Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric

Project

OPTIMIZATION STUDY REPORT

Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

(7.3 MW)

Submitted to

Menchhiyam Hydropower Pvt. Ltd

Submitted by
Feedback Infrastructure Services Nepal Limited

Feedback Infrastructure Services Nepal Ltd.

2nd Floor, Heritage Plaza II, Kamaladi, Kathmandu, Nepal October, 2018
www.feedbackinfra.com
 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. - 3 -
Background ................................................................................................. - 3 -
General approach and Objective ................................................................. - 3 -
Reconnaissance Site Visit ............................................................................ - 4 -
2. ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS .................................................................................. - 6 -
Power House Alternatives ........................................................................... - 7 -
Waterway Alternative.................................................................................. - 7 -
3. OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................................... - 9 -
Assessment of Project Layout ..................................................................... - 9 -
Selection of Powerhouse location ............................................................... - 9 -
Optimization of Power Canal Section .......................................................... - 9 -
Optimization of Penstock Diameter ........................................................... - 10 -
Optimization of Plant Installed Capacity ................................................... - 11 -
Power and Energy estimation.................................................................... - 11 -
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................... 44
5. SALIENT FEATURE OF SELECTED ALIGNMENT ................................................... 46
 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

1. Introduction
This report presents the methodology and assumptions considered for the
optimization of the project to determine the optimum cost effective project size
i.e. the Optimum Plant Capacity. The optimization study is conducted to
determine the optimum plant capacity.
The optimization study is carried out taking a range of technically viable
alternative plant capacities. As per available mean monthly river discharge data
and available head, energy calculated at different plant capacities. Project cost
at different capacity is derived by calculating the cost of major items of different
structures involved in the project such as diversion weir, settling basin, water
conveyance system, powerhouse and tailrace and will be presented in feasibility
report. Optimization study includes the sizing and revenues comparison from
different alternatives. The alternative with maximum revenue has been selected
as the optimum project size.

Background
The description of potential alternatives assessed during the feasibility level
study of Upper Piluwa – 1 is portrayed in this report. In reference to these
alternatives, studies were conducted to optimize the plant installed capacity and
water conveyance system of Upper Piluwa – 1.
This project alignment will be situated on the right bank of Piluwa Khola and is
conceptualized as a cascade to Upper Piluwa – 2 Hydropower Project (UP – 2
HP) with tandem operation. This project does not require a separate headwork
since it takes the discharge from the tailrace of UP – 2 HP which is currently
under construction, through the inter connection system and conveyed to the
power canal of the project. Therefore, the capacity of the project depends
directly with the tailrace discharge from the UP – 2 HP. Two possible
powerhouse locations were observed during the site verification study.

General approach and Objective

The main objective of optimization is to determine a project configuration which
produces maximum benefit at least cost. As such, the derivation of project cost
and its benefits in terms of energy produced will be required to form a matrix of
different alternatives from which the optimum project capacity could be
selected. The study would also require determination of optimum dimensions of
various project structures or components like water conveyance system,
penstock and water level at headwork. These studies are based on available
hydrological, topographical and geological data, which indicated that an installed
 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

capacity in the range of 7.30 MW would be most the feasible output at the
proposed location.

For each alternative layout, Power and Energy were calculated based on design
discharge, net head and assumed efficiencies.Financial analysis based on
different alternatives will be presented in feasibility study report.

The optimization process was undertaken as a technical analysis with results

expressed as feasible layout.
It is used in determining the element size, which would maximize the benefits of
power supply. Optimization procedure in this study follows the general
procedure outlined below:

 Selection of the procedures to be optimized and their range and thus

establishing series of alternatives.
 For each alternative, carrying out the conceptual design
 For each alternative, assessment of its performance and estimate its
benefits.
 For each case, energy calculation depending on the available hydrological
data was carried out to determine the dry and wet energy.
Major project components which differ from one case to another with different
installed capacity are listed below.
 Power Canal and Forebay
 Penstock
 Powerhouse and Tailrace
 Hydro-mechanical structures like gates and trash-racks
 Electro-mechanical equipment like turbine, generator, power transformer
and valves etc.

