Study Report on Hydrology of

Proposed Mini Hydro Power Generation Plant

2
3
S UMMARY

General

This Hydrological Feasibility Study report covering technical issues and concerns of
hydrological aspects of proposed Mini-Hydro Power plant, at Araththana on Hulu Ganga in
Panvila Divisional Secretariat divisions of Kandy district of the Central Province of Sri Lanka.

The origin of the streams and the catchments are located within mountainous catchments in
the Panvila DS division. The stream under consideration, for the proposed development is the
Hulu Ganga draining to Mahaweli Ganga. The site can be accessed by traveling along the
Kandy-Medawela-arattana road. The rainfall observations are at Duckwari Rain Gauging
station.

Average monthly flows and flow duration curve

Table S1 show the distribution of the monthly average flows and the minimum flows
generated from rainfall-runoff method. Catchment, draining to weir location is about 63.3
km2and it shows a runoff coefficient of 0.81. This being a small mountainous catchment with
rainfall distributed throughout the year and covered with forest with cloud interception, a
high amount will flow out of the catchments as calculated under runoff coefficient. Figure S1
shows the flow duration curve.

i
Table S1: Monthly average and minimum inflows at the weir

Average Flow (m3/s) Minimum Flow (m3/s)

Jan 4.80 0.42

Feb 2.84 0.15

Mar 2.39 0.09

Apr 4.03 0.06

May 3.90 0.34

Jun 3.93 0.17

Jul 4.07 0.23

Aug 3.65 0.18

Sep 4.27 0.31

Oct 7.09 0.44

Nov 7.87 0.94

Dec 6.71 0.60

Avg 4.63 0.33

ii
 Figure S1: Flow duration curve at the weir

Minimum dry weather flows and minimum releases to downstream

Calculated minimum dry weather flow at the weir is about 0.06m 3/s. The base flow
calculated as the 90% flow in the stream is 0.67m 3/s. The driest months, February and March
are the periods of very low flows resulting from long dry weather spells.

Flood Analysis

Maximum daily floods in the recent history were obtained from the generated flow series. The
floods at return periods of 25, 50 and 100 years were calculated and the results are shown in
Table S1. The

Table S1: Flood discharges at the weir

Flood Peak as daily Maximum Peak flow

Return Period (yrs) average – (m3/s) within the day – (m3/s)

25 40.61 95.02

50 43.84 102.58

100 47.00 109.98

iii
 Table of Contents

SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................i

General........................................................................................................................................................i

Average monthly flows and flow duration curve..................................................................................i

Minimum dry weather flows and minimum releases to downstream................................................ii

Flood Analysis............................................................................................................................................ii

Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................2

1.1 General...........................................................................................................................................2

1.2 Locality of the proposed Mini - hydro power plant.................................................................2

1.3 Land use of the catchments and other water uses..................................................................2

1.4 Coordinates of the location of the weir and power plant......................................................5

Rainfall analysis.....................................................................................................................................6

2.1 Climate of the area......................................................................................................................6

2.2 Data Collection..............................................................................................................................6

2.3 Analysis of Rainfall Data..............................................................................................................6

Runoff Generation................................................................................................................................8

3.1 Generating Discharge Data..........................................................................................................8

3.2 Unit Hydrograph derivation.........................................................................................................8

3.3 Deriving the time series of discharges.......................................................................................9

Flood Analysis......................................................................................................................................13

1
Introduction

1.1 General

This Hydrological Feasibility Study report covering technical issues and concerns of
hydrological aspects is prepared by the Consultant, on an invitation received from the
intended project developer, with the said intended developer’s desire to: design; construct;
install; commission; and operate a Mini-Hydro Power plant, Araththana on Hulu Ganga in
Panvila Divisional Secretariat divisions of Kandy district of the Central Province of Sri Lanka.

The power plant will be owned and managed by the said intended developer, to supply the
entire power thus generated throughout the year, to CEBs National Grid under the Terms and
Conditions of the currently applicable tariff rates (LKR per kWh) of the Standard Power
Purchase Agreement.

1.2 Locality of the proposed Mini - hydro power plant

The origin of the streams and the catchments are located within mountainous catchments in
the Panvila DS divisions. The stream under consideration, for the proposed development is the
Hulu Ganga draining to Mahaweli Ganga.

