Dự Án Thuỷ Điện Trung Sơn Thiết Kế Kỹ Thuật

ISO 9001:2000
VIETNAM ELECTRICITY
POWER ENGINEERING CONSULTING
JOINT STOCK COMPANY 4

Project: T.02.04
D N THY IN TRUNG SN
TRUNG SON HYDROPOWER PROJECT
THIT K K THUT
TECHNICAL DESIGN

M HNH VN HNH H CHA
OPERATION MODEL OF RESERVOIR

Nha Trang City, July 2010
P
u
b
l
i
c

D
i
s
c
l
o
s
u
r
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
u
b
l
i
c

D
i
s
c
l
o
s
u
r
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
u
b
l
i
c

D
i
s
c
l
o
s
u
r
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
u
b
l
i
c

D
i
s
c
l
o
s
u
r
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
59895
Trung Son hydropower project Technical design
Contributor i

CONTRIBUTORS

No. Full name Task Signature
1 Vuong Anh Dung Preparing chapter 3
2 Nguyen Van De Preparing chapter 1
3 Nguyen Tien Phong Preparing chapter 2
4 Truong Hoai The Tuyen Preparing chapter 4
5 Phung Ngoc Tam Preparing chapter 4
6 Tran Minh Kha Checking
Contents ii

CONTENTS
The document is established in below volume Operation model of reservoir
Table of contents iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: ANNUAL FLOW SPECIFIC CALCULATION 1
1.1 FLOW CONDITION CALCULATION ON BASIN 1
1.2 CALCULATION OF ANNUAL AVERAGE FLOW IN LONG-TERM PERIOD AT TRUNG SON
HYDROLOGICAL 5
1.3 DESIGN ANNUAL FLOW DISTRIBUTION AND ANNUAL FREQUENCY 10
1.4 DAILY FLOW RANGE TO TRUNG SON HYDROPOWER DAMSITE 11
CHAPTER 2: RESERVOIR ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION 12
2.1 PLANNING HYDROPOWER PROJECTS CASCADES ON MA RIVER 12
2.2 ADDITIONAL PLANNING HYDROPOWER PROJECTS CASCADES ON MA RIVER 13
2.3 MAIN PARAMETERS OF TRUNG SON HYDROPOWER PROJECT TECHNICAL DESIGN
STAGE 14
2.4 DATA FOR CALCULATION 16
2.5 CALCULATION, SIMULATION OF RESERVOIR 18
2.6 WITHOUT THANH SON RESERVOIR IN DOWNSTREAM OF TRUNG SON HYDROPOWER
PLANT (CASE 1) 18
2.7 DOWNSTREAM WITH THANH SON RESERVOIR (CASE 2) 37
CHAPTER 3: WATER SUPPLY DEMAND FOR DOWNSTREAM 40
3.1 WATER DEMAND AT DOWNSTREAM 40
3.2 ENVIRONMENT FLOW RELEASE MEASURES 42
3.3 DISCHARGE OF WATER DURING OPERATION PROCESS 42
3.4 DISCHARGE OF MUD AND SAND 43
3.5 RESERVOIR DEWATERING 43
3.6 CONCLUSION 43
CHAPTER 4: RESERVOIR AND DOWNSTREAM LANDSLIDE
POSSIBILITY FORECAST 44
4.1 RESERVOIR BANK LANDSIDE POSSIBILITY 44
4.2 EROSION RIVER BED OF RESERVOIR DOWNSTREAM 47
4.3 SLIDING AT BANKS OF DOWNSTREAM 48
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................. 48
- Appendix calculation of hydrographical
- Location chart of section calculation stability
- Appendix calculation of reservoir bank stability
- Appendix calculation reservoir downstream stability
Flow data chaining advent barrage calculation 1
Chapter 1: ANNUAL FLOW SPECIFIC CALCULATION
1.1 FLOW CONDITION CALCULATION ON BASIN
Trung Son Hydrological station has been built and put into operation since Oct
2004, it is located about 400m downstream of Trung Son dam site. It measures all the
factors: precipitation, water level, discharge, flood.. The difference between the basin
areas of the damsites and Trung Son station is not remarkable, we can consider the
flow to Trung Son hydrological station is equal to the flow to the damsite. Thus, the
calculation result at the Trung Son hydrological station is equal to the calculation
result at the damsites. There are hydrological stations at the upstream of Ma river:
Muong Lat (water level, precipitation), Xa La (precipitation, water level, temperature,
discharge..); at the downstream of the river, there are hydrological stations such as:Hoi
Xuan (discharge, 1965 1970, water level, 1962 2008), Cam Thuy (water level,
1957 2008; discharge 1957 1976, 1995 2008) besides, there are other
hydrological stations at the tributaries such as Nam Ty, Nam Cong, Cua Dat, Lang
Chanh...
Due to the non-sychronous data and lack of data continuity observed at those
stations, the flow calculation of Trung Son hydrological station mainly depends on the
analysis method of flow correlation, co-ordinating with precipitation distribution and
flow module analysis. The method is carried out between Trung Son hydrological
station and 3 other hydrological stations that measure the discharge namely Cam Thuy,
Hoi Xuan, Xa La.
1.1.1. Recovering the flow data at Cam Thuy Hydrological Station
Cam Thuy hydrological station measured the water level and discharge from
1957 to 1976 with the standard of Level 1 hydrological station. From 1977 to 1994, it
moved some kilometers downstream and downgraded, only measured water level.
From 1995 up until now (2008), it moved to the old location and continued observing
according to the station of level 1 station.
Now, the water level data at Cam Thuy from 1977 to 1994 has been correlatively
calculated by Hydro-meteorological General Bureau and brought back to water
elevation of the old Cam Thuy hydrological station (it is also the location now) to
unify the elevation.
The relationship curve Q=F(H) is synthetized at Cam Thuy hydrological station
in 1973, 1975, 1995. Then the discharge is interpolated from the relation Q=F(H) and
daily water level data in 19771994
After the calculation, we have the daily flow at Cam Thuy hydrological station
from 1957 to 2008, average long-term flow is Q
tb
=346 m
3
/s. Summarization of
monthly observed flow and calculated flow from 1957 to 2008 at Cam Thuy
hydrological station are shown in Table 1 of the Appendices.
1.1.2. Recovering data at Hoi Xuan hydrological Station
Hoi Xuan hydrological station has been measuring the water level from 1962 up
until now (2008), it measured the discharge from 1965 to 1970. The recovering and
addition to this flow data at Hoi Xuan hydrological station is carried out through 3
methods:
1) Calculation according to monthly average discharge in correlation with Cam
Thuy hydrological station:
The monthly average discharge correlation between Cam Thuy and Hoi Xuan
hydrological stations from 1965 to 1970
Flood season: Correlation coefficient =0.989; Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.861*Q
Cam Thuy
5.14 (m
3
/s)
Dry season: Correlation coefficient =0.984; Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.823*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 4.864 (m
3
/s)
From this equation and the monthly average discharge at Cam Thuy hydrological
station, we can calculate the data chain at Hoi Xuan hydrological station from 1957
1964, 1971 2008. According to that, the average annual discharge in long-term
period at Hoi Xuan is 295 m
3
/s.
2) Calculation according to daily average discharge in correlation with Cam
Thuy hydrological station:
The daily average discharge correlation between Cam Thuy and Hoi Xuan
hydrological stations from 1965 to 1970
January: the coefficient of =0.890. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.694*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 18.79 (m
3
/s)
February: the coefficient of =0.900. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.625*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 25.09 (m
3
/s)
March: the coefficient of =0.933. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.770*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 9.632 (m
3
/s)
April: the coefficient of =0.927. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.825*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 7.81 (m
3
/s)
May: the coefficient of =0,895. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.704*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 19.31 (m
3
/s)
June: the coefficient of =0.942. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.819*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 9.512 (m
3
/s)
July: the coefficient of =0.890. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.765*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 54.43 (m
3
/s)
August: the coefficient of =0,965. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.755*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 84.42 (m
3
/s)
September: the coefficient of =0.952. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.740*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 55.17 (m
3
/s)
October: the coefficient of =0.956. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.646*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 61.63 (m
3
/s)
November: the coefficient of =0.936. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.590*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 59.62 (m
3
/s)
December: the coefficient of =0.902. Correlation equation:
Q
Hoi Xuan
= 0.936*Q
Cam Thuy
8.29 (m
3
/s)
Based on these equations and the daily average discharge at Cam Thuy
hydrological station can calculate data chain at Hoi Xuan hydrological station from
1957 1964, 1971 2008. Thence, the long-term average discharge at Hoi Xuan is
289 m
3
/s.
3) Calculation according to water level data and the relation Q=F(H)
Water level data at Hoi Xuan hydrological station from 1957-1961 was recovered
from water level data at Cam Thuy hydrological station by correlation method.
Cam Thuy hydrological station measured discharge and level water from 1957 -
1976. After, its displaced to downstream and measured level water only. In 1995, its
displaced again to return the initial location, and upgraded to measure both discharge
and level water. The level water data at Cam Thuy hydrological station from 1977 -
1994 is calculated and converted. Hence, daily average level water in every month in
correlation between Cam Thuy hydrological station and Hoi Xuan hydrological station
is carried out from 1962 - 1976.
H
Hoi Xuan
= 1.56*H
Cam Thuy
+ 3,386 (cm)
H
Hoi Xuan
= 1.15*H
Cam Thuy
+ 3863 (cm)
H
Hoi Xuan
= 1.55*H
Cam Thuy
+ 3407 (cm)
April: the coefficient of =0.927. Correlation equation:
H
Hoi Xuan
= 1.44*H
Cam Thuy
+ 3526 (cm)
May: the coefficient of =0.840. Correlation equation:
H
Hoi Xuan
= 1.06*H
Cam Thuy
+ 3972 (cm)
H
Hoi Xuan
= 1.08*H
Cam Thuy
+ 3960 (cm)
H
Hoi Xuan
= 0.922*H
Cam Thuy
+4167 (cm)
August: the coefficient of =0.936. Correlation equation:
H
Hoi Xuan
= 0.912*H
Cam Thuy
+ 4188 (cm)
H
Hoi Xuan
= 0.936*H
Cam Thuy
+ 4139 (cm)
H
Hoi Xuan
= 0.887*H
Cam Thuy
+ 4202 (cm)
H
Hoi Xuan
= 1.02*H
Cam Thuy
+ 4031 (cm)
H
Hoi Xuan
= 1.61*H
Cam Thuy
+ 3332 (cm)
Based on these equations and daily average level water at Cam Thuy hydrological
station can calculate data chain at Hoi Xuan hydrological station from 1957 - 1961
The relation curve Q=F(H) is synthesized from Hoi Xuans observed data in
1965-1970. Then, the daily flow data chain at Hoi Xuan hydrological station from
1957 1964 and 1971- 2008 is calculated based on the over relation curve Q=F(H)
and water level data. Hence, the long-term average discharge at Hoi Xuan is 290 m
3
/s
Over results (calculated by three methods) are not different much. The daily
average discharge correlation method with Cam Thuy hydrological station (Method 2)
reflects the reality of the river flow, having high coefficient, giving values close to
values calculated by water level and the relation curve Q=F(H) method, and reducing
the errors due to the changes of river bed through many years. Thus, it is chosen.
Hence, the long-term average flow at Hoi Xuan hydrological station is 289 m
3
/s. The
synthesized results of monthly flow data chain at Hoi Xuan hydrological station is in
Table 2 in the appendices.
1.2 CALCULATION OF ANNUAL AVERAGE FLOW IN LONG-TERM
PERIOD AT TRUNG SON HYDROLOGICAL
1.2.1. Daily average water level data recovery method
Create the correlation relationship of daily average water level between Trung
Son and Hoi Xuan hydrological stations from 01 January 2005 to 31 December 2008,
the achieved correlation coefficient is =0,949 and correlation equation is as follows:
H
Trung Son
= 0.707*H
Hoi Xuan
+ 5131 (cm)
H
Trung Son
= 0.328*H
Hoi Xuan
+ 7105 (cm)
H
Trung Son
= 0.637*H
Hoi Xuan
+ 5493 (cm)
H
Trung Son
= 0.820*H
Hoi Xuan
+ 4525 (cm)
H
Trung Son
= 0.934*H
Hoi Xuan
+ 3919 (cm)
H
Trung Son
= 0.883*H
Hoi Xuan
+ 4194 (cm)
H
Trung Son
= 0.634*H
Hoi Xuan
+ 5520 (cm)
H
Trung Son
= 0.565*H
Hoi Xuan
+ 5879 (cm)
H
Trung Son
= 0.534*H
Hoi Xuan
+ 6038 (cm)
The coefficient of Jan, Mar, Apr, May months is smaller than 0.8. Thus,
correlation equation of this are taken general correlation equation:
H
Trung Son
= 0.707*H
Hoi Xuan
+ 5131 (cm)
With these equations and the water level data at Hoi Xuan can recover the water
level data at Trung Son in the period of 1957-2004.
The correlation curve Q=F(H) at Trung Son station is synthetized from observed
data in the period 2005 2008. Then, calculating the daily flow data chain at Trung
Son station in the period of 1957 2004 from the water level data and the synthetized
relationship Q=F(H). Hence, the long-term average discharge is 216 m
3
/s.
1.2.2. Flow correlation method with Cam Thuy hydrological station
- Creating the monthly average discharge correlation between Cam Thuy and Trung
Son stations from January 2005 to December 2008
Flood season: Correlation coefficient is =0.954. Correlation equation:
Q
Trung Son
= 0.636*Q
Cam Thuy
- 3,27 (m
3
/s)
Dry season: Correlation coefficient is =0.941. Correlation equation:
Q
Trung Son
= 0.506*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 20,45 (m
3
/s)
With these equations and discharge at Cam Thuy hydrological station can
calculate the flow data chain at Trung Son station from 1957- 2004. Hence, the
average discharge in long-term period (1957-2008) is 218 m
3
/s.
- Creating the daily average discharge correlation between Cam Thuy and Trung
Son stations from January 2005 to December 2008
Average calculation result from 01 January 2005 to 31 December 2008,
correlation coefficient is =0,922.
Correlation equation is as below:
Q
Trung Son
= 0.545*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 30.6 (m
3
/s)
Q
Trung Son
= 0.654*Q
Cam Thuy
1.04 (m
3
/s)
Q
Trung Son
= 0.745*Q
Cam Thuy
11.69 (m
3
/s)
Q
Trung Son
= 0.651*Q
Cam Thuy
2.43 (m
3
/s)
April: The coefficient of April is smaller than 0.8. Thus, the correlation equation
of this is taken genera correlation equation:
Q
Trung Son
= 0.545*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 30.6 (m
3
/s)
May: The coefficient of May is smaller than 0.8. Thus, the correlation equation of
this is taken genera correlation equation:
Q
Trung Son
= 0.545*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 30.6 (m
3
/s)
Q
Trung Son
= 0.674*Q
Cam Thuy
23.08 (m
3
/s)
Q
Trung Son
= 0.661*Q
Cam Thuy
7.65 (m
3
/s)
Q
Trung Son
= 0.622*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 44.74 (m
3
/s)
Q
Trung Son
= 0.512*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 103.23 (m
3
/s)
Q
Trung Son
= 0.387*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 112.22 (m
3
/s)
Q
Trung Son
= 0.341*Q
Cam Thuy
+ 95.14 (m
3
/s)
Q
Trung Son
= 0.756*Q
Cam Thuy
11.47 (m
3
/s)
Calculate the daily discharge data chain at Trung Son station in the period of
1957 2004 based on these correlation equations and daily average discharge at Cam
Thuy hydrological station. Hence, average annual discharge in long-term period is 229
m
3
/s.
1.2.3. Flow correlation method with Xa La station
Creating the monthly average discharge correlation between Xa La and Trung
Son station from January 2005 to December 2008
In flood season, the coefficient is =0.758. It is too small to calculate and recover
flow data at Trung Son station. So, data in flood months is recovered and calculated by
correlation relation among months in the whole year. The synthesized coefficient of
months from 2005 to 2008 between Xa La and Trung Son stations is D=0.875. The
correlation equation is as below:
Q
Trung Son
= 1.638*Q
Xa La
+ 45.61 (m
3
/s)
In dry season, the coefficient =0.893. The correlation equation:
Q
Trung Son
= 1.75*Q
Xa La
+ 26.17 (m
3
/s)
Based on these equations and discharge at Xa La station can calculate flow data
chain at Trung Son station from 1961- 2004. Hence, average annual discharge in long-
term period at Trung Son is 235 m
3
/s.
1.2.4. Flow correlation method with Hoi Xuan hydrological station
Creating the monthly average discharge in correlation between Hoi Xuan and
Trung Son station from I/2005 to XII/2008.
In flood season, the coefficient =0.968. The correlation equation:
Q
Trung Son
= 0.836*Q
Hoi Xuan
34.78 (m
3
/s)
In dry season, the coefficient (=0.692) is too small to correspond with
calculating and recovering flow data at Trung Son station. So, data in dry months is
recovered by correlative relation among months in the whole year. The synthesized
coefficient of months from 2005 to 2008 between Hoi Xuan and Trung Son is
D=0.964. The correlation equation:
Q
Trung Son
= 0.801*Q
Hoi Xuan
20.01 (m
3
/s)
From these equations and discharge at Hoi Xuan hydrological station, we can
flow data chain at Trung Son station from 1957 to 2004. According to that, average
annual discharge in long-term period at Trung Son is 213 m
3
/s.
1.2.5. Flow module analysis method
The flow module distribution on Ma river is as follows:
Table 1.1: The flow module at some stations in Ma river basin
Station Area (km
2
) Period Q
aver
(m
3
/s) M (l/s/km
2
)
Cam Thuy 18,879 19572008 346 18.3
Hoi Xuan 16,850 19572008 289 17.2
Xa La 6,430 19612008 120 18.7
Trung Son station is located between Hoi Xuan and Xa La stations, the flow
module of Trung Son station is M= 17.5 l/s/km
2
,

