voulume iii - technical annex

8/21/2019 Voulume III - Technical Annex

1/140

Nyadi Hydropower Project

Feasibility StudyFinal Report

Volume III Technical Annex

October, 2010

Appendix D Design calculation

Appendix E Optimization study

Appendix F Cost estimate and financial

AnalysisAppendix G Access road design report

Appendix H Photographs


2/140

Nyadi Hydropower Limited (NHL)

Nyadi Hydropower ProjectFeasibility Study

Final Report

Volume III Technical Annex

October, 2010

Nyadi Hydropower Limited (NHL)

Quality control Signature Date

Prepared by: Basanta Bagale

Lochan Devkota

Sumin Shrestha

Basanta M. Shrestha

Uttam Dhakal

Checked by: Saroj Lal Shrestha

Approved by: Bharat Raj Pandey

Appendix D Design calculation

Appendix E Optimization study

Appendix F Cost estimate and financial

Analysis

Appendix G Access road design report

Appendix H Photographs


3/140

Report Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

VOLUME 1 MAIN REPORT

VOLUME 2 INVESTIGATION ANNEX

APPENDIX A HYDROLOGY AND SEDIMENTOLGY

APPENDIX B TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY

APPENDIX C SITE INVESTIGATION (GEOLOGY AND

GEOTECHNICAL

VOLUME 3 TECHNICAL ANNEX

APPENDIX D DESIGN CALCULATION

APPENDIX E OPTIMIZATION STUDY

APPENDIX F COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCIALANALYSIS

APPENDIX G ACCESS ROAD DESIGN REPORT

APPENDIX H PHOTOGRAPHS

VOLUME 4 MAP AND DRAWINGS

APPENDIX J TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPSAPPENDIX K GEOLOGICAL MAPS

APPENDIX L CIVIL DRAWIGS

APPENDIX M ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS


4/140

Hydro Consult Nyadi Hydropower Project

Feasibility Study Volume III

Nyadi Hydropower Limited

APPENDIX D

DESIGN CALCULATION

NYADI HYDROPOWER PROJECT

FEASIBILITY STUDY

October, 2010


5/140

HYDRAULIC DESIGN

Weir Hydraulics

Orifice Design

Settling Basin Design

Penstock Design

Anchor Block Design

Surge Tank Design

Headloss Calculation Sheet

Power and Output Energy Calculation

HEC RAS Result

Turbine Design Calculation

Tailrace Tunnel Design

Level Determination of Powerhouse and tailrace


6/140


Weir Hydraulics

Calculation of U/S and D/S cutoffs, and Uplift Pressures

Discharge (100 yrs flood) m3/sec 509.00

Length of weir m 14.00

Weir crest elevation masl 1381.50

Coefficient of discharge Cd 2.10

Length of U/S floor m 26.50

Length of sloping glacies m 10.21Length of D/S floor (S tilling basin) m 21.00

Total floor length b m 57.71

Head over the crest m 6.69

U/S TEL masl 1388.19

Water level elevation U/S of the weir can be determined using the Bernoulli's equation and iteration

NOTE : The design of the Headworks Weir Arrangment has been done on the basis of Hydraulic Model Studies carried out at Hydro Lab Pvt Ltd. The detailed information

about the study result has been compiled on Hydraulic Model Study of the Headworks of Nyadi Hydropower Project.

Weir

8.000

12.000

21.00

10.21

26.50

2/3CLHQ =

U/S bed level m 1372.90

U/S total energy Ec m 15.29

Water depth m 14.93

U/S water level elevation (HGLu) 1372.9+14.93 m 1387.83

Free Board m 0.87

Guide wall Crest Elevation masl 1388.70

Depths of cutoffs

Scour depth U/S and D/S of the floor is determined by Newzealand Formula.

[Equation provided by Bharat Raj Pandey and used in Marsyangdi-III Hydroelectric Project (MHEP-III)]

Discharge intensity q m3/s/m 36.36

U/S Water Depth Y m 14.93

Velocity of Flow V m/s 2.66

Cross Sectional Area of Flow A m 209.04

Width of Flow B m 14.00

Constant k 0.62

Scour Depth measured from HFL dS =k.Y.V.B/A m 6.38

Depth of U/S cutoff below the U/S HFL =1.25 ds m 7.97

Level of bottom of U/S cutoff 1387.83-7.97 m 1379.86

Therefore, U/S cutoff depth below U/S floor 1371.5-1379.86 m -8.36 Cutoff Not Necessary

Provided U/S cutoff depth m 8.00 ADOPT

D/S water Elevationmasl

1378.07

Result from HECRAS Analysis -

WSE at RS 18 (Chainage 0+160)

Depth of D/S cutoff below the D/S HFL =1.50 ds m 9.57

Level of bottom of D/S cutoff 1378.07-9.57 m 1365.46

Therefore, D/S cutoff depth m 3.54 Cutoff Required

Provided D/S cutoff depth m 6.00 ADOPT

Uplift Pressures

U/S floor elevation masl 1371.50

D/S floor (basin) elevation masl 1369.00

Length of U/S cutoff m 8.00

Length of D/S cutoff m 6.00

)(2 11

yEg

qy

o

=

Page 1 of 2


7/140

U/S Cutoff Elevation masl 1363.50

D/S Cutoff Elevation masl 1363.00

D/S Curtain Grouting Depth m 6.00

[Reference: DWPF page no. 74 & 75 (Case 4 and Case 5) and table VII-5 of page no. 100]

Check for Thickness

For 100 yrs flood

U/S portion upto the just below the orifice

Total downstream forces acting (F1) = Weight of water over the concrete + Weight of the concrete

HFL Low Flow

Assume thickness 2.2 m 2 m

Upward force (uplift pressure) 160.20938 KN/m2 122.625 KN/m2

Downward force (weight of concrete +Weight of water) 213.00938 KN/m2 170.625 KN/m2

Factor of saftey 1.330 ok 1.400 ok

U/S portion upto sloping portion starting from just below the orifice


HFL Low Flow

Assume thickness 2.2 m 2.6 m

Upward force (uplift pressure) 160.20938 KN/m2 122.625 KN/m2



sloping portion


HFL Low Flow

Assume thickness 3 m 2.8 m

. .



Stilling Basin


HFL Low Flow

Assume thickness 3.2 m 3.2 mUpward force (uplift pressure) 160.20938 KN/m2 160.20938 KN/m2



note: this thickness can reduced gardually upto 1.5m

Check for exit gradient

Normal flow condition Flood flow condition

Seepage head 12.500 9.761

Depth of central cutoff (assume)

Intermediate cutoff

length of weir section 57.710 57.710

Total floor length (creep length) b 97.710 97.710

a =b/d 8.143 8.143

4.602 4.602

Permissible exit gradient GE per =1/6 0.167 0.167

Exit Gradient GE 0.155 0.121

OK OK

For Added Safety

Provide the drainage hole of dia 0.15m at 2.8m C/C throught the section

2

11 2

++

=

=

1

d

hEG

Page 2 of 2


8/140


Date

Job :

Job No:

Calculated by:

Design Considerations/Assumptions Checked by:

1. The intake opening will be submerged orifice, and may be open during full flushing

2. The orifice will be above river bed level to exclude bigger sediment

3. The top level of the orifice will be just below normal water level so that floatinig debris can be excluded,4. The design discharge is 11.08 m3/sec

5.

6. 20% of the design discharge is taken as Flushing discharge at gravel trap and settling basin during the period of continuous flushing

7. Normal water level 1381.5 m

8. River bed level at intake is taken as 1371.6

9. During high flood condition the radial gate will open accordingly

1 Input Data

Percentage Exceedence ~40 %

Design turbine discharge (Qpower) = 11.08 m3/sec

Gravel Flushing Discharge (QSF) = 10%

Sediment Flushing discharge (Qb) = 10%

Set Velocity (V) = 0.60 m/s

Orifice height/depth (H) = assumed 3.50 m

No of bay 3 nos

Central pier thickness (t) 0.50 m

Each bar thickness 0.01 mSpacing of each bar 0.25 m

Width of orifice provided (B)= 2.25 m

Normal Water level (NWL)= 1381.5 m

Invert level of orifice 1376.5 m Plan sketch

Discharge coffiecient (c) = 0.60 for roughly finished masonary

orifice

Accleration due to ravit = 9 81 2

ORIFICE DESIGN-1

Velocity will be limited to 0.5 to 1.1 m/s during normal flow conditions for the exclusion of bed load and floating load to remain at the trash rack (Ref: Emile Mosony 2/A)

I:\ED\Jobs\OPEN\751220 Nyadi Implementation\03Reports\Final Review 30 MW as per Damodar Hydrology_23 Nov\VOLUME III - Technical Annex\Appendix D - Design Calculations\2.Orifice self sheet Q=11.08_November 22, 2010.xlsx

. m sec

2 Calculation

2.1 During Normal Flow Condition

Gravel Flushing Discharge (QSF) = 1.108 m3/sec

Sediment Flushing discharge (Qb) = 1.108 m3/sec

Total discharge (Qdesign) = 13.30 m3/sec

Net area of orifice required 22.16 m2

Gross horizontal opening 7.25 m

No of bar in each bay 8 NosNet horizontal opening provided 6.51 m

Net vertical height of orifice required (H)= 3.40 m

Net area provided 22.79 m2

Top level of orifice opening 1380.00 m

Check the discharge in headrace canal by the formula below;

h = (Q/AC)2/2g

h 0.05 m

hh(normal) 1381.45 m

Q = A.C. (2g (hr-hh))= 13.67 m3/s

V = Q/A 0.60 m/s

2.2 During Flood Flow Condition

The radial gate will be open accordingly to pass the high flood

h

3 Output

No of orifice = 3 Nos

Orifice Height (H) = 3.50 m

Each Orifice Width (W) = 2.25 m

Clear vertical spacing of bar to bar = 0.25 m

Thickness of central pier = 0.50 m

TRUEOrifice size is ok

Velocity Ok

OK

I:\ED\Jobs\OPEN\751220 Nyadi Implementation\03Reports\Final Review 30 MW as per Damodar Hydrology_23 Nov\VOLUME III - Technical Annex\Appendix D - Design Calculations\2.Orifice self sheet Q=11.08_November 22, 2010.xlsx


