880-1976)
Contrac!on loss hc 0.0338 m
21 Friction loss at Contraction(at outlet intake)

Length = 37.400
22 Loss due to Trash Rack D/S

hf1 = Kt v 2
2g
Kt = 1.45 - 0.45 (an/at) - (an/at)2
Kt = 0.345
hf = 0.0110 m
23 Head Loss at Tail Race channel

Length of channel L = 1929.00 m

Annexure-9.6
Bed fall s = 1 in 7000
Head loss = 0.2756 m

HL = 5.294 Say 5.300 m

Annexure-9.6
4. Calcula on of Losses (Pump Mode ) Small units
Discharge of One pump = 130.77 64.35 Cumecs
Penstock Discharge = 130.77 64.35 Cumecs
Diameter of the Penstock = 6.00 4.25 7.00 5.00 m
Penstock & Pressure shaF = 947.21 76.25 225.47 m
Size of Bu;erfly Valve = 3.15 m
C/S Area of the Bu;erfly Valve (A) = 7.793 m2

Area of Gate = 29.70 m2 20.75 m2
Losses :

Width at Start Bb = 6.00 m
Height at Start Ht = 6.00 m
2 Expansion Losses (at Start of Upper Reservoir Intake)


Annexure-9.6

Width at start B = 4.95 m
Height at start H = 6.00 m
Area at start ab = 29.700 m2
4 Fric on Loss at transi on from circular to rectangular

5 Transi on loss from Rectangle to square

6 Expansion loss (circular to square)

Width at End B = 4.95 m m

Annexure-9.6
Velocity at End V1 = 4.403m/s
Diameter at Start D = 6.000m
Area at Start A2 = 28.274m2
Velocity at Start V2 = 4.625m/s

hf = Kg v2
2g
ke = 0.10 (Kg = 0.10 as per Cl: 4.6 of IS:4880-III)
8 Loss at Bend : 1 Bend at end

hb = Kb V2
2g
60
Kb = 0.03 (Kb = 0.03 as per IS:2951-II)
hb = 0.0660 m 2 Bends
hb = Kb V2
2g
9 Loss at Bend : 90 0
r/d 3.17
Kb = 0.12 (Kb = 0.12 as per IS:2951-II) 900
hb = 0.2620 m 2 Bends

hf = V2 * n2 * L ( IS : 4880 ( Part-III) , Cl.4.1.2.3 )
R4/3
where
hf = 4.625 ^2 x 0.011 ^2 x 947.21

1.500 ^(4/3)
= 1.428 m
hf = 1.4278 m
11 Pressure Sha8 (fric on loss) - Branch Unit Penstock

Length L = 76.25 m
Diameter D = 4.25 m

Annexure-9.6
We;ed Perimeter = 13.35 m
12 Branch Losses
Discharge
-(from Main Pressure ShaF) Qm = 130.77 m3/s
Discharge - (Sub-unit) Qs = 64.35 m3/s
Area -(Main Pressure ShaF) Am = 28.26 m2
Velocity -
(Main Pressure ShaF) V = 4.63 m/s
Diameter - (Sub-unit) D = 4.25 m
Area - (Sub-unit) A = 14.18 m2
Velocity - (Sub-unit) V = 4.54 m/s
Ra!o (D2/D1) = 0.57
Ra!o (q2/q1) = 0.49
Ra!o (V2/V1) = 0.98
Angle of Bifurca!on θ (deg.) = 45.00
Loss coefficient Kb = 0.425 (from table-3 of IS 2951-II )
Branch Loss hb = 0.4638 m
13 Horizontal bend at branches

Discharge = 64.35 m3/s r/d 5.66038
Area = 14.18 m2
Velocity = 4.54 m/s
bend coefficient = 0.02 (Ke calculated as per IS:2951-II)
Bend loss = 0.0210 m
13 Expansion at MIV

hf7 = Kv * v 2
2*g
Kv = 0.130
hf = 0.4664 m
15 TRT (fric on loss)

Length L = 76.25 m

Lined D = 5.00 m

Annexure-9.6
We;em Perimeter = 15.7 m
16 Bend Losses-TRT Outlet (curve-1) - at start

Ra!o (rb/D) = 3.000 m
No. of Bends = 1
17 TRT Contrac on loss (outlet intake)

Area at End As = 20.75 m2
Velocity at End Vs = 3.10 m/s
Area at Start Ae = 19.63 m2
Velocity at Start Ve = 3.28 m/s
18 Fric on loss at TRT Contrac on

Length L = 7 m
Diameter at end D = 5.00 m
Width at Start 4.15 m
Height at start = 5.00 m
Area at start = 20.75 m2
Velocity at start = 3.10 m/s
Avg We;em Perimeter = 17 m

no. of gates 2
Width at gate B 4.15 m
Height at gate H 5.00 m
Area A 20.75 m2

Area at End Ae 20.75 m2 59.5

Annexure-9.6
21 Fric on loss at Contrac on(at outlet intake)

Length = 17.400

23 Fric on loss at Contrac on(at outlet intake)

Length = 37.400
24 Loss due to Trash Rack D/S

hf1 = Kt v 2
2g
Kt = 1.45 - 0.45 (an/at) - (an/at)2
Kt = 0.35
hf = 0.0090 m
25 Head Loss at Tail Race channel

Length of channel L = 1929.00 m
Bed fall s = 1 in 7000
Head loss = 0.2756 m

HL = 5.0441 Say 5.100 m

Annexure-9.7(a)
Operating Rules of Machines
Case-1: Shutoff of Generation (Rejection of Generation)

Unit 1
Various Cases
Time (s) Guide Vane Opening (%)
Load Rejection (100-0) at FRL of Upper 0 100

10 0
Load Rejection (100-0) at MDDL of 0 100

10 0
Case-2: Shutoff of Pumping (Rejection of Pumpping)
Load Rejection (100-0) at FRL of Lower 0 100

Reservoir (i.e. El.633.83 m)
13.5 0
Load Rejection (100-0) at MDDL of 0 100

Upper Reservoir (i.e. El.825.0 m)
13.5 0
Case-3: Start of Generation (Acceptance of Generation)

Unit 1
Various Cases
0 0
Load Acceptance (0-100) at MDDL of
20 100
1000 100
0 0
Load Acceptance (0-100) at FRL of
20 100
1000 100
Case-4: Start of Pumping (Acceptance of Pumping)

Unit 1
Various Cases
0 0
Load Acceptance (0-100) at MDDL of
20 100
1000 100
0 0
Load Acceptance (0-100) at FRL of
20 100
1000 100
Water Hammer Analysis along WCS of Larger Unit Annexure-9.7(a)
Properties of Water Conductor System from L-section along Larger Unit (252 MW)
Segmental Cumulative Segmental Distance

S.No. Elevation 'm' Elevation 'ft'
Distance 'm' Distance 'm' 'ft'
WCS from Intake to MIV (i.e. Penstock/Pressure Shaft)
1 0.00 0.00 815.15 0.00 2674.38
2 36.45 36.45 812.38 119.59 2665.27
3 24.40 60.85 812.38 80.05 2665.27
4 25.00 85.85 810.99 82.02 2660.73
5 25.00 110.85 809.60 82.02 2656.17
6 25.00 135.85 808.21 82.02 2651.61
7 25.00 160.85 806.82 82.02 2647.05
8 25.00 185.85 805.43 82.02 2642.49
9 25.00 210.85 804.04 82.02 2637.93
10 20.00 230.85 802.65 65.62 2633.37 Start of Top Vertical Bend
11 13.63 244.48 797.03 44.72 2614.93
12 13.63 258.11 784.67 44.72 2574.38
13 20.00 278.11 764.67 65.62 2508.76
14 20.00 298.11 744.67 65.62 2443.14
15 20.00 318.11 724.67 65.62 2377.53
16 20.00 338.11 704.67 65.62 2311.91
17 20.00 358.11 684.67 65.62 2246.29
18 20.00 378.11 664.67 65.62 2180.68
19 20.00 398.11 644.67 65.62 2115.06
20 20.00 418.11 624.67 65.62 2049.44
21 19.67 437.78 605.00 64.53 1984.91
22 14.14 451.92 592.27 46.39 1943.14
23 14.14 466.06 587.00 46.39 1925.85 End of Bottom Vertical Bend
24 50.00 516.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
25 50.00 566.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
26 50.00 616.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
27 50.00 666.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
28 50.00 716.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
29 50.00 766.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
30 50.00 816.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
31 50.00 866.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
32 50.00 916.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
33 50.00 966.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
34 50.00 1016.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
35 50.00 1066.06 587.00 164.04 1925.85
36 20.69 1086.75 587.00 67.88 1925.85
WCS from Draft Tube to Outlet (i.e. TRT)
37 0.00 0.00 573.75 0.00 1882.38
38 25.00 25.00 577.92 82.02 1896.06
39 25.00 50.00 582.09 82.02 1909.74
40 25.00 75.00 586.26 82.02 1923.43
41 25.00 100.00 590.43 82.02 1937.11
42 25.00 125.00 594.60 82.02 1950.79
43 25.00 150.00 598.77 82.02 1964.47
44 25.00 175.00 602.94 82.02 1978.15
45 25.00 200.00 607.11 82.02 1991.83
46 16.90 216.90 611.28 55.45 2005.51
47 11.07 227.97 614.10 36.32 2014.76
48 22.40 250.37 614.10 73.49 2014.76
49 34.40 284.77 614.60 112.86 2016.40
Annexure-9.7(a)
Calculation of Celerity in WCS
upto top of Vertical Shaft

Bottom
Vertical (including TRT
Horizantal
Bend bends)
Length WCS (m) L 230.85 235.20 620.69 284.77
Size (m) L/W/Ø 6 6 6 7
Area (m2) A 28.274 28.274 28.274 38.485
Lining Material Steel Steel Steel Concrete
Equivalent Dia (mm) Ø 6000 6000 6000 7000
Lining Thick (mm) t 24.00 30 32 600
Density of Fluid (kg/m3) ρ 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00
Elasicity of Fluid (N/m2) K 2150000000 2150000000 2150000000 2150000000
Elastic Modulus of Pipe (N/m2) E 2E+11 2E+11 2E+11 3E+10
Celerity (m/s) a 764 826 844 1082
Celerity (ft./s) a 2507 2710 2769 3550
Celerity 1m = 3.28084 ft.

K
ρ
a 
K. D
1 
E . t
Where,
a = Wave Celerity (m/s)
K = Bulk Modulus of Elasticity of Fluid (N/m 2)
ρ = Density of Fluide (kg/m 3)
D = Diameter of Pipe (mm)
t = Pipe Wall Thickness (mm)
E = Elastic Modulus of the Pipe (N/m 2)
Annexure-9.7(a)
Friction Factor Used for Transient Analysis
upto top of Vertical Shaft

Bottom
Vertical (including TRT
Horizantal
Bend bends)
3
Discharge, Q (m /s) 136.49 136.49 136.49 136.49
Length of WCS, L (m) 230.85 235.20 620.69 284.77
Diameter/Size, D (m) 6 6 6 7
Area, A (m )
2 28.274 28.274 28.274 38.485
Equivalent circular Dia. 6.000 6.000 6.000 7.000
Hydraulic Radius, R=A/P (m) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.75
Velocity, V (m/s) 4.83 4.83 4.83 3.55
Manning's Coefficient, n (Rejection Case) 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.012
Equivalent friction factor f (Rejection Case) 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.009
Manning's Coefficient, n (Acceptance Case) 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.016
Equivalent friction factor f (Acceptance Case) 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.017
Formulas Used
V 2 n 2L
Manning's Formula h 
f 4
R 3
Where,
hf = Head Loss (m)
V = Velocity (m/s)
n = Manning's Coefficient
L = Length of waer Conductor System (m)
R = Hydraulic Radius of Water Conductor System (m)
fLV 2
Darcy-Waisbach Formula h 
f 2gD
Where,
hf = Head Loss (m)
f = Darcy-Waisbach Friction Factor

D = Diameter of Water Conductor System (m)
Relation between 'f' and 'n' n 2 ×2g×d
f=
R 4/3
Case-1:- Shutoff of Generation Annexure-9.7(a)
Water Hammer Results along Water Conductor System during Shutoff of Generation (Rejection Case)
Along L-section of Large Unit (252 MW)
FRL @ Upper Reservoir = 855.00 m Q= 136.56 m3/s
MDDL @ Lower Reservoir = 623.93 m 4822.57 cusec
Case-1: Shutoff Generation (Rejection) at FRL of Uper Reservoir (i.e. El. 855.0 m) & at MDDL of Lower Reservoir
(i.e. El. 623.93 m)
C/L Elevations of Max. Energy Elevations Max. Pressure

Pressure Rise
Node Nos. Distance WCS (Rejection Case) Head
in 'm' in ' ft.' in ' m' in '%' in ' m'
1 0.00 815.15 2805.10 854.99 -0.01% 39.84
2 36.45 812.38 2808.10 855.91 2.13% 43.53
3 60.85 812.38 2814.10 857.74 6.42% 45.36
4 85.85 810.99 2820.70 859.75 10.79% 48.76
5 110.85 809.60 2827.20 861.73 14.82% 52.13
6 135.85 808.21 2833.70 863.71 18.62% 55.50
7 160.85 806.82 2840.20 865.69 22.19% 58.87
8 185.85 805.43 2846.70 867.67 25.57% 62.24
9 210.85 804.04 2853.20 869.66 28.76% 65.62
10 230.85 802.65 2858.40 871.24 31.02% 68.59
11 244.48 797.03 2861.90 872.31 29.86% 75.28
12 258.11 784.67 2865.40 873.37 26.13% 88.70
13 278.11 764.67 2870.50 874.93 22.06% 110.26
14 298.11 744.67 2875.70 876.51 19.50% 131.84
15 318.11 724.67 2880.80 878.07 17.70% 153.40
16 338.11 704.67 2885.90 879.62 16.38% 174.95
17 358.11 684.67 2890.90 881.15 15.35% 196.48
18 378.11 664.67 2896.00 882.70 14.55% 218.03
19 398.11 644.67 2901.10 884.26 13.91% 239.59
20 418.11 624.67 2906.10 885.78 13.36% 261.11
21 437.78 605.00 2911.00 887.27 12.91% 282.27
22 451.92 592.27 2914.50 888.34 12.69% 296.07
23 449.33 587.00 2918.00 889.41 12.84% 302.41
24 449.33 587.00 2930.30 893.16 14.24% 306.16
25 449.33 587.00 2942.60 896.90 15.64% 309.90
26 449.33 587.00 2954.60 900.56 17.00% 313.56
27 499.33 587.00 2966.50 904.19 18.35% 317.19
28 716.06 587.00 2978.20 907.76 19.68% 320.76
29 766.06 587.00 2989.70 911.26 20.99% 324.26
30 816.06 587.00 3001.00 914.70 22.28% 327.70
31 866.06 587.00 3012.10 918.09 23.54% 331.09
32 916.06 587.00 3023.00 921.41 24.78% 334.41
33 966.06 587.00 3033.70 924.67 26.00% 337.67
34 1016.06 587.00 3044.20 927.87 27.19% 340.87
35 1066.06 587.00 3054.40 930.98 28.35% 343.98
36 1086.75 587.00 3058.60 932.26 28.83% 345.26
37 0.00 573.75 2005.70 611.34 - 37.59
38 25.00 577.92 2009.60 612.53 - 34.61
39 25.00 582.09 2013.50 613.71 - 31.62
40 25.00 586.26 2017.50 614.93 - 28.67
41 25.00 590.43 2021.40 616.12 - 25.69
42 25.00 594.60 2025.40 617.34 - 22.74
43 25.00 598.77 2029.30 618.53 - 19.76
44 25.00 602.94 2033.30 619.75 - 16.81
45 25.00 607.11 2037.30 620.97 - 13.86
46 16.90 611.28 2039.90 621.76 - 10.48
47 11.07 614.10 2041.70 622.31 8.21
48 22.40 614.10 2045.00 623.32 - 9.22
49 34.40 614.60 2047.00 623.93 - 9.33
Case-2:- Shutoff of Pumping Annexure-9.7(a)
Water Hammer Results along Water Conductor System during Shutoff of Pumping (Rejection Case)
FRL @ Lower Reservoir = 633.83 m Q= 130.77 m3/s

MDDL @ Upper Reservoir = 825.00 m 4618.10 cusec
Case-2: Shutoff of Pumping at FRL of Lower Reservoir (i.e. El. 633.83 m) & at
MDDL of Upper Reservoir (i.e. El. 825.0 m)

Pressure Rise
Node Nos. Distance WCS (Shutoff of Pumping) Head
WCS from Outlet to Draft Tube (i.e. TRT)
49 0.00 614.60 2079.50 633.83 0.01% 19.23
48 34.40 614.10 2080.90 634.26 2.17% 20.16
47 56.80 614.10 2083.30 634.99 5.88% 20.89
46 67.87 611.28 2084.50 635.36 6.77% 24.08
45 84.77 607.11 2086.40 635.93 7.88% 28.82
44 109.77 602.94 2089.20 636.79 9.58% 33.85
43 134.77 598.77 2092.00 637.64 10.87% 38.87
42 159.77 594.60 2094.80 638.50 11.89% 43.90
41 184.77 590.43 2097.60 639.35 12.72% 48.92
40 209.77 586.26 2100.40 640.20 13.39% 53.94
39 234.77 582.09 2103.20 641.06 13.96% 58.97
38 259.77 577.92 2106.00 641.91 14.45% 63.99
37 284.77 573.75 2108.70 642.73 14.82% 68.98
WCS from MIV at Powerhouse to Intake (i.e. Penstock/Pressure Shaft)
36 0.00 587.00 2523.10 769.04 - 182.04
35 20.69 587.00 2526.20 769.99 - 182.99
34 70.69 587.00 2533.90 772.33 - 185.33
33 120.69 587.00 2541.70 774.71 - 187.71
32 170.69 587.00 2549.70 777.15 - 190.15
31 220.69 587.00 2557.70 779.59 - 192.59
30 270.69 587.00 2565.90 782.09 - 195.09
29 320.69 587.00 2574.20 784.62 - 197.62
28 370.69 587.00 2582.60 787.18 - 200.18
27 587.42 587.00 2591.10 789.77 - 202.77
26 637.42 587.00 2599.70 792.39 - 205.39
25 637.42 587.00 2608.40 795.04 - 208.04
24 637.42 587.00 2617.10 797.69 - 210.69
23 637.42 587.00 2626.00 800.40 - 213.40
22 634.83 592.27 2628.50 801.17 - 208.90
21 648.97 605.00 2631.10 801.96 - 196.96
20 668.64 624.67 2634.60 803.03 - 178.36
19 688.64 644.67 2638.20 804.12 - 159.45
18 708.64 664.67 2641.80 805.22 - 140.55
17 728.64 684.67 2645.40 806.32 - 121.65
16 748.64 704.67 2649.10 807.45 - 102.78
15 768.64 724.67 2652.70 808.54 - 83.87
14 788.64 744.67 2656.40 809.67 - 65.00
13 808.64 764.67 2660.00 810.77 - 46.10
12 828.64 784.67 2663.70 811.90 - 27.23
11 842.27 797.03 2666.20 812.66 - 15.63
10 855.90 802.65 2668.70 813.42 - 10.77
9 875.90 804.04 2672.40 814.55 - 10.51
8 900.90 805.43 2677.00 815.95 - 10.52
7 925.90 806.82 2681.70 817.38 - 10.56
6 950.90 808.21 2686.30 818.78 - 10.57
5 975.90 809.60 2691.00 820.22 - 10.62
4 1000.90 810.99 2695.60 821.62 - 10.63
3 1025.90 812.38 2700.30 823.05 - 10.68
2 1050.30 812.38 2704.60 824.36 - 11.99
1 1086.75 815.15 2706.70 825.00 - 9.85
Case-3:- Start of Generation Annexure-9.7(a)
Water Hammer Results along Water Conductor System during Start of Generation (Acceptance Case)
MDDL @ Upper Reservoir = 825.00 m Q= 136.56 m3/s
FRL @ Lower Reservoir = 633.83 m 4822.57 cusec
Case-3: Start of Generation (Acceptance) at MDDL of Uper Reservoir (i.e. El. 825.0 m) & at FRL of Lower Reservoir
(i.e. El. 633.83 m)