calculated by interpolation method.
Thus, can calculate the annual average discharge at Trung Son station Q= 257 m
3
/s.
The flow data at Hoi Xuan hydrological station is recovered mainly; data at Cam
Thuy and Xa La stations is more adequate. Use interpolation method to calculate flow
module to Trung Son station from relation between area and flow module of Cam
Thuy and Xa La stations. According to this method, the flow module to Trung Son
station will be M= 18.4 l/s/km
2
. Thus, the long-term average discharge at Trung Son
station can calculated Q= 270 m
3
/s.
The analysis of precipitation changes in the mid-areas from Cam Thuy to Hoi
Xuan and from Hoi Xuan to Trung Son shows that the average annual rainfall in long-
term period from Cam Thuy to Hoi Xuan is about 1850 mm; from Hoi Xuan to Trung
Son is about 1600 mm. The application of area rate method plus basin average rainfall
rate method due to mid-basin from Cam Thuy to Hoi Xuan. The average annual
discharge at Trung Son will be equal to the average annual discharge in long-term
period at Hoi Xuan minus the mid-area. Q
Trung Son
= 236 m
3
/s.
1.2.6. Analyse, choose the results of flow calculation to Trung Son dam site
Table 1.2: Synthesized results of annual average flow in long-term period at Trung
Son station according to different methods
Method Q
0
M
0
1. Interpolating Water data and the relationship Q=F(H) 216 14.7
2. Monthly average discharge correlation with Cam Thuy
hydrological station
218 14.9
2. Daily average discharge correlation with Cam Thuy
hydrological station
229 15.6
3. Discharge correlation with Xa La station 235 16.0
4. Discharge correlation with Hoi Xuan hydrological station 213 14.5
5. Interpolating flow module Hoi Xuan Xa La 257 17.5
6. Interpolating flow module Cam Thuy Xa La 270 18.4
7. Mid-area discharge deduction from Hoi Xuan to Trung 236 16.1
Average 234 16.0
Due to the complexity of the precipitation and flow distribution on Ma river the
part on Laos territory has less rainfall than on Vietnam, so the calculation results by
the different methods will be different as well. Each method has its own advantages
and disadvantages. The water level data retrieval method at Trung Son station from
Hoi Xuan hydrological station is easy to cause errors because the parallel measured
water level data chain is short, the water level in serious flood years isnt measured
sufficiently and the cross sections are changed after years. The data chain from 1977
1994 at Cam Thuy hydrological station is achieved through calculation and recovery
from the water level and relationship Q=F(H), the parallel measured data chain
between Cam Thuy and Trung Son is still short, thus the monthly average flow
correlation method between Trung Son and Cam Thuy is not fully trusted. It is similar
to above mention, the correlation method between Trung Son and Xa La also have a
short parallel observed data chain; their correlation coefficient is not much great; Ma
river, after flowing cross Laos territory where rainfall is small, flow amplitude changes
a little bit, thus results achieved by this method isnt completely trusted. The method
considering flow module progress based on the measured data at the hydrological
stations on Ma river basin, considering the effect of rainfall distribution on the basin,
can determine quite exactly the long-term average flow but determining exactly the
average annual precipitation in the basin is difficult, so it is difficult to determine
exactly the annual flow.
The average flow value achieved from these above methods are Q
Trung Son
= 234
m
3
/s, M
Trung Son
= 16,0 l/s/km
2
, these values are equal to the discharge depreation
method at mid-area with the mean rain fall (Q
Trung Sn
= 236 m
3
/s), nearly the same
with the result of discharge correlation with Xa La station method (Q
Trung Sn
= 235
m
3
/s). As change a number of calculating years, the average annual runoff value at
Trung Son station fluctuates around at 235 m
3
/s, recommend to choose this result
Q
0
Trung Son
= 235 m
3
/s
1.3 DESIGN ANNUAL FLOW DISTRIBUTION AND ANNUAL
FREQUENCY
1.3.1. Monthy average flow range
To achieve a nearly correct flow distribution at Trung Son station, the flow
distribution following the daily average flow correlation wih Cam Thuy hydrological
station has been used, with the modification according to the chosen average flow in
the long-term period. The results are as in table 3, Appendixes.
1.3.2. Seasonal flow rate
Based on the observed and calculated flow data at Trung Son station (1957
2007) carry out the seasonal flow classification according to the over-average
standard, the results achieved are: flood season starts from June, ends in October; dry
season starts from November, ends in next May. The results are in table 4 in the
appendices.
1.4 DAILY FLOW RANGE TO TRUNG SON HYDROPOWER DAMSITE
By correlation relation analysis, the flow correlation in Ma river at Trung Son
with Hoi Xuan and Cam Thuy is better than with Xa La. This difference shows that the
natural condition in Ma river is: heavy rain in the upstream, small rain in Laos territory
and gradually heavier from Trung Son to Cam Thuy, the area difference between
Trung Son and Hoi Xuan, Cam Thuy is smaller than between Trung Son and Xa La.
Hoi Xuan hydrological station has an short observed daily discharge data chain
(1965-1970), the data of the remaining years (1957 1964, 1971 2008) are achieved
by recovering calculation, the old relation Q=F(H) (synthetized from 1965 - 1970) is
not measured to check the changes in the following years, thus it is easily to cause
errors.
Cam Thuy hydrological station has a longer observed data chain (1957 1976,
1995 2008), the calculated recovering flow data chain (1977 1994) has a close base,
the relation Q= F(H) is synthetized according to the years before 1977 and after 1994.
Thus, flow distribution reflects the reality, can trust well, and choose to calculate flow
distribution at Trung Son hydrological station.
The daily discharge chain (1957-2004) at Trung Son station is chosen according
to daily average discharge correlation calculation results with Cam Thuy hydrological
station, in which: using separate correlation equations for each month and calculating
is in the adjustment to get average annual discharge at Trung Son, Q
aver
=235 m
3
/s.
The synthetized results of daily average discharge at Trung Son station are
summarized in the report of Reservoir operation process.
Analysis and simulation of reservoir 12
Chapter 2: RESERVOIR ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION
2.1 PLANNING HYDROPOWER PROJECTS CASCADES ON MA RIVER
On March 31, 2005, Ministry of Industry (presently called as Ministry of
Industry and Trade) issued decision No.1195/Q-NLDK, concerning
approval on planning of hydropower cascades on Ma river, main contents as
below:
- Exploiting scheme of hydropower cascades projects and main task of
hydropower projects on Ma river:
+ On Ma river tributary, there are 05 multi-purposes hydropower reservoirs
projects
Pa Ma hydropower project, with normal water level at 455m, installed
capacity of 80MW; main tasks are water supply and flood control;
combined with electric power generation.
Huoi Tao hydropower project: normal water level at 380m, installed
capacity of 180MW; main task are water supply and flood control;
combined with electric power generation.
Trung Son hydropower project: normal water level at 160m, installed
capacity of 280MW; main task are electric power generation and
flood control.
Hoi Xuan hydropower project: normal water level at 80m, installed
capacity of 92MW; main task are electric power generation and water
supply.
Cam Ngoc hydropower project: normal water level at 50m, installed
capacity of 145MW; main tasks are water supply, combined with
electric power generation.
+ In Chu River tributary, there are 02 hydropower projects
Hua Na hydropower project, normal water level at 240m, installed
capacity of 180MW; main tasks are electric power generation and
flood control.
Cua Dat hydropower project, normal water level at 119m, installed
capacity of 97MW. This project is under operation. Main tasks are
water supply and flood control, combined with electric power
generation.
- Flood control storage capacity at respective reservoirs
+ Total flood control storage capacity on Ma River is estimated approximately
700 million m
3
respectively at Pa Ma reservoir (about 200 million m
3
), Huoi
Tao (about 300 million m
3
), Trung Son reservoir (maximum 200 million
m
3
). It is required to substantiate presisely in details the distribution flood
control storage capacity between cascades in Ma River when establishing
Feasibility Study, with consideration of all actual topographical, geological
condition of the project as well as in the downstream area, proposed other
reservoirs in Ma River construction time according to water resource
development program, to ensure economical and technical requirements.
+ Total flood control storage capacity on Chu River is estimated
approximately at 400 million m
3
, respectively at Cua Dat hydropower
reservoir at 300 million m
3
and Hua Na hydropower reservoir at 100 million
m
3

