3D Numerical Analysis

of Stilling Basin of KHP

Final Draft Report

Prepared for
Druk Green Consultancy
Druk Green Power Corporation Limited
Thimphu: Bhutan

25th January 2019

 CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................1

1.1 GENERAL REMARKS .........................................................................................................................1

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................................................1
1.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................2

2 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................3

2.1 DATA OF SPILLWAY KURICHHU HYDROPOWER PLANT .........................................................................3

2.2 DAMAGES STILLING BASIN ................................................................................................................3
2.3 BATHYMETRIC DATA.........................................................................................................................6
2.4 GATE OPERATION ...........................................................................................................................7

3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................8

3.1 GENERAL REMARKS .........................................................................................................................8

3.2 SOFTWARE – FLOW-3D .................................................................................................................8

4 MODEL ................................................................................................................................................9

4.1 3D VOLUME MODEL..........................................................................................................................9

4.2 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... 10
4.2.1 Roughness settings ............................................................................................................ 10
4.2.2 Upstream boundary conditions ........................................................................................... 11
4.2.3 Downstream boundary conditions ...................................................................................... 12
4.3 DISCRETIZATION IN SPACE ............................................................................................................ 13

5 FLOW DATA – HYDROLOGY ......................................................................................................... 14

6 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ................................................................................................................ 15

7 GATE OPERATION – LOAD CASES .............................................................................................. 16

7.1 DISCHARGE.................................................................................................................................. 16
7.2 GATE OPERATION ......................................................................................................................... 16
7.3 LOAD CASES (LC) – DENOTATION .................................................................................................. 17

8 GROUP OF ACTIVITIES; RESULTS ............................................................................................... 18

8.1 MODELLING PHASES I –VI............................................................................................................. 18

8.2 EVALUATION PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................ 18
8.3 PHASE I ...................................................................................................................................... 21
8.3.1 Load case N°1 - Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5 ............................................................................ 21
8.3.2 Load case N°3 - Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5 ............................................................................... 30
8.3.3 Load case N°4 - Q1460_s_cw_1/3/5 .................................................................................. 39
8.3.4 Load case N°6 - Q1460_s_cw_2/4 ..................................................................................... 48
8.3.5 Load case N°7 - Q1460_s_cw_3 ........................................................................................ 57
8.4 PHASE II ..................................................................................................................................... 66
8.4.1 Load case N°8 – Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5 .............................................................................. 66
8.4.2 Load case N°9 – Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5 ................................................................................. 75
8.4.3 Load case N°10 – Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5.......................................................................... 84
8.4.4 Load case N°11 – Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5.......................................................................... 93
8.5 PHASE III .................................................................................................................................. 102
 8.5.1 Load case N°2 - Q1460_as_cw_2/3/4/5 ........................................................................... 102
8.5.2 Load case N°5 - Q1460_as_cw_3/4/5 .............................................................................. 111
8.6 COMPARISON RESULTS LOAD CASES ........................................................................................... 120
8.6.1 General remarks ............................................................................................................... 120
8.6.2 LC4 (symmetrical flow) vs. LC5 (asymmetrical flow) ........................................................ 120
8.6.3 LC4 (main, clearwater) vs. LC8 (advanced, clearwater) vs. LC9 (advanced, clearwater) 124
8.6.4 LC 9 (advanced, clearwater) vs. LC 10 (advanced, sed15%) vs.
LC 11 (advanced, sed30%) ............................................................................................................ 128
8.7 PHASE IV .................................................................................................................................. 131
8.8 PHASE V ................................................................................................................................... 131
8.9 PHASE VI .................................................................................................................................. 131
8.9.1 Number of gates in regard to the flood discharge ............................................................ 131
8.9.2 Gate operation .................................................................................................................. 132

9 DAMAGES ...................................................................................................................................... 134

9.1 STILLING BASIN .......................................................................................................................... 134

9.2 SPILLWAYS ................................................................................................................................ 135

10 REMEDIAL CONCEPTS FOR DAMAGES ................................................................................. 135

10.1 STILLING BASIN .......................................................................................................................... 135

10.2 SPILLWAYS ................................................................................................................................ 136
10.3 DOWNSTREAM STOPLOGS .......................................................................................................... 140

11 REPAIR SEQUENCE .................................................................................................................. 141

11.1 CONSTRUCTION OF A COFFERDAM .............................................................................................. 141

11.2 CONSTRUCTION OF A SILL WALL ................................................................................................. 141
11.3 REPAIR OF STILLING BASIN FLOOR SLAB ..................................................................................... 142
11.4 CONSTRUCTION OF STOP LOG PIERS, PHASE 1 (LOWER PART) ..................................................... 142
11.5 CONSTRUCTION OF STOP LOG PIERS, PHASE 2 (UPPER PART ABOVE DRY SEASON WATER LEVEL) .. 142
11.6 STEEL LINING OF SPILLWAYS AND W ALLS .................................................................................... 142

12 LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ 143

13 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 143

14 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 151

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General remarks

Druk Green Power Corporation (subsequently named DGPC) evaluated the conditions in the
stilling basin at Kurichhu Hydropower Plant by using underwater inspection cameras in 2011 and
2013 and by bathymetry and GPR survey 2015 and 2017 [2]. The investigations revealed a
significant erosion of concrete and exposed reinforcement in the stilling basin.

Consequently Energy Infratech Private Limited evaluated in Report on Repair of Stilling Basin
0952-CDT-01A-001-R1 [1] a summary of possible and appropriate measures to repair the stilling
basin. A brief review of this report has been done by Bernard Ingenieure ZT [3] in May 2016. Next
others, one recommendation was to evaluate the hydraulics at the structure by 3d numerical
simulations.

1.2 Scope of work

The scope of our services is to find answers to the below questions which were already
contained in the report [3] dated May 2016:

 How does weir and stilling basin (the system) work under usual low and medium discharge
conditions?
 How does the system work under high flood conditions with high sediment load?
 Where do sediments hit the surface and cause damages?
 How does the system work under the described asymmetric operating conditions?
 Would it be recommendable to operate the gates in a different way to reduce erosion and
abrasion?
 How does the system work under the described asymmetric operating conditions?
 Would it be recommendable to operate the gates in a different way to reduce erosion and
abrasion?
 How can a partly ineffective weir and stilling basin be hydraulically improved during the
proposed repair works (e.g., by slightly different shape or increased water depth)?

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 1

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Evaluation of the stilling basin geometry

By using 3D numerical simulations the energy dissipation can be calculated for different load
cases (gate operation and discharge). With the evaluation of different hydraulic parameters
possible insufficient energy dissipation can be detected and recommendations regarding the
basin geometry can be given.

Shear stress

Due to the fact that erosion in the stilling basin was detected, the main focus of attention is set to
the occurring shear stresses during different flow conditions. With 3D numerical simulations the
shear stress at each point in the stilling basin can be determined.

Optimization of gate operation during floods

Since low and medium flood discharges do not require the opening of all five gates for a save weir
overflow, some gates can stay closed during flood events. A modelling of different load cases can
help to define an optimized gate operation. In a first step, an appropriate operation mode could be
found which helps to minimize the hydraulic stresses at the most affected areas in the stilling
basin. Next to it, a coordinated opening of the gates will be useful for the long term operation of
the power plant.

1.3 Executive Summary

In total, 11 load cases (LC) were modelled by 3D-numerical simulations. Therein different gate
operations (symmetric (LC1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11)/asymmetric (LC2, 5) were assessed, as well as
the influence of the flood discharge magnitude to the emerging shear stresses. In addition, to
evaluate the influence of varying fluid characteristics, connected sediment flow was considered in
two load cases (LC10, LC11).

The results of the simulations have been discussed by evaluating four parameters:

 Froude number
 Shear stress
 Flow velocity
 Flow characteristics (vectors/streamlines)

In general, it could be observed that the shear stresses are low in regard to the modelled flood
discharge. Next to it, the Froude numbers and the flow depths show that the energy dissipation is
efficient. These hydraulic parameters indicate that the spillway geometry and the design of the
stilling basin are appropriate.

The results show that symmetric gate operations minimize backflow at the stilling basin.
Asymmetric gate operations cause massive turbulences, backflow, and vortexes. Suchlike flow
conditions can lead to increased abrasions at the structure. In particular, at flows with connected
sediment transport a symmetric operation is clearly to favour.

The number of gates/spillways has to be adjusted according to the flood discharge. At high flood
discharges the use of 4 (n-1) or 5 gates (n-0) reduces the stresses at each spillway.

In addition to the 3D analysis the report reflects concepts and considerations for sustainable
remedial measures as well as recommendation for the optimal sequence of repair measures
which may extend over 3 to 4 low water seasons.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 2

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

2 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Data of spillway Kurichhu hydropower plant

The key data of the spillway at Kurichhu hydropower plant has been taken from [1] and is
summarized below:

 5 Bays of 10.50 m (W) X 14.0 m (H)

 Spillway Crest Level El 506.0 m
 Maximum Spillway Design Discharge 12,200 m³/s
 FRL: El 531.0 m
 MDDL: El 526.0 m
 Stilling Basin: Single basin for all spillway bays without divide wall; width 80.5 m, length
104 m
 Invert at El 485.00 m
 End sill at El 489.10 m

A representing cross section through the spillway bay is given in Figure 1.

2.2 Damages stilling basin

Based on the inspection report 2013 following notes were made in [1] regarding the damages in
the stilling basin:

 Major exposure of reinforcement in the basin in front of S1 and S5 bays as indicated by

circle A & B in the map (Figure 2)
 Minor exposure of reinforcement in the basin in front of S2, S3 and S4 bays.
 Sand accumulation is more in middle of the basin due to bath tub like profile of the stilling
basin. Lesser visibility of reinforcement in S2, S3 and S4 bays could be due to sand
accumulation.
 Substantial numbers of exposed reinforcement were observed in small circle location a, b,
c & d except S5 (Spillway S5 has been out of operation since last 4 years). The erosion
was limited to surface to a depth of about 150 mm.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 3

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 1: Cross section spillway-stilling basin [1]

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 4

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 2: Areas of damages stilling basin [1]

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 5

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

2.3 Bathymetric data

A GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) survey and bathymetric survey has been done by PARSAN
Overseas (Pvt.) Limited [2]. The results show a good correlation between the two methods.
Massive erosion could be detected, up to 5 m, and a local collapse of the concrete slab (deep
erosion hole).