Pressure Rise
Node Nos. Distance WCS (Acceptance Case) Head
1 0.00 815.15 2706.70 825.00 - 9.85
2 36.45 812.38 2705.30 824.58 - 12.20
3 60.85 812.38 2702.40 823.69 - 11.32
4 85.85 810.99 2699.30 822.75 - 11.76
5 110.85 809.60 2696.20 821.80 - 12.20
6 135.85 808.21 2693.10 820.86 - 12.65
7 160.85 806.82 2690.00 819.91 - 13.09
8 185.85 805.43 2686.90 818.97 - 13.54
9 210.85 804.04 2683.90 818.05 - 14.01
10 230.85 802.65 2681.40 817.29 - 14.64
11 244.48 797.03 2679.70 816.77 - 19.74
12 258.11 784.67 2678.00 816.25 - 31.58
13 278.11 764.67 2675.60 815.52 - 50.85
14 298.11 744.67 2673.10 814.76 - 70.09
15 318.11 724.67 2670.70 814.03 - 89.36
16 338.11 704.67 2668.20 813.27 - 108.60
17 358.11 684.67 2665.80 812.54 - 127.87
18 378.11 664.67 2663.40 811.80 - 147.13
19 398.11 644.67 2660.90 811.04 - 166.37
20 418.11 624.67 2658.50 810.31 - 185.64
21 437.78 605.00 2656.10 809.58 - 204.58
22 451.92 592.27 2654.40 809.06 - 216.79
23 449.33 587.00 2652.70 808.54 - 221.54
24 449.33 587.00 2646.70 806.71 - 219.71
25 449.33 587.00 2640.70 804.89 - 217.89
26 449.33 587.00 2634.80 803.09 - 216.09
27 499.33 587.00 2628.90 801.29 - 214.29
28 716.06 587.00 2623.00 799.49 - 212.49
29 766.06 587.00 2617.20 797.72 - 210.72
30 816.06 587.00 2611.40 795.95 - 208.95
31 866.06 587.00 2605.70 794.22 - 207.22
32 916.06 587.00 2600.00 792.48 - 205.48
33 966.06 587.00 2594.40 790.77 - 203.77
34 1016.06 587.00 2588.80 789.07 - 202.07
35 1066.06 587.00 2583.30 787.39 - 200.39
36 1086.75 587.00 2581.10 786.72 - 199.72
37 0.00 573.75 2100.70 640.29 10.76% 66.54
38 25.00 577.92 2098.60 639.65 10.42% 61.73
39 25.00 582.09 2096.60 639.04 10.08% 56.95
40 25.00 586.26 2094.60 638.43 9.68% 52.17
41 25.00 590.43 2092.60 637.82 9.20% 47.39
42 25.00 594.60 2090.50 637.18 8.55% 42.58
43 25.00 598.77 2088.50 636.57 7.83% 37.80
44 25.00 602.94 2086.50 635.97 6.91% 33.03
45 25.00 607.11 2084.50 635.36 5.71% 28.25
46 16.90 611.28 2083.10 634.93 4.87% 23.65
47 11.07 614.10 2082.20 634.65 4.18% 20.55
48 22.40 614.10 2080.50 634.14 1.55% 20.04
49 34.40 614.60 2079.50 633.83 0.01% 19.23
Case-4:- Start of Pumping Annexure-9.7(a)
Water Hammer Results along Water Conductor System during Start of Pumping (Acceptance Case)
MDDL @ Lower Reservoir = 623.93 m Q= 130.77 m3/s

FRL @ Upper Reservoir = 855.00 m 4618.10 cusec
Case-4: Start of Pumping (Acceptance) at MDDL of Lower Reservoir (i.e. El. 623.93 m) & at FRL of Upper Reservoir
(i.e. El. 855.0 m)

Pressure Rise
Node Nos. Distance WCS (Start of Pumping) Head
WCS from Outlet to Draft Tube (i.e. TRT)
49 0.00 614.60 2047.00 623.93 - 9.33
48 34.40 614.10 2046.10 623.65 - 9.55
47 56.80 614.10 2044.40 623.13 - 9.03
46 67.87 611.28 2043.60 622.89 - 11.61
45 84.77 607.11 2042.20 622.46 - 15.35
44 109.77 602.94 2040.30 621.88 - 18.94
43 134.77 598.77 2038.40 621.30 - 22.53
42 159.77 594.60 2036.40 620.69 - 26.09
41 184.77 590.43 2034.50 620.12 - 29.69
40 209.77 586.26 2032.60 619.54 - 33.28
39 234.77 582.09 2030.60 618.93 - 36.84
38 259.77 577.92 2028.70 618.35 - 40.43
37 284.77 573.75 2026.80 617.77 - 44.02
WCS from MIV at Powerhouse to Intake (i.e. Penstock/Pressure Shaft)
36 0.00 587.00 2925.40 891.66 13.68% 304.66
35 20.69 587.00 2923.20 890.99 13.43% 303.99
34 70.69 587.00 2917.90 889.38 12.83% 302.38
33 120.69 587.00 2912.60 887.76 12.22% 300.76
32 170.69 587.00 2907.20 886.11 11.61% 299.11
31 220.69 587.00 2901.80 884.47 11.00% 297.47
30 270.69 587.00 2896.30 882.79 10.37% 295.79
29 320.69 587.00 2890.80 881.12 9.74% 294.12
28 370.69 587.00 2885.20 879.41 9.11% 292.41
27 587.42 587.00 2879.60 877.70 8.47% 290.70
26 637.42 587.00 2874.00 876.00 7.83% 289.00
25 637.42 587.00 2868.30 874.26 7.19% 287.26
24 637.42 587.00 2862.60 872.52 6.54% 285.52
23 637.42 587.00 2856.80 870.75 5.88% 283.75
22 634.83 592.27 2855.20 870.26 5.81% 277.99
21 648.97 605.00 2853.50 869.75 5.90% 264.75
20 668.64 624.67 2851.20 869.05 6.10% 244.38
19 688.64 644.67 2848.90 868.34 6.34% 223.67
18 708.64 664.67 2846.60 867.64 6.64% 202.97
17 728.64 684.67 2844.30 866.94 7.01% 182.27
16 748.64 704.67 2841.90 866.21 7.46% 161.54
15 768.64 724.67 2839.60 865.51 8.06% 140.84
14 788.64 744.67 2837.20 864.78 8.86% 120.11
13 808.64 764.67 2834.90 864.08 10.05% 99.41
12 828.64 784.67 2832.60 863.38 11.91% 78.71
11 842.27 797.03 2831.00 862.89 13.61% 65.86
10 855.90 802.65 2829.30 862.37 14.08% 59.72
9 875.90 804.04 2827.00 861.67 13.09% 57.63
8 900.90 805.43 2824.00 860.76 11.61% 55.33
7 925.90 806.82 2821.10 859.87 10.11% 53.05
6 950.90 808.21 2818.10 858.96 8.46% 50.75
5 975.90 809.60 2815.20 858.07 6.77% 48.47
4 1000.90 810.99 2812.20 857.16 4.90% 46.17
3 1025.90 812.38 2809.20 856.24 2.92% 43.87
2 1050.30 812.38 2806.40 855.39 0.92% 43.02
1 1086.75 815.15 2805.10 854.99 -0.01% 39.84
Annexure-9.8
Calculations for Economic Diameter of Pressure Shaft

(As per IS:11625-1986: Criteria for Hydrulic Design of Penstocks)
3
1 Discharge for Generation = QG = 136.56 m /s
3
2 Discharge for Pumping = QP = 130.77 m /s
3 Load Factor during Generation = Lf = 0.483 (11.6/24)
4 Load Factor during Pumping = Lf = 0.500 (12/24)
5 Turbine-Generator Efficiency = EG = 91.00 %
6 Pump-Motor Efficiency = Ep = 92.00 %
7 Price/Rate for Excavation = Pe = 2497 INR
8 Price/Rate for Concrete (M20) lining = Pc = 7348 INR
9 cost of steel in Rupees/kg = Cs = 120 INR
10 Mannings roughness coefficient = n = 0.011
11 Price of kWh (Generation) = PkWh,G = 5.50 INR
12 Price of kWh (Pumping) = PkWh,P = 3.00 INR
13 Average Water Hammer/pressure Head on penstock in 'm' = H = 320 m
Percentage by which steel in penstock is overweight due to provision of
14 = i = 15 %
stiffeners, corrosion allowance, etc
15 Joint efficiency of penstock = ej = 0.9
16 Allowable stress = σa 183.33 N/mm
2
𝐶 = 1.39 × 𝐷 × 𝑃
𝐶 = 0.6 × 𝐷 × 𝑃
0.88 × 10 × 𝑄 × 𝑛 × 𝐸 × 𝐿 × 𝑃 ,𝐺
𝐶 =
𝐷
0.88 × 10 × 𝑄 × 𝑛 × 𝐿 × 𝑃 ,𝑃
𝐶 =
𝐷 × 𝐸
120.93 𝐻𝐷 𝐶 1 + 𝑖
𝐸 =
σ 𝑒
Annexure-9.8
Cost of Cost of Concrete Cost of Cost of Generation Cost of Pumping Total Annual
Diameter Annual Cost (Rs.
Si.No. Excavation Lining Penstock Loss (Rs. in Lakhs/- Loss Cost
in 'm' In Lakhs/-)
(Rs. in Lakhs/-) (Rs. in Lakhs/-) (Rs. in Lakhs/-) ) (Rs. in Lakhs/-) (Rs. in Lakhs/-)
D CE CC Ep CG CP
(6)=0.11*[(3)+(4)+
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) (9)=(6)+ (7)+(8)
(5)]
1 4.00 0.56 0.71 5.18 0.71 4.03 2.39 7.13
2 4.50 0.70 0.89 6.55 0.9 2.15 1.27 4.32
3 5.00 0.87 1.1 8.09 1.11 1.23 0.73 3.07
4 5.50 1.05 1.33 9.79 1.34 0.74 0.44 2.52
5 6.00 1.25 1.59 11.65 1.59 0.46 0.27 2.32
6 6.50 1.47 1.86 13.67 1.87 0.30 0.18 2.35
7 7.00 1.70 2.16 15.86 2.17 0.20 0.12 2.49
8 7.50 1.95 2.48 18.21 2.49 0.14 0.08 2.71
9 8.00 2.22 2.82 20.71 2.83 0.10 0.06 2.99
10 8.50 2.51 3.19 23.38 3.2 0.07 0.04 3.31
11 9.00 2.81 3.57 26.22 3.59 0.05 0.03 3.67
12 9.50 3.13 3.98 29.21 4 0.04 0.02 4.06
13 10.00 3.47 4.41 32.37 4.43 0.03 0.02 4.48
10
8
7.13
Cost in Rs. Lakhs/-
4.48
4
0
6.0 mφ
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Diameter of Tunnel in 'm'
Graph Showing Total Annual Cost of Various Diameters

Annexure- 9.9 (a)
Support Design of Top Inclined Pressure Shaft
Table of Contents
1. Tunnel Geometry and Alignment ........................................................................................................ 1
2. Analysis and Design .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.1. Wedge Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.1.1. Design of support system............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.2. Results of Wedge Analysis ........................................................................................................... 7
Annexure- 9.9 (a)
Support Design of Top Inclined Pressure Shaft
1. Tunnel Geometry and Alignment
The top inclined pressure shaft is of 6.0 m circular steel lined. The excavated size is 7.7 m.
Tunnel is proposed to be excavated from the intake exit portal towards to the intake. Along the
alignment of the proposed top inclined pressure shaft six major joint sets are mapped. These
joint sets give rise to twenty different joint set combinations comprising three joints.
2. Analysis and Design
The support system is proposed according to the prevalent rock classes estimated during
geological mapping and based on estimated rock quality on RMR basis. To ascertain the
adequacy of the typical support system proposed earlier on the basis of empirical method,
wedge analyses have been carried out using Unwedge software with the mapped joint sets
data.
2.1. Wedge Analysis

The discontinuity set along the top inclined pressure shaft is plotted in the equal area stereo
net.

Annexure- 9.9 (a)
Unwedge analysis is carried out for the top inclined pressure shaft to find out the possible
wedges. The table below summarizes the critical wedges with the location and their
corresponding joint combinations.
Joint Position of critical

Combination
Combination wedges
1 J1,J2a,J2b No critical
2 J1,J2a,J3a Upper Left, Upper Right
3 J1,J2a,J3b Upper Left, Upper Right
4 J1,J2a,J4 Upper Left, Upper Right
5 J1,J2b,J3a Upper Left, Upper Right
6 J1,J2b,J3b Upper Left, Upper Right
7 J1,J2b,J4 Roof, Upper Right
8 J1,J3a,J3b Roof
9 J1,J3a,J4 Upper Left, Upper Right
10 J1,J2b,J4 Upper Left, Upper Right
11 J2a,J2b,J3a Upper Right
12 J2a,J2b,J3b Upper Left
13 J2a,J2b,J4 Upper Right
14 J2a,J3a,J3b No critical
15 J2a,J3a,J4 Roof
16 J2a,J3b,J4 Roof
17 J2b,J3a,J3b Roof
18 J2b,J3a,J4 Roof
19 J2b,J3b,J4 Roof
20 J3a,J3b,J4 Roof
The pictorial representation of the wedges is also presented.
2. J1,J2a,J3a - Upper Left, Upper Right 3. J1,J2a,J3b - Upper Left, Upper Right

Annexure- 9.9 (a)
4. J1,J2a,J4 - Upper Left, Upper Right 5. J1,J2b,J3a - Upper Left, Upper Right
6. J1,J2b,J3b - Upper Left, Upper Right 7. J1,J2b,J4 - Roof, Upper Right
8. J1,J3a,J3b – Roof 9. J1,J3a,J4 - Upper Left, Upper Right
10. J1,J2b,J4 - Upper Left, Upper Right 11. J2a,J2b,J3a - Upper Right

Annexure- 9.9 (a)
12. J2a,J2b,J3b - Upper Left 13. J2a,J2b,J4 - Upper Right
15. J2a,J3a,J4 – Roof 16. J2a,J3b,J4 – Roof

Annexure- 9.9 (a)
17. J2b,J3a,J3b – Roof 18. J2b,J3a,J4 – Roof
19. J2b,J3b,J4 – Roof 20. J3a,J3b,J4 – Roof

Annexure- 9.9 (a)
From the above wedges formed, critical wedges are sorted considering the wedge volume as
well the factor of safety to design the support system. The support system is designed for the
following combinations.
Combination no. FoS (without support)
Combination wedges
10 J1,J2b,J4 Upper left 0.335
2.1.1. Design of support system
Based on the geological report, the top inclined pressure tunnel will negotiate mostly through
Class III rock. The support system based on the empirical approach for class III rock i.e. 100 mm
thick Shotcrete (SFRS) and 25mm dia 3.0 m long grouted anchor bars at spacing of 1.5 m x 1.5 m
is applied in wedge analysis. The support system is checked to satisfy the above critical wedge
failures.
The properties of joint and support considered in the wedge analysis is as below:
Joint properties:
Phi=30°
Cohesion=0
Bolt Properties:
Bolt Type: Grouted anchor bar
Tensile capacity: 11.5 T
Plate capacity: 11.5 T
Shotcrete properties:
Shear strength: 2 MPa
Unit weight: 24 kN/m3
The support system of class III rock is incorporated in the Unwedge model is shown below.

Annexure- 9.9 (a)
2.1.2. Results of Wedge Analysis

All these unstable wedges become stable when the support measures proposed are provided.
The figure showing the support system with the factor of safety for the critical wedges as
described earlier is shown here.
Combination 5. J1,J2b,J3a - Upper Right Combination 10: J1,J2b,J4- Upper left

Annexure- 9.9 (a)
Combination 17: J2b,J3a,J3b - Roof
Table shows the critical wedges with their corresponding factor of safety after installing the
support system.
Combination no. FoS (with support)
Combination wedges
10 J1,J2b,J4 Upper left 13.70

Annexure- 9.9 (b)
Support Design of Bottom Horizontal Pressure Shaft
Table of Contents
2.1. Wedge Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 1
Annexure- 9.9 (b)
Support Design of Bottom Horizontal Pressure Shaft
The Bottom Horizontal Pressure Shaft is of 6.0 m circular steel lined. The excavated size is 7.7
m. Tunnel is proposed to be excavated from the adit. Along the alignment of the proposed
bottom horizontal pressure tunnel ten major joint sets are mapped. These joint sets give rise to
one hundred and twenty different joint set combinations comprising three joints.
data.
2.1. Wedge Analysis

The discontinuity set along the Bottom Horizontal Pressure shaft is plotted in the equal area
stereo net.

Annexure- 9.9 (b)
Unwedge analysis is carried out for the Bottom Horizontal Pressure Shaft to find out the
possible wedges. The table below summarizes the critical wedges with the location and their
corresponding joint combinations.
Combination Joint Combination Position of critical wedges
1 S1,S2,S3 No critical
3 S1,S2,J2a No critical
4 S1,S2,J2b Upper Left
5 S1,S2,J3a Upper Right
6 S1,S2,J3b Upper Right
8 S1,S2,J4b No critical
9 S1,S3,S4 Upper Right
10 S1,S3,J2a Upper Left, Roof
11 S1,S3,J2b Upper Left, Roof
16 S1,S4,J2a Upper Left
22 S1,J2a,J2b No critical
23 S1,J2a,J3a No critical
24 S1,J2a,J3b Roof
25 S1,J2a,J4a Upper left
26 S1,J2a,J4b Upper left
27 S1,J2b,J3a Roof
28 S1,J2b,J3b Roof
29 S1,J2b,J4a Roof
30 S1,J2b,J4b Upper Left
32 S1,J3a,J4a Upper right
33 S1,J3a,J4b Upper right
34 S1,J3b,J4a Roof
35 S1,J3b,J4b Roof

Annexure- 9.9 (b)
37 S2,S3,S4 Upper right

38 S2,S3,J2a Roof
39 S2,S3,J2b Roof
46 S2,S4,J3a Upper right
52 S2,J2a,J3b Roof
53 S2,J2a,J4a Upper Left
54 S2,J2a,J4b Upper Left
55 S2,J2b,J3a Upper right, Roof
56 S2,J2b,J3b Roof
57 S2,J2b,J4a Upper right, roof
58 S2,J2b,J4b Upper left
61 S2,J3a,J4b upper right
62 S2,J3b,J4a No critical
63 S2,J3b,J4b No critical
65 S3,S4,J2a Roof
66 S3,S4,J2b upper right
67 S3,S4,J3a roof
68 S3,S4,J3b Upper left, roof
72 S3,J2a,J3a Roof
73 S3,J2a,J3b Upper left, roof
74 S3,J2a,J4a Upper left, roof

Annexure- 9.9 (b)
76 S3,J2b,J3a upper right

77 S3,J2b,J3b Roof
78 S3,J2b,J4a Upper right
79 S3,J2b,J4b Roof
83 S3,J3b,J4a Upper Left, Roof
84 S3,J3b,J4b Upper Left, Roof
87 S4,J2a,J3a Roof
88 S4,J2a,J3b Roof
91 S4,J2b,J3a Roof
92 S4,J2b,J3b Roof
94 S4,J2b,J4b Upper right
95 S4,J3a,J3b Roof
96 S4,J3a,J4a upper right
98 S4,J3b,J4a Upper left
101 J2a,J2b,J3a Roof
102 J2a,J2b,J3b Upper left
104 J2a,J2b,J4b Roof
105 J2a,J3a,J3b No critical
106 J2a,J3a,J4a Roof
107 J2a,J3a,J4b Roof
110 J2a,J4a,J4b Upper Left
111 J2b,J3a,J3b Upper right
112 J2b,J3a,J4a Roof
113 J2b,J3a,J4b Roof
114 J2b,J3b,J4a Roof

Annexure- 9.9 (b)
115 J2b,J3b,J4b Roof

118 J3a,J3b,J4b Upper right
120 J3b,J4a,J4b Upper Left
Combination wedges
The pictorial representation of the critical wedges is also presented.
Combination 37. S2,S3,S4 - Upper Right Combination 26: S1,J2a,J4b - Upper left

Annexure- 9.9 (b)
Combination 106: J2a,J3a,J4a - Roof

Annexure- 9.9 (b)
Based on the geological report, the bottom pressure tunnel will negotiate mostly through Class
III rock. The support system based on the empirical approach for class III rock i.e. 100 mm thick
Shotcrete (SFRS) and 25mm dia 3.0 m long grouted anchor bars at spacing of 1.5 m x 1.5 m is
applied in wedge analysis. The support system is checked to satisfy the above critical wedge
failures.
Joint properties:
Phi=30°
Cohesion=0
Bolt Properties:

Annexure- 9.9 (b)


Annexure- 9.9 (b)
support system.
Position of critical
Combination no. Joint Combination FoS (with support)
wedges

Annexure-9.9(b)
Numerical analysis:
The tunnel is modeled in phase2 with graded mesh and 3 noded triangle mesh element at the
actual ground elevation. Minimum of 15 m on all the sides of the tunnel opening is considered in
the model which is about 2 times the tunnel opening. The boundary conditions are restrained in
both the directions in all the four sides. Gravity stress loading is applied on the tunnel. Phase2
model of the tunnel model is as shown below.
Blast zone 2m Other
boundary
Input
(intact)
(Intact)
GSI 64 64
constant
constant
Annexure-9.9(b)
Annexure-9.9(b)
Numerical analysis is carried out in Phase2 software to 7ind the displacement of the tunnel.
Based on the RMR method of assessment of tunneling media the rock mass is expected to
negotiate fair to good rock conditions with RMR ranging from 64 to 74 under this category of
rocks. Generalized Hoek and Brown material model is used for the analysis.
A blast damage zone of 2.0 m is considered from the tunnel boundary with the disturbance factor
of D=0.3. Intact rock properties are taken from the rock mechanics test carried out on the core
samples.
The displacement of the tunnel before the installation of the support system is as shown below.
The maximum displacement observed was 1.4 mm. The displacement is less than 1% of the
tunnel opening which is 9.2 m.
Annexure-9.9(b)
The support system calculated by the wedge analysis, is incorporated in the model to 7ind the
post support behavior of the tunnel.
i) 100 mm thick Shotcrete with 7ibre reinforcement.
Annexure-9.9(b)
Based on the wedge analysis carried out the support system is required for the supporting the
wedges. The support system calculated by the wedge analysis, is incorporated in the model to
7ind the post support behavior of the tunnel.