The main stream, location of the diversion and the power plant was identified in field visits.
The site can be accessed by traveling along the traveling along the Kandy-Medawela-arattana
road.

2
Location of the power discharge diversion, delineated catchments and the contours of the
area depicting the elevation variation within the catchments are shown in the Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.2 shows the land use.

In this development, the water is diverted and channeled back in to the same stream at a
downstream location. Catchment, draining to weir location is about 63.3km 2. The elevation at
the diversion is around 570 m.

1.3 Land use of the catchments and other water uses

The catchments upstream of the diversion are mainly forest and tea plantations. The upper
catchment belongs to a forest reserve. Therefore there are no upstream water diversions
from the stream. Downstream of the diversion has no mandatory water requirement up to the
point of discharge from the power plant.

3
Figure 1.1: Location and drainage network of Proposed Project and the catchments

4
Figure 1.2: Catchments and land use of the catchments

5
1.4 Coordinates of the location of the weir.

ITEM NORTH COORDINATE EAST COORDINATE

Weir 07° 23 15.9” 80° 44 43”

6
Rainfall analysis

2.1 Climate of the area

The catchment area receives high levels of rainfall. The area belongs to the “IM3” Agro
Ecological Region in the old scheme and “IU1 and WM3b” in the new scheme, experiencing
rain predominantly during Northeast Monsoons.

2.2 Data Collection

The rainfall around the catchment is measured at rain gauging station located in Duckwari
which is maintained by the estate. The gauging station is about 4km away from the
catchment boundary. The observed daily rainfall for 30 years at this Rain Gauging Station was
collected for the analysis.

These data of the Rain Gauging Station was collected from Department of Meteorology,
Colombo.

2.3 Analysis of Rainfall Data

7
The missing data of the time series are filled using standard methods and the statistical
parameters of the rainfall time series is calculated. Summary characteristics of the collected
rainfall data are given in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1.

The Figure 2.1 clearly shows that the lowest rainfall is expected in the months of February
and March. On the other hand October and November records the highest rainfalls in the year.
The annual average of the rainfalls is 2313mm at Duckwari.

The number of rainy days in each year and the length of the longest dry period of each year
based on the observed data of the considered rain gauging was analysed.

Table 2.1: Monthly Average Rainfall

Month Rainfall (mm)

January 176.1

February 87.0

March 90.0

April 185.7

May 164.0

June 157.6

July 180.9

August 148.7

September 190.7

October 336.9

November 323.7

December 271.9

Annual Average 2313.3

8
 Figure 2.1: Monthly Average Rainfall Distribution at Duckwari

The temporal distribution of number of rainy days and maximum length of dry period
observed in the catchments were calculated. Duckwari receives rain in 167 days in a year on
average. The area has also shown a 91 days long dry period within the period considered.
However, the average dry period length is 26 days. The dry period lengths are moderately
high and it indicates that low base flows are possible. As seen from rainfall distribution these
long dry periods generally occur in the months of January to March.

Runoff Generation
9
3.1 Generating Discharge Data

No observed runoff data are available close to the diversion site. Therefore daily rainfall data
is used to generate the flow discharge at the diversions using synthetic hydrograph to
calculate rainfall – runoff relationship. The hydrological model is mainly based on maintaining
long term mass balance of rainfall – runoff relation for both base flows and direct runoff. The
evaporation and deep percolation loses of the catchments are considered in the model.
However, the deep percolation was not given much importance assuming that in the long run
no significant changes occur in the groundwater storage.

The direct runoff of catchment is calculated using the Snyder synthetic unit hydrograph
method. The calibration of the models thus considered the observed flow measurements
taken during the site visits. The flows at an appropriate location close to the inlet to the weir
were measured using a magnetic current meter. Then the hydrological model was calibrated
to get the calculated flows close to the observed flows when the rainfall condition is similar.
It should be noted here that the calibration concentrated on fitting the average flows and
therefore the extremes may not be very accurate.

As expected from the rainfall, the discharges in the months of February and March are the
lowest. Table 3.1 and the Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of the average flows per annum
calculated from rainfall-runoff method. The flow calibration is carried out and the flow
duration curve established is given in Figure 3.2.