Reconnaissance Site Visit

A technical team consisting of civil/hydropower engineers and a geologist visited
the project area in June 2018. The team members reached Chainpur town from
Tumlingtar airport after which the team was accompanied and escorted to the
project site by representatives of UP – 2 (under construction) hydropower
project. The team had an opportunity to overview the project area along their
journey to UP – 2 site.

Initially, the headworks as well as powerhouse site of UP – 2 HP were looked

over in detail so as to understand the nature of the project whose discharge will
 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

be harnessed by UP – 1 for power generation. The powerhouse layout for UP –

2 has already been fixed with tail water level at 875m amsl. So, keeping that in
mind the potential location for interconnection between UP – 2 tailrace and UP –
1 water conveyance system were accessed. There seem to be no other
alternatives in this case, and hence, the location as specified in Figure 1.1
immediately after the UP – 2 power plant has been fixed for interconnection.

Fig 1.1: Proposed Collecting Pond area

 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

2. Alternative Layouts
Right bank of river was selected for the project layout due to its geological and
social conditions. In right bank alternative, four options were studied.
Option 1
 Power house 1 option with headrace pipe, surge tank (1) & penstock(1)
 Power house 1 option with headrace canal, surge tank (1) & penstock(1)
Option 2
 Power house 2 option with headrace canal, surge tank (2) & penstock(2)
 Power house 2 option with headrace pipe, surge tank (2) & penstock(2)

Both alternatives are illustrated in flow chart and figure below.

Figure 2-1: Overall layout of project with different powerhouse locations

 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

Upper Piluwa-I
HEP

Powerhouse Option 1 Powerhouse Option 2

Forebay/Surge Headrace Headrace Forebay/surge Headrace Headrace Penstock

Penstock(1) (2)
tank(1) canal Pipe tank(2) pipe canal

Optimization Process

Figure 2-2: Summary of optimization process

Power House Alternatives

For the Purpose of optimization, two options of Powerhouse was
investigated.The position of powerhouse for two different options is shown in
Figure below. . Both powerhouse locations are on the right bank of Piluwa Khola.
The first option is located approximately 1.22 km while the second option is
located approximately 500m upstream from the existing headwork of Piluwa
Khola Hydropower Project (3 MW).
Turbine axis level, head available and installed capacity at design discharge of
3.89m3/sec for each option of powerhouse is presented in table below:

Table 2-1 : Comparison of different power house location

Description Powerhouse at option 1 Powerhouse at option2

Head (m) 208 217.55

Design discharge (m3/s) 3.89 3.89
Installed Capacity (MW) 6.98 7.30
Turbine Axis Level (m) 662 652.45

Waterway Alternative
The optimization of plant installed capacity is followed by the optimization of
various water conveying structures, viz. power canal and high pressure conduit
(penstock), in order to determine their economic sections for conveying the
design discharge.
 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

Two different options of waterway was investigated for the selected option i.e.
headrace pipe and canal. Optimization study was carried out between these
options and the best alternative was selected.
 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

3. Optimization
Assessment of Project Layout
The overall layout of UP – 1 HP will be constrained because of its cascade
nature. There is no alternate location option regarding the interconnection with
UP – 2 HP. Nonetheless, as mentioned earlier, the options taken into account
for the powerhouse location of UP – 1 HP will create ample room space to
optimize the layout as it will have significant influence over the installed capacity
and energy generation of the project.

The layout of UP – 1 HP consists of an interconnection arrangement that joins UP

– 2 HP tailrace with the power canal of UP – 1 HP. The power canal will end up
in a forebay. A penstock will convey pressurized water from the forebay to the
turbine units installed in the powerhouse located along the Pliuwa River channel.
Then, the water will be eventually discharged back to the river by a tailrace
located adjacently.

Variation in installed capacity occurs due to changes in design discharge, and

accordingly, the size of water conveyance systems vary. Optimum diameter of
the penstock is determined based on annual costs and benefits. The size of
Powerhouse is influenced by the orientation of turbine-generator axis and their
capacity.

