1

I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Water is an inexhaustible commodity. As population and its economic activities go on increasing so is the demand for water. To ensure a reliable water supply at the time of needs, the proper and judicious use and management of water resources is required. Hydropower generation and agriculture is major user of water resources in this world .Hydropower plants, by their nature, require low operating cost and at the same time provide great flexibility (especially reservoir based hydropower) in the use relative to other sources of energy identified so far. Benefits of water resources depends upon mainly on the three factors such as the physical dimension of the system, the scale of development and the operating policies adopted for the system. Hydrological, geo-topographical factors have great influence on the physical dimension of a reservoir. But with the advent of simulation techniques, not only optimal design is achieved but also adverse effects are minimized and maximum benefits are accrued. 1.2 Problem Identification Development of a country can be gauged by the amount of energy it consumes. Energy is very important medium for the overall development of a nation .Hydropower is one of the main sources of energy in Nepal. It accounts for nearly 90% of installed capacity and 95% of total generation of energy. Except for the firewood and Hydropower, Nepal has to import all other types of energy paying scarce hard currencies while being extremely rich in water resources. So, the proper utilization of its water resources is required for the development. In spite of potential resources of hydropower, Nepal has faced power crisis for several years because most of the hydropower projects are based on the river run-off schemes except Kulekhani-I (60 MW). To meet the power crises, storage scheme will be quite essential for the country. The predominant nature of hydroelectric source particularly, run of river type supply in Integrated Power System(INPS) has exhibited that seasonal deficits of hydro energy is bound to occur frequently along with seasonal surpluses. This has been the situation of INPS even after the commissioning of Projects like Khimti, Mid Maryshandi

2 The estimated hydropower potential of Nepal is 83, 000 MW of which 114 projects having 45,610 MW have been identified economically feasible However, to date, Nepal has developed less than 1 percent of its vast hydropower potential. The total installed capacity is about 680MW, of which 635 MW (93%) is generated by hydropower in the integrated system. Peaking capacity as well as energy output of the power system drops in the dry season of December to May due to the shortage of available runoff. The peak power and energy demand is growing by about 11% annually, creating the electricity shortage in Nepal. Demand has been exceeding supply every year. To meet the significant difference between demand and supply, NEA had increased power cuts in the country up to 18 hours a day in January 2009. Greater challenges of the NEA are bridging the gap between supply and demand of electricity. All the existing and future (scheduled to be commissioned by next five years) hydropower plants are run-of-river types except Kulekhani power plant, Proposed Upper Seti Hydropower Project and some of them are with daily regulating capacity. Therefore, load shedding hours in the dry season depends on the availability of water in the Kulekhani reservoir.

Figure 1.1: Contribution of energy in Nepal 1.3 Need of research Due to limited power supply, optimum operation of water resources is unavoidable. Latest estimates show, the demand for power in Nepal will be 1500 MW in 2015. Supply of this demand is only possible if more storage type hydropower projects are constructed. [NEA, 2001] Therefore, it is required that most of research be undertaken toward saving, storage,

3 management and water demand of water resources in this country. Ingredients include analyzing various parameters such as population, economy, water use efficiency and etc. [Siminovic, S.P, 2002]. Upper Seti Hydroelectric project with installed capacity of 127 MW has storage capacity of 374 million cubic meters [NEA, 2001]. In this study, simulation model was used for system evaluation. Simulation model is a best way of using physical rules and a series of operational rules try to simulate genuine phenomena and approach and accurate scheme to predict the behavior of the system under a specific policy [Yeh W.W-G, 1985]. Input data of simulation model could be classified in three parts: fixed data, design data and time series data. Fixed data are properties of system such as physical and economic properties and relationship between them. Design data, in fact, are decision variables which are determined in modeling process are reservoir capacity and plant generating power capacity. Inflow to system is in the form of artificial data or time series data. Simulation models can present efficiency and system performance in different combination of reservoir, plant powers, reservoir storage, output etc. and in this manner, they have good flexibility. In the present study HEC-ResSim simulation model was used to evaluate performance of Upper Seti storage dam operation and ability of the model to simulate of reservoir system was studied. 1.4 Objectives of study: The objective of reservoir simulation is to compute the plant capacity and the corresponding maximum plant discharge, the reservoir drawdown pattern, the dry season and the wet season energy and the total annual energy. The available inflow and the reservoir live storage have to be fully utilized. The output data obtained from the simulation are to evaluate the energy generations for two scenarios. In view of the above factors the major objectives of the present study are as follows: To compute plant capacity and the maximum plant discharge To compute the dry and wet season energy To compute the total energy generation To develop a guide curve for computing the reservoir drawdown pattern

4 and operation of reservoir. To compare the results obtained from HEC-Res Sim with the results obtained from other models. 1.5 Scope of study: This study is mainly focused on the development of reservoir operation model for USHEP using HEC Res Sim. The study covers the following scope of works. Literature reviews on Hydropower reservoir and its various aspects. Review on present energy scenario of Nepal. Study and collection of all relevant hydrological and topographical data of the

Upper Seti Basin. Literature review on sediment studies on Upper Seti Basin. Literature review on history of reservoir simulation. Literature review on the operation of reservoir in Nepal and aborad. Literature review on the operation of reservoir using HEC Res Sim models. Recommend the model to be used for other reservoir operation under various

conditions. 1.6 Limitations: Following limitations are set for the study: Due to time and study limitations, sediment analysis for the reservoir has not been

performed. Due to unavailability of required data seepage loss and hydraulic loss has been

neglected. Input data used are collected from past study reports of NEA and JICA so that

comparisons of output could be effective and reliable. If sediment analysis, seepage data and hydraulic loss data are used, the accuracy and reliability of the results obtained would be increased.

5 1.7 Organization of the Study This thesis consists of seven chapters. Chapter 1 includes the introduction to the topic with the need, objective, scope and limitations of the study. Chapter 2 reviews current power production scenarios. Chapter 3 contains literature reviews .Chapter 4 contains description of the site area and project. Chapter 5 contains the detailed model description, research methodology and processes adopted to achieve the objective of the study. Chapter 6 presents the results, its discussions and validation with tables and figures. Finally, Chapter 7 presents the final conclusion of this study and recommendations for further study. The references and Annexes are incorporated at the end of this thesis while the acknowledgements and abstract are given in the preface portion.

II. HYDROPOWER AND ENERGY SITUATION IN NEPAL

6 2.1 Hydropower Potential Nepal's water resource is considered to be abundant. The average annual precipitation is about 1700mm (80% of which occurs during monsoon season from June to September). The total annual average run-off from Nepal's 6000 rivers is over 200 billion m 3. [NEA, 2001] Surface resources are distributed in the river system consisting of four major rivers (viz. the Mahakali, the Karnali, the Gandaki and the Koshi), seven medium rivers and a large number of small rivers. Harnessing the water flowing from the Himalayas is Nepals development agenda for increasing its national wealth. Water storage potential in Nepal is 88 billion m3. Nepals theoretical hydropower potential is estimated at 83, 000 MW. At present altogether 114 projects having 45,610 MW capacity have been identified economically feasible The country hopes to bring about development through three strategic consideration which include building large-scale storage projects envisaged primarily for exporting energy, medium scale projects for meeting national needs and small scale projects for serving local communities. As such, four major storage projects are proposed as Indo-Nepal co-operative initiatives. These are the Chisapani Karnali (10,800 MW), the Pancheswor (7,200 MW), Budhi Gandaki (600 MW) and the Sapta Koshi high dam (3,600 MW) which in total, would provide 22,200 MW installed capacity. Recent policy promotes external and domestic private sector initiatives for hydropower development. Some of the large projects with feasibility study completed are presented in table 2.1. Table 2.1: Large Hydropower Projects with Feasibility Study Project Name Karnali (Chisapani) Pancheswor West Seti Arun-III Upper Tamakoshi Dudhkoshi Capacity (MW) 10,800 6,480 750 402 309 300 Cost million USD 7 666 2 980 1 098 859 464 690 Year of Study Updated 2001 1995 1997 1991 May 2005 1998 Type in Storage Storage Storage Storage PROR Storage

2.2 Energy Situation

7 Figure 2.1 shows the location map of power generation and transmission facilities in Nepal. The power generating facilities in Nepal consists of hydro, diesel and solar power plants but it is basically a hydropower-oriented system. The total installed capacity is about 680 MW, which with 635 MW (93%) is generated by hydropower in the integrated system.

Figure 2.1:

Existing Power Stations and Distribution System

2.2.2 Available Energy and Peak Load Demand NEA published total energy available and peak load demand in NEA annual report 2007/08 from 1999 to 2008. Figure 2.2 and Table 2.4 shows that the peak load demand before 2001 was only 391 MW which is less than the total capacity of 398 MW including IPP. Kaligandaki A Power plant was commissioned in 2001 and total capacity after it was 541 MW after the Kaligandaki A there was not any major power plant implemented in Nepal except small power plants developed by IPPs. Significant load shedding started from year 2005 but energy have always been spilled during wet season

Figure 2.2:

Available energy and total peak load demand

Table 2.2:Available energy and total peak load demand

Figure2.3:Monthly energy generation from Kulekhani I

Figure2.4:Monthly energy generation from Marsyangdi Figures 2.3 to 2.5 (Kulekhani I, Marsyangdi and Kaligandaki A) present the energy generation from major power plants of Nepal. These figures show that Run of river plants (Marsyangdi and Kaligandaki A) generated with lower capacity (up to 50% of the total capacity) during the wet season but at the same time reservoir power plants (Kulekhani A) also generated up to 50% of its total capacity.( Shrestha, 2007)

Figure 2.5: Monthly energy generation from Kaligandaki A Figure 2.6 shows the system load curve of the peak load demand of the year in 2007 (December 31, 2007) and Figure 2.7 shows a typical system load curve in wet days. Both figures show that the peak load demand is from 6 PM to 9 PM. Load demand at day time is only about 60% of the peak demand.

10

Figure 2.6:System load curve on 31 December 2007

Figure 2. 7:Typical system load curve in wet season. Nepalese are already facing acute shortage of electricity whole year, if proper initiative is not taken to develop more hydropower projects, it seems that the situation will be more severe and power cut-off will be increased for more hours per week during dry period as well as in wet season. Power and energy demand grew by 11.31% and 10.76% respectively in the year 2008. The system demand of 721.73 MW recorded on December 31 2007 happened to the peak power demand observed in FY 2007/08. Likewise energy demand over the year 2008 totalled 3490.12 GWh. As this amount of energy was not available with the system the deficit amounting to 309.46 GWh had to be shedded to keep the electricity service running. (Shrestha, 2007)

11

Figure 2.8:Energy and peak load demand forecast charts (NEA, 2000) NEA made the power demand forecast for the further 18 years from 2009 to 2025 as shown in figure 2.2 and Table 2.4. According to the forecast, the peak load is estimated to be 1271.7 MW in 2013/14. The average annual growth rate for peak demand is estimated to be about 10% for next 5 years. The further energy demand is also forecasted to be 5859.9 GWH in 2013. Table 2.3: Energy and peak load demand forecast.