- Priority sequence construction of projects:
+ Hydropower projects to be constructed in the first stage: Cua Dat and Hua
Na projects on Chu River, Trung Son project in Ma River
+ Hydropower projects to be studied as multipurpose: Hoi Xuan, Cam Ngoc,
Pa Ma, Huoi Tao projects on Ma river
(detail at appendix: attachment legal documents)
2.2 ADDITIONAL PLANNING HYDROPOWER PROJECTS CASCADES
ON MA RIVER
On April 18, 2008, Ministry of Industry and Trade issued decision
No.2383/Q-BCT converning approval on additional planning hydropower
project cascades on Ma River, with main contents, as below:
- Additional planning Thanh Son hydropower project on Ma river cascades was
approved by Ministry of Industry (presently called as Ministry of Industry and
Trade) at decision No. 1195/Q-NLDK dated on March 31, 2005 with main
contents, as below:
+ Construction site: On the main stream of Ma river at the Thanh Son and
Trung Thanh communes, Quan Hoa district, Thanh Hoa Province, with
coordinates (VN-2000 system): X= 2 277 459.6 and Y= 490 006.9
+ Task and exploiting scheme of project: Project has main task is power
generation. The hyro energy exploiting scheme consisting of main dam and
spillway with dam-toe hydropower plant type.
+ Main parameters of project: Catchment basin area calculated to damsite Flv
= 13.275Km
2
, annual average discharge Q
0
= 246 m
3
/s, normal water level =
89m, tailrace water level MNHL
min
= 78.5m, rated water head H
tt
= 8.8m and
installed capacity N
lm
= 37MW
- Investment of Thanh Son hydropower project must be complied with socio-
economic development plans, land and water resource use plans, electric power
development plan in the Thanh Hoa province; synchronously with power load
development situation as well as investment of electric power transmission
network in region as planned by Vietnam Electricity.
- In feasibility study stage of Thanh Son hydropower project, Thanh Hoa
Provincial Peoples Committee shall be responsible to give directives,
inspection and consideration of below issues:
+ Additional investigation, survey on natural conditions (topographical,
geological, hydrological conditions, etc,..) for project area, precisely
calculate relation curve between water level and discharge at tailrace of
powerhouse.
+ Precisely calculate normal water level of hydropower reservoir based on
calculation of surge water level to the end of reservoir caused by flood, to
ensure no influence on electric energy efficiency and safety operation of
Trung Son hydropower plant at upstream.
+ The spillway of Thanh Son hydropower project shall be designed in such a
manner to ensure release safely checked flood discharge from Trung Son
hydropower project in accordance with regulation specified in design
standards and codes..
+ Updating parameters such as upstream and downstream water level and
power generation discharge of Trung Son and Hoi Xuan hydropower
cascade projects (downstream side). Analysis, comparison to make accuracy
of main parameters of project, especially installed capacity to ensure
effective exploitation of project as well as electric power transmission
network
+ Investigate, survey and establish compensation and resettlement plan for
project, to ensure compliance with current relevant State regulation.
2.3 MAIN PARAMETERS OF TRUNG SON HYDROPOWER PROJECT
TECHNICAL DESIGN STAGE
In the technical design stage, the main tasks of project are defined as below:
- With regards of electric power generation, installed capacity is Nlm = 260MW,
annual electric energy Eo=1018.61 million kWh.
- In terms of flood control, the reservoir flood control storage capacity is 150
million m
3
in which regular flood control storage capacity of 112 million m
3
.
Flood control period is 02 consecutive months of main flood season from 15
th

July to 15
th
September annually.
Table 2-1: Main parameters of Trung Son hydropower project
No. Description Unit Value
I Basin characteristics
1 Catchment area Km
2
14660
2 Average long-term rainfalls X
0
mm 1 420
3 Average long-term flow (Qo) m
3
/s 235
4 Total annual flow Wo 10
6
m
3
7411
II Reservoir
1 Normal water level (NWL) m 160
2 Dead water level m 150
3 Water level before flood m 150
4 Flood storage volume Wpl 10
6
m
3
112
5 Reservoir storage volume corresponding to normal 10
6
m
3
348.53
water level Wbt
6
Effective storage volume, flood storage volume
Wpl
10
6
m
3
112.13
7 Dead storage volume Wc 10
6
m
3
236.40
8
Reservoir surface area corresponding to normal
water level
km
2
13.13
9 Flood peak discharge corresponding to frequencies
- P= 0.1 % m
3
/s 13 400
- P= 0.5 % m
3
/s 10 400
- P= 1 % m
3
/s 9 100
- P= 5 % m
3
/s 6 200
III RCC dam
1 Dam crest elevation m 162.8
2 Dam crest length (L
) m 513.0
3 Max. dam height m 84.5
4 Dam crest width (b) m 8
5 Upstream slope (m) 0.35
6 Downstream slope (m) 0.65
IV Spillway
1 Spillway sill elevation m 145
2 Number of spillway cells 6
3 Spillway span BxH m 14x15
4 Orifice dimension of radial gate BxH m 14x15.5
5 Design flood released discharge P=0.5% m
3
/s 9 900
6 Checked flood released discharge P=0.1% m
3
/s 12 534
7 Dissipation structure Flip bucket
V Waterway
A Power intake gate
1 Power intake gate sill elevation m 135
2 Orifice dimension of trash rack nxBxH m 8x5.5x11
3 Orifice dimension of maintenance stop logs nxBxH m 1x5.5x5.5
4 Orifice dimension of operation gate nxBxH m 4x5.5x5.5
B Penstock
1 Penstock diameter m 5.5
2 Total length of one penstock m 229.57
3 Gradient slope of penstock % 13.95; 46.63
4 Penstock shell thickness mm 16-18
C Powerhouse characteristics
1 Turbine type Francis
2 Number of units 4
3 Installed capacity N
lm
MW 260
4 Firmed capacity N
b
MW 41.80
5 Max. head H
max
m 72.02
6 Min. head H
min
m 51.32
7 Average head H
tb
m 66.30
8 Rated head H
tt
m 56.50
9 Max. discharge Q
max
through turbine m
3
/s 522
10 Average annual generated electricity E
0
10
6
KWh 1018.61
11
Number of power generated hours at installed
capacity
hour 3918
D Tailrace channel
1 Bottom width (b) m 79.7
2 Slope factor (m) 0.5 1.5
3 Gradient slope of channel bottom (i) 0.0001
4 Tailrace channel length (L) m 80

2.4 DATA FOR CALCULATION
- Reservoir regulation curve: Coordinate on regulation curves of Trung Son
hydropower project are shown in below table:
Table 2-2: Water level on regulation curves of Trung Son hydropower project
No. Month NWL(m) CXT PPH HCCN MWL(m)
1 June 160.0 160.00 160.00 150.00 150.0
2 July 160.0 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.0
3 Aug 160.0 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.0
4 Sept 160.0 160.00 160.00 150.00 150.0
5 Oct 160.0 160.00 160.00 157.00 150.0
6 Nov 160.0 160.00 160.00 156.60 150.0
7 Dec 160.0 160.00 160.00 155.50 150.0
8 Jan 160.0 160.00 160.00 154.30 150.0
9 Feb 160.0 160.00 160.00 153.10 150.0
10 Mar 160.0 160.00 160.00 152.50 150.0
11 Apr 160.0 159.00 158.20 151.70 150.0
12 May 160.0 158.00 155.40 150.50 150.0
Remark:
+ NWL: Normal water level.
+ CXT: Redundant discharge control regulation curve
+ PPH: Critical reservoir water level regulation curve
+ HCCN: Limit water supply regulation curve
+ MNC: Minimum water level.
- 24 hours average flow to damsite of Trung Son hydropower project: see in
chapter 1
- Reservoir characteristic curve: reservoir characteristic curve is set up on the
map of 1/10,000 scale, established in 2003 by Power Engineering Consulting
Joint Stock Company 4 with aerial photograph method. The results are as
below:
Table 2-3: Reservoir characteristic curve of Trung Son hydropower project
No.
Elevation
Z (m)
Area
F (km
2
)
Storage volume
V (10
6
m
3
) Remarks
1 85.0 0.0 0.0
2 90.0 0.3 0.6
3 95.0 0.5 2.6
4 100.0 1.1 6.4
5 105.0 1.7 13.2
6 110.0 2.2 22.7
7 115.0 2.8 35.1
8 120.0 3.5 50.9
9 125.0 4.4 70.6
10 130.0 5.1 94.1
11 135.0 5.9 121.6
12 140.0 7.0 153.9
13 145.0 8.2 191.9
14 150.0 9.6 236.4 MWL
15 155.0 11.1 288.1
16 160.0 13.1 348.5 NWL
17 165.0 15.2 419.3
18 170.0 17.6 501.2
- Relation curve between discharge and tailrace water level of Trung Son
hydropower plant was set up based on hydraulic calculation formulas and river
cross section, river bed longitudinal profile, investigation historical flood,The
results are as below:
Table 2-4:Relation curve between discharge and tailrace water level of Trung Son
hydropower plant
No.
Discharge
Q (m
3
/s)
Water level
Z (m)
No.
Discharge
Q (m
3
/s)
Water level
Z (m)
1 0 85.90 17 300 90.51
2 10 86.71 18 350 90.76
3 20 87.27 19 400 90.98
4 30 87.82 20 500 91.39
5 40 88.37 21 600 91.78
6 50 88.67 22 700 92.14
7 60 88.81 23 800 92.48
No.
Discharge
Q (m
3
/s)
Water level
Z (m)
No.
Discharge
Q (m
3
/s)
Water level
Z (m)
8 80 89.05 24 1000 93.12
9 100 89.25 25 1500 94.48
10 120 89.42 26 2000 95.66
11 150 89.66 27 3000 97.63
12 180 89.86 28 4000 99.41
13 200 89.98 29 5000 100.90
14 220 90.10 30 7000 103.82
15 250 90.26 31 8000 105.06
16 280 90.42 32 10000 107.38
- Efficiency of hydropower plant: Efficiency of unit at the calculation time
depends on rated water head and discharge through turbine. In the calculation of
daily hydro-energy operation of reservoir simulation, average efficiency of
powerhouse is selected at 0.88.
2.5 CALCULATION, SIMULATION OF RESERVOIR
The process of reservoir simulation calculation is executed according
hydrological years, with hydrological calculation data obtaned in 50 years
starting from June 1, 1975 to May 31, 2007.
On the basic of the data calculation as mentioned above, calculating hydro-
energy simulation in two cases:
- Without Thanh Son reservoir in downstream of Trung Son hydropower plant
- With Thanh Son reservoir in downstream of Trung Son hydropower plant

2.6 WITHOUT THANH SON RESERVOIR IN DOWNSTREAM OF TRUNG
SON HYDROPOWER PLANT (CASE 1)
2.6.1. Electric energy (Case 1)
- The results of hydro energy calculation shown that the Energy difference
between daily flow and monthy flow for calculation is about -4.6%. The results
of calculation reflected variation in simulation operation of reservoir according
to average daily flow and average monthy flow. Trung Son reservoir has small
regulation coefficient E= 0.015. Furthermore, the reservoir uses 2 months
period as flood control for lowlands (from 15
th
July to 15
th
September annualy,
reservoir water level at 150.0m elevation) hence regulation capacity of the
reservoir in such period is not well enough. During flood control period, when
natural inflow to reservoir is greater than maximum discharge for power
generation, the redundant discharge will be released through the spillway (such
redundant discharge shall not be considered as reservoir storage volume). The
monthy average flow covers the average flow of incoming floods to reservoir,
so, the redundant discharge through spillway of about 9% was calculated in
reservoir discharge simulation. The daily average flow shown the incoming
floods to the reservoir, so, the redundant discharge through spillway of 14%
was calculated in reservoir discharge simulation. (greater than simulation of
monthy average flow). According evaluation made by Design Consultant, the
hydro energy simulation calculation results by daily average flow are more
reliable than the hydro energy simulation calculation results by monthy average
flow.

