Rglc Ts Civil Work

DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR TECHNICAL SANCTION REHABILITATION AND STRENGTHENING OF RAW

WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM - PACKAGE W 8.1

(CANAL ESCAPES AND REHABILITATION)

PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING JODHPUR URBAN WATER SUPPLY REORGANIZATION

PROJECT

SEURECA (JV) STC

Estimated Total Cost : Rs Crores

VOL-I

Jodhpur Urban Water Supply Reorganisation Project

Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water Conveyance System (RGL Canal and Pumping

Stations)

JODHPUR URBAN WATER SUPPLY REORGANIZATION PROJECT (JWSRP)

REHABILITATION AND STRENGTHENING OF RAW WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (CANAL ESCAPES AND REHABILITATION)

ABBREVIATIONS

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | i



Stations)

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | ii

A&F Administrative & FinancialAC Asbestos CementAFD Agence Française de Développement

AWWA American Water Works AssociationsBEP Best Efficiency PointBIS Bureau of Indian StandardsCI Cast Ironcm CentimeterCPHEEO Central Public Health & Environment

engineering OrganizationCPU Central Processing UnitCumecs Cubic Meters per SecondCWR Clear Water ReservoirDBO Design Build OperateDEA Department of External AffairsDI Ductile IronFC Finance CommitteeGHG Green House Gas EmissionsGI Galvanized IronGoI Government of IndiaGoR Government of RajasthanHLFP High Level Filter PlantHMI Human Machine InterfaceHV High VoltageIGNP Indira Gandhi Nahar PariyojnaIISc Indian Institute of ScienceIS Indian StandardsIWWA Indian Water Works AssociationkVA Kilovolt AmperekW KilowattkWH Kilowatt HourLLFP Low Level Filter PlantLPM Liter Per MinuteLPS Liter per secondLV Low Voltagem, mtr MeterMCFT Million Cubic Feetmg/l Milligram per literMLD Million Liters per Daymm MillimeterMS Mild Steelmsl Meters above Sea LevelNRV Non Return Valve



Stations)

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | iii



Stations)



TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL REPORT 12

1.1. INTRODUCTION 121.2. A&F SANCTION 141.3. PROJECT FUNDING 181.4. JODHPUR CITY 201.5. RAW WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM - INTRODUCTION 211.6. CANAL OUTLET 231.7. CANAL REACHES 231.7.1. CANAL CROSS SECTIONS 241.7.1.1. Mehboob Section 251.7.1.2. Cast-in-Situ Section 251.7.1.3. Masonry Section 261.8. CANAL PIPE SIPHONS: 271.9. RCC AQUEDUCTS: 271.10. ESCAPE WEIRS U/S TO PUMPING STATION: 281.11. INLET- OUTLET STRUCTURES: 281.12. OTHER STRUCTURES : 291.13. PUMPING STATION 291.13.1. PUMPING STATION NO 1 301.13.2. PUMPING CAPACITY 301.14. RAW WATER STORAGE AT JODHPUR 30

CHAPTER 2. TECHNICAL REPORT 32

2.1. COVERAGE AREA 322.2. HORIZON YEAR 322.3. WATER DEMAND PROJECTION 322.4. JODHPUR CITY 332.5. EN-ROUTE TOWNS & VILLAGES 33

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | iv



Stations)

2.5.1. TARGETED WS SCHEMES 332.5.2. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND 342.5.3. TOTAL DEMAND 352.6. VARIATION IN DEMAND – SHORTFALL IN PROJECTION FROM RGLC 362.7. RGLC SUSTAINABILITY - DESIGN APPROACH 372.8. SEEPAGE LOSSES: 382.8.1. MEASUREMENT OF SEEPAGE LOSSES 382.8.1.1. Ponding method 382.8.1.2. Inflow – outflow method 382.8.1.3. Measurement of flow and estimation of seepage losses in RGLC 392.8.1.4. Literature on type of lining and seepage losses by Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara of IIT, Madras

402.8.2. FIELD MEASUREMENT OF SEEPAGE LOSSES IN IGMC 412.8.3. SEEPAGE AND EVAPORATION LOSSES ADOPTED IN NARMADA MAIN CANAL 422.8.4. REACH WISE VARIABLE SEEPAGE LOSSES AS PER DEPARTMENT’S OBSERVATION 422.8.5. RECOMMENDED VALUE OF SEEPAGE AND EVAPORATION LOSSES FOR RGLC 432.8.6. ADOPTED SEEPAGE LOSSES 442.9. PERMISSIBLE FREE BOARD 442.10. CANAL HYDRAULICS 452.10.1. MANNING’S FORMULA FOR DESIGN OF CANAL FLOW IN DIFFERENT REACHES: 452.11. METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING FLOWS & FLOW DEPTH 462.11.1. ADEQUACY OF FREE BOARD INDIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF CANAL 472.11.2. TREATMENT OF LOCAL BOTTLENECKS IN VARIOUS CANAL REACHES: 482.12. DESIGN OF IGMC OUTLET AT RD 0 OF RGLC 492.13. OUTLET CAPACITY 492.14. RESERVATION OF WATER IN INDIRA GANDHI MAIN CANAL (IGMC) 492.15. DESIGN OF PIPE SIPHON FOR YEAR 2029 FLOW: 492.15.1. DESIGN OF ESCAPE WEIR AT CANAL SIPHON 532.16. CHECK HEAD OVER ESCAPE: 532.17. CHECK FOR CREST LEVEL OF ESCAPE 542.18. CHECK FOR SCOUR DEPTH. 542.19. DESIGN OF RCC AQUEDUCT FOR YEAR 2029 FLOW: 552.20. DESIGN OF ESCAPE WEIRS FOR HORIZON YEAR 2029 582.21. DESIGN OF INLET OUTLET STRUCTURES: 622.22. OTHER CD & CIVIL STRUCTURES 642.22.1. VRB & SUPER PASSAGES 642.22.2. CANAL EARTH EMBANKMENTS, INSPECTION BANK DEEP CUTTING SECTIONS, CANAL SERVICE ROADS 642.23. PUMPING STATIONS 652.24. PRESENT PROJECT PROPOSALS 652.25. SUMP 66

CHAPTER 3. CONTRACT PACKAGING 68

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | v



Stations)

3.1. PACKAGE G1.A FOR ALL 8 PUMPING STATIONS & PIPE LINES 693.2. PACKAGE G1.B FOR PATROLLING, DESILTING, DEWEEDING REPAIR AND REHABILITATION OF CANAL AND SERVICE ROAD 703.3. SANCTIONED CIVIL WORKS 713.4. ADDITIONAL WORKS IDENTIFIED BY CE (P), PHED JODHPUR IN THE MEETING HELD ON 07/10/2014. 72

CHAPTER 4. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 75

4.1. TAKING OVER OF OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 754.2. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 75

CHAPTER 5. COST ESTIMATES 76

5.1. ORGANIZATION 765.2. GENERAL ABSTRACT OF COST 775.3. BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES 955.3.1. OVERHEADS 955.3.2. LAND ACQUISITION: 955.4. SPARE PARTS 955.5. PROVISIONAL SUM 965.6. RATE ANALYSIS 965.7. QUOTATIONS LIASONING 965.8. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST 97

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | vi



Stations)



LIST OF ANNEXURE

1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | vii



Stations)

18. 19. 20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26. 27.

[28.]

[29.] [30.] [31.] [32.] [33.]

[34.]

[35.] [36.] [37.] [38.]

[39.]

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | viii



Stations)

LIST OF ESTIMATES

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | ix



Stations)

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | x



Stations)



LIST OF DRAWINGS

S.No.

Particulars Drawing No.

1. 2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | xi



Stations)



LIST OF QUOTATIONS

S.No.

ID Particulars

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | xii



Stations)

Chapter 1. General Report

1.1. INTRODUCTION

The UWSS Jodhpur is getting water from Indira Gandhi Main Canal through Rajiv Gandhi Lift Canal (RGLC). The RGLC is a 205 kms long conveyance system comprising of open canal, pumping mains and 8 pumping stations to deliver water to Jodhpur town and 1235 villages & 4 towns en-route to Jodhpur. The present system was designed to meet demand up to year 2016.

The Reorganization UWSS Jodhpur has been taken up by GOR with the financial assistance from AFD to upgrade this conveyance system to meet designed demand of UWSS Jodhpur up to year 2029. The demand of 1235 villages & 4 towns, however, has been freezed up to design year 2016. It is given to understand that increase in enroute demand beyond year 2016 will be met by a new parallel system under Phase III of RGLC. It is suggested that timely implementation of alternative measures be ensured as the capacity installed at intermediate off take points is much higher than the demand considered for yr 2016 and any extra drawl would affect tail end UWSS Jodhpur adversely.

In the AFD financed Jodhpur Reorg. UWS Project, it has been envisaged to enhance capacity of RGLC conveyance system by replacement of 27 pumping sets installed in phase-I of RGLC along with replacement of transformers, other appurtenances of pumping station. The works included in the sanctioned package were to be taken up through two separate goods contract. Apart from meeting increased demand (Year 2029) of Urban WSS Jodhpur, another prime objective is to reduce energy cost by opting for energy efficient system.

Technical Sanction Proposal S e u r e c a ( J V ) S T C P a g e | 13



Stations)

In view of signing one more agreement to cover funding of entire Rs 740 crs project,it was subsequently decided to combine two goods contract into one DBOM contract incorporating clause of guaranteed maximum energy consumption per ML of water handled by pumps during O & M period. However, past experience of O & M contract for the entire RGLC system revealed that O & M contractors normally pay attention to pumping station and pipeline whereas canal portion remains comparatively unattended. The present status of canal- Inspection bank, slopes in cutting and embankment section, poor condition of canal lining , service roads, growth of weeds etc. indicate that more attention needs to be paid to the civil works and O & M of canal. It is felt that the earlier system of separately maintaining canal and pumping stations functioned better and canal was working more efficiently. Thus, it is proposed to keep repair, rehabilitation and O & M of canal under separate smaller contracts for smaller duration.

A detailed package for rehabilitation of Pumping stations and pipelines to meet year 2029demand of UWSS Jodhpur alongwith a concept of guaranteed energy consumption was prepared at an estimated cost of Rs ---------Million for obtaining technical sanction. However, no decision was taken on these proposals and the work of enhancing capacity of pumping stations and pipelines has been awarded to an ESCO ( Energy Saving Company).

Some minor civil works related to rehabilitation of escapes at PS & siphons, RCC aqueducts, super passages and damaged VRB’s have also been included in sanction.

The feasibility report did not envisage requirement of any work related to enhancement in capacity of canal or to lay a parallel pipe line to meet designed demand for year 2029. The free board in canal was envisaged to be kept to a minimum of 0.30 m( instead of 0.45m available in Ph II) even with increased flow due to increase in capacity of pumps. Some minor civil works related to rehabilitation of escapes at PS & siphons, RCC aqueducts, super passages and damaged VRB’s have also been included in sanction. These works were not included in TS package as it was suggested to keep civil works of canal under separate small

Thecontracts. free board in canal is to be kept a minimum of 0.30 m even with increased capacity of pumps.




Stations)

The works included in the sanctioned package were to be taken up through two separate goods contract. Apart from meeting increased demand (Year 2029) of Urban WSS Jodhpur, another prime objective is to reduce energy cost by opting for energy efficient system.

In view of signing one more agreement to cover funding of entire Rs 740 crs project,it was subsequently decided to combine two goods contract into one DBOM contract incorporating clause of guaranteed maximum energy consumption per ML of water handled by pumps during O & M period. However, past experience of O & M contract for the entire RGLC system revealed that O & M contractors normally pay attention to pumping station and pipeline whereas canal portion remains comparatively unattended. The present status of canal- Inspection bank, slopes in cutting and embankment section, poor condition of canal lining , service roads, growth of weeds etc. indicate that more attention needs to be paid to the civil works and O & M of canal. It is felt that the earlier system of separately maintaining canal and pumping stations functioned better and canal was working more efficiently. Thus, it is proposed to keep repair, rehabilitation and O & M of canal under separate smaller contracts for smaller duration.

Before going ahead with preparation of detailed design report,, following submissions were made to finalize design concept. Similarly, no iInput data of the existing canal conveyance system was not available and most of the input data for preparation of design report was compiled from old records and field observations and submitted to department for approval before taking up detailed designs.

1. Sustainability of RGLC conveyance system submitted on 16/07/2013. (ANNEXURE A21)

2. DESIGN CONCEPT REPORT FOR REHAB/REPLACEMENT OF PUMPING MACHINERY OF RGLC SYSTEM ON DATED 01/11/2013 (ANNEXURE A 22)

[3.] THERMODYNAMIC TEST RESULTS FOR PUMP EFFICIENCY (ANNEXURE M-02)

[4.] CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING TRANSFORMER (ANNEXURE E-02)

[5.] Measurement of flow in RGLC by Doppler principle using ADCP (ANNEXURE A-23)

3.[6.] Supplementary Submission on dated 30/10/2013 ((ANNEXURE-24)




Stations)

4.[7.] Supplementary Submission TO SUSTAINABILTY REPORT AND DESIGN CONCEPT REPORT ON DATED 22/07/2014 (ANNEXURE A25)

5.[8.] Approval of above submission conveyed by CE (P) ON 25/07/2014 (Annexure A-16)

6.[9.] Detailed Package for Technical sanction to the Rehabilitation

and Strengthening of Raw water conveyance system works related to Pumping Stations and pumping mains ( Abstract copy – Annexure ----)

7.[10.] Draft Bid Document for Rehabilitation and Strengthening of

Raw water conveyance system system works related to Pumping Stations and pumping mains ( Abstract copy – Annexure ----)

1.2. A&F Sanction

Government of Rajasthan, through Policy Planning Committee of RWSSMB, has issued Administrative & Financial sanction to an estimate of Rs 740.00 crores for reorganization of UWSS Jodhpur, the details of which are available at Annexure A-01. The sanctioned works are to be taken up in different work packages. Under this work package related to RGLC, following provisions have been taken to increase the capacity of the system and to rehabilitate the electromechanical system for improved efficiency of operation;

Table 1.1: A & F Sanction provisions for RGLC Part

S. No.

A&F Ref No

Particulars Qty

Unit

Rate Amount (in lacs)

Details

Original

Add 15 % over SPR

1 E1.1 Providing and installation including coupling with respective motor, alignment etc of HSC mixed/radial flow double suction type pumping sets




Stations)

S. No.

A&F Ref No

Particulars Qty

Unit


Details

Original

Add 15 % over SPR

i E1.1/1

Pumping Station No. 01

3 Each

52.4 157.20 180.78 2.404cumecs, 21.41 m Head, 655 kW

ii E1.1/2


3 Each

42.4 127.20 146.28 2.376cumecs, 17.53 m Head, 530 kW

iii E1.1/3


3 Each

53.6 160.80 184.92 2.331 cumecs, 22.57m Head, 670 kW

iv E1.1/4


3 Each

37.2 111.60 128.34 2.307cumecs, 15.79m Head, 465 kW

v E1.1/5


6 Each

96 576.00 662.40 1.108 cumecs, 85.18 m Head, 1200 kW

vi E1.1/6


3 Each

104.4 313.20 360.18 2.156 cumecs, 47.7 m Head, 1305 kW

vii E1.1/7


3 Each

33.6 100.80 115.92 1.703 cumecs, 19.32 m Head, 420 kW

viii

E1.1/8


3 Each

26 78.00 89.70 1.124 cumecs, 22.64 m Head, 325 kW

2 E1.2 Transformers : Providing and installation of 33/6.6 KV HT Power Transformers along with necessary cables and equipments




Stations)

S. No.

A&F Ref No

Particulars Qty

Unit


Details

Original

Add 15 % over SPR

(replacement / upgradation)

i E1.2/1


2 Each

56.00 112.00 128.80 8.00 MVA

ii E1.2/2


2 Each

48.00 96.00 110.40 6.30 MVA

iii E1.2/3


2 Each

56.00 112.00 128.80 8.00 MVA

iv E1.2/4


2 Each

48.00 96.00 110.40 6.30 MVA

v E1.2/5


2 Each

120.00

240.00 276.00 20.00 MVA

vi E1.2/6


2 Each

96.00 192.00 220.80 15.00 MVA

vii E1.2/7


2 Each

44.80 89.60 103.04 5.00 MVA

viii

E1.2/8


2 Each

32.00 64.00 73.60 3.15 MVA

3 E1.3 Flow Meters : Providing and installation of Full Bore Magnetic Flow Meters on each Rising Main at PS 1 to 8

i E1.3/1


4 Each

16.54 66.15 76.07 1200 mm

ii E1.3/2


4 Each

16.54 66.15 76.07 1200 mm

iii E1.3/3


4 Each

16.54 66.15 76.07 1200 mm

iv E1.3/4


4 Each

16.54 66.15 76.07 1200 mm

v E1.3/5


2 Each

24.68 49.36 56.76 1600 mm

vi E1.3/6


2 Each

24.68 49.36 56.76 1600 mm

vii E1.3/7


2 Each

24.68 49.36 56.76 1600 mm

viii

E1.3/8


2 Each

24.68 49.36 56.76 1600 mm

4 E1.4 DPCV : Providing and installation of Spring loaded DPCV type PN-1.0 Non Return Valve




Stations)

S. No.

A&F Ref No

Particulars Qty

Unit


Details

Original

Add 15 % over SPR

conforming to API-794, on the delivery of each pump set of Phase-I of RGLC.

i E1.4/1


3 Each

3.50 10.50 12.08 1200 mm

ii E1.4/2


3 Each

3.50 10.50 12.08 1200 mm

iii E1.4/3


3 Each

3.50 10.50 12.08 1200 mm

iv E1.4/4


3 Each

3.50 10.50 12.08 1200 mm

v E1.4/5


6 Each

2.50 15.00 17.25 800 mm

vi E1.4/6


3 Each

3.50 10.50 12.08 1200 mm

vii E1.4/7


3 Each

3.50 10.50 12.08 1200 mm

viii

E1.4/8


3 Each

3.00 9.00 10.35 1000 mm

5 E1.5 Surge Shafts : Providing and installation of epoxy coated MS Surge Shafts for water hammer control at PS 1 - 4

i E1.5/1


4 Each

0.99 3.96 4.55 400 mm

ii E1.5/2


4 Each

0.81 3.24 3.73 400 mm

iii E1.5/3


4 Each

1.15 4.60 5.29 500 mm

iv E1.5/4


4 Each

0.85 3.40 3.91 500 mm

6 E1.6 MISCELLANEOUS WORKS FOR RGLC

i E1.6/1

Remodeling of existing Canal Escapes

1 LS 50.00 50.00 57.50 Civil Work

ii E1.6/2

Construction of new Canal Escapes

1 LS 20.00 20.00 23.00 Civil Work

iii E1.6/ Construction of 1 LS 50.00 50.00 57.50 Civil Work




Stations)

S. No.

A&F Ref No

Particulars Qty

Unit


Details

Original

Add 15 % over SPR

3 new Super passage / Village Road Bridges in place of existing VRB

iv E1.6/4

Construction of Parshall Flume with a Ultrasonic Flowmeter & a Mechanical type of Flowmeter in the channel d/s of PS-08 Rising Main

1 LS 10.00 10.00 11.50

v E1.6/5

Raising of canal banks and wall upstream of canal siphons

1 LS 100.00

100.00 115.00 Civil Work

vi E1.6/6

Rehabilitation of RCC Aqueducts and other RCC structures

1 LS 100.00

100.00 115.00 Civil Work

vii E1.6/7

Additional Zero Velocity Valves for the rising mains of PS-5 and PS-6

1 LS 20.00 20.00 23.00

viii

E1.6/8

Provision of APFC Panel & additional Capacitor Banks to provide power factor of 0.95 or above for revised duty motors.