Figure 3: Results of the bathymetric survey, plot according to [2]

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 6

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

2.4 Gate Operation

Table 1 and Figure 4 show the gate operation recorded manually by KHP during the past seven
years. Spillway S5 was four years (2012-2014 and 2016) out of operation.

The preferences in the operation mode will be considered in the model settings for the 3D
numerical simulations.

Table 1: Gate operation 2012-2017; annual flow at spillway bay S1 – S5

Year Q_Gate-S1 Q_Gate-S2 Q_Gate-S3 Q_Gate-S4 Q_Gate-S5 SUM GATES

10³ m³ 10³ m³ 10³ m³ 10³ m³ 10³ m³ 10³ m³
2012 18406 421039 299446 288152 157 1027200
2013 374940 109902 285009 313744 0 1083595
2014 471959 384244 80977 262133 0 1199314
2015 276920 55477 136042 13844 45209 527492
2016 168656 254537 268657 200461 60 892372
2017 359408 1985 410300 222577 164008 1158278
2018 16077 16668 57097 24422 6848 121112

Figure 4: Annual discharge in 10³ m³ at each spillway bay (S1-S5)

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 7

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 General remarks

Since the reasons for the damages are not clear, numerical simulations of the weir overflow and
stilling basin flow were recommend [3]. In general, with 2D numerical simulations shear stress
distributions can be determined but will not allow an accurate modelling of the occurring hydraulic
jump and flow velocities in the stilling basin due to the depth-averaged approach of the flow
conditions.

Because of that an investigation by a 3D numerical model was recommend which now under
progress by using the software FLOW-3D (Flow Science).

3.2 Software – FLOW-3D

The main model elements were taken from the user manual and are given as brief summary in
the following listing. An extended model description can be found in [4]:

 FLOW-3D is an established model to solve hydraulic question in hydraulic engineering

problems especially with free surface flow. FLOW-3D is a general-purpose computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) software. It employs specially developed numerical techniques to
solve the equations of motion for fluids to obtain transient, three-dimensional solutions to
multi-scale, multi-physics flow problems. An array of physical and numerical options
allows users to apply FLOW-3D to a wide variety of fluid flow and heat transfer
phenomena. Fluid motion is described with non-linear, transient, second-order differential
equations. The fluid equations of motion must be employed to solve these equations. The
science (and often art) of developing these methods is called computational fluid
dynamics. A numerical solution of these equations involves approximating the various
terms with algebraic expressions. The resulting equations are then solved to yield an
approximate solution to the original problem [4].
 The software is based on a structural orthogonal simulation mesh (Finite Difference
method). FLOW-3D uses a fractional areas/volumes approach called FAVOR™
(Fractional-Area-Volume-Obstacle-Representation) for geometric complex areas, and a
free-gridding method for the mesh generation [4].
 Free surface exists in many simulations carried out with FLOW-3D. It is challenging to
model free surfaces in any computational environment because flow parameters and
materials properties, such as density, velocity and pressure experience a discontinuity at
it. In FLOW-3D, the inertia of the gas adjacent to the liquid is neglected, and the volume
occupied by the gas is replaced with an empty space, void of mass, represented only by
uniform pressure and temperature. This approach has an advantage of reducing the
computational effort since in most cases the details of the gas motion are unimportant for
the motion of much heavier liquid. Free surface becomes one of the liquid’s external
boundaries. A proper definition of the boundary conditions at the free surface is important
for an accurate capture of the free-surface dynamics. The Volume of Fluid (VOF) method
is employed in FLOW-3D for this purpose. It consists of three main components: the
definition of the volume of fluid function, a method to solve the VOF transport equation
and setting the boundary conditions at the free surface [4].

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 8

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

4 MODEL

4.1 3D volume model

The 3D volume model was created in AutoCAD. At that point the model was separated in
concrete structures and in the terrain. This step is necessary because in Flow 3D only one
roughness value can be set to a volume model. The model was cut at the reservoir 250 m upside
the dam and in the lower course approximately 300 m downstream of the dam (Figure 5, Figure 6,
Figure 7).

Figure 5: 3D volume model (concrete structures shown in yellow, terrain shown in grey)

Figure 6: 3D volume model (concrete structures shown in yellow, terrain shown in grey), view from
reservoir

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 9

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 7: 3D volume model (concrete structures shown in yellow, terrain shown in grey), view from
downstream

4.2 Boundary conditions

4.2.1 Roughness settings

The surface roughness of the concrete structures (shown in reddish in Figure 8) was set to
1 mm. The terrain (shown in purple in Figure 8), including the reservoir, the river bed and the
banks at the lower course, were defined by an average roughness of 25 cm.

Figure 8: Surface roughness settings

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 10

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

4.2.2 Upstream boundary conditions

The upstream boundary condition is defined by a volume flow rate according to Figure 10. For
stability reasons the numerical model was filled by an increasing discharge from 500 m³/s to the
main load case discharge of 1,459 m³/s and the advanced load case 3,710 m³/s. A sudden
alteration in the inflow rate can result in inaccurate calculations of the hydraulics.

Figure 9: Upstream boundary conditions

Figure 10: Upstream boundary conditions, input mask Flow 3D

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 11

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

4.2.3 Downstream boundary conditions

The downstream boundary condition is defined by a water-level to discharge relation according

to Figure 12. The relation has been evaluated by considering the cross section geometry at the
model outflow (approximately 300 m downstream of the dam), the mean slope of the river bed
and an average manning value n = 0.035.

The downstream boundary conditions have been adapted for the load cases which consider
sediment transport. Therefore, the manning value was set to n = 0.040 for the scenario based
on a 15% sediment flow, and to n = 0.047 for the scenario based on 30% sediment flow.

Figure 11 illustrates the water-level discharge relations.

Figure 11: Downstream boundary condition defined by water-level discharge relations

Figure 12: Downstream boundary conditions, input mask Flow 3D

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 12

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

4.3 Discretization in space

In regard to convenient simulation times the discretization in space is of major importance. In
general, a discretization as coarse as possible, as fine as necessary, should be considered as a
rough guide. A high number of calculation cells, which comes from a very fine discretization
results in a long simulation time.

Some limitations at the discretization are given by the minimum occurring flow depth. Through to
the mathematical background at least 5-10 cells should be wetted for an appropriate numerical
simulation. With that, the maximum cell size is given by the minimum flow depth divided by 5.

In the simulations following guideline has been considered:

 fine discretization at points of interest (spillway, stilling basin); cells size down to 0.25 m
 coarse discretization at the reservoir and the lower course cell size up to 2.00 m
 definition of ineffective area (for example power house) which are not considered in the
simulations

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 13

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

5 FLOW DATA – HYDROLOGY

Table 2 and Figure 13 give a summary of the hydrological data from 1991 to 2013 at Kurizampa
which is located close to the dam site. The values were derived from daily flow data. The
catchment area at Kurizampa is 8.999 km². Although the catchment area at the dam site is
slightly smaller (8.782 km², 98%) these values were taken to determine the spillway flow for the
numerical simulations (values are on the safe side).

The average maximum annual flow is about 1,459 m³/s. This flood discharge value was set to a
main load case according to section 7.

Table 2: Hydrological data at Kurizampa

2
Catchment area km 8.999
3
Average flow m /s 296
3
Average Max flow m /s 1,459
3
Average min. flow m /s 244
Ave. Annual Vol. (MCM) MCM 9,335
2
Average sp. Runoff l/s/km 33
Average Runoff mm 1,037
3
Average lean season flow (m /s) mm 83
2
Minimum Specific Runoff l/s/km 9.3

Figure 13: Flow data at Kurizampa, catchment area 8.999 km²

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 14

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

6 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
In general, sediment transport can increase the stresses to the spillway and the stilling basin. It
was assumed that due to the reservoir’s shape and depth only fine sediments are transported
through the spillway. But because of to the explanations and documentations by Mrs. Tashi
Lhamo as part of the technical visit in December 2018 it became obvious that the reservoir is
flushed every year and that the sediment management is of major importance. Flushing on
regular basis causes high stresses to the structure and an increased abrasion by the flushed
sediments is most likely.

Because of the estimated long calculation time and the influence on the stability of the simulation
runs it is not recommended to simulate the spillway flow with connected sediment transport.
That’s the reason why simulation runs were done with adapted model settings (fluid density) to
consider a possible impact by sediment transport (Load case 10; Load case 11). With that
approach the total flow of Q = 3,710 m³/s consist of water-sediment mixture. At load case 10 the
sediment concentration was set to 15 vol. % (150,000 ppm) and at load case 11 the sediment
concentration was set to 30 vol. % (300,000 ppm) which represent a very high sediment load at
the beginning of a flushing process (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Assumption fluid characteristics, sediment flow

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 15

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

7 GATE OPERATION – LOAD CASES

7.1 Discharge
The main load case is defined by an average maximum annual flow according to section 5 which
is about 1,459 m³/s. It can be defined as a regular hydraulic stress for the spillway and the stilling
basin.

The advanced load case is defined by a discharge of approximately 3,710 m³/s. This is the
highest mean daily discharge recorded between 1991 and 2013.

The quoted values are average daily values. Temporarily higher discharge, during shorter periods
of time, is possible. Nevertheless, it has been assumed that a discharge of 3,710 m³/s (advanced
load case) is representative for occasionally occurring peak discharges during shorter period of
time.

7.2 Gate operation

Various symmetrical and asymmetrical gate operations have been considered in the simulations.
The main goal is to evaluate whether certain operation methods can reduce the occurring shear
stresses and whether asymmetrical operations can results in unfavourable flow conditions in the
stilling basin. Table 3 gives an overview of the chosen settings.