Table 2-5: Results of hydro-energy calculation of Trung Son HPP using daily flow
data, without Thanh Son reservoir in downstream of powerhouse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| No | Qs | Qtbin | Qx | Htt | N | E |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. 112.70 112.17 .00 65.31 63.78 558.68
2. 184.43 165.79 14.50 67.44 93.59 819.86
3. 193.34 172.10 23.60 66.49 96.13 842.10
4. 290.12 225.92 60.81 66.89 125.47 1099.11
5. 234.88 200.85 33.33 67.35 114.49 1002.94
6. 225.50 198.62 26.29 67.42 112.92 989.14
7. 285.93 232.26 53.08 67.02 130.67 1144.65
8. 265.17 222.07 42.51 67.15 125.65 1100.68
9. 196.35 188.96 7.71 67.35 107.41 940.95
10. 259.87 211.02 47.38 67.16 117.19 1026.60
11. 205.69 183.57 21.52 67.59 103.84 909.67
12. 154.83 143.59 14.07 66.23 81.86 717.09
13. 186.31 168.94 13.41 66.88 94.47 827.54
14. 232.57 212.00 19.99 67.17 118.57 1038.68
15. 253.44 200.21 52.65 67.28 111.19 974.03
16. 249.88 206.54 42.76 67.27 116.24 1018.25
17. 341.71 233.54 107.58 66.94 130.34 1141.74
18. 228.45 212.48 15.39 67.32 121.21 1061.83
19. 274.81 214.58 59.65 67.19 121.91 1067.91
20. 233.28 199.87 32.82 67.40 113.95 998.16
21. 221.72 209.59 11.55 67.37 119.18 1043.98
22. 314.56 272.84 41.13 66.71 154.54 1353.73
23. 238.89 220.43 17.92 67.31 124.91 1094.21
24. 255.04 208.25 46.16 67.35 118.06 1034.22
25. 255.54 237.42 17.54 67.05 134.30 1176.43
26. 292.48 246.29 45.60 66.94 139.44 1221.46
27. 203.34 186.93 15.83 67.61 107.85 944.77
28. 228.78 214.81 13.38 67.31 122.77 1075.48
29. 249.90 218.34 30.97 67.31 125.13 1096.15
30. 207.13 200.24 6.31 67.48 114.14 999.85
31. 175.81 161.98 13.23 67.84 93.08 815.42
32. 175.43 158.94 15.91 67.84 91.86 804.68
33. 229.75 205.65 23.51 67.37 118.08 1034.39
34. 275.91 234.00 41.32 66.99 131.43 1151.34
35. 206.27 181.01 24.68 67.58 101.18 886.35
36. 155.24 149.25 5.40 67.94 85.82 751.76
37. 172.08 164.69 6.80 67.83 94.78 830.31
38. 340.05 250.28 90.25 66.27 138.95 1217.23
39. 263.38 208.67 53.06 67.16 116.12 1017.22
40. 354.29 243.20 110.50 66.72 136.92 1199.39
41. 277.88 206.47 70.81 67.32 116.53 1020.81
42. 136.77 135.86 3.59 65.87 77.28 676.99
43. 226.20 203.78 18.60 67.30 115.69 1013.43
44. 249.11 221.13 27.39 67.29 124.98 1094.86
45. 292.05 248.47 42.99 66.86 139.14 1218.85
46. 333.96 269.39 63.98 66.56 151.24 1324.91
47. 242.04 223.27 18.18 67.27 128.20 1123.05
48. 248.41 218.69 29.38 67.29 123.05 1077.94
49. 264.07 206.05 57.20 67.24 116.84 1023.55
50. 161.65 146.66 17.94 67.84 82.89 726.09
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|TT| NWL | MWL | Vtb | Vc | Vhi | Vplu | Q0 | Qtbin | Qxa | Qdb | Qmax | Hmax |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 160.00 150.00 348.53 236.40 112.13 112.13 237.14 203.15 33.40 66.53 504.0 71.07
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|TT| Hmin | Htb | Nlm | Ndb | Ntb | E0 | Elu | Eki | Emua | Ekho | Hsd | Beta |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 48.05 64.85 260.00 41.75 114.91 1006.57 649.00 357.57 549.13 457.44 3871. .0150
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In which:
- Q
s
: Incoming discharge to Trung Son dam site (m
3
/s)
- Q
tbin
: Discharge through turbine (m
3
/s)
- Q
x
: Redundant discharge through spillway (m
3
/s)
- H
tt
: Water head (m)
- N: Capacity (MW)
- E: Electric energy (million kWh)
- NWL: Normal water level (m)
- MWL: Minimum water level (m)
- V
tb
: Total storage volume (million m
3
)
- V
c
: Dead storage (million m
3
)
- Q
0
: Annual average discharge to dam site (m
3
/s)
- Q
db
: Firm discharge (m
3
/s)
- Q
max
: Design discharge through turbine (m
3
/s)
- H
max
: Maximum water head (m)
- H
min
: Minimum water head(m)
- H
tb
: Average water head (m)
- N
lm
: Installed capacity (MW)
- N
b
: Firm capacity (MW)
- E
0
: Long-term average electric energy (million kWh)
- E
flood season
: Long-term average electric energy in flood season (million kWh)
- E
dry flow season
: Long-term average electric energy in dry flow season (million kWh)
- E
wet season
: Long-term average electric energy in raining season (million kWh)
- E
dry season
: Long-term average electric energy in dry season (million kWh)
2.6.2. Trung Son hydropower plant tailrace water level (case 1)
- During the dry season days, the powerhouse is always operated with one
turbine to ensure the release discharge to downstream to avoid great fluctuation
in water level at downstream. The process of fluctuation in water level at
downstream is considered as the most dangerous case when the power plant
increases from 40% 50% capacity of one unit to installed capacity (N
lm
=
260MW), equivalent to discharge increasing from minimum discharge of one
unit (about 63m
3
/s) to powerhouse design discharge of 522m
3
/s. During the
operating process, it is not permitted to increase discharge to level which is
greater than natural increase discharge before existence of reservoir. The
maximum natural increased discharge taken place in range of < 700m
3
/s in
period from 1957 to 2007 as shown in below statistical table:
Table 2-6: Process of maximum natural increased discharge (<700 m
3
/s) in period from
1957 to 2007

Time Qday & night (m
3
/s) Q (m
3
/s)
Discharge increased
time (hour)
Note
Nov 13, 1966 124.37
Nov 14, 1966 675.3 551.0 12
Nov 15, 1966 653.3

Oct 16, 1985 220.2
Oct 17, 1985 690.2 470.0 12
Oct 18, 1985 632.9

Sept 14, 1998 208.0
Sept 15, 1998 664.8 456.7 24
Sept 16, 1998 757.8

July 23, 1989 201.3
July 24, 1989 653.1 451.8 24
July 25, 1989 1343.6

Oct 3, 1989 201.9
Oct 4, 1989 641.1 439.2 24
Oct 5, 1989 769.4

Sept 20, 1992 252.1
Sept 21, 1992 688.1 436.0 24
Sept 22, 1992 837.5

Oct 24, 1971 186.7
Oct 25, 1971 619.5 432.7 12
Oct 26, 1971 591.9

Nov 8, 1984 182.3
Nov 9, 1984 597.1 414.8 24
Nov 10, 1984 1300.2

Oct 12, 1988 174.6
Oct 13, 1988 574.6 400.0 24
Oct 14, 1988 1396.2

July 20, 1974 236.3
July 21, 1974 634.3 398.0 24
July 22, 1974 691.0
Average 445.0
- The table above shown that the hourly average natural increased discharge was
about 40 m
3
. So, in order to increase operating discharge from 63m
3
/s (50%
maximum discharge of one unit) to 522 m
3
/s (design discharge of powerhouse),
it is required at least 11 hours
2.6.3. Specific characteristics of flow at power plant tailrace in daily period
The plant tailrace daily average water level, natural daily average water level at
river across section in powerhouse area, daily average discharge at tailrace of
power plant, natural daily average discharge at river cross-section in
powerhouse area are shown in below figures:

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
t
u
d
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

2
3

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

a
n
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

a
t

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
l
a
n
t

(
P
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

T
h
a
n
h

S
o
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
8
8
.
5
0
8
9
.
0
0
8
9
.
5
0
9
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
5
0
9
1
.
0
0
9
1
.
5
0
9
2
.
0
0
9
2
.
5
0
0
2
5
5
0
7
5
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
5
0
1
7
5
2
0
0
2
2
5
2
5
0
2
7
5
3
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
0
3
7
5
4
0
0
T
i
m
e

(
d
a
y
)
W a t e r l e v e l ( m )
P
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
t
u
d
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

2
4

W
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

i
n

l
i
t
t
l
e

w
a
t
e
r

y
e
a
r

w
i
t
h

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
=
9
0
%

a
n
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

a
t

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
l
a
n
t

(
p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

T
h
a
n
h

S
o
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
8
8
.
5
0
8
9
.
0
0
8
9
.
5
0
9
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
5
0
9
1
.
0
0
9
1
.
5
0
9
2
.
0
0
9
2
.
5
0
9
3
.
0
0
9
3
.
5
0
9
4
.
0
0
0
2
5
5
0
7
5
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
5
0
1
7
5
2
0
0
2
2
5
2
5
0
2
7
5
3
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
0
3
7
5
4
0
0
T
i
m
e

(
d
a
y
)
P
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
t
u
d
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

2
5

W
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

i
n

m
u
c
h

w
a
t
e
r

y
e
a
r

w
i
t
h

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
=
1
0
%

a
n
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

a
t

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
l
a
n
t

(
I
n

c
a
s
e

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

T
h
a
n
h

S
o
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
8
8
.
0
0
8
9
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
0
9
1
.
0
0
9
2
.
0
0
9
3
.
0
0
9
4
.
0
0
9
5
.
0
0
0
2
5
5
0
7
5
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
5
0
1
7
5
2
0
0
2
2
5
2
5
0
2
7
5
3
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
0
3
7
5
4
0
0
T
i
m
e

(
d
a
y
)
P
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
t
u
d
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

2
6

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
n
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
t

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

(
I
n

c
a
s
e

P
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

T
h
a
n
h

S
o
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
2
0
0
.
0
3
0
0
.
0
4
0
0
.
0
5
0
0
.
0
6
0
0
.
0
7
0
0
.
0
8
0
0
.
0
0
2
5
5
0
7
5
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
5
0
1
7
5
2
0
0
2
2
5
2
5
0
2
7
5
3
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
0
3
7
5
4
0
0
T
i
m
e

(
d
a
y
)
D i s c h a r g e ( m
3
/ s )
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
t

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
t

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
t
u
d
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

2
7

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

i
n

l
i
t
t
l
e

w
a
t
e
r

y
e
a
r

w
i
t
h

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
=
9
0
%

a
n
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
t

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

(
I
n

c
a
s
e

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

T
h
a
n
h

S
o
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
5
5
0
7
5
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
5
0
1
7
5
2
0
0
2
2
5
2
5
0
2
7
5
3
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
0
3
7
5
4
0
0
T
i
m
e

(
d
a
y
)
3
/ s )
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
t

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
t

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
t
u
d
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

2
8

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

i
n

m
u
c
h

w
a
t
e
r

y
e
a
r

w
i
t
h

P
=
1
0
%

a
n
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
t

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

(
I
n

c
a
s
e

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

T
h
a
n
h

S
o
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
2
5
5
0
7
5
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
5
0
1
7
5
2
0
0
2
2
5
2
5
0
2
7
5
3
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
0
3
7
5
4
0
0
T
i
m
e
(
d
a
y
)
3
/ s )
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
t

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
t

p
l
a
n
t

t
a
i
l
r
a
c
e

Trung Son hydropower project Feasibility Study
2.6.4. Specific characteristics of flow at power plant tailrace in hourly period
For estimation of flow specific characteristics fluctuation level (water level,
discharge) in hourly period at river cross-section at powerhouse area, the
Design Consultant calculated some operation cases, particularly as below:
Table 2-7:Operation of Trung Son hydropower plant in case daily average discharge of 234 m
3
/s
released to downstream
Hour
Discharge(m
3
/s)
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Total Increasing
1 63 63
2 63 63
3 63 63
4 63 63
5 63 63
6 63 63
7 63 63
8 126 126 63
9 126 126
10 126 126
11 126 63 189 63
12 126 63 63 252 63
13 126 126 63 315 63
14 126 126 126 378 63
15 126 126 126 378
16 126 126 126 378
17 126 126 126 63 441 63
18 126 126 126 126 504 63
19 126 126 126 126 504
20 126 126 126 126 504
21 126 126 126 126 504
22 126 63 63 63 315 -189
23 63 63 -252
24 63 63
Average 102 55 50 26 234


Table 2-8: Operation of Trung Son hydropower plant in case daily average discharge of 200 m
3
/s
Hour
Discharge(m
3
/s)
1 63 63
2 63 63
3 63 63
4 63 63
5 63 63
6 63 63
7 63 63
8 63 63
9 126 126 63
10 126 126
11 126 126
12 126 126
13 126 126
14 126 63 189 63
15 126 63 63 252 63
16 126 126 63 315 63
17 126 126 63 63 378 63
18 126 126 126 63 441 63
19 126 126 126 126 504 63
20 126 126 126 126 504
21 126 126 126 126 504
22 126 63 63 63 315 -189
23 63 63 63 189 -126
24 63 63 -126
Average 100 42 34 24 200

3
/s
Hour
Discharge(m
3
/s)
1 63 63
2 63 63
3 63 63
4 63 63
5 63 63
6 63 63
7 63 63
8 63 63
9 63 63
10 63 63
11 63 63
12 126 126 63
13 126 126
14 126 126
15 126 63 189 63
16 126 126 252 63
17 126 126 63 315 63
18 126 126 126 378 63
19 126 126 126 378
20 126 126 126 378
21 126 126 126 378
22 126 63 63 252 -126
23 63 63 -189
24 63 63
Average 92 37 26 155

3
/s
Hour
Discharge(m
3
/s)
1 63 63
2 63 63
3 63 63
4 63 63
5 63 63
6 63 63
7 63 63
8 63 63
9 63 63
10 63 63
11 63 63
12 63 63
13 63 63
14 126 126 63
15 126 126
16 126 126
17 126 63 189 63
18 126 126 252 63
19 126 126 252
20 126 126 252
21 63 63 126 -126
22 63 63 -63
23 63 63
24 63 63
Average 81 21 102

2.6.5. Trung Son hydropower reservoir water level fluctuation (case1)
- Regulation on maximum water level of reservoir: from 15
th
July to 15
th