Annexure-9.9(b)
After the installation of the support system, the displacement and length of the plastic zone is
reduced.
Conclusion
stabilized with the support system. Later numerical analysis is carried out to 7ind the
displacement of the tunnel. The tunnel displacement is within the permissible limit.
Annexure- 9.9 (c)
Support Design of Tail Race Tunnel
Table of Contents
2.1. Wedge Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 1
Annexure- 9.9 (c)
Support Design of Tail Race Tunnel
The Tail Race Tunnel is of 7.0 m circular concrete lined. The excavated size is 8.05 m. Tunnel is
proposed to be excavated from the outlet. Along the alignment of the proposed tail race tunnel
ten major joint sets are mapped. These joint sets give rise to one hundred and twenty different
joint set combinations comprising three joints.
data.
2.1. Wedge Analysis

The discontinuity set along the tail race tunnel is plotted in the equal area stereo net.
Unwedge analysis is carried out for the tail race tunnel to find out the possible wedges. The
table below summarizes the critical wedges with the location and their corresponding joint
combinations.

Annexure- 9.9 (c)
4 S1,S2,J2b Upper Left
9 S1,S3,S4 Upper Right
10 S1,S3,J2a Roof
11 S1,S3,J2b Upper Left, Roof
23 S1,J2a,J3a Roof
24 S1,J2a,J3b Roof
25 S1,J2a,J4a Upper left
27 S1,J2b,J3a Roof
28 S1,J2b,J3b Roof
29 S1,J2b,J4a Roof
30 S1,J2b,J4b Upper Left
34 S1,J3b,J4a Roof
35 S1,J3b,J4b Roof
37 S2,S3,S4 Upper right

Annexure- 9.9 (c)
45 S2,S4,J2b Upper right
46 S2,S4,J3a Upper right, upper left
47 S2,S4,J3b Upper left
51 S2,J2a,J3a Upper left, upper right
53 S2,J2a,J4a Upper Left
54 S2,J2a,J4b Upper Left
55 S2,J2b,J3a Upper right, Roof
56 S2,J2b,J3b Roof
57 S2,J2b,J4a Upper right, roof
62 S2,J3b,J4a Upper left, upper right
65 S3,S4,J2a Roof
66 S3,S4,J2b upper right
67 S3,S4,J3a roof
68 S3,S4,J3b Upper left, roof
72 S3,J2a,J3a Roof
74 S3,J2a,J4a Roof
76 S3,J2b,J3a upper right

Annexure- 9.9 (c)
79 S3,J2b,J4b Roof
83 S3,J3b,J4a Upper Left, Roof
84 S3,J3b,J4b Upper right, upper left
87 S4,J2a,J3a Roof
88 S4,J2a,J3b Roof
91 S4,J2b,J3a Roof
92 S4,J2b,J3b Roof
95 S4,J3a,J3b Roof
96 S4,J3a,J4a upper right
98 S4,J3b,J4a Upper left
101 J2a,J2b,J3a Upper left
105 J2a,J3a,J3b Upper left, upper right
106 J2a,J3a,J4a Roof
110 J2a,J4a,J4b Upper Left
111 J2b,J3a,J3b Upper right
112 J2b,J3a,J4a Roof
114 J2b,J3b,J4a Roof
115 J2b,J3b,J4b Roof
117 J3a,J3b,J4a Upper right

Annexure- 9.9 (c)
118 J3a,J3b,J4b Upper right

119 J3a,J4a,J4b Upper right, Roof
120 J3b,J4a,J4b Upper Left
Combination wedges
The pictorial representation of the critical wedges is also presented.

Annexure- 9.9 (c)
Based on the geological report, the bottom pressure tunnel will negotiate mostly through Class
III rock. The support system based on the empirical approach for class III rock i.e. 100 mm thick
Shotcrete (SFRS) and 25mm dia 4.0 m long grouted anchor bars at spacing of 1.5 m x 1.5 m is
applied in wedge analysis. The support system is checked to satisfy the above critical wedge
failures.
Joint properties:
Phi=30°
Cohesion=0
Bolt Properties:

Annexure- 9.9 (c)


Annexure- 9.9 (c)
support system.

Annexure- 9.9 (c)
Position of critical
Combination no. Joint Combination FoS (with support)
wedges

Annexure-9.9(c)
Numerical analysis:
which is about 2 times the tunnel opening. The boundary conditions are restrained in both the directions
in all the four sides. Gravity stress loading is applied on the tunnel. Phase2 model of the tunnel model is as
shown below.
Blast zone 2m Other
boundary
Input
(intact)
(Intact)
GSI 64 64
constant
constant
Annexure-9.9(c)
Annexure-9.9(c)
Numerical analysis is carried out in Phase2 software to 7ind the displacement of the tunnel. As per the
geological surface mapping carried out in the project area, the tunnel is expected to pass through RMR
class II rock. The tunnel media can be classi7ied under fair to good category with RMR values expected to
range from 64-74. Generalised Hoek and Brown material model is used for the analysis.
A blast damage zone of 2.0 m is considered from the tunnel boundary with the disturbance factor of D=0.3.
Intact rock properties are taken from the rock mechanics test carried out on the core samples.
The tunnel is modelled in phase2 with graded mesh and 3 noded triangle mesh element at the actual
ground elevation. The vertical rock cover is about 28m, hence on the top, the model is considered upto to
the actual top elevation. The boundary conditions applied on the tunnel are shown in the 7ig. bellow.
Phase2 model of the tunnel model is as shown below.
maximum displacement observed was 4.0 mm at the spring level. The displacement is less than 1% of the
tunnel opening which is 9.8 m.
Annexure-9.9(c)
The support system calculated by the wedge analysis, is incorporated in the model to 7ind the post support
behavior of the tunnel.
i) 100 mm thick Shotcrete with 7ibre reinforcement.
Annexure-9.9(c)
The support system calculated by the wedge analysis, is incorporated in the model to 7ind the post support
behavior of the tunnel.

Annexure-9.9(c)
Conclusion
From the wedge analysis, the unstable wedges along the periphery of the tunnel is found and stabilized
with the support system. Later numerical analysis is carried out to 7ind the displacement of the tunnel. The
tunnel displacement is within the permissible limit. The support system arrived by the empirical approach
is veri7ied and found to be safe.
Saundatti PSP
Annexure-9.10(a)
CALCULATIONS OF ROCK PARTICIPATION FOR DESIGN OF STEEL LINER
With Reference to the IS:4880 (part-VII)-2011(DRAFT)
Proportion of internal pressure transferred to rock = λ = 0.628 62.84%
Allowable stress in steel = σ (or) fa=Min (fu/Ffu, fy*Ffy) = 265.00 N/mm2
Minimum ultimate strength = fu = 795.00 N/mm
2
Minimum yield strength = fy = 690.00 N/mm

2
Factor of safety for ultimate strength = Ffu = 3.00

Factor of safety for yield strength = Ffy = 0.67
2
Modulus of elasticity of steel = Es = 210000 N/mm
Initial gap between liner and concrete = Yo = 1.045 mm
Radius of steel pipe = R = 3000 mm
Gap Ratio = Yo/R = 0.0003
Internal pressure in tunnel = Pd = 3.380 N/mm
2
Modulus of elasticity of rock = Er = 45000 N/mm

2
Poisson's ratio of rock = ur = 0.22

Modulus of elasticity of concrete = Ec = 22400 N/mm
2
Outside radius of concrete lining = Rc = 3650.00 mm

Radius to the to the end of radial fissures in rock = Re = 8428.00 mm
The rock Participation has been calculated from the following formula as per "Clause No.6.1.2.1, IS:4880 (part-VII)-2011 (DRAFT)"
EsYo

 R
E E 1 E 1 
  Pd  s 1  ur   s 
2 Ec RRc
 Rc 2  R 2   s 
2 Er Rc Re
 Rc 2  Re 2  
 Er 
EsYo Annexure-9.10(a)
= 73.15
R
Es
(1  ur ) = 5.69
Er
Es 1

2 Ec RRc

Rc 2  R 2  = 1.85
Es 1

2 Er Rc Re

Re 2  Rc 2  = 4.377
Saundatti PSP (Steel Liner Calculations for Penstock/Pressure Shaft along Large Unit - 252 MW)
DESIGN OF STEEL LINER FOR INTERNAL PRESSURE

With Reference to the IS:11639 (part-2)-1995 Annexure-9.10(b)
Input Data
FRL @ Reservoir = FRL = 855.00 m
Diameter of a steel pipe = d = 6.00 m
Unit weight of water = γw = 9.80 kN/m3
Unit weight of steel = γs = 7.85 MT/m3
Joint efficiency (IS: 2825 - 1969) = ŋ 0.90
Corrosion allowance for plate thickness = tc = 1.50 mm
Grade of steel = ASTM A 537 Cl-2 upto 32 mm thick after that ASTM 517 Gr-F has been used
ASTM 537 ASTM 517
Minimum ultimate strength = fu = 550.00 795.00 N/mm2
Minimum yield strength = fy = 415.00 690.00 N/mm2
Factor of safety for ultimate strength = Ffu = 3.00 3.00
Factor of safety for yield strength = Ffy = 0.67 0.67
Allowable stress = σ (or) fa=Min (fu/Ffu, fy*Ffy) = 183.33 265.00 N/mm2
% has been
The rock participation has been calculated as 62.84% . However, on conservative side 15% has
considered from
Rock Participation = λ = 15.00% been considered for the internal pressure calculations from the end of Adit-1 Junction to MIV since,
half of vertical
fault zone has been encountered 60 m upstream side from Adit-1
bend to PH
C/L Elevation C/L Elevation Water Length of Each Head Internal Pressure (Pi) Steel Liner Thickness of Steel Liner Hoop Stress σH ≤ σ
of Pipe at Start of Pipe at End Pressure Pipe at Different Thickness For (σH=Ps*d/2tpro
Along Water Elevations Psteel vided)
Conductor Cumulative Maximum Static Maximum Design Maximum Pressure Pressure on Thickness Thickness with Minimum handling Thickness
System from Length head Dynamic head Design pressure due to Rock steel Calculated Corrosion thickness provided
Trasient (Hd=FRL-C/L of Head (Hd=max of (Pd=γw*Hd/1000) Participatio (Ps=Pd-Pr) (tcal=Ps*d/2ση) Allowance (thand=R +0.25)/200 (tprovided)
Analysis Pipe at end) (Hdy=Hd*(1+p)) Hs,Hdy) n (Pr=Pd*λ) (treq=tcal + tc)
2 2
m m m m m m m N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 mm mm mm mm N/mm N/mm
812.38 810.99 859.75 27.50 27.50 44.01 48.76 48.76 0.48 0.00 0.48 8.69 10.19 16.25 18.00 79.64 safe
810.99 809.60 861.73 25.00 52.50 45.40 52.13 52.13 0.51 0.00 0.51 9.29 10.79 16.25 18.00 85.15 safe
809.60 808.21 863.71 25.00 77.50 46.79 55.50 55.50 0.54 0.00 0.54 9.89 11.39 16.25 18.00 90.65 safe
808.21 806.82 865.69 25.00 102.50 48.18 58.87 58.87 0.58 0.00 0.58 10.49 11.99 16.25 18.00 96.16 safe
806.82 805.43 867.67 25.00 127.50 49.57 62.24 62.24 0.61 0.00 0.61 11.09 12.59 16.25 18.00 101.67 safe
805.43 804.04 869.66 25.00 152.50 50.96 65.62 65.62 0.64 0.00 0.64 11.69 13.19 16.25 18.00 107.17 safe
Start of Top
804.04 802.65 871.24 20.00 172.50 52.35 68.59 68.59 0.67 0.00 0.67 12.22 13.72 16.25 18.00 112.03 safe
Vertical Bend
802.65 797.03 872.31 13.63 186.13 57.97 75.28 75.28 0.74 0.00 0.74 13.41 14.91 16.25 18.00 122.95 safe
797.03 784.67 873.37 13.63 199.76 70.33 88.70 88.70 0.87 0.00 0.87 15.81 17.31 16.25 18.00 144.88 safe
ASTM 537
784.67 764.67 874.93 20.00 219.76 90.33 110.26 110.26 1.08 0.00 1.08 19.65 21.15 16.25 22.00 147.35 safe
764.67 744.67 876.51 20.00 239.76 110.33 131.84 131.84 1.29 0.00 1.29 23.49 24.99 16.25 26.00 149.08 safe
744.67 724.67 878.07 20.00 259.76 130.33 153.40 153.40 1.50 0.00 1.50 27.33 28.83 16.25 30.00 150.33 safe
724.67 704.67 879.62 20.00 279.76 150.33 174.95 174.95 1.71 0.00 1.71 31.17 32.67 16.25 34.00 151.28 safe
704.67 684.67 881.15 20.00 299.76 170.33 196.48 196.48 1.93 0.00 1.93 35.01 36.51 16.25 38.00 152.01 safe
684.67 664.67 882.70 20.00 319.76 190.33 218.03 218.03 2.14 0.00 2.14 26.88 28.38 16.25 34.00 188.53 safe
664.67 644.67 884.26 20.00 339.76 210.33 239.59 239.59 2.35 0.00 2.35 29.53 31.03 16.25 34.00 207.17 safe
644.67 624.67 885.78 20.00 359.76 230.33 261.11 261.11 2.56 0.00 2.56 32.19 33.69 16.25 34.00 225.78 safe
624.67 605.00 887.27 19.67 379.43 250.00 282.27 282.27 2.77 0.00 2.77 34.80 36.30 16.25 38.00 218.39 safe
605.00 592.27 888.34 14.14 393.57 262.73 296.07 296.07 2.90 0.00 2.90 36.50 38.00 16.25 40.00 217.61 safe
End of Bottom
592.27 587.00 889.41 14.14 407.71 268.00 302.41 302.41 2.96 0.00 2.96 37.28 38.78 16.25 40.00 222.27 safe
Vertical Bend
587.00 587.00 893.16 50.00 457.71 268.00 306.16 306.16 3.00 0.00 3.00 37.74 39.24 16.25 40.00 225.02 safe
587.00 587.00 896.90 50.00 507.71 268.00 309.90 309.90 3.04 0.00 3.04 38.20 39.70 16.25 40.00 227.78 safe
ASTM 517
587.00 587.00 900.56 50.00 557.71 268.00 313.56 313.56 3.07 0.00 3.07 38.65 40.15 16.25 42.00 219.49 safe
587.00 587.00 904.19 50.00 607.71 268.00 317.19 317.19 3.11 0.00 3.11 39.10 40.60 16.25 42.00 222.03 safe
587.00 587.00 907.76 55.60 663.31 268.00 320.76 320.76 3.14 0.00 3.14 39.54 41.04 16.25 42.00 224.53 safe
587.00 587.00 911.26 44.40 707.71 268.00 324.26 324.26 3.18 0.48 2.70 33.98 35.48 16.25 38.00 213.24 safe
587.00 587.00 914.70 50.00 757.71 268.00 327.70 327.70 3.21 0.48 2.73 34.34 35.84 16.25 38.00 215.51 safe
587.000 587.00 918.09 50.00 807.71 268.00 331.09 331.09 3.24 0.49 2.76 34.69 36.19 16.25 38.00 217.73 safe
587.000 587.00 921.41 50.00 857.71 268.00 334.41 334.41 3.28 0.49 2.79 35.04 36.54 16.25 38.00 219.92 safe
587.000 587.00 924.67 50.00 907.71 268.00 337.67 337.67 3.31 0.50 2.81 35.38 36.88 16.25 38.00 222.06 safe
587.000 587.00 927.87 50.00 957.71 268.00 340.87 340.87 3.34 0.50 2.84 35.72 37.22 16.25 38.00 224.17 safe
587.000 587.00 930.98 50.00 1007.71 268.00 343.98 343.98 3.37 0.51 2.87 36.04 37.54 16.25 38.00 226.21 safe
587.000 587.00 932.26 20.69 1028.40 268.00 345.26 345.26 3.38 0.51 2.88 36.18 37.68 16.25 38.00 227.05 safe
Saundatti PSP (Steel Liner Calculations for Penstock/Pressure Shaft along Small Unit - 126 MW)
DESIGN OF STEEL LINER FOR INTERNAL PRESSURE