Source: NEA annual report, 2007/8

12 Electricity generation should be increased by more than 10% per year to meet demand, which is far high additional demand compare to additional generation rate at present. [NEA,2001] In February 2008 Government of Nepal formed a Committee for Solving the Load Shedding Problem. The committee had prepared a report and recommended 25 points for solving the load shedding problem. Some of them are development of Storage power project like Upper Seti, speed up the construction of Upper Tama Koshi, Upper Trishuli A, Upper Trishuli B, Kulekhani III and encourage IPPs for hydropower development. They have also studied the energy production from existing and forthcoming hydropower projects up to 2013/14. They have also developed energy and capacity balance per day of the month from 2009/10 to 2013/14. Figure 2.9 and Table 2.6 presents the energy and capacity balance per day of the month for year 2013/14. The figures show that capacity will be surplused in wet season and deficit during the dry season. But the energy surplus will be in every month.

Figure 2.9:Estimated Capacity and Energy balance in 2013/14

13

Table 2.4:Estimated Capacity and Energy balance in 2013/14

Description Shrawan Jul/Aug Energy Demand(MWh) Energy Available(MWh) Energy Surplus(MWh) Peak demand(MWh) Peak capacity(MW) Av. Power Deficit(MW) Description 16,264 Bhadra Aug/Sep 16,093 Asoj Sep/Oct 15,715 Kartik Oct/Nov 13,974 Mangsir Nov/Dec 15,806 Paush December 16,136

28,129

28,129

28,129

28,129

21,199

19,983

11,865 1,073 1,167 (94) Magh Jan/Feb

12,036 1,065 1,167 (102) Falgun Feb/Mar 16,136

12,414 1,090 1,167 (77) Chaitra Mar/Apr 15,806

14,154 1,090 1,167 (77) Baishakh Apr/May 15,477

5,392 1,161 929 232 Jesth May/Jun 16,384

3,847 1,208 823 385 Asar Jun/Jul 17,231

Energy Demand(MWh) Energy Available(MWh) Energy Surplus(MWh) Peak demand(MW) Peak capacity(MW) Av. Power Deficit(MW)

16,466

17,830

17,474

16,085

16,735

21,880

26,729

1,364

1,338

279

1,258

5,496

9,498

1,197

1,162

1,124

1,107

1,134

1,157

880

864

802

858

946

1,161

317

298

321

249

188

(4)

III. LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1 General

14 Determination of the optimum mode of operation for a reservoir has always been an important task for water resources engineers for many years and yet no completely satisfactory solution has been obtained in general and the problems have to be simplified to fit each individual purpose as the problems are site specific and time specific. Numerous methodologies such as Linear programming, Dynamic programming and Simulation method are proposed as tools to optimize the reservoir operation. The application of these techniques is reviewed below. 3.2 Reservoir operation problems Reddy (1962) noted that it was customary for a long time to operate reservoir on the basis of personal judgment by storing all inflows in the reservoir till it is required to release the water to fulfill the target demand of different users. Such a method ignores the fact that optimality is obtained only when the system operation takes into account that storage and release can be apportioned among various system elements, purposes and operation time. Optimum operation policy is sequential decision problem and consequently, systematic approaches which model this sequential decision making are the appropriate ones to be applied to solve the system operational problem. Harboe et al.(1970) noted that in short operation the physical objective is to find optimum hourly releases from a reservoir and in long term operation, the physical objective is to find out monthly releases from the reservoir over an extended period such as a critical period or the economic life of the project. Since the hydro plants are connected with thermal, diesel or gas power station, the economic objective is the minimization of the operational cost of the total power generation system while the specific demand for energy is satisfied. Harboe (1986) proposed a three stepped approach for establishing reservoir operational rules. The three steps were optimization, simulation and multi objective analysis. The method was applied to the real world system for low augmentation. First each reservoir was sequentially optimized by dynamic programming. Then the results were taken as the targets for standard operating rule on which simulation model was based .then several simulation runs were performed with different targets when reservoir level was below a certain critical level was also introduced. The alternative operating rules thus derived were analyzed using multi objective analysis to select the acceptable solution to all. Lian (1976) summarized that vital in the reservoir operation policies is the existence of the rule curves which provide an effective guide in the operation of the systems. It explains the

15 range of storage level in its period to enable maintain smooth transition control of operation between periods. This envelope of defined corridor secures a basis for system releases and storage regulation. With the development of computer technology and system analysis, attempts have been made to select the optimal reservoir operation with the requirement of providing the best return from the system. 3.3 Review of simulation technique Simulation is one of the earliest and perhaps the most widely used method for evaluating alternative water resource system. A simulation model may be deterministic or stochastic depending upon whether random components are involved or not. The reason for its popularity lies in its mathematical simplicity and versatility. Hall and Dracup (1970) defined simulation as reproducing the essence of a system without reproducing the system itself. Simulation model is a creation of a model which is a mathematical representation of the system under consideration. it enables the rational assessment of the system behavior under various inputs and sets of system parameters. However, the simulation does not ensure a systematic search over the decision space of the controllable input data. Simulation technique is an effective method for evaluating alternative configurations of plant capacity, water use allocations, operating policies etc, they are not very effective means for choosing the best configuration of capacity, target and policy. For this optimization tools have been proven to be more effective. However, Loucks (1976) pointed out that mathematical, computational, and data limitations restrict the use of optimization models, while simulation models are far less restricted .hence they are better suited for evaluating more precisely the alternatives defined by optimization models. Thus, though simulation by definition doesn't ensure optimality and a local optimum may be determined while the global optimum is bypassed in essentially what might be called a trial and error approach, its importance in operational studies is unquestioned .In particular, simulation being less stringent than an optimization model can be better adopted to reflect peculiarities of the real system. 3.4 Reservoir Simulation 3.4.1 Initial developments

16 In the 1930s, interest grew in estimating more accurately the quantity of water passing through a water power station. Until that time, calculations had been based on the nominal head capacity combined with the technical efficiency of the turbines and generators [Laurent J., 1936]. However, the efficiency of a turbine varies to a high degree with the load, so that this approach needed to be improved by a more accurate measurement of the flow passing through the turbines [Hartzell H., 1936]. These accurate measurements were critical in order to maintain the stocked water in the reservoir at secure levels and prevent flood events, since the natural flow had been replaced with a regulated water discharge. A few decades later in the early 70s, many detailed studies were conducted in an attempt to improve water resources systems, because of the enormous investments involved in their design and operation. Programming techniques, such as linear and dynamic programming, started to be used for optimum design and operation of water resource systems. However, these techniques were based on steady inflow and water demands and presented definite limitations when dealing with a natural stream flow with stochastic properties [Charalampos Shaolikaris,2008]. The optimization of the operation of a reservoir based on the coupling of reservoir simulation with hydrology was initiated in 1975. With this scheme, the first module is a system model which simulates and evaluates the operation of a reservoir system on a monthly basis for water supply, low flow regulation, power generation and recreation, with storage and release constraints for flood control. The second module is a catchments model which is usually meant for the simulation of short-time flow series meant to reproduce flood periods [Beard L.R., 1975]. This coupled approach was initially tested on the operational optimization of the dams complex in the Velika Morava basin in the former Yugoslavia[Djordjevic B et.al] .It is nowadays the most common program structure adopted in dam simulation software.

3.5 About the model 3.5.1 Introducing HEC Res Sim The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Hydrologic Engineering Center developed in 1973 the HEC-5 program for the simulation of flood control and conservation systems. It was initially written for flood control operation of single flood events. The program was later

17 expanded to multi-events floods and included basic water supply and hydropower analysis capabilities. Pumped-storage hydropower analysis capability was finally added in 1977.All versions were developed in FORTRAN and interfaced with the HEC-DSS data storage system. [USACE-HEC, 2007] HEC-5 recently evolved into the HEC-ResSim software with the addition of a graphical user interface (GUI). Its hydropower simulation capabilities include analysis of run-of-river generation, peak power generation, pumped storage and system power operation. To simulate hydropower operation, the reservoir releases are determined to meet power production goals which may vary on a monthly, daily, or hourly basis. Additionally, the hydropower component takes into account the penstock capacity and losses, as well as leakage parameters. [USACE-HEC, 2007] The model allows the user to define alternatives and run simulations simultaneously to compare results. Schematic elements in HEC-ResSim allow the representation of watershed, reservoir network and simulation data visually in a geo-referenced context that interacts with associated data. Additionally, HEC-ResSim is compatible with ArcGIS shape files and AutoCAD drawing files, which can be used as a background layer and facilitate the better representation of the physical system. Watershed boundaries, reservoirs, channel networks, diversions, etc. can be superimposed over the shape file. [USACE-HEC, 2007] The HEC-ResSim program is divided into three modules(Fig.1) which are

respectively, the watershed setup, the reservoir network definition and the simulation scenario management. [USACE-HEC, 2007]

18

Figure 3.1 - Graphical illustration of the HEC-ResSim modules Watershed setup The purpose of this module is to provide a common framework for watershed creation and definition. A watershed is associated with a geographic region for which multiple models and layers of information can be configured. A watershed may include all of the streams, projects, e.g., reservoirs, levees, gage locations, impact areas, time-series locations, and hydrologic and hydraulic data for a specific area. All of these details together, once configured, form a watershed framework. [USACE-HEC, 2007] Reservoir network definition The purpose of the Reservoir Network module is to isolate the development of the reservoir model from the output analysis. This module facilitates the creation of the network schematic, the description of the physical and operational elements of the reservoir model, and the definition the management alternatives to be analyzed. Reservoirs are further divided into multiple technical elements such the pool, the dam, and one or more outlets. The criteria for reservoir release decisions are drawn from a set of discrete pool heights, power production levels and release rules. Reservoirs are connected to the river network as well diversions or junctions. After finalizing the connection network schematic, physical and operational data for each network element are defined. Management alternatives are created to compare results using different model schematics, i.e. physical properties, operation sets, inflows, and/or initial conditions. [USACE-HEC, 2007] Simulation scenario management The purpose of the Simulation module is to isolate the output analysis from the model

19 development process. Once the reservoir model is complete and the alternatives have been defined, the Simulation module enables the model to test various river flow hypotheses. 3.6 Review on past studies: Feasibility Study of Upper Seti Storage Hydroelectric Project: NEA, 2001

NEA conducted detailed feasibility study on USHEP in 2001 which also includes the reservoir simulation. It was envisaged to make a detail study of the power generation possibility with respect to the available water resources and find the most suitable option in terms of energy benefit. A tool was developed in house for this purpose by NEA by the Project Optimization Group in the form of a computer software named "Reservoir Simulation Version 1.0" using C++ language. The reservoir simulation has been carries out for the USHEP using the updated version 1.1 of the above mentioned software. Simulation was carried out for the three sets of options depending on tail water level and the development concept. Two sets of simulation are run for the Option A, one for the shaft powerhouse option (Alternate A1.1 and A1.2) and another for the Underground powerhouse option (Alternate A2.1 and A2.2). One simulation was run for the Option B, toe development. Design alternative of reservoir During inception and feasibility study stage various alternatives for the project layout was done by NEA. The study showed two options based on the findings of preliminary study and site investigation. Option A In this alternative, different options for locations for the main intake and the powerhouse are recognized. The four alternatives are based on two different powerhouse types associated with two different location of the main intake and the resulting four different alignments of the headrace tunnel. Intake No.1 and Intake No. 2 is 130 m and 300 m upstream from the dam axis respectively. These are grouped as Alternative A1.1 : Intake No.1 with Shaft Type Powerhouse Alternative A1.2 : Intake No.2 with Shaft Type Powerhouse Alternative A2.1 : Intake No.1 with Underground Powerhouse