The catchment shows a runoff coefficient of 0.81. This being a mountainous catchment with
cloud interception and high ground water contribution high amount will flow out of the
catchments as calculated under runoff coefficient.

3.2 Unit Hydrograph derivation

10
Snyder’s synthetic unit hydrograph for the total catchment has parameters as the lengths of
the major streams of 12 km and the lengths to the centroid as 4 km for the diversion location.
Accordingly the peak discharge of unit hydrograph is 6.88 m 3/s with a lag time of 12.7hrs. The
base length of the unit hydrograph is 4.6 days. This unit hydrograph is then converted to 24 hr
unit hydrograph for rainfall-runoff modeling.

3.3 Deriving the time series of discharges

Using the daily rainfall and the unit hydrograph the daily flows were calculated. The monthly
average flows are given in Table 3.1 and the distribution is seen in Figure 3.1.

Table 3.1: Monthly average flow at the weir

Average Flow Minimum Flow

(m3/s) (m3/s)

Jan 4.80 0.42

Feb 2.84 0.15

Mar 2.39 0.09

Apr 4.03 0.06

May 3.90 0.34

Jun 3.93 0.17

Jul 4.07 0.23

Aug 3.65 0.18

Sep 4.27 0.31

Oct 7.09 0.44

Nov 7.87 0.94

11
 Dec 6.71 0.60

Avg 4.63 0.33

Figure 3.1: Distribution of monthly average and minimum flows at the weir

The flows reached the lowest values in the February - March period. But scattered rainfall in
this period has caused intermittent recharge of the groundwater to replenish the base flows
time to time. Such rainfall has recovered the base flows except in few occurrences.
Calculated minimum dry weather flow at the weir is about 0.06m3/s. The base flow
calculated as the 90% flow in the stream is 0.67m3/s. The driest months, February and March
are the periods of very low flows resulting from long dry weather spells.

The probability distribution of the daily average inflows is given in Figure 3.2. The Table 3.2
gives the ordinates of the flow duration curve. It can be clearly seen from the Figure 3.2,
above that the flow is distributed throughout the time enabling a steady diversion for a longer
durations.

12
 Figure 3.2: Flow duration curve of flow at the weir

Table 3.2 Flow Duration Curve

% Exceedance 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Discharge
10.56 6.97 5.06 3.85 2.99 2.32 1.80 1.34 0.67 0.06
(m3/s)

Table 3.3 Average monthly flow at the weir in m3/s

13
 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Jan 2.19 2.90 2.71 4.92 6.90 1.64 2.27 3.01 1.80 3.77 0.86 2.91 7.69 3.72 12.82

Feb 1.29 2.52 3.90 2.90 2.77 2.97 1.93 1.45 0.48 1.62 0.26 0.82 6.28 2.52 4.13

Mar 0.56 1.53 3.28 3.30 1.37 3.09 3.75 1.26 0.70 1.59 1.17 0.28 5.50 5.53 4.74

Apr 4.87 4.23 5.07 6.11 2.63 3.69 2.26 3.35 6.07 3.58 2.76 0.60 5.56 1.91 5.32

May 9.22 2.26 4.67 5.21 0.71 5.65 6.17 4.08 4.02 3.05 3.67 4.40 2.55 3.93 3.96

Jun 2.72 2.08 3.68 4.80 0.50 4.66 3.70 3.97 3.32 4.08 4.03 2.17 3.40 8.52 2.29

Jul 4.77 3.64 6.71 2.52 5.28 3.25 5.31 3.62 3.53 5.17 3.82 2.58 4.29 6.44 4.08

Aug 3.09 4.39 6.30 6.97 3.22 3.16 4.48 2.88 3.48 2.67 2.34 3.25 1.94 4.07 4.01

Sep 3.84 2.28 7.23 6.30 1.78 1.94 3.30 9.99 2.80 6.32 2.44 3.15 6.02 3.90 3.12

Oct 10.88 3.10 6.27 6.57 5.07 11.31 7.62 7.30 6.61 4.03 6.15 4.97 3.93 5.40 7.52

Nov 13.94 7.11 3.57 12.20 11.70 10.38 9.52 10.72 7.22 4.01 8.02 6.43 6.25 8.13 3.22

