Pinnapura IREP – AFC Observations

S. Description Design Issues Geological & Geotechnical Issues Greenko Comments

N [Ref]
o.

A Check List Deep PH & U/G works may affect
[Vol-I]
No major issues expected related to seismicity
Some component would be decided after
geological investigations
Construction program need to realistic and
proper synchronization between different
packages.
B Introduction Upper reservoir infiltration expected from
[Vol-I/Ch1] reservoir; therefore Reservoir Lining would be
required
Construction program of 30 months not
realistic and feasible
Adverse geological features & presence
of groundwater
Still to be confirmed by exploration
From the surface mapping, no such
adverse geological features found;
however from sub-surface exploration
which will be commenced soon these
aspects shall be investigated
Agreed, however as statutory
clearance, seismic survey to site
specific would be prepared & get to
approved.
Presence of Quarzite in bed and below
that Shale, which is confirmed by
drilling may not pose the problems of
infiltration. The initial loss for
charging/saturation of reservoir is
expected which to the extent may be
reduced by initial filling by rainfall
with advance construction of upper
and lower dam.
Clay layer & PVC felt layer
Gelogist will further confirm
Efforts are being made with advance
EM procurement and with multiple
civil packages as being advantage of
independent site activities of major
civil components.

C S&I
S. Description Design Issues Geological & Geotechnical Issues Greenko Comments
N [Ref]
o.
Vol-I/ Ch5
Surveys Appropriate Ok
Geological Mapping No comments Ok
Seismic Hazard No Major Issues expected Deterministic & Probabilistic site specific Undertaken
seismic study required
Sub-surface Upper reservoir permeability is critical for Only small portion (8/37 BH) of the Exploration is accelerated. Permeability
Investigations establishment of no filtration loss. planned investigations has been tests are being undertaken and
WCS & PH – Natural GWL executed. Permeability tests in BH of Piezometer planned in WCS & PH BH
U/R and installation of Piezometers in
BH along WCS is must.
Rock Mechanics Tests Rock strength parameters for Taken up shortly
foundation and rockfill not performed
yet
Drainage Survey To identify natural surface runoff We will design proper drainage system
Flood plain analysis PMF analysis of nearby river studied to be Metrological data are based on nearby
accessed to possible impact regional basis to be carried out for
design of drainage system around the
project. As such no impact of PMF on
the project is envisaged.
PMP & SPS value to be considered for
drainage system
D Geology

Vol-I Ch6 Ch-6 Geology is based on Surface

observations only
General geology No further conmments
Site Specific Geology Large data base collected from surface
mapping
Limited information no assessment of
engineering rock properties

Upper Reservoir Quartzite forms the bottom & rims of U/R Quartzite is very hard and good quality Most of the area with pinnacles
only high secondary permeability only in quartzite and open jointed dissected
open fractures, the intact rock is low rock mass is kept out of new UR
permeable. boundary by shifting towards West.
S. Description Design Issues Geological & Geotechnical Issues Greenko Comments
N [Ref]
o.
Rock is dissected and forms irregular
pinnacles, this morphology does not
appear as appropriate for the reservoir
rim, nevertheless the executed BH 8 &
BH 9 indicate good rock quality.

In hydrogeological terms, the shales

beneath the bottom of upper reservoir
is protective cap on top of permeable
limestone.
Headrace system Massive excavations for intake with
steep cut slopes and shallow depth
intake tunnel with surface penstock may
be located complete un

C Hydrology
Vol-I Ch-7
Pumping System Pumping system will be designed
Evaporation/ Infiltration losses in addition to evaporation Base of reservoir of Quartzite (17m
Infiltration especially in upper reservoir thk) and below that Owk/Tadpatri
shale is encountered in the drill holes
which reduce the possibility of
leakage/infiltration from reservoir
bed.
Based on Hydrometrological data
however wse are planning site specific
site condition
Sedimentation UR- not located across any permanent stream- RV-may carry out study
provided study is not correct Sedimentation of Lower reservoir to
LR-Sediments from natural ground around be provided as Annex
reservoir carried out by natural rain run-off to
be assessed
Design flood No spillway for natural hazard & human factors A low level outlet for emptying the
reservoir is being planned to cater any
such eventuality
Bottom oulet would be designed
S. Description Design Issues Geological & Geotechnical Issues Greenko Comments
N [Ref]
o.
Filling & drawdown Range of velocity while filling and drawdown is It is common in PSP and conventional
velocity high ~2.4/2.9 m/s which is high for rockfill with central clay core is
embankment dam common type of dam in most of the
psp projects.
Rv will examine the practice
D Power potential
Vol-I Ch 8
MDDL Sediment input may be assessed particularly RV-Will carry out study
for LR and it need to be reviewed
PPS Daily operation simulation need to be revised. RV will provide Q-H efficiency would
Head losses up TRT end in turbine mode be provided
Head Loss To be considered upto TRT outlet RV will modify
Surge tank requirements-L/H ratio and L/H & tw both are within stable limit,
hydraulic water time (tw) may also to be no need of S/S
checked
E Design of Major
components
Vol –I CP 9
Alternative study – Based on PFR only need to be upgraded on RV to respond
laout DPR with additional relevant information
Alternative study – Surface PH feasible but U/G PH need to be G&G investigations are in progress and
Surface vs U/G examined by sub-surface exploration the comparison from technical and
financial would be carried out
Alternative –Type of Rapid drawdown in PSP resulting excess pore RCC will be examined
dam water pressure and unbalanced seepage
forces to be addressed and investigated and
the possibility of impervious lining by
asphaltic/ concrete/ geomembrane to be
worked out.
1 Upper & Lower
Reservoir