Table 3: Overview simulation runs

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 16

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

7.3 Load cases (LC) – denotation

The load cases are categorized by the flow discharge and the connected gate operation.
Furthermore simulations are seperated in clear water and sediment flow load cases. In regard to a
better understanding a short form has been defined which consist of the flood discharge, the
number of gates which are used, including the distinction of symmetrical and asymmetrical flow
and clear water and sediment flow (15%/30%):

discharge (main load/advanced load) (Q1459/Q3710)

+ symmetry (symmetrical/asymmetrical) (a/as)

+ clearwater/sediments (cw/sed15/sed30)

+ gate operation (S1/S2/S3/S4/S5) (1/2/3/4/5)

For example, a flood event with a peak discharge of 1,460 m³/s (main load case), without
sediments, which is executed by all gates is defined by

Q1459_as_cw_1/2/3/4/5.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 17

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8 GROUP OF ACTIVITIES; RESULTS

8.1 Modelling Phases I –VI

Table 4 shows a summary of the workflow by quoting six modelling phases.
Table 4: Workflow, modelling phases

Phase Item

Study and analyse the behaviour of the spillway and the stilling basin
I
under the main load case according to section 5 and 7 (Q = 1,459 m³/s).

Study and analyse the behaviour of the system under high flood
II
conditions (Q = 3,710 m³/s) and with sediment load.

Study and analyse the behaviour of the system under the described
III
asymmetric operating conditions.

Study and recommend proposals to repair/improve hydraulic performance

IV
of the system along with drawings and technical specifications.

Recommendation to improve the construction methodology in working

V situation of leakage from gates and back flow of water from the tail pool
side towards stilling basin.

Recommend standard operation procedures during different flow

VI conditions, to be adopted by Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
personnel.

8.2 Evaluation parameters

The results of the calculations show hydraulic parameters and indicate whether an unfavourable
design of the stilling basin or its geometry can be a reason for the appearing damages. The main
parameters are the Froude number and the shear stress. In addition, the flow velocity, flow
vectors and the stream lines are given in the following explanations.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 18

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.2.1.1 Froude number

In regard to the Froude number the flow can be defined as

 sub-critical flow if Fr < 1,

 super-critical flow if Fr > 1,
 critical flow if Fr = 1, the water depth is the critical water depth if Fr = 1

According to Naudascher (1992) and Peterka (1978) it can be distinguished between different
forms of hydraulic jumps by evaluating the Froude number at the spillway flow (Fr 1 ):
Table 5: Hydraulic jump characteristics

Class Fr 1 h22)/h11) description, characteristics

1 < 1.0 < 2,0 subcritical flow; no hydraulic jump

2 1.0 – 1.7 < 2,0 undulating wave

3 1.7 – 2.5 > 2,0 weak jump

oscillating jump, waves reach in the

4 2.5 – 4.5 > 2,0
lower course

5 4.5 – 9.0 > 2,0 well balanced jump

strong turbulent jump, high energy

6 > 9.0 > 2,0
dissipation
1
) h1(flow depth spillway)
2
) h2 (water depth stilling basin)

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 19

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.2.1.2 Shear stress

The (bed) shear stress arises due to shear forces and pressure at the river bed and/or structure.
The shear stress depends on the density of the fluid, the flow-cross section-geometry and the
energy gradient of the water course.

The shear stress represents the main parameter in the analysis. Large values indicate high
loads to the structure which could effect the occurring damages at the spillway and the stilling
basin. The values are given in Pascal (Pa) which is equal to Newton per square metre (N/m²).

Light blue and blue colours indicate low shear stresses, reddish and yellow coloured sections
are areas with high shear stresses.

8.2.1.3 Flow velocity

The flow velocity is given in defined colour pattern. Light blue and blue colours indicate lower
flow velocities, reddish and yellow coloured sections are areas with high flow velocities.

8.2.1.4 Velocity vectors

The velocity vectors show the flow direction of the fluid. The given figures are qualitative
illustrations only. (The magnitude of the flow velocity can be seen in figures according section
8.2.1.3). Nevertheless, larger vectors indicate higher flow velocity.

8.2.1.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

The streamlines show by the tangent at each point the direction of the flow velocity. The
streamlines are given in a colour scheme which defines the occurring flow velocity.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 20

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3 Phase I

8.3.1 Load case N°1 - Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5

8.3.1.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is about 2.84 and the connected flow
depth is 1.7 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 10.0 m, after the spillway)
the ratio h 2 /h 1 is larger than 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 4 jump with
backflow effects (Figure 15; Figure 16; Figure 17; Figure 18).

Figure 15: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, Froude number, top view

Figure 16: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 21

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 17: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 2.84 +

20 m

Figure 18: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 22

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.1.2 Shear stress

The simulation practically shows an equal discharge through all five gates (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). For that
reason the occurring shear stresses are almost the same at each gate. The maximum observed
shear stress is about 600 N/m² (Figure 22) at the spillway. In the first quarter of the stilling basin
the maximum stresses are about 200 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction
(Figure 19, Figure 20, Figure 21).

Figure 19: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, shear stress, top view

Figure 20: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, Shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 23
3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 21: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, shear stress, plan view

τ = 592 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 22: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 24

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.1.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 16 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow velocities
can be detected in the in the first quarter, due to the bottom flow which is connected to the flow
characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 23, Figure 24, Figure 25, Figure 26).

Figure 23: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, flow velocity, top view

Figure 24: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 25

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 25: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, flow velocity, plan view

v = 17.3 m/s +

20 m

Figure 26: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 26

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.1.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 27: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 28: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 27

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.1.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the gate operation the flow in the stilling basin is characterized by a symmetrical pattern
(Figure 29, Figure 30). At the plan view almost no backflow areas can be detected (Figure 31).
The section view shows that there exist backflow above the hydraulic jet from the spillway
(Figure 32). This pattern matches to the classification of the hydraulics jump according to the
Froude number and the flow depth ratio h 2 /h 1 .

Figure 29: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, streamlines, top view

Figure 30: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 28

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 31: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, streamlines, plan view

20 m

Figure 32: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 29

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.2 Load case N°3 - Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5

8.3.2.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is 2.80. The flow depth at the spillway is
1.85 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 10.0 m, after the spillway) the
ratio h 2 /h 1 is larger than 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 4 jump with backflow
effects (Figure 33, Figure 34, Figure 35, Figure 36).

Figure 33: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, top view

Figure 34: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 30

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 35: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 2.80 +

20 m

Figure 36: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 31

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.2.2 Shear stress

The simulation shows an equal discharge through all four gates (1, 2, 4, 5). For that reason the
occurring shear stresses are almost the same at each spillway. The maximum observed shear
stress is about 660 N/m² (Figure 40) at the spillway. In the first quarter of the stilling basin the
maximum stresses are about 300 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction (Figure
37, Figure 38, Figure 39).

Figure 37: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, top view

Figure 38: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 32

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 39: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, plan view

τ = 660 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 40: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S1

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 33

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.2.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 18.1 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow
velocities can be detected in the in the first quarter, due to the bottom flow which is connected to
the flow characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 41, Figure 42, Figure 43, Figure 44).

Figure 41: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, top view

Figure 42: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 34

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 43: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, plan view

v = 18.1 m/s +

20 m

Figure 44: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S1

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 35

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.2.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 45: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 46: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 36

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.2.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the gate operation the flow in the stilling basin is characterized by a symmetrical pattern
(Figure 47, Figure 48). At the plan view almost no backflow areas can be detected (Figure 49).
The section view (gate/spillway 1) shows that there exist backflow above the hydraulic jet from
the spillway (Figure 50). This pattern matches to the classification of the hydraulics jump
according to the Froude number and the flow depth ratio h 2 /h 1 .

Figure 47: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, top view

Figure 48: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 37

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 49: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, plan view

Figure 50: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S1

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 38

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.3 Load case N°4 - Q1460_s_cw_1/3/5

8.3.3.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is 2.45. The flow depth at the spillway is
2.35 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 10.0 m, after the spillway) the
ratio h 2 /h 1 is larger than 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 4 jump with backflow
effects (Figure 51, Figure 52, Figure 53, Figure 54).

Figure 51: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, top view

Figure 52: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 39

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 53: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 2.45 +

20 m

Figure 54: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 40

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.3.2 Shear stress

The simulation shows an equal discharge through all three gates (1, 3, 5). For that reason the
occurring shear stresses are almost the same at each spillway. The maximum observed shear
stress is about 715 N/m² (Figure 58) at the spillway. In the first quarter of the stilling basin the
maximum stresses are about 300 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction (Figure
55, Figure 56, Figure 57).

Figure 55: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, top view

Figure 56: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 41

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 57: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, plan view

τ = 715 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 58: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 42

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.3.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 19.0 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow
velocities can be detected in the in the first quarter, due to the bottom flow which is connected to
the flow characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 59, Figure 60, Figure 61, Figure 62). The
flow velocities are remaining high at the left and right bank of the basin (v ~ 12 m/s)

Figure 59: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, top view

Figure 60: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 43

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 61: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3

v = 19.0 m/s +

20 m

Figure 62: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, plan view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 44

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.3.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 63: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 64: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 45

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.3.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the gate operation the flow in the stilling basin is characterized by a symmetrical pattern
(Figure 65, Figure 66). At the plan view almost no backflow areas can be detected (Figure 68).
The section view (gate/spillway 3) shows that there exist backflow above the hydraulic jet from
the spillway (Figure 67). This pattern matches to the classification of the hydraulics jump
according to the Froude number and the flow depth ratio h 2 /h 1 .

Figure 65: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, top view

Figure 66: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 46

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 67: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S3

Figure 68: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, plan view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 47

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.4 Load case N°6 - Q1460_s_cw_2/4

8.3.4.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is 2.24. The flow depth at the spillway is
2.35 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 12.0 m, after the spillway) the
ratio h 2 /h 1 is larger than 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 3 (weak jump) with
backflow effects (Figure 69, Figure 70, Figure 71, Figure 72).

Figure 69: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, Froude number, top view

Figure 70: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 48

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 71: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 2.24 +

20 m

Figure 72: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, Froude number, section centre line gate S2

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 49

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.4.2 Shear stress

The simulation practically shows an equal discharge through all two gates (2, 4). For that reason
the occurring shear stresses are almost the same at each gate. The maximum observed shear
stress is about 814 N/m² (Figure 76) at the spillway. In the first quarter of the stilling basin the
maximum stresses are about 600 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction (Figure
73, Figure 74, Figure 75).