Dec 11.23 8.95 7.21 8.83 5.90 6.08 7.22 6.13 4.32 3.33 10.04 10.04 3.52 6.02 2.73

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Jan 2.85 1.15 5.83 4.87 10.42 3.99 2.44 9.28 6.28 4.53 1.34 4.68 13.87 5.17 7.20

Feb 0.82 0.85 1.41 1.95 3.14 0.95 2.10 8.71 5.84 3.18 1.64 1.54 7.43 5.64 4.11

Mar 1.40 2.38 0.95 2.90 2.75 0.31 3.25 4.42 3.12 1.50 1.68 1.44 3.02 3.50 1.47

Apr 3.87 6.31 1.33 3.69 3.02 1.98 1.99 3.19 7.61 7.60 8.03 1.26 5.20 2.89 4.98

May 2.25 1.63 2.94 5.21 2.59 2.79 6.05 2.73 7.83 1.39 5.10 4.60 4.99 1.84 1.62

Jun 1.32 1.10 4.54 4.10 5.83 5.04 7.68 2.96 4.79 3.51 3.07 4.76 7.46 4.84 3.03

Jul 0.43 4.73 8.33 1.78 2.64 6.61 4.61 3.77 3.10 4.96 3.53 5.21 2.09 2.22 3.06

Aug 2.03 3.40 3.95 2.65 3.33 6.35 3.18 4.10 2.66 5.32 2.28 6.36 1.87 4.86 1.00

Sep 2.85 3.72 6.94 1.38 1.81 5.45 1.22 6.77 5.10 7.48 4.85 5.89 3.08 3.47 3.70

Oct 8.84 1.68 6.57 7.12 5.37 8.95 9.23 13.30 10.22 10.90 10.44 4.63 7.28 3.85 7.47

Nov 10.75 3.32 9.41 6.62 7.10 9.44 10.70 9.61 8.52 5.67 11.39 4.87 6.25 4.82 5.35

Dec 4.17 1.48 3.12 9.54 9.50 6.58 10.57 7.32 4.86 4.87 9.66 8.65 6.50 5.25 7.60

14
15
Table 3.3 Monthly rainfall at Duckwari in mm

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

275. 131. 148. 585.

Jan 88.3 16.2 0.5 131.6 9 14.8 44.0 72.1 27.4 3 6.4 51.1 281.8 7 5

109.
Feb 5.8 71.0 212.6 97.4 32.2 126.7 93.3 27.8 0.0 45.7 0.0 0.0 236.5 88.7 1

145. 255. 178.

Mar 27.2 83.3 78.8 123.6 46.4 131.2 6 43.5 38.7 70.5 66.6 0.0 217.9 1 0

171. 104. 162. 312. 186. 283.

Apr 239.8 9 212.9 280.6 9 184.1 86.7 9 3 8 134.7 34.6 221.9 43.9 6

290. 182. 146. 103. 216. 210. 108.

May 413.3 79.6 204.5 232.7 10.5 241.2 7 8 9 2 169.5 6 80.2 6 0

138. 166. 127. 178. 389.

Jun 81.9 83.1 135.2 175.2 17.7 167.8 8 3 4 3 152.6 81.1 142.9 7 66.1

174. 300. 248. 156. 143. 248. 116. 242. 210.

Jul 206.3 0 364.9 86.2 2 126.0 4 4 5 3 162.8 7 175.8 4 1

190. 115. 171. 113. 151. 139. 148. 144.

Aug 105.5 2 236.1 390.4 4 136.3 5 7 5 83.2 80.2 5 67.2 9 8

182. 478. 115. 280. 130. 189. 147.

Sep 178.1 72.7 313.2 214.9 50.6 77.4 7 3 5 6 109.1 6 342.0 3 0

156. 224. 353. 306. 314. 171. 270. 228. 366.

Oct 624.2 1 239.9 293.8 4 559.8 1 7 3 3 298.8 6 94.2 8 9

328. 568. 382. 479. 326. 148. 256. 330.

Nov 551.7 4 107.0 527.6 5 443.9 9 0 1 7 378.5 7 300.3 1 66.1

440. 189. 280. 178. 132. 129. 472. 248. 111.