1 LS 90.00 90.00 103.50

ix E1.6/9

Motorisation of existing manually operated Butterfly Valves at all Pumping Stations

1 LS 216.00

216.00 248.40

x E1.6/10

Upgradation of Relay,CT/PT & Misc items in existing 6.6kV HT Panel Boards

1 LS 50.00 50.00 57.50

xi E1.6/11

Replacement of various instrumentation equipments like

1 LS 50.00 50.00 57.50




Stations)

S. No.

A&F Ref No

Particulars Qty

Unit


Details

Original

Add 15 % over SPR

annunciatin system, pressue gauges etc.

xii E1.6/12

Spare Parts of Proposed Pumping Machinery

1 LS 100.00

100.00 115.00

xiii

E1.6/13

Making arrangement in the inlet of Inverted Siphon to join with gravity pipeline for diversion of flow towards Surpura Headworks

1 LS 20.00 20.00 23.00 This is already under construction in Surpura Project

Grand TotalSub Total Civil Works

4066.62

320.00

4676.62

368.00

The total price is 5279.54 lacs after adding the price escalation @7% p.a. and Contingency @ 5%. The total price for civil works is 415.44 lacs after adding the price escalation @7% p.a. and Contingency @ 5%.

A summary of these provisions for Raw Water Conveyance system (RGLC and Pumping systems) is available at Annexure A-02.

An Index map showing the raw water conveyance system & its pumping stations is shown in attached drawing No. JWSRP/RGLC/DR/01.

1.3. Project Funding

The reorganization project for UWSS Jodhpur is being funded through Agence Française de Développement (AFD), a financial institution and the main implementing agency for France’s official development assistance to developing countries and overseas territories.

Two agreements were signed between Government of India and the French Development Agency (AFD) for Euro 71.1 million ( Ph I) and 20.81 million ( Ph II) long term soft loan for the project “Reorganization




Stations)

of Urban Water Supply in Jodhpur” on February 2, 2012 and July 17, 2013 respectively in New Delhi. The loan is sanctioned on the floating rate of interest as “6-monthly Euribor” flat which is currently 1.425% p.a. and the principal sum is to be repaid in the duration of 15 years after the execution period for 5 years.

The agreement between AFD and DEA consists of a € 91.91 million direct sovereign soft loan aimed to support Public Health Engineering Department of Government of Rajasthan to i) improve water supply services through increasing and extending capacity, energy and hydraulic efficiency measures and better service management and ii) control greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by system reorganization and via energy and hydraulic efficiency measures in the city of Jodhpur.

To provide 24 hours water supply to people of Jodhpur Rs 740 crore would be spent on the Reorganized Jodhpur Water Supply Project for Jodhpur. Under this project water would flow with gravity and high technique pumping stations would help in saving electricity. Regular water supply would be ascertained in the area of Mandor, Mahamandir, and Pavta which face drinking water problem. The settlements being developed on Nagaur road, Jaipur road and Pali road would also get regular and systematic drinking water supply.

Under the Reorganized Jodhpur Water Supply Project the current water system of Jodhpur city would be strengthened by laying 66 kilometer new pipe line and 40 kilometer long old lines will be changed. A Diggi (RWR) would be constructed in Surpura dam having capacity of 210 Mcft and would be connected to Rajiv Gandhi life canal through 30 kilometer long pipeline.

Two pumping stations one each in Surpura and Takhatsagar would be set up under the project. Two clear water reservoirs having capacity of 8 ML each would be constructed in Surpura and Takhatsagar while one clean water reservoir having capacity of 1.75 ML would be constructed in Lalsagar. Two filter plants having capacity of 90 MLD would be set up in Surpura and Takhatsagar respectively. The services of consultancy firms of international level would be hired for the better and qualitative implementation and management of the project.

The Project aims to augment and extend the present system for meeting the water demand of Jodhpur City up to the year 2029.Installation of efficient pumping machineries in RGLC system to conserve energy




Stations)

(presently nearly Rs 90 Cr/annum & gravity main extending to Jhalamand along Pali Road are also earlier covered in this project has been taken up under energy saving concept by awarding this task to an ESCO who will invest money on efficient system and would earn his profits from the per MLD energy cost saved.

The project has also multi-faceted features like replacement of old inefficient pumping machinery with energy efficient one, replacement of old leaking pipelines, reduction in non-revenue water in selected pilot zones for implementing 24x7 system of water supply..

[1.4.] Jodhpur City

Jodhpur is the second largest city of Rajasthan. It is located in the lower middle of the Thar Desert of Western Rajasthan and is about 280 km from Indo-Pak border and is situated at 2618’ north latitude and 7301’ east longitude. It has an altitude of 242 Mtr. above MSL at Railway Station with Fort and old city being much higher i.e. 367.83 mtr. and between 245 to 325 mtr. The outer city area lies between to 210-255 mtr. above MSL.

The city which originally had about 5.0 Sq km area within the city wall, covered more than 50 Sq km in 1972 and presently expanded to some 281 Sq km with a potential to grow in about 321 Sq km by the year 2023. Expansion of city towards the north and west is restricted because of hill ranges and in south-east due to defense establishments.

Figure 1.1: Jodhpur city




Stations)

Jodhpur is the Divisional Headquarter of North-Western Railway and is important Railway junction in the Western Rajasthan. It provides train connections to Bikaner, Ganga Nagar, Ajmer, Jaipur, Udaipur, Barmer, Jaisalmer, Ahmadabad and Mumbai.

Jodhpur city has civil aviation facilities. It has a military and civil Airport. Direct flights from Jodhpur Airport to major cities like Jaipur, Delhi and Mumbai take place.

1.4.[1.5.] Raw Water Conveyance System - Introduction

Maharana Pratap Sagar (Pong Dam), the earth fill dam across river Beas in Himachal Pradesh is the main source of water for Jodhpur city. The reservoir drains a catchment area of 12561 Sq Km out of which 780 Sq Km is the permanent snow catchment. Further to the dam, the surface water from another perennial river Ravi is collected at Harike Barrage. Harike Barrage is the emerging point of Indira Gandhi canal. (IGNP) which transports Himalayan water to Rajasthan through Punjab and Haryana states. The canal after passing from Punjab and Haryana (204 Km) enters the Thar desert of Rajasthan. Within the Rajasthan, the Main canal is 445 Km long and provide water for irrigation and drinking to eight districts of Rajasthan: Nagaur, Sri Ganga Nagar, Hanumangarh, Churu, Bikaner, Jaisalmer, Jodhpur and Barmer. Gross command area of the canal is 2.5 Mha and it delivers drinking water to some 14 million humans. The Rajeev Gandhi Lift Canal brings surface water to Jodhpur from IGNP.

Rajeev Gandhi lifts Canal, branching of from RD 1109 of IGNP near village Madasar is a common carrier of surface water for Jodhpur city, 4 Urban and 1235 villages. Its off -take point on IGNP is 205 km from Jodhpur near Madasar village in Jaisalmer District. RGLC is a composite system of canal and pipe lines with eight intermediate pumping stations.

The raw water conveyance system has eight stage pumping with combination of open channel flow & pumping mains in a length of 205 Kms to carry water from IGMC to Kailana Reservoir in Jodhpur.

The open canal is provided with various CD works like pipe siphons, aqueducts, super passages, escapes, road bridges.




Stations)

Fig 1.2 : Index Map of RGLC Conveyance System

The RGLC Project has been executed in two phases. Namely, Phase-I and Phase-II (called as Modified Ph-II). The Ph-I of Project was commissioned




Stations)

in year 1995-96. It envisaged coverage of Jodhpur city for the design year 1996 and 158 en-route villages for the design demand of year of 2011. Under Ph-I, the Canal, Power Substations and Pump House buildings were constructed for the Ph-II (ultimate, Jodhpur-2011, Villages-2011) demand and the Pumping machineries and pipe lines were provided for the Ph-I demands with the concept of augmenting same at suitable time to meet Ph-II demands.

1.5.[1.6.] Canal Outlet

There are two outlets for release of water to RGLC. The capacity of two outlets is reported as 264 and 62.5 cusecs respectively. Thus 326.5

cusecs outlet capacity is available at IGMC, which is to be got confirmed from IGMC authorities, who maintain these outlets. Thus, the total capacity of two outlets is 9.244 cumecs (326.5 cusecs) and is adequate to meet designed demand up to year 2021. The capacity of outlet would be required to be increased

by the year 2021, when phase-II pumps are to be replaced by higher discharge pumps.

1.6.[1.7.] Canal Reaches

The canal has been mainly constructed in Mehboob Section and due to local site conditions; trapezoidal section with cast in situ PCC and masonry construction has been provided. The CD works in the form of pipe siphons & RCC aqueducts have also been provided, which affects canal hydraulics by formation of afflux due to decrease in area of flow. However, the VRB, super passages, Inlet-outlet works for entry/exit of runoff, escapes etc where section of canal does not change have not been considered in working out sustainability of canal conveyance hydraulics.


Figure 1.3 :RGLC Outlet at Madasar



Stations)

The input data related to open canal, its dimensions and type of cross section has not been made available in a proper manner due to non availability of ‘As built’ drawings. The data elaborated in the bid document for RGLC Ph-II works as well as some approved/proposed drawings submitted by M/S SPML at the time of implementation of Ph II of RGLC have been collected from different offices of SE City, EE RGLC Div., Jodhpur as well as from field and a compilation of input data has been prepared. The reach wise details of different type of canal sections and its gradient in different reaches along with CD structures like pipe siphon, RCC Aqueduct, pumping mains etc. are reflected in Table 1 Annexure A-14.

The input data so compiledis has been approved by CE (P) PHED, Jodhpur vide letter no. CEP/PHE/JU/Ar-Jodhpur/STC/14-15/5652 & 569 dated 25/07/2014 (Annexure A-16) and has been used in checkingin checking of sustainability of conveyance system.

The abstract of canal conveyance system is as below

Table 1.2: Abstract of canal SystemCanal Reach Length of Conveyance system

Canal length in Cross Section (kms) Pipe Sipho

n

RCC Aqueduc

t

Pumping Main

From

To Mehboob

Trapezo cost in

lacs

Trapez Total (Kms)

(M) (M) (M)Masonry

RD-0 PS-1 7.00 1.55 1.35 9.90 0 0 -

PS-1 PS-2 9.85 0.00 0.00 9.85 0 0. 0 75PS-2 PS-3 10.68 4.48 0.00 15.16 105 6 115

PS-3 PS-4 8.36 2.95 0.00 11.31 47 0 315PS-4 PS-5 13.04 8.67 0.00 21.71 198 151 175

PS-5 PS-6 2.95 4.78 2.28 10.00 0 0 8600PS-6 PS-7 50.72 9.70 6.11 66.52 - 21 6400

PS-7 PS-8 6.40 0.00 18.50 24.90 6239 1799 555PS-8 Hathi

Nahar- - 0.47 0.47 - - 6329

Total

108.992 32.125 28.702 169.819 6589 1977 22564




Stations)

1.6.1.[1.7.1.] Canal Cross Sections

There are three different canal cross sections available in the RGLC transmission system and they are Mehboob Section, Cast-in-Situ Section and Masonry Section. The details of these sections are as follows;

1.6.1.1.[1.7.1.1.] Mehboob Section

The majority of reaches of canal comprises of sandy soil where canal has been constructed in Mehboob section as per figure-4.2 below. Combination lining of single precast (M-10) 30 cm X 15 cm X 4cm blocks over 250 micron LDPE film with 16 mm sandwich plaster (1:3) and 12mm base plaster (1:6) has been provided for Mehboob section. The canal was constructed in Phase I for ultimate flow (3 pumps running flow discharge) to cater designed demand of year 2011 for Jodhpur town and 158 enroute villages. A minimum free board of 0.45 m was considered in triangular section and a vertical Masonry wall (Dowla) of 0.3 m height was constructed to protect inspection bank of canal. The Mehboob section was constructed for total depth - designed depth + 0.45 m (free board) as shown below. In the phase II (Yr 2005), an increased flow (equal to 4 pumps running flow discharge) was considered to cater designed demand of Year 2016 for Jodhpur town, enroute 1235villages and 4 towns. The Mehboob section was accordingly modified by dismantlingby dismantling existing masonry dowla and reconstruction of the same of 0.6 m height where bottom 0.3 m height was considered as free board and remaining top 0.3 m height was considered as dowla.

Figure 1.4 : Existing Mehboob Section

1.6.1.2.[1.7.1.2.] Cast-in-Situ Section




Stations)

In some of the reaches 100 mm thick cast in situ (M-10) cement concrete lining in trapezoidal section had to be adopted due to local rocky soil conditions as per figure 4.3 below. The bed width in the trapezoidal section was adopted considering depth and area of flow same as taken for Mehboob section.

A 250 micron LDPE film over 12mm base plaster (1:6) has been provided in Cast in situ trapezoidal section. A minimum free board of 0.45 m was considered in triangular section and a vertical Masonry wall (Dowla) of 0.3 m height was constructed to protect inspection bank of canal. The Cast in situ section was constructed for total depth - designed depth + 0.45 m (free board) as shown below. The other criteria including remodeling in phase II were kept same as adopted for Mehboob section.

Figure 1.5 : Existing Cast in situ Section

1.6.1.3.[1.7.1.3.] Masonry Section

Masonry section was constructed mostly in rocky strata having deep cutting and in some stretches having partial cutting and partial filling.

The RR Masonry wall (CM 1:6) has been constructed with a slope 0.25H:1V on water face and slope 0.1H:1V on outer face. The bed width in Masonry section was adopted considering depth and area of flow same as taken for Mehboob section as per figure 4.3 below. A minimum free board of 0.45 m was considered without any Dowla.

In phase II, remodeling of Masonry section was done by increasing height of Masonry wall by minimum 0.60 m. Thus, the free board available is more than 0.60 m.




Stations)

Figure 1.6 : Existing Masonry Section

1.7.[1.8.] Canal pipe siphons:

There are in all 9 Nos. pipe siphons provided in canal at different locations of different length and different pipe diameters/ RCC sections. These siphons have been provided with trash racks/silting basins & escapes upstream to these to protect against canal afflux generated due to clogging of trash racks & head loss.

The siphons were constructed in Phase I for ultimate flow (3 pumps running flow discharge) to cater designed demand of year 2011 for Jodhpur town and 158 enroute villages. The Input data of each pipe siphon taken from drawings and is summarized at Annexure A-07.In the phase II (Yr 2005), an increased flow (equal to 4 pumps running flow discharge) was considered to cater designed demand of Year 2016 for Jodhpur town, Enroute 1235 villages and 4 towns. The Pipe siphons were modified to sustain increased flow and therefore increased afflux, by raising height of masonry wall and escapes U/s to Siphon. No parallel pipes were considered.

The afflux in u/s of these canals shall further rise due to increase in discharge of canal, which has been calculated. As envisaged in feasibility report, no parallel siphons have been proposed in design and only




Stations)

increased afflux has been calculated to assess requirement of raising of canal banks upstream to sustain increased afflux.

1.8.[1.9.] RCC Aqueducts:

There are in all 17 RCC aqueducts provided in RGLC canal system. These Aqueducts were constructed in Phase I for ultimate flow (3 pumps running flow discharge) to cater designed demand of year 2011 for Jodhpur town and 158 enroute villages. The Input data of each aqueduct is taken from drawings and summarized at Annexure A-08.In the phase II (Yr 2005), an increased flow (equal to 4 pumps running flow discharge) was considered to cater designed demand of Year 2016 for Jodhpur town, enroute 1235 villages and 4 towns. These Aqueducts were modified to sustain increased flow by increasing height of RCC Vertical walls with cross beams to cater for increased afflux. No parallel RCC aqueducts were considered.




Stations)

1.9.[1.10.] Escape weirs U/s to Pumping station:

There are in all 8 escape weirs provided at u/s of each pumping station in RGLC canal system. These escapes weirs were constructed in Phase I for ultimate flow (3 pumps running flow discharge) to cater designed demand of year 2011 for Jodhpur town and 158 enroute villages. These escapes weir were designed for flow equal to the full canal flow. The Head over escape (nappy height) was considered as 0.25 m. Ogee and Broad crested Escape weirs have been constructed of adequate length.

In the phase II (Yr 2005), an increased flow (equal to 4 pumps running flow discharge) was considered to cater designed demand of Year 2016 for Jodhpur town, enroute 1235 villages and 4 towns. These escapes weirs were modified to sustain increased flow by increasing crest level of escape weir without changing the length of escapes. The design Head over escape (nappy height) was increased from 0.25 m to 0.30 m. The ogee shaped weirs were raised for a minimum height of 350 mm in RCC. The broad crested escape weirs were similarly raised in PCC.

The Input data of each escape weirs is taken from drawings/bid document and summarized at Annexure A-06.

1.10.[1.11.] Inlet- outlet structures:

There are 16 inlet outlets structures were provided to pass the rain water in RGLC canal system. These inlet -outlet structure were constructed after Phase I on the locations where canal was breached during heavy rains. These structures are broad crested weirs of adequate length for inflow of rainwater into canal at U/s locations and similar broad crested weirs for escape of rain water from canal at D/s locations. The crest level of these weirs were kept at designed depth for ultimate flow (3 pumps running flow discharge) to cater designed demand of year 2011 for Jodhpur town and 158 enroute villages.

In the phase II (Yr 2005), an increased flow (equal to 4 pumps running flow discharge) was considered to cater designed demand of Year 2016 for Jodhpur town, enroute 1235 villages and 4 towns. These weirs were modified by increasing crest level as per requirement of Phase II without changing the length of escapes. The broad crested weirs were raised for a minimum height of 300 mm in RCC.




Stations)

The Input data of inlet outlet structures is taken from bid document and summarized at Annexure A-10.




Stations)

1.11.[1.12.] Other Structures :

The other structures like VRB, Super passages, Silting basin, PS flaring zones, ED chambers etc. were constructed in Phase I for ultimate requirement with adequate margin in free board for future increase in flow. None of the structures were modified at the time of Phase II of RGLC as these structures are not affected by canal hydraulics.

A summary of different canal structures in entire conveyance system of RGLC is as given below;

Table 1.3: Summary of RGLC structures

Type Length

Component No.

Mehboob Section 108.99 Super Passages 25

Trapezoidal section

60.827 Aqueduct 20

Rising Main (MS pipe)

22.564 Escape weir 08

RCC Aqua Duct 1.977 Raw Water inlet/ outlet

13

Siphon 6.589 Silting basin 2

Total length 200.948

pipe siphons 9

1.12.[1.13.] Pumping Station

There are 8 pumping stations in RGLC system, with pumps installed in two phases (Yr. 1996 & 2005). The civil structure for these pumping stations was constructed in phase I of RGLC of installation of 6 pumps (except PS 5 where 12 pumps have been installed to meet ultimate demand. In phase II, only additional pumps were installed to meet increased design demand. Majority of these pumps have become energy




Stations)

inefficient and there have been frequent breakdowns in the past, reducing the effective pumping capacity.