9/140



Hydraulic Design Review of Settling Basin

Note: Size review (Ref. Feasibility Study Report March 20 00)

Design flow (QT) 11.08 m3/sec

Flushing discharge (Qflush) 1.108 m3/sec (10% of design flow)

Total discharge in basin (Qbasin) = 12.188 m3/sec

No of basin 1 nos first trial

Discharge in one basin (Q1basin) = 12.188 m3/sec

Criteria: > 90% settling of 0.2 mm

Fall velocity (w) 0.02 m/sec 1.5 cm/s ec For 0.2 mm partic le and 150C temperature

Water temperature 150C

Assume inlet transition 1:5 expansions, which gives t he performance parameter m = 1/5 (very good performance)Use Vetter's equation and Hazen's method to calculate Set tling basin surface area:

h = 1 - e- (w*A/Q)

1-h = (1+m w Ap/Q)(-1/m)

0.125

A, m2 h A, m2 h

Vetters equation

2200 0.973 2500 0.964

2190 0.973 2480 0.963

2180 0.972 2460 0.962 Hazen's equation

2170 0.972 2440 0.961

2160 0.971 2420 0.960

2150 0.971 2400 0.959

2140 0.970 2380 0.958

2130 0.970 2360 0.958

2120 0.969 2340 0.957

2110 0.969 2320 0.956

2100 0.968 2300 0.955

2090 0.968 2280 0.954

2080 0.967 2260 0.953

2070 0.967 2240 0.951

2060 0.966 2220 0.950

2050 0.965 2200 0.949

2040 0.965 2180 0.948

2030 0.964 2160 0.947

2020 0.964 2140 0.946

2010 0.963 2120 0.944

=

=

1 e

wA

Q

s

( )( )mQmwA /1/11 +=

Page 1 of 2

2000 0.962 2100 0.943

1990 0.962 2080 0.942

1980 0.961 2060 0.940

1970 0.961 2040 0.939

1960 0.960 2020 0.938

1950 0.959 2000 0.936

1940 0.959 1980 0.935

1930 0.958 1960 0.933

1920 0.957 1940 0.931

1910 0.956 1920 0.930

1900 0.956 1900 0.928

1890 0.955 1880 0.926

1880 0.954 1860 0.925

1870 0.954 1840 0.923

1860 0.953 1820 0.921

1850 0.952 1800 0.919

1840 0.951 1780 0.917

1830 0.950 1760 0.915

1820 0.950 1740 0.913

1810 0.949 1720 0.911

1800 0.948 1700 0.909

1790 0.947 1680 0.906

1780 0.946 1660 0.904

1770 0.945 1640 0.902

1760 0.944 1620 0.899

1750 0.943 1600 0.897

1740 0.942 1580 0.894

1730 0.942 1560 0.891

1720 0.941 1540 0.889

1710 0.940 1520 0.886

1700 0.939 93.856% 1500 0.883

1690 0.938 1480 0.880

1680 0.937 1460 0.877

1670 0.935 1440 0.874

1660 0.934 1420 0.871

1650 0.933 1400 0.867

1640 0.932 1380 0.864

1630 0.931 1360 0.860

1620 0.930 1340 0.857

1610 0.929 1320 0.853

1600 0.928 1300 0.849

1590 0.926 1280 0.845

1580 0.925 1260 0.841 A used 1700

1570 0.924 1240 0.837

1560 0.923 1220 0.832

1550 0.921 1200 0.828

1540 0.920 1180 0.823

( )( )mQmwA /1/11 +=

Page 1 of 2


10/140


1530 0.919 1160 0.819

1520 0.917 1140 0.814

1510 0.916 1120 0.809

1500 0.915 1100 0.804

1490 0.913 1080 0.798

1480 0.912 1060 0.793

1470 0.910 1040 0.787

1460 0.909 1020 0.781

1450 0.907 1000 0.775

1440 0.906 980 0.769

1430 0.904 960 0.763

1420 0.903 940 0.756

1410 0.901 920 0.749

1400 0.899 900 0.742

1390 0.898 880 0.735

1380 0.896 860 0.727

1370 0.894 840 0.720

1360 0.893 820 0.712

Calculate basin width based on Vetter's method:

No of chambers 1 2 3 8.8542

Flow per chamber, m3/sec 12.188 6.094 4.063 13.281

Assumed width, m 8.000 8.000 8.000 13.28 Width and Length ratio OK

Required length for 1700 m2 =assumed (area/ width) 212.50 106.25 70.83

Minimum depth = Q/BV 7.74 3.87 2.58

Maximum flow velocity V = 0.44*SQRT(dlimit) (ref. Civil works guidelines for micro- hydropower in Nepal, page # 73)

Where, dlimit = 0.15 mm

V = 0.20 m/s

Adopt two basins width of Adopt

25 25.00

39.5

Sediment storage in two chambers:S = Q*T*C

S - sediment load in kg stored in the basin

Q - Discharge in m3/sec

T - sediment emptying frequency in seconds 28800 (8 hrs)

C - sediment concentration of the incoming flow in kg/m3, assume 10,000 ppm 10 kg

Sediment density 2600 Kg/m3

Packing factor of density 0.5

Sediment load (S) = 3510144 Kg

Required inlet transition length@1:9 (For

Horizontal transition)

m (transition from 3 m wide canal to 16

m wide settling basin)

Page 2 of 2

o ume o se iment . m

Required depth 3.08 m

Total required depth 6.952 m. 7.00 Adopted

Water level at settling basin 1377.50 m

Bottom level of Beginning of parallel section 1370.50 m

Available head for flushing 6.625 m

Checking for flushing of deposition in settling basin

h, b, m, a, p, R, n, s, v, Q,

particle

size, based

on Shield's

simplied

formula

particle

size, based

on ACI

committee

report

m m h:m m2

m m m/s m3/s mm mm

0.40 0.50 1.00 0.20 1.30 0.15 0.015 0.02 2.71 0.54 33.85 305.00

0.43 0.50 1.00 0.22 1.36 0.16 0.015 0.02 2.76 0.59 34.78 316.26

0.45 0.50 1.00 0.23 1.40 0.16 0.015 0.02 2.79 0.63 35.36 323.29

0.50 0.50 1.00 0.25 1.50 0.17 0.015 0.02 2.86 0.71 36.67 339.35

The present table shows that at any height the deposited sediments will be flushed out.

Flushing time calculation for intermittent flushing of single chamber

Sediment volume in settling basin 1350.1 m3 Total volume of sediment/No. of chambers

Design inflow to settling basin 6.09 m3/sec Total basin discharge/No. of chambers

Inflow to settling basin during flushing 4.88 m3/sec 80% of design flow of each chamber of settling basinus n g sc a rge w en

the gate is opened fully) 1.67 m3/sec b*h*0.65*sqrt(2*g*H)

Assuming that the settling basin will not be empitied, only deposition will be flushed out

Vt= V in + Qin*t-Qflush* t Accumulated volume in t ime t = previously stored volume+discharge vol in

t time-outgoing volume due to flushing in t time

t = -7.0 Min

Drain time 13.5 Min

Recharge time 3.7 Min

Total time required 10.2 Min

Adopted size of settling basin Adopted

Inlet transition length = 25.00 m. 25.00 m.

Width of chamber = 8.00 m 8.00 m

Settling basin efficency = 93% 93.00%

Nos. of chamber = 2 nos. 2.00 nos.

Length of parallel section = 106.00 m 128.00 m

Water depth in parallel section = 3.90 m 4.50 m

Required storage depth = 3.08 m 3.75 m

Total depth of settling basin including f reeboard = 7.98 m 10.30 m

Page 2 of 2


11/140

Hydro Consult

CALCULATION FORM

Date: Calc. by Basanta Bagale

Job: Nyadi HP Job no. 751220 Chkd.

Input Datas Drg. No.

Project Life Period= 30 years

Design Discharge(Q)= 12.19 m3/s =1.1 times Design discharge

Tunnel Intake Level= 1381.50 m

Tail Race Water Level= 1032.00 m

Gross Head= 347 m

Length of headrace Tunnel (L)= 3955.00 m

Section Type of Head Race tunnel =>

Diameter of Tunnel= 3.20

X-section area of Head Race Tunnel (f) = 9.141 m2

Wetterd Perimeter of Tunnel (Pt)= 11.427 m

Hydraulic Radius of Tunnel (Rt)= 0.8 m

Area of Surge Tank(F)= 19.635 m2

Tunnel lining Material= Concrete

Manning's Coefficient for Concrete lines Tunnel(n)= 0.015

Coefficient of Roughness for tunnel(K)= 66.667

Ressistance Factor ()= 1.318059579

Damping Factor(m)= 0.014044698

Diameter of penstock (dp)= 1.75 m

Area of X-section of Penstock(Ap)= 2.405 m2

Diameter of pipe after tri-forcation(dtp)= 1 m

Orifice Head loss Coefficient(d)= 1.843

Is calculated from

Manning's

Strickler Formula

= 1.1*L/(K^2)/(R^(4/3))


12/140

Hydro Consult

CALCULATION FORM Date: Calc. by Basanta Bagale

Job no. 751220 Chkd.

Job: Nyadi HP Drg. No.