Dec 439.2 4 404.5 369.5 8 201.6 6 6 3 0 418.4 1 109.0 8 6

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

118. 289. 206. 448. 101. 353. 301. 200. 137. 609. 219. 357.
Jan 9 9.9 0 4 7 2 51.5 5 1 5 3.5 5 8 1 0

320. 164. 241. 229.

Feb 5.0 34.1 18.1 57.6 44.1 0.0 98.2 6 2 91.2 66.7 26.3 7 4 69.0

16
 112. 137. 113. 137. 107. 107.
Mar 64.9 9 24.2 2 7 0.0 120.0 3 8 40.0 62.2 63.8 68.9 4 34.0

203. 297. 173. 108. 108. 119. 365. 373. 218. 106. 242.
Apr 5 4 62.6 0 7 1 70.3 5 4 9 412.3 47.0 2 8 0

145. 215. 109. 117. 125. 312. 219. 250. 110.

May 64.5 26.7 8 0 7 2 326.9 9 5 0.0 171.4 7 7 9 32.0

191. 157. 257. 224. 111. 195. 154. 226. 283. 197. 125.
Jun 41.6 29.7 2 1 0 7 304.7 6 1 6 124.5 7 7 6 0

247. 406. 123. 340. 185. 236. 218. 141.

Jul 3.1 7 5 48.9 0 5 170.3 5 94.0 4 144.7 2 47.8 58.6 0

104. 124. 117. 112. 122. 275. 145. 136. 264. 268. 243.
Aug 8 7 2 5 7 1 116.1 8 0 0 78.3 8 63.8 1 13.0

153. 153. 324. 198. 325. 219. 312. 270. 170. 137. 215.
Sep 0 9 7 50.6 59.5 6 22.6 2 2 1 227.6 1 0 8 0

439. 303. 414. 288. 373. 703. 507. 470. 160. 335. 147. 366.
Oct 3 51.5 8 8 3 0 519.1 8 2 6 524.2 4 5 9 0

448. 143. 387. 235. 282. 440. 305. 296. 224. 191. 260. 207. 172.
Nov 4 6 3 0 2 0 444.2 2 7 5 475.8 0 3 9 0

425. 440. 229. 256. 178. 172. 435. 256. 254. 348.
Dec 98.4 51.5 59.4 4 5 8 447.1 3 8 6 369.7 5 4 0 0

17
Flood Analysis

During this period of thirty years considered the flood peaks have reached about 42.4 m3/s.
Maximum daily floods in the recent history were obtained from the generated flow series.
Then the frequency analysis by fitting the historical floods to a statistical distribution and
extrapolating was used to calculate a flood with 100 year return period. Table 4.1 shows the
maximum floods of the past ten years as flows at the weir.

The Figure 4.1 shows the fitting of the historical floods to Log-Gauss distribution. The straight
line shows the historical floods of the catchment fits well to the Log-Gauss distribution.
Therefore it is used in extrapolation for flood.

Table 4.1: Annual maximum discharges at the proposed diversion

Flood at weir Flood at weir

Year (m3/s) Year (m3/s)

1972 33.8 1991 37.5

1973 26.2 1992 19.7

1974 33.2 1993 27.4

1975 35.3 1994 38.0

1976 42.4 1995 21.6

1977 21.7 1996 28.6

1978 36.3 1997 21.6

1979 18.8 1998 18.5

1980 22.1 1999 32.2

1981 22.6 2000 22.8

18
1982 28.0 2001 31.6

1983 17.1

1984 23.2

1985 18.6

1986 34.6

1987 21.6

1988 24.4

1989 23.7

1990 24.6

Figure 4.1 Flood frequency diagram

19
Using the frequency curve shown in the Figure 4.1 the floods at return periods of 25, 50 and
100 years were calculated as flood flow at the weir and the results are shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Maximum flood discharges at the proposed diversion

Flood Peak as daily Maximum Peak flow

Return Period (yrs) average – (m3/s) within the day – (m3/s)

25 40.61 95.02

50 43.84 102.58

100 47.00 109.98

Dr. Uditha Ratnayake

B.Sc, (Eng.), M.Eng. (Water Resources Development), D.Eng.( Water Resources Development) C.Eng,
M.IESL

Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering (Water Resources Development)

Faculty of Engineering

University of Peradeniya

Peradeniya

Sri Lanka

077-6508277

20