With Reference to the IS:11639 (part-2)-1995 Annexure-9.10(c)
Input Data
FRL @ Reservoir = FRL = 855.00 m
Diameter of a steel pipe = d = 6.00 m
Diameter of a Unit steel pipe = d = 4.25 m
Unit weight of water = γw = 9.80 kN/m3
Unit weight of steel = γs = 7.85 MT/m3
Joint efficiency (IS: 2825 - 1969) = ŋ 0.90
Corrosion allowance for plate thickness = tc = 1.50 mm
Grade of steel = ASTM A 537 Cl-2 upto 32 mm thick after that ASTM 517 Gr-F has been used
ASTM 537 ASTM 517
Minimum ultimate strength = fu = 550.00 795.00 N/mm2
Minimum yield strength = fy = 415.00 690.00 N/mm2
Factor of safety for ultimate strength = Ffu = 3.00 3.00
Factor of safety for yield strength = Ffy = 0.67 0.67
Allowable stress = σ (or) fa=Min (fu/Ffu, fy*Ffy) = 183.33 265.00 N/mm2
% has been
The rock participation has been calculated as 62.84% . However, on conservative side 15% has
considered from
Rock Participation = λ = 15.00% been considered for the internal pressure calculations from the end of Adit-1 Junction to MIV since,
half of vertical
fault zone has been encountered 60 m upstream side from Adit-1
bend to PH
C/L Elevation C/L Elevation Water Length of Each Head Internal Pressure (Pi) Steel Liner Thickness of Steel Liner Hoop Stress σH ≤ σ
of Pipe at Start of Pipe at End Pressure Pipe at Different Thickness For (σH=Ps*d/2tpro
Along Water Elevations Psteel vided)
Conductor Cumulative Maximum Static Maximum Design Maximum Design Pressure Pressure on Thickness Thickness with Minimum handling Thickness
System from Length head Dynamic head pressure due to Rock steel Calculated Corrosion thickness provided
Trasient (Hd=FRL-C/L of Head (Hd=max of (Pd=γw*Hd/1000) Participatio (Ps=Pd-Pr) (tcal=Ps*d/2ση) Allowance (thand=R +0.25)/200 (tprovided)
Analysis Pipe at end) (Hdy=Hd*(1+p)) Hs,Hdy) n (Pr=Pd*λ) (treq=tcal + tc)
2 2
m m m m m m m N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 mm mm mm mm N/mm N/mm
812.38 810.99 859.78 27.50 27.50 44.01 48.79 48.79 0.48 0.00 0.48 8.69 10.19 16.25 18.00 79.69 safe
810.99 809.60 861.79 25.00 52.50 45.40 52.19 52.19 0.51 0.00 0.51 9.30 10.80 16.25 18.00 85.25 safe
809.60 808.21 863.80 25.00 77.50 46.79 55.59 55.59 0.54 0.00 0.54 9.91 11.41 16.25 18.00 90.80 safe
808.21 806.82 865.81 25.00 102.50 48.18 58.99 58.99 0.58 0.00 0.58 10.51 12.01 16.25 18.00 96.36 safe
806.82 805.43 867.80 25.00 127.50 49.57 62.37 62.37 0.61 0.00 0.61 11.11 12.61 16.25 18.00 101.86 safe
805.43 804.04 869.81 25.00 152.50 50.96 65.77 65.77 0.64 0.00 0.64 11.72 13.22 16.25 18.00 107.42 safe
Start of Top
804.04 802.83 871.15 16.88 169.38 52.17 68.32 68.32 0.67 0.00 0.67 12.17 13.67 16.25 18.00 111.59 safe
Vertical Bend
802.83 797.21 872.22 13.63 183.01 57.79 75.01 75.01 0.74 0.00 0.74 13.36 14.86 16.25 18.00 122.51 safe
797.21 784.85 873.31 13.63 196.64 70.15 88.46 88.46 0.87 0.00 0.87 15.76 17.26 16.25 18.00 144.49 safe
ASTM 537
784.85 764.67 874.90 20.18 216.82 90.33 110.23 110.23 1.08 0.00 1.08 19.64 21.14 16.25 22.00 147.30 safe
764.67 744.67 876.48 20.00 236.82 110.33 131.81 131.81 1.29 0.00 1.29 23.49 24.99 16.25 26.00 149.05 safe
744.67 724.67 878.07 20.00 256.82 130.33 153.40 153.40 1.50 0.00 1.50 27.33 28.83 16.25 30.00 150.33 safe
724.67 704.67 879.62 20.00 276.82 150.33 174.95 174.95 1.71 0.00 1.71 31.17 32.67 16.25 34.00 151.28 safe
704.67 684.67 881.21 20.00 296.82 170.33 196.54 196.54 1.93 0.00 1.93 35.02 36.52 16.25 38.00 152.06 safe
684.67 664.67 882.76 20.00 316.82 190.33 218.09 218.09 2.14 0.00 2.14 26.88 28.38 16.25 34.00 188.59 safe
664.67 644.67 884.32 20.00 336.82 210.33 239.65 239.65 2.35 0.00 2.35 29.54 31.04 16.25 34.00 207.22 safe
644.67 624.67 885.87 20.00 356.82 230.33 261.20 261.20 2.56 0.00 2.56 32.20 33.70 16.25 34.00 225.86 safe
624.67 605.00 887.36 19.67 376.49 250.00 282.36 282.36 2.77 0.00 2.77 34.81 36.31 16.25 38.00 218.46 safe
605.00 592.27 888.46 14.14 390.63 262.73 296.19 296.19 2.90 0.00 2.90 36.51 38.01 16.25 40.00 217.70 safe
End of Bottom
592.27 587.00 889.56 14.14 404.77 268.00 302.56 302.56 2.97 0.00 2.97 37.30 38.80 16.25 40.00 222.38 safe
Vertical Bend
587.00 587.00 893.37 50.00 454.77 268.00 306.37 306.37 3.00 0.00 3.00 37.77 39.27 16.25 40.00 225.18 safe
587.00 587.00 897.15 50.00 504.77 268.00 310.15 310.15 3.04 0.00 3.04 38.23 39.73 16.25 40.00 227.96 safe
ASTM 517
587.00 587.00 900.87 50.00 554.77 268.00 313.87 313.87 3.08 0.00 3.08 38.69 40.19 16.25 42.00 219.71 safe
587.00 587.00 904.55 50.00 604.77 268.00 317.55 317.55 3.11 0.00 3.11 39.15 40.65 16.25 42.00 222.29 safe
587.00 587.00 908.18 66.50 671.27 268.00 321.18 321.18 3.15 0.00 3.15 39.59 41.09 16.25 42.00 224.83 safe
587.00 587.00 911.75 33.50 704.77 268.00 324.75 324.75 3.18 0.48 2.71 34.03 35.53 16.25 38.00 213.56 safe
587.00 587.00 915.25 50.00 754.77 268.00 328.25 328.25 3.22 0.48 2.73 34.39 35.89 16.25 38.00 215.87 safe
587.000 587.00 918.70 50.00 804.77 268.00 331.70 331.70 3.25 0.49 2.76 34.76 36.26 16.25 38.00 218.13 safe
587.000 587.00 922.08 50.00 854.77 268.00 335.08 335.08 3.28 0.49 2.79 35.11 36.61 16.25 38.00 220.36 safe
587.000 587.00 925.40 50.00 904.77 268.00 338.40 338.40 3.32 0.50 2.82 35.46 36.96 16.25 38.00 222.54 safe
587.000 587.00 929.88 68.89 973.66 268.00 342.88 342.88 3.36 0.50 2.86 35.93 37.43 16.25 38.00 225.49 safe
587.000 587.00 931.80 15.00 988.66 268.00 344.80 344.80 3.38 0.51 2.87 25.59 27.09 11.88 34.00 179.51 safe
587.000 587.00 932.55 10.00 998.66 268.00 345.55 345.55 3.39 0.51 2.88 25.65 27.15 11.88 30.00 203.89 safe
587.000 587.00 933.29 10.00 1008.66 268.00 346.29 346.29 3.39 0.51 2.88 25.70 27.20 11.88 28.00 218.92 safe
587.000 587.00 934.03 28.76 1037.42 268.00 347.03 347.03 3.40 0.51 2.89 25.76 27.26 11.88 28.00 219.39 safe
DESIGN OF STEEL LINER FOR EXTERNAL PRESSURE FOR LARGE UNIT
With reference to IS 11639 Part-2 (1995)
Input Data
Full Reservoir Level FRL = 855 m

Modulus of elasticity of steel Es = 210345 Mpa
Poisson’s ratio of steel µs = 0.3
Diameter of Steel liner D = 6 m
Radius of Steel liner R = 3 m
Initial gap between steel lining and

Yo = 0.000900 m
concrete (.0003 R)
Critical External Pressure for Unstiffened Shell
A) Vaughan's Formula
13𝐾 𝑌 𝐹𝐾 4𝐹 𝐹 ....................... Equation-1

𝑃 + 2𝑃 1 + 3𝐾 − − − =0
4𝐸′ 𝑅 2𝐸′ 𝐾 𝐸
B) Amstutz's Formula
𝑓 𝑌 / 3𝐾 𝑓 𝑓 −𝑓 𝐾𝑓 −𝑓 ....................... Equation-2
+ 1+ − 1.68𝐾 1− =0
𝐸′ 𝑅 𝐸′ 𝐸′ 4 𝐸′
𝑃 𝐾 𝐾
1− − 0.175 𝑓 −𝑓 =0 ....................... Equation-3
2𝑓 𝐸′
Critical External Pressure for Stiffened Shell
A) Timoshenko's Equation
2𝐸′ 1−μ 1 2𝑛 − 1 − 𝜇
𝑃 = + 𝑛 −1+ ....................... Equation-4
𝐾 4𝑛 λ 3𝐾 4𝑛 λ − 1
𝑛 −1 1+ π 𝐾
π 𝐾
𝑅 𝑌 𝐼 𝐼𝜎 𝑡′ 𝐼 𝐼 𝜎 𝑡′
𝑃 +𝑅 + 𝑃 − +𝑅 𝑃 + =0 ....................... Equation-5
𝐸 𝑡′ 𝑅 𝑅𝐴𝑉 𝐴𝑉 𝐴𝑉 4𝐴 𝑉 𝑅
Critical External Pressure for Unstiffened Shell Critical External Pressure for Stiffened Shell (Stiffener Design)
DESIGN INPUT VAUGHAN'S

AMSTUTZ'S FORMULA CHECK FOR STIFFENER REQUIREMENT TIMOSHENKO'S EQUATION FOR STIFFENER SPACING VAUGHAN'S FORMULA FOR STIFFENER DESIGN
FORMULA
Governing Actual External Pcr2

Adopted fn Stiffener Pcr
C/L Elevation C/L Elevation of Natural elevation for head Pcr1 (calculated Minimum of Requirement (if Min. Pcr
Length of Cumulative Yield stress Thickness as (calculated Hallow with (calculated Hallow with Spacing is adequate ( (if Height of Thickness of Hallow with
of penstock Penstock shell at Surface external Hext = Governing (calculated equating from Equation- two Pcr i.e. Spacing of (calculated Check
shell Length σyp per Internal equating FOS 1.5 Hallow is less than from Equation- FOS 1.5 Hallow is greater than Hext)) stiffener stiffener FOS 1.5
shell at start End Level pressure (min EL - C/L of Equation-1 to "0") 3 using value Pcrfinal stiffeners from Equation-5
Pressure Equation-2 to "0") Hext) 4)
of FRL, NSL) Penstock of fn)
m m m m m m m Mpa mm MPa MPa Mpa Mpa m mm Mpa m mm mm N/m

2 m
812.38 810.99 27.50 27.50 835.49 835.49 24.50 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
810.99 809.60 25.00 52.50 835.49 835.49 25.89 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
809.60 808.21 25.00 77.50 835.49 835.49 27.28 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
808.21 806.82 25.00 102.50 835.49 835.49 28.67 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
806.82 805.43 25.00 127.50 828.67 828.67 23.24 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
805.43 804.04 25.00 152.50 826.60 826.60 22.56 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
804.04 802.65 20.00 172.50 826.60 826.60 23.95 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
802.65 797.03 13.63 186.13 818.55 818.55 21.52 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
797.03 784.67 13.63 199.76 818.55 818.55 33.88 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Required 1250 1.6100 109.41 Spacing is adequate 150 12 2230746.98 151.60 Design is Safe with stiffeners
587.00 587.00 50.00 607.71 762.69 762.69 175.69 690 42.00 5.1961 213.535 2.808 2.8075 190.79 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 657.71 735.68 735.68 148.68 690 42.00 5.1961 213.535 2.808 2.8075 190.79 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 707.71 711.67 711.67 124.67 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 757.71 711.67 711.67 124.67 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 807.71 711.67 711.67 124.67 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 857.71 711.67 711.67 124.67 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 907.71 711.67 711.67 124.67 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 957.71 711.67 711.67 124.67 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 1007.71 711.67 711.67 124.67 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 20.69 1028.40 711.67 711.67 124.67 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
DESIGN OF STEEL LINER FOR EXTERNAL PRESSURE FOR SMALL UNIT
With reference to IS 11639 Part-2 (1995)
Input Data
Full Reservoir Level FRL = 855 m

Modulus of elasticity of steel Es = 210345 Mpa
Poisson’s ratio of steel µs = 0.3
Diameter of Main Steel liner Rm = 6 m
Diameter of Unit Steel liner Ru = 4.25 m
Initial gap between steel lining
and concrete for Main steel liner Yo = 0.000900 m
(.0003 Rm)
Initial gap between steel lining
and concrete for Unit steel liner Yo = 0.000638 m
(.0003 Ru)
Critical External Pressure for Unstiffened Shell
13𝐾 𝑌 𝐹𝐾 4𝐹 𝐹 ....................... Equation-1

𝑃 + 2𝑃 1 + 3𝐾 − − − =0
4𝐸′ 𝑅 2𝐸′ 𝐾 𝐸
B) Amstutz's Formula
𝑓 𝑌 / 3𝐾 𝑓 𝑓 −𝑓 𝐾𝑓 −𝑓 ....................... Equation-2
+ 1+ − 1.68𝐾 1− =0
𝐸′ 𝑅 𝐸′ 𝐸′ 4 𝐸′
𝑃 𝐾 𝐾
1− − 0.175 𝑓 −𝑓 =0 ....................... Equation-3
2𝑓 𝐸′
Critical External Pressure for Stiffened Shell

A) Timoshenko's Equation
2𝐸′ 1−μ 1 2𝑛 − 1 − 𝜇
𝑃 = + 𝑛 −1+ ....................... Equation-4
𝐾 4𝑛 λ 3𝐾 4𝑛 λ − 1
𝑛 −1 1+ π 𝐾
π 𝐾
𝑅 𝑌 𝐼 𝐼𝜎 𝑡′ 𝐼 𝐼 𝜎 𝑡′
𝑃 +𝑅 + 𝑃 − +𝑅 𝑃 + =0 ....................... Equation-5
𝐸 𝑡′ 𝑅 𝑅𝐴𝑉 𝐴𝑉 𝐴𝑉 4𝐴 𝑉 𝑅
Critical External Pressure for Unstiffened Shell Critical External Pressure for Stiffened Shell (Stiffener Design)
DESIGN INPUT VAUGHAN'S

AMSTUTZ'S FORMULA CHECK FOR STIFFENER REQUIREMENT TIMOSHENKO'S EQUATION FOR STIFFENER SPACING VAUGHAN'S FORMULA FOR STIFFENER DESIGN
FORMULA
Pcr2
Governing Actual External Pcr1 fn Pcr
Adopted (calculated Minimum of Stiffener Pcr
C/L Elevation C/L Elevation of Natural elevation for head (calculated (calculated Min. (calculated Spacing is adequate (
Length of Cumulative Yield stress Thickness as from Hallow with Requirement Hallow with Height of Thickness (calculated Hallow with
of penstock Penstock shell Surface external Hext = Governing equating equating two Pcr i.e. Spacing of from (if Hallow is greater than Check
shell Length σyp per Internal Equation-3 FOS 1.5 (if Hallow is less FOS 1.5 stiffener of stiffener from FOS 1.5
shell at start at End Level pressure (min EL - C/L of Equation-1 to Equation-2 Pcrfinal stiffeners Equation- Hext))
Pressure using value than Hext) Equation-5
of FRL, NSL) Penstock "0") to "0") 4)
of fn)
m m m m m m m Mpa mm MPa MPa Mpa Mpa m mm Mpa m mm mm N/m2 m

812.38 810.99 27.50 27.50 833.59 833.59 22.60 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
810.99 809.60 25.00 52.50 833.59 833.59 23.99 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
809.60 808.21 25.00 77.50 833.59 833.59 25.38 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
808.21 806.82 25.00 102.50 833.59 833.59 26.77 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
806.82 805.43 25.00 127.50 833.59 833.59 28.16 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
805.43 804.04 25.00 152.50 826.43 826.43 22.39 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
804.04 802.83 16.88 169.38 826.43 826.43 23.60 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
802.83 797.21 13.63 183.01 817.99 817.99 20.78 415 18.00 1.1260 79.801 0.432 0.4320 29.36 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 704.77 709.28 709.28 122.28 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 754.77 709.28 709.28 122.28 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 804.77 709.28 709.28 122.28 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 854.77 709.28 709.28 122.28 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 50.00 904.77 709.28 709.28 122.28 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 68.89 973.66 709.28 709.28 122.28 690 38.00 4.5328 196.833 2.321 2.3205 157.70 Not Required
587.00 587.00 15.00 988.66 709.28 709.28 122.28 690 34.00 6.0965 228.660 3.469 3.4689 235.74 Not Required
587.00 587.00 10.00 998.66 709.28 709.28 122.28 690 30.00 5.1422 206.718 2.740 2.7401 186.21 Not Required
587.00 587.00 10.00 1008.66 709.28 709.28 122.28 690 28.00 4.6768 195.182 2.400 2.4001 163.10 Not Required
587.00 587.00 28.76 1037.42 709.28 709.28 122.28 690 28.00 4.6768 195.182 2.400 2.4001 163.10 Not Required
Annexure-9.11(a)
Calculations For Powerhouse Dimensioning (large Unit)
Saundatti Pumped Storage Project
Pump Parameters – 252MW Unit
A-1 DATA
Unit Capacity = 252.00 MW
Max Head(Turbine) = 226.67 m
Rated Head = 206.72 m
Minimum Head = 186.77 m
Maximum Pumping Head = 236.37 m
Rated Pumping Head = 216.42 m
Minimum Pumping Head = 196.47 m
Turbine Generator = 280.00 MVA
A-2 OVERALL DIMENSIONS

From IS 12800 (part 2) : 1989 Fig No. 1 and 2 specific speed may be taken as
nst = 139.50
nsp = 38.00
Speed of the Machine in Turbine mode = n = nst x Ht5/4 √(Pt x 1.358)

n= 186.918 RPM
Nearest Synchronous Speed = 187.500 RPM
nsp x Hp3/4
Rated Pump Discharge Qp2 =
n
Qp =
2
11.44 m3/sec
Qp = 130.77 m3/sec
Discharge for pump 130.77 m3/sec
Pump Input:
For Preliminary Dimensions Pump Efficiency may be taken as 92.00%
Pp =9.81 QpHp/(Ep x 1000)
Pp = 301.779 MW Say 302.000 MW
Pumping Turbine Setting:

Hs <= Hb - σ Hp - Hv +b
Hb = Barometric Pressure
EL of Power station in meters of water column
= 10.3 -
900
655
= 10.3 -
900
= 9.572 m
Hv = Vapour Pressure
= 0.4 m from mean sea water level at 30 o c

Annexure-9.11(a)
σ = From fig 4 of IS 12800 (Part-2) : 1989 for a specific speed of

38 rpm
= 0.194
Hs <= 9.57 - 41.99 - 0.400 = -32.81
With a further margin of 4m The center line of distributor should be set at -36.81 m
below Minimum Tail Race level
Minimum Tail Race Level = 623.93 m
The centre line of distributor is at = 587.00 m
Hence, suction head provided Hs = 36.93 m (Provided)
> 36.81 m (Required)
HENCE SAFE
Size of Runner:
60 Ku √(2gHp)
D1 =
∏n
From IS 12800 (part 2) : 1989 Fig No.6 peripheral velocity coefficient Ku = 1.025
D1 = 6.807 m Say 6.81
Dimensions of Spiral Case:

From IS 12800 (part 2) : 1989 Fig No. 7 Recommended Velocity at design head = 13.8 m/s
√(Qp X 4)
Inlet Diameter =
√(11.5 X ∏)
= 3474 MM
Say 3480 MM
From IS 12800 (part 2) : 1989 Fig No. 8

A = 1.00 X 3.48 = 3.48 m
B = 1.00 X 6.81 = 6.81 m
C = 1.08 X 6.81 = 7.35 m
D = 1.14 X 6.81 = 7.76 m
E = 0.98 X 6.81 = 6.67 m
Dimensions of Draft Tube:

H1 = 0.24 X 6.81 = 1.63 m
H3 = 0.91 X 6.81 = 6.19 m
H1 + H2 = 2 X 6.81 = 13.61 m
L = 3.04 X 6.81 = 20.69 m
W = 1.62 X 6.81 = 11.03 m

Annexure-9.11(a)
Weight of Runner:
Weight of the Runner = 95 Tonnes
Axial Hydraulic Thrust:

PH = k D2 H Max

k = 0.093
PH = 977 tonnes
Generator Parameters:
A) Air Gap Diameter (Dg)
Total pair of poles (P) = 16
60 X f
Synchronous Speed of the Generator ns= rpm
P
Were, frequency (f)= 50 Hz in India

Annexure-9.11(a)
60 X 50
ns = rpm
16
ns = 187.50 rpm
60 X V
Dg =
r
πX n
V r = 72
60 X 72
Dg =
π X 187.50
Dg = 7.33 m
B) Outer Core diameter (Do)

Do = Dg (1+(π/2p))
Do = 8.05 m
C) Stator Frame Diameter (Df)

Df = Do + 1.2 meters
Df = 9.25 m
D) Inner Diameter of Generator barrel (Db)

Db = Df + 2.0 to 2.4m
= 11.5 m
E) Outer Diameter of Generator barrel (Dφ)

Dφ = Db + 1.5m
= 12.95
F) Core Length of Stator (Lc)

W
Lc =
ko Dg2 n
Where,
W = 280000 KVA (PF 0.9 of Unit Capacity)

Ko = 6.82
Dg = 7.33 m
n = 187.50 rpm

Annexure-9.11(a)
280000
Lc =
6.8 X 7.33 7.33 187.50
= 4.071 m
Say 4.1 m
G) Length of Stator Frame (Lf)
Lf = Lo + 1.5
= 5.57 m
H) Weight of the Generator Rotor:

From IS 12800 (part 2) : 1989 Fig No. 14 Weight/Meter core length = 200 T/meter
Weight of the Rotor = Weight/Meter X Core Length

= 814.21 Tonnes
I) Height of load bearing bracket (hj)

hj = Total weight of the rotor parts+ axial thrust
hj = 814.210 + 95 + 976.70
hj = 1886 Tonnes
Let there be 8 arms in the bearing bracket,
Load on each arm= 235.739 Tonnes
J) Capacity of EOT crane

Crane Capacity = Weight of Rotor
Crane Capacity = 895.63
Available = 450 Tonnes
Hence, Two cranes (2) of 450 tonne capacity with 60 tonne auxiliary hook is proposed in the
powerhouse as it is available next standard size.
K) Overall dimensions of power station

I) Length of the Power Station
The extremities of scroll case/draft tube/generator
in longitudinal direction are at 15.90m on opposite side of the transverse
center line of the machine.
Adding 2 to 4m to these dimensions, the size of the unit bay in longitudinal direction or
unit spacing work out to be 19.90m Say 20.0
Ls = Length of erection bay = 0.7 to 1.5 times the unit bay size
Ls = 1.15 X 20.00 = 23.00 m
Provided 26.00 m