Figure 73: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, shear stress, top view

Figure 74: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 50

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 75: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, shear stress, plan view

τ = 814 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 76: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, shear stress, section centre line gate S2

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 51

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.4.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 20 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow velocities
can be detected in the in the first quarter, due to the bottom flow which is connected to the flow
characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 77, Figure 78, Figure 79, Figure 80).

Figure 77: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, flow velocity, top view

Figure 78: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 52

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 79: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, flow velocity, plan view

v = 20.0 m/s +

20 m

Figure 80: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, flow velocity, section centre line gate S2

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 53

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.4.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 81: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 82: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 54

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.4.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the gate operation the flow in the stilling basin is characterized by a symmetrical pattern
(Figure 83, Figure 84). At the plan view almost no backflow areas can be detected (Figure 85).
The section view shows that there exist backflow above the hydraulic jet from the spillway
(Figure 86). There exists a significant spatial influence to the energy dissipation. Due to the fact
that gates/spillways 1, 3 and 5 are closed an almost unrestricted diffusion of the jets from
spillway 2 and 4 can be observed at the stilling basin.

Figure 83: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, streamlines, top view

Figure 84: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 55

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 85: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, streamlines, plan view

Figure 86: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, streamlines, section centre line gate S2

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 56

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.5 Load case N°7 - Q1460_s_cw_3

8.3.5.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is 1.87. The flow depth at the spillway is
5.80 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 10.0 m, after the spillway) the
ratio h 2 /h 1 is about 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 2 jump (weak energy
dissipation) (Figure 87, Figure 88, Figure 89, Figure 90).

Figure 87: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, Froude number, top view

Figure 88: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 57

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 89: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 1.87 +

20 m

Figure 90: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, Froude number, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 58

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.5.2 Shear stress

The maximum observed shear stress is about 1,052 N/m² (Figure 94) at the spillway. Because
of the high spillway flow (1,459 m³/s through one spillway) the maximum stresses in the stilling
basin are also about 1,000 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction. The spatial
influence of energy dissipation can be seen in Figure 91, Figure 92, Figure 93 and Figure 94.

Figure 91: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, shear stress, top view

Figure 92: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 59

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 93: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, shear stress, plan view

τ = 1,052 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 94: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, shear stress, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 60

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.5.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 23.0 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow
velocities can be detected in the in the first quarter, due to the bottom flow which is connected to
the flow characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 95, Figure 96, Figure 97, Figure 98).

Figure 95: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, flow velocity, top view

Figure 96: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 61

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 97: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, flow velocity, plan view

v = 23.0 m/s +

20 m

Figure 98: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 62

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.5.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 99: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 100: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 63

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.3.5.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the gate operation the flow in the stilling basin is characterized by a symmetrical pattern
(Figure 101, Figure 102, Figure 103). At the plan view almost no backflow areas can be
detected. The section view shows that there exists backflow above the hydraulic jet from the
spillway (Figure 104).

Figure 101: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, streamlines, top view

Figure 102: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 64

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 103: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, streamlines, plan view

Figure 104: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, streamlines, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 65

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4 Phase II

8.4.1 Load case N°8 – Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5

8.4.1.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is 2.08. The flow depth at the spillway is
4.30 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 15.0 m, after the spillway) the
ratio h 2 /h 1 is larger than 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 3 jump (weak jump)
(Figure 105, Figure 106, Figure 107, Figure 108).

Figure 105: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, top view

Figure 106: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 66

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 107: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 2.08 +

20 m

Figure 108: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S1

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 67

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.1.2 Shear stress

The simulation shows an equal discharge through all four gates (1, 2, 3, 5). For that reason the
occurring shear stresses are almost the same at each spillway. The maximum observed shear
stress is about 809 N/m² (Figure 112) at the spillway. In the first quarter of the stilling basin the
maximum stresses are about 500 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction (Figure
109, Figure 110, Figure 111). Due to the restricted flow at the left and right bank the shear
stresses remain higher at the stilling basin in the extended line of spillway S1 and S5.

Figure 109: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, top view

Figure 110: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 68

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 111: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, plan view

τ = 809 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 112: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S1

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 69

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.1.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 19.8 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow
velocities can be detected in the in the first quarter, due to the bottom flow which is connected to
the flow characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 113, Figure 114, Figure 115, Figure 116).
The flow velocities are remaining high at the left and right bank of the basin (v ~ 10 m/s)

Figure 113: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, top view

Figure 114: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 70

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 115: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, plan view

v = 19.8 m/s +

20 m

Figure 116: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S1

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 71

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.1.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 117: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 118: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 72

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.1.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the gate operation the flow in the stilling basin is characterized by a symmetrical pattern
(Figure 119, Figure 120). At the plan view some backflow areas can be detected near the end
sill in the second half of the stilling basin (Figure 121).

Figure 119: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, top view

Figure 120: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 73

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 121: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, plan view

Figure 122: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S1

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 74

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.2 Load case N°9 – Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5

8.4.2.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is 1.96. The flow depth at the spillway is
5.45 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 15.0 m, after the spillway) the
ratio h 2 /h 1 is larger than 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 3 jump (weak jump)
(Figure 123, Figure 124, Figure 125, Figure 126).

Figure 123: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, top view

Figure 124: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 75

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 125: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 1.96 +

20 m

Figure 126: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 76

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.2.2 Shear stress

The simulation shows an equal discharge through all three gates (1, 3, 5). For that reason the
occurring shear stresses are almost the same at each spillway. The maximum observed shear
stress is about 920 N/m² (Figure 130) at the spillway. In the first quarter of the stilling basin the
maximum stresses are about 500 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction (Figure
127, Figure 128, Figure 129). Due to the restricted flow at the left and right bank the shear
stresses remain higher at the stilling basin in the extended line of spillway S1 and S5.

Figure 127: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, top view

Figure 128: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 77

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 129: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, plan view

τ = 920 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 130: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 78

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.2.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 21.0 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow
velocities can be detected in the in the first half, due to the bottom flow which is connected to the
flow characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 131, Figure 132, Figure 133, Figure 134). The
flow velocities are remaining high at the left and right bank of the basin (v ~ 15 m/s).

Figure 131: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, top view

Figure 132: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 79

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 133: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, plan view

v = 21.0 m/s +

20 m

Figure 134: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 80

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.2.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 135: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 136: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 81

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.2.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the gate operation the flow in the stilling basin is characterized by a symmetrical pattern
(Figure 137, Figure 138, Figure 139). At the plan view some backflow areas can be detected
above the hydraulic jets of the spillway. In the second half of the stilling basin no backflow can
be observed (Figure 139).

Figure 137: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, top view

Figure 138: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 82

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 139: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, plan view

Figure 140: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S5

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 83

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.3 Load case N°10 – Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5

8.4.3.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is 1.93. The flow depth at the spillway is
5.45 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 15.0 m, after the spillway) the
ratio h 2 /h 1 is larger than 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 3 jump (weak jump)
(Figure 141, Figure 142, Figure 143, Figure 144).

Figure 141: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, Froude number, top view

Figure 142: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 84

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 143: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 1.93 +

20 m

Figure 144: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 85

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.3.2 Shear stress

The simulation shows an equal discharge through all three gates (1, 3, 5). For that reason the
occurring shear stresses are almost the same at each spillway. The maximum observed shear
stress is about 1,110 N/m² (Figure 148) at the spillway. In the first quarter of the stilling basin the
maximum stresses are about 1,000 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction
(Figure 145, Figure 146, Figure 147). Due to the restricted flow at the left and right bank the
shear stresses remain higher at the stilling basin in the extended line of spillway S1 and S5.

Figure 145: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, shear stress, top view

Figure 146: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 86

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 147: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, shear stress, plan view

τ = 1,110 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 148: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 87

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.3.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 21.0 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow
velocities can be detected in the in the first half, due to the bottom flow which is connected to the
flow characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 149, Figure 150, Figure 151, Figure 152). The
flow velocities are remaining high at the left and right bank of the basin (v ~ 15 m/s).

Figure 149: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, low velocity, top view

Figure 150: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 88

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 151: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, flow velocity, plan view

v = 21.0 m/s +

20 m

Figure 152: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 89

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.3.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 153: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 154: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 90

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.3.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the gate operation the flow in the stilling basin is characterized by a symmetrical pattern
(Figure 155, Figure 156, Figure 157). At the plan view some backflow areas can be detected
above the hydraulic jets of the spillway and at the areas below spillway 2 and 4. In the second
half of the stilling basin no backflow can be observed (Figure 157).

Figure 155: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, streamlines, top view

Figure 156: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 91

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 157: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, streamlines, plan view

Figure 158: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 92

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.4 Load case N°11 – Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5

8.4.4.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is 1.93. The flow depth at the spillway is
5.45 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 15.0 m, after the spillway) the
ratio h 2 /h 1 is larger than 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 3 jump (weak jump)
(Figure 159, Figure 160, Figure 161, Figure 162).

Figure 159: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, Froude number, top view

Figure 160: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 93

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 161: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 1.93 +

20 m

Figure 162: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 94

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.4.2 Shear stress

The simulation shows an equal discharge through all three gates (1, 3, 5). For that reason the
occurring shear stresses are almost the same at each spillway. The maximum observed shear
stress is about 1,300 N/m² (Figure 166) at the spillway. In the first quarter of the stilling basin the
maximum stresses are about 1,000 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction
(Figure 163, Figure 164, Figure 165). Due to the restricted flow at the left and right bank the
shear stresses remain higher at the stilling basin in the extended line of spillway S1 and S5.

Figure 163 LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, shear stress, top view

Figure 164: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 95

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 165: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, shear stress, plan view

τ = 1,300 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 166: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 96

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.4.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 21.0 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow
velocities can be detected in the in the first half, due to the bottom flow which is connected to the
flow characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 167, Figure 168, Figure 169, Figure 170). The
flow velocities are remaining high at the left and right bank of the basin (v ~ 15 m/s).