Selection of Powerhouse location

Among the two potential location for powerhouse, first option (Option – 1) lies
in a narrow section of the river channel with rocky terrain where the structure
will have to be erected tightly due to space constraints. The turbine axis level at
this level will be 652.45m amsl, thus creating a gross head of around 217.55m
and power generating capacity of 7.30 MW. On the other hand, the second
option (Option – 2) is around 500m upstream from Option 1 with 10m lesser
head where the turbine axis can be fixed at around 662m, thus creating a
natural head of 208m and power generation capacity of 6.98 MW. Option – 2
has is advantageous in a sense that it can be constructed in a wide open area
where the construction and operations could be easier.

Optimization of Power Canal Section

Since the proposed power canal is aligned a hilly contour, the sizing is canal is
carried out in such a way that it performs hydraulically well by conveying the
discharge without any turbulence, siltation and scouring of the canal lining. The
canal alignment and section has also been fixed considering minimum amount of
 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

earthwork excavations. Moreover, as the project is a cascaded run-of-river type

scheme with no desilting arrangements, the canal might operate under much
smaller discharges in lean season, thus creating possibility of serious silting. This
aspect has also been taken into account while finalizing the geometry and
dimensions of the canal section. In some critical sections such as creek
crossings, the power canal might have to be replaced by inverted siphons using
steel pipes. Thus, the canal size is also fixed to comply with the optimum
diameter required for steel pipes in such scenarios. Proposed canal is trapezoidal
in shape and 4.6km long.

Figure 3-1: Cross-section of Headrace canal

Optimization of Penstock Diameter
A series of diameters were used to compute the corresponding annualized cost
of penstock construction and the cost of energy losses resulting from headloss
due to friction. From the optimization study, the optimum diameter of mild steel
penstock pipe to be used in the project is found to be 1.7m. The results of
optimization are presented in Figure 3-2.
 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

Figure 3-2: Diameter optimization of steel lined penstock

Optimization of Plant Installed Capacity

In order to establish the optimal plant size for power production from the
hydropower scheme, optimization of installed capacity was carried out. This
study was carried out taking a range of technically viable alternative plant
capacities. As per the available mean monthly river discharge data and available
head, energy is calculated at different plant capacities. Project cost at different
capacity is derived by calculating the cost of major structures required for the
project such, viz. power canal, penstock, powerhouse and tailrace. The
optimization study includes the cost of different alternatives and their respective
financial indicators. The alternative with minimum generation cost has been
selected as the optimum project size.

Power and Energy estimation

Since the discharge available in the river varies each month, consequently the
net head and the efficiency variations take place. Discharge is one of the prime
factor on which energy revenue is based on. For this study, constant value for
overall efficiency has been taken for calculating power output from the
plant.Based on the net head, turbine discharge and effeciencies and monthly
mean flow, energy production has been calculated and tabulated below and
compared with canal and pipe option. The comparison of annual scenario of the
power and energy generation of the plant is presented in Table 3-1 to 3-
4.Graphical representation of revenue generated from both options is shown in
figure 3-2.
 Upper Piluwa-1 Hydroelectric Project

An outage of 4% has been estimated for transimission loss, self consumption

and plant shut down during maintenanace periods.The Project will benefit from
the revenue of sales of energy generated from the plant. The value of energy
has been referenced with the latest practice of power purchase agreement
between Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) and Independent Power producer
(IPP).Assumtions and values for energy calculation is presented below:

Pipe Option Canal Option

Types of Turbine Francis Francis
Number of Units 2 2
Design Discharge 3.89 m3/s 3.89 m3/s
Environmental
Release 0.11 m3/s 0.11 m3/s
Full Reservoir Level 875.00 m amsl 870.00 m amsl
Turbine Axis Level 650.00 m amsl 652.45 m amsl
Gross Head 225 m 217.55 m
Outage 4% 4%
Plant Capacity 6.9 MW 7.3 MW
This assumption is made
taking higher tolerance. Thus,
it can be reduced after the
final layout is figured out. headloss in penstock,
Assumed Head Loss 10% 1.5% manifolds and valves
 Table 3-1: Power and Energy Calculation for Pipe Option

Monthly Monthly Monthly

Available Net Net Monthly Avg. Avg. Average
No.of Discharge Overall Headloss Energy Outage(4%)
Month River Turbine Head Avg. Net Dry Wet
Units per Unit Efficiency (m) (GWh) (GWh)
Discharge Discharge (m) Capacity Energy Energy, Energy,
(GWh) (GWh) (GWh)