Objective: Calculation for the submergence in the surge tank

hs > 1.5*Vp^2/2/g

where,

hs= Submergence Head

Vp= Velocity in Penstock

g= acceleration due to gravity

Vp =Q/Ap

Where,

At= X-section area of Tunnel

Q= Discharge through Tunnel 12.19 m3/sec

dt= diameter of Tunnel 3.2 m

At= 9.141 m2

Vt= 1.333 m/s

Gordon (1970)

S= submegence (ft.)

k= coefficient 0.3 for symmetrical approach 0.30

0.4 for unsymmetrical approach 0.40

1.73 m

Prosser (1977)

4.80 m

ITDG Manual

0.14 m

4.800 mConsidered submergence (S)

Submergence (S)

Submergence (S)

Submergence (S)

dkvS=

dS 5.1=

g

vS

25.1

2


13/140

Hydro Consult

CALCULATION FORM

Date: Calc. by Basant Bagale

Job: Nyadi HP Job no. 751220 Chkd.

Summary Drg. No.

Surge Calculated from Finite Difference Method

Surge Level Max. Surge Surge Level(m) Max. Surge(m)

1367.665 12.485

1390.288 9.012 1376.604 4.672

1390.288 9.012 1367.665 12.485

5 m

Free Board for Surge Tank= 1.712 m

4.8 m

So,

21.497

Now,

1381.5 masl

1390.288 masl 22.623

1367.665 masl

1392.000 masl 1392 1.712

1360.265 masl

Thickness of Surge Shafts

Elevation form Elevation to Height(m) Thickness(m)

Estimated

Reinforcement

(t)

Volume ofconcrete

Wt. of Concrete

1362.224 1363.224 1.000 5 0.398879524 orifice

1363.224 1370.046 6.822 0.9 2.285 877.8524706 219.4631176

1370.046 1376.868 6.822 0.7 1.656 823.843969 205.9609922

1376.868 1383.690 6.822 0.5 1.065 771.550023 192.8875057

1383.690 1390.512 6.822 0.3 0.513 720.9706326 180.2426581

3194.217095 798.5542738

Level of Center of Head Race Tunnel=

Static Water level=

Water level of Highest Upsurge=

Level of Lowest Downsurge=

Absolute Maximum Surge=

Diameter of surge tank=

Submergence head=

Total surge in Surge Shaft=

Upsurge

Level of the top of ST=

Downsurge

Open all Valves from closed stage=

Closing All Valves at once=


14/140

Nyadi Penstock Alignment Bend details surface plus vertical shaft

Easting Northing

X Y

10.00 PS 0.00 0.5 0 541632.30 3134827.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 1393.95 1355.50 0 .00 -3

2 17.45 TP 0.00 0.83 -0.01 541632.97 3134810.02 17.45 17.45 17.45 1380.24 1355.25 0.25 -2

339.71 VB1 0.00 0.83 5.31 541633.82 3134787.78 22.26 22.26 39.71 1362.72 1354.93 0 .32 -7

4 93.62 VB2 0.00 6.14 10.83 541635.89 3134733.91 53.91 54.22 93.93 1349.74 1349.125 5 .80 -05156.02 CB3 11.24 16.97 18.31 541638.28 3134671.55 62.40 65.24 159.18 1331.08 1330.080 19.04 -

6 213.07 VB4 0.00 35.28 -12.99 541629.31 3134615.21 57.05 69.89 229.07 1290.71 1289.710 40.37 -

7273.07 VB5 0.00 22.29 -0.93 541619.88 3134555.95 60.00 64.85 293.92 1265.11 1265.111 24.60 0

8 333.075 CB6 1.62 21.36 -6.61 541610.45 3134496.70 60.00 64.43 358.34 1241.64 1241.643 23.47 0

9393.066 VB7 0.00 12.83 -12.83 541602.02 3134437.30 59.99 61.53 419.87 1227.98 1227.980 13.66 0

10 440.616 VB8 0.00 14.75 -14.75 541595.33 3134390.23 47.55 55.35 475.22 1213.76 1213.320 14.66 -0

475.22 m

Bend angle Bend angle Pipe Summary:

C lockwise (downturn bend) +ve Anticlockwise(upturn) -ve

underground 1750

ID Pipe L 200.16m

1450 ID

Pipe L

1750 ID Pipe L

675.38m

1000 ID

Pipe L 4

tock Start, TP = Tunnel Portal, VB= Vertical Bend, CB= Combined bend

Transition

(1.75-

1.45)

Anc to anch.

hor distance,

m (from

coordinates)

Anc to anch incl

Length at pipe

bottom (Leff), m

Cumulative

Length

of pipe, m

Ground

Level , masl

Gro

inv

he

Invert

Level, m

Invert

level diff,

m

S.

No.

Chainage,

m

Anchor

Identific-

ation/SOP

Hor.

defln

Angle

'Degree'

Verical

Angle with

horizontal

a 'Degree'

Ver. delection

angle degree

5.Penstock Calculation_350MPA_Q=11.08_November 22 2010.xls


15/140

Nyadi Penstock Calculation

Weir Elevation 1381.5 m

Turbine Level 1034.5 m Effective Thickness =

Design flow Qd 11.08 m3/s

Static head Hg 347.00 m

Length of penstock pipe Lp 675.38 m

Youngs' modulus of steel E 200,000 N/mm2

Yield Stress of steel S 350 N/mm2 40mm THK

Steel Specification SAILMA 350

Required Safety Factor SF 2.5

Steel Density 7850 kg/m3

Water Density 1000 kg/m3

Welding efficiency 0.9

1 USD 71.25 Rs

Rate of Steel 170.5 Rs/kg

Surge Head = 0.15 x Static Head

Rate of Steel 2.39 USD/kg Water Hammer =10 ~15 % of static head (Refer:E. mosonyi, Pg 715 (old))

Nos of turbine units 3

Number of nozzle in each turbine units 2

Surge Head 15% Static Head

NOTE: Penstock permissible veloci ty for properly settled water with respect to abrassion, v = 3 to 5 m/se

(Refer: Mosonyi High Head Power Plants Volume Two/A page 330

Segment #1

Static head 51.42 m Elevation 1330.08 m

Length of penstock 159.22 m

Diameter, d, mm 1250 1350 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950

Penstock flow velocity,V m/s 9.03 7.74 6.71 5.87 5.18 4.61 4.12 3.71

Handling Thickness, mm 4.40 4.65 4.90 5.15 5.40 5.65 5.90 6.15

Gross thickness, mm 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Effective thickness, teff mm 4.88 5.11 5.34 5.57 5.80 6.03 6.26 6.49

Internal Pressure, N/Mm^2 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58

Sur e Head, Hs m 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71

( ) 2)**2/(** += wyw FOSdPit

2*

*4

d

QdV

=

Tw HgPi **=

Page 2of 3

, . . . . . . . .

Total Head, Htot m 59.13 59.13 59.13 59.13 59.13 59.13 59.13 59.13

Factor of safety 4.10 3.92 3.75 3.59 3.45 3.32 3.20 3.08

Check OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK

Weight of steel, ton 41 45 48 51 55 58 61 65

Segment #2



Diameter, d, mm 1250 1350 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950

Penstock flow velocity,V m/s 9.03 7.74 6.71 5.87 5.18 4.61 4.12 3.71Gross thickness, mm 8 10 10 10 10 12 12 12



Surge Head, Hs m 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75

Total Head, Htot m 120.75 120.75 120.75 120.75 120.75 120.75 120.75 120.75

Factor of safety 2.54 3.00 2.84 2.69 2.56 2.93 2.80 2.69



Segment #3



Diameter, d, mm 1250 1350 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950





Surge Head, Hs m 23.55 23.55 23.55 23.55 23.55 23.55 23.55 23.55

Total Head, Htot m 180.55 180.55 180.55 180.55 180.55 180.55 180.55 180.55

Factor of safety 2.78 2.61 2.87 2.71 2.57 2.80 2.67 2.55



Segment #4

Static head 232.75 m Elevation 1156.20


Diameter, d, mm 1250 1350 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950



( ) 2)**2/(** += wyw FOSdPit

2*

*4

d

QdV

=

Tw HgPi **=

Page 2of 3


16/140



Surge Head, Hs m 34.91 34.91 34.91 34.91 34.91 34.91 34.91 34.91

Total Head, Htot m 267.66 267.66 267.66 267.66 267.66 267.66 267.66 267.66

Factor of safety 2.66 2.80 2.63 2.75 2.61 2.72 2.59 2.80



Segment #5

Static head 267.75 m Elevation 1121.20Length of penstock 35.00 m

Diameter, d, mm 1250 1350 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950





Surge Head, Hs m 40.16 40.16 40.16 40.16 40.16 40.16 40.16 40.16

Total Head, Htot m 307.91 307.91 307.91 307.91 307.91 307.91 307.91 307.91

Factor of safety 2.65 2.75 2.58 2.67 2.53 2.72 2.59 2.76



Segment #6



Diameter, d, mm 1250 1350 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950


Gross thickness, mm 20 22 22 25 25 28 28 30Effective thickness, teff mm 18.94 20.30 21.65 23.01 24.36 25.72 27.07 28.43


Surge Head, Hs m 45.41 45.41 45.41 45.41 45.41 45.41 45.41 45.41

Total Head, Htot m 348.16 348.16 348.16 348.16 348.16 348.16 348.16 348.16

Factor of safety 2.64 2.71 2.54 2.72 2.57 2.72 2.59 2.64



Page 3of 3

Segment #7



Diameter, d, mm 1250 1350 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950