Figure 167: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5 ,flow velocity, top view

Figure 168: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 97

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 169: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, flow velocity, plan view

v = 21.0 m/s +

20 m

Figure 170: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 98

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.4.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 171: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 172: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 99

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.4.4.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the gate operation the flow in the stilling basin is characterized by symmetrical conditions
pattern (Figure 173, Figure 174, Figure 175, Figure 176). At the plan view some backflow areas
can be detected above the hydraulic jets of the spillway and at the areas below spillway 2 and 4.
In the second half of the stilling basin no backflow can be observed.

Figure 173: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, streamlines, top view

Figure 174: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 100

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 175: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, streamlines, plan view

Figure 176: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S5

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 101

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.5 Phase III

8.5.1 Load case N°2 - Q1460_as_cw_2/3/4/5

8.5.1.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is about 2.73. The flow depth at the
spillway is about 1.85 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 10.0 m, after the
spillway) the ratio h 2 /h 1 is larger than 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 4 jump
with backflow effects (Figure 177, Figure 178, Figure 179, Figure 180).

Figure 177: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, Froude number, top view

Figure 178: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 102

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 179: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 2.73 +

20 m

Figure 180: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 103

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.5.1.2 Shear stress

The simulation shows equal flow through all four gates (2, 3, 4, 5). Because of that the occurring
shear stresses are nearly the same at each gate. The maximum observed shear stress is about
700 N/m² (Figure 184) at the spillway. In the first quarter of the stilling basin the maximum
stresses are about 400 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction (Figure 181,
Figure 182, Figure 183).

Figure 181: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, shear stress, top view

Figure 182: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 104

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 183: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, shear stress, plan view

τ = 695 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 184: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 105

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.5.1.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 18.7 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow
velocities can be detected in the in the first quarter, due to the bottom flow which is connected to
the flow characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 185, Figure 186, Figure 187, Figure 188).
The highest velocities can be observed at the left bank.

Figure 185: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, flow velocity, top view

Figure 186: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 106

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 187: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, flow velocity, plan view

v = 18.7 m/s +

20 m

Figure 188: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 107

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.5.1.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 189: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 190: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 108

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.5.1.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the asymmetric flow at LC2 backflow areas can be observed at the right bank (Figure
191, Figure 192, Figure 193, Figure 194). This flow pattern could be detected at Kurichhu Dam
in real world which confirms the results of the numerical simulations.

Figure 191: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, streamlines, top view

Figure 192: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 109

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 193: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, streamlines, plan view

Figure 194: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 110

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.5.2 Load case N°5 - Q1460_as_cw_3/4/5

8.5.2.1 Froude number

The maximum occurring Froude number at the spillway is about 2.51. The flow depth at the
spillway is 2.3 m. Due to the large water depth in the stilling basin (h 2 ~ 10.0 m, after the
spillway) the ratio h 2 /h 1 is larger than 2. The hydraulic jump can be classified as class 4 jump
with backflow effects (Figure 195, Figure 196, Figure 197, Figure 198).

Figure 195: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Froude number, top view

Figure 196: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Froude number, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 111

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 197: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Froude number, plan view

Fr = 2.51 +

20 m

Figure 198: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 112

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.5.2.2 Shear stress

The simulation shows equal flow through all three gates (3, 4, 5). Because of that the occurring
shear stresses are nearly the same at each spillway. The maximum observed shear stress is
about 800 N/m² (Figure 202) at the spillway. In the first quarter of the stilling basin the maximum
stresses are about 500 N/m². The values decrease towards the flow direction (Figure 199,
Figure 200, Figure 201).

Figure 199: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, shear stress, top view

Figure 200: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 113

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 201: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, shear stress, plan view

τ = 798 N/m² +

20 m

Figure 202: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 114

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.5.2.3 Flow velocity

The maximum flow velocity at the spillway is 19.7 m/s. In the stilling basin still high flow
velocities can be detected in the in the first quarter, due to the bottom flow which is connected to
the flow characteristic of the hydraulic jump (Figure 203, Figure 204, Figure 205, Figure 206).

Figure 203: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, top view

Figure 204: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 115

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

50 m

Figure 205: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, plan view

v = 19.7 m/s +

20 m

Figure 206: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 116

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.5.2.4 Velocity vectors

Figure 207: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, velocity vectors, top view

Figure 208: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, velocity vectors, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 117

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.5.2.5 Streamlines – flow characteristics

Due to the asymmetric flow at LC5 a significant backflow area can be observed at the right bank
(Figure 209, Figure 210, Figure 211, Figure 212). The water vortex and the backflow are
increased compared to LC2. This flow pattern could be detected at Kurichhu Dam in real world
which confirms the results of the numerical simulations.

Figure 209: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, streamlines, top view

Figure 210: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, streamlines, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 118

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 211: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, streamlines, plan view

Figure 212: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S3

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 119

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.6 Comparison results load cases

8.6.1 General remarks

Subsequently comparisons of load cases are given to underline the effect of different gate
operations, the influence of the discharge and sediment flow. The analyses are focused on main
aspects like flow characteristic and deviations regarding the occurring shear stresses and quality
of the hydraulic jump.

8.6.2 LC4 (symmetrical flow) vs. LC5 (asymmetrical flow)

Load case 4 (LC4) and load case 5 (LC5) are characterized by a flow through 3 gates. While in
LC4 gate 2 and 4 are closed, in LC5 openings 1 and 2 are not used (Table 3). The modelled
discharge is the main load discharge (Q = 1,459 m³/s). Both scenarios are described by a
clearwater flow.

8.6.2.1 Froude number

Although the load cases are based on different gate operations the gate flow and the connected
flow depth are almost the same. For that reason no significant distinctions regarding the Froude
number can be observed. The maximum Froude number at the LC4 is 2.45, at LC5 2.51 (Figure
213). Due to the remarkable backflow at the right bank at LC5 locally higher Froude number can
be observed in that area.

LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5

LC5_Q1459_s_cw_3/4/5

Figure 213: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Froude number, top view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 120
3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.6.2.2 Shear stress

The magnitude of the shear stress is connected to the spillway flow. Due to the fact that the
discharge at each gate is almost the same, the shear stresses at the spillways are similar. In the
stilling basin different conditions can be detected. Understandably, due to the flow at gate 1, at
LC4 the right bank is more affected than at LC5. At LC5 the shear stresses are higher at the left
bank. Due to the symmetrical flow at LC4 (and the closed gates 2 and 4) a spatial effect can be
detected which increases the energy dissipation. For that reason the shear stresses are lower in
the middle of the stilling basin. At LC4 the maximum observed shear stress at the spillways is
715 N/m² and about 800 N/m² at LC5. The maximum shear stresses at the stilling basin are
about 600 N/m² at both cases (Figure 214).

LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5

LC5_Q1459_s_cw_3/4/5

Figure 214: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 121

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.6.2.3 Flow velocity

The results of the flow velocity show the same pattern as the results of the shear stresses. At
LC5 the velocities are higher in the middle of the stilling basin than at LC4 (Figure 215).
Although gate 1 is closed, it can be detected higher velocities at the right bank. The reason
behind it is the occurring water vortex and backflow in the stilling basin which has its origin in the
asymmetrical gate operation (Figure 216).

Figure 215: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view

no backflow backflow

Figure 216: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view

8.6.2.4 Streamlines – flow characteristics

The results of LC5 show a significant backflow area at the right bank. Although the shear
stresses can be kept small, this flow pattern could influence the energy dissipation and the
reservoir flushing. Because of the backflow sediments could be returned in the stilling basin. The
difference in the flow characteristics can be seen by comparison of the streamlines at LC4 and
LC5 (Figure 217). This flow conditions could also be observed in real world during flushings at
Kurichhu dam (Figure 218).

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 122

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

no backflow

LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5

backflow/
vortex

LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5

Figure 217: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, streamlines, top view

Figure 218: Observed flow conditions at asymmetrical spillway flow at Kurichhu dam, equivalent
simulation example: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 123

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.6.3 LC4 (main, clearwater) vs. LC8 (advanced, clearwater) vs. LC9 (advanced, clearwater)

A comparison of LC4, LC8 and LC9 shows the influence of the flood discharge to the shear
stress. Next to it, the comparison between LC8 (n-1) and LC9 (n-2) depicts a possible reduction
of the stresses by using different gate operations for same flood discharges.

8.6.3.1 Shear stress

Due to the higher discharge LC9 reveals higher shear stresses at the spillway and at the stilling
basin. The maximum observed shear stresses at LC4 are 715 N/m² (centre line spillway S3), at
LC9 the observed shear stresses reach to 920 N/m² (centre line spillway S3). Because of using
one additional spillway (n-1, 4 open gates) the spillway flow decreases compared to LC9 and
the shear stress can be reduced to 809 N/m² at LC8 (Figure 219; Figure 220). A reduction of the
shear stresses can also be observed at the stilling basin.

8.6.3.2 Streamlines – flow characteristics

The results show symmetric flow pattern at all three load cases. Because of the advanced flood
discharge at LC9 the flow velocities are higher than in LC4. In LC8 the velocities are higher at
the left and right bank than at LC9. There are little backflow areas at the end of the stilling basin
(Figure 221).

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 124

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5

increased shear stress due

to higher discharge

LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5
decreased shear stress due
to n-1 operation

LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5

Figure 219: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC9_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear

stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 125

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5

compared to LC4 due to

higher discharge
increased shear stress

LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5
compared toLC9 due to n-1
decreased shear stress

operation

LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5

Figure 220: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC9_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear

stress, plan view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 126

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5

LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5

LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5

Figure 221: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC9_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5,

streamlines, plan view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 127

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.6.4 LC 9 (advanced, clearwater) vs. LC 10 (advanced, sed15%) vs. LC 11 (advanced, sed30%)

The comparison of LC9, LC10 and LC11 shows the influence of sediment flow to the shear
stress. The load cases are characterized by the same flood discharge and gate operation
method. LC9 is modelled based on clearwater flow, LC10 is based on a 15% sediment flow and
LC11 is based on a 30% flow. The quantity of sediments has been considered according the
approach in section 6.