September annually, maximum water level of reservoir is regulated at minimum
water level of 150.0m to control flood for lowlands (according regulation on
water level of reservoir specified in Trung Son hydropower reservoir operation
rules which was approved by Ministry of Industry and Trade). According
stability calculation of the reservoir banks (in some areas with possibility of
reservoir banks collapse and sliding), it is shown that the requirement on
process of draining water level in reservoir should not be greater than 0.7m/day
and night, therefore in the hydro energy calculation, the time requested for
draining water level in reservoir from NWL=160.0m down MWL=150.0m
should be over 15 days. In the actual reservoir operation process, depending on
incoming flow discharge in initial flood season, reservoir draining to lower
water level should be made suitably, to ensure minimum redundant discharge
and increase electricity generation output. The actual process of draining
reservoir water level can be twenty days to drain water level from 160.0m down
to water level at 150.0m.
- The generation discharge include natural incoming discharge to reservoir and
discharge supplied from reservoir. The reservoir discharge supply potential is
shown in below table:
Table 2-11: Discharge supply potential from Trung Son hydropower reservoir
No.
Elevation
Z (m)
Surface area
of reservoir F
(km
2
)
Storage capacity
of reservoir V
(10
6
m
3
)
Discharge supply
from the reservoir
Q
cp
(m
3
/s)
Remarks
1 160.0 13.13 348.5
2 159.0 12.72 336.4 140.0
3 158.0 12.31 324.3 140.0
4 157.0 11.90 312.2 140.0
5 156.0 11.49 300.2 140.0
6 155.0 11.08 288.1 140.0
7 154.0 10.78 277.7 119.6
8 153.0 10.49 267.4 119.6
9 152.0 10.19 257.1 119.6
10 151.0 9.90 246.7 119.6
11 150.0 9.60 236.4 119.6

- The process of reservoir impounding shall begin from 15
th
September annually. The
reservoir impounding is allowable to full water level from time to time as possible
because the erosion to reservoir banks shall not be taken place during process of
impounding water
T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
t
u
d
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

3
4

T
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

c
u
r
v
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

w
i
t
h

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

9
0
%

o
f

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

(

D
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

T
h
a
n
h

S
o
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
1
4
9
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
1
5
1
.
0
1
5
2
.
0
1
5
3
.
0
1
5
4
.
0
1
5
5
.
0
1
5
6
.
0
1
5
7
.
0
1
5
8
.
0
1
5
9
.
0
1
6
0
.
0
1
6
1
.
0
0
2
5
5
0
7
5
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
5
0
1
7
5
2
0
0
2
2
5
2
5
0
2
7
5
3
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
0
3
7
5
4
0
0
T
i
m
e

(
d
a
y
)

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
t
u
d
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

3
5

T
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

c
u
r
v
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

w
i
t
h

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

1
0
%

o
f

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

(

D
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

T
h
a
n
h

S
o
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
1
4
9
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
1
5
1
.
0
1
5
2
.
0
1
5
3
.
0
1
5
4
.
0
1
5
5
.
0
1
5
6
.
0
1
5
7
.
0
1
5
8
.
0
1
5
9
.
0
1
6
0
.
0
1
6
1
.
0
0
2
5
5
0
7
5
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
5
0
1
7
5
2
0
0
2
2
5
2
5
0
2
7
5
3
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
0
3
7
5
4
0
0
T
i
m
e

(
d
a
y
)
T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
t
u
d
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

3
6

T
h
e

a
v
e
a
r
g
e

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

c
u
r
v
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
f

T
r
u
n
g

S
o
n

h
y
d
r
o
p
o
w
e
r

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

(

D
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

T
h
a
n
h

S
o
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
1
4
9
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
1
5
1
.
0
1
5
2
.
0
1
5
3
.
0
1
5
4
.
0
1
5
5
.
0
1
5
6
.
0
1
5
7
.
0
1
5
8
.
0
1
5
9
.
0
1
6
0
.
0
1
6
1
.
0
0
2
5
5
0
7
5
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
5
0
1
7
5
2
0
0
2
2
5
2
5
0
2
7
5
3
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
0
3
7
5
4
0
0
T
i
m
e

(
d
a
y
)
2.7 DOWNSTREAM WITH THANH SON RESERVOIR (CASE 2)
2.7.1. Electric energy (case 2)
- In case with Thanh Son Hydropower reservoir (Normal Water Level = 89.0m)
located downstream of Trung Son hydro powerhouse, the toe of Trung Son
hydro powerhouse is submerged. The hydro energy calculation results show
that the energy decreases inconsiderable in compared with the case of
insubmerged powerhouse toe (0.08 million KWh). See details as below:
Table 2-12: Hydro energy calculation results of Trung Son using daily flow data, with Thanh Son
reservoir dowstream of Trung Son HPP
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| No | Qs | Qtbin | Qx | Htt | N | E |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. 112.70 112.17 .00 65.13 63.71 558.07
2. 184.43 165.79 14.50 67.39 93.57 819.64
3. 193.34 172.10 23.59 66.44 96.11 841.90
4. 290.12 225.93 60.81 66.87 125.46 1099.06
5. 234.88 200.84 33.32 67.34 114.48 1002.84
6. 225.50 198.62 26.29 67.40 112.91 989.06
7. 285.93 232.26 53.07 67.01 130.67 1144.65
8. 265.17 222.08 42.50 67.14 125.64 1100.61
9. 196.35 188.98 7.71 67.32 107.41 940.89
10. 259.87 211.01 47.38 67.14 117.17 1026.42
11. 205.69 183.58 21.52 67.58 103.84 909.60
12. 154.83 143.59 14.06 66.19 81.84 716.88
13. 186.31 168.94 13.40 66.84 94.45 827.34
14. 232.57 212.00 19.99 67.14 118.56 1038.55
15. 253.44 200.22 52.64 67.26 111.18 973.95
16. 249.88 206.55 42.75 67.26 116.24 1018.22
17. 341.71 233.54 107.57 66.93 130.34 1141.75
18. 228.45 212.48 15.38 67.31 121.21 1061.81
19. 274.81 214.58 59.64 67.18 121.90 1067.88
20. 233.28 199.87 32.82 67.40 113.95 998.18
21. 221.72 209.59 11.55 67.36 119.18 1043.98
22. 314.56 272.85 41.13 66.71 154.54 1353.75
23. 238.89 220.43 17.92 67.29 124.90 1094.15
24. 255.04 208.25 46.15 67.33 118.05 1034.14
25. 255.54 237.42 17.54 67.04 134.29 1176.39
26. 292.48 246.30 45.59 66.94 139.44 1221.47
27. 203.34 186.93 15.82 67.60 107.85 944.73
28. 228.78 214.82 13.38 67.31 122.77 1075.49
29. 249.90 218.34 30.96 67.31 125.13 1096.15
30. 207.13 200.24 6.31 67.48 114.13 999.81
31. 175.81 161.99 13.22 67.83 93.08 815.37
32. 175.43 158.94 15.91 67.82 91.85 804.58
33. 229.75 205.66 23.51 67.36 118.08 1034.38
34. 275.91 234.01 41.31 66.99 131.43 1151.34
35. 206.27 181.01 24.68 67.56 101.17 886.29
36. 155.24 149.25 5.40 67.91 85.80 751.62
37. 172.08 164.70 6.80 67.81 94.77 830.22
38. 340.05 250.32 90.25 66.24 138.95 1217.24
39. 263.38 208.65 53.05 67.13 116.09 1016.92
40. 354.29 243.20 110.50 66.72 136.92 1199.41
41. 277.88 206.48 70.81 67.30 116.52 1020.74
42. 136.77 135.86 3.59 65.79 77.24 676.64
43. 226.20 203.79 18.60 67.29 115.68 1013.37
44. 249.11 221.14 27.39 67.29 124.98 1094.83
45. 292.05 248.48 42.98 66.85 139.14 1218.83
46. 333.96 269.40 63.97 66.56 151.25 1324.94
47. 242.04 223.27 18.18 67.27 128.20 1123.06
48. 248.41 218.70 29.38 67.27 123.04 1077.86
49. 264.07 206.06 57.19 67.22 116.83 1023.43
50. 161.65 146.67 17.93 67.80 82.87 725.91
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|TT| NWL | MNL | Vtb | Vc | Vhi | Vplu | Q0 | Qtbin | Qxa | Qdb | Qmax | Hmax |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 160.00 150.00 348.53 236.40 112.13 112.13 237.14 203.16 33.40 65.84 504.0 70.95
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|TT| Hmin | Htb | Nlm | Ndb | Ntb | E0 | Elu | Eki | Emua | Ekho | Hsd | Beta |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 48.05 64.85 260.00 41.25 114.90 1006.49 649.01 357.48 549.15 457.34 3871. .0150
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In which:
- Q
s
: Discharge coming to dam site of Trung Son (m
3
/s)
- Q
tbin
: Discharge through turbine (m
3
/s)
- Q
x
: Redundant discharge release to spillway(m
3
/s)
- H
tt
: Water head calculation (m)
- N: Capacity (MW)
- E: Electric energy (million kWh)
- NWL: Normal water level (m)
- MWL: Minimum water level (m)
- V
tb
: Total storage capacity (million m
3
)
- V
c
: Dead storage (million m
3
)
- Q
0
: Annual average discharge to dam site(m
3
/s)
- Q
db
: Firm discharge (m
3
/s)
- Q
max
: Design discharge through powerhouse(m
3
/s)
- H
max
: Maximum water head (m)
- H
min
: Minimum water head (m)
- H
tb
: Average water head (m)
- N
lm
: Installed capacity (MW)
- N
b
: Firm capacity(MW)
- E
0
: Long-term average electric energy (million kWh)
- E
flood season
: Long-term average electric energy in flood season (million kWh)
- E
dry flow season
: Long-term average electric energy in dry flow season (million kWh)
- E
wet season
: Long-term average electric energy in raining season (million kWh)
- E
dry season
: Long-term average electric energy in dry season (million kWh)
2.7.2. Trung Son hydropower Plant tailrace water level (Case 2)
- The catchment basin area calculate to damsite of Trung Son HPP is 14660
km
2
, to damsite of Thanh Son HPP is 14760 km
2
, middle catchment basin area
is 100 km
2

- Downstream of Trung Son hydropower plant is Thanh Son hydropower plant,
so Trung Son Hydropower Plant tailrace water level is always higher than
minimum water level of Thanh Son hydropower plant. The Thanh Son HPP is
design with dam combined with spillway in Ma river and dam toe type
powerhouse, so the water level fluctuation in reservoir is at small range. The
Thanh Son HPP shall be operated synchronously with Trung Son HPP. As of
present time, Thanh Son hydropower project is in feasibility study stage, the
reservoir parameters such as NWL; MWL; N
lm
have not yet been defined
presisely. In case the reservoir of Thanh Son HPP has 24 hours regulation
storage volume, it is allowable to release discharge from 63m
3
/s up to 522m
3
/s
in short time from Trung Son HPP (as allowable condition of equipment of
powerhouse)
2.7.3. Trung Son HPP reservoir water level fluctuation (case 2)
- In case with Thanh Son reservoir downstream of Trung Son HPP reservoir
water levels fluctuation shall be same as in case without Thanh Son reservoir.
The possibility of reservoir impounding to maximum water level is allowable.
The reservoir water level drawn-down allowable condition should not be more
than 0.7m/24 hours. In the process of operation, depending on hydrological
condition (incoming flow to damsite) water draining capacity shall be
calculated in such a manner to ensure minimum discharge released through
spillway and maximum electric energy generation output.
Appendix 40
Chapter 3: WATER SUPPLY DEMAND FOR DOWNSTREAM
3.1 WATER DEMAND AT DOWNSTREAM
3.1.1. Scope of water demand
Water demand at Ma River downstream was accessed in many previous plans
by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). According to report
named General updating Irrigation planning of cascades to develop economy at
downstream of Ma river basin which was conducted by Water Resource Planning
Institute, under MARD, main purposes of projects on Ma River are electric generation
and flood control. Main purposes of projects on Chu River are water supply and flood
control. This does not mean downstream of Trung Son project has no water during dry
season. Impounding period of Trung Son reservoir will only take place a short time (4
days in flood season). Water demand at downstream, however, of Trung Son project,
from P/H to confluence of Ma River and Xia stream (20km) and from Xia stream to
confluence of Ma River and Luong tributary (25km), needs to be evaluated.
- River reach from P/H to confluence of Ma River and Xia stream (20km:
There are villages and local people living along both two banks. Water source
for living and irrigation is mainly groundwater and streams. They were not use water
from Ma River.
For navigation on river: Along river bank, access road was built from Co Luong
to dam site.
Therefore, environmental flow on this river reach mainly secures flora and
fauna such as land cover along banks, buffalo, cow, etc, and aquatic life. Result of
monthly flow calculation is shown in Table below:
Table 3-1: Average monthly flow within area from dam route to Xia stream.
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Q
o

(m
3
/s)
1.74 1.52 1.45 1.60 2.63 4.04 5.14 7.28 9.9 7.84 4.16 2.23
- River reach from Xia stream to confluence of Ma River and Luong tributary
(25km): There are many tributaries and large stream which has high flow supply
for Ma Rivers flow such as Xia stream, Luong and Lung tributaries, Chu River. Xia
catchment area is 249km2 with 5.21 m3/s of annual flow, 8.07 m3/s of average flood
flow, and 6.5 m3/s when diversion culvert is blocked (July).
Table 3-2: Average monthly flow of Xia stream.
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Q
o

(m
3
/s)
2.20 1.92 1.83 2.02 3.33 5.10 6.50 9.20 12.5 9.91 5.25 2.82
Luong tributary has 970 km
2
of catchment area with 23 m
3
/s of annual flow and
40 m
3
/s of average flood flow. Therefore, abundant water resource can be supplied to
this river section. Moreover, National Highway No. 15 (QL15) along river bank was
built so transportation does not be affected during reservoir impounding (3-5days on
Appendix 41
July) and flood season. Environmental flow is always secured on Ma river after Luong
tributary.
Hence, only environmental flow within river section from downstream of dam
route to confluence with Xia stream is considered.