20 Alternative A2.2 : Intake No.2 with Underground Powerhouse

Option B This option consists of only one alternative i.e toe development underground powerhouse. This option is adopted during the feasibility study by NEA. Alternative: B1 : Toe development

Option A and B both have 142 m high Roller Compacted Concrete dam with integrated spillway and the river diversion structures. The dam is founded on bedrock of dolomite. The head race tunnel is located at uphill side of the Seti River, which passes through the dolomite and slate. The economic and financial analysis conducted by NEA has shown that Option B is the best alternative. Simulated results obtained for Option B is shown in table 3.1. Table 3.1: Simulated results obtained by NEA Full Supply Level(FSL) (m) Sediment Deposit Level (m) Minimum Operating Level (MOL) (m) Storage Volume at FSL (Mm^3) Storage Volume at MOL (Mm^3) Sediment Deposit Volume (Mm^3) Weighted Average Head (m) Discharge Utility Factor Maximum Plant Discharge (m^3/s) Minimum Plant Discharge (m^3/s) Optimum Plant Capacity MW) Plant Factor Dry Season Energy (GWh) Wet Season Energy (GWh) Total Annual Energy(GWh) 425.00 m 399.56 410.96 333.71 237.00 172.96 111.04 0.68 141.14 124.21 122.20 0.555 171.93 422.43 594.36

Upgrading Feasibility Study on the USHEP in Nepal

21 -JICA, Electric Power Development Co. Ltd, Nippon Koei Co. Ltd, 2007 JICA conducted the study in 2007 using the same input data as used by NEA in its feasibility study. The study focused on sediment deposition pattern as well. The simulation was carried out with the program named EPDC/KCC FLOW 500 MODEL. The Reservoir is estimated to be filled with sediment in several decades, so the measures against sedimentation shall be taken. A degree of importance for sediment management is classified with the following two indices as shown. Life of reservoir = Reservoir Capacity (CAP) /Average annual sediment inflow (MAS) =331.7 MCM /(11.55 MCM/Year) = 28.72 years Turnover rate of reservoir = Reservoir Capacity (CAP) /Average annual inflow (MAR) =331.7 MCM / 3,381 MCM = 0.098 Average sediment deposit of the reservoir =specific sediment yield X catchment area X trap efficiency =6,244 X 1,502 X 0.85 =7.97 MCM / Year Necessary number of years the reservoir will be filled with sediment is calculated as 270.3 MCM / 7.97 MCM / year =34 years (in terms of effective capacity) 331.7 MCM / 7.97 MCM / year =42 years (in terms of gross capacity) Numerical values of the above indices show that the reservoir will be filled with sediment in a short period of year without sediment management and has relatively large turnover rate. A decrease in effective storage capacity of the Reservoir is as shown in Table 3.2: Table 3.2: Storage capacity of reservoir Years of Completion Effective Storage Capacity(MCM)

22 0 25 50 270.30 197.40 134.81

Sediment volume for different sill elevation is given in Table 3.3 Table 3.3: Sediment volume
Sediment flushing gate Sediment volume in Reservoir Maximum sediment volume After 108 years Volume (1,000 m^3) 126,434 162,952 (1,000 m^3) 138,635 169,943 Years of completion 89 89

sill elevation 320.00 330.00

The simulation results showed that sediment advances year by year without the yearly sediment flushing operation. The cumulative and maximum sediment volumes after 108 years from completion, as well as the year in which the sediment volume peaks, are shown in Table 3.4 Table 3.4: Sediment Volume in Reservoir
Frequency of sediment Sediment volume in Reservoir Maximum sediment volume After 108 years Volume (1,000 m^3) (1,000 m^3) Years of completion 126,434 138,635 89 246,733 261,389 89 283,314 288,390 107

flushing operation Every year Every 2 year Every 3 year

Table 3.5 shows other simulated results

Table3.5: Simulated results (JICA) Full Supply Level(FSL) (m) Sill Level of Flushing gates(m) Minimum Operating Level (MOL) (m) Weighted Average Head (m) Optimum Plant Capacity MW) Plant Factor Dry Season Energy (GWh) 425.00 m 320 370 116.2 126 0.52 230.1

23 Wet Season Energy (GWh) Total Annual Energy(GWh) 344 574.1

Conclusion drawn by JICA: The project has a lot of sediment inflow to the Reservoir, and the sediment flushing facilities are indispensable to maintenance of the effective Reservoir capacity. It is recommended that the facilities be installed at EL.320.00 m considering the topography of the Dam site. Sediment flushing operation shall be carried out every year.

Assessment of Energy production from major Hydropower projects in Nepal(Shrestha, 2007) The objective of this study was to assess the energy production from the major existing hydropower plants and planned hydropower projects in next five years using nMAG model. USHEP was also a part of the study and the study results are shown in Table 3.6. Table3.6: Summary of the results (nMAG) Total Energy Generated(GWh) Maximum Discharge(m^3/s) Maximum Power (MW) Utility Factor 673.3 127.4 132.698 58.2

3.6.4 Some practical applications In 2004, [Babazadeh et al, 2007]. for evaluation and reservoir management of Tigris and Euphrates rivers system in Iraq HEC-ResSim 2.0 was used. First, multi-reservoir system of these rivers where setup on HEC-ResSim. Model contains six main reservoirs, three offstream reservoirs and seven small reservoirs and many diversion dams for diverting water from Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Priority in these multipurpose reservoir system are water supply for agriculture demand then flood control, while, hydroelectric power was also generated. HEC-ResSim 2.0 was used for simulation history events special flood and

24 drought periods. USACE experts used HEC-ResSim for water resources simulation in Afghanistan. Engineers of US Army Corps of Engineers and Afghani engineers created a team for simulation of Kajakai reservoir and project development downstream plains. This model simulates system operation for power generation, flood control, irrigation and changes in power generation capacity, live storage and release structures [ Babazadeh et al, 2007]. Jhiroft dam simulation Halil River is one of biggest river of Jazmourian basin and Kerman province, Iran. The area of Halil river basin is 31462 km 2. The starting point of this permanent river is snow covered mountain near city of Baft and Rabor in Kerman province. Annual volume of water carried by Halil River as measured by monitoring station in 42 years time series is 515 MCM. Jiroft storage dam is the largest dam in this river basin that started operation in 1992. Average annual inflow of dam reservoir over 42 years is 422 MCM and from initial operation up to 1995 is 536 MCM. First of all, operation reservoir volume is 415 MCM at elevation 1184 meter from sea level and inactive level is 1126 meters from sea level. This is an arched dam and average evaporation from water surface is 2076 mm. Length of dam crest is 250 m and its height from river bed is 125 m and crest width is 5 m. This dam has two Francis turbines with power generation 32 MW. Main purpose of this dam construction is supply of downstream agriculture water demand, flood control of Halil River and secondary is hydropower generation. Due to drought in recent years, power station was not operated. [Babazadeh et al, 2007]. 72 months operation from 1999 to 2005, data of Jiroft Storage Dam (such as: inflow, outflow, reservoir level, storage and power generation as daily data) have been recorded by Jiroft Dam Operation Company. These data were used for validation and estimation of model accuracy. [Babazadeh et al, 2007]. Study and evaluation of Jiroft storage dam in present conditions,

sedimentation condition and developing condition was performed using HEC-ResSim Results of model validation showed that model was capable of simulation with suitable accurate. For study of accuracy and validation of model, observed data from April 1999 to March 2005 was used. Therefore, input data, output data and reservoir and dam properties were supplied to the model and changes in computed volume of reservoir were

25 compared with observed data. Observed data input to model as history data and reservoir storage were compared with observed data in observation periods. The value of absolute error was 11% and root of mean square error was estimated 23 million cubic meters. Therefore, model ability and efficiency are acceptable. [Babazadeh et al, 2007].

IV. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AREA AND THE PROJECT

4.1 Location The Upper Seti (Damauli) Storage Hydroelectric Project has a capacity of 127 MW[NEA, 2001], the storage type scheme, and includes 1000 m long horse shoe headrace tunnel, 140 m high concrete gravity dam, two diversion tunnels of lengths 712 m and 881 m and an underground powerhouse. [NEA, 2001] The site is located in the upper part of the Seti River, a tributary of the Trishuli River flowing in the central part of Nepal. The Seti River originates at the Annapurna (at an

26 elevation of 7,555 m above sea level) of the Himalayas and joins the Madi river 2 km downstream from the proposed Dam site after flowing roughly from north to south. The length of the Seti River from the origin to the Dam Site is about 120 km, and the catchments area at the Dam site is 1,502 sq km. [NEA, 2001] The Seti River basin belongs to a high mountain and a humid subtropical climate zone. The NEA's report states that the average annual precipitation in the project basin is 2,973 mm, of which about 80% falls between June and September due to the influence of the southwest monsoon. Records of temperature exceeding 36 Degree Celcius from April through June as against a lower value of approximately 5 Degree Celcius from January through February on average. [NEA, 2001] 4.2 Main Features of Upper Seti Storage Hydroelectric Project River Name of River Catchments Area Annual Inflow Reservoir Full Supply Level Minimum Operating Level Available Depth Effective Storage Capacity Dam Type Height x Crest Length Power House Type Size Seti River 1502 km2 3,380 x 10^6 m^3 425.0 m 370 m 55 m 270.30 MCM Concrete Gravity Dam 140.0 m, 170.0 m Underground Wide 22mx High 42m length 90 m

Discharge Installed Capacity Turbine

Maximum

127.4 cumecs 127 MW

Type Turbine Output x Number

Vertical Shaft, Francis Turbine 65,100 KW x 2

27

Figure: 4.1: Location of the site 4.3 River System

The total length of the Seti River from the dam site to the source is about 120 km. Seti river meets many medium and small tributaries upstream of the dam site. These are described below. Starting at dam site, the Seti River meets Jyamdi and Kyangdi River at 28 km upstream at Khairenitar. The river gradient from dam site to this confluence is 1:280.The river gradient is flatter and flows almost west to east. From Jyamdi and Seti River confluence the river flows south to north and meets Saraudi River. The river has gradient 1:120 and the length of the river reach is 7 km. From Saraudi River and Seti River confluence, the Seti River meets Khudi River at Kotre. The river reach is 3 km and gradient 1:120.Further Upstream Seti River meets Bijaypure River. The river length is 12 km gradient 1:100. At short distance, the Set River meets Phusre River. The river length is 2 km and gradient 1:90.From Phusre and Seti River confluence, the Seti River meets Yandi River at about 18 km upstream. The river flows almost north to south and has a gradient 1:70. The river upstream of Yandi and Seti confluence, the river flows through Phokhara valley.The Seti River flows through the Mahendra Pul. The highest gorge, that is, river undercutting are seen at the Pokhara valley due to the Seti River. Upsream of Pokhara