Annexure-9.11(a)
II) Width of the Power Station
As per fig. 21 & 22 and clause 6.3 of IS 12800 part 1:1993
The distance of the outer face of down stream columns from longitudinal center
line of machine = 7.95 + 1.0 + 1.5
= 10.45 m
The distance of the inner face of upstream columns from longitudinal center
line of machine = 7.95 (extremity of draft tube/scroll case/generator barrel)+
2.5 (for accommodating control valve, the same space
can also be used for approaching draft tube)
= 10.45 m
Total Width of Power station = 20.90 m

Say = 25.50 m
L) Total height of Machine

H1 +H2 = 13.614 m
H4 = Lf + hj + K (K varies from 5.5 to 7.0m)
H4 = 14.873 m
Unloading the heaviest equipment from the trailors. For this purpose a height of 7.0 to 8.5m between
the erection bay floor and highest hook level may be sufficient.
Considering = 8 m
Thickness of the concrete below the lowest point of the draft tube may be taken from 1 to 2.5m
depending upon the type of foundation strata
Considering = 3 m
A minimum clearance above the service gangway of the crane for the movement of working personnel
may be 2 to 2.5m and the clearance between the highest part of the gantry crane and ceiling of power
house should be 6m considering under ground power house top cavern. With this consideration the
height of the power house ceiling above the top level hook may generally vary from 9 to 11.5m
depending upon the width of the machine hall and capacity of the gantry crane.
Considering = 10.5 m
Considering the above parameters the height of the machine hall from the bottom of the concrete level
below draft tube
Total height = 49.99 m
OVERALL DIMENTIONS OF THE POWER HOUSE

WIDTH OF POWER HOUSE = 25.5 m
HEIGHT OF POWER HOUSE = 50.0 m

Annexure-9.11(b)
Calculations For Powerhouse Dimensioning (Small Unit)
Pump Parameters – 126MW Unit
A-1 DATA
Unit Capacity = 126.00 MW
Maximum Head(Turbine) = 226.17 m
Rated Head = 206.22 m
Minimum Head = 186.27 m
Maximum Pumping Head = 236.17 m
Rated Pumping Head = 216.22 m
Minimum Pumping Head = 196.27 m
Turbine Generator = 140.00 MVA
A-2 OVERALL DIMENSIONS

From IS 12800 (part 2) : 1989 Fig No. 1 and 2 specific speed may be taken as
nst = 139.50
nsp = 38.80
Speed of the Machine in Turbine mode= n = nst x Ht5/4 √(Pt x 1.358)

n= 263.544 RPM
Nearest Synchronous Speed = 272.727 RPM
nsp x Hp3/4
Rated Pump Discharge Qp2 =
n
Qp =
2
8.02 m3/sec
Qp = 64.35 m3/sec
Discharge for pump 64.35 m3/sec
Pump Input:
For Preliminary Dimensions Pump Efficiency may be taken as 92.00%
Pp =9.81 QpHp/(Ep x 1000)
Pp = 148.36 MW Say 149.000 MW
Pumping Turbine Setting:

Hs <= Hb - σ Hp - Hv +b
Hb = Barometric Pressure
EL of Power station in metres of water column
= 10.3 -
900
655
= 10.3 -
900
= 9.572 m
Hv = Vapour Pressure
= 0.4 m from mean sea water level at 30 o c

Annexure-9.11(b)
σ = From fig 4 of IS 12800 (Part-2) : 1989 for a specific speed of
39 rpm
= 0.194
Hs <= 9.57 - 41.95 - 0.400 = -32.77
With a further margin of 4m The center line of distributor should be set at -36.77 m
below Minimum Tail Race level
Minimum Tail Race Level = 623.93 m
The centre line of distributor is at = 587.00 m
Hence, suction head provided Hs = 36.93 m (Provided)
> 36.77 m (Required)
HENCE SAFE
Size of Runner:
60 Ku √(2gHp)
D1 =
∏n
From IS 12800 (part 2) : 1989 Fig No.6 peripheral velocity coefficient Ku = 1.02
D1 = 4.655 m Say 4.7 m
Dimensions of Spiral Case:

From IS 12800 (part 2) : 1989 Fig No. 7 Recommended Velocity at design head = 13.8 m/s
√(Qp X 4)
Inlet Diameter =
√( 11.5 X ∏)
= 2437 MM
Say 2440 MM

A = 1.00 X 2.44 = 2.440 m
B = 1.02 X 4.65 = 4.748 m
C = 1.10 X 4.65 = 5.120 m
D = 1.17 X 4.65 = 5.446 m
E = 1.00 X 4.65 = 4.655 m
Dimensions of Draft Tube:

H1 = 0.25 X 4.65 = 1.164 m
H3 = 0.93 X 4.65 = 4.329 m
H1 + H2 = 2.04 X 4.65 = 9.496 m
L = 3.11 X 4.65 = 14.476 m
W = 1.65 X 4.65 = 7.680 m

Annexure-9.11(b)
Weight of Runner:
Weight of the Runner = 38 Tonnes
Axial Hydraulic Thrust:

PH = k D2 H Max

k = 0.093
PH = 456 tonnes
Generator Parameters:
A) Air Gap Diameter (Dg)
Total pair of poles (P) = 11
60 X f
Synchronous Speed of the Generator ns= rpm
P
Were, frequency (f)= 50 Hz in India
60 X 50
ns = rpm
11
ns = 272.73 rpm

Annexure-9.11(b)
60 X V
Dg =
r
πX n
V r = 78
60 X 78
Dg =
π X 272.73
Dg = 5.46 m
B) Outer Core diameter (Do)

Do = Dg (1+(π/2p))
Do = 6.24 m
C) Stator Frame Diameter (Df)

Df = Do + 1.2 meters
Df = 7.44 m
D) Inner Diameter of Generator barrel (Db)

Db = Df + 2.0 to 2.4m
= 9.6 m
E) Outer Diameter of Generator barrel (Dφ)

Dφ = Db + 1.5m
= 11.14
F) Core Length of Stator (Lc)

W
Lc =
ko Dg2 n
Where,
W = 140000 KVA (PF 0.9 of Unit Capacity)

Ko = 6.3
Dg = 5.46 m
n = 272.73 rpm
140000
Lc =
6.3 X 5.46 5.46 272.73
= 2.731 m
Say 2.7 m
G) Length of Stator Frame (Lf)
Lf = Lo + 1.5
= 4.23 m

Annexure-9.11(b)
H) Weight of the Generator Rotor:
From IS 12800 (part 2) : 1989 Fig No. 14 Weight/Meter core length = 150 T/meter
Weight of the Rotor = Weight/Meter X Core Length

= 409.652 Tonnes
I) Length of the Power Station

The extremities of scroll case/draft tube/generator
in longitudinal direction are at 11.14m on opposite side of the transverse
center line of the machine.
Adding 2 to 4m to these dimensions, the size of the unit bay in longitudinal direction or
unit spacing work out to be 15.14m Provided 23.0

TYPICAL LOAD CALCULATION
Spacing of Truss = 1.4 m

Roof Angle (1:6) = 18 deg
100
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1 5
2 6
3
4 7
8
Load Calculations
1. Dead Load
Self wt of purlins = 30.4 kg/m (Considering ISMC 250)
Self wt of Sheetings = 16 kg/m2
Load / m run 22.4 kg/m
= 0.224 kN/m
2. Live Load
Live load on roof = 75 kg/m2
dust Load = 0 kg/m2
Reduction in Live loads as per Table 2 of IS 875:1987-Part-2

Live load = 59 kg/m2 (75-(18-10)*2)
= 59 kg/m2
Load / m run = 82.6 kg/m

= 0.830 kN/m
3. Wind Load on Roof truss
Basic Wind speed(vb) = 33 m/s

Terrain category = 1
Class of the structure = C
k1 = 1.050 IS 875:1987-Part3 Table 1

k2 = 1.115 IS 875:1987-Part3 Table 2
k3 = 1.180 IS 875:1987-Part3 -5.3.3
Design wind speed = 45.59 m/s

Design wind pressure = 1247.014 N/m2
Pz = 1.247 kN/m2
Internal pressure coeficients are Cpi = ± 0.50 IS 875:1987-Part3 - 6.2.3.2

For openings < 20%
Cpe for Wind ( θ = 0° ) along +ve Z
0.78 0.60
Wind ( θ = 0° )
Wind Load1 (WL1) For Cpi = +0.5
Wind ward side = 1.117 kn/m 0.112 t/m

Leeward side = 0.960 kn/m 0.096 t/m

Wind Load2 (WL2) For Cpi = -0.5


WIND LOAD CALCULATION ON COLUMNS
Basic Wind speed(vb) = 33 m/s

Terrain category = 1
Height of structure = 40 m
Class of the structure = C
Height Design Wind Design Wind Pressure

k1 k2 k3
(m) Speed (m/s) Pz kN/m2
0-40.15 1.050 1.115 1.180 45.589 1.247
For Percentage of Opening of < 20%

Internal Pressure Coeffcient = Cpi = ± 0.50
Calculation of External Pressure Coeffcients ( Cpe )
From Table 5 of IS 875:1987 - Part 3
For Wind Angle θ = 0˚ i.e wind along +ve X
Length of the Structure = l = 151 m

Width of the Structure = w = 25.5 m
Height of the structure = h = 40 m
h/w = 40 / 25.5 = 1.57 3/2 < h/w <6

l/w = 151 / 25.5 = 5.92 3/2 < l/w <4
A
Z
151000
X
25500
C D
0.7
Z A
X 151000
C D 25500
-0.7 -0.7
-0.4 B
Wind along +X Direction and Cpi = +0.5
Influence Pressure Wind Force
Sides Grid Height (m) Cpe Cpi Cpe - Cpi
Width(m) kN/m2 (kN/m) (t/m)
A-1 0-40.15 + 0.7 + 0.50 0.2 3.863 1.250 0.966 0.097
A-2 0-40.15 + 0.7 + 0.50 0.2 7.725 1.250 1.931 0.193
Face A
A-3 0-40.15 + 0.7 + 0.50 0.2 8.513 1.250 2.128 0.213
A-4 0-40.15 + 0.7 + 0.50 0.2 4.650 1.250 1.163 0.116
B-1 0-40.15 -0.4 + 0.50 -0.90 3.863 1.250 -4.345 -0.435

B-2 0-40.15 -0.4 + 0.50 -0.90 7.725 1.250 -8.691 -0.869
Face B
B-3 0-40.15 -0.4 + 0.50 -0.90 8.513 1.250 -9.577 -0.958
B-4 0-40.15 -0.4 + 0.50 -0.90 4.650 1.250 -5.231 -0.523
Wind along +X Direction and Cpi = -0.5

Influence Pressure Wind Force
Sides Grid Height (m) Cpe Cpi Cpe - Cpi
Width(m) kN/m2 (kN/m) (t/m)
A-1 0-40.15 + 0.7 -0.50 1.2 3.863 1.250 5.794 0.579
A-2 0-40.15 + 0.7 -0.50 1.2 7.725 1.250 11.588 1.159
Face A
A-3 0-40.15 + 0.7 -0.50 1.2 8.513 1.250 12.769 1.277
A-4 0-40.15 + 0.7 -0.50 1.2 4.650 1.250 6.975 0.698
B-1 0-40.15 -0.4 -0.50 0.10 3.863 1.250 0.483 0.048

B-2 0-40.15 -0.4 -0.50 0.10 7.725 1.250 0.966 0.097
Face B
B-3 0-40.15 -0.4 -0.50 0.10 8.513 1.250 1.064 0.106
B-4 0-40.15 -0.4 -0.50 0.10 4.650 1.250 0.581 0.058
SEISMIC LOAD CALCULATION( As per IS:1893-PART1:2002)
Height of the structure = 44.45 m

Width of the structure = 25.50 m
D.L = 2151.01 T
L.L = 41.08 T
Wind load(+ve pressure) = 62.97 T
Wind load(+ve suction) = 62.97 T
Crane vertical load = 478.49 T
Ah = (ZI/2R)*(Sa/g)
seismic zone = III zone (From pg:35)

Zone factor (Z) = 0.16
Importance factor (I) = 1.5
Response reduction factor ( R ) = 3
(without brick infill panel, for RC

Ta = 0.075h0.75 frame builiding)
Ta = 1.291
Sa/g = 0.775 (From pg:16)
Ah = 0.0310
Base shear
= Ah*W
(VB)
W = 100% D.L+50% L.L
W = 2410.8 T
VB = 74.689 T
CRANE LOAD CALCUALTIONS
Span = 25.5 m
Crane capacity = 250 T
Crab/Trolley weight = 20 T
Crane Girder weight = 200 T
Min Hook Approch = 1.45 m
No of wheels on each side = 8 Nos
Spacing of each wheel = 2 m
270 T 7.843 t/m
1.45
25.5 m
VA 354.65 VB 115.35
VA+VB = 470 T
VB = 115.35 T
VA = 354.65 T
load on each Wheel = 44.3 T

Load parallel to rail = 5% of static wheel load.
= 2.22 T
Load Perpendicular to rail = 10% of wt. of trolley +10% of wt. to be lifted by crane.
= 3.38 T
Impact load 25%

Wheel load = 55.4 T
Load parallel to rail = 2.77 T
Load Perpendicular to rail = 4.22 T
On other side:(VB)
Load on each wheel = 14.4 T

Load parallel to rail = 5% of static wheel load.
= 0.72 T
Load Perpendicular to rail = 10% of wt. of trolley +10% of wt. to be lifted by crane.
= 0.19 T
Impact load 25%

Wheel load = 18 T
Load parallel to rail = 0.9 T
Load Perpendicular to rail = 0.24 T
LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS CONSIDERED FOR DESIGN.
1) Seismic Load (X-Direction) SL(+X)

2) Seismic Load (Z-Direction) SL(+Z)
3) Seismic Load (X-Direction) SL(-X)
4) Seismic Load (Z-Direction) SL(-Z)
5) Dead load (DL)
6) Live Load (LL)
7) Wind load (X-Direction) WL(+X) PRESSURE
8) Wind load (X-Direction) WL(+X) SUCTION
9) Wind load (X-Direction) WL(-X) PRESSURE
10) Wind load (X-Direction) WL(-X) SUCTION
11) Crane Loads
WORKING LOAD COMBINATIONS
1) 1.0DL+1.0LL
2) 1.0DL+1.0WL (+X) PRESSURE
3) 1.0DL+1.0WL (+X) SUCTION
4) 1.0DL+1.0WL (-X) PRESSURE
5) 1.0DL+1.0WL (-X) SUCTION
6) 1.0DL+1.0WL (+X) PRESSURE +1.0CL
7) 1.0DL+1.0WL (+X) SUCTION +1.0CL
8) 1.0DL+1.0WL(-X) PRESSURE +1.0CL
9) 1.0DL+1.0WL(-X) SUCTION +1.0CL
10) 1.0DL+1.0SL(+X)
11) 1.0DL+1.0SL(-X)
12) 1.0DL+1.0SL(+Z)
13) 1.0DL+1.0SL(-Z)
14) 1.0DL+1.0SL(+X)+1.0CL
15) 1.0DL+1.0SL(-X)+1.0CL
16) 1.0DL+1.0SL(+Z)+1.0CL
17) 1.0DL+1.0SL(-Z)+1.0CL
18) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0WL (+X) PRESSURE
19) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0WL (+X) SUCTION
20) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0WL (-X) PRESSURE
21) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0WL (-X) SUCTION
22) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0WL(+X) PRESSURE +1.0CL
23) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0WL(+X) SUCTION +1.0CL
24) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0WL(-X) PRESSURE +1.0CL
25) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0WL(-X) SUCTION+1.0CL
26) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0SL(+X)
27) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0SL(-X)
28) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0SL(+Z)
29) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0SL(-Z)
30) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0SL(+X)+1.0CL
31) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0SL(-X)+1.0CL
32) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0SL(+Z)+1.0CL
33) 1.0DL+1.0 LL+1.0SL(-Z)+1.0CL
DESIGN LOAD COMBINATIONS
1) 1.5DL+1.5LL
2) 1.5DL+1.5WL (+X) PRESSURE
3) 1.5DL+1.5WL (+X) SUCTION
4) 1.5DL+1.5WL (-X) PRESSURE
5) 1.5DL+1.5WL (-X) SUCTION
6) 1.5DL+1.5WL (+X) PRESSURE +1.5CL
7) 1.5DL+1.5WL (+X) SUCTION +1.5CL
8) 1.5DL+1.5WL(-X) PRESSURE +1.5CL
9) 1.5DL+1.5WL(-X) SUCTION +1.5CL
10) 1.5DL+1.5SL(+X)
11) 1.5DL+1.5SL(-X)
12) 1.5DL+1.5SL(+Z)
13) 1.5DL+1.5SL(-Z)
14) 1.5DL+1.5SL(+X)+1.5CL
15) 1.5DL+1.5SL(-X)+1.5CL
16) 1.5DL+1.5SL(+Z)+1.5CL
17) 1.5DL+1.5SL(-Z)+1.5CL
18) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2WL (+X) PRESSURE
19) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2WL (+X) SUCTION
20) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2WL (-X) PRESSURE
21) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2WL (-X) SUCTION
22) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2WL(+X) PRESSURE +1.2CL
23) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2WL(+X) SUCTION +1.2CL
24) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2WL(-X) PRESSURE +1.2CL
25) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2WL(-X) SUCTION+1.2CL
26) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2SL(+X)
27) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2SL(-X)
28) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2SL(+Z)
29) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2SL(-Z)
30) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2SL(+X)+1.2CL
31) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2SL(-X)+1.2CL
32) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2SL(+Z)+1.2CL
33) 1.2DL+1.2 LL+1.2SL(-Z)+1.2CL
Statics Check Results
FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
LOAD CASE
- -
(Mton) (Mton) (Mton) (kN m) (kN m) (kN-m)
1:SEISMIC LOAD (+X)
Loads
DIRECTION 70.954 0 0 0 8996.884 -4.32E+05
1:SEISMIC LOAD (+X)
Reactions
DIRECTION -70.954 0 0 0 -8996.884 4.32E+05
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 -0.014
2:SEISMIC LOAD (+Z)
Loads
DIRECTION 0 0 70.954 4.32E+05 -8205.854 0
2:SEISMIC LOAD (+Z)
Reactions
DIRECTION 0 0 -70.954 -4.32E+05 8205.854 0
Difference 0 0 0 0.014 0 0
3:SEISMIC LOAD (-X)
Loads
DIRECTION -70.954 0 0 0 -8996.884 4.32E+05
3:SEISMIC LOAD (-X)
Reactions
DIRECTION 70.954 0 0 0 8996.884 -4.32E+05
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0.014
4:SEISMIC LOAD (-Z)
Loads
DIRECTION 0 0 -70.954 -4.32E+05 8205.854 0
4:SEISMIC LOAD (-Z)
Reactions
DIRECTION 0 0 70.954 4.32E+05 -8205.854 0
Difference 0 0 0 -0.014 0 0
5:DEAD LOAD Loads 0 -2151.01 0 2.54E+05 0 -2.74E+05
5:DEAD LOAD Reactions 0 2151.01 0 -2.54E+05 0 2.74E+05
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 -0.001
6:LIVE LOAD Loads 0 -41.085 0 4985.965 0 -5237.779
6:LIVE LOAD Reactions 0 41.085 0 -4985.965 0 5237.779
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:WL (+X)
Loads
(+0.5)PRESSURE 62.974 103.356 0 -12543.006 7639.925 -3.70E+05
7:WL (+X)
Reactions
(+0.5)PRESSURE -62.974 -103.356 0 12543.006 -7639.925 3.70E+05
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0.002
8:WL (+X) (-
Loads
0.5)SUCTION 62.974 17.696 0 -2147.569 7644.415 -3.81E+05
8:WL (+X) (-
Reactions
0.5)SUCTION -62.974 -17.696 0 2147.569 -7644.415 3.81E+05
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0.001
9:WL (-X)
Loads
(+0.5)PRESSURE -62.974 102.564 0 -12446.891 -7639.925 3.96E+05
9:WL (-X)
Reactions
(+0.5)PRESSURE 62.974 -102.564 0 12446.891 7639.925 -3.96E+05
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:WL (-X)(-
Loads
0.5)SUCTION -62.974 16.954 0 -2057.461 -7644.415 3.85E+05
10:WL (-X)(-
Reactions
0.5)SUCTION 62.974 -16.954 0 2057.461 7644.415 -3.85E+05
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 -0.001
11:CL-1 Loads -29.024 -478.489 24.256 2.26E+05 -6244.479 1.47E+05
11:CL-1 Reactions 29.024 478.489 -24.256 -2.26E+05 6244.479 -1.47E+05
Difference 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.013
12:CL-2 Loads -29.024 -478.489 24.256 2.26E+05 -9362.798 85261.923
12:CL-2 Reactions 29.024 478.489 -24.256 -2.26E+05 9362.798 -85261.91
Difference 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.013
Node Displacement Summary - Without Concreting
X Y Z Resultant
Node L/C
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Max X 2513 138 DL+LL+SL(+X) 51.437 -1.254 0.014 51.452
Min X 2515 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -78.653 -1.748 9.994 79.305
112 DL+WL(-
Max Y 2735 X)PRESSURE+CL-2 -62.612 7.156 5.906 63.296
Min Y 2756 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -71.956 -17.853 5.622 74.351
Max Z 2689 143 DL+LL+SL(+Z)+CL-1 -22.426 -5.377 29.438 37.396
Min Z 2758 117 DL+SL(-Z) -1.156 -0.89 -18.352 18.41
Max rX 2542 143 DL+LL+SL(+Z)+CL-1 -13.382 -1.262 16.071 20.951
Min rX 2691 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -67.496 -6.724 11.56 68.808
Max rY 2678 119 DL+SL(+Z)+CL-1 -19.371 -8.359 24.104 32.033
Min rY 2511 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -69.296 -1.587 10.056 70.04
Max rZ 2543 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -32.116 -1.788 5.454 32.625
Min rZ 2540 138 DL+LL+SL(+X) 20.616 -0.884 0.001 20.635
Max
Rst 2515 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -78.653 -1.748 9.994 79.305
CHECK FOR LATERAL DISPLACEMENT:

Max Allowable displacement as per (IS 456 Clause 20.5) =H/500
=40150/500=80.30 mm
Max Actual displacement as per STAAD Analysis =79.305 mm
As the Actual displacement is less than the allowable hence the provided column sections are safe.
Node Displacement Summary-With Concreting up to Turbine Floor

X Y Z Resultant
Node L/C
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Max X 2513 138 DL+LL+SL(+X) 34.72 -1.248 0.022 34.742
Min X 2512 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -52.849 -2.769 10.053 53.868
112 DL+WL(-
Max Y 2736 X)PRESSURE+CL-2 -40.881 6.624 6.068 41.857
Min Y 2757 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -48.134 -16.567 6.54 51.324
Max Z 2688 143 DL+LL+SL(+Z)+CL-1 -15.873 -3.617 29.146 33.385
Min Z 2758 117 DL+SL(-Z) -1.073 -0.883 -18.352 18.404
Max rX 2542 143 DL+LL+SL(+Z)+CL-1 -6.309 -1.261 16.079 17.319
Min rX 2691 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -44.631 -6.668 11.056 46.461
Max rY 2678 119 DL+SL(+Z)+CL-1 -12.713 -7.779 24.063 28.305
Min rY 2511 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -46.275 -1.579 10.081 47.387
Max rZ 2543 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -14.983 -1.783 5.466 16.048
Min rZ 2721 142 DL+LL+SL(+X)+CL-1 12.803 -4.714 10.243 17.06
Max Rst 2512 144 DL+LL+SL(-X)+CL-1 -52.849 -2.769 10.053 53.868
TYPICAL 3D VIEWS OF POWER HOUSE BUILDING (SINGLE BAY)
3D-RENDERING VIEW
TYPICAL 3D VIEWS OF POWER HOUSE BUILDING (SINGLE BAY)
COLUMN NUMBERS
EFFECTIVE LENGTH OF SINGLE STEPPED COLUMN ( As per IS:800-1984)
P1 = 240 t P2
Assuming total load (DL+LL) 2
= 100 kg/m
Spacing of column = 8.5125 m
width of the truss = 25.5 m 1.25 * 1.25 m
I2
Load on each column (P2) = 10.853 t L2= 6 P1
C1 = L2/L1(√I1/I2α)
4
Moment of interia (I1) = 0.427 m 1.25 * 1.6 m
4
Moment of interia (I2) = 0.203 m L1= 34.15 I1
α= (P1+P2)/P2
α= 23.11
C1 = 0.0529
i2/i1 = (I2/L2)*(L1/I1)
i2/i1 = 2.714
K1 = 1.32 ( from table D-4, IS:800-1984)
K2 = (K1/C1) < 3. (If not consider K2 value as 3)
= 24.942 or 3
Effective length at bottom = 45.078 m

Effective length at top = 18.000 m
Design of column subjected to biaxial bending (with reinforcement equally on all the four sides.)
y
COLUMN Mkd. A3 D
z z
b
y
1 Design parameters:
fck fy size of column design loads & moments Cc bar dia. d/
b D Pu Muz Muy f
N/mm2 N/mm2 mm mm kN kN.m kN.m mm mm mm
25 500 1250 1600 7636 2426 2087 40 32 56.00
2 Check for short or slender column

unsupported unsupported Leff/L effective length Lez/D Ley/b Result
Lz, Cl 25.1.3 Ly, Cl 25.1.3 Elz Ely Lez Ley Cl 25.1.2
m m m m Lez/D Ley/b
34.15 6.25 1.320 1.000 45.08 6.25 28.17 5.00 >12,slender <12,short
3 Longitudinal steel percentage assumed for column

Reinf. details p
Nos. dia Asc p prov. assumed
mm mm2 % %
24 32
24 32 38603.89 1.93 1.7 OK
4 Additional moments in slender column

d//D Pbz, SP 16 Table 60 d//b Pby, SP 16 Table 60
obtained considered k1 k2 Pbz obtained considered k1 k2 Pby
value value kN value value kN
0.035 0.035 0.219 0.545 12803.00 0.045 0.045 0.219 0.545 12803.00
Puz reduction factor, k additional moments additional moments

Cl 39.6 Cl 39.7.1.1 Cl 39.7.1 Cl 39.7.1.1
kN kz ky Maz ,kN.m May ,kN.m Maz ,kN.m May ,kN.m
34867.500 1.000 1.000 4848.922 0.000 4848.922 0.000
5 Moments due to minimum eccentricity

minimum eccentricity moments due to minimum
Cl 25.4 eccentricity
ez ey Mez,kN.m Mey,kN.m
0.122 0.054 928.79 413.62
6 Total moments to be considered for column design are:

Muz Muy Pu/fck bD p/fck Chart No 47 SP16 Chart No 47 SP16 Muz1 Muy1
/ 2 / 2
kN.m kN.m d /D Muz1/fck b D d /b Muy1/fck D b kN.m kN.m
7274.92 2087.00 0.153 0.07 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.13 10400.000 8125.000
7 Check for interaction ratio
Pu/Puz an
(Muz/Muz1)an + (Muy/Muy1)an < 1 Result
Cl 39.6 Cl 39.6 Cl 39.6
IS 456-2000 Cl 39.6
0.219 1.032 0.94 <1 Ok

8 Transverse Steel Reinforcement
Provide 8 mm Ties @ 300 mm C/C
Design of column subjected to biaxial bending (with reinforcement equally on all the four sides.)
y
COLUMN Mkd. A4 D
z z
b
y
1 Design parameters:
fck fy size of column design loads & moments Cc bar dia. d'
b D Pu Muz Muy f
N/mm2 N/mm2 mm mm kN kN.m kN.m mm mm mm
25 500 1250 1600 5407 6127 674 40 32 56.00
2 Check for short or slender column

unsupported unsupported Leff/L effective length Lez/D Ley/b Result
Lz, Cl 25.1.3 Ly, Cl 25.1.3 Elz Ely Lez Ley Cl 25.1.2
m m m m Lez/D Ley/b
34.15 6.25 1.320 1.000 45.08 6.25 28.17 5.00 >12,slender <12,short
3 Longitudinal steel percentage assumed for column

Reinf. details p
Nos. dia Asc p prov. assumed
mm mm2 % %
24 32
24 32 38603.89 1.93 1.7 OK
4 Additional moments in slender column

d'/D Pbz, SP 16 Table 60 d'/b Pby, SP 16 Table 60
obtained considered k1 k2 Pbz obtained considered k1 k2 Pby
value value kN value value kN
0.035 0.035 0.219 0.545 12803.00 0.045 0.045 0.219 0.545 12803.00
Puz reduction factor, k additional moments additional moments

Cl 39.6 Cl 39.7.1.1 Cl 39.7.1 Cl 39.7.1.1
kN kz ky Maz ,kN.m May ,kN.m Maz ,kN.m May ,kN.m
34867.500 1.000 1.000 3433.489 0.000 3433.489 0.000
5 Moments due to minimum eccentricity

minimum eccentricity moments due to minimum
Cl 25.4 eccentricity
ez ey Mez,kN.m Mey,kN.m
0.122 0.054 657.67 292.88
6 Total moments to be considered for column design are:

Muz Muy Pu/fck bD p/fck Chart No 47 SP16 Chart No 47 SP16 Muz1 Muy1
kN.m kN.m d'/D Muz1/fck b D2 d'/b Muy1/fck D b2 kN.m kN.m
9560.49 674.00 0.108 0.07 0.04 0.14 0.04 0.14 11200.000 8750.000
7 Check for interaction ratio
Pu/Puz an
(Muz/Muz1)an + (Muy/Muy1)an < 1 Result
Cl 39.6 Cl 39.6 Cl 39.6
IS 456-2000 Cl 39.6
0.155 1.000 0.93 <1 Ok

8 Transverse Steel Reinforcement
Provide 8 mm Ties @ 300 mm C/C
Annexure-9.13
Table of Contents
1. Introduc!on...........................................................................................................................................1
2. Cut Slope Details...................................................................................................................................1
3. Details of the discon!nuity...................................................................................................................1
4. Stereographic plots of the slopes.........................................................................................................2
4.1. Right Slope (West Slope)...................................................................................................................2
4.2. Le+ Slope (East Slope).......................................................................................................................6
4.3. Upstream Slope (North Slope)..........................................................................................................7
4.4. Downstream slope (South Slope)...................................................................................................14
5. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................17
Annexure-9.13
1. Introduc!on
A surface power house of size 196.5m (L) x 25.5m (W) x 51.1m (H) is proposed to accommodate
6 units of Francis turbine. Detailed geological mapping in and around the power house is
carried out and the subsurface informa'on is obtained through the exploratory bore holes.
The average ground eleva'on at the proposed power house is varies from EL 661 to EL 652 and
the deepest excava'on is proposed at EL 568.50 including the dra. tube pit. The height of
ver'cal excava'on is about 92 m.
The founda'on grade of the proposed power house is at EL 568.50 and service bay is at EL
601.20. The excava'on below the service bay shall be filled by spiral case and turbine floor
concre'ng. Thus, out of the 92m ver'cal excava'on, about 60 m would be the permanent cut
slope.
2. Cut Slope Details

At the proposed loca'on of the power house, It is es'mated that the thickness of the slope
wash material is about 5 m to 7m and the depth of the weathered zone below the slope wash
material is about 25 to 40 m. The founda'on grade rock for the proposed power house will be
fresh granite.
Excava'on of cut slopes in slopewash is proposed to be carried out in 1H: 1V slope. Below the
slopewash material, excava'on in the weathered zone will be carried out in 1H:4V, with a bench
of 4 m and ver'cal depth of 10m. Below the weathered zone excava'on will be carried out in
1H: 6V slope down to the deepest founda'on with 4m wide berm a.er each 12m ver'cal bench
excava'on. The details of the average cuts lope around the power house pit excava'on is given
in table below.
Table 1: Details of cut slopes
S. No Slope segment Slope direc!on Slope Angle
1 Right Slope (West) 090° 62°
2 Le. Slope (East) 270° 57°
3 Upstream Slope (North) 180° 62°
4 Downstream Slope (South) 360° 67°
3. Details of the discon!nuity

Based on the geological mapping in and around the power house area, the following
discon'nuity data are collected.
Page 1 of 17
Annexure-9.13
Joint Dip Dip Direc!on

S1 41° 013°
S2 25° 004°
S3 30° 262°
S4 47° 179°
J2a 72° 118°
J2b 80° 305°
J3a 72° 245°
J3b 80° 059°
J4a 78° 168°
J4b 80° 357°
4. Stereographic plots of the slopes

The joint sets are marked on the equal area stereonet with the above discon'nuity data and the
fric'on angle of the rock mass. The fric'on angle of the rock has been considered as 40° (class
II) for fresh granite as per IS:13365 (Part -1).
4.1. Right Slope (West Slope)

Stereonet plot of the right side slope (west slope) is given below.
Dip
Joint Dip
Direc!on
S1 41° 013°
S2 25° 004°
S3 30° 262°
S4 47° 179°
J2a 72° 118°
J2b 80° 305°
J3a 72° 245°
J3b 80° 059°
J4a 78° 168°
J4b 80° 357°
West
62° 090°
Slope
Page 2 of 17
Annexure-9.13
A. Kinema!c Analysis
The stereonet defines the shape of the wedge, the orienta'on of the line of intersec'on and
the direc'on of sliding. This informa'on can be used to assess the poten'al for the planar and
wedge failures of the cut face.
Through kinema'c analysis, poten'ally unstable planar/wedges are iden'fied although it
does not provide precise informa'on on their factor of safety.
1. Planar Failure
The following condi'ons are to be met to have the planar failure in the cut Slope.
A. The plane on which sliding occurs must strike parallel or nearly parallel (within
approximately ±20◦) to the slope face.
B. The sliding plane must “daylight” in the slope face, which means that the dip of the
plane must be less than the dip of the slope face, that is, ψp < ψf.
C. The dip of the sliding plane must be greater than the angle of fric'on of this plane,
that is, ψp > φ.
The stereo plot exhibits that for segment west slope (Slope direc'on N090°), S3 joint set is
nearly parallel to the cut slope but dipping in opposite direc'on, thus not sa'sfying the criteria
required for planar failure. Hence the possibility of planar failure is ruled out.
2. Wedge Failure
The following condi'ons are to meet for the cut Slope to have a wedge failure
• Two planes will always intersect in a line. On the stereonet, the line of intersec'on is
represented by the point where the two great circles of the planes intersect, and the
Page 3 of 17
Annexure-9.13
orienta'on of the line is defined by its trend (αi) and its plunge (ψi).
• The plunge of the line of intersec'on must be flaNer than the dip of the face, and
steeper than the average fric'on angle of the two slide planes, that is ψfi > ψi > φ.
• The line of intersec'on must dip in a direc'on out of the face for sliding to be feasible;
the possible range in the trend of the line of intersec'on is between αi and αi.
From the above stereonet plot for the north slope as shown above, the following joint set
combina'ons may trigger wedge failure.
I. S4 and J3b
B. Surface Wedge Analysis

Surface wedge analysis is carried out by SWedge so.ware (from Rocscience) to check the
possibility of the wedge failure in the excavated slope. The results of the study are summarized
below.
Joint combina!on
I. S4 and J3b

S4 47° 179°
J3b 80° 059°
The SWedge model is shown below the above joint combina'ons without any support system
installed.
Page 4 of 17
Annexure-9.13
The wedge formed for the present combina'on of joint sets is expected to fail along the
intersec'on of the two joints. The trend (αi) of the intersec'on of the joint is 140.5° and plunge
(ψi) is 40°. The dip (ψfi) of the cut slope is 62° which is steeper than ψi. Also, ψi is equal to the
fric'on angle φ (40°). Thus, sa'sfying the criteria for the wedge failure i.e ψfi> ψi> φ. The
factor of safety before installa'on of the support system is 1.473.
Shotcrete and grouted rock anchors are planned to be installed in the slopes for the stabiliza'on
of the slopes. The support measures considered are grouted rock anchor 25 mm dia of length
6.0m at a spacing of 1.5m x 1.5m along with Shotcrete with wire mesh of 75mm having the
shear strength of 2MPa. Anchor capacity of the grouted anchor bar considered is 15.5 T.
A.er the installa'on of the support system, the factor of safety is 20.876. The following figure
shows the installed rock support system along with the factor of safety.
Page 5 of 17
Annexure-9.13
The wedge analysis carried out for the right slope (west slope) is summarized in table below.
S. No Joint combina!on FoS (without support) FoS (with support)

1 S4 and J3b 1.473 20.876
All the unstable wedges formed due to the intersec'on of the joints are stable with the
proposed support system. The support system proposed is 75 mm shotcrete with wire mesh
with 25 dia 6.0 m long grouted rock anchor at 1.5m x 1.5 m spacing. In addi'on, 50 mm dia 6.5
m long weep holes at 3.0 x3.0 m c/c shall be provided.
4.2. Le+ Slope (East Slope)

Stereonet plot of the le.-side slope (east slope) is given below.
Dip
Join Di
Direc!o
t p
n
41
S1 013°
°
25
S2 004°
°
30
S3 262°
°
47
S4 179°
°
72
J2a 118°
°
80
J2b 305°
°
J3a 72 245°
Page 6 of 17
Annexure-9.13
Dip
Join Di
Direc!o
t p
n
°
80
J3b 059°
°
78
J4a 168°
°
80
J4b 357°
°
East
57
Slop 270°
e
°
A. Planar Failure
In the East slope (Slope direc'on N270°) the average strike of S3 joint set is near parallel to the
trend of the cut slope, but the dip amount (Ψp) S3=30° is less than the fric'on angle (Ø=40°) of
the rock. Hence not sa'sfying the criteria for the planar failure.
The summary of the planar failure covering the condi'ons men'oned earlier is elaborated for
the east slope.
Joint yf Yp Ø Condi!on-A Condi!on-B&C
S3 57° 30° 40° Possible Not Possible
B. Wedge Failure
The possibility of the wedge forma'on for the proposed cut slope is studied and it is found that
there is no possibility of wedge forma'on in the east cut slope.
4.3. Upstream Slope (North Slope)

Stereonet plot of the upstream slope (North) is given below.
Page 7 of 17
Annexure-9.13
Dip
Joint Dip
Direc!on
S1 41° 013°
S2 25° 004°
S3 30° 262°
S4 47° 179°
J2a 72° 118°
J2b 80° 305°
J3a 72° 245°
J3b 80° 059°
J4a 78° 168°
J4b 80° 357°
North
62° 180°
Slope
A. Planar Failure
The stereoplot exhibits that for North Slope (Slope direc'on N180°) the average strike of S4
joints is parallel to the trend of the proposed cut slope and dip amount (Ψp) (S4=47°) is greater
than the fric'on angle Ø=40°, Therefore, only S4 joint set fulfils the criteria for planar failure {as
(Ψf =62° > Ψp=47°) and Ψp=47° > Ø=40°}.
S4 62° 47° 40° Possible Possible
B. Wedge Failure
From the above stereonet plot for the north slope as shown above, the following joint set
combina'ons may trigger wedge failure.
I. J2a and J3a
Page 8 of 17
Annexure-9.13
II. S4 and J2a

III. S4 and J3a
C. Surface Wedge Analysis

below.
Joint combina!on:
I. J2a and J3a

J2a 72° 118°
J3a 72° 245°
The power house is proposed to be excavated in 1H:6V with the bench width of 4.0m at ver'cal
intervals of 12m in the fresh rock. The model is generated in the Swedge with the proposed cut
slope for the above combina'on of joint sets. The wedge formed for the joint combina'on is
shown below.
Fig: SWedge analysis of the power house Upstream Slope (North Slope)
Page 9 of 17
Annexure-9.13
(ψi) is 53.9°. The dip (ψfi) of the cut slope is 62° which is steeper than ψi. Also, ψi is greater
than the fric'on angle φ (40°). Thus, sa'sfying the criteria for the wedge failure i.e. ψfi> ψi> φ.
The factor of safety before installa'on of the support system is 1.164.
A.er the installa'on of the support system, the factor of safety is 35.4. The following figure
shows the installed rock support system along with the factor of safety.
Thus, the support system proposed is sufficient to take over come the wedge failure.
II. S4 and J2a

S4 47° 179°
J2a 72° 118°
Page 10 of 17
Annexure-9.13
The SWedge model is shown below for the above joint combina'ons without any support
system installed.
(ψi) is 46.7°. The dip (ψfi) of the cut slope is 62° which is steeper than ψi. Also, ψi is greater
than the fric'on angle φ (40°). Thus, sa'sfying the criteria for the wedge failure i.e ψfi> ψi> φ.
The factor of safety before installa'on of the support system is 0.952.
A.er the installa'on of the support system, the factor of safety is 2.273. The provided support
system is suitable to stabilize the wedges. The picture showing the installed rock support system
is shown.
Page 11 of 17
Annexure-9.13
III. S4 and J3a