[1.13.1.] Pumping Station No 1

[1.13.2.] Pumping Capacity

The summary of existing pumping capacity at different pumping stations is as below;

Table 1.4 : Pumping capacity for all pumping stationPS No Pumps Installed in Phase I Pumps Installed in Phase II Total

Pumping

CapacityFlow Head Work

ingStand

byPump

ing Capacity

Flow Head Work ing

Stand by

Pump ing

Capacitym3/s mtrs num num m3/s m3/s mtrs Num num m3/s m3/s

PS No. 1 2.018 20.5 2 1 4.036 2.018 20.5 2 1 4.036 8.072

PS No. 2 1.988 17 2 1 3.976 1.988 17.1 2 1 3.976 7.952

PS No. 3 1.938 21.5 2 1 3.876 1.938 21.5 2 1 3.876 7.752

PS No. 4 1.893 14.5 2 1 3.786 1.893 15 2 1 3.786 7.572

PS No. 5 0.906 70.5 4 2 3.624 0.906 75 3 2 2.718 6.342

PS No. 6 1.754 39 2 1 3.508 1.754 43.5 2 1 3.508 7.016

PS No. 7 1.565 18 2 1 3.13 1.565 18 2 1 3.13 6.26

PS No. 8 1.368 26.5 2 1 2.736 1.368 26.5 2 1 2.736 5.472

1.13.[1.14.] Raw Water Storage at Jodhpur

The raw water brought from RGLC and harvested rain water from the local catchment is collected in Kailana and Takhat Sagar.




Stations)

Fig 1.15 : Takhatsagar Lake

The reservoirs are inter connected, and following table depicts their details:

Table 1.5 : Raw Water Storage capacity available at Jodhpur

S.N.

Reservoir Bed level

FSL Max gauge m

Storage Capacity (ML)

Live Dead Total1. Kailana 256.20 273.89 17.69 4339 498 4837

2. Takhat Sagar 248.60 269.92 21.32 5253 1252 6505

Total 9592 1750 11342

The raw water storage capacity is proposed to be increased by construction of new RWR at Surpura dam of capacity --------ML




Stations)

Chapter 2. Technical Report

2.1. Coverage Area

The RGLC system is primarily created to meet the water demand of Jodhpur city. As the RGL Canal passes through a severe water deficit area along its alignment, it also serves a large number of rural villages & towns along with Jodhpur City.

2.2. Horizon Year

The Reorganization UWSS Jodhpur has been taken up by GOR with the financial assistance from AFD to upgrade this conveyance system to meet designed demand of UWSS Jodhpur up to year 2029.

The demand of enroute villages & towns, however, has been freezed up to design year 2016. It is given to understand that increase in enroute demand beyond year 2016 will be met by a new parallel system under phase III of RGLC. It is suggested that timely implementation of alternative measures be ensured as the capacity installed at intermediate off take points is much higher than the demand considered for yr 2016 and any extra drawl would affect tail end UWSS Jodhpur adversely.

Thus, the horizon year for projected demand for enroute rural sector and 4 towns has been taken as year 2016 and for Jodhpur city; it is adopted as Year 2029.




Stations)

2.3. Water demand projection

A detailed report “Basic Configuration Study Report” was prepared to project water demand of urban town Jodhpur as well as rural and urban demand of enroute villages & submitted on 05/06/2013. The demand of Jodhpur town was projected from different sources i.e. RGLC water, ground water and recycled water. Similarly demand for domestic population, non- domestic consumers, Industrial consumers, Bulk consumers, Garden and recreational areas has been projected separately. The losses in distribution system, transmission system, water treatment plant and raw water Reservoirs has been considered in detail for working out year wise demand of Jodhpur city up to Horizon year. Similar exercise has been carried out for enroute rural and urban towns. The Chapter 2.8 of Basic Configuration Study Report covers detailed demand projections which are briefly described here after.

2.4. Jodhpur City

The designed demand of UWSS Jodhpur for year 2029 has been estimated as 417 MLD from RGLC and 56 MLD from ground water/recycled water sources. The per capita supply has been considered @ 135 LPCPD for population served through connections and 70 LPCPD for remaining population The abstract of year wise demand projection for domestic, non domestic, industrial and bulk consumers along with per capita supply, losses etc is indicated in Annexure A-03.

The 417 MLD demand in terms of canal flow requirement considering 2.5% losses in raw water storage reservoir is 5.488 cumecs. The canal operation has been taken for 335 days in a year to facilitate closure of canal operation for cleaning/de-silting & other maintenance requirements of IGMC and RGLC. This flow in canal is for 23 hrs pump operation per day.

The daily demand of Jodhpur is to be catered from two off take points of RGLC. The major demand estimated as 4.093 cumecs, is to be carried up to tail of PS-8 pumping main, whereas 1.395 cumecs is to be drawn from silting basin at RD 191.921kms. This bifurcation has been assumed considering proportionate demand splitting as per feasibility report although these drawl rates may slightly get modified when final demand projections are made for each SR zone/three master zones.




Stations)

However, this is not going to materially change the sustainability calculations as existing canal conveyance system beyond RD 191.921kms has surplus capacity.

2.5. En-route Towns & Villages

2.5.1. Targeted WS Schemes

In all, itRGLC serves water demand of 1235 villages and 5 towns( including Jodhpur) along its alignment and onbefore reaching the Kailana & Takhatsagar reservoirs. The details of such water supply schemes drawing water from RGLC along its alignment is provided below;

Table 2.1: Enroute Covered Villages and towns served by of RGLCPumping Station

Name of Water Supply Scheme BeneficiariesVillages Towns

Betwn PS II & III

RD 20 WSS 3 0RWSS Kansingh Ki Sid - Khidrat - Mandore

16 0

Betwn PS III & IV

RWSS Ghatore - Kanasar - Bap 25 0

Betwn PS IV & V

RWSS Shekhasar 1 0RWSS from RD 53 17 0RWSS Jamba - Ghantiyala - Boongari 42 0RWSS Malar - Jod - Hindol Gol 6 0RWSS Phalodi H/W Bawari Kallan - Khara - Jalora

43 0

RWW from RD 67.5 17 0 Betwn PS V & VI

UWSS Phalodi 0 1RWSS Moriya - Aau - Champasar 28 0RWSS from RD 81 12 0

Betwn PS VI & VII

RWSS Peelwa - Sadari - Jambheshwar Nagar

15 0

RWSS from RD 111 11 0RWSS Bher - Harlaya 34 0RWSS RD 134 Dewania - Nathrau 129 0RWSS Panchala - Gehwra 59 0RWSS RD 159.5 Khudiyala - Jiyaberi 77 0RWSS For Shergarh Block 23 0

Betwn PS VII & VIII

RWSS Tinwari - Mathaniya - Osiyan 111 0RWSS Manaklao - Khangta 62 0RWSS Manaklao - Dantiwara 121 2




Stations)

Pumping Station

Name of Water Supply Scheme BeneficiariesVillages Towns

RWSS Manaklao - Daijar - Banar 25 0RWSS Keru - Beru - Joliyali 32 0

After PS VIII RWSS Kuri - Luni - Salawas 32 0RWSS Kuri - Bhatinda 22 0RWSS Umed Sagar - Samdari - Dhawa - Khandap (of Jodhpur District)

66 0

RWSS Umed Sagar - Samdari - Dhawa - Khandap (of Barmer District)

176 1

RWSS from Umed Sagar (of Jodhpur District)

2 0

UWSS Jodhpur 28 1

TOTAL 1235 5

A list of all the villages & towns fed by RGLC system along with water demand except Jodhpur city is available at Annexure A-04.

2.5.2. Projected Water Demand

Based on growth rates and per capita water demand

(except urban WSS Jodhpur), the water requirement on canal system is calculated which comes to be 242 mld i.e. 2.915 cumecs. The demand for rural population has been made @ 55 LPCPD as against norms of 70 LPCPD in this desert part of western Rajasthan where animal husbandry is the main occupation and large population of cattle is to be provided potable water. The curtailment in demand is based on assumption that balance 15 LPCPD is to be met by rain water harvesting, ground water sources and other conservation measures. Similarly , the demand of balance 4 urban towns having projected population less than 100,000 souls has been projected considering 100 LPCPD. and aA summary of this demand in MLD and cumecs is provided below;

Table 2.2: Enroute Drawl of RGLCPS Name of Water Supply Scheme Water Demand Cumec

Withdrawal

between PS to PS

MLD cumec

Betwn PS II & III

RD 20 WSS 0.437 0.005 0.028RWSS Kansingh Ki Sid - Khidrat - Mandore

1.893 0.023

Betwn PS III &

RWSS Ghatore - Kanasar - Bap 3.567 0.043 0.043




Stations)

PS Name of Water Supply Scheme Water Demand Cumec Withdraw

al MLD cumecIV Betwn PS IV & V

RWSS Shekhasar 0.199 0.002 0.212RWSS from RD 53 1.469 0.018RWSS Jamba - Ghantiyala - Boongari 5.718 0.069RWSS Malar - Jod - Hindol Gol 0.948 0.011RWSS Phalodi H/W Bawari Kallan - Khara - Jalora

6.466 0.078

RWW from RD 67.5 2.815 0.034Betwn PS V & VI

UWSS Phalodi 8.722 0.105 0.245RWSS Moriya - Aau - Champasar 7.649 0.092RWSS from RD 81 3.963 0.048

Betwn PS VI & VII

RWSS Peelwa - Sadari - Jambheshwar Nagar

4.086 0.049 0.782

RWSS from RD 111 1.742 0.021RWSS Bher - Harlaya 9.086 0.110RWSS RD 134 Dewania - Nathrau 21.534 0.260RWSS Panchala - Gehwra 14.614 0.176RWSS RD 159.5 Khudiyala - Jiyaberi 11.203 0.135RWSS For Shergarh Block 2.564 0.031

Betwn PS VII & VIII

RWSS Tinwari - Mathaniya - Osiyan 30.084 0.363 1.076RWSS Manaklao - Khangta 13.175 0.159RWSS Manaklao - Dantiwara 37.674 0.455RWSS Manaklao - Daijar - Banar 3.045 0.037RWSS Keru - Beru - Joliyali 5.172 0.062

After PS VIII

RWSS Kuri - Luni - Salawas 5.169 0.062 0.528RWSS Kuri - Bhatinda 3.246 0.039RWSS Umed Sagar - Samdari - Dhawa - Khandap (of Jodhpur District)

10.498 0.127

RWSS Umed Sagar - Samdari - Dhawa - Khandap (of Barmer District)

24.599 0.297

RWSS from Umed Sagar (of Jodhpur District)

0.233 0.003

UWSS Jodhpur

TOTAL 242 2.915

2.5.3. Total Demand

The total demand to be drawn from RGLC system from various off take points is worked out as 8.405 cumecs as against 8.201 cumecs estimated in feasibility report. The abstract reach wise demand is as shown below

Table 2.3: Reach wise designed & Cumulative drawl




Stations)

Canal Reach Location of off take RD (Km)

Designed Drawl

(Cumecs)

Cumulative drawl

(Cumecs)From To

Kailana PS-8 205.4 4.624 4.624PS-8 PS-7 198.6, 198.1, 177 2.471 7.095PS-7 PS-6 159.5, 134,120 & 111 0.782 7.877PS-6 PS-5 81 & 78 0.245 8.122PS-5 PS-4 67.5 & 53 0.212 8.334PS-4 PS-3 42 0.043 8.377PS-3 PS-2 35 0.023 8.4PS-2 PS-1 19.9 0.005 8.405PS-1 IGMC - 0 8.405

An abstract of offtake wise demand is available at Annexure A-05.

2.6. Variation in demand – Shortfall in projection from RGLC

Although, the estimation of prospective demand of various enroute beneficiaries & urban Jodhpur has been projected meticulously, yet sustainability of RGLC system to meet 2029 designed demand is dependent on many variables as described below :below:

[(a)] The most uncertain factor is correct estimation of seepage losses for the present & it’sits safe estimation up to horizon year 2029.

The seepage losses may be much higher if canal is not regularly maintained/rehabilitated properly up to year 2029 or may improve if maintenance of canal is done diligently by timely de-weeding/de-silting and repair to damaged lining as well as to its earthen sections/embankment.

However, if losses are progressively observed to be more than assumed values, there would be shortfall in availability at Jodhpur, which is to be made good by managing recycled water & ground water production and demand efficiently or through proposed phase III of RGLC.

If it is observed that shortfall has to be made good from IGMC only, the parallel system to be put in place for increased enroute demand beyond 2016, may have some built




Stations)

in cushion to tide over such deficit in RGLC system, if any, up to year 2029.

[(b)] En-route drawaldrawl may be much more than designed demand due to delay in implementation of parallel system from IGMC getting delayed beyond yr. 2016 or restriction of service levels to 55 LPCPD becomes non manageable. At present the capacity of pumps to draw water from RGLC is much higher than the rural demand projected for year 2016. The delay in implementation of PH III of RGLC may result in excess drawal by enroute rural population resulting in lesser availability at Jodhpur. As per present calculations, some allowance would be available beyond year 2016 up to year 2020 when Phase-II pumps are to be replaced by higher discharge pumps. If seepage losses can be controlled by better & dedicated measures of rehabilitation and repair of canal., surplus water can take care of increase in enroute demand.

[(c)] Thus, in the contingencies of higher than envisaged seepage losses, higher than designed enroute drawal or higher demand of UWSS Jodhpur in year 2029 can be taken care of by either efficiently managing seepage losses in canal or putting parallel system from IGMC latest by 202016 and/or managing recycled /groundwater as well as managing demand by extensive IEC activities.

(a)[(d)] The storage capacity available at Jodhpur (after discounting Umed Sagar where heavy losses will occur due to large spread area) would be around 20 days designed demand for year 2029. In order to match up with closure of IGMC, which is 30 days in a year, it would be appropriate either to use storage capacity of IGM Canal or construct 10 days storage near IGMC. This may facilitate running of canal for 345 days instead of 335 days which shall give on additional quantity of nearly 3.0%.

2.7. RGLC Sustainability - Design Approach




Stations)

The sustainability of canal and allied structures is to be examined for adequacy to meet designed demand of urban water supply Jodhpur for horizon Yr. 2029. i.e. 417 MLD and designed demand of Enroute population for horizon Yr. 2016 i.e. 242 MLD. The off take wise demand in terms of flow requirement (cumecs) in RGLC to be considered for design is as per Annexure A-05. The operation of canal has been considered 335 days in a Yr. considering 30 days closure for maintenance of IGMC and RGLC. Similarly, the hours of operation of pumps has been considered 23 hrs in a day to account for breakdowns in power supply, pumping machinery as well as forced shut downs due to several reasons like finding floating bodies of human and animal, harsh climatic conditions etc.

2.8. Seepage Losses:

In the design of canal apart from designed demand, the designed flow greatly depends on extent of seepage and evaporation losses in different canal reaches. Thus, it is important to fairly estimate seepage losses in canal over the design period.

The canal has a lining of PCC blocks with sandwich plaster & LDPE film in majority of length and CC lining (with LDPE film)/ masonry lining in some smaller sections. In the phase-I of RGLC, the canal was designed considering seepage & evaporation losses @ 1.2 cumecs/m sqm of wetted area. However, at the time of RGLC Phase-II looking to better condition of canal, the seepage losses were subsequently reduced to 0.72 cumecs/m sqm. In the feasibility report of JRWSP in year 2009, while designing canal system the seepage losses were increased to 0.96 cumecs/m sqm of wetted area.

2.8.1. Measurement of seepage losses

No measurement were ever carried out about the extent of seepage losses in RGLC in past.

2.8.1.1.Ponding method

The best method as adopted by IGNP is to determine seepage & evaporation losses by ponding method during canal closure. The IGMC




Stations)

also determine seepage losses by ponding method as described in IS 9452 (part-I) 1980 & evaporation losses by pan method as per IS 6939-1973.

The measurement of seepage losses in various section of RGLC is only possible during closure of canal for which client has been advised either to take help of skilled team of IGNP can be taken or award a contract can be awarded after inviting bids from experienced firms.

2.8.1.2. Inflow – outflow method

This method, normally applied to measure seepage losses in running canal, gives a very rough estimate of the losses in a section of canal as it is very difficult to create an ideal regime conditions of steady flow in a section having no enroute withdrawal (or a properly metered withdrawal) over a reasonable time period to correctly assess the flow in a section & estimate seepage losses. The flow in RGLC depends on rate of pumping from U/s pumping station. The discharge of pump also varies a lot, particularly an account of variation in sump level on suction side as well as due to combination of different sets of pumps. The fluctuation in frequency and continuous variation of total head of pumping gives variation in flow by more than +5%. Thus, it is not possible to create a steady flow regime in RGLC & it is not possible to correctly assess quantity of water pumped into canal over a particular time period.

Earlier, PHED entrusted the job of flow measurement by current meter in different sections of canal was entrusted to MBM Engineering College by current meter. This study could not be completed due to some reasons. Moreover, the accuracy of measurement of flow by current meter would also depend on no. of observations made across over cross section of canal. The accuracy of velocity measurement by current meter at a particular instance would also be reportedly in the range of +10% as normally three observations are taken across a cross section of canal.

2.8.1.3.Measurement of flow and estimation of seepage losses in RGLC

In order to assess flow at a particular section, use of ADCP – working on Doppler principle, has been considered and as per requirement of department, flow measurement at four different locations were determined by portable ADCP on 1-8-2013 (Report placed at Annexure M-06) . Apart from flow across cross section of canal, area of flow & wetted perimeter has also been calculated at a particular chainage of canal for a particular instant of time. The details of measurements are reproduced as under




Stations)

Table-2.4: Measurement of flow in RGLC by Doppler principle using ADCP

Data measured by doppler test

S. No.

Canal RD

Time

Date Max Depth (in mtr.

)

Top Width (in mtr.

)

Mean Velocity (in m/s)

Wetted perimeter (in

mtr.)

Discharge (in cumec)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 102.9 9:4

501/08/20

131.61 5.97

80.859 6.8462 4.783

2 113.075

11.25

01/08/2013

1.51 5.631

0.974 6.5819 4.519

3 123.875

16.25

01/08/2013

1.48 5.325

1.034 6.1359 4.478

4 131.05

16.58

01/08/2013

1.58 5.566

0.869 6.3352 4.383

The above observation had been taken meticulously, and time of observation was so selected so as to give same flow regime at each section. However, despite best of efforts, the time lapse as per velocity of flow observed varies by more than 10% and in some instance, it is more than 200 to 300%.

Table – 2.5 : Seepage & evaporation losses calculation based on data measured by Doppler test

S. N

O.

Canal reach

Leng

th o

f re

ach

(in

mtr

.)M

ean

velo

city

in

the

sect

ion

(in

m/s

)

Tim

e re

quir

ed t

o tr

avel

as

per

mea

n

Actu

al t

ime

laps

e as

per

ti

me

of o

bser

vati

on

(in

sec.

)ti

me

laps

e er

ror

Wat

er L

oss

in t

he r

each

(in

cum

.)

Mea

n w

ette

d Pe

rim

eter

in

the

rea

ch

(in

mtr

.)W

ette

d ar

ea (

in s

q. m

.)

Seep

age

&

evap

orat

ion

loss

es (

in

CUM

/MSQ

M)

Spot

1 R

D

Spot

2 R

D

4=(3

-2)

*100

0

Avg.

of

velo

city

fr

om S

pot

1 to

Spo

t

6=4/

5

8=%

((6-

7)/7

)

Diff

eren

ce

in

obse

rved

di

scha

rge

at S

pot1

Av

g. o

f w

ette

d pe

rim

eter

fr

om S

pot

1 to

Spo

t 11

=10

X

4

12=

9/11

*10

0000

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 102.9

113.075

10175 0.92 11102 6000 85% 0.264 6.71 6831

5 3.864

2 113.075

123.875

10800 1.00 10757 1800

0 -40% 0.041 6.36 68676 0.597

3 123.875

131.05 7175 0.95 7541 1980 281

% 0.095 6.24 44740 2.123

4 102.9

123.875

20975 0.96 21948 2400

0 -9% 0.305 6.53 136992 2.226

5 102.9

131.05

28150 0.93 30139 2598

0 16% 0.400 6.46 181732 2.201

6 113.075

131.05

17975 0.96 18743 1998

0 -6% 0.136 6.31 113416 1.199

Minimum seepage losses (in the reach no. 2) 0.597 CUM/MSQM




Stations)

Maximum seepage losses (in the reach no. 1) 3.864 CUM/MSQMAvg seepage losses of above 6 observations 2.035 CUM/MSQMAvg seepage losses considering ±10% time lapse error (reach no. 4 and 6) 1.713 CUM/MSQMAvg seepage losses considering ±50% time lapse error (reach no. 4,5 and 6) 1.556 CUM/MSQM

As explained above, the seepage losses worked out above are very approximate as steady flow regime conditions cannot be generated through pumping system in RGLC and the flow measurement by ADCP may also have accuracy level of +3 to 5% In addition to the flow measured at different section at different time span may have variations of +10% due to variation in pumps discharge. Thus, the losses determined between various sections during a particular time span may vary substantially and sometimes absurd results of getting higher flow at downstream observations point is also observed as was observed during flow measurements on 1/8/2013 by ADCP when higher flow was measured at RD 123.875, when observations were taken at around 1.00pm and it was found that flow is higher than flow measured in U/s reach at RD 102.9/113.075 kms.