Baishakh 2.52 2.52 2 1.26 89.24% 22.50 202.50 4.5 3.29 0.13 3.15 3.15
Jestha 5.85 5.85 2 1.95 89.24% 22.50 202.50 6.9 5.08 0.20 4.88 2.36 2.52
Asar 10.83 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 22.50 202.50 6.9 5.25 0.21 5.04 5.04
Shrawan 12.98 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 22.50 202.50 6.9 5.08 0.20 4.88 4.88
Bhadra 12.83 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 22.50 202.50 6.9 5.08 0.20 4.88 4.88
Asoj 8.80 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 22.50 202.50 6.9 5.08 0.20 4.88 4.88
Kartik 4.28 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 22.50 202.50 6.9 4.92 0.20 4.72 4.72

1.16 22.50 202.50 4.1 2.82 0.11 2.71 1.31 1.40

Mangshir 2.31 2.31 2 89.24%
Poush 1.60 1.60 1 1.60 89.24% 22.50 202.50 2.8 2.02 0.08 1.94 1.94
Magh 1.27 1.27 1 1.27 89.24% 22.50 202.50 2.2 1.55 0.06 1.49 1.49
Falgun 1.15 1.15 1 1.15 89.24% 22.50 202.50 2.0 1.45 0.06 1.39 1.39
Chaitra 1.24 1.24 1 1.24 89.24% 22.50 202.50 2.2 1.56 0.06 1.50 1.50
43.20 1.73 41.47 13.15 28.33

Table 3-2: Energy and Revenue Calculation for Pipe Option

in Crore
Description Revenue NRs.
Energy, GWh Rate Nrs. NRs.
Wet Tariff Dry Tariff
Dry Energy 13.15 8.4 110460000 11.046

Wet Energy 28.33 4.8 135984000 13.5984

Total Energy 41.47 246444000 24.6444

PF 0.71
Annual share of dry
31.70%
energy
 Monthly Monthly Monthly
Available Net Net Monthly Avg. Avg. Average
No.of Discharge Overall Headloss Energy Outage(4%)
Month River Turbine Head Avg. Net Dry Wet
Units per Unit Efficiency (m) (GWh) (GWh)
Discharge Discharge (m) Capacity Energy Energy, Energy,
(GWh) (GWh) (GWh)

Baishakh 2.52 2.52 2 1.26 89.24% 3.26 214.29 4.72 3.48 0.14 3.34 3.34
Jestha 5.85 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 3.26 214.29 7.30 5.38 0.22 5.17 2.50 2.67
Asar 10.83 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 3.26 214.29 7.30 5.55 0.22 5.33 5.33
Shrawan 12.98 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 3.26 214.29 7.30 5.38 0.22 5.17 5.17
Bhadra 12.83 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 3.26 214.29 7.30 5.38 0.22 5.17 5.17
Asoj 8.80 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 3.26 214.29 7.30 5.38 0.22 5.17 5.17
Kartik 4.28 3.89 2 1.95 89.24% 3.26 214.29 7.30 5.21 0.21 5.00 5.00
Mangshir 2.31 2.31 2 1.16 89.24% 3.26 214.29 4.33 2.99 0.12 2.87 1.38 1.48
Poush 1.60 1.60 1 1.60 89.24% 3.26 214.29 3.00 2.14 0.09 2.06 2.06
Magh 1.27 1.27 1 1.27 89.24% 3.26 214.29 2.38 1.64 0.07 1.57 1.57
Falgun 1.15 1.15 1 1.15 89.24% 3.26 214.29 2.16 1.54 0.06 1.47 1.47
Chaitra 1.24 1.24 1 1.24 89.24% 3.26 214.29 2.32 1.65 0.07 1.59 1.59
45.72 1.83 43.89 13.91 29.98