S4 47° 179°
J3a 72° 245°
The SWedge model is shown below the above joint combina'ons without any support system
installed.
Page 12 of 17
Annexure-9.13
The wedges formed the present combina'on joint set is expected to fail along the joint S4
which is similar to the planar failure as shown in the planar failure analysis. This is due to the
less resistance offered by the sliding plane 2 i.e joint J3a. The factor of safety before installa'on
of the support system is 0.782.
A.er the installa'on of the support system, the factor of safety is 2.107.
The provided support system is suitable to stabilize the wedges. The picture showing the
installed rock support system is shown.
Page 13 of 17
Annexure-9.13

1 J2a and J3a 1.164 35.4
2 S4 and J2a 0.952 2.273
3 S4 and J3a 0.782 2.107
with 25 dia 6.0 m long grouted rock anchor at 1.5m x 1.5 m spacing. In addi'on, 50 mm dia 6.50
m long weep holes at 3.0 x3.0 m c/c shall be provided.
4.4. Downstream slope (South Slope)

Stereonet plot of the downstream slope (South) is given below.
Page 14 of 17
Annexure-9.13
Dip
Joint Dip
Direc!on
S1 41° 013°
S2 25° 004°
S3 30° 262°
S4 47° 179°
J2a 72° 118°
J2b 80° 305°
J3a 72° 245°
J3b 80° 059°
J4a 78° 168°
J4b 80° 357°
South Slope 67° 360°
The possibility of failure along the joint planes is studied and the results are summarized below.
A. Planar Failure
For south slope (Slope direc'on N360°) the average strike of S1 joint set is near parallel to the
trend of the cut slope. Also, the dip amount (Ψp) S1=41° is greater than the fric'on angle
(Ø=40°) of the rock mass and slope angle of cut slopes (Ψf =67°) is greater than the dip amount
(Ψp=41°). Hence the planar failure is possible along joint S1.
Also, the joint set S2 is parallel to the trend of the cut slope, but the dip amount (Ψp) S2=25° is
less the fric'on angle, hence ruling out the possibility of the planar failure.
The summary of the planar failure covering the condi'ons men'oned earlier is elaborated for
the south slope.
S1 67° 41° 40° Possible Possible
S2 67° 25° 40° Possible Not possible
B. Wedge Failure
The possibility of the wedge forma'on for the proposed cut slope is studied and it is found that
the following combina'on of joint sets may trigger the wedge failure.
I. S1 and J2b
Page 15 of 17
Annexure-9.13
Surface Wedge Analysis

below.
Joint combina!on
I. S1 and J2b

S1 41° 013°
J2b 80° 305°
The power house is proposed to be excavated in 1H:6V with the bench width of 4.0m at ver'cal
intervals of 12m. The model is generated in the Swedge with this slope details and for the
above combina'on of joint sets, the wedge formed as shown below.
Fig: SWedge analysis of the power house Downstream Slope (South Slope)
The wedges formed the present combina'on joint set is expected to fail along the joint S1
which is similar to the planar failure as shown in the planar failure analysis. This is due to the
less resistance offered by the sliding plane-2 i.e. joint J2b. The factor of safety before
installa'on of the support system is 0.965.
Page 16 of 17
Annexure-9.13
shear strength of 2MPa. Anchor capacity considered is 15.5 T. A.er the installa'on of the
support system, the factor of safety is 5.135. The figure showing the installed rock support
system along with the factor of safety.
The wedge analysis carried out for the downstream slope (South slope) is summarized in table
below.

1 S1 and J2b 0.965 5.135
with 25 dia 6.0 m long grouted rock anchor at 1.5m x 1.5 m spacing. In addi'on, 50 mm dia
6.5 m long weep holes at 3.0 x3.0 m c/c shall be provided.
5. Conclusion
From the above study it is found that the slopes are stabilized with the designed support
system. The designed support system is shown in the relevant power house drawings.
Page 17 of 17
Annexure-9.13
1.West Side Slope: (LS):

A. Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM):
comparing the available shear strength along the sliding surface with the force required to
maintain the slope in equilibrium. Bishops method is adopted for the slope stability analysis.
The analysis is carried out using Slide so ware.
Model:
The proposed powerhouse pit is lies in the rock class III based on the surface mapping. The GSI
value of the proposed pit area is about 64.
The effect of blas#ng over the cut slope is considered in the design of the support system. The
blast damage zone is considered to be 2.0 m from the face of the excava#on. The disturbance
factor (D) is considered to be 0.7 in the face.
Generalized Hoek Brown strength criteria are adopted for the material model. The input
parameters are taken from the rock mechanics test carried out. The derived rock mass
proper#es are as tabulated below

GSI 64 64

Annexure-9.13
The slide model with the proper#es of the material is shown as below.
Support Design
Grouted rock anchors (GRA) and self-drilling anchors are proposed to be used in the rock
excava#on and overburden excava#on respec#vely. The support capaci#es of the various bolt
considered in the analysis are summarized below.
Bond length of these anchors is considered to be 70% of the total length of the anchors. The
cut slope will be supported by 75mm thick shotcrete. The shotcrete is modelled as the material
model.
Annexure-9.13
Various combina#ons of the support system are analysed by varying the spacing and length.
The slide model with the proposed support system is shown below.
The model generated is analysed for the no support condi#ons ini#ally. The minimum factor of
safety is 0.628 is passing through the overburden.
In the overburden, 6.0 m long SDA @ 1.5mx1.5m spacing is planned. In the rock, the 6.0 m long
GRA @ 1.5mx1.5m is planned. The factor of safety a er the installa#on of the support system is
1.559. The following figure shows the slip circle along the global minimum circle.
Annexure-9.13
The same support system is analysed with the earthquake condi#on also. The horizontal
earthquake accelera#on is 0.12g and ver#cal earthquake accelera#on is 0.08g as per the site
specific seismic parameter study. The factor of safety with the earthquake case is 1.228.
Annexure-9.13
The summary of the factor of safety various combina#ons is as below
Condi/on-1 Condi/on-2 Condi/on-3

S. No Slope Direc/on
Without support With support Condi/on-2+EQ
West Side Slope

1 0.628 1.559 1.228
(LS)
From the above study, the rock support system comprising of 6.0 m long grouted rock anchors
at 1.5x1.5m spacing, 75mm thick shotcrete with wiremesh is provided. The output of the
designed support system is incorporated in the powerhouse drawings.
2.East Side Slope: (LS):

B. Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM):
Model:
Annexure-9.13

GSI 64 64
Annexure-9.13
Support Design
model.
Annexure-9.13
Annexure-9.13

East Side Slope

1 0.596 1.887 1.565
(LS)
at 1.5x1.5m spacing, 75mm thick shotcrete with wiremesh is provided. The output of the
3.North Side Slope: (CS):

C. Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM):
Model:
Annexure-9.13

GSI 64 64
Annexure-9.13
Support Design
25 dia GRA, 6.0 m long - 155 kN
model.
Annexure-9.13
Annexure-9.13

North Side
1 0.445 3.958 3.329
Slope (CS)
at 1.5mx1.5m spacing, 75mm thick shotcrete with wiremesh is provided. The output of the
4.South Side Slope: (CS):

D. Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM):
Model:

Annexure-9.13

GSI 64 64
Support Design
Annexure-9.13
model.
Annexure-9.13
Annexure-9.13

South Side
1 0.749 2.518 1.830
Slope (CS)
at 1.5mx1.5m spacing, 75mm thick shotcrete with wiremesh is provided. The output of the
Annexure-9.14
DESIGN OF TAIL RACE TUNNEL LINING(7.0M Ø)

FAIR Rock ( Q = 4 -10 ) :-
Case I - Tunnel full condition :-
(Ref: CBIP Publication No.178, IS:4880 (Part IV), IS:456-2000 & IRC 21-2000)
Dia of tunnel, D = 7.00 m

Thickness of lining, t = 0.400 m
Internal radius of tunnel, r = 3.500 m
Mean Radius of tunnel lining, R = 3.700 m
Mean Diameter of tunnel B = 7.400 m
Mean perimeter of tunnel Pmean = 26.424 m { (πR) + (2R+D+t) }
Grade of concrete fck = M25
Young's modulus of elasticity of lining material, E 2500000000 kg/m2
(5000√fck) = 2500000 t/m2
Moment of Inertia of the section, I = bt /12
3
= 0.0053 m4
As per IS4880-Part(IV) Table-1
Unit weight of water, w = 1.0 t/m3
Unit weight of concrete, wc = 2.4 t/m3
Unit weight of Rock, wr = 2.5 t/m3
For Fair rock strata condition, rock mass quality index (Q) is 4 to 10 as per IS 13365 (II);
The ultimate roof support pressure is Pru = (2/Jr) x (Qru)-1/3 x f ,
where Pru = ultimate roof pressure in kg/CM2
Jr = Joint roughness number
Qru = Ultimate rock mass quality = Q
f = correction factor for over burden
= 1 + (H-320)/800 >1
H = Overburden above crown or tunnel depth below ground level in meters
Rock mass quality index from GSI report = 4.00 Fair
Joint roughness number (Jr) = 1.5
Overburden height (H) = 74.52 m
Correction factor for overburden (f) = 1 + (H-320)/800
= 1+ ( 74.52 - 320 )
800
= 0.69315
If f<1.0, take as 1
therefore, f = 1
Support roof pressure Pru = (2/Jr) x (Qru)-1/3 x f
= 0.84 kg/cm2
or, 8.40 t/m2
Total rock load on mean diameter,P = 7.4 x 8.40
= 62.156 t {Ref. CBIP Publication no. 178, Pg47}
Tunnel Full Condition
Horizontal deflection at horizontal diameter on either face
Due to rock load = 0.04167 P R3 = 9.90 mm

EI
Due to self weight = 0.13090 Wc t R4 = 1.78 mm
EI
Due to contained water = 0.06545 Wc r2 R3 = 3.07 mm
EI
Total outward deflection = 9.901+1.777+3.065 = 14.74 mm
Let this deflection be limited to = 0.000 mm

Annexure-9.14
Then the deflection due to passive resistance of rock = 14.74 mm
Inward horizontal deflection due to lateral rock pressure of intensity equal to 1 t/m2
at horizontal diameter = 0.05055 KR4 = 14.74 mm
EI
Intensity of lateral pressure at horizontal diameter , K = 20.621 t
As per IS:4880(PART-IV) Appendix-C Moments,Thrust, shear,and Deflections are tabulated below.

Values of Bending Moments (t-m)
φ Uniform Vertical Load Conduit Weight Contained water Lateral Pressure Total
0° 0.1250 PR 28.75 0.4406 WctR2 5.79 0.2203W r R 2
9.99 -0.1434KR 2
-40.48 4.04
45° 0 0.00 -0.0334WctR2 -0.44 -0.0167W r2 R -0.76 -0.0084KR2 -2.37 -3.57
90° - 0.1250 PR -28.75 -0.3927WctR2 -5.16 -0.1963W r2 R -8.90 0.1653KR2 46.66 3.86
135° 0 0.00 0.0334WctR2 0.44 0.0167W r R 2
0.76 -0.0187KR 2
-5.28 -4.08
180° 0.1250 PR 28.75 0.3448WctR2 4.53 0.1724W r2 R 7.81 -0.1295KR2 -36.56 4.54
Values of Normal Thrust (t)

0° 0.00 0.00 0.1667WctR 0.59 -1.4166W r 2
-17.35 0.4754KR 36.27 19.51
45° 0.2500 P 15.54 1.1332WctR 4.03 -0.7869W r2 -9.64 0.3058KR 23.33 33.26
90° 0.5000 P 31.08 1.5708WctR 5.58 -0.2146W r2 -2.63 0.00 0.00 34.03
135° 0.2500 P 15.54 0.4376WctR 1.55 -0.4277W r2 -5.24 0.2674KR 20.40 32.26
180° 0.00 0.00 -0.1667WctR -0.59 -0.5834W r2 -7.15 0.3782KR 28.86 21.12
Values of Radial Shear (t)

0° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
45° -0.2500 P -15.54 -0.8976WctR -3.19 -0.4488W r2 -5.50 0.3058KR 23.33 -0.89
90° 0.00 0.00 0.1667WctR 0.59 0.0833W r2 1.02 -0.0246KR -1.88 -0.26
135° 0.2500 P 15.54 0.6732WctR 2.39 0.3366W r 2
4.12 -0.2674KR -20.40 1.65
180° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Values of Horizontal Deflection (mm)

0° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
45° 0.01473PR3/EI 3.50 0.05040WctR4/EI 0.68 0.02520Wr2R3/EI 1.18 -0.0175KR4/EI -5.10 0.26
135° 0.01473PR /EI 3
3.50 0.04216WctR4/EI 0.57 0.02108Wr R /EI2 3
0.99 -0.01624KR /EI
4
-4.73 0.33
180° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Values of Vertical Deflection (mm)

0° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
135° 0.05640PR /EI 3
13.40 0.18535WctR4/EI 2.52 0.09268Wr R /EI2 3
4.34 -0.06810KR /EI
4
-19.86 0.40

Annexure-9.14
Calculation of stresses in lining for tunnel full condition
0° 45° 90° 135° 180°
B.M. = 4.04 -3.57 3.86 -4.08 4.54
Normal Thrust = 19.51 33.26 34.03 32.26 21.12
Adopting grade of concrete. M25
Allowable bending stress in compression = 80 kg/cm2 ( From IS:456-2000 Table -21)
Permissible tensile strength = 20 kg/cm2 ( From IS:3370(P II )-1965, Table 1)
Considering 1.00 m length in circumferential direction
b = 100 cm
t = 40 cm
Equivalent area of 1m strip lining, A = 4000 cm2
Equivalent moment of inertia M.I = bD /12
3
= 100x40^3/12
= 533333
Modulus of the section Z = M.I

D/2
= 533333 x 2
40
= 26667
P M
Stresses on outer face : +
A Z
At Φ 0° 45° 90° 135° 180°
Stress (kg/cm2) 20.034 -5.063 22.974 -7.247 22.287
T/C C T C T C
P M
Stresses on inner face : -
A Z
At Φ 0° 45° 90° 135° 180°

Stress (kg/cm )2
-10.279 21.691 -5.960 23.375 -11.729
T/C T C T C T
Maximum compressive stress = 22.974 kg / cm2 (Outer face)

Maximum compressive stress = 23.375 kg / cm2 (Inner face)
Permissible compressive stress
= 80.00 kg / cm2 ( From IS:456-2000 table -21)
for M25
Hence Safe
Maximum tensile stress = 7.247 kg / cm2 (Outer face)

= 20.00 kg / cm2 ( From IS:3370(P II )-1965, Table 1)
for M25
Hence Safe
Check for Radial Shear :-

Maximum radial shear = 0.894 t
Therefore shear stress = 894.000

100 x 40
= 0.2235 kg / cm2

Annexure-9.14
But permissible shear stress as per IS:456-2000, Table 24
for M25 = 22.000 kg / cm2
Hence Safe.
Check for Normal Thrust :-
Maximum negative thrust = 34.029 t
Tensile stress in concrete = 34029

100 x 40
= 8.507 kg / cm2
But permissible stress in compression as per Cl 303.1 of IRC-21-2000
for M25 = 75.000 kg / cm2
Hence Safe.
Horizontal deflection : -
Maximum deflection = 0.335 mm

As per clause 23.2(b) of IS 456-2000, the maximum permissible deflection will be 20mm or span/350 whichever is less
Span/350 = 21.14285714 mm or 20 mm
therefore,permissible deflection = 20 mm
Actual horizontal deflection in present case = 0.335 mm < 20 mm
Hence Safe.
Vertical deflection :-

Span/350 = 21.14285714 mm or 20 mm
Hence Safe.
Hence thickness of lining = 400.00 mm is O.K. for Tunnel Full condition.

Annexure-9.14
FAIR Rock ( Q = 4 -10 ) :-

Case II - Tunnel Empty condition :-
(Ref: CBIP Publication No.178, IS:4880 (Part IV), IS:456-2000 & IRC 21-2000)
Dia of tunnel, D = 7.00 m

Thickness of lining, t = 0.400 m
Internal radius of tunnel, r = 3.500 m
Mean Radius of tunnel lining, R = 3.700 m
Mean Diameter of tunnel B = 7.400 m
Mean perimeter of tunnel Pmean = 26.424 m { (πR) + (2R+D+t) }
Grade of concrete fck = M25
Young's modulus of elasticity of lining material, E 2500000000 kg/m2
(5000√fck) = 2500000 t/m2
Moment of Inertia of the section, I = bt /12
3
= 0.0053 m4
As per IS4880-Part(IV) Table-1
Unit weight of water, w = 1.0 t/m3
Unit weight of concrete, wc = 2.4 t/m3
Unit weight of Rock, wr = 2.5 t/m3
For Fair rock strata condition, rock mass quality index (Q) is 4 to 10 as per IS 13365 (II);
The ultimate roof support pressure is Pru = (2/Jr) x (Qru)-1/3 x f ,
where Pru = ultimate roof pressure in kg/CM2
Jr = Joint roughness number
Qru = Ultimate rock mass quality = Q
f = correction factor for over burden
= 1 + (H-320)/800 >1
H = Overburden above crown or tunnel depth below ground level in meters
Rock mass quality index from GSI report = 4.00 Fair
Joint roughness number (Jr) = 1.5
Overburden height (H) = 74.52 m
Correction factor for overburden (f) = 1 + (H-320)/800
= 1+ ( 74.52 - 320 )
800
= 0.69315
If f<1.0, take as 1
therefore, f = 1
Support roof pressure Pru = (2/Jr) x (Qru)-1/3 x f
= 0.84 kg/cm2
or, 8.40 t/m2
Total rock load on mean diameter,P = 7.4 x 8.40
= 62.156 t {Ref. CBIP Publication no. 178, Pg47}
Tunnel Empty Condition
Horizontal deflection at horizontal diameter on either face
Due to rock load = 0.04167 P R3 = 9.90 mm

EI
Due to self weight = 0.13090 W c t R4 = 1.78 mm
EI
Due to contained water = 0.06545 Wc r2 R3 = 0.00 mm
EI
Total outward deflection = 9.901+1.777+0 = 11.68 mm
Let this deflection be limited to = 0.000 mm
Then the deflection due to passive resistance of rock = 11.68 mm

Annexure-9.14
Inward horizontal deflection due to lateral rock pressure of intensity equal to 1 t/m2
at horizontal diameter = 0.05055 KR4 = 11.68 mm
EI
Intensity of lateral pressure at horizontal diameter , K = 16.334 t
As per IS:4880(PART-IV) Appendix-C Moments,Thrust, shear,and Deflections are tabulated below.