3.1.2.

3.1.3. Water demand for Industry and daily uses.
Water demand for Industry and daily uses is considered up to 2020. According
to report named General updating Irrigation planning of cascades to develop
economy at downstream of Ma river basin, water demand for these fields as below:
Table 3-3: Water demand for Industry and daily uses
No Location Demand (m
3
/s) Note
1 Trung Sn town 0.05
2 Quan Ho town 0.05
3 B Thc town 0.10
4 Cm Thy town 0.10
Total 0.30
Ma River
Xia Catchment Area
F=249 km
2
Trung Son HPP
Xia Stream
Interstream Area
F=209 km
2

Appendix 42
3.1.4. Water demand to secure environmental and ecological system.
In order to mitigate effects on environment of Ma river reach, time to set
blocking of diversion culvert is flood season. Tentative blocking time is on July when
it often rains and flow is approximate to annual value (418m3/s) on catchment from
Trung Son dam route to Xia stream. Impounding time is 4 days to raise reservoir water
level reach to spillway crest elevation.
During impounding period, flow within river reach from dam route to
confluence with Xia stream is runoff and groundwater. This 290 km2 catchment has
average monthly flow in July with Qo= 5.14 m3/s, equivalent to 14.12% of natural
flow of Ma River at the dam site. Minimum observed monthly flow at the dam site
from 1957 to 2002 is 36.4m3/s occurred in May 1957.
According to Tenant method, environmental flow to secure ecological system
in flood season is about 10-30% of annual flow. Therefore, flow on Ma river reach
from dam site to Xia stream which is 5.14m3/s (14.12% of minimum monthly flow) is
enough to supply all demands and environment along the river reach in 04 days of
diversion culvert blocking. Then, environmental flow will be supplied by discharge
through spillway after these 4 days.
3.1.5. Conclusion
With selected method for diversion culvert blocking and time to raise reservoir
water level to spillway crest in 4 days in July, flow on 20km-Ma river reach at
downstream of Trung Son dam will supply from runoff and groundwater. Hence, there
is no any structure that need be built in order to release discharge to downstream
during 4 days of culvert blocking. Cost of project, then, will be saved.
3.2 ENVIRONMENT FLOW RELEASE MEASURES
In order to release flow discharge at 15 m
3
/s during reservoir impounding
period, it is required to install released culvert with dimension BxH=1.2x1.2m for
Trung Son HPP. The position of this released culvert is next to diversion culvert.
The hydraulic cylinders operated maintenance gate and operation gate with
dimensions 1.2x1.2m are arranged at upstream of this culvert.
Design of environment flow released culvert are shown in drawings of
appendices.
3.3 DISCHARGE OF WATER DURING OPERATION PROCESS
During operation process, water will be discharged to downstream through the
turbines of powerhouse. During operation of powerhouse, if there is any failure
encountered or ceases operation due to different causes, water will be discharged
through spillway to maintain environment flow and water supply demand for
downstream without needing any other discharge structures, because the spillway weir
Appendix 43
elevation is set at 145m and minimum water level is set at 150m (5m higher than
spillway crest elevation).
3.4 DISCHARGE OF MUD AND SAND
According to the calculation about sedimentation in reservoir of Trung Son
HPP, after 100 years, the quantity of mud and sand still do not reach to the intake gate
elevation. Mud and sand will be mainly accumulated in the end part and middle part of
reservoir, so it is not necessary to install discharge outlet for mud and sand. The results
of calculation in 2.2 Subject calculation sediment backwater Trung Son HPP, after
100 years operation, sediment elevation at section near the dam at 97.0m
3.5 RESERVOIR DEWATERING
According to the ruling standards of Vietnam as well as many other countries in
the world, there is no obligation for installation of drainage system for reservoir
dewatering.
3.6 CONCLUSION
Installation of a culvert to release water to downstream at 15m
3
/s discharge to
maintain ecological environment during reservoir impounding period is necessary.
When the reservoir impounding is up to the full supply water level, the
discharge culvert ceases its role, and according to the relevant regulations, there is no
need to install culvert for reservoir dewatering. Specific calculations on sedimentation
confirmed that it is not required to arrange culvert for discharging mud and sand.

Appendix 44
Chapter 4: RESERVOIR AND DOWNSTREAM LANDSLIDE
POSSIBILITY FORECAST
4.1 RESERVOIR BANK LANDSIDE POSSIBILITY
4.1.1. CALCULATION DATA
4.1.1.1 Table of physical mechanical properties indices stability calculation
bank of reservoir
Table 4-1: Physical-mechical properties indices stability calculation bank of reservoir
Material layer J (T/m
3
)
(natural/saturated)
M
(natural/saturated)
C (KG/cm
2
)
(natural/saturated)
edQ 1.72/1.79 0.18/0.16
IA1 1.65/1.77 25/18 0.24/0.18
IA2 1.68/1.79 25 0.22
IB 2.66/2.68 29 2.00
IIA 2.77/2.79 37 2.50
4.1.1.2 Project grade: grade II
Stability safe factor allowable of project: According Vietnamese construction
standard TCXD V 285: 2002 with project grade II, natural slope, safety factor is
calculated according to the formula as follow:
k n
c
.k
n
/m
In which:
n
c
: Load combination factor. For basic load combination: n
c
=1, for
special load combination: n
c
=0.9.
k
n
: Guarantee factor calculated according to project scale and tasks.
Project grade II. Guarantee factor is taken as k
n
=1.2.
m: Operating condition factor. For natural and artificial slope m=1.
with parameters as above, safety factor is calculated as follow:
- Basic load combination : k = 1.20
- Special load combination : k= 1.08
4.1.1.3 Location of section calculation
According topographical, geological condition at reservoir foundation area
studied in technical design stage to choose reservoir bank section easy to sliding
Specifically are 5 typical sections with features as below: sloping topographical,
thick weak geological zone and thin covering vegetation layer to calculate and check
stability
See location of calculation sections in drawing chart location of section
stability calculation see in appendix
Appendix 45
4.1.2. CALCULATION CASE
atural slope of reservoir foundation area is stability through time when
reservoir is not impounding and more stability after impounding at regular
water level exploit. So that it needs to check for two danger cases as follow:
- Fast drain reservoil water level frome WL=160.0m down to MWL=150.0m
follow different time step . (Special load combination)
- Fast drain reservoil water level frome WL=160.0m down to MWL=150.0m
follow different time step and underground water level is raised to surface of slope.
(Special load combination according to WB recommend)
From calculation results for two cases as above to recommend reasonable time
period to drain water of reservoir in operation process.
4.1.3. SOFTWARE CALCULATION
The program use to calculate stability: Slope/w software of Canada. Analysis
method: Bishop and Janbu, these are two methods applicable worldwide for
slope stability analysis.
4.1.4. CALCULATION RESULTS
Table 4-2: Calculation result table according to recommend case of Consultant
Section
calculation
Case Case
K
min min

[K]
Bishop
Janbu
Section 1
Drain water in 5 days Case 1
1.41 1.35
1.08 Drain water in 10 days Case 2 1.50 1.45
Drain water in 15 days Case 3 1.55 1.49
Section 2
1.04 1.01
Section 3
1.29 1.29
Section 4 at left
bank
1.01 0.98
Section 4 at
right bank
1.02 0.99
Section 5
1.06 1.04
(Detail see in appendix)
Appendix 46
Table 4-3: Calculation result table according to recommend case of WB
Section
calculation
Case
K
min min
[K]
Bishop Janbu
Section1
Underground water level is raised to
the surface of the slope
0.80 0.79 1.08
Section2
0.40 0.37 1.08
Section3
0.70 0.68 1.08
Section 4 at left
bank
0.44 0.42 1.08
Section 4 at
right bank
0.55 0.54 1.08
Section5
0.40 0.37 1.08
(See details in appendix)
4.1.5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION FROM CALCULATION
COMBINATION DONE BY CONSULTANT
According to calculation result mentioned in Table 4-2, recommendation can be
made, as follow:
- The banks of reservoir shall be instable in case water level draining from
WL=160m down to MWL=150m in period time 5 days for Bishop method and 10
days for Janbu method. However in practical operation reservoir, water level draining
from WL=160m down to MWL=150m shall be taken place in 20 days period.
- In the process of operation reservoir, the reservoir drawn-down water level in
24 hours period should not be over 0.7m to protect environment and stable reservoir
banks.
4.1.6. ANALYSIS RECOMMEND CASE OF WB
For Consultancy, WB has recommended a case which is a extreme case, in fact
it cannot occur because of the following reasons:
- The formation process of underground water level is happened in a long time
and stabilized versus time. The fluctuation of underground water level is just occured
at the location water level adjacent of river bank. Therefore, the case underground
water level is raised to the surface of the slope which cannot occur. In fact it is
checked in process exploratory drilling geologic for many.
- The natural rive bank slope of Trung Son HPP area is heavy gradient (from 30
0
to

45
0
). Therefore the water shall be discharged follow subsurface flow down natural
water-course when it has heavy rain, only a small part of the rain-water percolation
Appendix 47
into underground. The part of leakage water just enough to do water-saturated soil sub-
grade lap on surface of the slope and it cannot raise to the slope surface.
- Consultancy has checked realistic condition that: the slopes when HPP doesnt
build yet which is stabilized before age-old with reputed that underground water level
is raised to the surface of the slope by heavy rain, results show all the slopes in shear
with safe factors are very low, that fact indicate calculation case as above never occur.
(Results have shown at table 4-3 and in appendix).
4.2 EROSION RIVER BED OF RESERVOIR DOWNSTREAM
The river bed erosion is a part of the process of moving sediment cause flow.
This phenomena is happening continuous in the time. To estimate erode ability river
bed for specific river. measurement data and study about sediment moving flow
include suspended load and bed load in a necessary period time. In addition. factors
effect to the sediment moving process as form of river bed. covering vegetation bed.
geological structure of river bed and banks. ..etc.
owadays. there are studies in the world about erosion and moving layers at
river bed cause by flow for different grain component types. The method calculations
usually application so much and was mention in Handbook of Hydrology. Chapter 12
of David R.Maidment author. McGraw-Hill publisher. Inc.. 1992 include: Mayer-
Peter and Muller (1948). Einstein (1950). Bagnold (1956.1966. 1973). and
Paker (1990). In which. Mayer-Peter method and Muller method was application for
river bed has coarse grain component. grain size from 0.4mm to 30mm. The Bagnold
method using for flow has much content sediment. The Einstein method is nearly
complete and the most suitable. The other methods are necessary to estimation much
more.
Out of Mayer-Peter and Muller method as mentioned above. other methods as
Acker and White (1973). England-Hansen (1967). Laursen-Copeland (1968.1989).
Toffeleti (1968). Yang (1973.1984). Wilcock (2001. 2003) was introduction in HEC-
RAS 4.0 (HEC-6) software to calculate moving sediment ability by flow.
Downstream riverbed erosion assessment for Trung Son HPP is a complicated
study which requires a lot of data, including accuracy measured and observed data, to
apply for a specific erosion modeling. However, based on the current data, the
consultant can give the overview about erodibility of riverbed as follows:
Riverbed geological formation at downstream of the dam: the riverbed was
formed mainly by medium to slightly weathered rock with medium hardness. Its
compressive strength and shearing resistance are about 10 MPa and 0.36MPa
respectively. The erodible velocity (critical velocity) for such kind of riverbed is found
at 8 m/s. Moreover, only some location along the river was found that having
deposition with small scale. Further to downstream of project, there is no officially
measured or investigated data of riverbed geological formation. However, based on
observed of our geological engineers observation during the time period for site
investigation, most of riverbed was found medium to slightly weathered rock (see the
Figure below).
In order to assess, a narrow river cross section, of which section, geological
condition, and water level data are available, was selected. The consultant checked for
Appendix 48
different discharge rate from a half of unit discharge to check flood discharge through
powerhouse and spillway. Result of hydraulic calculation is shown in table below:

Discharge (m
3
/s) Water level (m) Wet area (m
2
) Velocity (m/s)
63 (0.5 unit) 87.9 283.7 0.2
126 (1 unit) 88.4 322.0 0.4
252 (2 units) 89.1 378.3 0.7
378 (3 units) 89.6 429.0 0.9
504 (4 units) 90.1 463.9 1.1
10400 (design flood) 103.8 2009.4 5.2
13400 (check flood) 106.3 2328.1 5.8
The result stated that water speed is always less than the critical speed. In
general, with such geology condition of the riverbed mentioned, additional study on
riverbed erosion should not take account.
4.3 SLIDING AT BANKS OF DOWNSTREAM
4.3.1. CALCULATION DATA
4.3.1.1 Table of physical mechanical properties indices stability calculation
bank of downstream
Table 4-4: Physical-mechical properties indices stability calculation bank of
downstream
Material layer J (T/m
3
)
atural/Saturated
M
atural/Saturated
C (KG/cm
2
)
atural/Saturated
edQ 1.72/1.79 0.18/0.16
IA1 1.65/1.77 25/18 0.24/0.18
IA2 1.68/1.79 25 0.22
IB 2.66/2.68 29 2.00
IIA 2.77/2.79 37 2.50
4.3.1.2 Project grade: grade II
Stability safe factor allowable of project: According Vietnamese construction
standard TCXD V 285: 2002 with project grade II. natural slope. safe factor is
calculated according to the formula as follow:
k n
c
.k
n
/m
In which:
n
c
: Load combination factor. For basic load combination: n
c
=1. for
special load combination: n
c
=0.9.
k
n
: Guarantee factor calculated according to project size and tasks.
Project grade II. Guarantee factor is taken as k
n
=1.2.
m: Operating condition factor. For natural and artificial slope m=1.
with parameters as above. safe factor is calculated as follow:
- Basic load combination : k = 1.20
Appendix 49
- Special load combination : k= 1.08

4.3.1.3 Location of section calculation
Acoording topographical. geological condition at reservoir foundation area
studied in technical design stage to choose reservoir bank section prone to sliding
possibility.
Specifically are 4 typical sections with features as below: sloping topographical,
thick weak geological zone and thin covering vegetation bed layer to calculate and
check stability
Location of section calculation see in drawing chart location of section
stability calculation attached to this report.
4.3.2. CALCULATION CASE
atural slope at downstream reservoir after exist project. Water level is only
fluctuation mainly in range from 107m elevation to 90.2m elevation. In this
range belong river bed area so geological is rather good. mainly IB rock layer
and IIA rock layer so fast drain water process is not effect more to slope
stability of banks at downstream. In this appendix it is only checking for the
most dangerous case. in the operation reservoir process water level at
downstream is draining fast from 104.5m (corresponding to release design
flood P=0.5%) down to 90.2m (corresponding to Q=504m
3
/s through
powerhouse) in 5 days period of time.
4.3.3. SOFTWARE CALCULATION
The program use to calculate stability: Slope/w software of Canada. Analysis
method: Bishop and Janbu, these are two methods applicale worldwide for
slope stability analysis.
4.3.4. RESULTS CALCULATION
Table 4-3: Results calculation
Section calculation Case
K
min min

[K]
Bishop Janbu
Downstream section 1 Drain water in 5 days 1.25 1.24 1.08
(See details in appendix)
4.3.5. CONCLUSION
According calculation results mentioned in table above, the bank of
downstream will be stable in all cases of reservoir operation.
Appendix 50

APPENDICES
Appendix 51

APPENDIX HYDROGRAPHICAL CALCULATION
Appendix 52
Table 1: Monthy average discharge at Cam Thuy hydrological station
Unit: m
3
/s
No I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII TB
1957 123 114 113 101 103 318 348 211 278 207 120 88.9 177
1958 72.7 81.8 61.0 53.1 63.5 326 711 493 562 268 149 124 247
1959 126 92.1 94.6 106 110 172 268 958 825 327 189 138 284
1960 113 93.7 76.6 72.4 95.4 312 763 1460 902 522 274 193 406
1961 141 135 112 103 93.4 437 232 724 951 564 290 185 331
1962 168 162 100 107 144 576 651 529 698 452 205 163 330
1963 136 108 168 92.0 114 275 793 932 1080 561 403 235 408
1964 161 129 111 117 151 272 794 593 955 815 321 202 385
1965 150 131 105 111 197 542 625 499 513 298 263 164 300
1966 127 98.4 81.4 86.7 91.7 422 660 1070 817 294 283 149 348
1967 139 127 90.1 126 147 371 417 755 744 305 190 142 296
1968 118 106 104 121 135 247 231 721 543 291 178 119 243
1969 91.4 75.9 67.4 92.0 96.4 285 514 802 425 209 222 135 251
1970 111 82.5 71.6 118 232 374 641 769 856 430 213 169 339
1971 129 112 85.2 97.9 157 244 908 1240 571 450 225 152 364
1972 124 104 96.7 111 122 150 393 1160 975 475 262 185 347
1973 149 117 120 120 219 326 897 1300 1760 524 274 184 499
1974 145 118 110 131 169 368 383 678 658 565 340 182 321
1975 188 131 112 150 213 537 428 692 1550 409 251 190 404
1976 146 135 105 106 205 257 434 1230 461 319 252 155 317
1977 224 178 146 176 230 206 662 667 621 374 268 217 331
1978 196 154 120 122 286 567 743 1020 1014 609 370 269 456
1979 230 196 162 160 266 605 441 781 917 381 255 197 383
1980 156 133 103 111 123 220 553 896 1264 439 276 212 374
1981 165 124 105 139 225 448 580 827 673 607 342 238 373
1982 190 144 104 158 161 339 565 1390 878 587 361 259 428
1983 204 172 163 137 171 171 276 536 650 717 303 212 309
1984 185 147 114 113 212 436 657 602 411 458 364 203 325
1985 183 152 129 185 200 328 371 725 1127 487 328 226 370
1986 177 140 120 138 337 476 586 533 520 340 233 185 315
1987 155 140 118 114 130 155 277 670 610 328 220 169 257
1988 152 122 107 109 175 130 283 511 399 731 240 164 260
1989 141 118 112 98.5 173 604 493 524 459 707 261 194 324
1990 151 144 189 133 227 713 1138 752 613 464 269 198 416
1991 154 133 116 133 157 618 844 702 350 230 173 143 313
1992 146 120 115 107 132 262 609 337 384 220 170 143 229
1993 112 98.7 96.4 90.5 205 169 348 586 572 291 179 141 241
1994 122 102 116 145 223 488 1443 1307 1148 617 328 269 526
1995 133 105 88.3 76.3 98.4 449 692 1260 936 317 205 140 375
1996 128 106 113 97.2 153 262 863 1660 1230 541 523 232 492
1997 175 142 151 192 148 228 911 911 1180 540 254 184 418
1998 140 120 101 116 145 274 431 312 456 202 129 102 211
1999 86.3 67.6 59.4 78.2 152 564 441 742 749 308 234 170 304
2000 130 121 115 104 235 391 760 679 961 426 220 165 359
2001 144 120 153 111 235 640 987 983 719 451 279 184 417
2002 157 132 108 110 233 677 1280 1170 597 394 260 221 445
2003 291 249 211 203 275 278 512 660 868 359 249 212 364
2004 169 158 144 274 410 501 705 843 904 356 267 218 412
2005 145 121 116 107 107 210 380 1290 1290 548 297 202 401
2006 140 127 119 115 158 207 405 1100 424 243 157 130 277
2007 116 104 105 120 194 260 432 377 560 1040 252 179 312
2008 143 149 132 140 172 462 856 924 835 790 737 275 468
TB 146 124 113 120 174 365 603 828 783 448 263 179 346
Appendix 53
Table 2: Monthy average discharge at Hoi Xuan hydrological station
Unit: m
3
/s
1957 104 96.4 96.8 89.4 91.5 270 320 244 261 196 130 74.9 164
1958 69.2 76.2 56.6 46.3 64.0 277 598 457 471 235 148 107 217
1959 106 82.6 82.5 95.0 96.9 150 260 808 666 273 171 121 243
1960 96.9 83.6 68.6 58.3 86.4 265 638 1186 723 399 221 172 333
1961 116 109 96.3 86.6 85.0 367 232 631 759 426 231 165 275
1962 135 126 87.0 90.1 121 481 552 484 572 353 181 144 277
1963 113 92.6 139 75.1 99.8 235 661 788 858 424 297 211 333
1964 131 105 95.3 96.9 126 232 662 533 762 589 249 180 313
1965 125 105 88.4 95.3 138 421 499 424 458 259 231 140 249
1966 115 94.9 79.9 77.8 80.4 397 606 929 721 276 232 144 313
1967 109 97.4 79.7 116 119 322 377 678 602 260 161 119 253
1968 99.6 94.9 88.2 104 119 198 194 573 425 232 157 106 199
1969 83.2 67.3 56.9 76.0 84.1 260 418 724 327 180 184 107 214
1970 91.8 77.5 65.0 100 208 293 595 666 682 343 189 155 289
1971 108 95.0 75.3 81.2 130 209 749 1020 478 352 192 134 302
1972 105 90.3 84.1 99.4 105 133 355 959 777 369 214 165 288
1973 122 98.0 102 107 173 276 740 1065 1354 400 221 164 402
1974 119 98.7 94.4 116 138 311 347 597 542 427 260 162 268
1975 149 107 96.0 131 169 449 382 607 1199 326 208 170 333
1976 120 109 90.7 95.5 164 220 386 1015 397 268 208 136 267
1977 126 104 89.7 113 148 138 497 527 481 250 181 148 234
1978 122 102 86.2 89.8 183 434 563 861 834 458 246 195 348
1979 148 125 112 124 189 474 354 698 707 273 186 153 295
1980 116 100 90.0 96.7 104 177 517 779 1158 366 206 172 323
1981 130 104 99.2 129 182 374 488 672 541 456 242 193 301
1982 147 120 111 135 124 257 429 1135 799 455 249 209 348
1983 160 133 135 121 140 149 266 489 536 525 238 190 257
1984 147 117 97.8 101 169 366 557 539 360 357 274 182 272
1985 146 120 109 160 160 278 338 632 889 376 253 203 305
1986 141 112 102 122 256 399 503 487 440 282 197 165 267
1987 126 113 101 102 111 136 266 590 507 274 190 150 222
1988 124 101 91.7 97.8 142 116 271 470 350 534 201 146 220
1989 117 98.7 96.2 89.1 141 504 431 480 395 518 214 173 271
1990 124 115 155 117 179 593 925 652 509 361 218 177 344
1991 126 108 98.9 117 130 515 700 615 314 210 162 125 268
1992 120 100 98.2 95.9 112 224 520 339 339 204 160 125 203
1993 96.3 86.8 83.9 82.4 164 148 321 527 478 250 165 123 210
1994 103 88.8 98.7 127 176 409 1158 1071 904 461 253 243 424
1995 111 90.8 77.7 70.7 88.5 377 584 1035 748 266 181 123 313
1996 108 91.1 96.8 88.0 127 224 714 1338 969 411 368 209 395
1997 140 114 126 166 124 197 751 773 927 411 210 164 342
1998 116 100 87.0 103 122 234 384 320 393 192 136 87.3 190
1999 78.6 67.3 55.3 72.3 127 471 392 645 610 261 197 151 261
2000 109 101 98.2 93.8 184 330 636 597 767 337 190 146 299
2001 119 99.8 127 99.6 185 534 809 827 588 353 224 164 344
2002 128 108 92.9 98.9 183 563 1031 966 497 316 213 199 366
2003 220 181 172 175 213 237 446 583 697 294 206 190 301
2004 136 124 121 234 308 419 594 721 724 292 217 196 340
2005 120 101 121 310 373 181 345 1062 1013 416 235 181 371
2006 116 105 101 151 130 179 364 918 369 219 152 113 243
2007 99.1 90.1 90.5 107 156 222 385 369 470 734 208 159 258
2008 118 118 111 123 140 388 709 782 673 572 494 249 373
TB 120 103 97.2 111 147 308 516 709 635 351 214 159 289
Appendix 54
Table 3: Monthy average discharge at Trung Son station
Unit: m
3
/s
1957 81.2 75.3 73.1 86.7 88.7 197 228 181 252 198 140 57.2 138
1958 47.7 50.5 38.2 57.5 66.9 202 474 361 401 222 150 84.1 180
1959 83.6 58.4 60.6 90.5 93.0 95.5 174 657 540 245 164 95.0 196
1960 74.5 59.7 48.6 65.6 84.7 193 509 977 580 323 194 138 271
1961 93.3 91.1 72.6 84.8 83.6 279 150 508 606 339 199 132 220
1962 112 112 64.6 87.2 112 375 434 384 473 294 169 114 228
1963 90.1 70.6 59.9 77.0 95.3 167 530 641 676 338 239 170 263
1964 107 86.3 71.7 91.7 116 164 531 425 608 439 210 145 250
1965 99.6 88.1 67.7 93.6 141 352 416 365 376 233 190 115 211
1966 84.4 63.2 51.8 74.9 82.6 268 440 731 535 232 197 104 239
1967 92.3 84.9 57.7 102 114 233 275 528 497 236 164 98.6 207
1968 78.3 68.8 67.0 99.3 107 147 149 506 391 231 160 80.2 174
1969 60.3 46.0 42.5 79.9 85.3 173 340 558 329 198 175 93.1 182
1970 73.8 51.1 45.3 93.4 161 235 427 537 556 286 172 119 230
1971 85.6 73.6 54.4 81.1 119 145 608 837 406 294 176 106 249
1972 82.2 67.9 62.0 93.5 99.6 80.4 259 786 619 304 190 132 231
1973 98.6 77.2 77.8 98.4 154 202 600 875 1028 323 194 131 322
1974 96.3 78.1 71.0 104 126 231 251 479 452 339 217 130 215
1975 125 88.4 72.4 115 150 348 283 488 918 278 186 136 266
1976 97.2 91.0 67.8 90.8 146 154 286 833 348 242 186 108 221
1977 149 124 95.1 130 160 119 441 472 432 263 191 156 228
1978 130 106 77.4 99.3 191 369 496 697 639 357 227 197 299
1979 154 138 106 121 180 395 291 544 588 266 187 141 259
1980 104 89.7 66.1 93.7 99.9 128 367 618 771 290 194 152 248
1981 110 82.7 67.7 109 157 286 385 574 460 356 217 173 248
1982 127 97.8 67.2 120 121 211 375 934 568 348 224 189 282
1983 136 120 106 108 127 94.4 180 388 447 400 204 152 205
1984 123 101 73.9 94.6 150 278 437 430 322 297 225 146 223
1985 122 104 83.8 135 143 204 244 509 698 308 213 163 244
1986 118 94.8 77.3 109 220 306 389 386 379 250 179 132 220
1987 103 95.2 76.5 95.0 104 83.3 180 473 427 245 175 119 181
1988 101 80.9 68.7 92.4 129 66.1 184 372 316 405 182 116 176
1989 93.7 78.1 72.5 86.5 128 395 326 380 347 396 189 138 219
1990 101 97.8 124 106 158 470 763 526 428 299 192 142 284
1991 103 89.5 74.9 106 119 404 564 494 290 206 158 98.9 226
1992 97.3 79.9 74.3 91.1 105 157 405 261 308 203 157 99.0 170
1993 74.0 63.5 61.9 82.0 146 93.6 228 420 406 231 160 97.2 172
1994 80.9 65.9 74.7 112 156 314 970 881 709 360 213 197 344
1995 88.1 68.4 56.5 74.0 86.4 287 461 849 598 241 169 96.8 256
1996 84.9 68.8 73.0 85.7 117 158 577 1106 755 330 281 168 317
1997 117 96.8 98.1 138 114 134 609 739 726 330 187 131 285
1998 92.8 80.1 64.6 96.1 113 166 284 245 346 195 143 67.5 158
1999 56.9 39.7 37.1 75.1 117 367 291 520 500 237 180 120 212
2000 86.5 80.9 74.3 89.6 163 247 508 480 611 284 175 116 243
2001 95.8 79.4 99.6 93.6 163 419 661 674 484 294 195 131 282
2002 105 88.9 69.7 93.1 161 445 857 791 420 272 189 160 304
2003 194 179 138 145 185 169 339 467 562 258 185 153 248
2004 112 105 93.7 184 261 323 470 584 581 256 191 157 277
2005 91.5 75.9 73.0 76.2 62.2 122 209 874 790 365 250 156 262
2006 90.9 81.2 71.7 73.1 85.9 94.9 262 610 262 148 106 84.8 164
2007 74.5 67.5 64.4 77.6 66.2 146 253 256 342 448 154 113 172
2008 95.3 102 88.3 96.0 97.9 313 614 739 615 503 363 194 318
TB 99.5 84.7 72.6 97.2 127 231 404 576 514 293 191 130 235
Appendix 55
Table 4: Monthy average discharge as hydrologic year
Unit: m
3
/s
1957 197 228 181 252 198 140 57.2 47.7 50.5 38.2 57.5 66.9 126
1958 202 474 361 401 222 150 84.1 83.6 58.4 60.6 90.5 93.0 190
1959 95.5 174 657 540 245 164 95.0 74.5 59.7 48.6 65.6 84.7 192
1960 193 509 977 580 323 194 138 93.3 91.1 72.6 84.8 83.6 278
1961 279 150 508 606 339 199 132 112 112 64.6 87.2 112 225
1962 375 434 384 473 294 169 114 90.1 70.6 59.9 77.0 95.3 220
1963 167 530 641 676 338 239 170 107 86.3 71.7 91.7 116 269
1964 164 531 425 608 439 210 145 99.6 88.1 67.7 93.6 141 251
1965 352 416 365 376 233 190 115 84.4 63.2 51.8 74.9 82.6 200
1966 268 440 731 535 232 197 104 92.3 84.9 57.7 102 114 246
1967 233 275 528 497 236 164 98.6 78.3 68.8 67.0 99.3 107 204
1968 147 149 506 391 231 160 80.2 60.3 46.0 42.5 79.9 85.3 165
1969 173 340 558 329 198 175 93.1 73.8 51.1 45.3 93.4 161 191
1970 235 427 537 556 286 172 119 85.6 73.6 54.4 81.1 119 229
1971 145 608 837 406 294 176 106 82.2 67.9 62.0 93.5 99.6 248
1972 80.4 259 786 619 304 190 132 98.6 77.2 77.8 98.4 154 239
1973 202 600 875 1028 323 194 131 96.3 78.1 71.0 104 126 319
1974 231 251 479 452 339 217 130 125 88.4 72.4 115 150 221
1975 348 283 488 918 278 186 136 97.2 91.0 67.8 90.8 146 261
1976 154 286 833 348 242 186 108 149 124 95.1 130 160 235
1977 119 441 472 432 263 191 156 130 106 77.4 99.3 191 223
1978 369 496 697 639 357 227 197 154 138 106 121 180 307
1979 395 291 544 588 266 187 141 104 89.7 66.1 93.7 99.9 239
1980 128 367 618 771 290 194 152 110 82.7 67.7 109 157 254
1981 286 385 574 460 356 217 173 127 97.8 67.2 120 121 249
1982 211 375 934 568 348 224 189 136 120 106 108 127 287
1983 94.4 180 388 447 400 204 152 123 101 73.9 94.6 150 201
1984 278 437 430 322 297 225 146 122 104 83.8 135 143 227
1985 204 244 509 698 308 213 163 118 94.8 77.3 109 220 246
1986 306 389 386 379 250 179 132 103 95.2 76.5 95.0 104 208
1987 83.3 180 473 427 245 175 119 101 80.9 68.7 92.4 129 181
1988 66.1 184 372 316 405 182 116 93.7 78.1 72.5 86.5 128 175
1989 395 326 380 347 396 189 138 101 97.8 124 106 158 230
1990 470 763 526 428 299 192 142 103 89.5 74.9 106 119 276
1991 404 564 494 290 206 158 98.9 97.3 79.9 74.3 91.1 105 222
1992 157 405 261 308 203 157 99.0 74.0 63.5 61.9 82.0 146 168
1993 93.6 228 420 406 231 160 97.2 80.9 65.9 74.7 112 156 177
1994 314 970 881 709 360 213 197 88.1 68.4 56.5 74.0 86.4 335
1995 287 461 849 598 241 169 96.8 84.9 68.8 73.0 85.7 117 261
1996 158 577 1106 755 330 281 168 117 96.8 98.1 138 114 328
1997 134 609 739 726 330 187 131 92.8 80.1 64.6 96.1 113 275
1998 166 284 245 346 195 143 67.5 56.9 39.7 37.1 75.1 117 148
1999 367 291 520 500 237 180 120 86.5 80.9 74.3 89.6 163 226
2000 247 508 480 611 284 175 116 95.8 79.4 99.6 93.6 163 246
2001 419 661 674 484 294 195 131 105 88.9 69.7 93.1 161 281
2002 445 857 791 420 272 189 160 194 179 138 145 185 331
2003 169 339 467 562 258 185 153 112 105 93.7 184 261 241
2004 323 470 584 581 256 191 157 91.5 75.9 73.0 76.2 62.2 245
2005 122 209 874 790 365 250 156 90.9 81.2 71.7 73.1 85.9 264
2006 94.9 262 610 262 148 106 84.8 74.5 67.5 64.4 77.6 66.2 160
2007 146 253 256 342 448 154 113 95.3 102 88.3 96.0 97.9 183
TB 229 399 573 512 289 188 128 99.8 84.9 72.6 97.4 128 233
Appendix 56