Surge Head, Hs m 52.72 52.72 52.72 52.72 52.72 52.72 52.72 52.72

Total Head, Htot m 404.17 404.17 404.17 404.17 404.17 404.17 404.17 404.17

Factor of safety 2.54 2.69 2.52 2.65 2.50 2.54 2.57 2.75



weight of steel 277 326 363 410 436 513 549 614

weight of steel with Wastage (5%) 305 369 402 455 503 539 640 722

Cost of steel, USD 730218 882081 961225 1089938 1203093 1289963 1530931 1727929

Selected Diameter = 1750 mm

Section Segment#1 Segment#2 Segment#3 Segment#4 Segment#5 Segment#6 Segment#7

Length of penstock of section, m 159.22 124.02 176.63 75.75 35.00 35.00 69.76

Static Head, m 51.4 105.0 157.0 232.8 267.8 302.75 351.45

Surge Head, m 7.7 15.8 23.6 34.9 40.2 45.4 52.72

Total Head, m 59.13 120.75 180.55 267.66 307.91 348.16 404.17

Pipe Thickness. mm 8 12 16 22 25 28 30

Pipe weight. Ton 58 68 129 76 40 45 96

Penstock pipe 539 Ton

Expansion Joints 16 Ton

Stifners, saddle, wear plate 15 Ton

Weight of 1.45 m dia pipe 5.10 Ton

Weight of 1 m dia pipe 8.74 Ton

Total weight of Steel 584 Ton

Total Cost of steel, USD 1,397,277.11

Page 3of 3


17/140

ob Nyadi Hydropower Project (NHP)

Subject Anchor Block Design Calculated By:

Date Checked By:

ANCHOR BLOCK- CB3

Chainage: 0+156.02

Length of Penstock 675.38 m

Weir Level 1381.50 masl

Anchor Block Level 1330.08 masl

Ground Level 1331.08 masl

Young's Modulus ,E E 200000 N/mm2

Design Discharge, Q Q 11.08 m3/sec

Nominal wall thicknesss, t t 16.00 mm

Pipe internal diameter,d d 1750 mm

Pressure wave velocity, a a 976.236 m/s

Velocity in Penstock, v v 4.61 m/s

Critical time, Tc Tc 1.38 sec

Closure time, T T 6 sec

Nos of turbine units 3

Number of nozzle in each turbine units 2

Angle of internal friction f 30o

Unitweight of concrete gconcrete 24.00 kN/m3

Hydro Consult

CALCULATION SHEET

Page 1of 2

Unitweight of steel gsteel 78.50 kN/m3

Unitweight of soilg

soil 18.00kN/m

3

for boulder mixed soilFriction coeff f 0.25 for steel to rusty plates movement, ITDG, Pg 7-9

Coefficien of friction of soli m 0.50 RESULTS:

Allowable bearing capacity 160.00 kN/m2

Expansion Contraction

Safe When Check against overturning Safe When Check against overturning

Deflection angle in horz bend D 11.241 Safe When Check on bearing capacity Safe When Check on bearing capacity

Deflection angle in vert bend u/s a 16.97 Sa fe When Check against s lid ing Sa fe When Check against s lid ing

Deflection angle in vert bend d/s b 35.28

1/2 the distance betn u/s pier to anchor block L1u 4.00 m

1/2 the distancebetn d/s pier to anchor block L1d 4.00 m

Distance between two consecutive support

piers L2u 8.00 m

Distance to upstream expansion joint L4u 65.89 m

Distance to d/s expansion joint L4d 5.65 m As exp joints is just 2.0m d/s from anchor block face

Distance between consecutive anchor blocks 65.24 m

Penstock clear cover by anchor at uphill face 1.00 m 0.010Asume width of block B 6.00 m Base width 7.50

Length of block L 7.30 m Base thickness 1.00

Assume height of block at upstream end hu 6.00 m

Number of support pier 9.00 14.6 4.866667 29.2 48.6666667

Assume height of block at downstream end hd 4.00 m 0.4 4.055556 4.866667

Assume depth o f burried at upstream h1 2.00 m

Increase the downstream depth by factor 0.00 Projection Depth = 0

Buried depth of block at d/s face h2 1.000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00

Page 1of 2


18/140


19/140

Tunnel intake Level 1381.50 m Turbine axis level 1034.00 m

Generator Effeciency 97.00% Turbine Efficiency 89.00%

Transfermer efficiency 99.00%

Gross head, m 347.50 m Overall efficiency 85.47%

Dry season outage 4% Wet season outage 4%

Synchronous Speed N 473 rpm Frequency f 50 Hz

Turbine units n 3 No Number of nozzle nj 2 No

Length of tunnel 3950.00 m Length of penstock 650 m

Manning's coefficient 0.014 For concrete Friction coeficient 0.0200 For shotcrete

Tunnel Diameter 3.20 m Penstock Diameter 1.750 m

Height to the stringer 1.60 m

NYADI HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

TURBINE DESIGN CALCULATION

Sectional Area of tunnel 9.14 m Tunnel Perimeter 11.427 m

Probability excedence, % 40.00%

Design flow, m3/s 11.08 m

3/s D/s release m

3/s 0.308 m

3/s

Rated power Calculation

Gross head Hg 347.500 m Gross head = Turbine axis level - Tunnel intake level

Net head H 339.370 m Net Head = Gross head - Total head loss

Net power in kW P 30000.00 kW Net power = Unit wt. of water x Overall efficiency x Design discharge x Net head

Net power in MW PMW 30.00 MW In MW Net power = 30000/1000

Net power in horse power Php 40215 Hp In Horse power Net power = 30000/0.746

Page 1 of 3


20/140



Synchronous SpeedSpecific Speed for single Jet (assume) 20.00 Ref: High head power plants E. Mosonyi Vol 2/B; Pg 859, eqn 28/101

jet diameter dj 0.172 m Ref: High head power plants E. Mosonyi Vol 2/B; Pg 854, eqn 6/101

pitch circle diameter D 1.862 m Ref: High head power plants E. Mosonyi Vol 2/B; Pg 856, eqn 16/101

Synchronous Speed Ns 397 rpm Ref: High head power plants E. Mosonyi Vol 2/B; Pg 856, eqn 16/101

Synchronous Speed for multiple jets Ns 561 rpm

no of pole pair 5.35 Ref: Water Power Engineering M.M Dandekar; Pg 310, eqn 13.3

Take no of pole pair P 6 Pairs

Calculated Synchronous Speed N 473 rpm Ref: Water Power Engineering M.M Dandekar; Pg 310, eqn 13.3

Calculated Specific Speed (of runner with 2 jet)Ns

37.6Ref: Water Power Engineering M.M Dandekar; Pg 310, eqn 13.4

Dischar e in each unit, Q /n Q 3 693 m3/s Dischar e er unit = 11.08/3 . .

The actual velocity of jet at nozzle is given by

Ref: High head power plants E. Mosonyi Vol 2/B; Pg 854, eqn 2/101

Vj 79.151 m/s Nozzle Velocity = KvXSQRT(2X9.81Xnet head)

Where Kv Varies from 0.96 to 0.99 Kv 0.97

The speed ratio Kuvaries frpom 0.43 to 0.47 Ku 0.44 Ref: Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics P.N. Modi & S. M. Seth; Pg 1017

Bucket velocity = KuVj u 34.827 m/s Bucket velocity = 0.44X79.151 m/s

Mean Diameter of the Pelton Wheel (pitch diameter) is

Ref: Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics P.N. Modi & S. M. Seth; Pg 1017

D 1.406 m Pitch Diameter = (60X34.827)/(3.142X)

Adopt D 1.500 m

Calculation of Nozzle Diameter Method 1

Nozzle Discharge Qt/nj Qj 1.847 m3/s Discharge per unit = 3.694/2 m3/s

Diameter of Nozzle, D/m 0.172 m Nozzle Diameter = SQRT(1.84666666666667X4)/(3.142X79.151)

Adopt Nozzle, diameter d 0.180 m This should be equal to or greater than calculated nozzle diameter

Here, actual specific speed for single jet 26.040 rpm Ref: High head power plants E. Mosonyi Vol 2/B; Pg 856, eqn 16/101

Nozzle Area a 0.0254 m2

Nozzle area =3.142X(0.18X0.18)/4 m2

Calculated jet ratio m 8.33 Calculated jet ratio = 1.5/0.18

Number of buckets Z 20 No Number of buckets = 0.5X8.33333333333333+15

gHKVvj

2=

N

uD

60=

4

1

90

H

Ns

=

Page 2 of 3


21/140



Calculation of Nozzle Diameter Method 2

Total Area of nozzle required for the discharge in unit a 0.047 m2

Total nozzle area = 3.693/79.151 m2

Adopt jet ratio m 11 Varies from 11 to 14

Diameter of Nozzle, D/m d 0.136 m Nozzle Diameter = 1.5/11 m

Adopt Nozzle, diameter d 0.140 m

Nozzle Area a 0.0146 m2

Nozzle area =3.142X(0.14X0.14)/4 m2

Number of nozzle nj 3.195 No Required number of nozzle = 0.047/0.015

Number of nozzle (adopt) nj 3 No

Calculated jet ratio m 11 Calculated jet ratio = 1.5/0.14

Number of buckets Z 20 No Number of buckets = 0.5X10.714+15

Nozzle Discharge Qt/nj Qj 1.231 m3/s Discharge per unit = 3.694/3 m3/s

Bucket Dimensions in meter

Parameters Method 1 Method 2

Low High Low High

B = (4 to 5)dj Width 0.720 0.900 0.720 0.900

L = (2.4 to 3.2)dj Length 0.432 0.576 0.432 0.576

C = (0.81 to 1.05)dj Depth 0.146 0.189 0.146 0.189

l = (1.2 to 1.9)dj 0.216 0.342 0.216 0.342

M= (1.1 to 1.25)dj 0.198 0.225 0.198 0.225

Setting Parameters

Outer Diameter of the bucket, Do D+L 1.932 2.076 1.932 2.076 2.004

Housing diameter (0.78+2.06Do) 4.760 5.057 4.760 5.057

Setting height (0.5 to 1 +Do-B/2) hs 2.072 2.626 2.072 2.626

Free height (hs-B/2) hf 1.712 2.176 1.712 2.176

Maximum water depth 1+Do 2.932 3.076 2.932 3.076

Ref: High head power plants E. Mosonyi Vol 2/B; Pg 971

Turbine Axis level from Maximum TWL h sp hf+Do/2 2.678 3.21 2.678 3.214


width of the tailwater flume, Bt 1.5+.75Do 2.949 3.057 2.949 3.057


Maximum Tailwater Level, MTWL 1030.200 m

Minimum Turbine Axis Level required hsp+MTWL 1033.414 m Turbine Axis = 1030.2+3.214