28 valley, the river meets mardi River at Lahachowk. The river reach length is 7 km and average gradient 1:53. The Seti River upstream of Maridi and Seti confluence, the river gradient is steep ,more than 1:27 upto Sadhu River confluence. The confluence height is about 2000 m above mean sea level .the river length is 75 km. Above this the Seti River is very steep, the gradient is more than 1:10,the remaining river length is 20 km up to the glacier tongue. [NEA, 2001] 4.4 Meteorological and Hydrological Stations Meteorological stations and gauging stations are arranged in the Seti River and surrounding basin. The Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM), a subordinate organization of the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, carries out meteorological observation and river discharge measurements and provides NEA with those data. A few meteorological stations are also equipped with a thermometer. a hygrometer, an anemometer and an evaporation pan, while the other stations are provided with only a rain gauge.
Table 4.1: Rain Gauge Stations Near and at the Seti River Basin Index.No. Station name Lat.-Long. Deg/Min 613 706 726 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 810 811 813 814 815 816 Karki Neta Damkauli Garakot Khudi Bazar Pokhara Hospital Pokhara Airport Shyangja Larke Samdo Kuncha Bandipur Chapkot Male Patan Bhadaure Deurali Lumle Khairini Tar Chame 28 d 11'-84 d 45' 27d 41'-84d 13' 27d 52'-83d 48' 28d 27'-84d 22' 28d 14'-84d 00' 28d 13'-84d 00' 28d 06'-83d 53' 28d 40'-84d 47' 28d 08'-84d 21' 27d 56'-84d 32' 27d 53'-83d 49' 28d 13'-83d 57' 28d 16'-83d 49' 28d 18'-83d 48' 28d 02'-84d 06' 28d 33'-84d 14' Elevation m 1720 154 500 823 866 827 868 3650 855 965 460 856 1600 1740 500 2680 1977-94 1971-95 1980-96 1957-97 1956-75 1968-94 1973-94 1978-94 1956-94 1956-95 1957-94 1966-94 1985-94 1969-94 1971-94 1974-94 Years of Records

29
817 818 820 821 822 823 824 Damauli Lamachaur Manag Bhot Ghandruk Khuldi Gharedhanga Slklesh 27d 58'-84d 17' 28d 16'-83d 58' 28d 40'-84d 01' 28d 23'-83d 48' 28d 26'-83d 5u0' 28d 12'-84d 37' 28d 22'-84d 06' 358 1070 3420 1960 2440 1120 1820 1974-94 1972-94 1975-94 1976-94 1973-86 1976-94 1977-94

Source: NEA, 2001 4.5 Climate study

The total number of climate gauge stations is around 157 according to NEA.A few climate gauging stations are equipped with precipitation gauge , temperature data, humidity data, wind data and evaporation data. The catchment lies in the High Himalayas and the Lesser Himalayas and the physiographic characteristics of the Seti River influences the climate change with variation of altitude. Therefore, the catchment area experiences severe cold, subtropical to temperate climate. As in other parts of Nepal, the Seti River catchment also experiences the effects of the southwest monsoon, which on an average lasts from June to the end of September. The region receives rainfall approximately 80% of the annual rainfall during this period. Rainfall intensifies vary throughout the basin with maximum intensity occurring on the south facing slopes. During the monsoon period, relative humidity reaches at their maximum, temperature are lower compared to the pre-monsoon period.

4.6

Stream Flow Data

The earliest data recorded for major rivers in Nepal is from 1962.The gauging stations in the major rivers are equipped with discharge measurement, automatic water surface record chart and the staff gauge. DHM provides records of the monthly flows for study purpose. The locations of the gauging stations are shown below: Table 4.2: Stream Flow data around the catchment area
Stream Gauge 406.5 428 River Name Modi River Mardi River Location Nayapool Lahachowk Year of Records 1988-94 1974-90 Latitude. / Longitude 28d 13'-83d 42' 28d 13'-83d 55' Drainage Area(km^2) 647 160

30
430 N.A 438 439.3 439.7 439.8 Seti River Seti River Madi River Khudi River Marsyandi River Marsyandi River Phoolbari Damauli(Patan) Shisaghat Khudi Bazar Bimal Nagar Gopling Ghat 1964-84 Recent 1978-90 1983-93 1987-93 1973-86 28d 14'-84d 00' 500 m d/s of dam site 28d 06'-84d 14' 28d 17'-84d 21' 27d 57'-84d 25' 27d 55'-84d 29' 582 1505 858 147 N.A 3850

Source: NEA, 2001 4.7 Topographic Characteristic of the Basin

Seti River is one of the main tributaries of Sapta Gandaki River System. Annapurna Himalayas is the main source of Seti River. The major source of the basin consists of several peaks such as "Annapurna III(EL.7555 m), Annapurna Peak V(EL.7525 m)and Machapuchre (EL.6999 m).The total area of Seti River basin up to site intake is 1502 km^2,in which 50 km^2 is covered with snow. Table 4.3: Catchment Characteristic Area(km^2) Total Area Area below 5000 m Area above 5000 m Source: NEA, 2001 Upper Seti Intake 1502 1452 1276

Table 4.4: Major Lakes in the Seti River Basin Lakes Phewa Lake Begnas Lake Rupa Lake DipangLake Maidi Lake Khasti Lake Nyurehi Lake Total Lake Area(km^2) 4.35 3.3 1.14 0.075 0.0125 0.100 0.0375 9.185 Catchment Area(km^2) 126.8 18.5 26.3 171.6

31 Source: NEA, 2001 4.8 Evaporation

The evaporation data are available from the year 1977 to 1984 and shown in table 4.5. The figure indicates that the evaporation occurs at the maximum rate during the dry period of the pre-mansoon season. Table 4.5: Monthly Evaporation Data
year 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Days Average Evaporation Mm/month Reservoir Evaporation(mm/mth) 39 50 98 107 123 124 114 110 95 71 49 34 Jan N.A 1.6 1.7 1.4 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.6 31 1.81 56 Feb N.A 2.1 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.8 28 2.56 72 Mar N.A 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.5 3.8 4.2 5.3 31 4.53 140 Apr 3.5 3.7 5.6 5.9 5.2 6.9 4.1 5.8 30 5.09 153 May 5.8 6.2 6 5.3 6.1 5.6 5.6 4.8 31 5.68 176 Jun 7.1 5 6.6 5.1 5.6 6 6.8 5 30 5.90 177 Jul 5.7 5.9 3.9 4.8 4.9 5.3 6.2 5.5 31 5.2 8 164 Aug 6.2 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.4 5.1 5.3 5.7 31 5.06 157 Sep 4.7 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.7 3.9 5.9 4.6 30 4.50 135 Oct 3.5 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.9 3.5 3 31 3.2 9 102 Nov 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.4 2 30 2.31 69 Dec 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 31 1.59 49

Source: NEA, 2001 4.9 Probable Maximum Precipitation

Probable maximum precipitation (PMP) over the basin is used to determine the Probable maximum flood. It is shown in table 4.6. Table 4.6: Probable Maximum Precipitation S.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Index No. 706 726 802 803 804 805
Damkauli Garakot Khudi Bazar Pokhara Hospital Pokhara Airport Shyangja

Station

PMP 1107 1142 844 867 742 982

32 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 806 807 808 809 810 811 813 814 815 816 817 818 820 821 823 824
Larke Samdo Kuncha Bandipur Chapkot Male Patan Bhadaure Deurali Lumle Khairini Tar Chame Damauli Lamachaur Manag Bhot Ghandruk Khuldi Gharedhanga Siklesh

652 724 821 516 950 920 1005 856 668 512 1245 1063 571 731 808 768

Source: NEA, 2001 4.10 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)

The hourly flood hydrograph is given in the Table 4.7. Table 4.7: Probable Maximum Flood Time in Hours PMF Hydrograph m^3/s Dry season Flood Hydrograph

33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 111.2 193.3 330.9 538.1 812.6 1,148.1 1,538.5 1,977.5 2,457.8 2,970.4 3,506.4 4,057.5 4,615.4 5,170.0 5,707.0 6,215.2 6,681.4 7,099.5 7,463.6 7,768.2 8,008.5 8,180.6 8,281.0 8,306.7 8,255.4 8,126.5 7,931.2 7,692.7 7,429.3 7,152.2 6,869.9 6,589.7 6,317.2 6,055.2 5,804.0 5,563.3 5,332.5 5,111.4 4,899.4 4,696.2 4,501.4 4,314.7 4,135.7 3,964.2 3,799.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.2 15.5 21.8 29.3 37.6 46.8 56.5 66.7 77.2 87.8 98.3 108.6 118.2 127.1 135.0 142.0 147.8 152.3 155.6 157.5 158.0 157.0 154.6 150.9 146.3 141.3 136.1 130.7 125.4 120.2 115.2 110.4 105.8 101.4 97.2 93.2 89.3 85.6 82.1 78.7 75.4 72.3

34 Source: NEA, 2001 4.11 Temperature

The annual maximum air temperature occurs generally I month of May and ranges from 36 degree Celsius to 41 degree Celsius and slightly decrease in June. The Minimum temperature occurs in December and January ranging from 1.5 degree Celsius to 7 degree Celsius. 4.12 Humidity

The maximum and minimum monthly humidity are 100 % and 40%respectively.The atmosphere is humid with average monthly relative humidity ranging from 77% to 100 % in Janaury.April is the driest month with relative humidity at 40 %. 4.13 Wind Speed

The average monthly maximum wind speed at the dam site is 3.8 km/hr.

V.
5.1 Application of the model

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

HEC-ResSim uses an original rule-based approach to mimic the actual decision-making process that reservoir operators must use to meet operating requirements for flood control, power generation, water supply, and environmental quality. Parameters that may influence flow requirements at a reservoir include time of year, hydrologic conditions, water temperature, and simultaneous operations by other reservoirs in a system. The reservoirs designated to meet the flow requirements may have multiple and/or conflicted constraints on their operation. ResSim describes these flow requirements and constraints for the operating zones of a reservoir using a separate set of prioritized rules for each zone. Basic reservoir operating goals are defined by flexible at-site and downstream As HEC-ResSim has evolved, advanced features such as multicontrol functions.

reservoir system constraints, outlet prioritization, scripted state variables, and conditional rule logic have made it possible to model more complex systems and operational requirements. 2008] HEC Res Sim model was used in reservoir simulation for water release for power The graphical user interface makes HEC-ResSim easy to use and the customizable plotting and reporting tools facilitate output analysis. [Charalampos Shaulikaris,

35 production and flood control with different operation policy. This model has three main modules: Watershed Setup, Reservoir Network and Simulation. In this model we can make different management in reservoir system by defining scenarios in a time series data. Model input data are: reservoir properties (Volume-Area and Elevation Curve, Operation levels, Operation rules and etc) control and operation points and time series input file. The highest capability of this model was defining of different operation rules in power plant generation flood control conditions, creating scenarios for conditional operation, downstream control point, reservoir system balance to imitate the hydrological condition and installing of different structures in dam body, comparison of output with observed data, defining of different operational level, different computational steps (15 min to a day) and adjustment of output results . [Charalampos Shaulikaris, 2008] 5.2 ResSim Modules ResSim offers three separate sets of functions called Modules that provide access to specific types of data within a watershed. These modules are Watershed Setup, Reservoir Network, and Simulation. Each module has a unique purpose and an associated set of functions accessible through menus, toolbars, and schematic elements. 5.2.1. Watershed Setup Module The purpose of the Watershed Setup module is to provide a common framework for watershed creation and definition among different modeling applications. This module is currently common to HECResSim, HEC-FIA, and the CWMS CAVI. A watershed is associated with a geographic region for which multiple models and area coverages can be configured. A watershed may include all of the streams, projects (e.g., reservoirs, levees), gauge locations, impact areas, time-series locations, and hydrologic and hydraulic data for a specific area. All of these details together, once configured, form a watershed framework. When a new watershed is created, Res Sim generates a directory structure for all files associated with the watershed. In the Watershed Setup module, items are assembled, that describe a watersheds physical arrangement. Once a new watershed is created, it is possible to import maps from external sources, specify the units of measure for viewing the watershed, add layers containing additional information about the watershed, create a common stream alignment, and configure elements.