Overflow Spillway Highly recommended in both reservoir In EM design proper safeguard at two
level is being considered an with Lo
level outlet design for any eventuality
will serve the purpose
S. Description Design Issues Geological & Geotechnical Issues Greenko Comments
N [Ref]
o.
Low level outlet Maintenance and inspection as a part of safety Agreed and being planned
for any eventual need in both reservoirs
Additional water loss by infiltration other than Minimal/negligible to be established by No adverse geological feature
evaporation from reservoir exploration envisaged from exploration to alarm
leakage from base however early filling
of reservoir will reduce further
possibility
Embankment slope Rockfill d/s slope 1.75H:1.0V requires very good Construction material investigation are
rockfill material with high friction angles in progress and this aspect would be
kept while fixing d/s slope
OMC Optimum moisture content considered 2%
more is agreed.
Load cases Mismatch between Vol I and Vol III; however
considered in Vol III is in line with code and
found ok.
FOS IS7894-1975 and USBR to be checked for
seismic load condition particular for MCE
condition.
Vol III
3.6 Stability Analysis
Load scenarios Load scenarios considered is in order. For load RV to reply
case 3 Rapid drawdown, water level shall be
imported in model of analysis as a function of
time.
Reservoir partial pool This is also in IS 7894; not critical but might be RV to reply
worthy to apply.
Material properties In general realistic but to be confirmed with Will be updated with the available test
geotechnical results results.
Rockfill material Max dia & grain size curve is required. Will be provided
Cutoff trench Explanation of provision of cutoff and material RV to reply
parameter such as cohesion considered as 500
kPa seems unrealistic. A detailed description of
the design of cutoff trench would be helpful.
Model Details about the material modeled may be RV to reply
provided.
S. Description Design Issues Geological & Geotechnical Issues Greenko Comments
N [Ref]
o.
Permeability In model permeability in both the directions
assumed same this need to be investigated
Results of Stability Most of the slip circles presented are RV to reply
Analysis superficial. Deep situated slip circles should be
investigated. Area for FOS grid chosen for
investigation might be limiting to calculation.
Phreatic line in steady state seepage condition
seems not normal.
Seismic Load case More details may be presented about the input RV to reply
parameters considered for seismic load
condition.
Phreatic Line RDD scenario is not normal as shown. RV to reply
Software used Slide used in stability analysis is need to be RV to reply
rechecked.
7.10 [11/67] PMF along with effect of natural hazard and Storage in both the reservoirs limited
human factors to requirements for 9hrs generation
only
Low Rainfall and Seismic hazard area
further special measures is
incorporated in EM control
system/SCADA design reduce any
eventuality.
Upper Embankment Filling & drawdown velocities are high for an Proper design measure in filter/riprap
embankment dam without lining design to be accounted for rapid
drawdown. Moreover, at maximum ht
location, option of RCC dam is
explored.
Draw down curve RDD RV will provide curve
Lower reservoir7.10 Sediments to be accessed as located in river Check dams possibility for arresting
[11/67] course sediments will be explored
Lower Embankment
2 Intake Structure
9.9.2 More dia As per practice same
Elaborate the system
9.9.3 Design criteria CECT to examine the pressure only
S. Description Design Issues Geological & Geotechnical Issues Greenko Comments
N [Ref]
o.
3.1 Outlet submergence calculation to be
done
3.2 Trt losses in turbine mode
Miv dia woul be provided
3.3 Analyisi with bioth curvw
3.4 Em comments
3.5 Rv
Fb 1.0

Vol III 3.7

4.1 Intake
PH layout EM
Intake Tunnel (Quasi
3 Horizontal PS)

4 Surface Penstock
5 Vertical Pressure Shaft
6 Horizontal Pressure
Shaft
7 Power House
8 TRT/TRC

9 Tailrace Outlet
E Construction
Schedule
Vol-I 1.8[6/67] 30 months; Not realistic, very optimistic; not
feasible