Turbine axis level provided 1034.000 m

Turbine Axis level from max TWL, h sp provided 3.800

Page 3 of 3


22/140


Subject: Tailrace tunnel

Data

Q design 11.08 m3/sec

Q in each tunnel 11.08 m3/sec

Let assume size B 3.60 m

Height of tunnel H 3.60 H-B/2

water depth D 1.90 m 1.80

slope sn 0.0013 750

n 0.020

Height of water at tunnel top dome (D-(H-B/2)) 0.10 m

Angle subtended 0.0556 radian

Calculation for D(H-B/2)Wetted Area 6.84

Wetted Perimeter 7.40

Hydraulic Radius 0.92

Velocity limit 1.75

Nyadi Hydropower Project (NHP)

velocity normal

Discharge 11.85 m3/sec OK

Velocity 1.73 m/sec OkShield dn = 11RS 0.01 mm

Summary

Breadth, B 3.60 m

Design Discharge Depth, H 1.90 m

D shape tunnel top curve depth 1.8 m

Total Height of Tunnel 3.60 m

Slope 1:750

2

1

3

2

1SR

nv =

Page 1 of 1


23/140


Subject: Tailrace canal below turbine

Data


Q in each canal 3.693 m3/sec

Assume size B 2.00 m

Height of tunnel H 2.00

water depth D 1.30 m

slope sn 0.001 1000

n 0.014

Height of water at tunnel top dome 0.30 m

Angle subtended 0.304692654 radian

Calculation for D(H-B/2)

Area 2.59

Perimeter 4.61Hydraulic Radius 0.56

Velocity limit 3


12

1

Discharge 3.99 m3/sec OK

Velocity 1.54 m/sec Ok

Shield dn = 11RS 0.01 mm

Summary

Breadth, B 2.00 m

Design Discharge Depth, H 1.30 m

D shape tunnel top curve depth 1 m

Total Height of Tunnel 2.00 m

Slope 1:1000

nv =

Page 1 of 1


24/140


x ng t e eve o power ouse an ta race


1000 year flood level at Tailrace exit 1027.00 m

Invert level of Tailrace tunnel outlet 1028.00 m

Length of Main Tailrace 356.50 m

Slope of Tailrace (1 in) 750.00 m

Invert Level at 3.6m width Tailrace Start 1028.48 m

Design discharge Tailrace water depth 1.90 m

Tailwater level 1030.38 m

Calculated Height from turbine axis to tailrace WL 3.67 m

Turbine axis level calculated 1034.05 m

Adopt Turbine Axis level 1034.00 m

Adopted Height from turbine axis to tailrace WL 3.62 m

Provided floor level of PH 1032.50 m

Design discharge Tailrace water depth below turbine 1.30

Invert Level below Turbine 1029.08 m


Page 1 of 1


25/140


26/140


27/140

Hydro Consult

Headloss Calculation


January 6, 2011

Sn Description Reference Symbol Unit Value

Turbine Discharge Qt m3/sec 11.080

Orifice Discharge Qo m3/sec 15.512

Normal water level at weir crest m 1381.500

Turbine Axis level m 1034.000

Normal Tail water level m 1030.830

1 Orifice

Width of the Orifice Wo m 7.500

Height of the Orifice Ho m 3.000

2 Coarse Trashrack

Trashrack coefficient Ktr 2.420

thickness of the bar t m 0.010

clear spacing between the bars b m 0.150

angle with horizontal, a ao

30.000

5 Gravel trap Length Lg m 3.000

Width Wg m 3.000

Height hg m 1.000

Bend

angle of bend q degree 0.000

radius of bend rc m 100.000

4 Fine Trashrack

thickness of the bar t m 0.010

clear spacing between the bars b m 0.050

angle with horizontal, a ao

72.000

trashrack coefficient Ktr 2.420

6 Approach tunnel Length Lac m 55.500

Width/ dia Wac m 3.000

tunnel height hac m 3.000

Slope S 1 in 500 0.0020

6 SB Bifurcation

Length Lac m 60.000

Width/ dia Wac m 3.000

tunnel height hac m 3.000

Slope S 1 in 100 0.0100

7 Settling basin

No of bay 2

Length Lsb m 128.000 Inlet transition length Ltr m 25.000

Cross section area m2 31.000

Perimeter m 22.500

Average width Wtr m 8.000

Average depth htr m 10.000

8 Tunnel Intake

Intake (Bellmouth)

Diameter d m 3.200

9 Tunnel

Length Lt m 3937.000

Page 1 of 7


28/140

Hydro Consult

Headloss Calculation


January 6, 2011

Sn Description Reference Symbol Unit Value

Diameter Dt m 3.200

Total height Ht m 3.200

Concrete lined length Lcon m 1200.000

Slope St 1 in 500 0.0020

Bend 1

radius r 10.000

equivalent circular diameter d 3.100

Bend angle in degrees angle 22.000

Bend 2

radius r 10.000

equivalent circular diameter d 3.000

Bend angle in degrees angle 38.000

10 Penstock

Length Lp m 675.380

Diameter Dp m 1.750

11 Branching and Valve Losses

Length of the branching (Total) Lbr 42.500

Diameter 1 Dp1 1.750



Branch bend angle degree 60.000

surface roughness k mm 0.015

friction factor From Moody's Chart

Length of the branch of dia 2 Lbr 12.500

friction factor From Moody's Chart Length of the branch of dia 3 Lbr 30.000

Valve loss coefficient Kv 0.300

12 Monthly Flow

Jan 3.57 Poush (m3/s) 3.75

Feb 3.23 Magh (m3/s) 3.38

Mar 3.21 Falgun (m3/s) 3.08

Apr 3.86 Chaitra (m3/s) 3.34

May 6.85 Baishakh (m3/s) 4.38

Jun 17.13 estha (m3/s) 9.31

Jul 32.54 Ashar (m3/s) 24.95

Aug 37.73 Shravan (m3/s) 40.12Sep 28.39 Bhadra (m3/s) 35.34

Oct 15.69 Ashoj (m3/s) 21.44

Nov 7.70 Kartik (m3/s) 9.94

Dec 4.60 Mangsir (m3/s) 5.45

Page 2 of 7


29/140


30/140


31/140


32/140


33/140

NYADI HYDROPOWER PROJECT, FEASIBILITY STUDY

POWER AND OUTPUT ENERGY CALCULATION

Gross head, m 347.50 m

Overall efficiency 85.47%

Dry season outage 4%

Wet season outage 4%

D/s release m3/s 0.31 m

3/s

Length of tunnel 3937.0 m

Shotcreted tunnel 2737.0 m 90.50% 97.00% 99.50% 87.35

Concrte lined tunnel 1200.0 m 89.00% 97.00% 99.00% 85.47


Manning's coefficient 0.015 For concrete

Friction coeficient 0.022 For shotcrete

Tunnel Diameter 3.20 m Area 9.14 m2

Height to the stringer 1.60 m Perimeter 11.43 m

Month

(Nepali)

Nyadi

Intake Flow

Available

flow in Siuri

Flow

available in

Siuri

Tailrace

Available

Flow

Operating

daysDesign flow

Headloss

HW

Headloss

HRT

Headloss

Penstok

Total

HeadlossNet head

Generation

capacity

Dry sea

energ

(m /s) (m3/sec) (m /s) (m /s) (m /s) m m m m m (kW) (kW

Baishakh 4.38 0.68 0.64 4.71 31 4.71 0.155 0.571 1.144 1.871 345.63 13642.61

estha 9.31 1.62 1.40 10.40 31 10.40 0.756 2.791 5.589 9.136 338.36 29516.00

Ashar 24.94 3.87 1.40 26.04 32 11.08 0.857 3.165 6.339 10.361 337.14 30000.00

Shravan 40.12 7.46 1.40 41.21 31 11.08 0.857 3.165 6.339 10.361 337.14 30000.00

Bhadra 35.34 7.83 1.40 36.43 31 11.08 0.857 3.165 6.339 10.361 337.14 30000.00

Ashoj 21.44 4.62 1.40 22.54 31 11.08 0.857 3.165 6.339 10.361 337.14 30000.00

Kartik 9.94 2.28 1.40 11.04 30 11.04 0.850 3.141 6.289 10.280 337.22 30000.00

Mangsir 5.45 1.36 1.32 6.46 29 6.46 0.291 1.077 2.156 3.525 343.98 18637.11

Poush 3.75 1.04 1.00 4.44 30 4.44 0.138 0.509 1.019 1.665 345.83 12879.31 8,9

Magh 3.38 0.79 0.75 3.82 29 3.82 0.102 0.376 0.753 1.230 346.27 11084.67 7,4Falgun 3.08 0.58 0.54 3.31 30 3.31 0.077 0.283 0.567 0.926 346.57 9626.65 6,6