2.8.1.4.Literature on type of lining and seepage losses by Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara of IIT, Madras

The above publication (Annexure-A-20) thoroughly analyses various types of lining material & practices adopted in different states for water courses, distributaries and main canals. The author has described a vast no. of instances where due to poor construction, supervision, quality & poor maintenance & growth of aquatic weeds in canal, particularly in water courses, have led to seepage losses almost equal to unlined canals with 4 to 7 years age. The performance of main canals & distributaries which have less dry & wet cycles of rotation leading to less cracking of lining in comparison to smaller distributaries & water courses which have larger spells of dry runs. The longer dry runs increases induced cracks in lining, leading to higher seepage.

It has been reported that combination lining of conventional concrete/tile lining with PE films of 100-150 microns have sustained water tightness in canals even upto 15 year life.




Stations)

The author has reported practices adopted in various states/projects about seepage losses in lined canals, summary of which is reproduced below:

Table – 2.6- Pact-CS.

No.State

organizationAdopted practice Seepage

losses in cumecs/ msqm of

wetted area

Remark

1 UP (Lined trapezoidal)

seepage K1=1/200 (B+D)2/3 @ cumecs/km

0.293 B = 1.0mD = 2.0m

trapezoidal for 8 cumecs

2 Bhakra Nagal (lined canal)

K1 = 1.25 Q0.056 (FPS) 0.523

3 Andhra Pradesh (lined canal)

0.60 cumecs/m sqm 0.600

4 Haryana (a) lined without LDPE(b) Lined with LDPE

0.430.16

5 Gujrat (a) Lined without LDPE(b) Lined with lDPE

1.000.80

6 West Bengal (a) Lined without LDPE(b) LDPE with soil cover

0.300.12

For rocky strataFor rocky strata

The above table indicates that in different states, the seepage losses after lining with LDPE film are predominantly considered around 0.60 cumecs/m.sqm of wetted area. The literature available on seepage losses also considers the value achievable over a sustained period, provided canal is properly desilted/deweeded & repaired/rehabilitated.

2.8.2. Field measurement of seepage losses in IGMC

The field test data for determining seepage losses in newly constructed reaches of IGMC is available at Annexure A-09. The field tests have




Stations)

been conducted by ponding method and results of tests are summarized below:

Table – 2.7 Ponding Method Result

S.No.

Reach Type of lining

FSD (m)

Losses in cumecs m.sqm of wetted area

Month of

testing

Seepage

evaporation

Total

1 Suin sub Br. 10.0 to 13.0 km

CC – with LDPE film – mehboob section

2.3 0.2177 0.0086 0.2263 Dec-05

2 Arjun Minor 10.5 to 13.2 jm

-do- 0.46 0.1342 0.1236 0.2578 April- 05

The above test data is for newly constructed canal. However, the IGNP canals are designed for 0.60 cumecs/m.sqm wetted area and initial values are much below than the designed value & if canal is properly maintained, the assumed figure is considered to be achievable upto 25-30 years of life of canal.

2.8.3. Seepage and evaporation losses adopted in Narmada Main Canal

The Central Water & Power Research Station (CWRPS) has measured losses in Narmada Main canal to arrive at correct figures of losses to be distributed proportionately amongst beneficiary States. As per minutes of meeting held on 12/8/2010 of Narmada Main Canal sub-committee (Anexure-4), the seepage & evaporation losses determined in pre & post monsoon season have been given as @ 0.70 cumec/million sqm & @ 0.65 cumecs/m sqm of wetted area respectively. The average seepage &




Stations)

evaporation losses agreed for determining proportionate quantity of losses is @ 0.67 cumecs/msqm of wetter area.

2.8.4. Reach wise variable seepage losses as per department’s observation

Based upon the reasonable observations shared with the field officers of the Department on the conditions of lining, the variable value of seepage loss assessment considered for comparative view with other possible assessments is as under;

Table 2.8: Variable seepage losses as per field officerS. No.

Reach losses as per assessment of filed officers (cumec/M.sqm of wetted area)

1 RD 0 to PS 5 (69 RD) 0.62 PS 5 (69 RD) to PS 6 (90 RD) 0.963 PS 6(90 RD) to PS 7 (165 RD) 1.24 PS 7 (165) to RD 172 (for

Mehboob section)0.6

5 Onwards RD 172 (Masonry Section)

0.4

2.8.5. Recommended value of seepage and evaporation losses for RGLC

Based on various data enumerated in foregoing para, following conclusions can be drawn for RGLC system.

The determination of seepage & evaporation losses in RGLC should be made a regular feature preferably by continuous flow measurement at IGMC outlet, each PS and at tail of RGLC by installing proper flow meters at appropriate locations & at each enroute withdrawal point. This could be best done by the ESCOthe ESCO to which contract has been awarded to operate canal & its pumping stations for 10 years.




Stations)

The losses in different sections of canal should also be cross verified/determined by pondingpounding method during canal closure period, preferably through an independent agency like IGNP, or Quality Control wing of PHED.

The losses determined by inflow/outflow method through flow measurements by ADCP is giving varying figures ranging from 0.597 cumecs to 3.864 cumecs/msqm of wetted area and therefore no precise conclusion can be drawn as to what should be precise figures of seepage & evaporation losses in the entire canal length and what would be the losses in canal upto year 2029 (design horizon year for canal conveyance system). However, based on data available from other States, NMC & IGNP, it is to be endeavored to maintain canal by rehabilitation of damaged portion of canal, regular desilting/deweeding & maintenance of lining of canal in damaged portion at regular intervals.

For the purpose of design of pumping & conveyance system an average figure of 0.96 cumecs/msqm wetted area is recommended to be adopted & all out efforts should be made to keep the seepage & evaporation losses below 0.96 cumecs.

The condition of lining of canal appears to be good as even in high filling (embankment) sections, no visible water logging or seepage is observed along canal.

The de-silting & de-weeding operation are to be carried out meticulously along with its periodical repair/rehabilitation of lining to keep the losses well below 0.96 cumecs. As the canal remain operative for almost 335 days in a year, the dry run period is minimal & practically no cracks develop in canal lining due to low wet & dry cycle.

2.8.6. Adopted seepage losses

As per approval conveyed by CE (P) PHED Jodhpur letter dated 25/07/2014 (Annexure A-16), the Alternative I considering uniform seepage losses @0.96 cumec/M.sqm of wetted area over the entire reach of RGLC has been adopted for design canal conveyance system.

2.9. PERMISSIBLE FREE BOARD




Stations)

A free board of 0.45 m was considered in Mehboob section for a designed flow equal to 3 pump flow in Ph-1 completed in year 1996. A Masonry dowla of 0.30 M was provided (except for masonry sections) over and above 0.45m FB to facilitate in flow of rain water in Canal and protect its banks. The Canal cross section was modified at the time of implementation of Ph-II of RGLC completed in year 2005 -06. The ultimate flow in Canal was increased to 4 pump flow on account of increaselusion ofin enroute rural demand. The FB in Canal was still kept as 0.45m, but in Mehboob & trapezoidal PCC sections, the additional FB was provided in the form of vertical Masonry wall. In majority of segments, the minimum height of vertical Masonry wall was kept as 0.3m. Thus, the available FB in different sections of Canal is more than 0.45 m, depending upon extent of increase in depth of flow due to increase in discharge from 3P to 4P flow.

However, in the present design for ascertaining adequacy of Canal cross section to sustain increased flow to meet year 2029 designed demand, it has been envisaged in Feasibility report to reduce and restrict FB to 0.3 m (i.e. vertical portion of Masonry wall constructed at the time of Ph-II of RGLC). In other words, exiting FB of 0.45 m can be encroached by a maximum of 0.15 m.

The basic objective of restricting Freeboard to 0.3 m is to keep designed depth of flow within triangular/ trapezoidal cross –section of Canal ( which has LDPE film below PCC tiles ) to restrict seepage throughfrom weak joint of triangular/ trapezoidal PCC section to vertical masonry section .

In the design of Hydraulics for Canal cross section, the FB has been restricted to 0.3m and depth of flow is restricted within section provided with LDPE film.

However, in masonry section, where no LDPE film has been provided, it has been assumed that, wherever FB is even less than 0.3 m in existing section, raising of masonry section may have to be taken up at appropriate time.

[2.10.] Canal Hydraulics

The canal segment between two pumping stations has been designed based on pumped flow from upstream PS and water flow reaching to next PS after deducting anticipated seepage and evaporation losses as well as




Stations)

enroute drawal in the specific Thesegment. The canal system is designed from tail to head. considering proposed drawl in each segment of canal as well as estimating likely seepage & evaporation losses in particular segment of canal. The segment wise flow considered for design of each canal segment as per pump discharge approved by CEP letter no ------------------dated --/07/2014 is as given below

Table

The detailed reach wise design to ascertain sustainability of canal is as per Annexure-----.

2.9.1.[2.10.1.] Manning’s formula for design of canal flow in different reaches:

The hydraulics of flow in canal is proposed to be designed as per Manning’s equation for open channel flow. As per IS 10430, the value of Rugosity coeff. ‘n’ for concrete/PCC tile lined canals varies from 0.018 to 0.020. It is proposed to adopt value of n as 0.018 as this is an important water supply canal which is required to be maintained meticulously properly & kept in sound condition

The canal section has been designed by Manning’s formula as under:

Q =1

x (R)⅔ S½

n

Where,Q = Flow in canal segment in cum/sec.n = Manning’s rugosity coefficient ‘n’ – which has been considered as 0.018 R = Hydraulic radius = A/P. A = Area of flow in canal in sqm – depends on cross section of canal & depth of flow

a) In Mehboob section, at any depth “D” and Side slope 1.5H:1V (as per drawing JWRSP/RGLC/DR/05)


KM Mathur, 11/04/15,

To be inserted by Deepak



Stations)

A=0.5*(2Ɵ-SIN2Ɵ)*d^2+ 4dSINƟ+2d (COSƟ) ^2/SINƟ+

1.5*(D-d)*(D-d (1-COS Ɵ))Where d= depth of flow for Phase 1(3P flow)

D= Total depth of sectionƟ= 33.69 degree = 0.588 radian

b) In Cast in situ trapezoidal section, at any depth “D”, bottom bed width “b” and Side slope 1.5H:1V (as per drawing JWRSP/RGLC/DR/06)

A= (b+1.5D)*D[c)] In Masonry trapezoidal section, at any depth “D”, bottom

bed width “b” and Side slope 1.0.25H:1V (as per drawing JWRSP/RGLC/DR/07)

A= (b+0.25D)*DP = Wetted perimeter of canal surface, which remains wet during designed flow conditions & depends on cross section of canal & depth of flow.

a) In Mehboob section, at any depth “D” and Side slope 1.5H:1V (as per drawing JWRSP/RGLC/DR/05)

P= 2dƟ + 2(3.25) ^0.5*(D-d (1-COSƟ))Where d= depth of flow for Phase 1(3P flow) D= Total depth of sectionƟ= 33.69 degree = 0.588 radian

b) In Cast in situ trapezoidal section, at any depth “D”, bottom bed width “b” and Side slope 1.5H:1V (as per drawing JWRSP/RGLC/DR/06)

P= b+D*(13) ^0.5[c)] In Masonry trapezoidal section, at any depth “D”, bottom

bed width “b” and Side slope 1.0.25H:1V (as per drawing JWRSP/RGLC/DR/07)

P= b+D*(17) ^0.5/2S = Gradient of canal in each segment, which is 1 in 3000 in entire canal reach, except in reach PS 4 to 5, where it is 1 in 2800 & at tail end of RGLC canal from RD 204.951 to205.40 km where it is 1 in 300.

2.10.[2.11.] Methodology for Calculating Flows & Flow Depth




Stations)

Hydraulics of canal has been worked out to calculate depth of flow in each segment of canal using manning’s equation. The known flow requirement at tail of each segment has been used along with Enroute drawl, if any and designed depths of flow including seepage losses in the segment have been worked out by goal seek analysis. The seepage losses in the segment have been calculated for the type of canal cross section and designed depth of flow have been assumed to be constant from head to tail of the segment.

Thus, successive calculation for canal flow at tail, seepage losses in segment of canal, flow at head of segment and designed depth of flow for each segments upto 0 RD of RGLC have been calculated & placed at Table 1 of Annexure 14. for design Year 2029 and similarly at Annexure A-17 for design year 2021.

2.10.1.[2.11.1.] Adequacy of free board indifferent segments of canal

Based on iterative design calculations carried out for canal hydraulics for design Yr. 2029 the availability of FB in canal is as under:

Table 2.9: Availability of Free board for 2021 and 20299S. No.

Canal segments Cross section of canal

Free board available Remarks

From (Ch) From (Ch) Yr. 2021 Yr. 20291 0 7 Mehboob 0.42-0.43 0.34-0.35 2 7 8.55 Trapazoidal 0.51 0.43 3 8.55 9.9 (PS 1) Masonry 0.73 0.61 4 9.9 (PS1) 10.05 Rising main 5 10.05 19.9 (PS 2) Mehboob 0.42-0.43 0.34-0.35 6 19.9 (PS2 ) 20.125 Rising main 7 20.125 35.4 (PS3) Mehboob 0.42-0.43 0.34-0.35

Trapazoidal 0.50-0.51 0.42-0.43 8 35.4 (PS3) 35.715 Rising main 9 35.715 47.07 (PS 4) Mehboob 0.42-0.44 0.34-0.35

Trapazoidal 0.51-0.52 0.43 10 47.07 (PS 4) 47.245 Rising main 11 47.245 69.3 (PS 5) Mehboob 0.44-0.49 0.35-0.40

Trapazoidal 0.52-0.57 0.43-0.45 12 69.3 (PS 5) 81 Rising main




Stations)

13 81.000 82.000 Trapezoidal 0.52 0.44 14 82.000 83.150 Masonry 0.57 0.43-0.4415 83.150 83.520 Trapezoidal 0.52 0.4416 83.520 84.500 Masonry 0.57-0.58 0.4417 84.500 84.750 Mehboob 0.44 0.3618 84.750 84.785 Trapezoidal 0.52 0.4419 84.785 84.930 Masonry 0.58 0.4420 84.93 91 (PS 6) Trapezoidal 0.52-0.53 0.44-0.45

Mehboob 0.44-0.45 0.36-0.3721 91 (PS 6) 98.445 Rising main 22 98.445 101.000 Masonry 0.58 0.4423 101.000 149.750 Mehboob 0.44-0.53 0.36-0.44

Trapezoidal 0.52-0.61 0.44-0.5224 149.750 151.100 Masonry 0.73 0.5925 151.100 151.600 Mehboob 0.53 0.45 26 151.600 153.800 Masonry 0.73 0.5927 153.800 165 (PS 7) Mehboob 0.53-0.58 0.45-0.50 28 165 (PS 7) 165.555 Rising main 29 165.555 172.000 Mehboob 0.55-0.56 0.5 30 172 198.6 (PS 8) Masonry 0.44-0.56 0.32-0.44 31 198.6 (PS 8) 204.929 Rising main 32 204.929 205.400 Masonry 0.44 0.44

Free Board (Min.) under the Alt-I satisfies the minimum requirement. of 0.30m but its' close proximities to minimum value suggests optimum utilization of carrier..

From the above table, it is evident that overall the canal is safe to carry designed flow for year 2029. However, in some segments on account of some bottlenecks due to expansive properties of soils, settlement in local stretches, damaged lining in considerable lengths etc. the existing canal is facing problem with existing flow and such local stretches needs to be addressed separately to overcome local bottlenecks.

2.10.2.[2.11.2.] Treatment of Local bottlenecks in various canal reaches:

As per the field officers, in some canal reaches the depth of flow is much higher than designed depth even for 3 pumps flow at present. Some of




Stations)

the examples quoted are reach RD 25, RD 36.5 to 37 km and RD 170 to RD 172 KM. Apart from these, similar situation is anticipated in some of other reaches of canal when designed increase in flow will be achieved.

At several places, excessive growth of weeds has been observed which necessitates emergent remedial measures as canal in U/s reaches starts overflowing through escapes.

In the canal reach, RD 29 to 31 and RD 38 to RD 42 Km ,the lining of canal is extensively damaged perhaps due to swelling properties of the soil. These reaches needs to be rehabilitated on priority, but no provision has been madebeen made in the Feasibility Report and A&F sanction.

The treatment of these local bottlenecks needs detailed examination which has not been addressed in the present design report. The status of desilting and deweeding of canal is far from satisfactory at present. The canal has to be properly cleaned to analyze the reason for more depth of flow than design requirement.

There is no provision for any remedial measures for rehabilitation of RGLC in the A & F Sanction for this package. As suggested in the design concept report small packages are to be prepared on annual work basis for proper cleaning of canal and taking up repair/rehabilitation works during annual canal closure. Such works can neither be foreseen for a design span of 15 yrs nor precise estimates of remedial and rehabilitation works can be prepared at one instant of time. slot.

2.11.[2.12.] Design of IGMC Outlet at RD 0 of RGLC

2.12.[2.13.] Outlet capacity

As derived in Table 1 of Annexure 14, 9.754 cumec of water is required to be drawn from IGMC in Year 2029 to meet demand of RGLC. The present combined capacity of two outlets is 326.5 cusec (9.244 cumec). As such enhancement in capacity of outlet can be deferredis not required up to year 2021 and can be either taken up with enhancement of raw water storage capacity equal to 10 days demand near IGMC (RD 0 outlet of RGLC) or with RGLC PH III proposals under preparation.as per demand projection given in Annexure ---..




Stations)

2.13.[2.14.] Reservation of water in Indira Gandhi Main Canal (IGMC)

At present RGLC Jodhpur system is getting 195 cusecs out of 750 cusecs of water reserved for drinking in IGMC.

A UO note (Annexure A-18) has been approved by the Hon’ble Minister, Water Resource department (WRD) and PHED for reservation of 320 Cusecs (9.06 cumec) at IGMC for RGLC. However, this approval is subject to increase in reservation of drinking water in IGMC from 750 cusecs to 1191 cusecs.

As per Table 1 of Annexure 14, the designed demand for RGLC system for year 2029 is 9.754 cumecs (344.5 cusec). Thus, reservation of 320 cusecs is to be increased to 345 cusecs and confirmation is to be taken from the appropriate authority.

2.14.[2.15.] Design of Pipe Siphon for Year 2029 flow:

The flow at location of siphons has been taken from Table 1 of Annexure 14. Input data for Canal Siphon has been taken as per Annexure A-07. The drop in bed level between U/S & D/S of siphons has been taken as 25mm- 32 mm as per data available in Phase II design/drawings. However, it has no major impact on design as afflux generated is much higher than drop given. Inverted Pipe siphon between Silting Basin (191.959) to PS 8(198.1)

The 1600 mm dia twin pipe siphon U/S of PS 8 is longest (6400 m). However, as the flow in this siphon has reduced from 5.939 cumecs to 4.627 cumecs and as such no fresh design is required. The maximum flow in this siphon is equal to present flow (5.939 cumecs) when water is diverted to PS 8 for storage build up in Kailana for which necessary modifications carried out in PH II of RGLC are adequate .adequate.Calculation of Afflux

The afflux in Canal U/S of siphons has been calculated by working out total energy level (TEL) as per diagram shown in below:




Stations)

Figure 2.1: Typical head loss calculation in Siphon in RGLC System

Figure 2.2: Total Energy levels across a typical canal siphon

1. The head loss in transitions has been worked out as under : (A For smooth contraction 0.3 x V1

2 – V 22




Stations)

) 2g

(B)

For smooth expansion 0.4 x V12 – V 2

2

2g

(C)

For Concrete Pipe Siphon - modified HW formula Where,

Cr = 1.0 L= length of pipe in meterQ = flow through siphon in cumecD= pipe dia in meter

[ L ( Q/Cr)1.81]/(994.62 × D4.81)

(D)

For RCC Rectangular Section - Darcy’s equation Where, f as per Table 3 of Annexure A-12.

flv2/2gd

Where, Hydraulic diameter, d = 4A/P (in meter), A = area in sqmP = Wetted Perimeter in meterf = Darcy’s friction Coefficient,(1/f^0.5) = -2LOG10[(k/3.7/d) + (2.5*l/Re/f^0.5)]l = length of section in meterk= roughness projection = 0.035 mm for concrete PipesRenoyldsReynolds Number, Re = (v.d/ν)v = Velocity of flow (m/sec)ν = Kinematic viscosity at 20◦c = 1.004 x 10-6 m2/sec.

2. The flow in Canal has been worked out as per Manning’s Equation;

Q = Area of flow x 1 x (R)⅔ S½

nWhere,

Q = Flow in cumeccumecs




Stations)

Area of flow in sqm

Value of Manning’s Coefficient, n = 0.018

R = Hydraulic Radius in meter

S = Gradient of Canal

3. Area of flow & Wetted perimeter in Mehboob section (JWRSP/RGLC/DR/05) has been worked out as under;

A = (2.088 x d2)+ [[(2d x 3.604) + (3 x d1)] x (d1/2)]

P = (4.176 x d )+ (3.61 x d1)

Where, d = designed depth in Ph-I

d1 = Addl. depth in trapezoidal section

The head loss in trash rack has been worked out as per IS 7784 considering 25% clogging in trash rack as per feedback from field where clogging is only observed near the surface of flow.

Wherever, available free board is less than 0.3m due to afflux generated due to increased flow, raising of canal banks will be proposed. However, raising of Escape level is proposed due to increased flow in canal to meet designed demand of year 2029.

The extra afflux on account of increased flow requirements for each pipe siphon will increase depth of flow upstream to each pipe siphon.

The detailed calculation of afflux at various pipe siphons is available at Annexure A-12.

The summary of design of siphons for Year 2029 flow requirement is given below:

Table 2.10: Raising required in canal Masonry lining

Location, RD in Kms

Upstream PS No

Total Flow Depth at

U/s (Design depth + Afflux)

Afflux, (in m)

Available free board in

canal (U/s to siphon)

Raising required in

canal masonry

lining



Table to include column to indicat ht of raising of escape



Stations)

32.585 2 2.505 0.355 0.979 -

43.600 3 2.491 0.351 0.993 -

50.873 4 2.450 0.350 0.970 -

62.225 4 2.434 0.344 0.987 -

168.000 7 2.109 0.181 1.101 -

170.300 7 2.112 0.216 1.096 -

188.850 7 2.793 0.175 0.855 -

From the above table, no raising of Masonry canal banks is required for any of the siphons. But crest level of escape weir have to raised by 0.5 m height in all escape weirs. The sanctioned estimate has a provision of 100 lacs INR.

2.14.1.[2.15.1.] Design of Escape weir at canal Siphon

The input data like length of escape, existing crest level, type of weir (Broad crested) are given in Annexure 07.

The escapes are provided to protect canal because of additional afflux due to blockage of canal if mesh screen provided at U/s end of siphon is not cleaned regularly. It has been assumed that the maximum of half the design flow can pass over these escape weirs by which time remedial measures for cleaning of mesh screen would be taken.

Design of escape is done in two steps.

Check head over escape

Check for crest level of escape

Check for Scour depth

2.15.[2.16.] Check head over escape:

The head over escape was considered 0.3 m for design of escape weir in Phase II of RGLC. The free board available in U/s reach of canal siphon is more than 0.5 m as per Table R5.7. It is proposed to keep the existing




Stations)

length of weir same and permit extra head over escape weir to pass the increased discharge.

Thus, Head over escape weir for half the design flow for year 2029 has been calculated as given below. The head is restricted to 350 mm above crest level of escape. In case the head over escape weir is more than 350 mm length of escape weir would be required to be increased. The Table R5.8 indicates revised head over escape weir for each siphon. As per Table R5, no increase in length of escape weir is required at any of the siphon.

The Head over escape has been calculated as per Ref- Cl. 4.2; Pg 2; IS: 6934- 1998.

H =(Q/Cd X L)2/3

L = Length of weir (mtr)

Q =Discharge (in cumec) for which Escape is to be designed (50% Designed canal flow at the section)

H =Head over Escape (mtr)

Cd =Coefficient of Discharge

= For Broad crested : 1.70(as per Cl. 8.4.4.1; Pg 5; IS 7784)The detailed calculation is given in Annexure A12.2.

S. NO.

Location (RD)

Discharge Length of Existing weir

Head over escape

KM cumec mtr mtr1 3 4 5 61 32.585 4.738 30.00 0.2052 43.600 4.666 30.00 0.2033 50.873 4.632 30.00 0.2024 62.225 4.586 30.00 0.2016 168.000 3.628 22.00 0.2117 170.300 3.619 22.00 0.2118 188.850 3.370 22.00 0.201




Stations)

2.16.[2.17.] Check for crest level of escape

The existing crest level as per input data given in Annexure 7 is to be checked for revised full supply depth with afflux generated at siphon (from Table R5.7). Wherever the crest level is below the revised full supply depth and afflux generated, the crest level is required to be increased accordingly as given in Table R5.8.

2.17.[2.18.] Check for scour depth.

A masonry wall has been provided below ground at the end of apron of each escape weir to protect against scouring action due to flow over escape weir. The adequacy of scour depth is to be checked for increased flow over the escape weir (half the design flow). The calculations for scour depth have been done as per clause- 8.5.2 of IS 7784. The scour value factor has been taken as 1.27 for near abutment as the apron is not a foundation structure.

Check for scour depth for the protection wall on downstream side of the escape apron.

Design done as per Cl. 8.5; Pg 6 ; IS :7784

Mean scour depth dsm = 1.34[Di2/Ksf]1/3 m

Where

Di = Discharge per meter

Ksf = Silt factor =1.76(dm)1/2

Dm =Weighted mean diameter of silt = 0.1 mm

Hence, Ksf = 1.76 X 0.10.5 = 0.557

Maximum Scour depth = 1.27 *dsm

As per Table R5.8 , the existing scour depth is adequate.




Stations)

Table 2.11: Raising required in escape weir of Siphon

Location, RD in Kms

Upstream PS No

Total Flow

Depth at U/s

(Design depth + Afflux)

Head over

escape (mtr)

Max. Scour depth (mtr)

Existing crest

level of escape

Raising required in crest

level

Raising Proposedd as per field information

(mtr)

32.585 2 2.505 0.326 0.96 2.5572.08

0.425Nil 0.30

43.600 3 2.491 0.322 0.95 2.5092.08

Nil0.411 0.30

50.873 4 2.450 0.321 0.95 2.4762.05

Nil0.4 0.30

62.225 4 2.434 0.319 0.94 2.4362.04

Nil0.394 0.30

168.000 7 2.109 0.316 0.93 2.1591.7 Nil0.409 0.30

170.300 7 2.112 0.316 0.93 2.3251.7 Nil0.412 0.30

188.850 7 2.793 0.180 0.53 3.022.45 Nil0.343 0.30

2.18. Design of RCC Aqueduct for Year 2029 flow:

The flow at location of RCC Aqueduct has been taken from Table 1 of Annexure A 14. Input data for RCC aqueduct has been taken as per Annexure A-08. The afflux in canal U/S of RCC Aqueduct has been calculated by working out total energy level (TEL) as per diagram shown below:




Stations)

Figure 2.3: Typical head loss calculation in Aqueduct in RGLC System

Figure 2.4: Total Energy levels across a typical canal Aqueduct

The head loss in transitions has been worked out as under :

(A)

For smooth contraction 0.3 x V12 – V 22

2g

(B)

For smooth expansion 0.4 x V12 – V 22




Stations)

2g

(C)

For RCC rectangular section Bed Slope x length of Aqueduct

The flow in canal has been worked at as per Manning’s quotation

Q = Area of flow

x1

x (R)⅔ S½

n

Value of Manning’s Coefficient = 0.018

R = Hydraulic Radius

S = Gradient of Canal

Area of flow & Wetted perimeter in Mehboob section (JWRSP/RGLC/DR/05) has been worked out as under;

A = (2.088 x d2)+ [[(2d x 3.604) + (3 x d1)] x (d1/2)]

P = (4.176 x d )+ (3.61 x d1)

Where, d = is designed depth in Ph-I d1 = Addl. depth in trapezoidal section

The detailed calculation of Afflux at RCC Aqueducts is available at Annexure A-13.

The increase in afflux at RCC aqueducts is negligible as given in table below.

Table 2.12: Availability of free board in Pipe siphonAqueduct

Location RD

US PS No Design flow Afflux, m Free board available

26.166 2 9.530 0.008 0.33

48.46 4 9.285 0.012 0.33

57.5 4 9.190 0.012 0.34

58.376 4 9.183 0.001 0.35

61.675 4 9.156 0.004 0.36

63.336 4 9.142 0.009 0.35




Stations)

Location RD

US PS No Design flow Afflux, m Free board available

63.427 4 9.142 0.004 0.36

160.8 RD 7.306 0.012 0.48

163.35 RD 7.286 0.011 0.48

181 RD 6.800 0.000 0.42

181.155 RD 6.799 0.002 0.42

181.9 RD 6.793 0.002 0.42

182.2 RD 6.791 0.002 0.42

182.63 RD 6.788 0.002 0.42

190.277 RD 6.732 0.001 0.43

191.921 RD 6.069 0.000 0.60

198.1 RD Already designed

for 5.9 cumecs

Already designed

for 5.9 cumecs

Already designed

for 5.9 cumecs

As increased in afflux is negligible and free board available is more than 0.30 m, no modification is required for RCC Aqueducts.

The RCC aqueducts have been designed for water load equal to full depth of aqueduct. As height of aqueduct is not required to be increase for Year 2029 flow, no modification is required in RCC Aqueducts.

2.19. DESIGN OF ESCAPE WEIRS FOR HORIZON YEAR 2029

The Existing escape upstream to each PS were remodeled during PH II of RGLC and needs to be checked for adequacy of escape weir length for revised flow requirement for Design Yr. (Yr 2029) as well as adequacy to meet revised full supply depth for Yr.(2029). A similar check for adequacy for Year 2021 flow has also been applied to ascertain, if modifications can be deferred up to year 2021.

The Input data of existing escape weirs is taken form Annexure A – 06.




Stations)

The designed flow and designed full supply depth at each escape location for year 2029 and 2021 has been taken from Table 14.1 of Annexure 14 and Annexure A-17 and as reproduced below:

Table 2.13: DESIGNED FLOW AND DESIGNED DEPTH OF FLOW IN CANAL SECTIONS AT VARIOUS SECTIONS AT VARIOUS ESCAPES LOCATION

Escape of PS

RD Type of Escape

Design Year 2029 Design Year 2021

Discharge at escape

FSD Discharge at escape

FSD

1 5.4 Ogee 9.709 2.16 8.908 2.0832 15.4 Broad

crested9.627 2.155 8.828 2.077

3 33.8 Broad crested

9.445 2.139 8.631 2.059

4 46.2 Ogee 9.303 2.128 8.465 2.0435 67.5 Ogee 9.01 2.072 8.151 1.9866 86.525 Ogee 8.617 1.986 7.842 1.9057 156.266 Ogee 7.314 1.929 6.551 1.848 191.027 Ogee 6.739 2.611 6.236 2.488

Formula for Design of Escape weir:

The formula used for design of escape weir has been taken in accordance with clause 4.2; Pg 2; IS: 6934- 1998 as given below

L = Q/ Cd×H3/2

Where

L = Length of weir (mtr)

Q =Discharge (in cumec) for which Escape is to be designed (100% Designed canal flow at the section)

H =Head over Escape (mtr)

Cd =Coefficient of Discharge

= for ogee shaped : 2.21(as per Cl. 4.2.2; Pg 2; IS: 6934:1998)

= For Broad crested : 1.86(as per standard references)

Assumptions for design of escape during Phase II of RGLC:

The head over escape was increased from 0.25 m to 0.3 m for design of escape weir in Phase II of RGLC. However, in some cases even higher




Stations)

than 0.30 m head over escape was provided as it was decided not to increase length of weir. Only height of weir was increased by 350 mm in all Ogee shaped weirs and in case of broad crested escape weirs, the height was increased by 336 mm and 337 mm respectively for PS 2 and PS 3.

DESIGN OF ESCAPE WEIRS FOR YR. 2029:

The existing weirs are to be remodeled for increase in designed flow over the escape weirs as well as for increase in height to match with the higher FSD for Yr. 2029 flow requirement.

As extra height of crest level is available at various escape weirs, it has been considered to check adequacy of FSD of canal of weir for Yr 2021 flow requirement as at present only 50% pumps are replaced with higher discharge pumps.

The option of increasing length of weir has limitation as most of the weirs are ogee shaped and the increased portion of length will have to be remodeled for the entire depth of canal section, which may disturb the existing canal. Thus, it has been considered safe to limit the length of escape weir to existing length. At present, the free board available over the existing crest levels at all escapes is 400 mm and as such a slight increase in head over escape from 0.30 m to 0.35 m can be considered for design of escapes as it will still need a margin of 0.05 m at the time of full discharge over escapes.

The detailed design calculation for head over escape for designed flow of Yr. 2021 & 2029 is worked out in Table1 and Table 2 Annexure A-11 and is summarized in table below:

Table 2.14: Designed Head over Escape weirs for Yr 2021 and 2029

PS.No. RD Length of escape (in

mtr)

Existing crest level

(Depth over bed)

Discharge at escape (Cumec)

Head over escape (in mm)

2021 2029 2020 2029

1 5.4 23.40 2.11 8.908 9.709 310 3282 15.4 26.00 2.10 8.828 9.627 322 3413 33.8 54.00 2.09 8.631 9.445 195 2074 46.2 20.60 2.087 8.465 9.303 326 3475 67.5 20.60 2.05 8.151 9.01 318 3406 86.525 20.60 2.03 7.842 8.617 310 330




Stations)

PS.No. RD Length of escape (in

mtr)

Existing crest level

(Depth over bed)

Discharge at escape (Cumec)

Head over escape (in mm)

2021 2029 2020 2029

7 156.266 19.60 2.02 6.551 7.314 284 3068 191.027 67.00 2.75 6.236 6.739 122 128

From the above table, at all escapes weirs, the head over escape weirs is less than 350 mm.

Raising of crest level at escape weirs:The requirement for raising of crest level of escape weir at different location is determined in Annexure B.1 to B.8 and summarized in table below:

Table 2.15: Raising of crest level of Escape weir

PS.No. RD Length of escape (in mtr)

Existing crest level (Depth

over bed)

Canal FSD (mtr)

Raising required Raising Proposed

As per field

Information

As per Drawin

g

As per surve

y

2021 2029 2020 2029

1 5.4 23.40 2.11 2.062 2.083 2.161 0.021- 0.09951 0.102 15.4 26.00 2.10 2.145 2.077 2.155 Nil- 0.0155 03 33.8 54.00 2.09 2.187 2.059 2.139 Nil- Nil49 0.14 46.2 20.60 2.087 2.1 2.043 2.128 Nil- 0.02841 0.25 67.5 20.60 2.05 2.122 1.986 2.072 Nil- Nil22 0.156 86.525 20.60 2.03 2.069 1.905 1.986 Nil- Nil- 07 156.26

619.60 2.02 2.042 1.84 1.929

Nil- Nil-0

8 191.027

67.00 2.75 2.488 2.611Nil- Nil-

0

From the above table, it is clear that no raising of crest level is required at any of the escape weir upto Yr. 2021.

As per Annexure B.1 to B.8,maximum raising of crest level required proposed is 6 0.10 m, 0.10 m, 0.20 m and 0.15m for PS 1, 3, 4 and 5 respectivelycm at escape for PS-2, and for escapes at PS 6, 7 and 8 no raising required for Yr. 2029 flow, it is proposed to defer this raising required for Yr 2021. The crest level of ogee shaped weirs was increased by a minimum of 350 mm in Phase II and as such only a marginal




Stations)

increase of 50 mm to 60 mm i.e. 0.05 to 0.06 mtr in height is required for Yr. 2029 requirement.

Original Escape U/s to PS 3 (Non inspection bank side) is to abandoned

In order to increase height of ogee shaped weir for such small height, the chipping on existing concrete surface existing structure is required to be done dismantled upto a minimum depth of 100 mm &for raising of Ogee shape to be redone. This work would involve breaking of existing concrete & reinforcement. Thereafter new concrete (M-25) can be placed on old concrete. Nominal reinforcement of 8 mm @140 mm spacing is also provided. For better joining of old concrete and new concrete, anchoring bars (12 mm dia @1000 mm spacing of 0.6 m length -0.3 m for anchoring and remaining 0.3 for development length) is also

Howeverprovided.

However; typical drawing for remodeling is given in drawing no. JWRSP/RGLC/DR/08 (a & b) and supporting design calculation for ogee shaped weir is given in Table 11.4 of Annexure 11.

Raising of Flaring Zone wall:

At PS 2, Flaring zone wall top level i.e. 176.03 is below to the crest level of U/s escape crest level i.e. 176.3. Therefore, water overtops the flaring zone wall before escape U/s to PS 2. Since raising of Flaring zone wall is to be required as minimum 0.6 m height. Design and supporting Calculation is given in Annexure B.2.

The storm water is also connected to the Flaring zone. Since, raising of storm water drain is also required due to raising of Flaring zone wall.

Typical drawing for remodeling of Flaring Zone wall and Storm water drain is given in drawing no. JWRSP/RGLC-SCW/TS/--.

Check for scour depth:A masonry wall has been provided below ground at the end of apron of each escape weir to protect against scouring action due to flow over escape weir. The adequacy of scour depth is to be checked for increased flow over the escape weir. The calculations for scour depth have been done as per clause- 8.5.2 of IS 7784. The scour value factor has been




Stations)

taken as 1.27 for near abutment as the apron is not a foundation structure.

Check for scour depth for the protection wall on downstream side of the escape apron.

Design done as per Cl. 8.5; Pg 6 ; IS :7784

Mean scour depth dsm = 1.34[Di

2/Ksf]1/3 m

Where

Di = Discharge per meter

Ksf = Silt factor =1.76(dm)1/2

dm =Weighted mean diameter of silt = 0.1 mm

Hence, Ksf = 1.76 X 0.10.5 = 0.557

Maximum Scour depth = 1.27 *dsm

As per Table A11.3 of Annexure 12, the existing scour depth is adequate.

A provision of Rs. 50 lacs for remodeling of existing escape weirs and another Rs.20 Lacs for additional escape weirs is available in the sanctioned estimate. However, as described above the remodeling of escapes can be deferred up to year 2021.

[2.20.] Design of Inlet Outlet structures:

Inlet – Outlet structures for safe passage of rain water have been constructed after completion of phase I of RGLC at the locations where canal was breached due to heavy rains in 1996-97. At the time of construction, the Level of broad crested weirs for these structures was kept equal to the Phase I designed FSD (for 3P flow).




Stations)

Later, during phase II of canal, canal FSD increased by about 0.2-0.25 mtr but the level of weir was increased by 300 mm minimum (as per site condition). The length of these weirs was kept same as quantity of rain water entering canal did not change.

Now for Year 2029 designed flow the designed FSD in canal has increased at location of these Inlet-Outlet structures. As such height of these broad crested weirs is required to be increased accordingly. No design of broad crested weir is required as the discharge of rain water remains same and length of weirs has also been kept same. However, as only 50% pumps are being replaced at present and balance 50 % pumps are to be replaced by Year 2021, check for adequacy of crest level of these broad crested weirs has been provided.

The table below indicates the requirement of raising of broad crested weirs for Yr 2021 and 2029:

Table 2.16: Raising of crest level of weir in Inlet- Outlet StructureRD Type of

Structure

Length Mehboob/ Trapzoidal

Section Depth

Existing Crest

height

Designed Depth of

Flow (4P)- 2029

3P Flow Depth Ht of Raising

Required

Raising ProposedAs per

designPresent in field

16.1 Inlet 13.1 2.2 2.3 2.155 1.761 2.03 0.1240 0.1516.4 Outlet 13.1 2.2 2.3 2.155 1.761 2.03 0.1240 0.15

23.291 Inlet 10.5 2.19 2.19 2.152 1.755 1.6 -0.1930 Nil23.31 Outlet 18 2.19 2.19 2.152 1.755 1.6 -0.1930 Nil28.18 Inlet 4.3 2.19 2.19 2.148 1.75 2.03 0.2380 0.30

28.2 Inlet 12 2.19 2.09 2.148 1.75 2.03 0.3380 0.3528.3 Outlet 18 2.19 2.04 2.065 1.669 2.03 0.3860 0.40

29 Inlet 5 2.19 2.19 2.065 1.669 2.09 0.2960 0.3029.1 Inlet 22 2.19 2.19 2.065 1.669 2.09 0.2960 0.30

31.176 Outlet 13.8 2.19 2.14 2.065 1.669 1.83 0.0860 0.1033.7 Inlet 29 2.19 2.09 2.142 1.744 - 0.70

33.75 Outlet 29 1.744 - 33.9 Outlet 54 1.744 -

45.176 Inlet 4.5 2.18 2.18 2.128 1.65 1.63 -0.0720 Nil45.186 Outlet 6 2.18 2.18 2.128 1.65 1.63 -0.0720 Nil45.266 Inlet 4.5 2.18 2.18 2.128 1.65 1.63 -0.0720 Nil

45.27 Outlet 10 2.18 2.18 2.128 1.65 1.63 -0.0720 Nil46.3 Inlet 10 2.18 2.18 2.127 1.728 1.63 -0.1510 Nil51.8 Inlet 3 2.15 2.15 2.098 1.699 1.6 -0.1510 Nil52.2 Inlet 15 2.15 2.15 2.098 1.699 1.6 -0.1510 Nil

59.352 Inlet 31.7 2.15 2.05 2.09 1.689 1.9 0.2510 0.30




Stations)

59.753 Outlet 34 2.15 2.05 2.09 1.689 1.9 0.2510 0.3034 Escape 20 2.19 2.09 0.70

From the above table, the raising is required for various some inlet outlet structures even for flow requirement of year 2021.

It is proposed to roughen chipping the top of existing broad crested weirs and increase its height by a minimum above mentioned heightof 300mm with Plain Cement Concrete of M15 grade. Length of inlet outlet structures is to be kept same. The details of modifications (Except 33.7 and 34) are explained in drawing no. JWRSP/RGLC/DR/09 (a&b).Inlet at RD 33.7 and Escape at RD 34 is to be raised by rectangular Masonry wall of 0.3 m width upto dowla level.

Although no specific provision is made in the sanctioned estimate for Inlet-Outlet structures but theses works can be carried out against the provision of Rs. 50 lacs for remodeling of escapes weirs. These small works are proposed to be included in small works packages proposed for different canal reaches.

2.20.[2.21.] Other CD & Civil structures

2.20.1.[2.21.1.] VRB & Super passages

In the canal conveyance system civil structures like Village Road Bridges (VRB) and super passages have also been provided to facilitate transfer of traffic and rain water across the canal banks. Adequate free board has been provided in these structures during construction of Phase I of RGLC. None of these structures were modified during Phase II of RGLC. The field officers have reported some specific locations where due to one reason or other these structures are creating obstructions in canal flow. There is adequate provision in the sanctioned estimate for rehabilitation of these structures. This work can be included in the small works packages to be prepared for civil works of different canal reaches.

2.20.2.[2.21.2.] Canal earth Embankments, inspection bank deep cutting sections, canal service roads

Although, these structures have no bearing on flow in canal yet are important, for efficient operation and maintenance of canal. The status of



Aqueduct and VRB in reach PS 4 to 5


Additional works of raising how it is proposed for raising of canal at 37 / 25 Rd, ogee/broad crested escape weirs earthwork with 98 % MDD and all related estimates



Stations)

canal inspection bank, particularly at deep cutting sections is alarming and in some stretches no supervisory staff could carry out inspection for last 4-5 years as inspection banks have been blocked by earth from slopes in cutting and blown sand. The condition of service road is also very poor. The rain cuts in Embankment portion also need regular attention.

No provision has been made in sanctioned estimate for above works which are required to be taken as special repairs. It is suggested that small works packages for different reaches of canal needs to be taken up every year to keep canal in good condition. As already emphasized in the chapter for seepage losses in canal, regular cleaning, deweeding and desilting, repair and rehabilitation of lining and other CD structures is to be given proper attention to contain seepage losses to the minimum in RGLC where substantial energy saving would be achieved if losses are kept minimum.

2.20.3. Raising of Bank Level of canal at Various reaches

2.20.3.1. Reach between RD 36.9 to 37.9

In this reach, water head up is noticed all the time by additional 0.3 m height to designed depth. The L-section between water level (on dated ----), bank level and dowla level has been carried out to assess the bottlenecks. A drain

2.21.[2.22.] Pumping Stations

Table 2.21 : Duty Discharge at each of Pumping StationPumpin

g Station

Discharge of each pump at present

(lps)

Revised Discharge as per Alt-I in Table 2

above

Percent higher

in revised

discharge

Working

Standby

Total(lps)

Each pump(lps)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)=(5)/4 (7)=(6)/(4)

1 4 2 2018 9672 2418 19.8%2 4 2 1988 9583 2396 20.5%3 4 2 1938 9433 2358 21.7%4 4 2 1893 9296 2324 22.8%5 8 4 906 8800 1100 21.4%6 4 2 1754 8581 2145 22.3%7 4 2 1565 7278 1820 16.3%8 4 2 1368 4627 1157 -15.4%



Table to be put in para where segment wise discharge is tabulated . Reference of ESCO tender to be given



Stations)

From above table it is evident that pump discharge required at PS 8 is less than present pump discharge, which is on account of diversion of part demand of UWSS Jodhpur (Surpura Section), from U/s of PS 8.

Final Pump Discharge to be adopted for Pumps to be replaced:

As per approval conveyed vide CE (P) PHED Jodhpur letter dated 25/07/2014 (Annexure A-16) for PS 1 to 7 revised pump discharge as per column (6) of Table R5.18 and that for PS 8 present installed pump discharge have been adopted. In addition to replacement of pumping machinery for revised duty conditions, the pumps (not motors) of existing facilities have also been approved for replacement on energy efficiency grounds as per Table R5.15 above. An allowance of 2.5% increase in the revised pump discharge calculated above has been considered to account for wear and tear in pumping machinery as per standard practice.

2.22.[2.23.] Present Project Proposals

Under the current project proposals, following additional works are proposed specific to canal part of RGLC transmission System

[2.24.] Sump

In existing sumps for pumping stations, the canal section is flared in plan to achieve the width of sump, housing suction bell mouths of all the pumps of Phase I & Phase II and depressed vertically at uniform gradient to attain the level of sump floor. The typical plan & section of this flaring section and sump is as below;




Stations)

Figure 2.5 : Existing Sump Sectional Elevation

Figure 2.6 : Existing Sump Plan

The typical features of the sump construction is as follows;

1 Slope angle of Flare Section 40

2 Flare Angle of Flared Section 8.50

3 C/C Distance between bell mouths 7.0 mtrs4 Distance of bell mouth tip from Sump Floor 0.6 mtr5 Distance of Bell Mouth Axis from Back Wall 1.5 mtr6 Water Depth in sump 5.98 mtr

As the canal is open to atmosphere and carries water through open terrain in desert, where sand storms are common, it is bound to receive a lot of sand, silt, leaves etc. It is necessary to prevent sand & silt from entering the pump sump, as entrance of sand & silt in pump will accelerate the wear & tear of pumps mechanical parts including the impeller. This will have consequence in poor efficiency of pump operations and increased Operation & Maintenance Cost and frequent breakdowns.

With a view to trap sand & silt from entering the sump, the existing pump sumps in form of an enclosed pit with a gated entry is provided for each pump suction bell mouth. The gates are provided in such a fashion such that its invert matches with the bed level of canal. This arrangement




Stations)

will trap the sand & silt at the bottom of sump outside the enclosed pit for pump bell mouth and silt free water takes entry to pumps enclosed pit through sluices. This arrangement will also help in isolating individual pump suction to carry out the maintenance job in suction bell mouth/pipe.

The original design is at variance with standard recommendations, as discussed above, as basically a pit with gated entry for individual pump has been given. Basically, the vertical wall provided in the approach flow path of pumps is an obstruction which is not recommended anywhere. The approach velocity, which falls below 0.3 m/sec in flaring zone is again increased above 0.5 m/sec through Gates and involves lot many changes in direction of flow, which is not desirable as per standard recommendations. The sump pits also do not have any vents at the back of separator side walls as recommended.

For Individual pump, a pit with gated entry has been provided. This was done mainly to avoid silt, which settles in flaring zone as well as to carry out any maintenance job in the suction bell/ pipe. This has not been required anywhere in past 17 years as 15-20 days closure is taken every year. The suction assembly can also be taken out in canal running conditions.The field observations with regard to possible effect of this variance on performance of pumping operations is as follows;

However, no adverse conditions have been observed at PS 1 or 2, 3 and 4 where pump discharges are comparatively higher than other pumps. No visible surface vortices or cavitation in suction piping/ pumps have been observed at PS 1 to 4.

At PS 5 and 6, frequent failure of shafts has been observed and rotating assembly has been frequently damaged. At PS 5 and 6, no visible damage/ cavitation to suction piping has been reported.

Incidentally, the pumps recently replaced at PS 5 have been of double volute casing instead of single volute casing installed earlier where frequent shaft failure had been witnessed. These new pumps are running smoothly.

Recommendations

ANSI standard for Intake Design – ANSI 9.8-1998 recommends that the sump dimensions are not dependent on flow rate of pump but are guided




Stations)

by outer dia of suction bell which should be designed for velocity of 1.7 m/sec. Since, suction bell diameter meets this criteria for increased discharge also, it can be said that there is no need to design sump dimensions for increased flow rate of pumps.

It is observed that the main problem lies in the fact that while operations, the sluice gates of pump pits are only half opened to facilitate their early closure in case it is required to be closed. This will increase the inlet velocities and turbulence in inlet waters.

It is proposed to provide the electric actuators for opening & closing the sluice gates on pump pits. This would rule out present problem of partially open gates and would ensure a smooth flow to suction bell with approach velocity around 0.5 m/sec.

Chapter 3. CONTRACT PACKAGING

As per feasibility report and A&F sanction, the main work envisaged under this activity is replacement of pumping machinery and electric equipments for enhanced capacity requirement with small provision of civil works related to enhancement in capacity of siphons, aqueducts, super passages & escapes. As against total provision of Rs. 4676.62 lacs for this package only Rs. 368 Lacs (8 %) have been provided for civil works. The main work under this package is was replacement of pumping machinery, transformers & allied equipments. Accordingly, this package had been earlier identified as Goods (procurement) package for electro-mechanical equipments, which constituted almost 92% of sanctioned provisions. However, as these works have been awarded to ESCO , the DBOM package for rehabilitation of pumping machinery and pipelines




Stations)

proposed earlier has been reportedly dropped and now Civil works related to sanctioned canal rehabilitation works are proposed in smaller works contract packages scattered over 205 kms long conveyance system. Works packages to the extent of Rs 368 lacs provision available in A&F sanction are to be framed immediately whereas remaining rehabilitation works are to be proposed after detailed soil investigations and survey in different packages for approval of competent authority before taking up its implementation.

At present the operation and maintenance of RGLC has been awarded to ESCO who will not only increase pumping capacity and pipe carrying capacity but will operate and maintain canal by adopting suitable measures of desilting/ deweeding of canal and its banks etc. The department is to hand over the canal and ensure that all necessary measures to sustain increased designed demand of yr 2029 have been carried out.is being carried out through a private agency and tThe annual O&M cost during year 2014-15 is reported to be around 98.0 crores However,where power bills comprised of nearly 94.5 crores and 3.0 crores wereare payable to the private contractor towards basic service charges for operation & maintenance of 8 pumping stations, 28 km pipeline and 177km long canal system, which includes expenses done at the time of closure of canal.

Looking to huge amount of power bills (>97%) in the O&M costs, it is proposed to implement work of this package through DBOM (Design, Build, Operate & Maintain) contract instead of procurement of goods for replacement of equipments. The main objective of DBOM contract would be to ensure sustained performance throughout the currency of contract. It is proposed to obtain guaranteed energy consumption for each pumping station from the bidders over a 10 year O&M contract.

In the present O&M contracts of RGLC to ESCO, the main scope of work is to save energy by adopting suitable measures and operation & maintenance of 8 pumping stations along with maintenance of canal., particularly during closure period. The scope of canal maintenance in O& M contract is limited to carrying out desilting & deweeding works and minor repair work whereas rehabilitation and repair of damaged canal portions/ CD structures to accommodate designed flow requirement to meet year 2029 demand are not in scope of the present contractor. The ESCO will be paid in terms of energy charges saved calculated on the basis of per unit cost of electricity paid at present and to be paid subsequent to implementation of measures by ESCO contractor.are practically absent.




Stations)

From the past experience, it is understood that the bidders who normally have expertise in O& M of pumping machinery and pipelines seldom give due importance to maintenance of Canal. Moreover, the works of major/ special repairs and rehabilitation of Canal cannot be identified initially for a 10 years O&M contract as damages to canal are non predictable and can hardly be forecasted/quantified.

In view of above, it is proposed to split the package for Rehabilitation & strengthening of Canal into following contract packages.

[3.1.] Package G1.A for all 8 pumping stations & pipe lines

It is proposed to invite DBOM contract for carrying out capital works for Pumping stations & pipelines with the objective of maintaining it for 10 years after commissioning & with guaranteed energy consumption per ML water pumped at each pumping station. The evaluation of bids would be done by loading capitalized cost of difference of extra energy consumption quoted over datum energy consumption worked out by department in capital cost of each bidder.

The bidder shall be given incentive if the energy consumption is less than guaranteed energy consumption quoted by him , but would be charged extra penalty if the energy consumption exceeds the guaranteed energy consumption along with recovery of extra energy bill.

It is also proposed to Bench mark energy consumption at the inception of DBOM contract to assess overall energy saved for which energy audit at the inception stage will have to be carried out by the successful bidder.

This package will cover the works identified for replacement and repair of electro mechanical equipments for which a provision of Rs 4356.62 lacs is available in sanctioned estimate along with O&M costs for 10 years.




Stations)

[3.2.] Package G1.BW8.1 for canal escapes and Patrolling, Desilting, Deweeding repair and Rrehabilitation of canal and service road

The RGLC is life line for urban town Jodhpur and a large no. of enroute rural & urban population. The continued deterioration in condition of canal is contributing to incidences of weeds growth and heading up of water in canal thereby which not only induces increase ing seepage & evaporation losses but also at many sections of canal and CD structures the existing canal and structures may prove inadequate when flow is increased to meet designed demand of year 2029 . At many places inspection banks have been completely blocked/ damaged and are non pliable by inspection vehicles. At several spots the sliding soil mass in cutting sections is getting entry into the canal thereby not only increasing silt load but also increasing weed growth & turbidity in canal water. The canal escapes upstream to pumping stations and canal siphons, inlet outlet structures and RCC aqueducts may have to be raised to cope with increased depth of flow due to increase in discharge to meet designed demand for year 2029.

In the sanctioned estimate and feasibility report , provision for raising 0f escapes, siphon walls, RCC aqueduct walls and some remodeling was taken to accommodate rise in depth of flow due to increased demand.It is therefore, of utmost importance that canal is kept silt & weed free by regular cleaning operations, particularly during closure of canal and necessary repairs and rehabilitation works are carried out regularly immediately to match with the increased pumping capacity being taken by ESCO contractor. to keep canal in sound shape. These are to be regularly assessed every year and necessary measures needs be taken. The service road and inspection banks are also required to be maintained regularly for which need for repairs etc. have to be identified every year and action taken to get the work executed after obtaining sanction.

Apart from these small and scattered works , some major rehabilitation work is required in reaches where lining has damaged in substantial portion due to swelling properties of soil and some stretches of canal are witnessing higher than designed depth even after desilting and cleaning. Similarly , water from some escapes is flooding private agriculture fields




Stations)

who are continuously protesting and may seek legal remedy /compensation for the losses suffered. Such works have not been envisaged in the original feasibility report or A&F sanction but are to be essentially completed to ensure unhindered flow up o tail of canal.

At present the A&F sanction does not include any provision for these works which are of substantial magnitude as of now. The capital costs to rehabilitate canal/service road is not included in the feasibility report of the project. which contains provision for raising of escapes, inlet & outlet structures, aqueducts for enhanced flow. Further, it is not possible to define scope of work for repair and rehabilitation of canal for a 10 years O&M contract.

It is proposed that separate contract (spackages ) for sanctioned work( with short duration small works contract packages) and major balance rehabilitation works to be carried after approval of competent authority under separate packagesshorter durations and shorter reaches/ canal section would give better results and it would be possible to keep the canal in good condition to contain seepage losses and design parameters within designed limits.better option and such two separate packages are proposed

It is therefore proposed that maintenance of canal portion of the RGLC should be kept outside the DBOM contract & should preferably be undertaken through single or multiple contracts in different reaches.

Although, draft estimates for the works identified in feasibility report have been prepared as per details given below, however, several additional works identified by department of overriding priority needs to be addressed at the time of framing A & F, Technical sanction package for these small reaches.

3.1. Package W8.2 for Major Canal Rehabilitation works

The canal appears to be in perfect condition in 80 % of its length to sustain increased flow to meet demand of year 2029. In about 30 kms length , it is doubtful to sustain increased flow and where rehabilitation work may have to be carried out. Nearly 6.0 kms reach ( RD 29-31 and RD 38-42 Kms) would require major rehabilitation work and may require construction of a parallel canal as such major works cannot be executed in a span of 20 days closure.




Stations)

The detailed field survey and soil analysis work is being taken up to investigate reasons for extensive damage of canal and propose remedial rehabilitation work.The detailed package for such works will be prepared separately and works contract packages to be decided after finalization of works to be taken up in this project.