8.6.4.1 Shear stress

Because of the equal gate operation the flow characteristics and the shear stress pattern are
almost the same in the load cases. The maximum observed shear stress at LC9 is 920 N/m²
(centre line spillway S3), at LC10 1,110 N/m² and at LC11 1,300 N/m². Areas of high shear
stresses can also be detected at the transition of spillway to stilling basin (first half of stilling
basin). The values decrease towards the flow direction (Figure 222, Figure 223). By evaluating
the results it can be summarized that a 15% sediment flow (LC10) increases the shear stresses
about 20% and a 30% sediment flow (LC11) increases the stresses about 40% compared to the
equivalent clearwater scenario (LC9)

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 128

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5

increased shear stress due

to sediment flow 15%

LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5
decreased shear stress due
to sediment flow 30%

LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5

Figure 222: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5 vs. LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5,

shear stress, bottom view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 129

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5

due to sediment flow 15%

increased shear stress

LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5
increased shear stress due
to sediment flow 30%

LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5

Figure 223: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5 vs. LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5,

shear stress, plan view

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 130

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

8.7 Phase IV
See section 8.9

8.8 Phase V
See sections 9, 10, 11

8.9 Phase VI
The recommendations regarding standard operation procedures during different flow conditions
are structured in:

 suggestions how many gates should be open to improve the energy dissipation;
 operation and combination of the gates that improve the hydraulics and decrease the
occurring stresses to the structure

8.9.1 Number of gates in regard to the flood discharge

Figure 224 shows a recommendation how many gates/spillways should be used during a flood
discharge. In a first step, only clearwater flow is considered. The findings are based on the
results of the simulations. According to [1] the design capacity of one spillway is about
2,400 m³/s. For that reason it is not functional to use all gates at low flood events (Q ~ 500 m³/s).
At low discharges it is not required to separate the flow over various spillways for reasons
regarding the shear stress.

At medium flood discharges it is recommended to open 2-4 gates. On the one hand it is possible
to reduce the hydraulics stresses at the spillway; on the other hand it is possible to improve the
energy dissipation in the stilling basin by an adjusted symmetric operation method (according to
section 8.9.2).

At high flood events it is recommended to open 4 or 5 gates which will reduce the shear
stresses at the spillways and the stilling basin, especially at the transition of spillway and stilling
basin (see section 8.6.3). At very high flood discharges the required flow capacity will determine
the required number of gates/spillways.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 131

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 224: number of open gates regarding flood discharge

8.9.2 Gate operation

In regard to the hydraulics and the energy dissipation a symmetrical spillway flow is to favor.
Due to spatial effects the energy dissipation can be improved at symmetrical flow which results
in lower stresses at the stilling basin. Next to it, a symmetrical spillway flow and evenly
distributed discharge minimizes backflow in the stilling basin. In Table 6 are summarized
recommended gate operations for the scenarios n-1, n-2, n-3 and n-4.

Gate operation during flushing

During reservoir flushing it is not unreserved possible to implement operation methods

according to Table 6. The gate operation has to be optimized considering the available flushing
discharge and the sedimentation in the reservoir. Nevertheless, a symmetrical gate operation
could help to improve the sediment transport out of the stilling basin and could help to avoid
backflow areas. Backflow of sediments can cause an increased abrasion at the structure. If the
flushing process does not allow generating symmetric flow, at least a gate operation should be
used which minimizes water vortexes and backflow by observation.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 132

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Table 6: Overview on recommended gate operation

case S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 description

improved energy dissipation at spillway S2

clsoed
open
1) n-1 and S4 due to closed gate S3

simulation example: LC3

improved energy dissipation at spillway 1 3

and 5 due to closed gates S2 and S4
2a) n-2
simulation examples: LC4, LC9, LC10,
LC11

improved energy dissipation at spillway 2 and

2b) n-2
4 due to closed gates S1 and S5,

improved energy dissipation at spillway 2 and

3a) n-3 4 due to closed gates S1, S3 and S5,

simulation example: LC6

improved energy dissipation at spillway 1 and

5 due to closed gates S2, S3 and S4, but
3b) n-3
case 3a) is to favor for n-3 operations
because of restricted flow at S1 and S5

best energy dissipation at case n-4 due to

spatial effects, but in general n-4 is operated

4a) n-4 at low discharges, so minor differences to

operation method 4b) and 4c)

simulation example: LC7

improved energy dissipation at spillway 2 due

4b) n-4
to spatial effects

improved energy dissipation at spillway 4 due

4c) n-4
to spatial effects

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 133

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

9 DAMAGES

9.1 Stilling Basin

The depressions in the base slab concrete discovered in bathymetric surveys may be related to
the following factors or an interaction of all respectively:

• Abrasion due to sediment transport

• Flow conditions

• Gate openings

• Concrete quality

• Plum Concrete (if done)

Figure 225: Stilling Basin – Base Slab Contour of Geophysical Survey: Dark blue areas indicate
scours of 4 to 5 m depth

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 134

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

9.2 Spillways
Structural concrete has been eroded and reinforcement exposed. No concrete can withstand the
heavy sediment loads for long periods. Steel linings warrant a lasting solution. Therefore a
recommendation for sustainable repair can focus on steel lining only. A steel lining installation
concept is explained in section 10.2 of this report.

Figure 226: Massive erosion of spillway Figure 227: Massive erosion of spillway
glacis. Independently from the final glacis
repair, original geometry shall be Picture DGPC
restored by concrete before monsoon
stopping propagation of scour. Picture
DGPC

10 REMEDIAL CONCEPTS FOR DAMAGES

All assumptions are based on the documents handed over to the originators of this report. The
information at hand may be incomplete and hence the recommended solutions may have to be
adopted in detail.

10.1 Stilling Basin

The stilling basin has a massive base slab of plain concrete. The base slab sits on bedrock,
therefore scours in the center parts of the base slab do not constitute a severe stability problem,
while scours in the vicinity of the vertical walls jeopardize the stability of the walls and must be
repaired.

Assumingly, boulders are embedded in the base slab (plum concrete) for saving concrete
volume. Embedding competent rock boulders is acceptable. Due to erosion of (low strength)
concrete around the boulders, the boulders may have become lose and washed away; that may
be an explanation of the erosion depths locally.

Repair can be done with medium strength concrete after removal of all foreign matter and lose
concrete parts from the depressions. Depending on the geometrical shape and dimensions
(=weight) of the concrete plugs anchoring into the adjacent concrete with grouted steel dowels
may become necessary.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 135

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

10.2 Spillways
Lining the Spillways with Steel is the recommended solution and it is the only sustainable
solution as well. The following figures show the solution and explain details of works steps. All
dimensions shown are based on experience and shall be verified by design calculations.

Figure 228: Extent of recommended steel lining from weir sill to horizontal section of stilling
basin slab; extension of weir pillars and stop logs is also shown but described separately

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 136

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 229: Transverse Section of Steel Lining system for application on existing concrete
surfaces

The following workings steps are foreseen:

1 Manufacturing of Item 1 (longitudinal Strips) in steel carpenty as per shop drawings. C

section shall be bent after drilling of strips

2 Temporary fixing of item 1 by expansion bolts at respective / individual location to be us

template or drilling of steel dowel holes

3 Drilling of Dowels Holes dia 30 mm depth 250 mm

4 Installation of grouted dowels (item 2) and placing of longitudinal strips (item 1) in mortar be

5 After setting of mortar and cleaning (sand blasting) of weld connection areas connect weld
dowels and longitudinal strips

6 Grinding and quality checking of all weld connections

7 Manufacturing of Item 3 (Steel Plates 20 mm) in steel carpenty as per shop drawings. C
section shall be bent before placing ; longitudinal dimensions as per handleable weights

8 Placing of Plates from bottom to top

9 Welding of Plates to longitudinal strips and welds between plates (Vertical and horizontal)

10 After ervery 2.0 m of lining completed, the gap between concrete and steel plates sh
grouted with expanding mortar by means of grout pump and grout hose

11 Lining plates for horizontal placing must be furnished with grout- and vent-holes tapped
groutung (threaded holes / taps)

12 Grinding and quality checking of all weld connections

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 137

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 230 - Plan View of Steel Lining: The steel lining plates with 20 mm thickness are placed
above and welded to the longitudinal strips. Plates and strips for curved sections are required to
be pre-shaped according to the required geometry. The laying of the lining plates shall start from
the bottom of the stilling basin upwards as grouting of gap between concrete and lining must be
done in sections while progressing upwards

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 138

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 231 – Vertical Section through spillway floor and Elevation of pier wall in longitudinal
direction: The steel lining on spillway floor and walls are both fixed in the same manner. Wall
lining shall be done prior to the floor

Figure 232: Steel Lining Detail at grouted dowel and borehole location. The longitudinal steel
strips (width 150 mm, thickness 30 mm) are laid on mortar bed of varying thickness to overcome
unevenness of the concrete surface. The strips are welded with the steel dowels drilled and
cement grouted 500 mm into the dam concrete. The steel lining plates with 20 mm thickness are
welded to the longitudinal strips

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 139

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 233: Steel Lining Detail: The longitudinal steel strips (width 150 mm, thickness 30mm)
are laid on mortar bed of varying thickness to overcome unevenness of the concrete surface.
Longitudinal strips are placed at 500 mm centers. The steel lining plates with 20 mm thickness
are welded to the longitudinal strips. Plate dimensions are approximately 500 by 2000 mm
having a weight of 160 kilograms. Plates and strips for curved sections are required to be pre-
shaped according to the required geometry. The gap between concrete structure and lining
plates is filled with cement grout. Grouting shall be done in steps while lining is concurrently
progressing upwards by means of grout hoses and grout pumps

10.3 Downstream Stoplogs

The absence of downstream stoplogs make any repair work or the application of the proposed
steel lining below the water line impossible without construction a cofferdam and evacuating
some 50,000 cubic meter of water by pumping!!

For the refurbishment of the spillways and any future repair works it is necessary to add an
extension of the piers between the spillways creating a structure for stoplogs enabling individual
closing and maintenance.

Figure 234: Extension of spillway piers and stop log construction including crane beam and
portal crane for stop log insertion, removal and storage. The length of piers should be verified by
analysis. Steel lining of spillway shall extend to the stop log sill

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 140

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

11 REPAIR SEQUENCE
For the repair works the stilling basin and the spillway must be drained and can only kept
drained during the lean water season.