36 Projects can be added and time-series icons can be created within the Watershed Setup module. 5.2.2. Reservoir Network Module The purpose of the Reservoir Network module is to isolate the development of the reservoir model from the output analysis. In the Reservoir Network module, river schematic is built, physical and operational elements of reservoir model are described, and alternatives are developed for analyzing. Using configurations that are created in the watershed Setup module as a template, basis of a reservoir network is created. Routing reaches are and possibly other network elements to complete the connectivity of your network schematic. Once the schematic is complete, physical and operational data for each network element are defined. and assignment of DSS pathnames (time-series mapping). Also, alternatives are created that specify the reservoir network, operation set(s), initial conditions,

5.2.3. Simulation Module The purpose of the Simulation module is to isolate output analysis from the model development process. Once the reservoir model is complete and the alternatives have been defined, the Simulation module is used to configure the simulation. The computations are performed and results are viewed within the Simulation module. When you create a simulation you must specify a simulation time window, a computation interval, and the alternatives to be analyzed. Then, ResSim creates a directory structure within the rss folder of the watershed that represents the simulation. Within this simulation tree will be a copy of the watershed, including only those files needed by the selected alternatives. Also created in the simulation is a DSS file called simulation. dss, which will ultimately contain all the DSS records that represent the input and output for the selected alternatives. Additionally, elements can be edited and saved for subsequent simulations.

37

Figure: 5.1: Procedural Flow Chart 5.3 Model development

The centerline (stream alignment) of the watershed model includes the river system and the reservoir created by the construction of 140 m high concrete dam. The current study is performed considering the one and only priority of the project is the power production and no obligation for downstream release. However, 10% of stream flow has been targeted as minimum downstream release. Future development of the model can feature one or more reservoirs and other water management issues. 5.3.1. Input Data for HEC Res Sim The reservoir is the key component in the most hydropower projects. It is the reservoir that makes it possible to store water in periods with a large inflow and less demand, and release

38 it in periods with less inflow and larger demand. In other words, the reservoir works as a "buffer" to reduce the problems that show up when inflow and demand do not occur at the same time. Following data is provided for each reservoir module to run HEC Resevoir Simulation: Topographic map of the study area. An AUTOCAD drawing containing physical features of the study area such as stream alignments, location of reservoir, area of the reservoir, contour, impact area etc was imported as background map. Then required model was drawn on the basis of the background map. River alignment, reservoir area, impact area, river junctions, computational points are the required physical data. 2. Hydrological Data. Major computational points are included as the inlet and outlet of the reservoir. The

input for the inlet is the average daily stream flow calculated from the data recorded from 1964 to 1999. Mean monthly flow at the dam site is shown in Table 12 at Annex -III .Similarly Input of Daily Stream Flow is shown in Table 4.4. The area volume curve of the reservoir has been adopted from the study conducted by JICA in 2007.Other required data as evaporation data, climate data have been extracted from the feasibility study report by NEA in 2001.

Table 5.1: Monthly Average Flow (MAF) -Evaporation Rate (ER) S.N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Jan Feb Mar April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec MAF(m3/s) 27.03 23.72 24.01 27.43 41.07 113.84 287.22 322.61 225.77 112.43 52.01 34.36 ER (mm/month) 69.09 91.97 152 176 184.5 200.7 191 189.4 166 129.4 80.3 64.76

39

Source: NEA, 2001

Table 5.2: Reservoir Volume and Elevation

S.N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Height (m) 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370

Area(km^2) 0.02 0.15 0.32 0.46 0.56 0.71 1.10 1.29 1.48 1.73 2.11 2.38 2.88

Volume(MCM) 0 0.42 1.59 3.54 6.1 9.29 13.82 19.81 26.74 34.77 44.38 55.6 68.74

40 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 375 380 385 390 395 400 405 410 415 420 425 430 435 3.37 3.85 4.36 4.79 5.20 5.73 6.23 6.70 7.26 7.92 8.67 9.82 11.24 84.35 102.4 122.93 145.78 170.74 198.06 227.95 260.25 295.14 333.08 374.57 420.79 473.45

Source: NEA, 2001 3. Time-Step A daily time-step HEC-ResSim model was developed for the study to simulate 1964-1999 period-of-records. The monthly average generated daily records have been taken .This average stream flow data accounts for nearly 45 % probability of exceedence. (Annex-III, Table 11) 4. Guide curve A guide curve suggests the level of water at the reservoir at any time of the year. Rule curves are simply elevations at each reservoir that help guide the operation (i.e. drafting or filling) Rule curves specify the highest and the lowest elevation that a reservoir should be operated to in order to stay within the planning objective. Intermediate rule curves help determine which projects release water first when energy is needed. the

Flood Control

41 defines the drawdown required to assure adequate space to store the

anticipated runoff without causing downstream flooding (Maximum Elevation). Critical Rule Curve defines how deep a reservoir can be drafted in order to meet the firm energy requirements during the poorest water conditions on record (Minimum Elevation). 5.4 Modeling the dams complex

The modeling of the Upper Seti Hydro Electric Project dam using HEC-ResSim is carried out in a three phase process: the Watershed network setup, the parameterization of the dam's components and the simulation of the different operational scenarios. 5.4.1 The watershed network setup

The initial phase of the modeling concerns the tracing of the connected flow elements of the river watercourse between Dhulegauda and the dam site. course, the modeling includes the placement of stream Apart from the main junctions at the

segments gathering the water drained from the various watersheds nourishing the Seti River. An inlet computational point (CP3) has been artificially placed at the upstream end of the reservoir in order to simulate the total inflow to the reservoir. Similarly an outlet computational point (CP4) is placed at the dam outlet to simulate the release. The stream junction points of the watershed are as follows: Jyagdi Khola junction Pirun Khola junction Wantan Khola junction Bange Khola junction Kumle Khola junction Guhe(Kumle Khola tributary) junction Kyangdi Khola junction

42

Figure 5.2: Representation of the watershed in HEC-ResSim 5.4.2. The parameterization of the study dam Following the geographic placement of the HEC-ResSim elements including main stream segments, inflow point, dams with their connections to the main river stream as well as outflow point , the next step of the HEC-ResSim set-up is the definition of the technical parameters defining for dam: the geometric properties of the pool, the capability of the hydropower plant and the definition of the various management constraints flooding. 5.4.3. Operational Parameters River flow catchment (Km2) Maximum discharge (m3/sec) Full Supply level (F.S.L) (m) 127 425 1502 regarding the electric power production, the regime of released flow and the operation in conditions of

43 Minimum operation level (M.O.L) (m) Volume in (F.S.L) 106 m^3 Volume in (M.O.L) 106 m^3 Reservoir surface in F.S.L (Km2) Tailrace water level (m) Upper spillway level Elevation of crest dam (m) Height of dam (m) Number of Turbine units Total installed power (MW) 370 374.57 68.74 8.67 289 385.82 430 140 2 127

As an illustration of how HEC-ResSim dam parameters have been set, the detailed process followed for the Upper Seti Dam is presented as follows: 5.4.4 Definition of the pool parameters

For the reservoir characteristics, the minimum operating level is 370 m and upper crest of the gate is maintained at 320 m. This defines the lowest elevation from which it is possible to release water. Below this level the storage capacity of the reservoir is considered to be equal to zero since the stored water cannot be used. When the upper operation level is reached at 425 m the volume of the stored water is 374.57 million m with water is 8.67 area and water height.
Table 5.3: Gate Settings Elevation (m) 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 345 Max capacity (cms)for gate settings(m) 1 0 910.26 1322.58 1633.97 1894.87 2123.95 2330.62 2520.41 5 0 678.47 1175.15 1517.11 1795.07 2035.41 2250.23 2446.26 9 0 678.47 1006.33 1390.45 1689.38 1942.84 2166.86 2369.8 12.5 0 678.47 1006.33 1269.3 1591.16 1858.07 2091.19 2300.81
3

and the area covered

km 2. HEC-ResSim provides various models of relation between pool

44
350 355 360 365 370 375 380 385 390 395 400 405 410 415 420 425 430 435 2696.87 2862.47 3019 3167.81 3309.94 3446.2 3577.29 3703.73 3826 3944.48 4059.5 4171.35 4280.29 4386.51 4490.23 4591.6 4690.78 4787.91 2627.71 2797.41 2957.39 3109.14 3253.83 3392.35 3525.44 3653.68 3777.57 3897.52 4013.89 4126.98 4237.05 4344.33 4449.03 4551.32 4651.36 4749.3 2556.67 2730.79 2894.46 3049.35 3196.74 3337.64 3472.82 3602.93 3728.5 3849.99 3967.75 4082.12 4193.37 4301.74 4407.45 4510.68 4611.61 4710.37 2492.86 2671.14 2838.25 2996.05 3145.94 3289.01 3426.11 3557.93 3685.04 3807.91 3926.93 4042.46 4154.77 4264.12 4370.74 4474.82 4576.54 4676.04

440 420

Elev (m)

400 380 360 340 320 300 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Capacity (cms)
1.00-Elevation 9.00-Elevation 5.00-Elevation 12.50-Elevation

Figure 5.3: Gate settings curve

Table 5.4: Reservoir pool parameter

45
Elevation(m) (m) 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370 375 380 385 390 395 400 405 410 415 420 425 430 435
40 4

Storage (m^3) 0.00 420,000.00 1,590,000.00 3,540,000.00 6,100,000.00 9,290,000.00 13,820,000.00 19,810,000.00 26,740,000.00 34,770,000.00 44,380,000.00 55,600,000.00 68,740,000.00 84,350,000.00 102,400,000.00 122,930,000.00 145,780,000.00 170,740,000.00 198,060,000.00 227,950,000.00 260,250,000.00 295,140,000.00 333,080,000.00 374,570,000.00 420,790,000.00 473,450,000.00

Area (ha) 2.00 15.00 32.00 46.00 56.00 71.00 110.00 129.00 148.00 173.00 211.00 238.00 288.00 337.00 385.00 436.00 479.00 520.00 573.00 623.00 670.00 726.00 792.00 867.00 982.00 1124.00
40 4

40 2

40 2

40 0

40 0

Elev (m)

30 6

Elev (m) 0 1 E .0 8 2 E .0 8
Sto (m ) r 3

30 8

30 8

30 6

30 4

30 4

30 2

30 2

30 0

3 E .0 8

4 E .0 8

5 E .0 8

30 0

20 0

40 0

60 0

80 0

10 00

10 20

A a (h ) re a

So g Ca a y t ra e p cit A a re

Figure 5.3: Area Storage Graph

Table 5.5: Input (Daily Stream flow)

46
Month /Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Avg

Jan 29.74 29.51 29.36 28.99 28.75 28.48 28.33 29.07 28.44 27.91 27.44 27.24 27.06 26.94 27.80 27.45 27.16 26.72 26.27 26.16 26.01 25.87 25.69 25.46 25.40 25.39 25.47 25.03 25.02 24.82 24.53 27.02

Feb 25.02 24.33 24.05 24.25 24.04 24.23 23.74 24.20 23.89 23.78 24.08 23.54 23.52 23.63 24.05 23.60 23.54 23.78 23.07 23.24 23.24 23.26 23.24 23.06 23.18 23.17 23.07 23.07

23.67

Mar 23.60 23.27 23.14 23.64 23.65 23.82 23.74 23.36 23.49 23.27 23.08 24.70 24.88 23.79 23.65 23.62 23.86 23.99 24.25 23.87 24.29 24.25 24.89 24.42 23.78 23.98 24.08 23.85 24.17 25.20 24.48 23.94

Apr 25.48 25.00 25.09 24.08 24.61 23.97 23.86 24.23 25.43 25.44 25.72 25.83 26.29 27.55 26.89 27.39 27.92 27.44 27.66 28.38 27.47 29.89 31.84 30.06 31.58 29.11 29.50 30.93 31.50 31.81 27.40

May 32.49 31.26 33.15 32.92 34.11 34.01 34.01 33.06 36.11 36.90 35.55 36.00 35.89 38.12 42.91 48.99 46.66 45.44 42.02 40.89 43.23 42.29 45.48 44.46 43.31 48.87 53.47 49.95 48.69 48.07 46.99 40.82

Jun 48.63 49.59 55.71 55.69 55.01 61.43 59.98 57.87 79.97 75.18 72.85 82.58 97.10 94.37 99.99 104.59 120.75 141.52 131.92 132.76 143.05 136.77 146.27 160.01 165.48 169.25 174.18 189.05 214.30 223.36 113.31

Jul 242.01 228.53 239.71 230.83 239.03 240.45 253.02 251.37 252.45 270.84 285.14 274.15 260.62 295.79 288.25 296.06 305.69 323.13 304.02 303.64 286.68 294.92 304.51 309.96 331.63 309.76 325.26 324.28 349.24 333.02 335.69 286.76

Aug 354.45 349.36 469.73 344.67 353.71 332.13 335.08 336.09 306.33 327.93 350.20 354.08 338.63 331.14 304.23 300.60 303.37 341.21 307.04 302.26 316.80 304.57 315.09 304.96 309.68 324.81 293.94 280.15 290.17 273.54 264.13 323.23

Sep 290.23 276.70 278.41 266.15 266.06 275.48 251.19 254.49 250.73 255.33 248.72 251.56 248.38 312.37 225.28 216.40 217.19 205.19 208.29 202.61 199.25 187.99 187.63 183.99 181.31 178.68 172.15 167.49 175.50 160.84 226.52

Oct 151.22 148.65 168.18 173.72 171.04 153.64 144.33 140.02 137.18 132.28 130.82 125.12 143.43 118.70 109.87 105.08 98.42 97.42 93.86 91.77 87.57 84.94 82.76 81.09 78.36 76.60 74.36 72.93 71.94 71.07 67.79 112.39

Nov 66.02 64.62 61.53 62.94 63.12 57.97 56.41 56.20 54.54 52.69 53.85 53.44 52.39 51.64 50.85 50.38 49.29 48.97 47.70 47.20 46.97 45.88 45.23 44.29 43.72 43.51 42.83 41.98 41.41 39.78 51.24

Dec 40.46 40.04 39.42 38.84 38.57 37.68 37.32 37.18 36.77 37.28 36.25 36.06 35.77 35.75 34.48 34.04 33.48 32.96 32.50 32.01 31.59 31.10 30.72 30.88 30.67 31.51 30.80 30.08 29.47 29.16 28.27 34.23

Source: NEA, 2001 5.4.5 The power plant parameters In HEC-ResSim, the power plant module is used in order to define the electric power generated by the turbines. The total installed capacity of the Upper Seti Plant is 127 MW at the maximum discharge of 127.4 cumecs. The tail water elevation is set at 289.00 m. The efficiency of the power plant is taken as 90%.The simulation performed in this study is set to a daily time interval 5.4.6 Definition of Operational parameters

In HEC-ResSim, the dam operation is defined by three typical operation modes, also called zones, which are respectively called: Flood control, Conservation and Inactive. These zones of operation are based on specific reservoir elevations and contain a set of rules that describe the goals and constraints that should be followed when the reservoir's pool

47 elevation is within a particular zone. Operation zones are provided for each month. For each mode of operation (zone), the rules are ordered by priority. The HEC- ResSim ad-Hoc algorithm attempts to fulfill the requirements of the highest priority rule, if these are successfully reached, the program switches to the next rule and will proceed in the same fashion. 5.4.7 The flow requirements for environmental constraints

As my study is primarily aimed at studying the possible benefits of the Upper Seti project in terms of maximum power production , particular focus has been put on the flow requirements necessary to meet this goal the environmental obligation as well. Regarding the state of the environment, it has been assumed that 10 % of original river flow will be set as minimum downstream release. 5.4.8 Operational Strategy

Identifying the optimum operating strategy is one of the major tasks of water resource planning. The approach is always based on how to manage or run the reservoir during each time-step. The reservoir must be operated in accordance with a predefined strategy. The strategy alternatives are: Automatic reservoir balancing Reservoir release specification Reservoir guide curve One of these strategies must be used for reservoir defined. Development of Reservoir guide curve is one of the objectives to be provided for the operation of reservoir. The reservoir guide curve tells us how the reservoir should be operated most economically.

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

48 The study was conducted for the optimum operation of the reservoir of USHEP using HEC Reservoir Simulation model. Since the only priority of the project is the power production, simulation was carried out for maximum of power generation. As an environmental mandatory release minimum of monthly inflow was allocated as downstream release. For this purpose, two different scenarios were analyzed. 6.1 Scenario 1: When reservoir sediment flushing operation is carried out. Sedimentation in reservoir is a serious problem wherein the live storage capacity is decreased effecting the operation of the reservoir. In this case, the sediment flushing facilities were proposed at the lowest possible elevation, thus the sill level of the facilities was decided at Elevation 320 .00m as recommended by JICA study in 2007. The reservoir water level is lowered less than MOL during the sediment flushing operation which is carried out during rainy season, so power generation is at minimum during this operation. It is estimated that suspension of power generation of the Project in the rainy season does not affect electricity supply in national grid because other ROR type plants can supply sufficient electricity during this period. The sediment flushing operation is carried out in former half of the rainy season because flood forecast network is not prepared in Nepal, the sediment flushing operation may not be completed within the rainy season if the operation is planned in the period of season in which inflow of river water decreases. According the daily river discharge record, the average monthly discharge gets to the maximum in August ,so it is not desirable that the sediment flushing operation is carried out in August so that river flows through sediment flushing facilities. It is desirable that the sediment flushing operation is carried out in June so that secondary electricity generation decreases due to flushing operation as little as possible. The results obtained shows that maximum power can be generated during August and September and gradually decreases as the inflow is decreased with the reservoir level is maintained at FSL. During January, the power produced increases as the drawdown begins. Simulated results are shown in Table 5.1.

Table 6.1: Scenario 1 Results

49 Simulated Parameters Inflow (cm) Reservoir Storage(Mcm) Reservoir Elevation(m) Power generated(MW) Total Energy(GWh) Plant Factor Release for Power(m^3) Target Elevation (m) Jan 27.02 340.70 420.85 62.10 46.20 0.49 53.31 419.50 Feb 23.67 270.04 411.35 51.97 34.92 0.41 48.54 408.50 Mar 23.94 204.56 401.34 43.22 32.16 0.34 43.65 397.50 Apr 27.40 155.36 391.53 38.94 28.04 0.31 42.75 386.50 May 40.82 92.74 376.81 51.62 38.41 0.41 65.35 375.50 Jun 113.31 16.20 335.79 4.88 3.39 0.04 12.69 345.00

Table 6.1: Scenario 1 Results (contd...) Simulated Parameters Inflow (cm) Reservoir Storage(Mcm) Reservoir Elevation(m) Power generated(MW) Total Energy(GWh) Plant Factor Release for Power(m^3) Target Elevation (m) Jul 286.76 24.58 344.66 56.81 42.27 0.44 111.69 346.25 Aug 323.23 209.08 399.69 127.00 94.49 1.00 134.30 398.75 Sep 226.52 374.59 425.00 127.00 94.49 1.00 107.08 425.00 Oct 112.39 374.55 425.00 107.48 79.97 0.85 90.63 425.00 Nov 51.24 374.57 425.00 54.61 39.32 0.43 46.04 425.00 Dec 34.23 374.42 424.98 36.72 27.32 0.30 30.96 425.00

The guide curve developed suggested that the purpose: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

following ideal criteria for operational

The reservoir is operated for 6 hours daily during dry period. The power station is operated 24 hours in wet period. The drawdown in the reservoir, if required, starts on January 1. The reservoir is at MOL on June1, if possible. The reservoir flushing operation starts on June 1 and is expected to The reservoir sediment flushing gates are closed on July 31. Filling of the reservoir starts on August 1, if not earlier. The reservoir is full on September 1, if not earlier. Inflow of the river and plant discharge is equal for the month of

take 20 days to lower the reservoir level to sill level of the sediment flushing gates.

October and the reservoir is full, if possible.

50 10. 11. 12. May. 13. Wet season energy is available energy for the months June to October. Minimum downstream discharge (10%) shall be spilled during If more water is available in the month of July, August and September Dry season energy is the available from the month of November to

October to June, if possible. than utilized by the optimum plant capacity, it will be spilled.

The reservoir operation curve developed is as shown in figure below.

51

Figure 6.1: Rule curve for scenario 1

52 6.2 Scenario 2: When no sediment flushing operation carried out and inflow is reduced by 20 %. In this case, the inflow is reduced by 20 % of the input provided in scenario 1.Other physical parameters of the reservoir are similar to those of the scenario 1.Daily Simulation is carried out for every month .Results show that the power production decreases uniformly as the inflow decreases. The water level drops to MOL (370.00 m) during the month of June wherein the storage drops to an average of 83.54 MCM. The power generated is to maximum capacity during July, August and September. (127 MW).Due to increased inflow the water level increases and attains FSL (425.00 m) during September. The water level is maintained at FSL up to the month of December before the drawdown starts from the month of January. Table 6.2: Scenario 2 Results Simulated Parameters Inflow (cm) Reservoir Storage(Mcm) Reservoir Elevation(m) Power generated(MW) Total Energy(GWh) Plant Factor Release for Power(m^3) Target Elevation (m) Jan 21.62 339.66 420.55 52.80 42.57 0.45 56.76 419.50 Feb 18.94 269.42 411.35 45.01 29.13 0.34 40.88 408.50 Mar 19.15 210.04 402.18 36.85 31.14 0.33 43.19 397.50 Apr 21.92 159.45 392.67 33.69 22.86 0.24 35.06 386.50 May 32.66 117.34 383.48 35.93 26.01 0.28 35.93 375.50 Jun 90.65 83.54 374.28 75.70 53.47 0.57 102.45 370.00

Table 6.2: Scenario 2 Results (contd...) Simulated Parameters Inflow (cm) Reservoir Storage(Mcm) Reservoir Elevation(m) Power generated(MW) Total Energy(GWh) Plant Factor Release for Power(m^3) Target Elevation (m) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 40.99 374.57 425.00 47.03 805.80 0.26 27.89 425.00 Dec 27.38 374.57 424.98 30.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 425.00

229.41 258.58 181.22 89.91 95.48 303.17 374.57 374.57 377.52 415.34 425.00 425.00 127.00 127.00 127.00 99.31 3048.00 3048.00 2961.20 1228.10 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.40 120.01 107.05 103.44 42.48 383.75 411.25 425.00 425.00

The guide curve developed suggested that the

following ideal criteria for operational

53 purpose: 1. The reservoir is operated for 6 hours daily during dry period. 2.The power station is operated 24 hours in wet period. 3.The drawdown in the reservoir, if required, starts on January 1. 4.The reservoir is at MOL on June1, if possible. 5. The reservoir water level is maintained at MOL up to July 1 to make room for expected flood. 6.Filling of the reservoir starts on August 1, if not earlier. 7.The reservoir is full on September 1, if not earlier. 8. Minimum downstream discharge (1 cumecs) shall be spilled during October to June, if possible. 9. If more water is available in the month of July, August and September than utilized by the optimum plant capacity, it will be spilled. 10. Dry season energy is the available from the month of November to May. 11. Wet season energy is available energy for the months June to October. Summary of the results obtained from scenario 2 are tabulated below. The reservoir operation curve developed is as shown in fig 5.8:

54

55

Figure 6.2: Rule curve for scenario 2

56

6.3 Scenario 3: When no sediment flushing operation carried out. In this case, the inflow provided is similar as in scenario 1.Other physical parameters of the reservoir are similar as well. Daily Simulation is carried out for every month .Results show that the power production decreases uniformly as the inflow decreases. The water level drops to MOL (370.00 m) during the month of June wherein the storage drops to an average of 82.24 MCM. The power generated is to maximum capacity during July, August and September. (127 MW).Due to increased inflow the water level increases and attains FSL (425.00 m) during September. The water level is maintained at FSL up to the month of December before the drawdown starts from the month of January. The guide curve developed is similar to that of scenario 2. Table 6.3: Scenario 3 Results Simulated Parameters Inflow (cm) Reservoir Storage(Mcm) Reservoir Elevation(m) Power generated(MW) Total Energy(GWh) Plant Factor Release for Power(m^3) Target Elevation (m) Jan 27.02 333.56 419.95 63.08 46.93 0.50 54.50 419.50 Feb 23.67 270.21 411.39 49.87 33.66 0.39 47.11 408.50 Mar 23.94 211.11 402.14 43.21 32.15 0.34 43.68 397.50 Apr 27.40 161.64 393.13 39.61 29.47 0.31 43.53 386.50 May 40.82 100.93 379.18 46.67 34.72 0.37 59.21 375.50 Jun 113.31 82.24 374.20 87.72 63.16 0.69 118.92 370.00

Table 6.3: Scenario 3 Results (contd...) Simulated Parameters Inflow (cm) Reservoir Storage(Mcm) Reservoir Elevation(m) Power generated(MW) Total Energy(GWh) Plant Factor Release for Power(m^3) Target Elevation (m) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.00 0.00 425.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 425.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 218.36 374.57 374.57 374.57 374.57 403.40 425.00 425.00 425.00 425.00 127.00 127.00 127.00 60.47 49.82 3048.00 3048.00 3048.00 1451.20 1195.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.39 122.88 107.07 106.84 50.96 42.18 383.75 411.25 425.00 425.00 425.00

Figures 6.3 to 6.9 shows the comparative graphs of all the scenarios mentioned above.

57

350.00

Scenario 1 and 3 Scenario 2

300.00 250.00

Inflow(Cumecs)

200.00

150.00

100.00 50.00

0.00 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Months

Figures 6.3: Inflow Curve

400.00 350.00

Reservoir Storage(MCM)

Scenario 1

300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.00

Scenario 2 Scenario 3

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Months

Figures 6.4: Reservoir Storage Curve

58

350.00
Inflow 1 and 3

300.00 Inflow and Release(Cumecs) 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.00

Q-Power 1 Inflow 2 Q-Power 2 Q-Power 3

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Months

Figures 6.5: Inflow and Release Curve

440.00

420.00
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Target 1 Target 2 and 3

Reservoir Elevation(m)

400.00

380.00

360.00

340.00

320.00

300.00 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Months

Figures 6.6: Reservoir Elevation Curve

59

140.00 120.00 100.00

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Power (MW)

80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Months

Figures 6.7: Power Production Curve

100.00 90.00 80.00

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Total Energy(GWh)

70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Months

Figures 6.8: Annual Energy Generation Curve

60

1.20
Scenario 1

1.00

Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Plant Factor

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Months

Figures 6.9: Plant Factor Curve

6.4

Validation of results

In order to gain confidence that the HEC-ResSim model developed for the Upper Seti Hydroelectric Project is acceptable for modeling and simulating the operating plants, comparison is done with other study results conducted by NEA and JICA. The models used by NEA and JICA were "Reservoir Simulation Version 1.0" and EPDC/KCC FLOW 500 MODEL respectively. The comparision charts are shown below: Table 6.4: Comparision chart-1 (With Sediment Flushing) Average Optimum Head Plant (m) JICA Current Study 116.2 109.5 Capacity(MW) 126 127 0.52 0.505 Plant Capacity Wet season Energy(GWh) 344 314.6 Annual Energy (GWh) 574.1 560.95

S.N

Dry season Energy(GWh ) 230.1 246.35

Table 6.5: Comparision chart-2 (Without Sediment Flushing)

61 These validation results show that the HEC-ResSim model developed for the S.N Average Optimum Head Plant (m) NEA 111.04 Capacity(MW) 122.2 127 0.555 0607 Plant Capacity Wet season Energy(GWh) 422.43 425.11 Dry season Energy(GWh ) 171.93 253.43 (GWh) 594.36 678.54 Annual Energy

Current Study 114

current study shows good reflection with the results obtained from the NEA and JICA model simulations and can be operating plans on used to assess the relative impacts of the various It can be concluded flexible enough to the Reservoir system of Upper Seti Project.

that the HEC Reservoir Simulation model has proved to be adequately simulate the operating plans for reservoir.

VII.
7.1. Conclusion

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

62 The conclusions that can be drawn from this study are as follows: 1. The application of simulation models is one of the most efficient ways of analyzing water resources systems, which is based on physical relations accompanied by a series of operational rules attempting to simulate a phenomena as close as possible to reality and the system behavior under a specified policy. HEC-ResSim is one of the simulation models that possess of multi reservoir simulators and can simulate water resources systems. In this research, performance of Upper Seti storage dam and its water supply was evaluated. Model verification results of Upper Seti reservoir indicate that, this model is able to simulate the behavior of the system very well. 2. The results obtained from the simulation suggest that it is in close agreement with the results of the feasibility study prepared by JICA in 2007.The rule curve suggested by the present study shows the reservoir is filled by September 1.The study suggests that reservoir be filled maximum in the first day of September instead of December. Water level should be allowed to go below the FSL before the start of dry season so that peak demand can be fulfilled. 3. Results obtained from scenario 1 suggest that sediment flushing operation can be carried out before the start of rainy season. Inflow considered was 45 % probability of exceedence and this inflow is enough to recover the water level to FSL before the end of wet season. 4. Results obtained from scenario 2 suggest that production of energy is not affected even by decreasing the inflow by 20 % .Inflow considered was 70 % probability of exceedence and this inflow is also enough to recover the water level to FSL before the end of wet season. 5. Results obtained from scenario 3 suggest that higher plant factor is achieved than previous scenarios and annual energy generation is increased by 17.32% and 8.68% than scenario 1 and scenario 2 respectively. 6. Total annual generation of energy with and without sediment flushing facilities is 560.95 GWh and 678. GWh respectively, whereas, 619.63 GWh energy is generated when sediment flushing facilities are not carried out and inflow decreased by 20% of previous scenarios. This shows that higher plant factor is obtained if sediment flushing is not carried out but it would decrease the live storage of the reservoir in future. 7.2. Recommendations

63 Based on the present study, following recommendations are made for further work: 1. The present study is done with generated daily stream flow data. Simulation is done for a typical year taking average of the generated data. It is recommended that simulation to be done for every year i.e from 1964 to present. 2. Due to time and study limitations, the study focused on the power generation only. It is recommended that other aspects of the simulation like downstream routing, provision of multiple reservoirs could be taken into account. 3. The present study has performed with simple operation rules. HEC Res Sim is equipped with advanced operating system which also includes scripted operation rules. This allows the project to be studied with more elaborate operation rules. 4. It is recommended to perform the simulation taking in consideration of reservoir sedimentation. 5. Reliability, resiliency and vulnerability indices were not used for system evaluation. These model verification results indicate would further help in establishing it as a powerful tool in reservoir simulation.

REFERENCES
1. Beard L.R., 1975. Models for optimizing the multipurpose operation of a reservoir system. Proceedings of Application of Mathematical Models in Hydrology

64 and Water Resources Systems, Bratislava 1975, pp. 13-21. 2. Djordjevic B., Jovanovic S., Opricovic S., Simonovic S., 1975. Simulation models of the Velika Morava basin for the design of a multipurpose reservoir system. Proceedings and Water Resources Systems, 3. of Application of Mathematical Models in Hydrology Bratislava 1975, pp. 85-94.

Feasibility Study, Upper Seti Storage Hydroelectric Project, Hydrology and Sediment study, Vol II-Appendix B, Nepal Electricity Authority, 2001.

4.

Hall W.A. and Dracup J.A.(1970), Water Resources system Engineering, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York.

5.

Hanbali, F. (2004). HEC-ResSim Reservoir Model for Tigris and Euphrates River Basins in Iraq. Advance in Hydrologic Engineering Center-US Army Corps.

6.

Harboe et al. (1970), Optimal policy for reservoir operation, Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE vol. 96 NO HY 11, p p 2297-2308.

7.

Harboe R. (1970),Optimal policy for reservoir operation, Journal of Hydraulic Division ,ASCE vol. 96 HY 11

8.

Hartzell H., 1936. Continuous measurement of water-flow through turbines and dam gates. Association Internationale dhydrologie scientifique, Edimbourg 1936, pp. 397-412.

9.

Jacoby, H.D. and Loucks, D.P.(1972), Combined Use of Optimization and Simulation Model in River Basin and Planning, Water Resource Research, Vol. 8, No. 6, 1401-1414.

10.

Laurent J., 1936. La mesure des dbits hydrauliques - Application aux essais des grandes centrales hydrolectriques. Association Internationale dhydrologie scientifique, Edimbourg 1936, pp. 357-382.

11.

Lien, N.D. (1976), Effect of sample size of stream flow record and output of Water resources system, M.Engg Thesis (1976), Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.

12.

Loucks D.P (1976) , Stochastic method for analyzing river basin system, Cornell University, New York

13.

Ph.d Thesis, Charalampos Shoulikaris, Mathematical modeling applied to the

65 sustainable management of water resources projects at a river basin scale The case of Mesta Nestos, 2008 14. Reddy, W.W.(1962), Conventional methods of analysis in design of water resources system, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 15. Siminovic, S.P.(2002), World Water Dynamic: Journal of Environmental Management, 66:24,367. 16. Upgrading Feasibility Study on the Upper Seti Storage Hydroelectric Project in Nepal, JICA, 2007 17. USACE-HEC (2007), HEC-ResSim 3.0 Reservoir System Simulation, User Global Modeling of Water Resource.

manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineers Center. Sep07, PP: 426. 18. Yeh W.W-G, (1985), Reservoir Management and Operation Model: A State of the Art Review, Water Resource Research, 1797-1817. 19. Performance evaluation of Jhiroft storage dam operation simulation using HEC-res sim 2.0,Hossein Babazadeh,Hossein Sedghi,Feriydon Kaveh and Habib Mousavi Jahromi,P.hd candidate,Islamic Azad University,2007. 20. Hari Shankar Shrestha, 2009, Assessment of energy production from major hydro power projects in Nepal.

66

Annex A: Monthly Operation curves

A1: Operation for January

67

A2: Operation for February

Fig A3: Operation for March

A4: Operation for April

68

A5: Operation for May

A6: Operation for June

Fig A7: Operation for July

69

Fig A8: Operation for August

Fig A9: Operation for September

Fig A10: Operation for October

70

Fig A11: Operation for November

Fig A12: Operation for December

71

Annex B: Monthly Power Production curves

72 B1: Power for January

B2: Power for February

B3: Power for March

73 B4: Power for April

B5: Power for May

B6: Power for June

74 B7: Power for July

B8: Power for August

B9: Power for September

75 B10: Power for October

B11: Power for November

B12: Power for December

76

Annex C: Tables

77

C1 - Table:Probability of Exceedance of flow at Dam Site

SN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Exceedence
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Discharge Equalled or Exceeded(Cumecs) Janaury

39.85 37.09 35.44 33.72 33.02 31.90 30.64 29.90 28.12 27.35 25.49 25.06 24.71 24.32 23.62 23.08 22.32 20.78 20.09 18.32 10.52

Feb
36.60 33.68 32.78 30.70 29.58 28.33 27.63 26.33 24.00 23.17 21.90 21.16 20.61 20.44 20.38 19.94 18.66 17.82 17.41 14.78 9.93

March
36.11 33.54 31.74 30.14 29.80 29.72 27.87 27.17 26.47 25.46 24.70 21.59 21.10 20.78 19.70 18.83 18.00 16.76 15.93 14.99 11.28

April
40.78 39.22 36.78 34.07 32.62 31.19 30.34 29.80 29.13 28.86 28.61 26.38 25.27 24.87 24.33 23.46 22.82 20.34 19.00 14.90 11.93

May
68.91 63.95 59.12 54.47 51.25 48.70 46.58 40.75 40.07 39.05 38.46 37.43 36.80 35.66 34.94 34.42 31.00 28.84 26.02 23.50 16.63

June
255.88 188.31 169.23 152.67 150.99 147.29 129.74 114.94 111.73 107.04 102.18 96.65 92.91 91.84 88.07 83.81 77.94 73.35 70.70 62.04 34.36

July
445.10 425.60 390.80 380.67 343.35 334.08 320.26 309.58 291.21 288.18 280.50 270.09 264.43 258.44 247.84 230.90 228.35 220.57 198.38 171.68 127.99

Aug
460.52 448.37 429.28 410.96 389.00 374.10 365.49 347.78 328.44 320.68 320.09 313.90 300.57 287.91 279.18 267.82 259.65 243.71 235.62 209.30 193.91

Sep
319.36 313.19 292.85 273.87 264.03 252.78 250.88 247.12 242.69 238.99 219.37 215.54 212.78 203.97 199.78 193.15 185.77 177.83 166.98 152.36 141.59

Oct
326.56 175.77 144.43 137.29 129.86 125.15 119.80 113.54 111.56 107.83 106.64 105.17 102.64 96.29 87.81 85.04 79.47 69.85 65.14 62.39 37.74

Nov
85.89 75.75 68.69 60.31 57.50 56.09 55.87 54.62 54.23 53.24 51.86 50.01 49.27 45.59 44.12 43.59 43.27 40.72 37.11 32.06 17.67

Dec
53.81 48.96 44.32 41.07 39.24 39.00 37.73 36.32 35.63 34.18 33.80 33.43 33.31 31.92 30.98 30.47 27.33 26.13 25.77 21.68 12.93

500 450 400

Jan

350 Discharge (m3/s) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Probability of Exceedance (%) 80% 90% 100%

Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

78

C - 2: Mean monthly flows at the dam site

Year
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 max mean min

Jan
31.80 34.00 24.60 20.60 24.90 18.30 20.20 23.70 25.70 25.10 36.80 33.00 22.30 22.70 32.30 37.70 25.20 18.20 33.30 39.80 28.00 36.90 24.70 23.50 30.20 33.90 28.10 20.00 31.10 23.20 29.30 10.50 30.10 27.20 24.20 21.30 39.80 27.01 10.50 972.40

Feb
30.40 29.50 22.20 20.70 20.50 14.60 17.30 18.70 20.30 17.60 33.70 32.10 23.10 20.40 29.60 33.70 22.90 14.90 30.80 36.60 21.20 33.50 19.80 20.40 26.80 27.80 24.80 17.60 27.90 20.60 27.50 9.90 21.60 24.00 21.50 17.90 36.60 23.68 9.90 852.40

Mar
30.10 29.70 21.00 20.10 24.70 15.20 16.30 18.80 19.40 18.00 32.60 30.20 19.80 20.70 27.20 29.80 25.30 15.60 36.10 35.30 21.70 33.00 21.40 21.40 27.00 27.80 26.00 16.80 26.50 14.50 29.80 11.30 30.90 28.40 24.90 17.00 36.10 24.01 11.30 864.30

Apr
31.90 32.70 19.40 22.80 25.30 15.00 24.60 29.10 20.50 25.80 40.80 22.80 24.90 30.20 29.40 37.70 26.60 28.70 40.10 34.50 24.00 39.10 28.50 23.60 28.80 30.50 35.90 20.30 25.20 14.70 30.10 11.90 31.00 32.60 29.10 18.80 40.80 27.41 11.90 986.90

May
68.90 36.30 22.20 24.50 34.90 16.60 35.30 39.60 52.90 39.20 39.00 24.00 40.90 46.80 68.70 51.90 37.10 40.10 48.90 46.70 62.80 61.10 27.90 31.20 40.70 59.40 55.20 33.40 35.70 30.00 37.00 28.30 37.60 38.40 48.70 34.80 68.90 41.02 16.60 1476.70

Jun
78.00 151.00 63.50 57.80 141.90 34.40 91.20 187.70 106.60 176.30 91.70 84.90 190.20 92.40 162.10 84.70 107.90 95.50 96.90 72.80 151.90 114.90 117.60 72.20 111.70 146.60 152.90 114.90 82.00 97.80 106.80 255.90 69.20 74.90 149.30 93.10 255.90 113.31 34.40 4079.20

Jul
134.30 293.50 228.40 231.30 336.10 128.00 380.80 291.20 325.60 244.00 343.30 427.00 380.30 288.50 381.00 315.00 425.10 400.60 257.70 210.40 445.10 333.40 260.70 280.00 264.40 251.70 271.90 281.00 188.90 218.40 184.20 314.90 227.00 229.60 288.10 264.80 445.10 286.84 128.00 10326.20

Aug
460.50 368.50 259.60 213.20 287.00 315.00 412.00 300.60 362.50 389.00 411.60 328.40 342.30 409.00 349.60 447.00 446.50 376.50 271.30 270.50 287.30 197.50 259.80 279.50 320.50 310.70 237.30 320.40 289.80 321.30 233.90 193.90 319.80 258.90 452.60 238.70 460.50 320.63 193.90 11542.50

Sep
313.10 190.30 159.80 185.80 222.70 264.00 202.10 212.80 251.60 265.30 254.40 305.50 216.00 428.30 215.60 239.40 313.70 242.70 155.50 276.70 243.50 202.90 280.20 183.60 238.90 240.20 194.10 250.20 197.40 215.40 142.80 175.90 252.20 141.60 207.30 174.20 428.30 229.33 141.60 8255.70

Oct
112.40 62.60 66.00 77.20 326.60 79.50 106.10 145.70 108.60 259.40 131.70 139.20 88.40 111.80 106.00 107.20 82.50 97.00 85.90 143.20 96.10 126.20 147.90 87.30 102.60 113.90 102.80 117.20 124.80 122.40 37.70 129.90 107.60 61.80 64.20 67.40 326.60 112.41 37.70 4046.80

Nov
82.00 46.90 48.60 43.50 42.10 40.30 56.80 67.70 51.40 74.40 43.80 54.10 43.60 74.80 64.30 57.50 43.80 50.20 54.50 54.70 58.60 56.50 59.20 54.20 52.90 53.80 44.50 56.30 50.30 56.80 17.70 85.90 45.80 35.00 35.60 23.10 85.90 52.26 17.70 1881.20

Dec
53.80 31.30 25.50 33.80 23.70 26.10 33.40 40.00 33.40 39.20 34.10 30.40 33.80 43.30 47.70 34.60 26.20 36.90 45.30 35.60 41.30 36.00 30.70 39.20 38.60 36.40 27.30 39.00 30.50 33.30 12.90 52.70 31.50 33.10 26.00 15.30 53.80 34.22 12.90 1231.90

79

14,000 12,000 10,000 Flow (m3/s) 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean Montly Flow

C 3: Probability of Exceedance of flow at Dam Site

80
Discharge Equalled or
Exceeded (cumecs)

SN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Exceedence

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

460.50 338.89 288.02 254.93 215.56 165.13 120.96 96.22 72.56 56.52 46.75 39.20 35.78 33.39 30.50 28.48 25.72 23.67 20.70 17.96 9.90

500 450 400 350 Discharge (m3/s) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0%

20%

40% 60% Probability of Exceedance (%)

80%

100%

C 4: Probability of Exceedance of flow at Dam Site

SN
Exceedence

Discharge Equalled or

81
Exceeded (cumecs)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18% 19% 20% 21% 22% 23% 24% 25% 26% 27% 28% 29% 30% 31% 32% 33% 34% 35% 36% 37% 38% 39% 40% 41% 42% 43% 44% 45% 46% 47% 48% 49%

460.50 439.89 411.75 381.56 367.06 338.89 325.74 318.98 313.41 294.99 288.02 280.12 271.47 264.39 259.53 254.93 250.26 239.98 235.33 227.15 215.56 208.82 197.42 190.03 183.94 165.13 151.85 146.27 141.70 129.92 120.96 114.29 108.85 106.75 102.69 96.22 91.62 85.90 82.11 76.99 72.56 67.99 64.19 61.57 58.09 56.52 54.42 53.29 51.46 48.68

82
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 50% 51% 52% 53% 54% 55% 56% 57% 58% 59% 60% 61% 62% 63% 64% 65% 66% 67% 68% 69% 70% 71% 72% 73% 74% 75% 76% 77% 78% 79% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 46.75 43.93 43.16 40.76 40.03 39.20 38.86 37.70 36.90 36.37 35.78 35.30 34.58 33.95 33.70 33.39 33.00 32.37 31.48 30.96 30.50 30.20 30.07 29.64 29.11 28.48 27.94 27.54 26.96 26.15 25.72 25.20 24.90 24.63 24.00 23.67 23.10 22.70 21.67 21.34 20.70 20.48 20.25 19.80 18.79 17.96 17.37 16.25 14.96 13.40 9.90

83

Flow
500 450 400 350 Discharge (m3/s) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0% 10% 20% 30%

Duration Curve

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Probability of Exceedence (%)