Values of Bending Moments (t-m)
0° 0.1250 PR 28.75 0.4406 WctR2 5.79 0.2203W r2 R 0.00 -0.1434KR2 -32.07 2.47
45° 0 0.00 -0.0334WctR 2
-0.44 -0.0167W r R 2
0.00 -0.0084KR 2
-1.88 -2.32
90° - 0.1250 PR -28.75 -0.3927WctR2 -5.16 -0.1963W r2 R 0.00 0.1653KR2 36.96 3.05
135° 0 0.00 0.0334WctR2 0.44 0.0167W r2 R 0.00 -0.0187KR2 -4.18 -3.74
180° 0.1250 PR 28.75 0.3448WctR2 4.53 0.1724W r2 R 0.00 -0.1295KR2 -28.96 4.32
Values of Normal Thrust (t)

0° 0.00 0.00 0.1667WctR 0.59 -1.4166W r2 0.00 0.4754KR 28.73 29.32
45° 0.2500 P 15.54 1.1332WctR 4.03 -0.7869W r2 0.00 0.3058KR 18.48 38.05
90° 0.5000 P 31.08 1.5708WctR 5.58 -0.2146W r 2
0.00 0.00 0.00 36.66
135° 0.2500 P 15.54 0.4376WctR 1.55 -0.4277W r2 0.00 0.2674KR 16.16 33.25
180° 0.00 0.00 -0.1667WctR -0.59 -0.5834W r2 0.00 0.3782KR 22.86 22.26
Values of Radial Shear (t)

0° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
45° -0.2500 P -15.54 -0.8976WctR -3.19 -0.4488W r2 0.00 0.3058KR 18.48 -0.25
90° 0.00 0.00 0.1667WctR 0.59 0.0833W r2 0.00 -0.0246KR -1.49 -0.89
135° 0.2500 P 15.54 0.6732WctR 2.39 0.3366W r2 0.00 -0.2674KR -16.16 1.77
180° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Values of Horizontal Deflection (mm)

0° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
135° 0.01473PR /EI 3
3.50 0.04216WctR /EI
4
0.57 0.02108Wr R /EI
2 3
0.00 -0.01624KR4/EI -3.74 0.33
180° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Values of Vertical Deflection (mm)

0° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
135° 0.05640PR /EI 3
13.40 0.18535WctR4/EI 2.52 0.09268Wr R /EI
2 3
0.00 -0.06810KR /EI
4
-15.73 0.18

Annexure-9.14
Calculation of stresses in lining for tunnel full condition

0° 45° 90° 135° 180°
B.M. = 2.47 -2.32 3.05 -3.74 4.32
Normal Thrust = 29.32 38.05 36.66 33.25 22.26
Adopting grade of concrete. M25
Allowable bending stress in compression = 80 kg/cm2 ( From IS:456-2000 Table -21)
Permissible tensile strength = 20 kg/cm2 ( From IS:3370(P II )-1965, Table 1)
Considering 1.00 m length in circumferential direction
b = 100 cm
t = 40 cm
Equivalent area of 1m strip lining, A = 4000 cm2
Equivalent moment of inertia M.I = bD /123
= 100x40^3/12
= 533333
Modulus of the section Z = M.I

D/2
= 533333 x 2
40
= 26667
P M
Stresses on outer face : +
A Z
At Φ 0° 45° 90° 135° 180°
Stress (kg/cm )
2
16.601 0.821 20.619 -5.721 21.770
T/C C C C T C
P M
Stresses on inner face : -
A Z
At Φ 0° 45° 90° 135° 180°

Stress (kg/cm )
2
-1.939 18.201 -2.290 22.348 -10.638
T/C T C T C T
Maximum compressive stress = 21.770 kg / cm2 (Outer face)

= 80.00 kg / cm2 ( From IS:456-2000 table -21)
for M25
Hence Safe
Maximum tensile stress = 5.721 kg / cm2 (Outer face)

= 20.00 kg / cm2 ( From IS:3370(P II )-1965, Table 1)
for M25
Hence Safe
Check for Radial Shear :-

Maximum radial shear = 0.895 t
Therefore shear stress = 895.000

100 x 40
= 0.2238 kg / cm2
But permissible shear stress as per IS:456-2000, Table 24
Annexure-9.14
for M25 = 22.000 kg / cm2

Hence Safe.
Check for Normal Thrust :-
Maximum negative thrust = 38.045 t
Tensile stress in concrete = 38045

100 x 40
= 9.511 kg / cm2
But permissible stress in compression as per Cl 303.1 of IRC-21-2000
for M25 = 75.000 kg / cm2
Hence Safe.
Horizontal deflection : -

Span/350 = 21.14285714 mm or 20 mm
Hence Safe.
Vertical deflection :-

Span/350 = 21.14285714 mm or 20 mm
Hence Safe.
Hence thickness of lining = 400.00 mm is O.K. for Tunnel Empty condition.

Annexure-9.15(a)
Hydraulic design of Trashrack & Sizing of Outlet (Lower Reservoir) - Large Unit

Design Discharge at Trashrack/Outlet (Pump Mode) = 136.56 cumecs
Height of TRT, d = 7.00 m
Vertical Height of opening at outlet, H = 8.00 m Assumed
H<1.5d

Total Width of Opening at Outlet (including pier) = 23.50 m Assumed
Clear width of Opening at outlet = (23.5-1.5*2)

= 20.50 m
Provided Width-1 of Opening at Outlet (excluding pier) = 6.8 m
No. of Openings at each Outlet (width-1) = 2 Nos.
Width-2 of Opening at Outlet (Excluding Pier) = 6.90 m
No. of Openings at eachOutlet (width-2) = 1 Nos.
Total Width of Opening atOutlet/Trashrack (excluding pier) = (6.8*2+6.9*1)

20.50 m

2
= 169.74 m

2
= 144.28 m
= 0.95 m/s
The velocity through trash rack has been provided less than or equal to 1 m/s. Therefore, 3 sets of trash racks each 6.67 m
wide panels of 10.87 m inclined height has been provided. The clogging is not considered for the design of trash rack since,
the reservoir is a closed on four sides hence, no clogging is expected in the reservoir
Fixation of Invert Level at Outlet/Trashrack

Shape of TRT - Circular-Shaped
Diameter of TRT, D = 7 m
Sectional area of TRT, A = (π*7^2/4)
= 38.48 m2
Average Velocity in TRT, v = (136.56/38.48)
= 3.55 m/s
Submergenec Calculations From Center Line of TRT (IS:9761-1995)

= 0.428 >1/3 Clause no. 5.2.2
= (0.5+(2*0.428))*7
= 9.49 m
C/L elevation of Outlet = 614.10 m
623.59
Required bottom level of Outlet/trash rack = (614.1-7/2)
610.60 m
Provided MDDL at Outlet/Lower Reservoir = 623.93 m
Provided bottom level at Outlet Structure = 610.60 m

Annexure-9.15(a)
Submergenec Calculations From Outlet Invert Level

Velocity at Outlet Entrance, V = 0.73 m/s
= 0.082 <1/3
Clause no. 5.2.2
IF{Fr>=1/3,[(0.5+2*(Fr))*d],(1.5*H)}
Submergence Depth from Invert Level = (1.5*8)
= 12.00 m
Invert elevation of Outlet at Start = 610.60 m
Minimu submergence required = (610.6+12)
Therefore, The provided MDDL > Calculated MDDL
Type & Sizinge of Outlet

Type of Outlet Structure = Diffuser Type
Flare Angle of outlet wall with TRT wall = 13.50 deg. Assumed
Width of Outlet with 13.13 deg. = (23.5-7)/2
= 8.25 m
Length of transition from start of TRT to Outlet = 1/[TAN(13.5)]
= 34.36 m
Angle of Outlet Slab from Outlet to start of TRT = TANINVERSE[(8-7)/34.36]
1.67 deg.
Therefore, the outlet of Size 27 m wide & 10.6 high has been proposed
Annexure-9.15(b)
Hydraulic design of Trashrack & Sizing of Outlet (Lower Reservoir) - Small Unit

Design Discharge at Trashrack/Outlet (Pump Mode) = 68.44 cumecs
Height of TRT, d = 5.00 m
Vertical Height of opening at outlet, H = 5.20 m Assumed
H<1.5d

Total Width of Opening at Outlet (including pier) = 20.00 m Assumed
Clear width of Opening at outlet = (20-1.5*2)

= 17.00 m
Provided Width-1 of Opening at Outlet (excluding pier) = 5.65 m
No. of Openings at each Outlet (width-1) = 2 Nos.
Width-2 of Opening at Outlet (Excluding Pier) = 5.70 m
No. of Openings at eachOutlet (width-2) = 1 Nos.
Total Width of Opening atOutlet/Trashrack (excluding pier) = (5.65*2+5.7*1)

17.00 m
Provided Gross effective area of trashrack = (17*5.38)

2
= 91.46 m

2
= 77.74 m
= 0.88 m/s
The velocity through trash rack has been provided less than or equal to 1 m/s. Therefore, 3 sets of trash racks each 6.67 m
wide panels of 10.87 m inclined height has been provided. The clogging is not considered for the design of trash rack since,
the reservoir is a closed on four sides hence, no clogging is expected in the reservoir
Fixation of Invert Level at Outlet/Trashrack

Shape of TRT - Circular-Shaped
Diameter of TRT, D = 5 m
Sectional area of TRT, A = (π*5^2/4)
= 19.63 m2
Average Velocity in TRT, v = (68.44/19.63)
= 3.49 m/s
Submergenec Calculations From Center Line of TRT (IS:9761-1995)

= 0.498 >1/3 Clause no. 5.2.2
= (0.5+(2*0.498))*5
= 7.48 m
C/L elevation of Outlet = 613.10 m
620.58
Required bottom level of Outlet/trash rack = (613.1-5/2)
610.60 m
Provided bottom level at Outlet Structure = 610.60 m

Annexure-9.15(b)
Submergenec Calculations From Outlet Invert Level

Velocity at Outlet Entrance, V = 0.66 m/s
= 0.092 <1/3
Clause no. 5.2.2
IF{Fr>=1/3,[(0.5+2*(Fr))*d],(1.5*H)}
= 7.80 m
Invert elevation of Outlet at Start = 610.60 m
Minimu submergence required = (610.6+7.8)
Therefore, The provided MDDL > Calculated MDDL
Type & Sizinge of Outlet

Type of Outlet Structure = Diffuser Type
Flare Angle of outlet wall with TRT wall = 15.00 deg. Assumed
Width of Outlet with 13.13 deg. = (20-5)/2
= 7.5 m
Length of transition from start of TRT to Outlet = 1/[TAN(15)]
= 27.99 m
Angle of Outlet Slab from Outlet to start of TRT = TANINVERSE[(5.2-5)/27.99]
0.41 deg.
Therefore, the outlet of Size 27 m wide & 10.6 high has been proposed
SAUNDATTI PSP STORM RUNOFF CALCULATIONS FOR CATCHMENT-1
I. PHYSIOGRAPHIC PARAMETERS Annexure-9.16
Catchment area (from Toposheet) A = 1.100 Sq Km

Length of longest stream from source to bridge site L = 1.085 Km
Difference in elevation between farthest point and Bed Level = 170 m
Equivalent Stream slope (S) 1 in 6.38
Soil Type = Red & Yellow Soils
Sub zone Krishna & Pennar Subzone 3 (h)
II. Calculation of Equivalent Stream Slope (S)
Equivalent slope S = Lix(Di-1+ Di)/L2
Height
Segment Di-1+Di Li x (Di-1+Di)
S.No Distance R.L Above
Length
Datum
(km) (m) Li (km) Di (m) (m) (km x m)
1 0.00 660.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.47 700.00 0.47 40.00 40.00 18.72
3 0.55 740.00 0.09 80.00 120.00 10.20
4 0.64 780.00 0.08 120.00 200.00 17.00
5 1.085 830.00 0.45 170.00 290.00 129.63
Total 1.09 km 175.55
Natural slope is adopted as the equivalent slope is too low and unrealistic S = 149.122 m/Km
S = 1 in 6.71
III. CALCULATION OF FLOOD DISCHARGE AS PER RBF-16 (RATIONAL METHOD )

1) Design Flood discharge , Q = 0.278 x C x I x A m3/sec
2) Rainfall Runoff coefficient C = 0.415 x (R x F)0.2
Where,
R is 25 year 24 hour rainfall observed from SR-7 of CWC manual R25 = 12 cm

F is Areal Reduction Factor for an appropriate value of tc.
3) TIME OF CONCENTRATION (tc)
Bhatnagar's formula (for flatten slopes S>100) tc = (L3/H)0.345

Bransby William formula (for steep slopes S<100) tc = (0.618*L)/(A0.1xS0.2)
Therefore, time of concentration, tc = 0.185 hrs

For above tc the areal reduction factor, F = 0.72
Rainfall-Runoff coefficient, C = 0.643
4) Intensity of rainfall (I) is calculated as : I = R25(tc) / tc
Where, R25(tc) is 25-Yr 24-hr point Rainfall w.r.t tc
K is tc hr ratio / 1hr ratio
Therefore, Value of K = 0.41
R25(1 hr rainfall) = 50.840 mm
R25(tc) = 20.84 mm
Intensity of rainfall, I = 112.7 mm/hr
5) Design flood discharge Q25 = 0.278 x C x I x A Q25 = 22.15 m3/s

for a duration of Tc=0.185hrs
25YR DESIGN FLOOD VOLUME = 14754.63 m3
Saundatti PSP – PH Drainage Channel
Q (Required) = 23.00 cumecs

Q (Designed) = 25.33 cumecs OK
b (Bed Width) = 5.00 m
d (FSD) = 2.40 m Freeboard 0.750
Manning's coefficient,n = 0.014
Side slopes ( Inner) = 0.00 :1
( Outer) = 0.0 :1
Bed fall = 1 in 1500 Or 0.00067
Area = (5 + 2.4 x 0) x 2.4 = 12.00 Sq.m
P = 5 + ( 2 x 2.4 x sqrt(1 + 0 ^2 ))
= 9.80 m
R = A/P = 12 / 9.8 = 1.224 m
Velocity = R2/3 S1/2/n = 1.224 ^ 2/3 x 0.00067 ^1/2 / 0.014
= 2.11 m/sec
Vo = 0.391 d^0.55 = 0.633 m/sec
Critical Velocity Ratio (CVR) :
V/Vo = 2.11 / 0.633
= 3.34 CVR > 1, OK
Discharge ,Q = 12 x 2.11 = 25.33 Cumecs
FSL
1.0:1 2.400 m
Bed width 5.00 m
Hydraulic Particulars of the canal are tabulated below
1 Discharge required = 23.00 cumecs

2 Discharge designed = 25.33 cumecs
3 Bed width = 5.00 m
4 Full supply depth = 2.40 m
5 Free board (upto TBL) = 0.75 m
6 Side slopes = 0.0 : 1
7 Bed fall = 1 in 1500
8 Velocity = 2.11 m/sec
9 Top width of banks (I/NI) = 4m / 2m

SAUNDATTI PSP - INTAKE TRASH RACK (LARGER UNITS)
DESIGN CALCULATION FOR VIBRATION AND RESONANCE
DESIGN DATA:
TRASH RACK SIZE : 2.27 m X 7.76 m
NO'S OF PANELS : 4 NOS. / SET
PANEL SIZE : 2.27 mm X 1940 mm
1.0 STABILITY OF TRASH RACK FRAME FOR VIBRATIONS
(1) Natural frequency of Trash bars
Thickness of Trash bar, t = 16 mm

Depth of Trash bar, L = 95 mm
Clear Distance between bars, b = 134 mm
Distance between member, H ' = 970 mm (Support provided in Middle of

Trashrack Panel)
Natural frequency of bars in water is as under,
fn = M . ry g.E
H 2 ( Y + (b/t) Y1
b ) 0.5
… (1)
Where,
Radius of Gyration, ry
Elastic modulus of bar material, E = 2.1 x 106 kg/cm2
Density of bar material, Yb = 0.00785 kg/cm3
Fluid density of water, Y1 = 0.001 kg/cm3
Clear spacing between bars, b = 134 mm
Gravitational acceleration, g = 981 cm/s2
M = k = 22.4 = 3.566
2π 2xπ
(k=22.4, as both ends of Trash Rack bars are fixed)
The above equation is valid for b< 0.7, if b > 0.7 then b = 0.7 L to be considered.
Hence, b = 0.7 x 95 = 66.5 mm
b/t = 66.5 = 4.16

16
3
I xx = 1.6 x 9.5 = 114.3 cm4
12
3
I yy = 9.5 x 1.6 = 3.2 cm4
12
rx = √ Ixx / A = 2.742 cm
Page 1 of 2
ry = √ Iyy / A = 0.462 cm Least radius of gyration.
Now calculate the Natural frequency by putting above value in equation…… (1)
We get the natural frequency,

fn = 72.52 Hz
(2) Forcing Frequency
The Forcing Frequency (ff) is expressed in terms of Strouhal Number (S),
S = t x ff
V
Where,
Thickness of bars in cm, t = 1.6 cm
Approach velocity in cm/sec., V = 1.43 m/s

= 143.0 cm/s
S = 0.155 for rectangular Trash bars
Forcing frequency (ff) = VxS

t
= 143.0 x 0.155
1.6
ff = 13.85 Hz
The Ratio of Forcing frequency (ff) to Natural frequency (fn) = ff

fn
13.9
=
72.5
= 0.191 < 0.65 SAFE
Page 2 of 2
SAUNDATTI PSP - INTAKE TRASH RACK (SMALLER UNITS)
DESIGN DATA:
(1) Natural frequency of Trash bars ,

(Support provided in Middle of
Distance between member, H ' = 970 mm
Trashrack Panel)
fn = M . ry g.E
H 2 ( Y + (b/t) Y1
b ) 0.5
… (1)
Where,
M = k = 22.4 = 3.566
2π 2xπ
Hence, b = 0.7 x 95 = 66.5 mm
b/t = 66.5 = 4.16

16
3
I xx = 1.6 x 9.5 = 114.3 cm4
12
3
I yy = 9.5 x 1.6 = 3.2 cm4
12
rx = √ Ixx / A = 2.742 cm
Page 1 of 2

fn = 72.52 Hz
S = t x ff
V
Where,

= 143.0 cm/s

t
= 143.0 x 0.155
1.6
ff = 13.85 Hz

fn
13.9
=
72.5
= 0.191 < 0.65 SAFE
Page 2 of 2
SAUNDATTI PSP - OUTLET TRASH RACK (LARGER UNITS)
DESIGN DATA:
(1) Natural frequency of Trash bars ,

(Support provided in Middle of
Distance between member, H ' = 1035 mm
Trashrack Panel)
fn = M . ry g.E
H 2 ( Y + (b/t) Y1
b ) 0.5
… (1)
Where,
M = k = 22.4 = 3.566
2π 2xπ
Hence, b = 0.7 x 95 = 66.5 mm
b/t = 66.5 = 4.16

16
3
I xx = 1.6 x 9.5 = 114.3 cm4
12
3
I yy = 9.5 x 1.6 = 3.2 cm4
12
rx = √ Ixx / A = 2.742 cm
Page 1 of 2

fn = 63.7 Hz
S = t x ff
V
Where,

= 128.0 cm/s

t
= 128.0 x 0.155
1.6
ff = 12.40 Hz

fn
12.4
=
63.7
= 0.195 < 0.65 SAFE
Page 2 of 2
SAUNDATTI PSP - OUTLET TRASH RACK (SMALLER UNITS)
DESIGN DATA:
PANEL SIZE : 3105 mm X 1793 mm
(1) Natural frequency of Trash bars,

Distance between member, H ' = 896.5 mm (Support provided in Middle of

Trashrack Panel)
fn = M . ry g.E
H 2 ( Y + (b/t) Y1
b ) 0.5
… (1)
Where,
M = k = 22.4 = 3.566
2π 2xπ
Hence, b = 0.7 x 110 = 77 mm
b/t = 77 = 4.81
16
3
I xx = 1.6 x 11 = 177.5 cm4
12
3
I yy = 11 x 1.6 = 3.8 cm4
12
rx = √ Ixx / A = 3.175 cm
Page 1 of 2

fn = 82.67 Hz
S = t x ff
V
Where,

= 117.0 cm/s

t
= 117.0 x 0.155
1.6
ff = 11.33 Hz

fn
11.3
=
82.7
= 0.137 < 0.65 SAFE
Page 2 of 2

C - 9 Design Features - R0 - Revised Design Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

C - 9 Design Features - R0 - Revised Design Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

C - 9 Design Features - R0 - Revised Design Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti PSP .

Project Name Saundatti Pumped Storage Project

Name of Client Greenko MP01 IREP Private Limited

Doc No AA/POWER/2209/DPR/VOL I - Chapter 9

Doc Title Design Features of Major Components

Rev No Date of Issue Description

R1 25-01-2022 Design Features of Major Components

(Chapter-9; Volume-I of DPR)

R0 14-10-2021 Design Features of Major Components

(Chapter-9; Volume-I of DPR)

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 1

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 2

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 3

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 4

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 5

The major project components are:

• Tailrace Outlet structure.

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 1

9.2 Alternative Studies

Saundatti PSP envisages construction of

➢ Upper Dam (for formation of upper reservoir)

➢ Bottom Outlet Structure

➢ Surface Power House

➢ Adit to Pressure Shaft / Escape tunnel

➢ Tailrace Outlet Structure

9.3 Geological & Geotechnical Appraisal

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 2

9.4 Head Works

9.4.1 Site Selection for Reservoirs

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 3

➢ To keep the submergence area minimal.

➢ Shortest possible water conductor system.

➢ Site Topography & Geology.

9.4.2 Alternatives for Type of Dam

➢ Material costs for construction of embankments

➢ Time and costs used for trial tests.

➢ Preparation for construction, e.g., excavation, foundation, diversion and construction of

9.4.2.1Roller-Compacted Concrete Dam (RCC Dam)

9.4.2.2Asphalt Faced Rock 4ill Dam (AFRD)

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 4

9.4.2.3Rock 4ill Dam

➢ Soil/rock materials locally available are used with negligible processing.

➢ Rock:ill dams are more resistant to seismic forces.

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 5

Table 9.1: Salient Features of Proposed Upper Reservoir

Sl. No Description Upper Reservoir Lower Reservoir

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 6

9.5 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LAYOUTS

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 7

• Criteria for requirement surge tank based on L/H Ratio:

• Surge tank is not required when L/H ratio is less than 5

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 8

• Surge tank is required when L/H ratio exceeds 10

Σ (Li*Vi) = (1029.43* 4.83) = 2.450

9.5.1.1Geological & Geotechnical Appraisal:

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 9

Detailed Project Report of Saundatti Pumped Storage Project Page 10

Σ (LiVi) = (1029.43 4.83) = 2.450