Chaitra 3.34 0.43 0.39 3.42 30 3.42 0.081 0.301 0.602 0.985 346.52 9922.77 6,8

Maximum Power Generation, kW

Total seasonal Energy, kWh 29,8

Annual generation, GWh

Total energy, GWh

Ratio of wet season energy with dry season energy

Penstock Diameter, m

40.00%

11.08

1.75

OverTurbine Gen. Transformer

Probability excedence, %

Design flow, m3/s

Page 7 of 7


34/140

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

OF

UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES


35/140


36/140


37/140


38/140


39/140


40/140


41/140


42/140


43/140


44/140


45/140


46/140


47/140


48/140


49/140


50/140


51/140


52/140


53/140


54/140


55/140


56/140


57/140


58/140


59/140


60/140


61/140


62/140


63/140


64/140


65/140


66/140


67/140


68/140


69/140


70/140




APPENDIX E

OPTIMIZATION STUDY


FEASIBILITY STUDY

October, 2010


71/140

Hydro Consult Nyadi Hydropower ProjectFeasibility Study Volume III

1

Tables of Contents

1. plant capacity optimization ..................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.2

Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Approach and Methodology ............................................................................................... 2

1.4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.5 Plant Capacity Ranges ........................................................................................................ 3

1.6 Conceptual Layout ............................................................................................................ 4

1.7 Energy Production ............................................................................................................. 6

1.8 Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................... 6

1.9 Benefit Cost Analysis for Various Installed Capacities........................................................... 7

1.10 Result of Benefit Cost Analysis ........................................................................................... 8

1.11 Conclusion and Recommendation ...................................................................................... 8

List of table and Figures

Table 1.1 Intake site average monthly flows in m3/s ........................................................................... 3Table 1.2 Plant Capacity Ranges ............................................................................................... 3

Table 1.3 Project Structures Details ................................................................................................. 5Table 1.4 Energy Production........................................................................................................... 6Table 1.5 Comparison of the base project costs for various installed Capacities.................................. 7Table 1.6 Financial Indicators for various installed capacities ............................................................. 8

Figure 3-1-1 Optimization Curves EIRR Vs percentage exceedance ..................................................... 8


72/140


2

1.

PLANT CAPACITY OPTIMIZATION

1.1

Introduction

The plant capacity is dependent primarily on the discharge in the river if other factors are pre-assumedto be constant. Discharge of varying exceedance is required for determining the size of structures whichultimately impact on the associated costs and benefits. Thus this optimization chapter deals with thestudy of comparative costs and benefits of various discharges of varying exceedance flows in order todetermine the most economical installed capacity of the plant.

1.2

Objectives

The main objective of optimization is to determine the optimum plant capacity at which the dischargewill produce maximum benefit. The benefit is revenue from sales of the generated energy of the powerplant. It is a comprehensive analysis of cost benefits analysis and fixing the optimum capacity of project.

1.3

Approach and Methodology

The selection of the optimum plant capacity is determined from the economic and financial indicatorssuch internal rate of return, benefit cost ratio and optimum utilisation of natural resources.

The Nyadi Khola is a steep River with perennial discharge and gross head available within the study areais sufficient to produce power ranging from 18.50 MW to 50.10 MW. From the flow duration curve asdiscussed in section 2.3, it has been determined that the discharges available to divert at the intake varyfrom 6.74 m3/sec to 18.50 m3/sec (including the tailrace water of Siuri Hydroelectric Project) for theoptimization purpose which would produce plant capacities from 18.50 MW to 50.10 MW respectively.In general practice, more discharge is diverted than design discharge for flushing, which will not considerfor optimization purposes. It was assumed that plant capacity below and above these discharges would

yield relatively lower returns, therefore the optimization study was limited to the above range.The procedure followed for each option during the optimization is described below:

1. Determination of conceptual layout of the scheme.

2. Determination of discharge options (as explained above) based on hydrology of the river atheadworks and additional flow available from Siuri tailrace.

3. Determination of gross head of the scheme.

4. Preliminary design of the structures like weir with orifice type frontal intake and bottom sluicewith two radial gates, gravel trap, intake tunnel, settling basin with flushing arrangement, surgeshaft, underground powerhouse with access tunnel and tailrace tunnel and Provision of tapping

Siuri tailrace flow.

5. Determination of optimum size of headrace tunnel and penstock pipe.

6. Determination of head loss and computation of energy based on the diversion discharge.

7. Determination of the cost of individual structure and the total cost of the project.

8. Computation of benefit-cost analysis and determination of financial indicators for each option.


73/140


3

1.4

Hydrology

Hydrology is the prime factor on which energy and revenue are based. The main purpose of theoptimization is to determine the optimum discharge from techno-economic point of view. Theoptimization has been carried out based on mean daily flow available in the river. Long-term averagemonthly flow of Nyadi intake is calculated by correlating with flow data (DHM) of Seti River, gauge

reading data of Nyadi HP and available flow data in Siuri tailrace (as per feasibility report of Siuri SHP),which are presented in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Intake site average monthly flows in m3/s

Month Nyadi at intake

(m3/sec)

Siuri Tailrace

(m3/sec)

Combined discharge(m3/sec)

Baishakh 4.38 0.64 5.02

J estha 9.31 1.40 10.71

Ashar 24.95 1.40 26.35

Shravan 40.12 1.40 41.52

Bhadra 35.34 1.40 36.74

Asoj 21.44 1.40 22.84

Kartik 9.94 1.40 11.34

Mangsir 5.45 1.32 6.77

Poush 3.75 1.00 4.75

Magh 3.38 0.75 4.13

Falgun 3.08 0.54 3.62

Chaitra 3.34 0.39 3.73

There will be downstream riparian release of 10% of the minimum mean monthly flow for fish andaquatic life which is equivalent to 0.31 m3/sec.

1.5

Plant Capacity Ranges

For optimization, different options are determined for probability of exceedance flow ranging from 30%to 50%. It is obvious that lower the probability of exceedance, the higher will be the plant capacity andhence higher energy generation. It is however not mandatory that the highest plant capacity will be mostoptimum scheme. Thus, the ranges of plant capacities were determined by the design discharge atvarious probabilities of exceedance, the corresponding net head and overall efficiency (85.47%). Theplant capacity for different probability of exceedance have been presented and listed in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Plant Capacity RangesPlant

capacity(MW)

Rated Discharge

(m3/s)

Probability of

exceedance (%)

Gross Head

(m)

Head loss

(m)

Net Head

(m)

18.50 6.74 50 333.90 5.76 328.13

22.40 8.16 45 333.90 5.63 328.27

30 11.08 40 333.90 10.36 323.54

36.30 13.26 35 333.90 7.351 326.59

50.10 18.50 30 333.90 10.66 323.24


74/140


4

1.6

Conceptual Layout

The concept of the project layout is proposed to maximize the discharge and head within the projectboundary. The headworks area lies at upstream of the confluence of Nyadi and Siuri Khola. Tailracewater of Siuri Khola Hydropower Project is also used in this project along the left bank of the NyadiRiver via pumping mechanism.

The headworks structures will comprise of concrete diversion weir with bottom sluice and two radialgates, frontal intake with orifices, gravel trap and intake tunnel. All of these structures lie on the rightbank of the Nyadi Khola. There will be two bifurcating tunnels to feed the diverted water tounderground settling basins with flushing arrangement. Then, discharge will be passed through 3,937mlong headrace tunnel following the ridge of the hill Sangla and Nana village. A surge shaft with surge shaftadit will be provisioned at the end of Headrace tunnel near Nana village. Steel penstock pipe withsurface penstock and drop shaft will connect the headrace tunnel with underground powerhouselocated inside the hill on the right bank near Thulobeshi village. The powerhouse comprises of threeunits of horizontal axis pelton turbines, generators, transformers and other necessary accessories. Aswitchyard located at foot of the hill on the right bank close to powerhouse will connect to 132 kVTransmission lines of length of about 7km which will evacuate the generated electricity to the proposed

NEA Hub at Tunikharka.A 10.50 km long access road is required to connect the headworks with powerhouse and existingBesishahar- Chame road at Thakanbeshi at the right bank of the Marsyangdi River. Additionally, 3 kmlink road will be required to connect surge adit outlet from the road to Headworks. Besides, a 52 mlong bridge has been proposed to connect the two sides of the Marsyangdi River along the roadalignment at Thakanbeshi. The details of structures for each of the options are presented in Table 3.3.


75/140


5

Table 1.3 Project Structures Details

Description 18.50 MW 22.40 MW 30.00 MW 36.30 MW 50.10 MW

Weir Crest Level 1381.50 masl 1381.50 masl 1381.50 masl 1381.50 masl 1381.50 masl

Weir Crest Length 14 m 14 m 14 m 14 m 14 m

Weir Type Concrete Weir Concrete Weir Concrete Weir Concrete Weir Concrete WeirBottom Sluice Unit Two Two Two Two Two

Intake Frontal withorifice

Frontal withorifice

Frontal withorifice

Frontal withorifice

Frontal withorifice

No. of Orifice 2 3 3 4 4

Orifice Size 2.25m*3.50m 2.25m*3.50m 2.25m*3.50m 2.25m*3.50m 2.25m*4.50m

Intake Tunnel 57m*2.4m*2.4m 57m*2.6m*2.6m 57m*3m*3m 57m*3.4m*3.4m 57m*4m*4m

Settling BasinCavern

84m*8m*8.50m 101m*8m*9m 128m*8m*10.3m 165m*8m*11.3m 230m*8m*12.8m

Headrace TunnelLength

3981 m 3964 m 3937m 3900 m 3835m

Headrace TunnelDiameter

3.2m 3.2m 3.2 m 3.5 m 3.8m

Surge Shaft Height 26.26m 27.63 m 29.66m 32.08 m 32.64mSurge ShaftDiameter

5m 5m 5m 5m 5m

Surface Penstock 476 m 476 m 476 m 476 m 476m

Drop Shaft andHorizontal parts

200m 200m 200m 200m 200m

Diameter 1550mm 1750mm 1750mm 2150mm 2250mm

Average Thickness19.00 mm 19.00mm 19.00mm 22.00mm 22.00mm

Powerhouse U/G U/G U/G U/G U/G

Turbine Type Horizontal AxisPelton Turbine

Horizontal AxisPelton Turbine




No of Units 3 nos. 3nos. 3nos. 4nos. 4nos.