The extent of all repair works cannot be completed within one lean water season and therefore it
is necessary that the works are carefully sequenced causing least cost and least stranded
temporary works, a rough overview is given in Figure 235

The activities in dependence of the seasons are described in the following sub-chapters.

Figure 235: Construction activities over the dry seasons

• Season 1: min activities 1 to 3, max activities 1 to 5

• Season 2: Activities 4 to 5 and of activity 6 lower parts of stop log piers

• Season 3: Activity 6 upper parts of stop log piers (above water level of dry season)

• Season 4: Activities 7, after stop logs insertion, spillway after spillway, may extend over
season 5, less dependent on season.

11.1 Construction of a Cofferdam

Constructing the cofferdam is a project of its own and can only be done during the lean water
season. During the monsoon season, the cofferdam will inevitably be washed away.

Therefore the construction concept for the first year must foresee construction measures which
enable the continuation of repair works during the second year without a cofferdam.

Before the next step the water between cofferdam and stilling basin sill must be pumped out;
therefore huge pump capacity must be installed minimizing waiting time until the step as
described in the next para can commence. The pumps are also required for draining seepage
waters of the cofferdam.

11.2 Construction of a Sill Wall

As already suggested in the report of Energy Infratech, a wall shall increase the sill height at the
end of the stilling basin. The wall may remain permanently but this must be checked by analysis,
as this would be beneficial for recurring repair works in low water reducing pumping quantities.
Sill height of this wall shall be selected in view of safe working during lean water season.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 141

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

11.3 Repair of Stilling Basin Floor Slab

Repair can be done with medium strength concrete after removal of all foreign matter and lose
concrete parts from the depressions. Depending on the geometrical shape and dimensions
(=weight) of the concrete plugs anchoring into the adjacent concrete with grouted steel dowels
may become necessary.

11.4 Construction of Stop Log Piers, Phase 1 (lower part)

In view of the huge pumping efforts for draining the stilling basin for any works below water line,
the construction of the stop-log piers should be divided vertically into 2 phases. For the first
phase construction the stilling needs to be fully drained. In this phase the piers must reach a
height above the water line in the lean water season, so that phase 2 can be done without
draining of the stilling basin.

11.5 Construction of Stop Log Piers, Phase 2 (upper part above dry season water level)
After successful completion of phase 1 of the piers, phase 2 construction of the piers to their
final height can be done without draining of stilling basin.

11.6 Steel Lining of Spillways and Walls

After construction of stop log piers and insertion of stoplogs, the steel lining works can be done
spillway by spillway almost independent from the seasons, as 4 spillways can be kept available
for flood discharge.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 142

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

12 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Gate operation 2012-2017; annual flow at spillway bay S1 – S5..................................................7

Table 2: Hydrological data at Kurizampa ................................................................................................. 14

Table 3: Overview simulation runs ........................................................................................................... 16

Table 4: Workflow, modelling phases ....................................................................................................... 18

Table 5: Hydraulic jump characteristics.................................................................................................... 19

Table 6: Overview on recommended gate operation ............................................................................. 133

13 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Cross section spillway-stilling basin [1] ........................................................................................4

Figure 2: Areas of damages stilling basin [1] ..............................................................................................5

Figure 3: Results of the bathymetric survey, plot according to [2] ..............................................................6

Figure 4: Annual discharge in 10³ m³ at each spillway bay (S1-S5) ...........................................................7

Figure 5: 3D volume model (concrete structures shown in yellow, terrain shown in grey) .........................9

Figure 6: 3D volume model (concrete structures shown in yellow, terrain shown in grey), view from
reservoir .......................................................................................................................................................9

Figure 7: 3D volume model (concrete structures shown in yellow, terrain shown in grey), view from
downstream .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 8: Surface roughness settings ....................................................................................................... 10

Figure 9: Upstream boundary conditions ................................................................................................. 11

Figure 10: Upstream boundary conditions, input mask Flow 3D ............................................................. 11

Figure 11: Downstream boundary condition defined by water-level discharge relations ......................... 12

Figure 12: Downstream boundary conditions, input mask Flow 3D ......................................................... 12

Figure 13: Flow data at Kurizampa, catchment area 8.999 km² .............................................................. 14

Figure 14: Assumption fluid characteristics, sediment flow...................................................................... 15

Figure 15: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, Froude number, top view ........................................................ 21

Figure 16: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, Froude number, bottom view .................................................. 21

Figure 17: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, Froude number, plan view ....................................................... 22

Figure 18: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3 ........................... 22

Figure 19: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, shear stress, top view ............................................................. 23

Figure 20: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, Shear stress, bottom view ....................................................... 23

Figure 21: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, shear stress, plan view ............................................................ 24

Figure 22: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3 ................................ 24

Figure 23: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, flow velocity, top view .............................................................. 25

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 143

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 24: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view ........................................................ 25

Figure 25: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, flow velocity, plan view ............................................................ 26

Figure 26: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3 ................................ 26

Figure 27: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, velocity vectors, top view ........................................................ 27

Figure 28: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, velocity vectors, bottom view .................................................. 27

Figure 29: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, streamlines, top view ............................................................... 28

Figure 30: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, streamlines, bottom view ......................................................... 28

Figure 31: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, streamlines, plan view ............................................................. 29

Figure 32: LC1_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/3/4/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S3 ................................. 29

Figure 33: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, top view ........................................................... 30

Figure 34: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, bottom view ..................................................... 30

Figure 35: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, plan view .......................................................... 31

Figure 36: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3 .............................. 31

Figure 37: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, top view................................................................. 32

Figure 38: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Shear stress, bottom view .......................................................... 32

Figure 39: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, plan view ............................................................... 33

Figure 40: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S1 ................................... 33

Figure 41: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, top view ................................................................. 34

Figure 42: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view ........................................................... 34

Figure 43: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, plan view ............................................................... 35

Figure 44: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S1 ................................... 35

Figure 45: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, velocity vectors, top view ........................................................... 36

Figure 46: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, velocity vectors, bottom view ..................................................... 36

Figure 47: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, top view .................................................................. 37

Figure 48: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, bottom view ............................................................ 37

Figure 49: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, plan view ................................................................ 38

Figure 50: LC3_Q1459_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S1 .................................... 38

Figure 51: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, top view .............................................................. 39

Figure 52: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, bottom view ........................................................ 39

Figure 53: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, plan view ............................................................. 40

Figure 54: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3 ................................. 40

Figure 55: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, top view.................................................................... 41

Figure 56: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, bottom view ............................................................. 41

Figure 57: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, plan view .................................................................. 42

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 144
3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 58: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3 ...................................... 42

Figure 59: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, top view .................................................................... 43

Figure 60: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, bottom view .............................................................. 43

Figure 61: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3 ...................................... 44

Figure 62: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, plan view .................................................................. 44

Figure 63: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, velocity vectors, top view .............................................................. 45

Figure 64: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, velocity vectors, bottom view ........................................................ 45

Figure 65: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, top view ..................................................................... 46

Figure 66: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, bottom view ............................................................... 46

Figure 67: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S3 ....................................... 47

Figure 68: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, plan view ................................................................... 47

Figure 69: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, Froude number, top view.................................................................. 48

Figure 70: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, Froude number, bottom view ........................................................... 48

Figure 71: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, Froude number, plan view ................................................................ 49

Figure 72: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, Froude number, section centre line gate S2 .................................... 49

Figure 73: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, shear stress, top view....................................................................... 50

Figure 74: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, shear stress, bottom view................................................................. 50

Figure 75: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, shear stress, plan view ..................................................................... 51

Figure 76: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, shear stress, section centre line gate S2 ......................................... 51

Figure 77: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, flow velocity, top view ....................................................................... 52

Figure 78: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, flow velocity, bottom view ................................................................. 52

Figure 79: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, flow velocity, plan view ..................................................................... 53

Figure 80: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, flow velocity, section centre line gate S2 ......................................... 53

Figure 81: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, velocity vectors, top view.................................................................. 54

Figure 82: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, velocity vectors, bottom view ........................................................... 54

Figure 83: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, streamlines, top view ........................................................................ 55

Figure 84: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, streamlines, bottom view .................................................................. 55

Figure 85: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, streamlines, plan view ...................................................................... 56

Figure 86: LC6_Q1459_s_cw_2/4, streamlines, section centre line gate S2 .......................................... 56

Figure 87: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, Froude number, top view..................................................................... 57

Figure 88: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, Froude number, bottom view .............................................................. 57

Figure 89: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, Froude number, plan view ................................................................... 58

Figure 90: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, Froude number, section centre line gate S3 ....................................... 58

Figure 91: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, shear stress, top view.......................................................................... 59

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 145
3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 92: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, shear stress, bottom view.................................................................... 59

Figure 93: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, shear stress, plan view ........................................................................ 60

Figure 94: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, shear stress, section centre line gate S3 ............................................ 60

Figure 95: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, flow velocity, top view .......................................................................... 61

Figure 96: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, flow velocity, bottom view .................................................................... 61

Figure 97: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, flow velocity, plan view ........................................................................ 62

Figure 98: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3 ............................................ 62

Figure 99: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, velocity vectors, top view..................................................................... 63

Figure 100: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, velocity vectors, bottom view ............................................................ 63

Figure 101: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, streamlines, top view ......................................................................... 64

Figure 102: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, streamlines, bottom view ................................................................... 64

Figure 103: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, streamlines, plan view ....................................................................... 65

Figure 104: LC7_Q1459_s_cw_3, streamlines, section centre line gate S3 ........................................... 65

Figure 105: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, top view ......................................................... 66

Figure 106: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, bottom view ................................................... 66

Figure 107: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, plan view ........................................................ 67

Figure 108: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S1 ............................ 67

Figure 109: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, top view .............................................................. 68

Figure 110: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, bottom view ........................................................ 68

Figure 111: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, plan view ............................................................. 69

Figure 112: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S1 ................................. 69

Figure 113: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, top view ............................................................... 70

Figure 114: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view ......................................................... 70

Figure 115: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, plan view ............................................................. 71

Figure 116: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S1 ................................. 71

Figure 117: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, velocity vectors, top view ......................................................... 72

Figure 118: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, velocity vectors, bottom view ................................................... 72

Figure 119: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, top view ................................................................ 73

Figure 120: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, bottom view .......................................................... 73

Figure 121: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, plan view .............................................................. 74

Figure 122: LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S1 .................................. 74

Figure 123: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, top view ............................................................ 75

Figure 124: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, bottom view ...................................................... 75

Figure 125: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, plan view ........................................................... 76

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 146
3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 126: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3 ............................... 76

Figure 127: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, top view.................................................................. 77

Figure 128: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, bottom view ........................................................... 77

Figure 129: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, shear stress, plan view ................................................................ 78

Figure 130: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, section centre line gate S3 .......................................................... 78

Figure 131: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, top view .................................................................. 79

Figure 132: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, bottom view ............................................................ 79

Figure 133: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, plan view ................................................................ 80

Figure 134: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3 .................................... 80

Figure 135: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, velocity vectors, top view ............................................................ 81

Figure 136: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, velocity vectors, bottom view ...................................................... 81

Figure 137: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, top view ................................................................... 82

Figure 138: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, bottom view ............................................................. 82

Figure 139: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, plan view ................................................................. 83

Figure 140: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S5 ..................................... 83

Figure 141: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, Froude number, top view ..................................................... 84

Figure 142: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, Froude number, bottom view ............................................... 84

Figure 143: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, Froude number, plan view ................................................... 85

Figure 144: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3 ........................ 85

Figure 145: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, shear stress, top view .......................................................... 86

Figure 146: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, shear stress, bottom view .................................................... 86

Figure 147: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, shear stress, plan view ........................................................ 87

Figure 148: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3 ............................. 87

Figure 149: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, low velocity, top view ........................................................... 88

Figure 150: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, flow velocity, bottom view .................................................... 88

Figure 151: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, flow velocity, plan view ........................................................ 89

Figure 152: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3 ............................. 89

Figure 153: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, velocity vectors, top view ..................................................... 90

Figure 154: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, velocity vectors, bottom view ............................................... 90

Figure 155: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, streamlines, top view ........................................................... 91

Figure 156: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, streamlines, bottom view ..................................................... 91

Figure 157: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, streamlines, plan view ......................................................... 92

Figure 158: LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S3 .............................. 92

Figure 159: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, Froude number, top view ..................................................... 93

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 147
3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 160: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, Froude number, bottom view ............................................... 93

Figure 161: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, Froude number, plan view ................................................... 94

Figure 162: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3 ........................ 94

Figure 163 LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, shear stress, top view ........................................................... 95

Figure 164: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, shear stress, bottom view .................................................... 95

Figure 165: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, shear stress, plan view ........................................................ 96

Figure 166: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3 ............................. 96

Figure 167: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5 ,flow velocity, top view .......................................................... 97

Figure 168: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, flow velocity, bottom view .................................................... 97

Figure 169: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, flow velocity, plan view ........................................................ 98

Figure 170: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3 ............................. 98

Figure 171: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, velocity vectors, top view ..................................................... 99

Figure 172: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, velocity vectors, bottom view ............................................... 99

Figure 173: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, streamlines, top view ......................................................... 100

Figure 174: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, streamlines, bottom view ................................................... 100

Figure 175: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, streamlines, plan view ....................................................... 101

Figure 176: LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S5 ............................ 101

Figure 177: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, Froude number, top view ..................................................... 102

Figure 178: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, Froude number, bottom view ............................................... 102

Figure 179: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, Froude number, plan view .................................................... 103

Figure 180: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3 ........................ 103

Figure 181: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, shear stress, top view .......................................................... 104

Figure 182: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, shear stress, bottom view .................................................... 104

Figure 183: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, shear stress, plan view ......................................................... 105

Figure 184: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3 ............................. 105

Figure 185: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, flow velocity, top view ........................................................... 106

Figure 186: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view ..................................................... 106

Figure 187: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, flow velocity, plan view ......................................................... 107

Figure 188: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3 ............................. 107

Figure 189: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, velocity vectors, top view ..................................................... 108

Figure 190: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, velocity vectors, bottom view ............................................... 108

Figure 191: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, streamlines, top view ............................................................ 109

Figure 192: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, streamlines, bottom view ...................................................... 109

Figure 193: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, streamlines, plan view .......................................................... 110

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 148
3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

Figure 194: LC2_Q1459_as_cw_2/3/4/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S3 .............................. 110

Figure 195: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Froude number, top view ........................................................ 111

Figure 196: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Froude number, bottom view .................................................. 111

Figure 197: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Froude number, plan view ....................................................... 112

Figure 198: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Froude number, section centre line gate S3 ........................... 112

Figure 199: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, shear stress, top view ............................................................. 113

Figure 200: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Shear stress, bottom view ....................................................... 113

Figure 201: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, shear stress, plan view ............................................................ 114

Figure 202: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, shear stress, section centre line gate S3 ................................ 114

Figure 203: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, top view .............................................................. 115

Figure 204: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view ........................................................ 115

Figure 205: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, plan view ............................................................ 116

Figure 206: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, section centre line gate S3 ................................ 116

Figure 207: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, velocity vectors, top view ........................................................ 117

Figure 208: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, velocity vectors, bottom view .................................................. 117

Figure 209: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, streamlines, top view ............................................................... 118

Figure 210: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, streamlines, bottom view ......................................................... 118

Figure 211: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, streamlines, plan view ............................................................. 119

Figure 212: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, streamlines, section centre line gate S3 ................................. 119

Figure 213: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, Froude number, top view .......... 120

Figure 214: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, shear stress, bottom view ......... 121

Figure 215: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view ......... 122

Figure 216: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, flow velocity, bottom view ......... 122

Figure 217: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5, streamlines, top view ................ 123

Figure 218: Observed flow conditions at asymmetrical spillway flow at Kurichhu dam, equivalent
simulation example: LC5_Q1459_as_cw_3/4/5 ..................................................................................... 123

Figure 219: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC9_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear

stress, bottom view ................................................................................................................................. 125

Figure 220: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC9_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5, shear

stress, plan view ..................................................................................................................................... 126

Figure 221: LC4_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC9_Q1459_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC8_Q3710_s_cw_1/2/4/5,

streamlines, plan view ............................................................................................................................ 127

Figure 222: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5 vs.

LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, shear stress, bottom view ..................................................................... 129

Figure 223: LC9_Q3710_s_cw_1/3/5 vs. LC10_Q3710_s_sed15_1/3/5 vs.

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 149

3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

LC11_Q3710_s_sed30_1/3/5, shear stress, plan view.......................................................................... 130

Figure 224: number of open gates regarding flood discharge ............................................................... 132

Figure 225: Stilling Basin – Base Slab Contour of Geophysical Survey: Dark blue areas indicate scours
of 4 to 5 m depth ..................................................................................................................................... 134

Figure 226: Massive erosion of spillway glacis. Independently from the final repair, original geometry
shall be restored by concrete before monsoon stopping propagation of scour. Picture DGPC............. 135

Figure 227: Massive erosion of spillway glacis Picture DGPC .............................................................. 135

Figure 228: Extent of recommended steel lining from weir sill to horizontal section of stilling basin slab;
extension of weir pillars and stop logs is also shown but described separately .................................... 136

Figure 229: Transverse Section of Steel Lining system for application on existing concrete surfaces . 137

Figure 230 - Plan View of Steel Lining: The steel lining plates with 20 mm thickness are placed above
and welded to the longitudinal strips. Plates and strips for curved sections are required to be pre-shaped
according to the required geometry. The laying of the lining plates shall start from the bottom of the
stilling basin upwards as grouting of gap between concrete and lining must be done in sections while
progressing upwards .............................................................................................................................. 138

Figure 231 – Vertical Section through spillway floor and Elevation of pier wall in longitudinal direction:
The steel lining on spillway floor and walls are both fixed in the same manner. Wall lining shall be done
prior to the floor ...................................................................................................................................... 139

Figure 232: Steel Lining Detail at grouted dowel and borehole location. The longitudinal steel strips
(width 150 mm, thickness 30 mm) are laid on mortar bed of varying thickness to overcome unevenness
of the concrete surface. The strips are welded with the steel dowels drilled and cement grouted 500 mm
into the dam concrete. The steel lining plates with 20 mm thickness are welded to the longitudinal strips
................................................................................................................................................................ 139

Figure 233: Steel Lining Detail: The longitudinal steel strips (width 150 mm, thickness 30mm) are laid on
mortar bed of varying thickness to overcome unevenness of the concrete surface. Longitudinal strips are
placed at 500 mm centers. The steel lining plates with 20 mm thickness are welded to the longitudinal
strips. Plate dimensions are approximately 500 by 2000 mm having a weight of 160 kilograms. Plates
and strips for curved sections are required to be pre-shaped according to the required geometry. The
gap between concrete structure and lining plates is filled with cement grout. Grouting shall be done in
steps while lining is concurrently progressing upwards by means of grout hoses and grout pumps..... 140

Figure 234: Extension of spillway piers and stop log construction including crane beam and portal crane
for stop log insertion, removal and storage. The length of piers should be verified by analysis. Steel
lining of spillway shall extend to the stop log sill .................................................................................... 140

Figure 235: Construction activities over the dry seasons....................................................................... 141

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 150

 3D Numerical Analysis of Stilling Basin of KHP Final Draft Report

14 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Kurichhu Hydropower Plant, Report on Repair of Stilling Basin 0952-CDT-01A-001-R1; Energy
Infratech Private Limited, A-39, Sector 64, Noida-201301, U.P., India

[2] Report on Bathymetry and GPR Survey, Stilling Basin, Kurichhu HEP, Bhutan; PARSAN
Overseas (Pvt.) Limited, May 2017

[3] Review of Report on Repair of Stilling Basin JKurichhu Hydropower Plant; Bernard Ingenieure
ZT, May 2016

[4] FLOW-3D user manuel v11.2; Flow Science, Inc., 2016

th
Hall i. T., 25 January 2019

Wolfgang Holzleitner

Stephan Willeit

Manuel Plörer

P011160_Final Draft Report_1.0.docx BERNARD Ingenieure ZT GmbH Page 151