Table 3-3: Power and Energy Calculation for Canal Option

Table 3-4: Energy and Revenue Calculation for Canal Option
Revenue in Crore
Description Energy, GWh Rate Nrs.
NRs. NRs.
Wet Tariff Dry Tariff
Dry Energy 13.91 8.4 116844000 11.6844
Wet Energy 29.98 4.8 143904000 14.3904
Total Energy 43.89 260748000 26.0748
PF 0.71
Annual share of dry
31.70%
energy
 Revenue Comparison

30

20
Pipe Option
10
Canal Option
0
Dry Wet Total Energy
Energy(Crore) Energy(Crore)

Canal Option Pipe Option

Figure 3-2: Graphical representation of Revenue from canal and

pipe option
4. Conclusions And Recommendations

Upper Piluwa-I
HEP

Powerhouse Powerhouse
Option 1 Option 2

Forebay/surge Headrace Headrace Penstock( Forebay/surge Headrace Headrace Penstock(

tank(1) canal pipe 1) tank(2) pipe canal 2)

Figure 5.1 Optimization and opted alignment

Figure 5.2: Selected final alignment for Upper Piluwa-1 HPP

Project with headrace canal, Forebay/surgetank at option 2, penstock

alignment at option 2 and powerhouse at option 2 was selected as it was found
to be optimum. The result of the analysis shows that the option 2 gives Highest
return generating more revenue.
Detail financial analysis will be carried out and presented in feasibility report.
The topography of landscape for water conveyance is moderately sloped hill
with settlements and vegetation. Altogether, five to six creek-crossings will be
encountered by the headrace alignment where suitable aqueducts will be
designed. There are few steep and rocky terrain, however. Such nature of the
prospective alignment seems to favour the construction of power canal with
minimal ease and cost during construction as well as lesser headloss during
operations. Also as seen in figure 2, more revenue is generated with canal
option .Hence, this alignment is selected for further studies.
5. Salient Feature of Selected Alignment

1.0 General
Type : Run-of-river, Cascade development of
Upper Piluwa Khola – 2 Hydropower
Project
Source River : Piluwa
State : 1
District : Sankhuwasabha
Municipality : Chainpur, Ward No. 4
Nearest Town : Chainpur Bazaar
Geographical Coordinates
Latitude : 270 17” 00’ N to 270 17” 58’ N
Longitude : 870 20” 56’ E to 870 23” 18’ E
Type of Scheme : Run-of-River
Gross Head : 217.55 m
Net Head : 214.29 m
Design Discharge (Q40.65) : 3.89 m3/s
Installed Capacity : 7.3 MW
Plant Factor : 71%
Net Annual Generation : 43.89 GWh

2.0 Hydrology & Meteorology

Catchment Area
Average Annual Precipitation
Design Flood (1 in 50 years)
Long-term Average Flow
: 83 km2
: 1771 mm
: 86m3/s at UP – 2 Headworks
105m3/s at UP – 2 Powerhouse
127m3/s at UP – 1 Powerhouse
: 5.47 m3/s

3.0 Power Canal

Interconnection with UP – 2 HP : Tailrace channel of UP–2 is
interconnected
with the power canal of UP – 1 HP
TWL at UP – 2 : 875m amsl
Canal Shape : Trapezoidal
Construction type : Stone Masonry
Top width : 3.31m
Base width : 1.4m
Length : 4600m
Bed Slope : 1:1000
4.0 SurgeTank
Full Supply Level (FSL) : 870m amsl
Length : 15m
Width : 10m
Depth : 12.6m

5.0 Penstock
Material : Steel
Length : 620m
Diameter : 1.7m

6.0 Powerhouse
Type : Surface
Size (L x B x H) :
Type of Turbine : Pelton
Rated Capacity : 2 x 3.65 MW

7.0 Tailrace
Type : Box culvert
Length : 8m

8.0 Transmission Line and Grid Connection

Specification : 33kV Single Circuit
Conductor : ACSR BEAR Conductor
Length : 12 km

9.0 Power Transformers

Type : Out Door Oil Immersed
Cooling : OFWF
Number of Units : 2 (3 Phase)
Rated Capacity : 4.2 MVA
Voltage Ratio : 6.6/33 kV

10.0 Generator
Type : Synchronous, Salient pole
Specification : 42000 kVA, 6.6 kV, 50Hz
Power Factor : 0.85
Synchronous Speed : 750 rpm