PowerhouseCavern Size (B*L) 12m*53 m 14m*53 m 14m*53 m 15m*64 m

15m*64 m

Tailrace Tunnel(L*B*H)

225.85m*3.2m*3.2 m

225.85m*3.4m*3.4m

225.85m*3.6m*3.6m

225.85m*3.8m*3.8m

225.85m*4.2m*4.2m

Access road 13.5 KM 13.5 KM 13.5 KM 13.5 KM 13.5 KMBridge Over

Marsyangdi River52m 52m 52m 52m 52m

Transmission Line 132kV, 7 KM,NEA Hub

132kV, 7 KM,NEA Hub

132kV, 7 KM,NEA Hub

132kV, 7 KM,NEA Hub

132kV, 7 KM,NEA Hub


76/140


6

1.7

Energy Production

Based on the net head, turbine discharge and overall efficiency of the plant, the energy production in ayear has been calculated. An outage of 4% has been estimated for transmission loss, self consumptionand plant shut down during maintenance periods. Estimated power consumption for rural electrificationin project affected area is 0.09 GWh in dry season and 0.18 GWh in wet season. Estimated power

consumption for pumping of Siuri tailrace water is 0.99 GWh in dry season and 0.79 GWh in wetseason. After deduction of total energy for rural electrification and pumping of Siuri tailrace water, netenergy available for sale has been calculated and tabulated below.

Table 1.4 Energy Production

Plant Capacity 18.50 MW 22.40 MW 30MW 36.30 MW 50.10 MW

Total Energy generation(GWh) after deduction of 4%outage

128.97 145.97 177.30 192.40 223.01

Energy for rural

electrification (GWh)

0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

Energy for pumping (GWh) 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78

Net Energy available for sale(GWh)

126.92 143.92 175.25 194.45 234.06

1.8

Cost Estimate

The cost components for various capacities on varying exceedance flow are estimated as per thefeasibility level design. The size and crest elevation of weir structures remains same in the various

discharge, but nos. and size of intake orifice opening is changed as per the design discharges of variousexceedance flows. The size of gravel trap, intake tunnel and underground settling basin change withdischarges of different option, which have significant impact on the total project cost of various options.From the recent technological development and practices, the tunnel with diameter of around 3.2 m canbe mechanically constructed with proper working space and ventilation. Therefore, same size of tunnelis adopted for discharge with the exceedance 40% to 50%. But headrace tunnel size is found optimumfor higher discharge based on cost and revenue loss. The size of surge shaft increases with discharge ofvarious capacities and cost of each capacity estimated separately.

Penstock diameter increases with increase of discharge and has significant impact on the total projectcost. Although an increase in penstock pipe diameter raises initial cost, the energy output will beincreased due to reduction of headloss. So, the penstock is optimized for most cost effective

combination of the penstock diameter and thickness. Penstock pipe was adopted for correspondingdischarges and associated costs. The thickness of each penstock pipe has been estimated. The cost ofanchor blocks and support piers are slightly affected by change in discharge and diameter of thepenstock which is estimated accordingly.

Other hydro-mechanical costs like radial gates, bulk head gates, stoplogs, and trashrack etc have beenestimated as per the prevailing market rate.


77/140


7

Based on design discharge and rated head, the type and size of turbine are calculated. Sizes ofpowerhouse caverns are determined accordingly. Then the cost estimate of powerhouse of each optionis estimated accordingly. The cost of electro-mechanical parts including turbine, governor, generator,transformers, etc. are estimated based on prevailing practice and market prices.

The estimated base costs of project include transportation, installation and custom duties as well as

other applicable taxes. Similarly the cost of transmission line has been estimated based on per kilometrecost of construction of 132kV transmission line and it also includes interconnection arrangement atdelivery location. Other cost like tapping of tailrace water of Siuri SHP, access road, environmentalmitigation, land acquisition, infrastructures, owner development cost and contingencies have beenproportionately increased for the respective plant capacities

Table 1.5 Comparison of the base project costs for various installed Capacities

1.9

Benefit Cost Analysis for Various Installed Capacities

The different options with various plant capacities and their corresponding construction costs andbenefits are compared by financial analysis based on discounted cash flow. Financial analysis has beenperformed to find the capacity at which the benefits are maximized. The analysis is carried out inNepalese Rupees (NRs.) as the price for the energy that will be sold from this project to the bulk power

50.10 MW 36.30 MW 30.00 MW 22.40 MW 18.50 MW

Civil works 34.94 26.70 23.87 21.53 21.05

Electromechanical works 19.16 14.15 10.33 8.95 7.75

Penstock and Hydromechanical works 3.86 3.66 3.26 3.15 2.88

Transmission line works 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35

Marsyangdi Bridge and Access Road 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47

Siuri Tailrace Flow Diversion 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41

Socio-environmental mitigation costs 0.91 0.68 0.45 0.45 0.45

Infrastructure development costs 1.79 1.23 1.02 1.02 1.02

Land acquisition and direct costs 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54

Rural Electrification Costs 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37

Total contact cost 66.80 52.56 45.06 41.24 39.30

Engineering fees 5.34 4.20 3.61 3.30 3.14

1.5 % insurance,tax and 10% VAT 7.48 5.92 5.22 4.81 4.66

Owner's development cost 3.08 2.82 2.15 2.15 2.15

Total Project cost for year 2010 82.70 65.50 56.04 51.50 49.25

Total Project cost for year 2011 based on price escalation @ 5 p.a. 86.84 68.77 58.84 54.08 51.71

Summary of project contract costs for various installed capacities

Amout in US$ Milion


78/140


8

purchaser after finalizing the power purchase agreement (PPA). The relevant specific parameters appliedfor the financial analysis in this study are adapted as given in section 15.2.

1.10

Result of Benefit Cost Analysis

Financial indicators such as IRR on equity and IRR on Project for various installed capacities are shownin Table 1.6 . IRR on equity versus percentage exceedance are shown in figure 3-1.

Table 1.6 Financial Indicators for various installed capacities

Descriptions 18.50 MW 22.40 MW 30MW 36.30 MW 50.10 MW

IRR on Equity 11.28% 13.63% 17.13% 15.47% 14.12%

IRR on Project 13.67% 15.04% 16.995 16.08% 15.32%

Figure 3-1-1 Optimization Curves EIRR Vs percentage exceedance

1.11

Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the financial analysis of all the options corresponding to different exceedance flow, the projecthas been found to be optimized at 30 MW corresponding to 40% exceedance.

Thus project engineering works (design and drawings), quantity estimation, costing and financial analysishave been carried out for 30 MW.

11.28%

13.63%

17.13%

15.47%

14.12%

10.00%

11.00%

12.00%

13.00%

14.00%

15.00%

16.00%

17.00%

18.00%

25 30 35 40 45 50 55

EIRR

PERCENTAGEEXCEEDANCE(%)

EIRR

Vs

Percentage

Exceedance


79/140




APPENDIX F

COST ESTIMATE AND

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS


FEASIBILITY STUDY

October, 2010


80/140

Hydro Consult Nyadi Hydropower ProjectFeasibility Study volume III


1

TABLES OF CONTENTS

F. COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS................................................................ 2

F.1 Cost estimate....................................................................................................................................................... 2F.1.1 Preliminary site works ................................................................................................................................ 2

F.1.2 Main civil works............................................................................................................................................ 2F.1.3 Mechanical and electrical ........................................................................................................................... 2F.1.4 132 kV transmission line ............................................................................................................................ 3

F.2 Engineering fees .................................................................................................................................................... 3F.3 VAT and taxes ...................................................................................................................................................... 3F.4 Contingency sums ................................................................................................................................................ 3F.5 Benefit Calculation ............................................................................................................................................... 3

List of Tables

Table F 1. Project cost summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4Table F 2. Owners direct cost .......................................................................................................................................... 5Table F 3. Land acquisition cost ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Table F 4. Access road and Marsyangdi Bridge cost .................................................................................................... 7Table F 5. Infrastructure development costs ................................................................................................................. 8Table F 6. Civil Works Cost .............................................................................................................................................. 9Table F 7. Hydro mechanical cost .................................................................................................................................. 15Table F 8. Electromechanical cost .................................................................................................................................. 16Table F 9. Transmission line and intergrid connection cost ..................................................................................... 17Table F 10. Environmental monitoring and mitigation cost ...................................................................................... 18Table F 11. New rate summary ....................................................................................................................................... 19Table F 12. Rate summary of Miscellaneous Item ....................................................................................................... 23Table F 13. Tunnel Excavation Rate ............................................................................................................................... 24Table F 14. Energy Calculation Sheet of NHP ............................................................................................................. 25Table F15. Benefit Calculation sheet of NHP.....................................................................................................................26


81/140



2

F. COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

F.1 Cost estimate

The total project cost for year 2011 is presented in Table F1.The detailed cost estimate for different packagesare presented in Tables F 2 to F 10. New rate summary is given in Table F 11. Other assumptions on whichthe estimate is based are indicated below.

The cost estimate has been split into five cost packages. The packages are as follows:

Contract C1 Preliminary site works

Land Acquisition

Access road

Bridge over Marsyangdi

Temporary and permanent Housing

Contract C2 Main civil works

Contract C3 Elect mechanical

Contract C4 Penstock and Hydro-mechanicalContract C5 132 kV transmission line

F.1.1 Preliminary site works

This contract contains the items necessary to expedite the work in the initial stage which is preliminary civilworks including the permanent access road, preparation of construction areas, housing for this phase, offices,water supplies, sewage disposal. The program critical path items are Bridge over Marshyangdi and the accessroad.

F.1.2 Main civil works

Contract C2 comprises the main civil works including the Headworks, waterway including surge shaft and

vertical shaft, underground powerhouse, tailrace tunnel, access tunnel and switchyard.

The following assumptions have been made:

The average tunnelling rate for the headrace tunnel is minimum 15 m to maximum 25 m per week

The unit rates are developed based on the experience of other similar projects in Nepal.

Water supply

Total daily volumes of water demands are based on experience at Khimti Hydropower Project. Water supplycosts allow for chlorinating at each major site and have a nominal allowance for simple water treatment (e.g.roughing filter). Water supply costs are order of cost only and would need to be verified after further design.

Sewerage

The cost allows for sewer collection system, septic tank and soaks away trenches. At the Headworkshowever, given the steep and rocky ground, septic effluent disposal by conventional trenches is consideredproblematic. Therefore an allowance for a package treatment plant to treat septic tank effluent is included.

F.1.3 Mechanical and electrical

The cost includes supply and installation of all the mechanical and electrical equipment from the powerhouseto the outdoor switchyard.


82/140



3

Steel penstock

Costs are based on budget cost advice from Nepal Hydro Electric (NHE) in Butwal.

F.1.4 132 kV transmission line

This cost package includes the erection of the switchyard electrical items and the 132 kV line andcommissioning of the line.

The following assumptions have been made:

There will be no NEA charge for connecting the 132 kV line into the grid at proposed NEAs Hubat Tunikharka.

Steel Type towers are used in the cost estimate

F.2 Engineering fees

The 8% engineering fees are assumed to cover the additional studies described in Section 13.4, Volume 1,main report, the hydraulic model study , all detailed design and including construction supervision by a local

Consultant.

F.3 VAT and taxes

The amount of VAT payable has been based on assumed Nepal currency expenditure percentages of totalcontract values. This is indicated in Table F.1. VAT is assumed to 13%. Tax deducted at source is assumedpayable on engineering fees at 5%.

F.4 Contingency sums

A general sum of 10% has been included on contract C1, C2 and C4 and 8% has been included in C3 and C5.A higher sum of 10% has been included on the C2 main civil works contract to cover the higher risk of theunderground works. However, 5% contingencies sums are taken in preliminary site works.

F.5 Benefit Calculation

The basis for the benefit calculation is the adopted hydrological parameters and possible tariff rates of theenergy which could be agreed while reaching PPA.

Annual dry and wet energy production in a normal year are calculated based on the adopted hydrological data.Allowance is made for downstream release (10 % of the driest mean monthly flow) while estimating theenergy production. Planned and forced outages are considered as 4 % for both wet and dry seasons. Themonthly energy estimate is carried out based on average monthly flow. The estimated monthly energyproduction in a normal year after deducting energy for rural electrification and pumping for the base case issummarized in Table F 14.

While calculating the energy benefit in terms of money, the flat tariff rates (base case) of 6.30 NRs/kWh have

been assumed for both dry and wet energy with 6 % escalations per annum up to 10 years period aftercommissioning date of the project. Details of the benefit calculations based on project base cost for year 2011are presented in Table F15.


83/140



4

Table F 1. Project cos tsummary

Exchange Rate (US$) 75

Installed capacity 30.0 MW

SUMMARY OF DIFFERENT

CONTRACT COSTS % NRs US$ NRs Total US$ Total

VAT

complying

VAT complying

NRs equivalent

Item

Allocations

Civil works 337,075,604 17,203,070Contingency sum 10 33,707,560 1,720,307

Sub - Total 370,783,164 18,923,377 81% 1,449,929,510 42.59%

Electromechanical works 9,560,289

Contingency sum 8 764,823

Sub - Total 10,325,112 8% 61,950,673 18.42%

Penstock and Hydromechanical works 109,701,337 1,497,023

Contingency sum 10 10,970,134 149,702

Sub - Total 120,671,471 1,646,725 44% 106,216,494 5.81%

Transmission line works 35,272,100 780,401

Contingency sum 8 2,821,768 62,432

Sub - Total 38,093,868 842,833 100% 101,306,375 2.41%

Marsyangdi Bridge and Access Road 134,441,099 449,509

Contingency sum 10 13,444,110 44,951

Sub - Total 147,885,209 494,460 100% 184,969,677 4.40%

Siuri Tailrace Flow Diversion 16,225,634 1,065,773

Contingency sum 10 1,622,563 106,577

Sub - Total 17,848,197 1,172,351 56% 59,233,723 2.52%

Socio-environmental mitigation costs 32,324,000

Contingency sum 5 1,616,200

Sub - Total 33,940,200 100% 33,940,200 0.81%

Infrastructure development costs 41,730,729 419,602

Contingency sum 5 2,086,536 20,980

Sub - Total 43,817,266 440,582 100% 76,860,923 1.83%

Land acquisition and direct costs 38,416,858

Contingency sum 5 1,920,843

Sub - Total 40,337,701 0% 0 0.96%

Rural Electrification Costs 28,000,000 28,000,000 0% 0 0.67%

TOTAL CONTRACT COSTS SEPARATE 841,377,075 33,845,440

TOTAL CONTRACT COSTS US$ 45,063,801

ENGINEERING FEES 8 3,605,104 100% 270,382,806 6.43%

TOTAL CONTRACTS & ENGINEERING COST US$ 48,668,905 2,344,790,381

1.5 % INSURANCE COST 0.015 730,034

Sub- Total (A) 49,398,939

TOTAL VAT COMPLYING US$ EQUIVALENT

VAT 13 4,064,303

TDS on Engineering fees 1.5 54,077

Total Taxes (1% custom duty & 0.1%

godown charge ) 1.1 372,300

TOTAL TAX AND VAT (B) 4,490,680

TOTAL CONTRACTS & ENGINEERING COST INC. VAT & TDS 53,889,618

Owner's development costs 2,149,590

TOTAL PROJECT COST (Nearest $1000) for 2010 56,040,000

Cost escalation@5% p.a. 5% 2,802,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST (Nearest $1000) for 2011 58,842,000

Notes:

Unit rates are based at the site local to construction. 1,961 per KW

Unit rates include cost of labour plant and materials

Contingency sum cover forseen and unforseen risks. It does not cover cost overrun.

Risks - ground conditions, strikes, material shortage, political instability, delay in license, manpower shortage

Unit Cost US$


PROJECT COST ESTIMATE


84/140



5

Table F 2. Owners direct cost


Owner's Direct cost

Rate for US$/NRs 75

S.N. Description of Items Units Nos. QuantityRate

(US$)

Amount

(US$)1 Feasibility Study 1 L.S. 106,670.00 106,670.00

2Detail design including tender docpreparation

1 L.S. 400,000.00 400,000.00

2 Office Setup

2.1 Office building rent months 1 48 270.00 12,960.00

2.2 Salary for personnel

2.2.1 Project Director months 1 48 3,500.00 168,000.00

2.2.2 Resident Project Manager months 1 48 1,800.00 86,400.00

2.2.3 Planning,Account/Admin, Contract Manager Months 3 48 1,500.00 216,000.00

2.2.4 Engineers/geologist/mitigation officer months 8 48 1,000.00 384,000.00

2.2.5 Peons months 5 48 250.00 60,000.00

2.2.6 Guard months 4 48 250.00 48,000.00

2.2.7 Secretary months 2 48 250.00 24,000.00

2.2.8 Drivers months 6 48 245.00 70,560.00

3 Vehicle Nos. 6 1 50,000.00 300,000.00

4 Office furniture L.S. 30,000.00

5 Owner's Overhead L.S. 50,000.00 50,000.00

6 Site Security

Officers months 6 40 200 48,000.00

Assistants months 20 40 125.00 100,000.00

7 Housing and facilities L.S. 45,000.00 45,000.00

Total Cost 2,149,590.00


85/140



6

Table F 3. Land acquisition cost


LAND ACQUISITION AND COMPENSATION COST

Description Unit QuantityAmount

(NRs) Remarks

Land purchased Upto 27 July,2010

Access road Ropani 130 7,373,356.00

Hydropower components Ropani 308 19,651,728.00

Total 27,025,084.00

Remaining Land to be purchased

Require private land for access road Ropani 16 814,052.80

Required land for Powerhouse, TailraceSwitchyardRopani

5 671,601.00

Staff housing area at powerhouse site Ropani 4 116,913.00

Vertical tunnel, penstock alignment, surgeshaft, Road for surge shaft, spoil tip area ofsurge adit area

Ropani

9 1,689,207.00

Staff housing area at intake site Ropani 20 2,900,000.00

Required land for Adit tunnel in Naiche Ropani 10 1,450,000.00

Transmission line Ropani 25 3,750,000.00

Total 11,391,773.80

Total Amount 38,416,857.80


86/140



7

Table F 4. Access road and Marshyangdi Bridge cost

]

Nyadi Hydropower ProjectBailey Bridge and Access Road Cost

1 US$ 75 NRs.

Description Unit Quantity Rate(US$) Rate (Nrs)Amount

(US$)Amount (Nrs) Remarks

MarsyangdiBridge

Reference from contractto be signed

Civil works 1 2,517,784.00

Bailey Bridge withComplete fitting 1 992,000.00 137,027.20

Sub Total20% contribution by SiuriSHP

Access road

Total Length Km 13.500 28,933.473 12,215,121.73 312,481.51 131,923,315Reference from Boq ofAccess road

Sub Total 20% contribution by SiuriSHP

Total 449,508.71 134,441,098.67


87/140

Hydro Consult Nyadi Hydropower ProjectFeasibility Study vo

voulume iii - technical annex

Documents