3.2.[3.3.] Estimated cost of Sanctioned Civil Works

S. No.

A&F Ref No

Particulars Qty Unit Rate Amount (in lacs) Likely cost Estimated cost( in lacs)

Original

Add 15 % over SPR

6 E1.6 MISCELLANEOUS WORKS FOR RGLC

i E1.6/1

Remodeling of existing Canal Escapes

1 LS 50.00 50.00 57.50 8.3

ii E1.6/2

Construction of new Canal Escapes

1 LS 20.00 20.00 23.00

iii E1.6/3

Construction of new Super passage / Village Road Bridges in place of existing VRB

1 LS 50.00 50.00 57.50

v E1.6/5

Raising of canal banks and wall upstream of canal siphons

1 LS 100.00

100.00 115.00

13.5

vi E1.6/6

Rehabilitation of RCC Aqueducts and other RCC structures

1 LS 100.00

100.00 115.00

1.7

vii

Grand Total 320.0 368.0 23.50




Stations)

S. No.

A&F Ref No

Particulars Qty Unit Rate Amount (in lacs) Likely cost Estimated cost( in lacs)

Original

Add 15 % over SPR

0 0

3.3.[3.4.] Additional works identified by CE (P), PHED Jodhpur in the meeting held on 07/10/2014 and subsequently by Field Engineers.

S. No. Description of identified work Remarkestimated cost (in lacs)

1 Water level between RD 36.5 and RD 37, RD 171 and RD 172 is running higher to the FSL, whose reason is to be investigated and remedial measures to be proposed.

2 The Water overflow through escapes on the U/s of PS-4 & 6 doesn’t have passage to the natural pond/drain, as a result it spread across fields and become threat to the crops of inhabitants of Bap /Lordiya Villages. Safe passage of escape water on U/s of PS- 4&6 required for which proposals to be made.

Major rehabilitation works

3 Canal lining between RD 29 to RD 31 is to be restored with similar type of lining as the existing one is damaged after investigating the reason for damage and remedial measures to be proposed.


4 Canal lining between RD 38 and RD 42 is damaged due to swelling pressure of bentonite, as such box section suitably designed canal with CNS treatment foer swelling pressure is required in this reach of 4 Km. The remedial measures to be proposed after investigation.


5 Presently, earth embankment is every year build in the flaring zone of all eight pumping station for lowering and un-lowering of machines for de-silting operation. It is thus suggested to build permanent ramp adjoining to flaring zone on of its face so that the time and money can be saved in filling the earth and removal after de-silting. The remedial measures to be proposed after





Stations)

S. No. Description of identified work Remarkestimated cost (in lacs)

investigation. The flow in canal is being increased in November, 2015 and further bottlenecks, if any , to be identified and remedial measures to be proposed after investigations.

These works have been recently identified and detailed survey and investigations are required to propose appropriate technical solution with detailed drawings and estimates for technical sanction.




Stations)

Chapter 4. Operation & Maintenance

[4.1.] Taking over of Operation & Maintenance

It is proposed that the contractor for this package would take over the operation & maintenance of the 8 pumping stations within 3 months of the placement of work order. During this period, the contractor would arrange for the O&M personnel & get their CVs approved.

[4.2.] Construction Period

It is proposed to keep a construction period of 18 months for this package. For the major items of this contract of supply & installation of pumps & electrical equipment no design is required to be done by the contractor & he can straight away finalise the manufacturer & submit related QAPs for approval 0f Department.

For the items of HT Capacitors, the contractor would have to assess the existing kVAR of capacitors attached to each of motor and provide for the additional capacitors to achieve the desired PF.

For SCADA, the contractor would have to do some designing & get the same approved from Department.

Other civil works are of routine nature & can be accomplished in the proposed time comfortably.




Stations)




Stations)

[Chapter 5.] Cost Estimates

4.1.[5.1.] Organization

The package of Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water Conveyance System (RGL Canal and Pumping Stations) mainly consist of Replacement of Pumps, up-gradation of electro-mechanical equipment, repair & overhauling of electro-mechanical equipment, repair of civil works and civil works related to Rajiv Gandhi Lift Canal.

The General abstract of cost for this package include item which are to be replaced at eight pumping stations and other minor items of repair/overhauling of electro mechanical equipment & civil works, details of which are provided in separate estimates.

The overall organization of cost estimates for this package is as follows;

Annexure No

Particulars

ES-GAC Abstract of Cost including New WorksES-QENW Quantity Estimation of New WorksES-RO Cost Estimate of Repair/Overhauling of Electro-Mechanical

Equipment at PS No 1 to 8, RGLC, JodhpurES-QERO Quantity Estimate of Repair/Overhauling of Electro-Mechanical

Equipment at PS No 1 to 8, RGLC, JodhpurES-QEPC Quantity Estimation of Power CablesES-QECC Quantity Estimation of Control CablesES-SP Estimate for Surge Protection Arrangement at PS No 5 & 6




Stations)

Annexure No

Particulars

ES-RA1 Rate Analysis of EquipmentES-OM Estimate of Operation & Maintenance for 10 Year Period

ES-ETR Cost Estimate of repair of Existing Electric Transformers at PS No 1 to 8

ES-QE-ETR Quantity Estimation of repair of Existing Electric Transformers at PS No 1 to 8

ES-VC Detail Estimate of Valve Chambers for Flowmeters

The cost estimates of repair to civil work are arranged separately and are as follows;

Annexure No

Particulars

ES-CWAC Abstract of Civil WorksES-CW-R Abstract of Repair WorksES-CW-BR Cost Estimate of Breaking Panel RoomES-CW-RQE Quantity Estimation of Repair of Civil WorksES-CW-R-1 Quantity Estimation of Repair of Civil Works at PS No 1ES-CW-R-2 Quantity Estimation of Repair of Civil Works at PS No 2ES-CW-R-3 Quantity Estimation of Repair of Civil Works at PS No 3ES-CW-R-4 Quantity Estimation of Repair of Civil Works at PS No 4ES-CW-R-5 Quantity Estimation of Repair of Civil Works at PS No 5ES-CW-R-6 Quantity Estimation of Repair of Civil Works at PS No 6ES-CW-R-7 Quantity Estimation of Repair of Civil Works at PS No 7ES-CW-R-8 Quantity Estimation of Repair of Civil Works at PS No 8

4.2.[5.2.] General Abstract of Cost

The general abstract of cost for the package of Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water Conveyance System (RGL Canal and Pumping Stations) comprising of Part ‘A’ for supply of equipment, appurtenances etc , Part ‘B’ for installation of equipment of Part A, Part C civil works & installation of equipment & appurtenances, Part ‘C’ for Supply & Installation of minor item, Part D for Civil Works, Part E – Repair & Overhauling and Part F – Provisional Sum and is provided below;




Stations)

SN Particulars Qty Unit Rate Amount Remark

A Supply of Electro Mechnical Equipments & Instruments

Manufacturing, testing, inspection, packaging, forwarding, insurance, transportation, storage compete including all taxes & duties at site of work

1 HSC mixed/radial flow double suction type pumping sets including coupling with respective motor, alignment etc

i PS No 1 ( Q=8920 Cum/hr, H=20.5 m)

3 Each 13930208 41,790,624.04

Rate Analysis

ii PS No 2 ( Q=8841 Cum/hr, H=17.5 m)

3 Each 13742594 41,227,781.57

Rate Analysis

iii PS No 3 ( Q=8701 Cum/hr, H=22 m)

3 Each 14025378 42,076,135.21

Rate Analysis

iv PS No 4 ( Q=8575 Cum/hr, H=15.5 m)

3 Each 13827668 41,483,004.29

Rate Analysis

v PS No 5 ( Q=4060.8 Cum/hr, H=80 m)

6 Each 8697750 52,186,501.66

Rate Analysis

vi PS No 6(Q=7916.4 Cum/hr, H=45.5 m)

3 Each 15438775 46,316,323.66

Rate Analysis

vii PS No 7 ( Q=6716.6 Cum/hr, H=19 m)

3 Each 7669052 23,007,155.1

2

Rate Analysis

2 Bare Pumps i PS No 4 ( Q=6815 Cum/hr,

H=15.5 m)3 Each 4704750 14,

114,249.59

Rate Analysis

ii PS No 6 ( Q=6314 Cum/hr, H=43.5 m)

1 Each 6613975 6,613,975.1

3

Rate Analysis

iii PS No 7 ( Q=5634 Cum/hr, H=18.5 m)

3 Each 4704750 14,114,249.5

9

Rate Analysis

iv PS No 8 ( Q=4925 Cum/hr, H=26.5 m)

6 Each 4770078 28,620,467.30

Rate Analysis

3 Sluice Valves PN 1.0 rating with with operating




Stations)


gear arrangement i 1200 mm 30 Each 1884692 56,5

40,749.65 Rate Analysis

ii 1000 mm 15 Each 1489046 22,335,696.08

Rate Analysis

iii 800 mm 12 Each 1091372 13,096,466.46

Rate Analysis

4 Dual plate check valves PN 1.6 rating

i 1200 mm 16 Each 989925 15,838,795.28

Rate Analysis

ii 1000 mm 3 Each 846884 2,540,651.1

9

Rate Analysis

iii 800 mm 2 Each 381240 762,479.4

1

Rate Analysis

5 Butterfly valves PN 1.6 rating with operating gear arrangement

i 1600 mm 3 Each 1681797 5,045,389.97

Rate Analysis

ii 1200 mm 17 Each 926013 15,742,217.2

6

Rate Analysis

iii 800 mm 0 Each 767755 -

Rate Analysis

iv 1000 mm 1 Each 767755 767,754.68

Rate Analysis

6 Electrical actuators for sluice valves

24 Each 116665 2,799,951.00

Rate Analysis

7 Electrical actuators for butterfly valves

27 Each 116665 3,149,944.88

Rate Analysis

8 Electrical hoist of 3 tonne capacity

8 Each 294908 2,359,263.06

Rate Analysis

9 Electrical hoist of 15 tonne capacity

8 Each 549017 4,392,136.2

3

Rate Analysis

10 Spare motor at PS i PS No 8 - 490 kW 1 Nos. 2450000 2,4

50,000.00 Market Enquiry




Stations)


11 Air Cushion Valve, 200 mm

7 Each 125000 875,000.00

Market Enquiry

12 Pumping station office furniture for PS1-PS7 as per Scope of Work

7 Lot 100000 700,000.00

Market Enquiry

13 Pumping station office furniture for PS5 as per Scope of Work

1 Lot 250000 250,000.00

Market Enquiry

14 33/6.6 KV HT Power Transformers along with OLTC and all other accessories

PS No 5. 12.5 MVA 2 Each 7686117 15,372,234.9

7

Rate Analysis

15 33/.433 KV, 250 KVA Transformers for LT Supply

8 Each 335394 2,683,153.7

4

Rate Analysis

16 6.6 Kv FCMA/HFSR soft starter for the following KW of motors

i 650 KW for PS-1 6 Each 934051 5,604,305.03

Rate Analysis

ii 560 KW for PS-2 6 Each 854403 5,126,418.5

5

Rate Analysis

iii 680 KW for PS- 3 6 Each 934051 5,604,305.03

Rate Analysis

iv 560 KW for PS-4 6 Each 854403 5,126,418.5

5

Rate Analysis

v 1200 KW for PS-5 12 Each 1064384 12,772,602.1

5

Rate Analysis

vi 1300 KW for PS-6 6 Each 1064384 6,386,301.08

Rate Analysis

vii 460 KW for PS-7 6 Each 803718 4,822,308.98

Rate Analysis

viii 490 KW for PS-8 6 Each 803718 4,822,308.98

Rate Analysis

17 6.6 KV additional HT Capacitor Banks to achieve minimum power factor of 0.995 & above

46182 KVAR 631 29,126,303.2

9

Rate Analysis

18 LT APFC Panel with Capacitor Banks of 100 KVAR

8 Nos. 193685 1,549,480.7

1

Rate Analysis

19 RTCC Panel 14 Nos. 169000 2,366,000.00

Market Enquiry




Stations)


20 Auxiliary Panel for actuator of new valves ( sluice + butterfly valves)

i For 3 actuators 1 Nos. 40909 40,909.26

Rate Analysis

ii For 6 actuators 5 Nos. 68182 340,910.4

7

Rate Analysis

iii For 9 actuators 2 Nos. 88637 177,273.4

4

Rate Analysis

21 (i)

33 kV HT Panel with one incomer and 1 out goings

14 Nos. 943296 13,206,147.3

2

Rate Analysis

(ii) 33 kV HT Panel with one incomer and 1 out goings

2 Nos. 1104006 2,208,011.9

3

Rate Analysis

22 CT of the following sizes for transformers

i 400 ampere 9 Amp. 35000 315,000.0

0

Market Enquiry

ii 600 ampere 1 Amp. 35000 35,000.00

Market Enquiry

iii 1200 ampere 1 Amp. 35000 35,000.00

Market Enquiry

23 CT of the following sizes for 6.6 KV VCB

i 100 ampere 6 Amp. 35000 210,000.0

0

Market Enquiry

ii 200 ampere 9 Amp. 35000 315,000.0

0

Market Enquiry

24 Control Cables i 4 core, 4 Sq. mm.,1.1KV,

XLPE,armoured,Cu 1617 Sq.

mm.437

705,821.96

Rate Analysis

ii 4 core, 2.5 Sq. mm., 1.1KVXLPE,armoured,Cu

80 Sq. mm.

352 28,161.35

Rate Analysis

iii 4 core, 1.5 Sq. mm,1.1 KV,XLPE INSULATED Cu Armoured solid control cable

7589 Sq. mm.

258 1,955,505.7

4

Rate Analysis

iv 4 core, 1.5 Sq. mm,1.1 KV,XLPE INSULATED Cu Armoured solid control cable

160 Sq. mm.

352 56,322.70

Rate Analysis




Stations)


v 2 core 1 Sq. mm.,1.1 KV,XLPE INSULATED RS-485 Solid control cable

350 Sq. mm.

634 221,770.6

2

Rate Analysis

vi 2 core 1.5 Sq. mm.,1.1 KV,XLPE INSULATED Cu solid control cable

15547 Sq. mm.

169 2,626,946.92

Rate Analysis

vii 2 core 1 Sq. mm.,Twisted Pair Armoured Shielded Copper Cable

10143 Sq. mm.

141 1,428,202.7

9

Rate Analysis

viii 16 core 1.5 Sq. mm.,1.1 KV,XLPE INSULATED Cu Armoured multicore control cable

500 Sq. mm.

634 316,815.1

7

Rate Analysis

25 Power Cables i 33 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX300 sq.

mm. armoured Al394 Sq.

mm.3841 1,

513,395.62

Rate Analysis

ii 33 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX185 sq. mm. armoured Al

1003 Sq. mm.

2990 3,000,240.69

Rate Analysis

iii 6.6 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX400 sq. mm. armoured Al

360 Sq. mm.

3136 1,128,931.1

4

Rate Analysis

iv 6.6 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX185 sq. mm. armoured Al

660 Sq. mm.

1763 1,163,841.5

3

Rate Analysis

v 1.1 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX185 sq. mm. armoured Al

1150 Sq. mm.

908 1,044,368.00

Rate Analysis

26 Pressure Sensor & Transmittor with all the accessories

116 Each 10673 1,238,065.1

1

Rate Analysis

27 PLC cum RTU panel at each of 8 pumping stations and SCADA system at PS No 5

1 Set 7896077 7,896,076.65

Rate Analysis

28 Full Bore Magnetic Flow Meters

i 1200 mm 24 Each 747108 17,930,598.19

Rate Analysis

ii 1600 mm 8 Each 960568 7,684,542.08

Rate Analysis

29 Acoustic Doppler flow Meter for open canal

2 Nos. 1290960 2,581,920.5

9

Rate Analysis

30 Ultrasonic Level Sensor with all the accessories

17 Each 49807 846,722.6

9

Rate Analysis




Stations)


31 Dismantling Joints for Phase I Pumps

i 1200 mm Diameter 36 Each 165484 5,957,410.99

Rate Analysis

ii 1000 mm Diameter 18 Each 114516 2,061,282.5

2

Rate Analysis

iii 800 mm Diameter 6 Each 76369 458,215.4

2

Rate Analysis

B Installation of

Electromechanical Equipment & Instruments

Installation, Testing & Commissioning of following complete in all respect as per scope of work

1 HSC mixed/radial flow double suction type pumping sets including coupling with respective motor, alignment etc

i PS No 1 ( Q=8920 Cum/hr, H=20.5 m)

3 Each 1044766 3,134,296.8

0

%age of Supply

ii PS No 2 ( Q=8841 Cum/hr, H=17.5 m)

3 Each 1030695 3,092,083.62

%age of Supply

iii PS No 3 ( Q=8701 Cum/hr, H=22 m)

3 Each 1051903 3,155,710.1

4

%age of Supply

iv PS No 4 ( Q=8575 Cum/hr, H=15.5 m)

3 Each 1037075 3,111,225.

32

%age of Supply

v PS No 5 ( Q=4060.8 Cum/hr, H=80 m)

6 Each 652331 3,913,987.6

2

%age of Supply

vi PS No 6(Q=7916.4 Cum/hr, H=45.5 m)

3 Each 1157908 3,473,724.2

7

%age of Supply

vii PS No 7 ( Q=6716.6 Cum/hr, H=19 m)

3 Each 575179 1,725,536.6

3

%age of Supply

2 Bare Pumps i PS No 4 ( Q=6815 Cum/hr,

H=15.5 m)3 Each 352856 1,

058,568.72

%age of Supply

ii PS No 6 ( Q=6314 Cum/hr, 3 Each 496048 1,4 %age




Stations)


H=43.5 m) 88,144.40 of Supply

iii PS No 7 ( Q=5634 Cum/hr, H=18.5 m)

3 Each 352856 1,058,568.7

2

%age of Supply

iv PS No 8 ( Q=4925 Cum/hr, H=26.5 m)

6 Each 357756 2,146,535.0

5

%age of Supply

3 Sluice Valves PN 1.0 rating with with operating gear arrangement

i 1200 mm 30 Each 94235 1,413,518.7

4

%age of Supply

ii 1000 mm 15 Each 74452 1,116,784.8

0

%age of Supply

iii 800 mm 12 Each 54569 654,823.3

2

%age of Supply

4 Dual plate check valves PN 1.6 rating

i 1200 mm 16 Each 49496 791,939.7

6

%age of Supply

ii 1000 mm 3 Each 42344 127,032.5

6

%age of Supply

iii 800 mm 2 Each 19062 38,123.97

%age of Supply

5 Butterfly valves PN 1.6 rating with operating gear arrangement on delivery of each pump (1200 mm).

i 1600 mm 1 Each 84090 84,089.83

%age of Supply

ii 1200 mm 17 Each 46301 787,110.8

6

%age of Supply

iii 800 mm 0 Each 38388 -

%age of Supply

iv 1000 mm 1 38388 38,387.73

%age of Supply

6 Electrical actuators for sluice valves

24 Each 5833 139,997.5

5

%age of Supply

7 Electrical actuators for butterfly valves

27 Each 5833 157,497.2

4

%age of Supply




Stations)


8 MOT of minimum 3 Ton Capacity with transverse and longitudinal travelling capability

8 Each 14745 117,963.1

5

%age of Supply

9 Electrical hoist of 15 tonne capacity for all pumping stations

8 Each 27451 219,606.8

1

%age of Supply

10 Removal of Zero Velocity valves installed on pumping mains at Pumping Station No 5 & 6 and manufacturing, testing, inspection & installation of MS pipe length including flanges of same diameter with inlined and external epoxy coating complete in all respect to the satisfaction of EIC

8 Each 260000 2,080,000.00

Market Enquiry

11 Replacement of 1200 mm MS rising main of PS N0 3 damaged due to settlement along with the cost of pedestalsincluding earthwork, construction of anchors blocks, thrust blocks, cross walls, transverse blocks, pipe support structures, installation of specials; inside cement martar lining, outside gunniting as per specification; clearing the site; disinfections etc. complete in all respect as per the specification & scope of work for 12 mm thicknesses

100 Mtr 28365 2,836,500.00

CE(SP) Rates

12 Air Cushion Valve, 200 mm

7 Each 6250 43,750.00

%age of Supply

13 33/6.6 KV HT Power Transformers along with OLTC and all other accessories

PS No 5. 12.5 MVA 2 Each 384306 768,611.7

5

%age of Supply

14 33/.433 KV, 250 KVA Transformers for LT Supply

8 Each 16770 134,157.6

9

%age of Supply

15 6.6 Kv FCMA/HFSR soft starter for the following KW of motors




Stations)


i 650 KW for PS-1 6 Each 46703 280,215.2

5

%age of Supply

ii 560 KW for PS-2 6 Each 42720 256,320.9

3

%age of Supply

iii 680 KW for PS- 3 6 Each 46703 280,215.2

5

%age of Supply

iv 560 KW for PS-4 6 Each 42720 256,320.9

3

%age of Supply

v 1200 KW for PS-5 12 Each 53219 638,630.1

1

%age of Supply

vi 1300 KW for PS-6 6 Each 53219 319,315.0

5

%age of Supply

vii 460 KW for PS-7 6 Each 40186 241,115.4

5

%age of Supply

viii 490 KW for PS-8 6 Each 40186 241,115.4

5

%age of Supply

16 6.6 KV additional HT Capacitor Banks to achieve minimum power factor of 0.995 including cables and all other accessories

46182.06 KVAR 63 2,912,630.3

3

%age of Supply

17 LT APFC Panel with Capacitor Banks of 100 KVAR

8 Nos. 9684 77,474.04

%age of Supply

18 RTCC Panel 14 Nos. 8450 118,300.0

0

%age of Supply

19 Auxiliary Panel for actuator of new valves ( sluice + butterfly valves)

i For 3 actuators 1 Nos. 2045 2,045.46

%age of Supply

ii For 6 actuators 5 Nos. 3409 17,045.52

%age of Supply

iii For 9 actuators 2 Nos. 4432 8,863.67

%age of Supply

20 (i)

33 kV HT Panel with one incomer and 1 out goings

14 Nos. 47165 660,307.3

%age of




Stations)


7 Supply(ii) 33 kV HT Panel with one incomer

and 1 out goings 2 Nos. 55200

110,400.60

%age of Supply

21 CT of the following sizes for transformers

i 400 ampere 9 Nos. 1750 15,750.00

%age of Supply

ii 600 ampere 1 Nos. 1750 1,750.00

%age of Supply

iii 1200 ampere 1 Nos. 1750 1,750.00

%age of Supply

22 CT of the following sizes for 6.6 KV VCB

i 100 ampere 6 Nos. 1750 10,500.00

%age of Supply

ii 200 ampere 9 Nos. 1750 15,750.00

%age of Supply

23 Control Cables i 4 core, 4 Sq.

mm.,1.1KV,XLPE,armoured,Cu

1617 mtr

22

35,291.10

%age of Supply

ii 4 core, 2.5 Sq. mm., 1.1KVXLPE,armoured,Cu

80 mtr

18

1,408.07

%age of Supply

iii 4 core, 1.5 Sq. mm,1.1 KV,XLPE INSULATED Cu Armoured solid control cable

7589 mtr

13

97,775.29

%age of Supply

iv 4 core, 1.5 Sq. mm,1.1 KV,XLPE INSULATED Cu Armoured solid control cable

160 mtr

18

2,816.13

%age of Supply

v 2 core 1 Sq. mm.,1.1 KV,XLPE INSULATED RS-485 Solid control cable

350 mtr

32

11,088.53

%age of Supply

vi 2 core 1.5 Sq. mm.,1.1 KV,XLPE INSULATED Cu solid control cable

15547 mtr

8

131,347.3

5

%age of Supply

vii 2 core 1 Sq. mm.,Twisted Pair Armoured Shielded Copper Cable

10143 mtr

7

71,410.14

%age of Supply

viii 16 core 1.5 Sq. mm.,1.1 KV,XLPE INSULATED Cu

500 mtr

32

15,840.76

%age of Supply




Stations)


Armoured multicore control cable

24 Power Cables i 33 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX300 sq.

mm. armoured Al394 mtr 288

113,504.67

%age of Supply

ii 33 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX185 sq. mm. armoured Al

1003.5 mtr 224 225,018.0

5

%age of Supply

iii 6.6 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX400 sq. mm. armoured Al

360 mtr 235 84,669.84

%age of Supply

iv 6.6 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX185 sq. mm. armoured Al

660 mtr 132 87,288.11

%age of Supply

v 1.1 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX185 sq. mm. armoured Al

1150 mtr 68 78,327.60

%age of Supply

25 Ultrasonic Level Sensor with all the accessories

17 Each 3736 63,504.20

%age of Supply

26 Pressure Sensor & Transmittor with all the accessories

116 Each 800 92,854.88

%age of Supply

27 PLC cum RTU panel at each of 8 pumping stations and SCADA system at PS No 5

1 Set 592206 592,205.7

5

%age of Supply

28 Full Bore Magnetic Flow Meters at PS 1 to 8

i 1200 mm 24 Each 37355 896,529.9

1

%age of Supply

ii 1600 mm 8 Each 48028 384,227.1

0

%age of Supply

29 Construction of RCC chambers for housing Electromagnetic Flow Meters

1200 mm 24 Each 198441 4,762,581.1

1

Detail Estimate

1600 mm 8 Each 258536 2,068,286.2

2

Detail Estimate

30 Acoustic Doppler flow Meter for open canal

2 Nos. 64548 129,096.0

3

%age of Supply




Stations)


31 Provision for civil work in form of roomand provision for providing electric connection and battery backup for flow meter

1 Nos. 500000 500,000.00

Market Enquiryp

32 Dismantling Joints for Phase I Pumps

i 1200 mm Diameter 36 Each 8274 297,870.5

5

Rate Analysis

ii 1000 mm Diameter 18 Each 5726 103,064.1

3

Rate Analysis

iii 800 mm Diameter 6 Each 3818 22,910.77

Rate Analysis

C Supply & Installation of the following electromechanical equipments and instruments

Manufacturing, testing, inspection, packaging, forwarding, insurance, transportation, storage compete including all taxes & duties and Installation of following-

1 Cooling Pipe for gland at the driving and non driving end of pumps.

16 Each 650 10,400.00

Market Enquiry

2 Air Vent System for pumps

13 Each 1300 16,900.00

Market Enquiry

3 Pump motor coupling in replacement of exisitng one

1 Each 26000 26,000.00

Market Enquiry

4 Submersible type Dewatering Sump Pumps with Q=100 cum/hr, H=15 m for Pump House with 150 mm dia flexible delivery pipe of minimun 25 m length

18 Each 204546 3,681,833.06

Rate Analysis

5 Submersible type Dewatering drain Pumps with Q=45 cum/hr, H=15 m for Pump House with 80 mm G.I. delivery pipe of required length with level Control.

18 Each 119182 2,145,281.4

0

Rate Analysis




Stations)


6 Level Scale for mechanical level gauge

8 Each 2500 20,000.00

Market Enquiry

7 Installation of Surge Shaft of 300 mm diameter with cost of all supporting arrengments. (300 mm dia MS pipe shall be supplied by the department)

2 Nos. 60000 120,000.0

0

Market Enquiry

8 Manufacturing, testing, inspection, packaging, forwarding, insurance, transportation, storage compete including all taxes & duties of Additional Zero Velocity Valves for the rising mains of PS-5 and PS-6

Instead Surge Tanks are proposed

9 Starter for Submersible type Dewatering Drain Pumps (Q=45 cum/hr ,

18 Each 13000 234,000.0

0

Market Enquiry

10 Starter for Submersible type Sump Pumps

18 Each 19500 351,000.0

0

Market Enquiry

11 Starter for Roof Extractor (motor rating-415 volts, 3.7 KW, 50 Hz)

27 Nos. 3250 87,750.00

Market Enquiry

12 Remote control station (push buttons) for pumpsets in replacement of existing faulty units.

12 Each 5200 62,400.00

Market Enquiry

13 Push buttons for the Wall Mounted Control Cabinet

81 Each 5200 421,200.0

0

Market Enquiry

14 415 V, 3 Phase, 4 Wire input 48 V DC 2.5 KW output Battery Charger cum distributor Bank

7 Each 230584 1,614,084.6

7

Rate Analysis

15 415 V, 3 Phase, 4 Wire input 48 V DC5 KW output Battery Charger cum distributor Bank

1 Each 272508 272,507.8

0

Rate Analysis

16 48 volts, 100 Ampere Hours nickel cadmium battery

7 Each 29131 203,919.6

8

Rate Analysis

17 48 volts, 200 Ampere Hours nickel cadmium battery

1 Each 53663 53,663.07

Rate Analysis




Stations)


18 3 phase 63 Amp TP MCB and metal clad plug socket + 1 single phase 32 Amp SP MCB and 32 Amp metal clad plug socket

71 Each 7800 553,800.0

0

Market Enquiry

19 NGR Assembly for Transformer neutral

1 Nos. 20800 20,800.00

Market Enquiry

20 200 mm dia. Glycerine filled Dial Pressure gauge Bourdon type along with accessories for delivery side of the pumps

116 Each 3900 452,400.0

0

Market Rate

21 Bearing Temperature Indicator with alarm and trip contacts at all the pumps.

34 Each 6500 221,000.0

0

Market Enquiry

22 Bearing Temperature Indicator at the driving and non driving end of motors

60 Each 6500 390,000.00

Market Enquiry

23 Provision for Cooling System for PS-5 & other PS as per the requirement

1 LS 500000 500,000.00

Market Enquiry

D Civil Works 1 Remodeling of existing

Canal Escapes1 LS Propose

d to be executed in separate package

2 Providing, installation & commisioning of one-way surge tank through surge protection system

i At PS No 5 for Phase 2 rising main

1 LS 6218712 6,218,712.0

0

Annex ES-SP

ii At PS No 6 for Phase 2 rising main

1 LS 5151110 5,151,110.0

0

Annex ES-SP

3 Supply, fabrication, erection of Steel structure for supporting the soft starters

54 Nos. 25000 1,350,000.00

Market Enquiry

4 Construction of new Canal Escapes

0 -

Proposed to be




Stations)

SN Particulars Qty Unit Rate Amount Remark executed in separate package

5 Construction of new Super passage / Village Road Bridges in place of existing VRB

0 -

Proposed to be executed in separate package

6 Raising of canal banks and wall upstream of canal siphons

0 -


7 Rehabilitation of RCC Aqueducts and other RCC structures

0 -


8 Spare Parts of Proposed new Pumping Machinery including one rotating assembly, one mechanical seal, one set of bearings for pumps and one set of bearings for motors

1 Lot 19,445,908

19,445,907.98

9 Making arrangement in the inlet of Inverted Siphon to join with gravity pipeline for diversion of flow towards Surpura Headworks

0 -


10 Provision for false ceiling, wall panelling, flooring and installation of 2 nos. air conditioners at PS 5

1 Lot 550000 550,000.00

Market Enquiry

E Repairs/Overhauling 1 Dismantling,

Transportation & Installation of 33/6.6 KV, 10 MVA Transformer from PS

2 Nos. 65000 130,000.0

0

Market Enquiry




Stations)


No 5 to PS No 62 Dismantling,

Transportation & Installation of 33/6.6 KV, 6.3 MVA Transformer from existing location to PS No 2

1 Nos. 65000 65,000.00

Market Enquiry

3 Replacment of Large & small ball of Kinetic Air Valves installed on pumping mains

28 Job 10000 280,000.00

Market Enquiry

4 Replacement of Mild Steel Cage epoxy painted 3 mm thick with provision of locking arrangement for protection of Air Valves installed on pumping mains including transportation, installation etc complete job

7 Job 10000 70,000.00

Market Enquiry

5 Repair/Overhauling of existing transformers on all pumping stations

1 Lot 8,438,975.93

8,438,975.93

Annex ES-ETR

6 Repair/Overhauling of Electro Mechanical Equipment at various Pumping Stations

1 Lot 24817487 24,817,487.43

Annex ES-RO

7 Repair of Civil Works at All the Headworks

1 Lot 9946290.76

9,946,290.76

Annex ES-CWAC

F Provisional Sum 1 Provisional sum for cost of

repair work/replacement of electro-mechanical items etc, not identified above but required to fulfill contract obligations. The rate analysis of these items shall be got approved from Engineer-in-Charge.

1 LS 5,000,000

5,000,000.00

Total

(Rs) 830,4

52,946.80

(Rs in Crores)

83.05


Jodhpur Urban Water Supply Reorganisation Project Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water Conveyance System (RGL Canal and Pumping Stations)

Particulars QTY

Year of O&M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4 months

12 months

12 months

12 months

12 months

12 months

12 months

12 months

12 months

12 months

12 months 12 months

Rate 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29

Manpower

144,90,000

48,30,000

144,90,000

144,90,000

144,90,000

144,90,000

144,90,000

144,90,000

144,90,000

144,90,000

144,90,000

144,90,000

144,90,000

On call manpower and machinery

5,00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

External Finishing after attending minor repairs such as damage to plaster, etc. for all buildings, under the contract

1.00 1,

00,000

1,00,000

1,00,000

1,00,000

1,00,000

1,00,000

1,00,000

1,00,000

1,00,000

1,00,000

1,00,000

1,00,000

Internal finishing (distemper /painting) after attending minor repairs such as damage to plaster, etc. for all buildings under the contract in 3rd year, 7th year and 10th year of contract for all Buildings, under the contract.

1.00 5,

00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

5,00,000

Material for maintenance for repairs to mechanical equipments , electrical items and instruments

Mechanical items 346540906

0

17,

32,705 17,32,705

17,32,705

17,32,705

17,32,705

17,32,705

17,32,705

17,32,705

17,32,705

17,32,705

17,32,705

Electrical items 304541771

0

15,22,709

15,22,709

15,22,709

15,22,709

15,22,709

15,22,709

15,22,709

15,22,709

15,22,709

15,22,709


15,22,709

Instrumentation and SCADA 37118790

0

18,

55,939 18,55,939

18,55,939

18,55,939

18,55,939

18,55,939

18,55,939

18,55,939

18,55,939

18,55,939

18,55,939

ISO Certifications

2,50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000 50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

Annual recurring charges of CMMS

2,

00,000

2,00,000

2,00,000

2,00,000

2,00,000

2,00,000

2,00,000

2,00,000

2,00,000

2,00,000

2,00,000

2,00,000

Consumables

50,000

12,500

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000 50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

Hiring of vehicles with POL

3 3,

00,000 2,25,000

9,00,000

9,00,000

9,00,000

9,00,000

9,00,000

9,00,000

9,00,000

9,00,000

9,00,000

9,00,000

9,00,000

Mobile phones 81

3,000

60,750 2,

43,000 2,43,000

2,43,000

2,43,000

2,43,000

2,43,000

2,43,000

2,43,000

2,43,000

2,43,000

2,43,000

Data cards 16

1,000

4,000

16,000

16,000

16,000

16,000

16,000

16,000 16,000

16,000

16,000

16,000

16,000

Sub Total 53,

82,250 216,6

0,353 221,

60,353 216,

60,353 216,

60,353 216,60,353

221,60,353

216,60,353

216,60,353

221,60,353

216,60,353

216,60,353

% Escalation 5% MF 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

Escalation Amount

53,82,250

10,83,018

22,71,436

34,14,213

46,67,941

59,84,356

75,36,639

88,17,939

103,41,853

122,17,628

136,22,080

153,86,201

Contractor's Profit and taxes

16.9%

9,08,255

38,37,944

41,22,864

42,31,333

44,42,900

46,65,045

50,11,367

51,43,212

54,00,372

58,01,284

59,53,910

62,51,606

Total Yearly O&M Cost

62,

90,505 265,8

1,314 285,

54,653 293,

05,899 307,

71,194 323,09,754

347,08,360

356,21,503

374,02,579

401,79,265

412,36,343

432,98,160



O&M Cost for 10 years

386,259,528

Total Cost of package G 1.A is 121.68 Cr. The general abstract of cost is available at Annexure ES-GAC and Operation & maintenance estimates is available at Annexure ES-OM.




Stations)

4.3.[5.3.] Basis for Cost Estimates

The costing of package of Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water Conveyance System (RGL Canal and Pumping Stations) has been performed based on the following sources:

Design of the Proposed Interventions.

PWD Standard Schedule of Rates (SOR) of Jodhpur Circle (2012) of Rajasthan state.

Rates adopted in Major Water Supply Projects in PHED

RUIDP Rajasthan Standard Schedule of Rates (SOR)

WRD BSR

Consultant’s data bank and experience on similar projects.

Nominally applicable labor and material costs for items not present in the aforementioned SOR.

Vendors Quotations & Rate analysis

4.3.1.[5.3.1.] Overheads

All the civil work estimates like valve chambers, campus development works are prepared based on the PWD BSR of Jodhpur Circle of Year 2012. A factor of 10% is adopted for adjusting the BSR rates to current market level and the rates adopted are taken from BSR year 2012.

The tender for the current proposals are proposed to put on bid on SPR basis. A overhead factor for SPR contract of 10% is adopted in the current proposals.

4.3.2.[5.3.2.] Land Acquisition:

No cost of land acquisition is included in the TS proposals.

4.4.[5.4.] Spare Parts




Stations)

A provision of spare parts for proposed pumping machinery to be replaced at Pumping station No 1 to 7 is taken in the estimates. The provision kept is taken as 15% of cost of the pump cost of pumpset costs (which is adopted as 45% of total pumpset cost). It is not proposed to procure spares for bare pumps as they are proposed to be replaced with increased capacity pumps in year 2020-21. If required, the required spares for bare pumps will be procured by the contractor.

4.5.[5.5.] Provisional Sum

A lump sum amount of Rs 50.00 lacs is taken in the estimates to provide for any work/items required to be executed/procured which is not in project estimates and for any amount required to be deposited with any agency.

4.6.[5.6.] Rate Analysis

For large number of equipment, instruments, rates have been procured from market vendors.

The rates obtained from vendor is further analysed for its total cost by including VAT, Excise Duty, CES, Sales Tax as applicable, inspection charges, contractors profit, and SPR Contract charges.

The detailed rate analysis for various equipments, appurtenances are available at Annexure ES-RA.

4.7.[5.7.] Quotations Liasoning

For large number of equipment, instruments, rates have been procured from market vendors.

A list of such equipments and their vendors is provided below;

S. No. Equipment Vendor

1 Sluice & Butterfly Valves, Electric Actuators, Dual Plate Check Valve

M/s RD Multiplex

2 Dismantling Joints & Flanges -

3 Electric Hoist M/s Vinay Sales Corporation, Jaipur




Stations)

S. No. Equipment Vendor

4 Pumps & Motors M/s Mather & Platt, M/s Grundfoss, M/s KBL

5 Transformers M/s Uttam (Bharat) Electricals Private Limited

6 Power & Control Cables M/s KEI Induatries Limited, Mumbai

7 RTU & PLC Panels and SCADA M/s Schnieder

8 Pumps & Motors for RWPS M/s KBL

9 Soft Starters M/s Jayshree Electron, Pune

10 Canal flowmeter M/s MECHATRONICS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD

The quotations received from various vendors are available at Annexure ES-Q1.

4.8.[5.8.] Operation & Maintenance Cost

The operation & maintenance cost for the system for 10 years has been worked out and is available at Annexure ES-OM. The energy consumption at RWPS and WTP is also calculated and available at same Annexure.


Date post:	18-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	deepak-jain
View:	230 times
Download:	7 times

Rglc Ts Civil Work

Documents