APPENDIX CALCULATION OF RESERVOIR BANK SLOPE
STABILITY
Appendix 57

I. CASE ACCORDING TO RECOMMEND OF CONSULTANCY
a) Section 1
Case 1: Water drain from NWL=160m down to MWL=150m in 5 days. (K=1.41)
Bishop method
1.41
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

2.05
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

Appendix 58
Janbu method (K=1.35)
1.35
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

2.01
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

Appendix 59

Bishop method
1.50
IA1
IA2
IB
II A
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

2.13 IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
Appendix 60
1.45
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
2.08 IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
Appendix 61
Bishop method
1.55
IA1
IA2
IB
II A
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

2.11
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
Appendix 62
1.49
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

2.04
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

Appendix 63
b) Section 2
Bishop method
1.04
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

1.39
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

Appendix 64
1.01
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
1.37
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
Appendix 65
Bishop method
1.10
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

1.44
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

Appendix 66
1.06
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

1.41
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

Appendix 67
Bishop method

1.13
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

1.48
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

Appendix 68
1.10
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

1.45
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

Appendix 69

c) Section 3
Bishop method
1.29
IA1
IA2
IB
II A
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

1.60
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

Appendix 70

1.29
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

1.60
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

Appendix 71

Bishop method

1.36
IA1
IA2
IB
II A
Distance(m)
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
90
110
130
150
170
190
210

1.64
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
90
110
130
150
170
190
210

Appendix 72

1.35
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
90
110
130
150
170
190
210

1.63
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
90
110
130
150
170
190
210

Appendix 73

Bishop method
1.39
IA1
IA2
IB
II A
Distance(m)
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

1.66
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

Appendix 74
1.38
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

1.65
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

d) Section 4 at left abutment dam
Appendix 75
Bishop method
1.01
IA1
IA2
IB
II A
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

1.30
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

Appendix 76

0.98
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

1.25
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

Appendix 77
Bishop method
1.09
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

1.38
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

Appendix 78
1.07
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

1.30
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

Bishop method
Appendix 79
1.11
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

1.27
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

Appendix 80
1.09
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

1.29
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

e) Section 4 at right abutment
Appendix 81
Bishop method
1.02
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

1.17
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

Appendix 82
0.99
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

1.17
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

Appendix 83
Bishop method
1.09
IA1
IA2 IB
II A
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

1.22
IA1
IA2 IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Appendix 84
1.06
IA1
IA2 IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

1.20
IA1
IA2 IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Appendix 85

Bishop method
1.12
IA1
IA2
IB
II A
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

1.24
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

Appendix 86
1.09 IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

1.23
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

f) Section 5
Appendix 87
Bishop method
1.06
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250

1.33
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250

Appendix 88
1.04
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
1.30
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250

Appendix 89
Bishop method

1.12
IA1
IA2
IB
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250

1.28
IA1
IA2
IB
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250

Appendix 90
1.09
IA1
IA2
IB
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250

1.28
IA1
IA2
IB
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250

Appendix 91
Bishop method
1.18
IA1
IA2
IB
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

1.23
IA1
IA2
IB
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

Appendix 92
1.17
IA1
IA2
IB
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

1.26
IA1
IA2
IB
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

Appendix 93
II. CALCULATION COMBINATION CASES FOR VERIFYING
RECOMMENDATION GIVEN BY WB
Slope without reservoir. ground water level raised to slope surface due to rain.
a) Section1
Bishop method (K=0.80)
0.80
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

Appendix 94

0.79
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230

Appendix 95

b) Section2
0.40
IA1
IA2
IB
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

Appendix 96

0.37
IA1
IA2
IB
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

Appendix 97
c) Section3
0.70
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

0.68
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

Appendix 98
d) Section 4 at left abutment dam
0.44
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

0.42
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

Appendix 99
e) Section 4 at right abutment dam
0.55
Distance(m)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

0.54
Distance(m)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

Appendix 100
f) Section 5
0.40
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250

0.37
IA1
IA2
IB
Distance(m)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250

Appendix 101

APPENDIX CALCULATION OF RESERVOIR DOWNSTREAM
STABILITY
Appendix 102
a) Downstream section 1
Water drain from downstream water level=104.5m down downstream water
level=90.2m in 5 days. Bishop method (K=1.25)
1.25
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240


1.240
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240

Appendix 103
b) Downstream section 2
Water drain from downstream water level=104.5m down to downstream water
1.09
edQ
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280

1.08
edQ
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280

Appendix 104
c) Downstream section 3
1.11
edQ
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

1.10
edQ
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260

Appendix 105
d) Downstream section 4
1.28
edQ
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190

1.27
edQ
IA1
IA2
IB
IIA
Distance(m)
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190

ISO 9001:2000
VIETNAM ELECTRICITY
POWER ENGINEERING CONSULTING
JOINT STOCK COMPANY 4

Project: T.02.04
TRUNG SON HYDROPOWER PROJECT
TECHNICAL DESIGN

OPERATION MODEL OF RESERVOIR

Deputy Director of Hydropower
Engineering Consulting Center
Trng Hoi Th Tuyn
Project Manager Vng Anh Dng

Nha trang City, July , 2010
ON BEHALF OF
GENERAL DIRECTOR

Tran Van Tho
DEPUTY GENERAL DIRECTOR

Dự Án Thuỷ Điện Trung Sơn Thiết Kế Kỹ Thuật

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Dự Án Thuỷ Điện Trung Sơn Thiết Kế Kỹ Thuật

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ISO 9001:2000

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi