RGLC Ts Civil Work

PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
JODHPUR URBAN WATER SUPPLY REORGANIZATION

PROJECT
DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR TECHNICAL SANCTION
REHABILITATION AND STRENGTHENING OF RAW

WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM PACKAGE W 8.1
(CANAL ESCAPES AND REHABILITATION)
Estimated Total Cost : Rs Crores
VOL-I
SEURECA (JV) STC
Jodhpur Urban Water Supply Reorganisation

Project
Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water

Conveyance System (RGL Canal and Pumping
Stations)
JODHPUR URBAN WATER SUPPLY REORGANIZATION PROJECT

(JWSRP)
REHABILITATION
AND STRENGTHENING OF RAW

WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (CANAL ESCAPES
AND REHABILITATION)
ABBREVIATIONS
Technical Sanction Proposal
Seureca(JV)STC
Page |1
A&F
Administrative & Financial
AC
Asbestos Cement
Jodhpur Urban WaterAFD

Supply Reorganisation
Agence
Project
Rehabilitation
and Strengthening of Raw Water
Franaise
de Dveloppement

Stations)
AWWA
American Water Works Associations
BEP
Best Efficiency Point
BIS
Bureau of Indian Standards
CI
Cast Iron
cm
Centimeter
CPHEEO
Central Public Health & Environment

engineering Organization
CPU
Central Processing Unit
Cumecs
Cubic Meters per Second
CWR
Clear Water Reservoir
DBO
Design Build Operate
DEA
Department of External Affairs
DI
Ductile Iron
FC
Finance Committee
GHG
Green House Gas Emissions
GI
Galvanized Iron
GoI
Government of India
GoR
Government of Rajasthan
HLFP
High Level Filter Plant
HMI
Human Machine Interface
HV
High Voltage
IGNP
Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna
IISc
Indian Institute of Science
IS
Indian Standards
IWWA
Indian Water Works Association
kVA
Kilovolt Ampere
kW
Kilowatt
kWH
Kilowatt Hour
LLFP
Low Level Filter Plant
LPM
Liter Per Minute
LPS
Liter per second
LV
Low Voltage
m, mtr
Meter
MCFT
Million Cubic Feet
mg/l
Milligram per liter
MLD
Million Liters per Day
mm
Millimeter
MS
Mild Steel
msl
Meters above Sea Level
NRV
Non Return Valve
NRW
Non Revenue Water
NTU
Nelson Turbidity Unit
O&M
Operation & Maintenance
PACl
PHED
Poly Aluminum Chloride
Seureca(JV)STC
Public Health Engineering Department
Page |2

Project

Stations)

(JWSRP)
REHABILITATION

AND REHABILITATION)
TABLE
CHAPTER 1.
12
CONTENTS
GENERAL REPORT
1.1. INTRODUCTION
1.2. A&F SANCTION
1.3. PROJECT FUNDING
1.4. JODHPUR CITY
1.5. RAW WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM - INTRODUCTION
1.6. CANAL OUTLET
1.7. CANAL REACHES
1.7.1. CANAL CROSS SECTIONS
1.7.1.1. Mehboob Section
1.7.1.2. Cast-in-Situ Section
1.7.1.3. Masonry Section
1.8. CANAL PIPE SIPHONS:
1.9. RCC AQUEDUCTS:
1.10. ESCAPE WEIRS U/S TO PUMPING STATION:
1.11. INLET- OUTLET STRUCTURES:
1.12. OTHER STRUCTURES :
1.13. PUMPING STATION
1.13.1. PUMPING STATION NO 1
1.13.2. PUMPING CAPACITY
1.14. RAW WATER STORAGE AT JODHPUR
CHAPTER 2.
32
12
14
18
20
21
23
23
24
25
25
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
30
TECHNICAL REPORT
2.1. COVERAGE AREA

2.2. HORIZON YEAR
2.3. WATER DEMAND PROJECTION
OF
32
32
32
Seureca(JV)STC
Page |3

Project

Stations)
2.4. JODHPUR CITY

2.5. EN-ROUTE TOWNS & VILLAGES
2.5.1. TARGETED WS SCHEMES
2.5.2. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
2.5.3. TOTAL DEMAND
2.6. VARIATION IN DEMAND SHORTFALL IN PROJECTION FROM RGLC
2.7. RGLC SUSTAINABILITY - DESIGN APPROACH
2.8. SEEPAGE LOSSES:
2.8.1. MEASUREMENT OF SEEPAGE LOSSES
2.8.1.1. Ponding method
2.8.1.2. Inflow outflow method
2.8.1.3. Measurement of flow and estimation of seepage losses in RGLC
2.8.1.4. Literature on type of lining and seepage losses by Prof. B.S.
Thandaveswara of IIT, Madras
2.8.2. FIELD MEASUREMENT OF SEEPAGE LOSSES IN IGMC
2.8.3. SEEPAGE AND EVAPORATION LOSSES ADOPTED IN NARMADA MAIN CANAL
2.8.4. REACH WISE VARIABLE SEEPAGE LOSSES AS PER DEPARTMENTS OBSERVATION
2.8.5. RECOMMENDED VALUE OF SEEPAGE AND EVAPORATION LOSSES FOR RGLC
2.8.6. ADOPTED SEEPAGE LOSSES
2.9. PERMISSIBLE FREE BOARD
2.10. CANAL HYDRAULICS
2.10.1. MANNINGS FORMULA FOR DESIGN OF CANAL FLOW IN DIFFERENT REACHES:
2.11. METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING FLOWS & FLOW DEPTH
2.11.1. ADEQUACY OF FREE BOARD INDIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF CANAL
2.11.2. TREATMENT OF LOCAL BOTTLENECKS IN VARIOUS CANAL REACHES:
2.12. DESIGN OF IGMC OUTLET AT RD 0 OF RGLC
2.13. OUTLET CAPACITY
2.14. RESERVATION OF WATER IN INDIRA GANDHI MAIN CANAL (IGMC)
2.15. DESIGN OF PIPE SIPHON FOR YEAR 2029 FLOW:
2.15.1. DESIGN OF ESCAPE WEIR AT CANAL SIPHON
2.16. CHECK HEAD OVER ESCAPE:
2.17. CHECK FOR CREST LEVEL OF ESCAPE
2.18. CHECK FOR SCOUR DEPTH.
2.19. DESIGN OF RCC AQUEDUCT FOR YEAR 2029 FLOW:
2.20. DESIGN OF ESCAPE WEIRS FOR HORIZON YEAR 2029
2.21. DESIGN OF INLET OUTLET STRUCTURES:
2.22. OTHER CD & CIVIL STRUCTURES
2.22.1. VRB & SUPER PASSAGES
2.22.2. CANAL EARTH EMBANKMENTS, INSPECTION BANK DEEP CUTTING SECTIONS, CANAL
33
33
33
34
35
36
37
38
38
38
38
39
SERVICE ROADS
64
65
65
66
2.23. PUMPING STATIONS

2.24. PRESENT PROJECT PROPOSALS
2.25. SUMP
CHAPTER 3.
68
40
41
42
42
43
44
44
45
45
46
47
48
49
49
49
49
53
53
54
54
55
58
62
64
64
CONTRACT PACKAGING
Seureca(JV)STC
Page |4

Project

Stations)
3.1. PACKAGE G1.A FOR ALL 8 PUMPING STATIONS & PIPE LINES
3.2. PACKAGE G1.B FOR PATROLLING, DESILTING, DEWEEDING REPAIR AND
69
REHABILITATION OF CANAL AND SERVICE ROAD
70
71
3.3. SANCTIONED CIVIL WORKS

3.4. ADDITIONAL WORKS IDENTIFIED BY CE (P), PHED JODHPUR IN THE MEETING
HELD ON 07/10/2014.
72
CHAPTER 4.
75
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
4.1. TAKING OVER OF OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

4.2. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
CHAPTER 5.
76
COST ESTIMATES
5.1. ORGANIZATION
5.2. GENERAL ABSTRACT OF COST
5.3. BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES
5.3.1. OVERHEADS
5.3.2. LAND ACQUISITION:
5.4. SPARE PARTS
5.5. PROVISIONAL SUM
5.6. RATE ANALYSIS
5.7. QUOTATIONS LIASONING
5.8. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
75
75
Seureca(JV)STC
76
77
95
95
95
95
96
96
96
97
Page |5

Project

Stations)

(JWSRP)
REHABILITATION

AND REHABILITATION)
LIST OF ANNEXURE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Seureca(JV)STC
Page |6

Project

Stations)
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Seureca(JV)STC
Page |7

Project

Stations)
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
LIST OF ESTIMATES
Seureca(JV)STC
Page |8

Project

Stations)
Seureca(JV)STC
Page |9

Project

Stations)
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 10

Project

Stations)

(JWSRP)
REHABILITATION

AND REHABILITATION)
LIST OF DRAWINGS
S.N
o.
Particulars
Drawing No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 11

Project

Stations)
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 12

Project

Stations)

(JWSRP)
REHABILITATION

AND REHABILITATION)
LIST OF QUOTATIONS
S.N
o.
ID
Particulars
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 13

Project

Stations)
13.
14.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 14

Project
Chapter 1.

Stations)
General Report
1.1. INTRODUCTION
The UWSS Jodhpur is getting water from Indira Gandhi Main Canal through
Rajiv Gandhi Lift Canal (RGLC). The RGLC is a 205 kms long conveyance
system comprising of open canal, pumping mains and 8 pumping stations
to deliver water to Jodhpur town and 1235 villages & 4 towns en-route to
Jodhpur. The present system was designed to meet demand up to year
2016.
The Reorganization UWSS Jodhpur has been taken up by GOR with the
financial assistance from AFD to upgrade this conveyance system to meet
designed demand of UWSS Jodhpur up to year 2029. The demand of 1235
villages & 4 towns, however, has been freezed up to design year 2016. It
is given to understand that increase in enroute demand beyond year 2016
will be met by a new parallel system under Phase III of RGLC. It is
suggested that timely implementation of alternative measures be ensured
as the capacity installed at intermediate off take points is much higher
than the demand considered for yr 2016 and any extra drawl would affect
tail end UWSS Jodhpur adversely.
In the AFD financed Jodhpur Reorg. UWS Project, it has been envisaged to
enhance capacity of RGLC conveyance system by replacement of 27
pumping sets installed in phase-I of RGLC along with replacement of
transformers, other appurtenances of pumping station. The works
included in the sanctioned package were to be taken up through two
separate goods contract. Apart from meeting increased demand (Year
2029) of Urban WSS Jodhpur, another prime objective is to reduce energy
cost by opting for energy efficient system.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 15

Project

Stations)
In view of signing one more agreement to cover funding of entire Rs 740

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

meet year 2029demand of UWSS Jodhpur alongwith a concept of
guaranteed energy consumption was prepared at an estimated cost of Rs
---------Million for obtaining technical sanction. However, no decision was
taken on these proposals and the work of enhancing capacity of pumping
stations and pipelines has been awarded to an ESCO ( Energy Saving
Company).
Some minor civil works related to rehabilitation of escapes at PS &
siphons, RCC aqueducts, super passages and damaged VRBs have also
been included in sanction.
The feasibility report did not envisage requirement of any work related to
enhancement in capacity of canal or to lay a parallel pipe line to meet
designed demand for year 2029. The free board in canal was envisaged
to be kept to a minimum of 0.30 m( instead of 0.45m available in Ph II)
even with increased flow due to increase in capacity of pumps.
Some
minor civil works related to rehabilitation of escapes at PS & siphons, RCC
aqueducts, super passages and damaged VRBs have also been included
in sanction. These works were not included in TS package as it was
suggested to keep civil works of canal under separate small
Thecontracts. free board in canal is to be kept a minimum of 0.30 m
even with increased capacity of pumps.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 16

Project

Stations)
The works included in the sanctioned package were to be taken up

through two separate goods contract. Apart from meeting increased
demand (Year 2029) of Urban WSS Jodhpur, another prime objective is to
reduce energy cost by opting for energy efficient system.
In view of signing one more agreement to cover funding of entire Rs 740
crs project,it was subsequently decided to combine two goods contract
into one DBOM contract incorporating clause of guaranteed maximum
energy consumption per ML of water handled by pumps during O & M
period. However, past experience of O & M contract for the entire RGLC
system revealed that O & M contractors normally pay attention to
pumping station and pipeline whereas canal portion remains
comparatively unattended. The present status of canal- Inspection bank,
slopes in cutting and embankment section, poor condition of canal lining ,
service roads, growth of weeds etc. indicate that more attention needs to
be paid to the civil works and O & M of canal. It is felt that the earlier
system of separately maintaining canal and pumping stations functioned
better and canal was working more efficiently. Thus, it is proposed to keep
repair, rehabilitation and O & M of canal under separate smaller contracts
for smaller duration.
Before going ahead with preparation of detailed design report,, following
submissions were made to finalize design concept. Similarly, no iInput
data of the existing canal conveyance system was not available and most
of the input data for preparation of design report was compiled from old
records and field observations and submitted to department for approval
before taking up detailed designs.
1. Sustainability of RGLC conveyance system submitted on
16/07/2013. (ANNEXURE A21)
2. DESIGN CONCEPT REPORT FOR REHAB/REPLACEMENT OF
PUMPING MACHINERY OF RGLC SYSTEM ON DATED 01/11/2013
(ANNEXURE A 22)
3. THERMODYNAMIC TEST RESULTS FOR PUMP EFFICIENCY
(ANNEXURE M-02)
4. CONDITION
ASSESSMENT
OF
EXISTING
TRANSFORMER
(ANNEXURE E-02)
5. Measurement of flow in RGLC by Doppler principle using ADCP
(ANNEXURE A-23)
6. Supplementary Submission on dated 30/10/2013 ((ANNEXURE24)
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 17

Project

Stations)
7. Supplementary Submission TO SUSTAINABILTY REPORT AND

DESIGN CONCEPT REPORT ON DATED 22/07/2014 (ANNEXURE
A25)
8. Approval of above submission conveyed by CE (P) ON 25/07/2014
(Annexure A-16)
9. Detailed Package for Technical sanction to the Rehabilitation and
Strengthening of Raw water conveyance system works related to
Pumping
Stations and pumping mains ( Abstract copy
Annexure ----)
10. Draft Bid Document for Rehabilitation and Strengthening of
Raw water conveyance system system works related to Pumping
Stations and pumping mains ( Abstract copy Annexure ----)
1.2. A&F Sanction

Government of Rajasthan, through Policy Planning Committee of RWSSMB,
has issued Administrative & Financial sanction to an estimate of Rs 740.00
crores for reorganization of UWSS Jodhpur, the details of which are
available at Annexure A-01. The sanctioned works are to be taken up in
different work packages. Under this work package related to RGLC,
following provisions have been taken to increase the capacity of the
system and to rehabilitate the electromechanical system for improved
efficiency of operation;
Table 1.1: A & F Sanction provisions for RGLC Part
S.
N
o.
A&F
Ref
No
Particulars
E1.1
Providing
and
installation
including coupling
with
respective
motor, alignment
etc
of
HSC
mixed/radial flow
double
suction
type pumping sets
Pumping
Station
No. 01
E1.1/
1
Qt
y
Uni
t
Rate
Eac
h
52.4
Amount (in
lacs)
Origin Add
al
15 %
over
SPR
157.20
Seureca(JV)STC
180.78
Details
2.404cume
cs,
21.41
m
Head,
P a g e | 18

Project
S.
N
o.
A&F
Ref
No
Particulars
Qt
y

Stations)
Uni
t
Rate
Amount (in
lacs)
Origin Add
al
15 %
over
SPR
Details
655 kW
ii
E1.1/
2
Pumping
No. 02
Station
Eac
h
42.4
127.20
146.28
iii
E1.1/
3
Pumping
No. 03
Station
Eac
h
53.6
160.80
184.92
iv
E1.1/
4
Pumping
No. 04
Station
Eac
h
37.2
111.60
128.34
E1.1/
5
Pumping
No. 05
Station
Eac
h
96
576.00
662.40
vi
E1.1/
6
Pumping
No. 06
Station
Eac
h
104.4
313.20
360.18
vii
E1.1/
7
Pumping
No. 07
Station
Eac
h
33.6
100.80
115.92
vii
i
E1.1/
8
Pumping
No. 08
Station
Eac
h
26
78.00
89.70
E1.2
Transformers
:
Providing
and
installation
of
33/6.6
KV
HT
Power
Transformers
along
with
necessary cables
and
equipments
(replacement
/
upgradation)
Seureca(JV)STC
2.376cume
cs,
17.53
m
Head,
530 kW
2.331
cumecs,
22.57m
Head, 670
kW
2.307cume
cs, 15.79m
Head, 465
kW
1.108
cumecs,
85.18
m
Head, 1200
kW
2.156
cumecs,
47.7
m
Head, 1305
kW
1.703
cumecs,
19.32
m
Head, 420
kW
1.124
cumecs,
22.64
m
Head, 325
kW
P a g e | 19

Project

Stations)
S.
N
o.
A&F
Ref
No
Particulars
Qt
y
Uni
t
Rate
E1.2/
1
E1.2/
2
E1.2/
3
E1.2/
4
E1.2/
5
E1.2/
6
E1.2/
7
E1.2/
8
E1.3
Pumping
Station
No. 01
Pumping
Station
No. 02
Pumping
Station
No. 03
Pumping
Station
No. 04
Pumping
Station
No. 05
Pumping
Station
No. 06
Pumping
Station
No. 07
Pumping
Station
No. 08
Flow
Meters
:
Providing
and
installation of Full
Bore
Magnetic
Flow Meters on
each Rising Main
at PS 1 to 8
Pumping
Station
No. 01
Pumping
Station
No. 02
Pumping
Station
No. 03
Pumping
Station
No. 04
Pumping
Station
No. 05
Pumping
Station
No. 06
Pumping
Station
No. 07
Pumping
Station
No. 08
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
56.00
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
vii
i
3
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
vii
i
E1.3/
1
E1.3/
2
E1.3/
3
E1.3/
4
E1.3/
5
E1.3/
6
E1.3/
7
E1.3/
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
Amount (in
lacs)
Origin Add
al
15 %
over
SPR
112.00 128.80
Details
8.00 MVA
48.00
96.00
110.40
6.30 MVA
56.00
112.00
128.80
8.00 MVA
48.00
96.00
110.40
6.30 MVA
120.0
0
96.00
240.00
276.00
20.00 MVA
192.00
220.80
15.00 MVA
44.80
89.60
103.04
5.00 MVA
32.00
64.00
73.60
3.15 MVA
16.54
66.15
76.07
1200 mm
16.54
66.15
76.07
1200 mm
16.54
66.15
76.07
1200 mm
16.54
66.15
76.07
1200 mm
24.68
49.36
56.76
1600 mm
24.68
49.36
56.76
1600 mm
24.68
49.36
56.76
1600 mm
24.68
49.36
56.76
1600 mm
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 20

Project
S.
N
o.
A&F
Ref
No
Particulars
E1.4
DPCV : Providing
and installation of
Spring
loaded
DPCV type PN-1.0
Non Return Valve
conforming to API794,
on
the
delivery of each
pump
set
of
Phase-I of RGLC.
Pumping
Station
No. 01
Pumping
Station
No. 02
Pumping
Station
No. 03
Pumping
Station
No. 04
Pumping
Station
No. 05
Pumping
Station
No. 06
Pumping
Station
No. 07
Pumping
Station
No. 08
Surge
Shafts
:
Providing
and
installation
of
epoxy coated MS
Surge Shafts for
water
hammer
control at PS 1 - 4
Pumping
Station
No. 01
Pumping
Station
No. 02
Pumping
Station
No. 03
Pumping
Station
No. 04
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKS
FOR
RGLC
Remodeling
of
existing
Canal
Escapes
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
vii
i
5
i
ii
iii
iv
6
i
E1.4/
1
E1.4/
2
E1.4/
3
E1.4/
4
E1.4/
5
E1.4/
6
E1.4/
7
E1.4/
8
E1.5
E1.5/
1
E1.5/
2
E1.5/
3
E1.5/
4
E1.6
E1.6/
1

Stations)
Qt
y
Uni
t
Rate
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
3.50
10.50
12.08
1200 mm
3.50
10.50
12.08
1200 mm
3.50
10.50
12.08
1200 mm
3.50
10.50
12.08
1200 mm
2.50
15.00
17.25
800 mm
3.50
10.50
12.08
1200 mm
3.50
10.50
12.08
1200 mm
3.00
9.00
10.35
1000 mm
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
Eac
h
0.99
3.96
4.55
400 mm
0.81
3.24
3.73
400 mm
1.15
4.60
5.29
500 mm
0.85
3.40
3.91
500 mm
50.00
50.00
57.50
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
LS
Amount (in
lacs)
Origin Add
al
15 %
over
SPR
Seureca(JV)STC
Details
Civil Work
P a g e | 21

Project
S.
N
o.
A&F
Ref
No
Particulars
Qt
y
ii
E1.6/
2
iii
E1.6/
3
iv
E1.6/
4
E1.6/
5
vi
E1.6/
6
vii
E1.6/
7
vii
i
E1.6/
8
ix
E1.6/
9
E1.6/
10
Construction
of
new
Canal
Escapes
Construction
of
new
Super
passage / Village
Road Bridges in
place of existing
VRB
Construction
of
Parshall
Flume
with a Ultrasonic
Flowmeter & a
Mechanical type of
Flowmeter in the
channel d/s of PS08 Rising Main
Raising of canal
banks and wall
upstream of canal
siphons
Rehabilitation
of
RCC
Aqueducts
and other RCC
structures
Additional
Zero
Velocity Valves for
the rising mains of
PS-5 and PS-6
Provision of APFC
Panel & additional
Capacitor Banks to
provide
power
factor of 0.95 or
above for revised
duty motors.
Motorisation
of
existing manually
operated Butterfly
Valves
at
all
Pumping Stations
Upgradation
of
Relay,CT/PT & Misc
items in existing
6.6kV HT Panel
Boards

Stations)
Uni
t
Rate
Amount (in
lacs)
Origin Add
al
15 %
over
SPR
20.00
23.00
LS
20.00
LS
50.00
50.00
57.50
LS
10.00
10.00
11.50
LS
100.0
0
100.00
115.00
Civil Work
LS
100.0
0
100.00
115.00
Civil Work
LS
20.00
20.00
23.00
LS
90.00
90.00
103.50
LS
216.0
0
216.00
248.40
LS
50.00
50.00
57.50
Seureca(JV)STC
Details
Civil Work
Civil Work
P a g e | 22

Project
S.
N
o.
A&F
Ref
No
Particulars
Qt
y
xi
E1.6/
11
xii
E1.6/
12
xii
i
E1.6/
13
Replacement
of
various
instrumentation
equipments
like
annunciatin
system,
pressue
gauges etc.
Spare
Parts
of
Proposed Pumping
Machinery
Making
arrangement
in
the
inlet
of
Inverted Siphon to
join with gravity
pipeline
for
diversion of flow
towards
Surpura
Headworks
Grand Total
Sub Total Civil
Works

Stations)
Uni
t
Rate
Amount (in
lacs)
Origin Add
al
15 %
over
SPR
50.00
57.50
LS
50.00
LS
100.0
0
100.00
115.00
LS
20.00
20.00
23.00
4066.
62
320.0
0
4676.
62
368.0
0
Details
This
is
already
under
constructio
n
in
Surpura
Project
The total price is 5279.54 lacs after adding the price escalation @7% p.a.
and Contingency @ 5%. The total price for civil works is 415.44 lacs after
adding the price escalation @7% p.a. and Contingency @ 5%.
A summary of these provisions for Raw Water Conveyance system (RGLC

and Pumping systems) is available at Annexure A-02.
An Index map showing the raw water conveyance system & its pumping
stations is shown in attached drawing No. JWSRP/RGLC/DR/01.
1.3. Project Funding

The reorganization project for UWSS Jodhpur is being funded through
Agence Franaise de Dveloppement (AFD), a financial institution and the
main implementing agency for Frances official development assistance to
developing countries and overseas territories.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 23

Project

Stations)
Two agreements were signed between Government of India and the

French Development Agency (AFD) for Euro 71.1 million ( Ph I) and 20.81
million ( Ph II) long term soft loan for the project Reorganization of Urban
Water Supply in Jodhpur on February 2, 2012 and July 17, 2013
respectively in New Delhi. The loan is sanctioned on the floating rate of
interest as 6-monthly Euribor flat which is currently 1.425% p.a. and the
principal sum is to be repaid in the duration of 15 years after the
execution period for 5 years.
The agreement between AFD and DEA consists of a 91.91 million direct
sovereign soft loan aimed to support Public Health Engineering
Department of Government of Rajasthan to i) improve water supply
services through increasing and extending capacity, energy and hydraulic
efficiency measures and better service management and ii) control
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by system reorganization and via energy
and hydraulic efficiency measures in the city of Jodhpur.
To provide 24 hours water supply to people of Jodhpur Rs 740 crore would
be spent on the Reorganized Jodhpur Water Supply Project for Jodhpur.
Under this project water would flow with gravity and high technique
pumping stations would help in saving electricity. Regular water supply
would be ascertained in the area of Mandor, Mahamandir, and Pavta which
face drinking water problem. The settlements being developed on Nagaur
road, Jaipur road and Pali road would also get regular and systematic
drinking water supply.
Under the Reorganized Jodhpur Water Supply Project the current water
system of Jodhpur city would be strengthened by laying 66 kilometer new
pipe line and 40 kilometer long old lines will be changed. A Diggi (RWR)
would be constructed in Surpura dam having capacity of 210 Mcft and
would be connected to Rajiv Gandhi life canal through 30 kilometer long
pipeline.
Two pumping stations one each in Surpura and Takhatsagar would be set
up under the project. Two clear water reservoirs having capacity of 8 ML
each would be constructed in Surpura and Takhatsagar while one clean
water reservoir having capacity of 1.75 ML would be constructed in
Lalsagar. Two filter plants having capacity of 90 MLD would be set up in
Surpura and Takhatsagar respectively. The services of consultancy firms of
international level would be hired for the better and qualitative
implementation and management of the project.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 24

Project

Stations)
The Project aims to augment and extend the present system for meeting
the water demand of Jodhpur City up to the year 2029.Installation of
efficient pumping machineries in RGLC system to conserve energy
(presently nearly Rs 90 Cr/annum & gravity main extending to Jhalamand
along Pali Road are also earlier covered in this project has been taken up
under energy saving concept by awarding this task to an ESCO who will
invest money on efficient system and would earn his profits from the per
MLD energy cost saved.
The project has also multi-faceted features like replacement of old
inefficient pumping machinery with energy efficient one, replacement of
old leaking pipelines, reduction in non-revenue water in selected pilot
zones for implementing 24x7 system of water supply..
1.4. Jodhpur City

Jodhpur is the second largest city of Rajasthan. It is located in the lower
middle of the Thar Desert of Western Rajasthan and is about 280 km from
Indo-Pak border and is situated at 2618 north latitude and 7301 east
longitude. It has an altitude of 242 Mtr. above MSL at Railway Station with
Fort and old city being much higher i.e. 367.83 mtr. and between 245 to
325 mtr. The outer city area lies between to 210-255 mtr. above MSL.
The city which originally had about 5.0 Sq km area within the city wall,
covered more than 50 Sq km in 1972 and presently expanded to some
281 Sq km with a potential to grow in about 321 Sq km by the year 2023.
Expansion of city towards the north and west is restricted because of hill
ranges and in south-east due to defense establishments.
Figure 1.1: Jodhpur city
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 25

Project

Stations)
Jodhpur is the Divisional Headquarter of North-Western Railway and is

important Railway junction in the Western Rajasthan. It provides train
connections to Bikaner, Ganga Nagar, Ajmer, Jaipur, Udaipur, Barmer,
Jaisalmer, Ahmadabad and Mumbai.
Jodhpur city has civil aviation facilities. It has a military and civil Airport.
Direct flights from Jodhpur Airport to major cities like Jaipur, Delhi and
Mumbai take place.
1.5. Raw Water Conveyance System - Introduction

Maharana Pratap Sagar (Pong Dam), the earth fill dam across river Beas in
Himachal Pradesh is the main source of water for Jodhpur city. The
reservoir drains a catchment area of 12561 Sq Km out of which 780 Sq Km
is the permanent snow catchment. Further to the dam, the surface water
from another perennial river Ravi is collected at Harike Barrage. Harike
Barrage is the emerging point of Indira Gandhi canal. (IGNP) which
transports Himalayan water to Rajasthan through Punjab and Haryana
states. The canal after passing from Punjab and Haryana (204 Km) enters
the Thar desert of Rajasthan. Within the Rajasthan, the Main canal is 445
Km long and provide water for irrigation and drinking to eight districts of
Rajasthan: Nagaur, Sri Ganga Nagar, Hanumangarh, Churu, Bikaner,
Jaisalmer, Jodhpur and Barmer. Gross command area of the canal is 2.5
Mha and it delivers drinking water to some 14 million humans. The Rajeev
Gandhi Lift Canal brings surface water to Jodhpur from IGNP.
Rajeev Gandhi lifts Canal, branching of from RD 1109 of IGNP near village
Madasar is a common carrier of surface water for Jodhpur city, 4 Urban
and 1235 villages. Its off -take point on IGNP is 205 km from Jodhpur near
Madasar village in Jaisalmer District. RGLC is a composite system of canal
and pipe lines with eight intermediate pumping stations.
The raw water conveyance system has eight stage pumping with
combination of open channel flow & pumping mains in a length of 205
Kms to carry water from IGMC to Kailana Reservoir in Jodhpur.
The open canal is provided with various CD works like pipe siphons,
aqueducts, super passages, escapes, road bridges.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 26

Project

Stations)
Fig 1.2 : Index Map of RGLC Conveyance System

The RGLC Project has been executed in two phases. Namely, Phase-I and
Phase-II (called as Modified Ph-II). The Ph-I of Project was commissioned in
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 27

Project

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

There are two outlets for release of water to RGLC. The capacity of two
outlets is reported as 264
and
62.5
cusecs
respectively. Thus 326.5
cusecs outlet capacity is
available at IGMC, which
is to be got confirmed
from IGMC authorities,
who
maintain
these
outlets. Thus, the total
capacity of two outlets is
9.244 cumecs (326.5
cusecs) and is adequate
to
meet
designed
demand up to year 2021.
Figure 1.3 :RGLC Outlet at Madasar
The capacity of outlet
would be required to be increased by the year 2021, when phase-II pumps
are to be replaced by higher discharge pumps.
1.7. Canal Reaches

The canal has been mainly constructed in Mehboob Section and due to
local site conditions; trapezoidal section with cast in situ PCC and masonry
construction has been provided. The CD works in the form of pipe siphons
& RCC aqueducts have also been provided, which affects canal hydraulics
by formation of afflux due to decrease in area of flow. However, the VRB,
super passages, Inlet-outlet works for entry/exit of runoff, escapes etc
where section of canal does not change have not been considered in
working out sustainability of canal conveyance hydraulics.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 28

Project

Stations)
The input data related to open canal, its dimensions and type of cross
section has not been made available in a proper manner due to non
availability of As built drawings. The data elaborated in the bid document
for RGLC Ph-II works as well as some approved/proposed drawings
submitted by M/S SPML at the time of implementation of Ph II of RGLC
have been collected from different offices of SE City, EE RGLC Div.,
Jodhpur as well as from field and a compilation of input data has been
prepared. The reach wise details of different type of canal sections and its
gradient in different reaches along with CD structures like pipe siphon,
RCC Aqueduct, pumping mains etc. are reflected in Table 1 Annexure A14.
The input data so compiledis has been approved by CE (P) PHED, Jodhpur
vide letter no. CEP/PHE/JU/Ar-Jodhpur/STC/14-15/5652 & 569 dated
25/07/2014 (Annexure A-16) and has been used in checkingin checking
of sustainability of conveyance system.
The abstract of canal conveyance system is as below
Table 1.2: Abstract of canal System
Canal Reach
Length of Conveyance system

Canal length in Cross Section (kms)
Fro
m
To
RD-0
PS-1
7.00
Trapezo
cost in
lacs
1.55
PS-1
PS-2
9.85
PS-2
PS-3
PS-3
Trapez
RCC
Pumping
Aqueduct
Main
(M)
(M)
(M)
Masonry
Total
(Kms)
1.35
9.90
0.00
0.00
9.85
0. 0
75
10.68
4.48
0.00
15.16
105
115
PS-4
8.36
2.95
0.00
11.31
47
315
PS-4
PS-5
13.04
8.67
0.00
21.71
198
151
175
PS-5
PS-6
2.95
4.78
2.28
10.00
8600
PS-6
PS-7
50.72
9.70
6.11
66.52
21
6400
PS-7
PS-8
6.40
0.00
18.50
24.90
6239
1799
555
PS-8
Hathi
Nahar
0.47
0.47
6329
108.992
32.125
28.702
169.819
6589
1977
22564
Total
Mehboob
Pipe
Siphon
1.7.1. Canal
Cross
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 29

Project

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

The majority of reaches of canal comprises of sandy soil where canal has
been constructed in Mehboob section as per figure-4.2 below.
Combination lining of single precast (M-10) 30 cm X 15 cm X 4cm blocks
over 250 micron LDPE film with 16 mm sandwich plaster (1:3) and 12mm
base plaster (1:6) has been provided for Mehboob section. The canal was
constructed in Phase I for ultimate flow (3 pumps running flow discharge)
to cater designed demand of year 2011 for Jodhpur town and 158 enroute
villages. A minimum free board of 0.45 m was considered in triangular
section and a vertical Masonry wall (Dowla) of 0.3 m height was
constructed to protect inspection bank of canal. The Mehboob section was
constructed for total depth - designed depth + 0.45 m (free board) as
shown below. In the phase II (Yr 2005), an increased flow (equal to 4
pumps running flow discharge) was considered to cater designed demand
of Year 2016 for Jodhpur town, enroute 1235villages and 4 towns. The
Mehboob section was accordingly modified by dismantlingby dismantling
existing masonry dowla and reconstruction of the same of 0.6 m height
where bottom 0.3 m height was considered as free board and remaining
top 0.3 m height was considered as dowla.
Figure 1.4 : Existing Mehboob Section
1.7.1.2. Cast-in-Situ Section

In some of the reaches 100 mm thick cast in situ (M-10) cement concrete
lining in trapezoidal section had to be adopted due to local rocky soil
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 30

Project

Stations)
conditions as per figure 4.3 below. The bed width in the trapezoidal
section was adopted considering depth and area of flow same as taken for
Mehboob section.
A 250 micron LDPE film over 12mm base plaster (1:6) has been provided
in Cast in situ trapezoidal section. A minimum free board of 0.45 m was
considered in triangular section and a vertical Masonry wall (Dowla) of 0.3
m height was constructed to protect inspection bank of canal. The Cast in
situ section was constructed for total depth - designed depth + 0.45 m
(free board) as shown below. The other criteria including remodeling in
phase II were kept same as adopted for Mehboob section.
Figure 1.5 : Existing Cast in situ Section
1.7.1.3. Masonry Section

Masonry section was constructed mostly in rocky strata having deep
cutting and in some stretches having partial cutting and partial filling.
The RR Masonry wall (CM 1:6) has been constructed with a slope 0.25H:1V
on water face and slope 0.1H:1V on outer face. The bed width in Masonry
section was adopted considering depth and area of flow same as taken for
Mehboob section as per figure 4.3 below. A minimum free board of 0.45
m was considered without any Dowla.
In phase II, remodeling of Masonry section was done by increasing height
of Masonry wall by minimum 0.60 m. Thus, the free board available is
more than 0.60 m.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 31

Project

Stations)
Figure 1.6 : Existing Masonry Section
1.8. Canal pipe siphons:

There are in all 9 Nos. pipe siphons provided in canal at different locations
of different length and different pipe diameters/ RCC sections. These
siphons have been provided with trash racks/silting basins & escapes
upstream to these to protect against canal afflux generated due to
clogging of trash racks & head loss.
The siphons were constructed in Phase I for ultimate flow (3 pumps
running flow discharge) to cater designed demand of year 2011 for
Jodhpur town and 158 enroute villages. The Input data of each pipe siphon
taken from drawings and is summarized at Annexure A-07.
In the phase II (Yr 2005), an increased flow (equal to 4 pumps running flow
discharge) was considered to cater designed demand of Year 2016 for
Jodhpur town, Enroute 1235 villages and 4 towns. The Pipe siphons were
modified to sustain increased flow and therefore increased afflux, by
raising height of masonry wall and escapes U/s to Siphon. No parallel
pipes were considered.
The afflux in u/s of these canals shall further rise due to increase in
discharge of canal, which has been calculated. As envisaged in feasibility
report, no parallel siphons have been proposed in design and only
increased afflux has been calculated to assess requirement of raising of
canal banks upstream to sustain increased afflux.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 32

Project

Stations)
1.9. RCC Aqueducts:

There are in all 17 RCC aqueducts provided in RGLC canal system. These
Aqueducts were constructed in Phase I for ultimate flow (3 pumps running
flow discharge) to cater designed demand of year 2011 for Jodhpur town
and 158 enroute villages. The Input data of each aqueduct is taken from
drawings and summarized at Annexure A-08.
Jodhpur town, enroute 1235 villages and 4 towns. These Aqueducts were
modified to sustain increased flow by increasing height of RCC Vertical
walls with cross beams to cater for increased afflux. No parallel RCC
aqueducts were considered.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 33

Project
1.10.

Stations)
Escape weirs U/s to Pumping station:
There are in all 8 escape weirs provided at u/s of each pumping station in
RGLC canal system. These escapes weirs were constructed in Phase I for
ultimate flow (3 pumps running flow discharge) to cater designed demand
of year 2011 for Jodhpur town and 158 enroute villages. These escapes
weir were designed for flow equal to the full canal flow. The Head over
escape (nappy height) was considered as 0.25 m. Ogee and Broad crested
Escape weirs have been constructed of adequate length.
Jodhpur town, enroute 1235 villages and 4 towns. These escapes weirs
were modified to sustain increased flow by increasing crest level of escape
weir without changing the length of escapes. The design Head over
escape (nappy height) was increased from 0.25 m to 0.30 m. The ogee
shaped weirs were raised for a minimum height of 350 mm in RCC. The
broad crested escape weirs were similarly raised in PCC.
The Input data of each escape weirs is taken from drawings/bid document
and summarized at Annexure A-06.
1.11.
Inlet- outlet structures:
There are 16 inlet outlets structures were provided to pass the rain water
in RGLC canal system. These inlet -outlet structure were constructed after
Phase I on the locations where canal was breached during heavy rains.
These structures are broad crested weirs of adequate length for inflow of
rainwater into canal at U/s locations and similar broad crested weirs for
escape of rain water from canal at D/s locations. The crest level of these
weirs were kept at designed depth for ultimate flow (3 pumps running flow
discharge) to cater designed demand of year 2011 for Jodhpur town and
158 enroute villages.
In the phase II (Yr 2005), an increased flow (equal to 4 pumps running
flow discharge) was considered to cater designed demand of Year 2016 for
Jodhpur town, enroute 1235 villages and 4 towns. These weirs were
modified by increasing crest level as per requirement of Phase II without
changing the length of escapes. The broad crested weirs were raised for a
minimum height of 300 mm in RCC.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 34

Project

Stations)
The Input data of inlet outlet structures is taken from bid document and
summarized at Annexure A-10.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 35

Project
1.12.

Stations)
Other Structures :
The other structures like VRB, Super passages, Silting basin, PS flaring
zones, ED chambers etc. were constructed in Phase I for ultimate
requirement with adequate margin in free board for future increase in
flow. None of the structures were modified at the time of Phase II of RGLC
as these structures are not affected by canal hydraulics.
A summary of different canal structures in entire conveyance system of
RGLC is as given below;
Table 1.3: Summary of RGLC structures
Type
Lengt
h
Component
No.
Mehboob Section
108.99
Super Passages
25
Trapezoidal
section
60.827
Aqueduct
20
Rising Main (MS

pipe)
22.564
Escape weir
08
13
RCC Aqua Duct
1.977
Raw Water inlet/

outlet
Siphon
6.589
Silting basin
200.94
8
pipe siphons
Total length
1.13.
Pumping Station
There are 8 pumping stations in RGLC system, with pumps installed in two
phases (Yr. 1996 & 2005). The civil structure for these pumping stations
was constructed in phase I of RGLC of installation of 6 pumps (except PS 5
where 12 pumps have been installed to meet ultimate demand. In phase
II, only additional pumps were installed to meet increased design demand.
Majority of these pumps have become energy inefficient and there have
been frequent breakdowns in the past, reducing the effective pumping
capacity.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 36

Project

Stations)
1.13.1.
Pumpi
ng Station No
1
1.13.2.
Pumpi
ng Capacity
The summary of existing pumping capacity at different pumping stations
is as below;
Table 1.4 : Pumping capacity for all pumping station
PS No
PS No.
1
PS No.
2
PS No.
3
PS No.
4
PS No.
5
PS No.
6
PS No.
7
PS No.
8
Pumps Installed in Phase I
Flow
Head
Work
ing
Stand
by
m3/s
mtrs
num
2.018
20.5
1.988
Pumps Installed in Phase II
Total
Pumpin
g
Capacity
Flow
Hea
d
Work
ing
Stand
by
num
Pump
ing
Capacit
y
m3/s
m3/s
mtrs
Num
num
Pump
ing
Capacit
y
m3/s
4.036
2.018
20.5
4.036
8.072
17
3.976
1.988
17.1
3.976
7.952
1.938
21.5
3.876
1.938
21.5
3.876
7.752
1.893
14.5
3.786
1.893
15
3.786
7.572
0.906
70.5
3.624
0.906
75
2.718
6.342
1.754
39
3.508
1.754
43.5
3.508
7.016
1.565
18
3.13
1.565
18
3.13
6.26
1.368
26.5
2.736
1.368
26.5
2.736
5.472
1.14.
m3/s
Raw Water Storage at Jodhpur
The raw water brought from RGLC and harvested rain water from the local
catchment is collected in Kailana and Takhat Sagar.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 37

Project

Stations)
Fig 1.15 : Takhatsagar Lake

The reservoirs are inter connected, and following table depicts their
details:
Table 1.5 : Raw Water Storage capacity available at Jodhpur
S.N
.
Reservoir
Bed
level
FSL
Max
gaug
em
Storage Capacity
(ML)
Live
Dead
Total
1.
Kailana
256.20
273.89
17.69
4339
498
4837
2.
Takhat Sagar
248.60
269.92
21.32
5253
1252
6505
9592
1750
1134
Total
2
The raw water storage capacity is proposed to be increased by
construction of new RWR at Surpura dam of capacity --------ML
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 38

Project
Chapter 2.
1.15.

Stations)
Technical Report
Coverage Area
The RGLC system is primarily created to meet the water demand of

Jodhpur city. As the RGL Canal passes through a severe water deficit area
along its alignment, it also serves a large number of rural villages & towns
along with Jodhpur City.
1.16.
Horizon Year
The Reorganization UWSS Jodhpur has been taken up by GOR with the
financial assistance from AFD to upgrade this conveyance system to meet
designed demand of UWSS Jodhpur up to year 2029.
The demand of enroute villages & towns, however, has been freezed up to
design year 2016. It is given to understand that increase in enroute
demand beyond year 2016 will be met by a new parallel system under
phase III
of RGLC. It is suggested that timely implementation of
alternative measures be ensured as the capacity installed at intermediate
off take points is much higher than the demand considered for yr 2016
and any extra drawl would affect tail end UWSS Jodhpur adversely.
Thus, the horizon year for projected demand for enroute rural sector and
4 towns has been taken as year 2016 and for Jodhpur city; it is adopted as
Year 2029.
1.17.
Water demand projection
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 39

Project

Stations)
A detailed report Basic Configuration Study Report was prepared to

project water demand of urban town Jodhpur as well as rural and urban
demand of enroute villages & submitted on 05/06/2013. The demand of
Jodhpur town was projected from different sources i.e. RGLC water, ground
water and recycled water. Similarly demand for domestic population, nondomestic consumers, Industrial consumers, Bulk consumers, Garden and
recreational areas has been projected separately. The losses in distribution
system, transmission system, water treatment plant and raw water
Reservoirs has been considered in detail for working out year wise
demand of Jodhpur city up to Horizon year. Similar exercise has been
carried out for enroute rural and urban towns. The Chapter 2.8 of Basic
Configuration Study Report covers detailed demand projections which are
briefly described here after.
1.18.
Jodhpur City
The designed demand of UWSS Jodhpur for year 2029 has been estimated
as 417 MLD from RGLC and 56 MLD from ground water/recycled water
sources. The per capita supply has been considered @ 135 LPCPD for
population served through connections and 70 LPCPD for remaining
population The abstract of year wise demand projection for domestic, non
domestic, industrial and bulk consumers along with per capita supply,
losses etc is indicated in Annexure A-03.
The 417 MLD demand in terms of canal flow requirement considering 2.5%
losses in raw water storage reservoir is 5.488 cumecs. The canal operation
has been taken for 335 days in a year to facilitate closure of canal
operation for cleaning/de-silting & other maintenance requirements of
IGMC and RGLC. This flow in canal is for 23 hrs pump operation per day.
The daily demand of Jodhpur is to be catered from two off take points of
RGLC. The major demand estimated as 4.093 cumecs, is to be carried up
to tail of PS-8 pumping main, whereas 1.395 cumecs is to be drawn from
silting basin at RD 191.921kms. This bifurcation has been assumed
considering proportionate demand splitting as per feasibility
report although these drawl rates may slightly get modified when final
demand projections are made for each SR zone/three master zones.
However, this is not going to materially change the sustainability
calculations as existing canal conveyance system beyond RD 191.921kms
has surplus capacity.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 40

Project
1.19.

Stations)
En-route Towns & Villages

1.19.1.
Target
ed WS
Schemes
In all, itRGLC
serves water demand of 1235 villages and 5
towns( including Jodhpur) along its alignment and onbefore reaching the
Kailana & Takhatsagar reservoirs.
The details of such water supply
schemes drawing water from RGLC along its alignment is provided below;
Table 2.1: Enroute Covered Villages and towns served by of RGLC
Pumping
Station
Betwn PS II &
III
Betwn PS III &
IV
Betwn PS IV &
V
Betwn PS V &
VI
Betwn PS VI &
VII
Betwn PS VII &

VIII
After PS VIII
Name of Water Supply Scheme
Beneficiaries
Villages
Towns
RD 20 WSS
RWSS Kansingh Ki Sid - Khidrat Mandore
RWSS Ghatore - Kanasar - Bap
3
16
0
0
25
RWSS Shekhasar
RWSS from RD 53
RWSS Jamba - Ghantiyala - Boongari
RWSS Malar - Jod - Hindol Gol
RWSS Phalodi H/W Bawari Kallan - Khara
- Jalora
RWW from RD 67.5
UWSS Phalodi
RWSS Moriya - Aau - Champasar
RWSS from RD 81
RWSS Peelwa - Sadari - Jambheshwar
Nagar
RWSS from RD 111
RWSS Bher - Harlaya
RWSS RD 134 Dewania - Nathrau
RWSS Panchala - Gehwra
RWSS RD 159.5 Khudiyala - Jiyaberi
RWSS For Shergarh Block
RWSS Tinwari - Mathaniya - Osiyan
RWSS Manaklao - Khangta
RWSS Manaklao - Dantiwara
RWSS Manaklao - Daijar - Banar
RWSS Keru - Beru - Joliyali
RWSS Kuri - Luni - Salawas
RWSS Kuri - Bhatinda
RWSS Umed Sagar - Samdari - Dhawa Khandap (of Jodhpur District)
1
17
42
6
43
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
28
12
15
0
1
0
0
0
11
34
129
59
77
23
111
62
121
25
32
32
22
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 41

Project
Pumping
Station

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

RWSS from Umed Sagar (of Jodhpur
District)
UWSS Jodhpur
TOTAL
Villages
Towns
176
28
1235
A list of all the villages & towns fed by RGLC system along with water
demand except Jodhpur city is available at Annexure A-04.
1.19.2.
Projec
ted Water
Demand
Based on growth rates and per capita water demand
(except urban WSS Jodhpur), the water requirement on canal system is
calculated which comes to be 242 mld i.e. 2.915 cumecs. The demand for
rural population has been made @ 55 LPCPD as against norms of 70
LPCPD in this desert part of western Rajasthan where animal husbandry is
the main occupation and large population of cattle is to be provided
potable water. The curtailment in demand is based on assumption that
balance 15 LPCPD is to be met by rain water harvesting, ground water
sources and other conservation measures. Similarly , the demand of
balance 4 urban towns having projected population less than 100,000
souls has been projected considering 100 LPCPD.
and aA summary of
this demand in MLD and cumecs is provided below;
Table 2.2: Enroute Drawl of RGLC
PS
Water Demand
MLD
Betwn
PS II &
III
Betwn
PS III &
IV
Betwn
PS IV &
V
Cumec
Withdraw
cumec
al
between
PS to PS
0.005
0.028
0.023
RD 20 WSS
RWSS Kansingh Ki Sid - Khidrat - Mandore
0.437
1.893
RWSS Ghatore - Kanasar - Bap
3.567
0.043
0.043
RWSS Shekhasar
RWSS from RD 53
RWSS Jamba - Ghantiyala - Boongari
RWSS Malar - Jod - Hindol Gol
RWSS Phalodi H/W Bawari Kallan - Khara -
0.199
1.469
5.718
0.948
6.466
0.002
0.018
0.069
0.011
0.078
0.212
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 42

Project
PS

Stations)
Water Demand
MLD
Betwn
PS V &
VI
Betwn
PS VI &
VII
Betwn
PS VII &
VIII
After PS
VIII
Jalora
RWW from RD 67.5
UWSS Phalodi
RWSS Moriya - Aau - Champasar
RWSS from RD 81
RWSS Peelwa - Sadari - Jambheshwar
Nagar
RWSS from RD 111
RWSS Bher - Harlaya
RWSS RD 134 Dewania - Nathrau
RWSS Panchala - Gehwra
RWSS RD 159.5 Khudiyala - Jiyaberi
RWSS For Shergarh Block
RWSS Tinwari - Mathaniya - Osiyan
RWSS Manaklao - Khangta
RWSS Manaklao - Dantiwara
RWSS Manaklao - Daijar - Banar
RWSS Keru - Beru - Joliyali
RWSS Kuri - Luni - Salawas
RWSS Kuri - Bhatinda
RWSS Umed Sagar - Samdari - Dhawa Khandap (of Jodhpur District)
RWSS Umed Sagar - Samdari - Dhawa Khandap (of Barmer District)
RWSS from Umed Sagar (of Jodhpur
District)
UWSS Jodhpur
TOTAL
Cumec
Withdraw
cumec
al
2.815
8.722
7.649
3.963
4.086
0.034
0.105
0.092
0.048
0.049
1.742
9.086
21.534
14.614
11.203
2.564
30.084
13.175
0.021
0.110
0.260
0.176
0.135
0.031
0.363
0.159
37.674
3.045
5.172
5.169
3.246
10.498
0.455
0.037
0.062
0.062
0.039
0.127
24.599
0.297
0.233
0.003
242
2.915
0.245
0.782
1.076
0.528
1.19.3.
Total
Demand
The total demand to be drawn from RGLC system from various off take
points is worked out as 8.405 cumecs as against 8.201 cumecs estimated
in feasibility report. The abstract reach wise demand is as shown below
Table 2.3: Reach wise designed & Cumulative drawl
Canal Reach
From
To
Kailana
PS-8
PS-7
PS-6
PS-8
PS-7
PS-6
PS-5
Location of off take

RD (Km)
205.4
198.6, 198.1, 177
159.5, 134,120 & 111
81 & 78
Designed
Drawl
(Cumecs)
4.624
2.471
0.782
0.245
Seureca(JV)STC
Cumulative
drawl
(Cumecs)
4.624
7.095
7.877
8.122
P a g e | 43

Project
Canal Reach
From
To
PS-5
PS-4
PS-4
PS-3
PS-3
PS-2
PS-2
PS-1
PS-1
IGMC

Stations)
Location of off take

RD (Km)
67.5 & 53
42
35
19.9
-
Designed
Drawl
(Cumecs)
0.212
Cumulative
drawl
(Cumecs)
8.334
0.043
0.023
0.005
0
8.377
8.4
8.405
8.405
An abstract of offtake wise demand is available at Annexure A-05.
1.20.
Variation in demand Shortfall in projection

from RGLC
Although, the estimation of prospective demand of various enroute

beneficiaries & urban Jodhpur has been projected meticulously, yet
sustainability of RGLC system to meet 2029 designed demand is
dependent on many variables as described below :below:
(a) The most uncertain factor is correct estimation of seepage
losses for the present & itsits safe estimation up to horizon
year 2029.
The seepage losses may be much higher if canal is not
regularly maintained/rehabilitated properly up to year 2029
or may improve if maintenance of canal is done diligently by
timely de-weeding/de-silting and repair to damaged lining
as well as to its earthen sections/embankment.
However, if losses are progressively observed to be more than
assumed values, there would be shortfall in availability at
Jodhpur, which is to be made good by managing recycled
water & ground water production and demand efficiently or
through proposed phase III of RGLC.
If it is observed that shortfall has to be made good from IGMC
only, the parallel system to be put in place for increased
enroute demand beyond 2016, may have some built in
cushion to tide over such deficit in RGLC system, if any, up to
year 2029.
(b)En-route drawaldrawl may be much more than designed
demand due to delay in implementation of parallel system
from IGMC getting delayed beyond yr. 2016 or restriction of
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 44

Project

Stations)
service levels to 55 LPCPD becomes non manageable. At

present the capacity of pumps to draw water from RGLC is
much higher than the rural demand projected for year 2016.
The delay in implementation of PH III of RGLC may result in
excess drawal by enroute rural population resulting in lesser
availability at Jodhpur. As per present calculations, some
allowance would be available beyond year 2016 up to year
2020 when Phase-II pumps are to be replaced by higher
discharge pumps. If seepage losses can be controlled by
better & dedicated measures of rehabilitation and repair of
canal., surplus water can take care of increase in enroute
demand.
(c) Thus, in the contingencies of higher than envisaged seepage
losses, higher than designed enroute drawal or higher demand
of UWSS Jodhpur in year 2029 can be taken care of by either
efficiently managing seepage losses in canal or putting
parallel system from IGMC latest by 202016 and/or managing
recycled /groundwater as well as managing demand by
extensive IEC activities.
(d) The storage capacity available at Jodhpur (after discounting
Umed Sagar where heavy losses will occur due to large spread
area) would be around 20 days designed demand for year
2029. In order to match up with closure of IGMC, which is 30
days in a year, it would be appropriate either to use storage
capacity of IGM Canal or construct 10 days storage near IGMC.
This may facilitate running of canal for 345 days instead of
335 days which shall give on additional quantity of nearly
3.0%.
1.21.
RGLC Sustainability - Design Approach
The sustainability of canal and allied structures is to be examined for

adequacy to meet designed demand of urban water supply Jodhpur for
horizon Yr. 2029. i.e. 417 MLD and designed demand of Enroute
population for horizon Yr. 2016 i.e. 242 MLD. The off take wise demand in
terms of flow requirement (cumecs) in RGLC to be considered for design is
as per Annexure A-05. The operation of canal has been considered 335
days in a Yr. considering 30 days closure for maintenance of IGMC and
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 45

Project

Stations)
RGLC. Similarly, the hours of operation of pumps has been considered 23

hrs in a day to account for breakdowns in power supply, pumping
machinery as well as forced shut downs due to several reasons like finding
floating bodies of human and animal, harsh climatic conditions etc.
1.22.
Seepage Losses:
In the design of canal apart from designed demand, the designed flow
greatly depends on extent of seepage and evaporation losses in different
canal reaches. Thus, it is important to fairly estimate seepage losses in
canal over the design period.
The canal has a lining of PCC blocks with sandwich plaster & LDPE film in
majority of length and CC lining (with LDPE film)/ masonry lining in some
smaller sections. In the phase-I of RGLC, the canal was designed
considering seepage & evaporation losses @ 1.2 cumecs/m sqm of wetted
area. However, at the time of RGLC Phase-II looking to better condition of
canal, the seepage losses were subsequently reduced to 0.72 cumecs/m
sqm. In the feasibility report of JRWSP in year 2009, while designing canal
system the seepage losses were increased to 0.96 cumecs/m sqm of
wetted area.
1.22.1.
Measu
rement of
seepage
losses
No measurement were ever carried out about the extent of seepage
losses in RGLC in past.
1.22.1.1. Ponding method

The best method as adopted by IGNP is to determine seepage &
evaporation losses by ponding method during canal closure. The IGMC
also determine seepage losses by ponding method as described in IS 9452
(part-I) 1980 & evaporation losses by pan method as per IS 6939-1973.
The measurement of seepage losses in various section of RGLC is only
possible during closure of canal for which client has been advised either to
take help of skilled team of IGNP can be taken or award a contract can be
awarded after inviting bids from experienced firms.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 46

Project

Stations)
1.22.1.2. Inflow outflow method

This method, normally applied to measure seepage losses in running
canal, gives a very rough estimate of the losses in a section of canal as it
is very difficult to create an ideal regime conditions of steady flow in a
section having no enroute withdrawal (or a properly metered withdrawal)
over a reasonable time period to correctly assess the flow in a section &
estimate seepage losses. The flow in RGLC depends on rate of pumping
from U/s pumping station. The discharge of pump also varies a lot,
particularly an account of variation in sump level on suction side as well
as due to combination of different sets of pumps. The fluctuation in
frequency and continuous variation of total head of pumping gives
variation in flow by more than +5%. Thus, it is not possible to create a
steady flow regime in RGLC & it is not possible to correctly assess quantity
of water pumped into canal over a particular time period.
Earlier, PHED entrusted the job of flow measurement by current meter in
different sections of canal was entrusted to MBM Engineering College by
current meter. This study could not be completed due to some reasons.
Moreover, the accuracy of measurement of flow by current meter would
also depend on no. of observations made across over cross section of
canal. The accuracy of velocity measurement by current meter at a
particular instance would also be reportedly in the range of +10% as
normally three observations are taken across a cross section of canal.
1.22.1.3. Measurement of flow and estimation of seepage losses

in RGLC
In order to assess flow at a particular section, use of ADCP working on
Doppler principle, has been considered and as per requirement of
department, flow measurement at four different locations were
determined by portable ADCP on 1-8-2013 (Report placed at Annexure M06) . Apart from flow across cross section of canal, area of flow & wetted
perimeter has also been calculated at a particular chainage of canal for a
particular instant of time. The details of measurements are reproduced as
under
Table-2.4: Measurement of flow in RGLC by Doppler principle using ADCP
Data measured by doppler test
S.
No
.
Canal
RD
Tim
e
Date
Max
Dept
h (in
mtr.)
5
Top
Widt
h (in
mtr.)
6
Mean
Velocity
(in m/s)
Wetted
perimeter (in
mtr.)
Discharge
(in cumec)
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 47

Project

Stations)
Data measured by doppler test

S.
No
.
Canal
RD
Tim
e
102.9
113.0
75
123.8
75
131.0
5
9:4
5
11.
25
16.
25
16.
58
3
4
Date
01/08/20
13
01/08/20
13
01/08/20
13
01/08/20
13
Max
Dept
h (in
mtr.)
Top
Widt
h (in
mtr.)
Mean
Velocity
(in m/s)
Wetted
perimeter (in
mtr.)
Discharge
(in cumec)
1.61
5.97
8
5.63
1
5.32
5
5.56
6
0.859
6.8462
4.783
0.974
6.5819
4.519
1.034
6.1359
4.478
0.869
6.3352
4.383
1.51
1.48
1.58
The above observation had been taken

observation was so selected so as to give
section. However, despite best of efforts, the
flow observed varies by more than 10% and
than 200 to 300%.
meticulously, and time of

same flow regime at each
time lapse as per velocity of
in some instance, it is more
4
5
6
7175
2097
5
2815
0
1797
5
10757
-40%
0.041
6.36
0.95
7541
1980
281
%
0.095
6.24
0.96
21948
-9%
0.305
6.53
0.93
30139
16%
0.400
6.46
0.96
18743
-6%
0.136
6.31
2400
0
2598
0
1998
0
10
6.71
12=9/11*10 Seepage & evaporation losses

00000
(in CUM/MSQM)
1.00
Water Loss in the reach

(in cum.)
0.264
time lapse error

85%
1800
0
11
12
(in sq. m.)Wetted area
7)/7)8=%((6-
6000
0.92
11=10 X 4
observation Actual time lapse as per time of
Time required to travel as per

mean velocity
11102
6=4/5
(in sec.)
Spot 2 RD
perimeter Avg. of Mean wetted Perimeter in the

from Spot 1wetted
reach (in mtr.)
1017
5
1080
0
discharge at Difference
Spot1 and in observed
3
113.0
75
123.8
75
131.0
5
123.8
75
131.0
5
131.0
5
from Spot 1 Avg. of

Mean velocity in the section
to Spot 2 velocity
(in m/s)
2
102.
9
113.
075
123.
875
102.
9
102.
9
113.
075
2)*10004=(3-
Spot 1 RD
S. NO.
Canal reach
(in mtr.)Length of reach
Table 2.5 : Seepage & evaporation losses calculation based on data

measured by Doppler test
6831
5
6867
6
4474
0
1369
92
1817
32
1134
16
3.864
0.597
2.123
2.226
2.201
1.199
Minimum seepage losses (in the reach no. 2)
0.597
CUM/MSQM
Maximum seepage losses (in the reach no. 1)
3.864
CUM/MSQM
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 48

Project

Stations)
Avg seepage losses of above 6 observations

Avg seepage losses considering 10% time lapse error (reach no. 4
and 6)
Avg seepage losses considering 50% time lapse error (reach no. 4,5
and 6)
2.035
1.713
1.556
CUM/MSQM
CUM/MSQM
CUM/MSQM
As explained above, the seepage losses worked out above are very
approximate as steady flow regime conditions cannot be generated
through pumping system in RGLC and the flow measurement by ADCP
may also have accuracy level of +3 to 5% In addition to the flow
measured at different section at different time span may have variations
of +10% due to variation in pumps discharge. Thus, the losses determined
between various sections during a particular time span may vary
substantially and sometimes absurd results of getting higher flow at
downstream observations point is also observed as was observed during
flow measurements on 1/8/2013 by ADCP when higher flow was measured
at RD 123.875, when observations were taken at around 1.00pm and it
was found that flow is higher than flow measured in U/s reach at RD
102.9/113.075 kms.
1.22.1.4. Literature on type of lining and seepage losses by Prof.

B.S. Thandaveswara of IIT, Madras
The above publication (Annexure-A-20) thoroughly analyses various
types of lining material & practices adopted in different states for water
courses, distributaries and main canals.
The author has described a vast no. of instances where due to poor
construction, supervision, quality & poor maintenance & growth of aquatic
weeds in canal, particularly in water courses, have led to seepage losses
almost equal to unlined canals with 4 to 7 years age. The performance of
main canals & distributaries which have less dry & wet cycles of rotation
leading to less cracking of lining in comparison to smaller distributaries &
water courses which have larger spells of dry runs. The longer dry runs
increases induced cracks in lining, leading to higher seepage.
It has been reported that combination lining of conventional concrete/tile
lining with PE films of 100-150 microns have sustained water tightness in
canals even upto 15 year life.
The author has reported practices adopted in various states/projects
about seepage losses in lined canals, summary of which is reproduced
below:
Table 2.6- Pact-C
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 49

Project
S.
No.
State

Stations)
Adopted practice
organization
Seepage
Remark
losses in
cumecs/
msqm of
wetted area
UP (Lined
seepage K1=1/200
trapezoidal)
(B+D)2/3 @
0.293
cumecs/km
2
Bhakra Nagal
B = 1.0m
D = 2.0m
trapezoidal for 8
cumecs
K1 = 1.25 Q0.056 (FPS)
0.523
0.60 cumecs/m sqm
0.600
(lined canal)
3
Andhra Pradesh
(lined canal)
Haryana
(a) lined without LDPE

(b) Lined with LDPE
0.43
0.16
Gujrat
(a) Lined without LDPE

(b) Lined with lDPE
1.00
0.80
West Bengal
(a) Lined without LDPE

(b) LDPE with soil cover
0.30
0.12
For rocky strata

For rocky strata
The above table indicates that in different states, the seepage losses after
lining with LDPE film are predominantly considered around 0.60
cumecs/m.sqm of wetted area. The literature available on seepage losses
also considers the value achievable over a sustained period, provided
canal is properly desilted/deweeded & repaired/rehabilitated.
1.22.2.
Field
measurement
of seepage
losses in
IGMC
The field test data for determining seepage losses in newly constructed
reaches of IGMC is available at Annexure A-09. The field tests have been
conducted by ponding method and results of tests are summarized below:
Table 2.7 Ponding Method Result
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 50

Project
S.
No
Reach

Stations)
Type of
FSD
Losses in cumecs m.sqm of
Month
lining
(m)
wetted area
of
testin
g
Seepage
evaporatio
Total
n
1
Suin
sub
CC
Br. 10.0 to
with
13.0 km
LDPE
2.3
0.2177
0.0086
0.2263
Dec-05
0.46
0.1342
0.1236
0.2578
April-
film
mehboo
b
section
2
Arjun Minor
-do-
10.5 to 13.2
05
jm
The above test data is for newly constructed canal. However, the IGNP
canals are designed for 0.60 cumecs/m.sqm wetted area and initial values
are much below than the designed value & if canal is properly maintained,
the assumed figure is considered to be achievable upto 25-30 years of life
of canal.
1.22.3.
Seepa
ge and
evaporation
losses
adopted in
Narmada
Main Canal
The Central Water & Power Research Station (CWRPS) has measured
losses in Narmada Main canal to arrive at correct figures of losses to be
distributed proportionately amongst beneficiary States. As per minutes of
meeting held on 12/8/2010 of Narmada Main Canal sub-committee
(Anexure-4), the seepage & evaporation losses determined in pre & post
monsoon season have been given as @ 0.70 cumec/million sqm & @ 0.65
cumecs/m sqm of wetted area respectively. The average seepage &
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 51

Project

Stations)
evaporation losses agreed for determining proportionate quantity of losses

is @ 0.67 cumecs/msqm of wetter area.
1.22.4.
Reach
wise variable
seepage
losses as per
departments
observation
Based upon the reasonable observations shared with the field officers of
the Department on the conditions of lining, the variable value of seepage
loss assessment considered for comparative view with other possible
assessments is as under;
Table 2.8: Variable seepage losses as per field officer
S.
No.
Reach
1
2
3
4
RD 0 to PS 5 (69 RD)
PS 5 (69 RD) to PS 6 (90 RD)
PS 6(90 RD) to PS 7 (165 RD)
PS 7 (165) to RD 172 (for
Mehboob section)
Onwards
Section)
RD
172
losses
as
per
assessment
of
filed
officers (cumec/M.sqm of
wetted area)
0.6
0.96
1.2
0.6
(Masonry
0.4
1.22.5.
Recom
mended value
of seepage
and
evaporation
losses for
RGLC
Based on various data enumerated in
conclusions can be drawn for RGLC system.
foregoing
para,
following
The determination of seepage & evaporation losses in RGLC

should be made a regular feature preferably by continuous
flow measurement at IGMC outlet, each PS and at tail of RGLC
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 52

Project

Stations)
by installing proper flow meters at appropriate locations & at

each enroute withdrawal point. This could be best done by the
ESCOthe ESCO to which contract has been awarded to operate
canal & its pumping stations for 10 years.
The losses in different sections of canal should also be cross

verified/determined by pondingpounding method during canal
closure period, preferably through an independent agency like
IGNP, or Quality Control wing of PHED.
The losses determined by inflow/outflow method through flow

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

an average figure of 0.96 cumecs/msqm wetted area is
recommended to be adopted & all out efforts should be made
to keep the seepage & evaporation losses below 0.96 cumecs.
The condition of lining of canal appears to be good as even in

high filling (embankment) sections, no visible water logging or
seepage is observed along canal.
The de-silting & de-weeding operation are to be carried out

meticulously along with its periodical repair/rehabilitation of
lining to keep the losses well below 0.96 cumecs. As the canal
remain operative for almost 335 days in a year, the dry run
period is minimal & practically no cracks develop in canal
lining due to low wet & dry cycle.
1.22.6.
Adopt
ed seepage
losses
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 53

Project

Stations)
As per approval conveyed by CE (P) PHED Jodhpur letter dated 25/07/2014

(Annexure A-16), the Alternative I considering uniform seepage losses
@0.96 cumec/M.sqm of wetted area over the entire reach of RGLC has
been adopted for design canal conveyance system.
1.23.
PERMISSIBLE FREE BOARD
A free board of 0.45 m was considered in Mehboob section for a designed

flow equal to 3 pump flow in Ph-1 completed in year 1996. A Masonry
dowla of 0.30 M was provided (except for masonry sections) over and
above 0.45m FB to facilitate in flow of rain water in Canal and protect its
banks. The Canal cross section was modified at the time of
implementation of Ph-II of RGLC completed in year 2005 -06. The ultimate
flow in Canal was increased to 4 pump flow on account of increaselusion
ofin enroute rural demand. The FB in Canal was still kept as 0.45m, but in
Mehboob & trapezoidal PCC sections, the additional FB was provided in
the form of vertical Masonry wall. In majority of segments, the minimum
height of vertical Masonry wall was kept as 0.3m. Thus, the available FB in
different sections of Canal is more than 0.45 m, depending upon extent of
increase in depth of flow due to increase in discharge from 3P to 4P flow.
However, in the present design for ascertaining adequacy of Canal cross
section to sustain increased flow to meet year 2029 designed demand, it
has been envisaged in Feasibility report to reduce and restrict FB to 0.3 m
(i.e. vertical portion of Masonry wall constructed at the time of Ph-II of
RGLC). In other words, exiting FB of 0.45 m can be encroached by a
maximum of 0.15 m.
The basic objective of restricting Freeboard to 0.3 m is to keep designed
depth of flow within triangular/ trapezoidal cross section of Canal ( which
has LDPE film below PCC tiles ) to restrict seepage throughfrom weak joint
of triangular/ trapezoidal PCC section to vertical masonry section .
In the design of Hydraulics for Canal cross section, the FB has been
restricted to 0.3m and depth of flow is restricted within section provided
with LDPE film.
However, in masonry section, where no LDPE film has been provided, it
has been assumed that, wherever FB is even less than 0.3 m in existing
section, raising of masonry section may have to be taken up at
appropriate time.
1.24.
Canal Hydraulics
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 54

Project

Stations)
The canal segment between two pumping stations has been designed
based on pumped flow from upstream PS and water flow reaching to next
PS after deducting anticipated seepage and evaporation losses as well as
enroute drawal in the specific Thesegment. The canal system is designed
from tail to head. considering proposed drawl in each segment of canal as
well as estimating likely seepage & evaporation losses in particular
segment of canal. The segment wise flow considered for design of each
canal segment as per pump discharge approved by CEP letter no
------------------dated --/07/2014 is as given below
Table
The detailed reach wise design to ascertain sustainability of canal is as
per Annexure-----.
1.24.1.
Manni
ngs formula
for design of
canal flow in
different
reaches:
The hydraulics of flow in canal is proposed to be designed as per
Mannings equation for open channel flow. As per IS 10430, the value of
Rugosity coeff. n for concrete/PCC tile lined canals varies from 0.018 to
0.020. It is proposed to adopt value of n as 0.018 as this is an important
water supply canal which is required to be maintained meticulously
properly & kept in sound condition
The canal section has been designed by Mannings formula as under:
Q =
1
n
(R) S
Where,
Q = Flow in canal segment in cum/sec.
n = Mannings rugosity coefficient n which has been considered
as 0.018
R = Hydraulic radius = A/P.
A = Area of flow in canal in sqm depends on cross section of canal
& depth of flow
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 55

Project

Stations)
a) In Mehboob section, at any depth D and Side slope

1.5H:1V (as per drawing JWRSP/RGLC/DR/05)
A=0.5*(2-SIN2)*d^2+
4dSIN+2d
(COS)
^2/SIN+
1.5*(D-d)*(D-d (1-COS ))
Where d= depth of flow for Phase 1(3P flow)
D= Total depth of section
= 33.69 degree = 0.588 radian
b) In Cast in situ trapezoidal section, at any depth
D, bottom bed width b and Side slope 1.5H:1V
(as per drawing JWRSP/RGLC/DR/06)
A= (b+1.5D)*D
c) In Masonry trapezoidal section, at any depth D,
bottom bed width b and Side slope 1.0.25H:1V
(as per drawing JWRSP/RGLC/DR/07)
A= (b+0.25D)*D
P = Wetted perimeter of canal surface, which remains wet during
designed flow conditions & depends on cross section of canal &
depth of flow.
a) In Mehboob section, at any depth D and Side slope
1.5H:1V (as per drawing JWRSP/RGLC/DR/05)
P= 2d + 2(3.25) ^0.5*(D-d (1-COS))
Where
d= depth of flow for Phase 1(3P flow)
D= Total depth of section
= 33.69 degree = 0.588 radian
b) In Cast in situ trapezoidal section, at any depth D, bottom
bed width b and Side slope 1.5H:1V (as per drawing
JWRSP/RGLC/DR/06)
P= b+D*(13) ^0.5
c) In Masonry trapezoidal section, at any depth D, bottom
bed width b and Side slope 1.0.25H:1V (as per drawing
JWRSP/RGLC/DR/07)
P= b+D*(17) ^0.5/2
S = Gradient of canal in each segment, which is 1 in 3000 in entire
canal reach, except in reach PS 4 to 5, where it is 1 in 2800 & at tail
end of RGLC canal from RD 204.951 to205.40 km where it is 1 in
300.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 56

Project
1.25.

Stations)
Methodology for Calculating Flows & Flow
Depth
Hydraulics of canal has been worked out to calculate depth of flow in each
segment of canal using mannings equation. The known flow requirement
at tail of each segment has been used along with Enroute drawl, if any
and designed depths of flow including seepage losses in the segment
have been worked out by goal seek analysis. The seepage losses in the
segment have been calculated for the type of canal cross section and
designed depth of flow have been assumed to be constant from head to
tail of the segment.
Thus, successive calculation for canal flow at tail, seepage losses in
segment of canal, flow at head of segment and designed depth of flow for
each segments upto 0 RD of RGLC have been calculated & placed at Table
1 of Annexure 14. for design Year 2029 and similarly at Annexure A-17
for design year 2021.
1.25.1.
Adequ
acy of free
board
indifferent
segments of
canal
Based on iterative design calculations carried out for canal hydraulics for
design Yr. 2029 the availability of FB in canal is as under:
Table 2.9: Availability of Free board for 2021 and 20299
S.
No.
Canal segments
From
(Ch)
0
From
(Ch)
7
8.55
8.55
9.9 (PS1)
9.9 (PS
1)
10.05
10.05
19.9 (PS2
19.9 (PS
2)
20.125
Cross
section
of canal
Mehboob
Trapazoid
al
Masonry
Rising
main
Mehboob
Free
available
Yr. 2021
board
0.420.43
0.51
Yr.
2029
0.340.35
0.43
0.73
0.61
0.420.43
0.340.35
Remarks
Rising
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 57

Project
8
9
10
11
12
)
20.125
35.4
(PS3)
35.715
47.07 (PS
4)
47.245
35.4
(PS3)
35.715
47.07
(PS 4)
47.245
69.3 (PS
5)
13
69.3 (PS
5)
81.000
82.000
14
82.000
83.150
15
83.150
83.520
16
83.520
84.500
17
18
84.500
84.750
84.750
84.785
19
20
84.785
84.93
84.930
91 (PS 6)
21
91 (PS 6)
98.445
22
23
98.445
101.000
101.000
149.750
24
25
26
27
149.750
151.100
151.600
153.800
28
165 (PS
7)
165.555
29
81
151.100
151.600
153.800
165 (PS
7)
165.555
172.000
main
Mehboob
Trapazoid
al
Rising
main
Mehboob
Trapazoid
al
Rising
main
Mehboob
Trapazoid
al
Rising
main
Trapezoid
al
Masonry
Trapezoid
al
Masonry
Mehboob
Trapezoid
al
Masonry
Trapezoid
al
Mehboob
Rising
main
Masonry
Mehboob
Trapezoid
al
Masonry
Mehboob
Masonry
Mehboob
Rising
main
Mehboob

Stations)
0.420.43
0.500.51
0.340.35
0.420.43
0.420.44
0.510.52
0.340.35
0.43
0.440.49
0.520.57
0.350.40
0.430.45
0.52
0.44
0.57
0.430.44
0.44
0.52
0.570.58
0.44
0.52
0.44
0.58
0.520.53
0.440.45
0.44
0.440.45
0.360.37
0.58
0.440.53
0.520.61
0.73
0.53
0.73
0.530.58
0.44
0.360.44
0.440.52
0.59
0.45
0.59
0.450.50
0.550.56
0.5
Seureca(JV)STC
0.36
0.44
P a g e | 58

Project
30
172
31
198.6 (PS
8)
204.929
32
198.6
(PS 8)
204.929
205.400
Masonry
Rising
main
Masonry

Stations)
0.440.56
0.320.44
0.44
0.44
Free Board (Min.) under the Alt-I satisfies the minimum requirement. of
0.30m but its' close proximities to minimum value suggests optimum
utilization of carrier..
From the above table, it is evident that overall the canal is safe to carry
designed flow for year 2029. However, in some segments on account of
some bottlenecks due to expansive properties of soils, settlement in local
stretches, damaged lining in considerable lengths etc. the existing canal is
facing problem with existing flow and such local stretches needs to be
addressed separately to overcome local bottlenecks.
1.25.2.
Treatm
ent of Local
bottlenecks in
various canal
reaches:
As per the field officers, in some canal reaches the depth of flow is much
higher than designed depth even for 3 pumps flow at present. Some of the
examples quoted are reach RD 25, RD 36.5 to 37 km and RD 170 to
RD 172 KM. Apart from these, similar situation is anticipated in some of
other reaches of canal when designed increase in flow will be achieved.
At several places, excessive growth of weeds has been observed which
necessitates emergent remedial measures as canal in U/s reaches starts
overflowing through escapes.
In the canal reach, RD 29 to 31 and RD 38 to RD 42 Km ,the lining of canal
is extensively damaged perhaps due to swelling properties of the soil.
These reaches needs to be rehabilitated on priority, but no provision has
been madebeen made in the Feasibility Report and A&F sanction.
The treatment of these local bottlenecks needs detailed examination
which has not been addressed in the present design report. The status of
desilting and deweeding of canal is far from satisfactory at present. The
canal has to be properly cleaned to analyze the reason for more depth of
flow than design requirement.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 59

Project

Stations)
There is no provision for any remedial measures for rehabilitation of RGLC

in the A & F Sanction for this package. As suggested in the design concept
report small packages are to be prepared on annual work basis for proper
cleaning of canal and taking up repair/rehabilitation works during annual
canal closure. Such works can neither be foreseen for a design span of 15
yrs nor precise estimates of remedial and rehabilitation works can be
prepared at one instant of time. slot.
1.26.
Design of IGMC Outlet at RD 0 of RGLC
1.27.
Outlet capacity
As derived in Table 1 of Annexure 14, 9.754 cumec of water is required to

be drawn from IGMC in Year 2029 to meet demand of RGLC. The present
combined capacity of two outlets is 326.5 cusec (9.244 cumec). As such
enhancement in capacity of outlet can be deferredis not required up to
year 2021 and can be either taken up with enhancement of raw water
storage capacity equal to 10 days demand near IGMC (RD 0 outlet of
RGLC) or with RGLC PH III proposals under preparation.as per demand
projection given in Annexure ---..
1.28.
Reservation of water in Indira Gandhi Main

Canal (IGMC)
At present RGLC Jodhpur system is getting 195 cusecs out of 750 cusecs
of water reserved for drinking in IGMC.
A UO note (Annexure A-18) has been approved by the Honble Minister,
Water Resource department (WRD) and PHED for reservation of 320
Cusecs (9.06 cumec) at IGMC for RGLC. However, this approval is subject
to increase in reservation of drinking water in IGMC from 750 cusecs to
1191 cusecs.
As per Table 1 of Annexure 14, the designed demand for RGLC system
for year 2029 is 9.754 cumecs (344.5 cusec). Thus, reservation of 320
cusecs is to be increased to 345 cusecs and confirmation is to be taken
from the appropriate authority.
1.29.
Design of Pipe Siphon for Year 2029 flow:
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 60

Project

Stations)
The flow at location of siphons has been taken from Table 1 of Annexure
14. Input data for Canal Siphon has been taken as per Annexure A-07.
The drop in bed level between U/S & D/S of siphons has been taken as
25mm- 32 mm as per data available in Phase II design/drawings. However,
it has no major impact on design as afflux generated is much higher than
drop given.
Inverted Pipe siphon between Silting Basin (191.959) to PS 8(198.1)
The 1600 mm dia twin pipe siphon U/S of PS 8 is longest (6400 m).
However, as the flow in this siphon has reduced from 5.939 cumecs to
4.627 cumecs and as such no fresh design is required. The maximum flow
in this siphon is equal to present flow (5.939 cumecs) when water is
diverted to PS 8 for storage build up in Kailana for which necessary
modifications carried out in PH II of RGLC are adequate .adequate.
Calculation of Afflux
The afflux in Canal U/S of siphons has been calculated by working out total
energy level (TEL) as per diagram shown in below:
Figure 2.1: Typical head loss calculation in Siphon in RGLC System
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 61

Project

Stations)
Figure 2.2: Total Energy levels across a typical canal siphon
1. The head loss in transitions has been worked out as under :

(A)
For smooth contraction
0.3
V12 V22
2g
(B)
For smooth expansion
0.4 x
V1 2 V 2 2
2g
(C)
For
Concrete
Pipe
Siphon
[ L ( Q/Cr)1.81]/(994.62 D4.81)
modified HW formula
Where,
Cr = 1.0
L= length of pipe in meter
Q = flow through siphon in cumec
(D
D= pipe dia in meter

For RCC Rectangular Section -
Darcys equation
Where,
as
per
Table
flv2/2gd
of
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 62

Project

Stations)
Annexure A-12.
Where,
Hydraulic diameter, d = 4A/P (in meter),
A = area in sqm
P = Wetted Perimeter in meter
f = Darcys friction Coefficient,
(1/f^0.5) = -2LOG10[(k/3.7/d) + (2.5*l/Re/f^0.5)]
l = length of section in meter
k= roughness projection = 0.035 mm for concrete Pipes
RenoyldsReynolds Number, Re = (v.d/)
v = Velocity of flow (m/sec)
= Kinematic viscosity at 20c = 1.004 x 10-6 m2/sec.
2. The flow in Canal has been worked out as per Mannings Equation;
Q=
Area of flow
1
n
x (R)
Where,
Q = Flow in cumeccumecs
Area of flow in sqm
Value of Mannings Coefficient, n = 0.018
R = Hydraulic Radius in meter
S = Gradient of Canal
3. Area
of
flow
&
Wetted
perimeter
in
Mehboob
section
(JWRSP/RGLC/DR/05) has been worked out as under;

A = (2.088 x d2)+ [[(2d x 3.604) + (3 x d1)] x (d1/2)]
P = (4.176 x d )+ (3.61 x d1)
Where, d = designed depth in Ph-I
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 63

Project

Stations)
d1 = Addl. depth in trapezoidal section
The head loss in trash rack has been worked out as per IS 7784
considering 25% clogging in trash rack as per feedback from field where
clogging is only observed near the surface of flow.
Wherever, available free board is less than 0.3m due to afflux generated
due to increased flow, raising of canal banks will be proposed. However,
raising of Escape level is proposed due to increased flow in canal to meet
designed demand of year 2029.
The extra afflux on account of increased flow requirements for each pipe
siphon will increase depth of flow upstream to each pipe siphon.
The detailed calculation of afflux at various pipe siphons is available at
Annexure A-12.
The summary of design of siphons for Year 2029 flow requirement is given
below:
Table 2.10: Raising required in canal Masonry lining
Locati
on, RD
in
Kms
Upstre
am PS
No
32.58
5
Total
Flow
Depth at
U/s
(Design
depth +
Afflux)
2.505
43.60
0
2.491
0.35
1
0.993
50.87
3
2.450
0.35
0
0.970
62.22
5
2.434
0.34
4
0.987
168.0
00
2.109
0.18
1
1.101
170.3
00
2.112
0.21
6
1.096
188.8
50
2.793
0.17
5
0.855
Afflu
x,
(in
m)
Available
free
board in
canal (U/s
to siphon)
0.35
5
0.979
Seureca(JV)STC
Raising
require
d in
canal
masonr
y lining
P a g e | 64

Project

Stations)
From the above table, no raising of Masonry canal banks is

required for any of the siphons. But crest level of escape weir
have to raised by 0.5 m height in all escape weirs. The sanctioned
estimate has a provision of 100 lacs INR.
Design of
Escape weir
at canal
Siphon
1.29.1.
The input data like length of escape, existing crest level, type of weir
(Broad crested) are given in Annexure 07.
The escapes are provided to protect canal because of additional afflux due
to blockage of canal if mesh screen provided at U/s end of siphon is not
cleaned regularly. It has been assumed that the maximum of half the
design flow can pass over these escape weirs by which time remedial
measures for cleaning of mesh screen would be taken.
Design of escape is done in two steps.
Check head over escape
Check for crest level of escape
Check for Scour depth
1.30.
Check head over escape:
The head over escape was considered 0.3 m for design of escape weir in
Phase II of RGLC. The free board available in U/s reach of canal siphon is
more than 0.5 m as per Table R5.7. It is proposed to keep the existing
length of weir same and permit extra head over escape weir to pass the
increased discharge.
Thus, Head over escape weir for half the design flow for year 2029 has
been calculated as given below. The head is restricted to 350 mm above
crest level of escape. In case the head over escape weir is more than 350
mm length of escape weir would be required to be increased. The Table
R5.8 indicates revised head over escape weir for each siphon. As per Table
R5, no increase in length of escape weir is required at any of the siphon.
The Head over escape has been calculated as per Ref- Cl. 4.2; Pg 2; IS:
6934- 1998.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 65

Project

Stations)
H =(Q/Cd X L)2/3
L
= Length of weir (mtr)
=Discharge (in cumec) for which Escape is to be designed (50%

Designed canal flow at the section)
=Head over Escape (mtr)
Cd
=Coefficient of Discharge
= For Broad crested

: 1.70 (as per Cl. 8.4.4.1; Pg 5; IS
7784)
The detailed calculation is given in Annexure A12.2.
S.
NO.
1
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
1.31.
Locati
on
(RD)
Discharge
Length of
Existing
weir
Head over
escape
KM
3
32.585
43.600
50.873
62.225
168.00
0
170.30
0
188.85
0
cumec
4
4.738
4.666
4.632
4.586
3.628
mtr
5
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
22.00
mtr
6
0.205
0.203
0.202
0.201
0.211
3.619
22.00
0.211
3.370
22.00
0.201
Check for crest level of escape
The existing crest level as per input data given in Annexure 7 is to be

checked for revised full supply depth with afflux generated at siphon (from
Table R5.7). Wherever the crest level is below the revised full supply depth
and afflux generated, the crest level is required to be increased
accordingly as given in Table R5.8.
1.32.
Check for scour depth.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 66

Project

Stations)
A masonry wall has been provided below ground at the end of apron of
each escape weir to protect against scouring action due to flow over
escape weir. The adequacy of scour depth is to be checked for increased
flow over the escape weir (half the design flow). The calculations for scour
depth have been done as per clause- 8.5.2 of IS 7784. The scour value
factor has been taken as 1.27 for near abutment as the apron is not a
foundation structure.
Check for scour depth for the protection wall on downstream
side of the escape apron.
Design done as per Cl. 8.5; Pg 6 ; IS :7784
Mean scour depth

dsm
= 1.34[Di2/Ksf]1/3
Where
Di
= Discharge per meter
Ksf
= Silt factor
Dm
Weighted
= diameter of silt
Hence, Ksf
= 1.76 X 0.10.5
mean
=
=
1.76(dm)
1/2
0.1 mm
0.557
Maximum Scour depth = 1.27 *dsm

As per Table R5.8 , the existing scour depth is adequate.
Table 2.11: Raising required in escape weir of Siphon
Locati
on, RD
in
Kms
32.58
5
Upstre
am PS
No
Total
Flow
Depth
at U/s
(Desig
n
depth
+
Afflux)
2.505
Head
over
escap
e
(mtr)
Max.
Scou
r
dept
h
(mtr)
Existin
g crest
level
of
escape
Raisin
g
requir
ed in
crest
level
Raising
Propose
dd as
per field
informat
ion
(mtr)
0.326
0.96
2.5572.
08
0.425
Nil
0.30
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 67

Project
Locati
on, RD
in
Kms
43.60
0
Total
Flow
Depth
at U/s
(Desig
n
depth
+
Afflux)
2.491
50.87
3
2.450
0.321
0.95
2.4762.
05
Nil0.4
0.30
62.22
5
2.434
0.319
0.94
2.4362.
04
Nil0.39
4
0.30
168.0
00
2.109
0.316
0.93
2.1591.
7
Nil0.40
9
0.30
170.3
00
2.112
0.316
0.93
2.3251.
7
Nil0.41
2
0.30
188.8
50
2.793
0.180
0.53
3.022.4
5
Nil0.34
3
0.30
1.33.
Upstre
am PS
No

Stations)
Head
over
escap
e
(mtr)
Max.
Scou
r
dept
h
(mtr)
Existin
g crest
level
of
escape
Raisin
g
requir
ed in
crest
level
Raising
Propose
dd as
per field
informat
ion
(mtr)
0.322
0.95
2.5092.
08
Nil0.41
1
0.30
Design of RCC Aqueduct for Year 2029 flow:
The flow at location of RCC Aqueduct has been taken from Table 1 of
Annexure A 14. Input data for RCC aqueduct has been taken as per
Annexure A-08. The afflux in canal U/S of RCC Aqueduct has been
calculated by working out total energy level (TEL) as per diagram shown
below:
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 68

Project

Stations)
Figure 2.3: Typical head loss calculation in Aqueduct in RGLC System
Figure 2.4: Total Energy levels across a typical canal Aqueduct
The head loss in transitions has been worked out as under :

(A)
For smooth contraction
0.3 x
V12 V22
2g
(B)
For smooth expansion
0.4 x
Seureca(JV)STC
V12 V22
P a g e | 69

Project

Stations)
2g
(C)
For RCC rectangular section
Bed Slope x length of Aqueduct
The flow in canal has been worked at as per Mannings quotation

Q=
Area of flow
1
n
x (R) S
Value of Mannings Coefficient = 0.018

R = Hydraulic Radius
S = Gradient of Canal
Area of flow & Wetted perimeter in Mehboob section (JWRSP/RGLC/DR/05)

has been worked out as under;
A = (2.088 x d2)+ [[(2d x 3.604) + (3 x d1)] x (d1/2)]
P = (4.176 x d )+ (3.61 x d1)
Where, d = is designed depth in Ph-I
d1 = Addl. depth in trapezoidal section
The detailed calculation of Afflux at RCC Aqueducts is available at

Annexure A-13.
The increase in afflux at RCC aqueducts is negligible as given in table
below.
Table 2.12: Availability of free board in Pipe siphonAqueduct
Locatio
n RD
US PS
No
26.166
9.530
0.008
Free
board
availabl
e
0.33
48.46
9.285
0.012
0.33
57.5
9.190
0.012
0.34
58.376
9.183
0.001
0.35
61.675
9.156
0.004
0.36
63.336
9.142
0.009
0.35
63.427
9.142
0.004
0.36
Design
flow
Afflux,
m
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 70

Project

Stations)
Locatio
n RD
US PS
No
Design
flow
Afflux,
m
160.8
RD
7.306
0.012
Free
board
availabl
e
0.48
163.35
RD
7.286
0.011
0.48
181
RD
6.800
0.000
0.42
181.155
RD
6.799
0.002
0.42
181.9
RD
6.793
0.002
0.42
182.2
RD
6.791
0.002
0.42
182.63
RD
6.788
0.002
0.42
190.277
RD
6.732
0.001
0.43
191.921
RD
6.069
0.000
0.60
198.1
RD
Already
designed
for 5.9
cumecs
Already
designed
for 5.9
cumecs
Already
designed
for 5.9
cumecs
As increased in afflux is negligible and free board available is more than

0.30 m, no modification is required for RCC Aqueducts.
The RCC aqueducts have been designed for water load equal to full depth
of aqueduct. As height of aqueduct is not required to be increase for Year
2029 flow, no modification is required in RCC Aqueducts.
1.34.
DESIGN OF ESCAPE WEIRS FOR HORIZON YEAR
2029
The Existing escape upstream to each PS were remodeled during PH II of
RGLC and needs to be checked for adequacy of escape weir length for
revised flow requirement for Design Yr. (Yr 2029) as well as adequacy to
meet revised full supply depth for Yr.(2029). A similar check for adequacy
for Year 2021 flow has also been applied to ascertain, if modifications can
be deferred up to year 2021.
The Input data of existing escape weirs is taken form Annexure A 06.
The designed flow and designed full supply depth at each escape location
for year 2029 and 2021 has been taken from Table 14.1 of Annexure 14
and Annexure A-17 and as reproduced below:
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 71

Project

Stations)
Table 2.13: DESIGNED FLOW AND DESIGNED DEPTH OF FLOW IN CANAL

SECTIONS AT VARIOUS SECTIONS AT VARIOUS ESCAPES LOCATION
Escap
e of
PS
RD
1
2
5.4
15.4
33.8
4
5
6
46.2
67.5
86.52
5
156.2
66
191.0
27
7
8
Type of
Escape
Design Year 2029
2.16
2.155
Dischar
ge at
escape
8.908
8.828
2.083
2.077
9.445
2.139
8.631
2.059
9.303
9.01
8.617
2.128
2.072
1.986
8.465
8.151
7.842
2.043
1.986
1.905
Ogee
7.314
1.929
6.551
1.84
Ogee
6.739
2.611
6.236
2.488
Ogee
Broad
crested
Broad
crested
Ogee
Ogee
Ogee
Dischar
ge at
escape
9.709
9.627
FSD
Design Year 2021

FSD
Formula for Design of Escape weir:

The formula used for design of escape weir has been taken in accordance
with clause 4.2; Pg 2; IS: 6934- 1998 as given below
L = Q/ CdH3/2
Where
L
Q
(100%
= Length of weir (mtr)

=Discharge (in cumec) for which Escape is to be designed
Designed canal flow at the section)
=Head over Escape (mtr)
Cd
=Coefficient of Discharge
= for ogee shaped
: 2.21 (as per Cl. 4.2.2; Pg 2; IS:
= For Broad crested
: 1.86 (as per standard references)
6934:1998)
Assumptions for design of escape during Phase II of RGLC:

The head over escape was increased from 0.25 m to 0.3 m for design of
escape weir in Phase II of RGLC. However, in some cases even higher than
0.30 m head over escape was provided as it was decided not to increase
length of weir. Only height of weir was increased by 350 mm in all Ogee
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 72

Project

Stations)
shaped weirs and in case of broad crested escape weirs, the height was
increased by 336 mm and 337 mm respectively for PS 2 and PS 3.
DESIGN OF ESCAPE WEIRS FOR YR. 2029:

The existing weirs are to be remodeled for increase in designed flow over
the escape weirs as well as for increase in height to match with the higher
FSD for Yr. 2029 flow requirement.
As extra height of crest level is available at various escape weirs, it has
been considered to check adequacy of FSD of canal of weir for Yr 2021
flow requirement as at present only 50% pumps are replaced with higher
discharge pumps.
The option of increasing length of weir has limitation as most of the weirs
are ogee shaped and the increased portion of length will have to be
remodeled for the entire depth of canal section, which may disturb the
existing canal. Thus, it has been considered safe to limit the length of
escape weir to existing length. At present, the free board available over
the existing crest levels at all escapes is 400 mm and as such a slight
increase in head over escape from 0.30 m to 0.35 m can be considered for
design of escapes as it will still need a margin of 0.05 m at the time of full
discharge over escapes.
The detailed design calculation for head over escape for designed flow of
Yr. 2021 & 2029 is worked out in Table1 and Table 2 Annexure A-11 and
is summarized in table below:
Table 2.14: Designed Head over Escape weirs for Yr 2021 and 2029
PS.N
o.
RD
Length
of
escape
(in mtr)
Existing
crest
level
(Depth
over
bed)
5.4
23.40
2.11
15.4
26.00
2.10
33.8
54.00
2.09
46.2
20.60
2.087
67.5
20.60
2.05
86.525
20.60
2.03
Discharge at
escape
(Cumec)
202
2029
1
8.90
8
8.82
8
8.63
1
8.46
5
8.15
1
7.84
Head over
escape (in mm)
2020
2029
9.709
310
328
9.627
322
341
9.445
195
207
9.303
326
347
9.01
318
340
8.617
310
330
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 73

Project
PS.N
o.
RD
Length
of
escape
(in mtr)

Stations)
Existing
crest
level
(Depth
over
bed)
156.266
19.60
2.02
191.027
67.00
2.75
Discharge at
escape
(Cumec)
202
2029
1
2
6.55
1
6.23
6
Head over
escape (in mm)
2020
2029
7.314
284
306
6.739
122
128
From the above table, at all escapes weirs, the head over escape weirs is
less than 350 mm.
Raising of crest level at escape weirs:
The requirement for raising of crest level of escape weir at different
location is determined in Annexure B.1 to B.8 and summarized in table
below:
Table 2.15: Raising of crest level of Escape weir
PS.N
o.
RD
5.4
Length
of
escape
(in
mtr)
23.40
Existing
crest level
(Depth over
bed)
Canal
FSD (mtr)
As
per
Draw
ing
As
per
surv
ey
202
1
202
9
2.11
2.062
2.08
3
2.07
7
2.05
9
2.04
3
1.98
6
1.90
5
1.84
2.161
2.48
8
2.611
15.4
26.00
2.10
2.145
33.8
54.00
2.09
2.187
46.2
20.60
2.087
2.1
67.5
20.60
2.05
2.122
86.525
20.60
2.03
2.069
156.26
6
191.02
7
19.60
2.02
2.042
67.00
2.75
2.155
2.139
Raising
required
2020
2029
0.021-
0.0995
1
Nil-
0.0155
NilNil-
Nil49
0.0284
1
Nil-
Nil22
Nil-
Nil-
Nil-
Nil-
Nil-
Nil-
2.128
2.072
1.986
1.929
Raising
Propose
d As
per
field
Informa
tion
0.10
0
0.1
0.2
0.15
0
0
0
From the above table, it is clear that no raising of crest level is required at
any of the escape weir upto Yr. 2021.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 74

Project

Stations)
As per Annexure B.1 to B.8,maximum raising of crest level required

proposed is 6 0.10 m, 0.10 m, 0.20 m and 0.15m for PS 1, 3, 4 and 5
respectivelycm at escape for PS-2, and for escapes at PS 6, 7 and 8 no
raising required for Yr. 2029 flow, it is proposed to defer this raising
required for Yr 2021. The crest level of ogee shaped weirs was increased
by a minimum of 350 mm in Phase II and as such only a marginal increase
of 50 mm to 60 mm i.e. 0.05 to 0.06 mtr in height is required for Yr. 2029
requirement.
Original Escape U/s to PS 3 (Non inspection bank side) is to abandoned
In order to increase height of ogee shaped weir for such small height, the
chipping on existing concrete surface existing structure is required to be
done dismantled upto a minimum depth of 100 mm &for raising of Ogee
shape to be redone. This work would involve breaking of existing concrete
& reinforcement. Thereafter new concrete (M-25) can be placed on old
concrete. Nominal reinforcement of 8 mm @140 mm spacing is also
provided. For better joining of old concrete and new concrete, anchoring
bars (12 mm dia @1000 mm spacing of 0.6 m length -0.3 m for anchoring
and remaining 0.3 for development length) is also
Howeverprovided.
However; typical drawing for remodeling is given in drawing no.
JWRSP/RGLC/DR/08 (a & b) and supporting design calculation for ogee
shaped weir is given in Table 11.4 of Annexure 11.
Raising of Flaring Zone wall:

At PS 2, Flaring zone wall top level i.e. 176.03 is below to the crest level of
U/s escape crest level i.e. 176.3. Therefore, water overtops the flaring
zone wall before escape U/s to PS 2. Since raising of Flaring zone wall is to
be required as minimum 0.6 m height. Design and supporting Calculation
is given in Annexure B.2.
The storm water is also connected to the Flaring zone. Since, raising of
storm water drain is also required due to raising of Flaring zone wall.
Typical drawing for remodeling of Flaring Zone wall and Storm water drain
is given in drawing no. JWRSP/RGLC-SCW/TS/--.
Check for scour depth:
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 75

Project

Stations)
A masonry wall has been provided below ground at the end of apron of
each escape weir to protect against scouring action due to flow over
escape weir. The adequacy of scour depth is to be checked for increased
flow over the escape weir. The calculations for scour depth have been
done as per clause- 8.5.2 of IS 7784. The scour value factor has been
taken as 1.27 for near abutment as the apron is not a foundation
structure.
Check for scour depth for the protection
downstream side of the escape apron.
wall
on
Design done as per Cl. 8.5; Pg 6 ; IS :7784
Mean
depth dsm
scour
= 1.34[Di2/Ksf]1/3
Where
Di
= Discharge per meter

1.76(dm)
Ksf
= Silt factor
dm
Weighted
= diameter of silt
Hence, Ksf
= 1.76 X 0.10.5
=
mean
=
1/2
0.1 mm
= 0.557
Maximum Scour depth = 1.27 *dsm
As per Table A11.3 of Annexure 12, the existing scour depth is adequate.
A provision of Rs. 50 lacs for remodeling of existing escape weirs and
another Rs.20 Lacs for additional escape weirs is available in the
sanctioned estimate. However, as described above the remodeling of
escapes can be deferred up to year 2021.
1.35.
Design of Inlet Outlet structures:
Inlet Outlet structures for safe passage of rain water have been
constructed after completion of phase I of RGLC at the locations where
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 76

Project

Stations)
canal was breached due to heavy rains in 1996-97. At the time of

construction, the Level of broad crested weirs for these structures was
kept equal to the Phase I designed FSD (for 3P flow).
Later, during phase II of canal, canal FSD increased by about 0.2-0.25 mtr
but the level of weir was increased by 300 mm minimum (as per site
condition). The length of these weirs was kept same as quantity of rain
water entering canal did not change.
Now for Year 2029 designed flow the designed FSD in canal has increased
at location of these Inlet-Outlet structures. As such height of these broad
crested weirs is required to be increased accordingly. No design of broad
crested weir is required as the discharge of rain water remains same and
length of weirs has also been kept same. However, as only 50% pumps
are being replaced at present and balance 50 % pumps are to be replaced
by Year 2021, check for adequacy of crest level of these broad crested
weirs has been provided.
The table below indicates the requirement of raising of broad crested
weirs for Yr 2021 and 2029:
Table 2.16: Raising of crest level of weir in Inlet- Outlet Structure
RD
Type
of
Stru
cture
Len
gth
Exist
ing
Cres
t
heig
ht
13.1
Mehbo
ob/
Trapzoi
dal
Sectio
n
Depth
2.2
2.3
Desig
ned
Depth
of
Flow
(4P)2029
2.155
16.1
Inlet
16.4
Outle
t
Inlet
13.1
2.2
2.3
2.155
10.5
2.19
2.19
2.152
23.3 Outle
1 t
18
2.19
2.19
28.1 Inlet
8
28.2 Inlet
4.3
2.19
12
23.2
91
28.3
Outle
t
29 Inlet
29.1
Inlet
3P Flow
Depth
As
Pres
per
ent
desi in
gn
field
1.76
1
1.76
1
1.75
5
2.03
2.152
1.75
5
1.6
2.19
2.148
1.75
2.03
2.19
2.09
2.148
1.75
2.03
18
2.19
2.04
2.065
2.03
2.19
2.19
2.065
22
2.19
2.19
2.065
1.66
9
1.66
9
1.66
9
Seureca(JV)STC
2.03
1.6
2.09
2.09
Ht of
Raisin
g
Requi
red
0.124
0
0.124
0
0.193
0
0.193
0
0.238
0
0.338
0
0.386
0
0.296
0
0.296
0
Raisin
g
Propo
sed
0.15
0.15
Nil
Nil
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.30
0.30
P a g e | 77

Project

Stations)
31.1 Outle
76 t
33.7 Inlet
13.8
2.19
2.14
2.065
4.5
2.18
2.18
2.128
1.66
9
1.74
4
1.74
4
1.74
4
1.65
29
2.19
2.09
2.142
33.7 Outle
5 t
33.9 Outle
t
45.1 Inlet
76
29
2.18
2.18
2.128
1.65
1.63
45.2 Inlet
66
4.5
2.18
2.18
2.128
1.65
1.63
45.2 Outle
7 t
10
2.18
2.18
2.128
1.65
1.63
46.3
Inlet
10
2.18
2.18
2.127
1.72
8
1.63
51.8
Inlet
2.15
2.15
2.098
1.69
9
1.6
52.2
Inlet
15
2.15
2.15
2.098
1.69
9
1.6
59.3
52
59.7
53
34
Inlet
31.7
2.15
2.05
2.09
1.9
34
2.15
2.05
2.09
1.68
9
1.68
9
20
2.19
2.09
45.1 Outle
86 t
Outle
t
Escap
e
54
1.83
0.086
0
0.10
0.70
1.63
1.9
0.072
0
0.072
0
0.072
0
0.072
0
0.151
0
0.151
0
0.151
0
0.251
0
0.251
0
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
0.30
0.30
0.70
From the above table, the raising is required for various some inlet outlet
structures even for flow requirement of year 2021.
It is proposed to roughen chipping the top of existing broad crested weirs
and increase its height by a minimum above mentioned heightof 300mm
with Plain Cement Concrete of M15 grade. Length of inlet outlet structures
is to be kept same. The details of modifications (Except 33.7 and 34) are
explained in drawing no. JWRSP/RGLC/DR/09 (a&b).
Inlet at RD 33.7 and Escape at RD 34 is to be
Masonry wall of 0.3 m width upto dowla level.
raised by rectangular
Although no specific provision is made in the sanctioned estimate for

Inlet-Outlet structures but theses works can be carried out against the
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 78

Project

Stations)
provision of Rs. 50 lacs for remodeling of escapes weirs. These small

works are proposed to be included in small works packages proposed for
different canal reaches.
1.36.
Other CD & Civil structures
1.36.1. VRB & Super passages

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

cutting sections, canal service roads
Although, these structures have no bearing on flow in canal yet are
important, for efficient operation and maintenance of canal. The status of
canal inspection bank, particularly at deep cutting sections is alarming
and in some stretches no supervisory staff could carry out inspection for
last 4-5 years as inspection banks have been blocked by earth from
slopes in cutting and blown sand. The condition of service road is also
very poor. The rain cuts in Embankment portion also need regular
attention.
No provision has been made in sanctioned estimate for above works which
are required to be taken as special repairs. It is suggested that small
works packages for different reaches of canal needs to be taken up every
year to keep canal in good condition. As already emphasized in the
chapter for seepage losses in canal, regular cleaning, deweeding and
desilting, repair and rehabilitation of lining and other CD structures is to
be given proper attention to contain seepage losses to the minimum in
RGLC where substantial energy saving would be achieved if losses are
kept minimum.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 79

Project

Stations)
1.36.3. Raising of Bank Level of canal at Various reaches

1.36.3.1. Reach between RD 36.9 to 37.9
In this reach, water head up is noticed all the time
by additional 0.3 m height to designed depth. The Lsection between water level (on dated ----), bank level and
dowla level has been carried out to assess the
bottlenecks. A drain
1.37.
Pumping Stations
Table 2.21 : Duty Discharge at each of Pumping Station
Pumpin
g
Station
Workin
g
Standb
y
Discharge
of each
pump at
present
(lps)
Revised Discharge as
per Alt-I in Table 2
above
Total
Each pump
(lps)
(lps)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)=(5)/4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
4
4
4
8
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2018
1988
1938
1893
906
1754
1565
1368
9672
9583
9433
9296
8800
8581
7278
4627
2418
2396
2358
2324
1100
2145
1820
1157
Percent
higher
in
revised
discharg
e
(7)=(6)/
(4)
19.8%
20.5%
21.7%
22.8%
21.4%
22.3%
16.3%
-15.4%
From above table it is evident that pump discharge required at PS 8 is less

than present pump discharge, which is on account of diversion of part
demand of UWSS Jodhpur (Surpura Section), from U/s of PS 8.
Final Pump Discharge to be adopted for Pumps to be replaced:
As per approval conveyed vide CE (P) PHED Jodhpur letter dated
25/07/2014 (Annexure A-16) for PS 1 to 7 revised pump discharge as
per column (6) of Table R5.18 and that for PS 8 present installed pump
discharge have been adopted. In addition to replacement of pumping
machinery for revised duty conditions, the pumps (not motors) of existing
facilities have also been approved for replacement on energy efficiency
grounds as per Table R5.15 above. An allowance of 2.5% increase in the
revised pump discharge calculated above has been considered to account
for wear and tear in pumping machinery as per standard practice.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 80

Project
1.38.

Stations)
Present Project Proposals
Under the current project proposals, following additional works are

proposed specific to canal part of RGLC transmission System
1.39.
Sump
In existing sumps for pumping stations, the canal section is flared in plan
to achieve the width of sump, housing suction bell mouths of all the
pumps of Phase I & Phase II and depressed vertically at uniform gradient
to attain the level of sump floor. The typical plan & section of this flaring
section and sump is as below;
Figure 2.5 : Existing Sump Sectional Elevation
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 81

Project

Stations)
Figure 2.6 : Existing Sump Plan
The typical features of the sump construction is as follows;

1 Slope angle of Flare Section
2 Flare Angle of Flared Section
3 C/C Distance between bell mouths
40
8.50
7.0 mtrs
4 Distance of bell mouth tip from Sump Floor
0.6 mtr
5 Distance of Bell Mouth Axis from Back Wall
1.5 mtr
6 Water Depth in sump
5.98 mtr
As the canal is open to atmosphere and carries water through open terrain
in desert, where sand storms are common, it is bound to receive a lot of
sand, silt, leaves etc. It is necessary to prevent sand & silt from entering
the pump sump, as entrance of sand & silt in pump will accelerate the
wear & tear of pumps mechanical parts including the impeller. This will
have consequence in poor efficiency of pump operations and increased
Operation & Maintenance Cost and frequent breakdowns.
With a view to trap sand & silt from entering the sump, the existing pump
sumps in form of an enclosed pit with a gated entry is provided for each
pump suction bell mouth. The gates are provided in such a fashion such
that its invert matches with the bed level of canal. This arrangement will
trap the sand & silt at the bottom of sump outside the enclosed pit for
pump bell mouth and silt free water takes entry to pumps enclosed pit
through sluices. This arrangement will also help in isolating individual
pump suction to carry out the maintenance job in suction bell mouth/pipe.
The original design is at variance with standard recommendations, as
discussed above, as basically a pit with gated entry for individual pump
has been given. Basically, the vertical wall provided in the approach flow
path of pumps is an obstruction which is not recommended anywhere. The
approach velocity, which falls below 0.3 m/sec in flaring zone is again
increased above 0.5 m/sec through Gates and involves lot many changes
in direction of flow, which is not desirable as per standard
recommendations. The sump pits also do not have any vents at the back
of separator side walls as recommended.
For Individual pump, a pit with gated entry has been provided.
This was done mainly to avoid silt, which settles in flaring zone as
well as to carry out any maintenance job in the suction bell/ pipe.
This has not been required anywhere in past 17 years as 15-20
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 82

Project

Stations)
days closure is taken every year. The suction assembly can also
be taken out in canal running conditions.
The field observations with regard to possible effect of this variance on
performance of pumping operations is as follows;
However, no adverse conditions have been observed at PS 1 or 2,

3 and 4 where pump discharges are comparatively higher than
other pumps. No visible surface vortices or cavitation in suction
piping/ pumps have been observed at PS 1 to 4.
At PS 5 and 6, frequent failure of shafts has been observed and

rotating assembly has been frequently damaged. At PS 5 and 6,
no visible damage/ cavitation to suction piping has been
reported.
Incidentally, the pumps recently replaced at PS 5 have been of

double volute casing instead of single volute casing installed
earlier where frequent shaft failure had been witnessed. These
new pumps are running smoothly.
Recommendations
ANSI standard for Intake Design ANSI 9.8-1998 recommends that the
sump dimensions are not dependent on flow rate of pump but are guided
by outer dia of suction bell which should be designed for velocity of 1.7
m/sec. Since, suction bell diameter meets this criteria for increased
discharge also, it can be said that there is no need to design sump
dimensions for increased flow rate of pumps.
It is observed that the main problem lies in the fact that while operations,
the sluice gates of pump pits are only half opened to facilitate their early
closure in case it is required to be closed. This will increase the inlet
velocities and turbulence in inlet waters.
It is proposed to provide the electric actuators for opening & closing the
sluice gates on pump pits. This would rule out present problem of partially
open gates and would ensure a smooth flow to suction bell with approach
velocity around 0.5 m/sec.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 83

Project

Stations)
Chapter 3.
CONTRACT
PACKAGING
As per feasibility report and A&F sanction, the main work envisaged under
this activity is replacement of pumping machinery and electric
equipments for enhanced capacity requirement with small provision of
civil works related to enhancement in capacity of siphons, aqueducts,
super passages & escapes. As against total provision of Rs. 4676.62 lacs
for this package only Rs. 368 Lacs (8 %) have been provided for civil
works. The main work under this package is was replacement of pumping
machinery, transformers & allied equipments. Accordingly, this package
had been earlier identified as Goods (procurement) package for electromechanical equipments, which constituted almost 92% of sanctioned
provisions. However, as these works have been awarded to ESCO , the
DBOM package for rehabilitation of pumping machinery and pipelines
proposed earlier has been reportedly dropped and now Civil works related
to sanctioned canal rehabilitation works are proposed in smaller works
contract packages scattered over 205 kms long conveyance system.
Works packages to the extent of Rs 368 lacs provision available in A&F
sanction are to be framed immediately whereas remaining rehabilitation
works are to be proposed after detailed soil investigations and survey in
different packages for approval of competent authority before taking up
its implementation.
At present the operation and maintenance of RGLC has been awarded to
ESCO who will not only increase pumping capacity and pipe carrying
capacity but will operate and maintain
canal by adopting suitable
measures of desilting/ deweeding of canal and its banks etc. The
department is to hand over the canal and ensure that all necessary
measures to sustain increased designed demand of yr 2029 have been
carried out.is being carried out through a private agency and tThe annual
O&M cost during year 2014-15 is reported to be around 98.0 crores
However,where power bills comprised of nearly 94.5 crores and 3.0 crores
wereare payable to the private contractor towards basic service charges
for operation & maintenance of 8 pumping stations, 28 km pipeline and
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 84

Project

Stations)
177km long canal system, which includes expenses done at the time of
closure of canal.
Looking to huge amount of power bills (>97%) in the O&M costs, it is
proposed to implement work of this package through DBOM (Design,
Build, Operate & Maintain) contract instead of procurement of goods for
replacement of equipments. The main objective of DBOM contract would
be to ensure sustained performance throughout the currency of contract.
It is proposed to obtain guaranteed energy consumption for each pumping
station from the bidders over a 10 year O&M contract.
In the present O&M contracts of RGLC to ESCO, the main scope of work is
to save energy by adopting suitable measures and operation &
maintenance of 8 pumping stations along with maintenance of canal.,
particularly during closure period. The scope of canal maintenance in O&
M contract is limited to carrying out desilting & deweeding works and
minor repair work whereas rehabilitation and repair of damaged canal
portions/ CD structures to accommodate designed flow requirement to
meet year 2029 demand are not in scope of the present contractor. The
ESCO will be paid in terms of energy charges saved calculated on the
basis of per unit cost of electricity
paid at present and to be paid
subsequent to implementation of measures by ESCO contractor.are
practically absent.
From the past experience, it is understood that the bidders who normally
have expertise in O& M of pumping machinery and pipelines seldom give
due importance to maintenance of Canal. Moreover, the works of major/
special repairs and rehabilitation of Canal cannot be identified initially for
a 10 years O&M contract as damages to canal are non predictable and can
hardly be forecasted/quantified.
In view of above, it is proposed to split the package for Rehabilitation &
strengthening of Canal into following contract packages.
1.40.
Package G1.A for all 8 pumping stations & pipe
lines
It is proposed to invite DBOM contract for carrying out capital works for
Pumping stations & pipelines with the objective of maintaining it for 10
years after commissioning & with guaranteed energy consumption per ML
water pumped at each pumping station. The evaluation of bids would be
done by loading capitalized cost of difference of extra energy consumption
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 85

Project

Stations)
quoted over datum energy consumption worked out by department in

capital cost of each bidder.
The bidder shall be given incentive if the energy consumption is less than
guaranteed energy consumption quoted by him , but would be charged
extra penalty if the energy consumption exceeds the guaranteed energy
consumption along with recovery of extra energy bill.
It is also proposed to Bench mark energy consumption at the inception of
DBOM contract to assess overall energy saved for which energy audit at
the inception stage will have to be carried out by the successful bidder.
This package will cover the works identified for replacement and repair of
electro mechanical equipments for which a provision of Rs 4356.62 lacs is
available in sanctioned estimate along with O&M costs for 10 years.
1.41.
Package G1.BW8.1 for canal escapes

Patrolling,
Desilting,
Deweeding
repair
Rrehabilitation of canal and service road
and
and
The RGLC is life line for urban town Jodhpur and a large no. of
enroute rural & urban population. The continued
deterioration in condition of canal is contributing to
incidences of weeds growth and heading up of water in
canal thereby which not only induces increase ing seepage
& evaporation losses but also at many sections of canal
and CD structures the existing canal and structures may
prove inadequate when flow is increased to meet designed
demand of year 2029 . At many places inspection banks
have been completely blocked/ damaged and are non
pliable by inspection vehicles. At several spots the sliding
soil mass in cutting sections is getting entry into the canal
thereby not only increasing silt load but also increasing
weed growth & turbidity in canal water. The canal escapes
upstream to pumping stations and canal siphons, inlet
outlet structures and RCC aqueducts may have to be raised
to cope with increased depth of flow due to increase in
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 86

Project

Stations)
discharge to meet designed demand for year 2029.

In the sanctioned estimate and feasibility report , provision for raising 0f
escapes, siphon walls, RCC aqueduct walls and some remodeling was
taken to accommodate rise in depth of flow due to increased demand.It is
therefore, of utmost importance that canal is kept silt & weed free by
regular cleaning operations, particularly during closure of canal and
necessary repairs and rehabilitation works are carried out regularly
immediately to match with the increased pumping capacity being taken
by ESCO contractor. to keep canal in sound shape. These are to be
regularly assessed every year and necessary measures needs be taken.
The service road and inspection banks are also required to be maintained
regularly for which need for repairs etc. have to be identified every year
and action taken to get the work executed after obtaining sanction.
Apart from these small and scattered works , some major rehabilitation
work is required in reaches where lining has damaged in substantial
portion due to swelling properties of soil and some stretches of canal are
witnessing higher than designed depth even after desilting and cleaning.
Similarly , water from some escapes is flooding private agriculture fields
who are continuously protesting and may seek legal remedy
/compensation for the losses suffered. Such works have not been
envisaged in the original feasibility report or A&F sanction but are to be
essentially completed to ensure unhindered flow up o tail of canal.
At present the A&F sanction does not include any provision for these
works which are of substantial magnitude as of now. The capital costs to
rehabilitate canal/service road is not included in the feasibility report of
the project. which contains provision for raising of escapes, inlet & outlet
structures, aqueducts for enhanced flow. Further, it is not possible to
define scope of work for repair and rehabilitation of canal for a 10 years
O&M contract.
It is proposed that separate contract (spackages ) for sanctioned
work( with short duration small works contract packages) and major
balance rehabilitation works to be carried after approval of competent
authority under separate packagesshorter durations and shorter reaches/
canal section would give better results and it would be possible to keep
the canal in good condition to contain seepage losses and design
parameters within designed limits.better option and such two separate
packages are proposed
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 87

Project

Stations)
It is therefore proposed that maintenance of canal portion of the RGLC

should be kept outside the DBOM contract & should preferably be
undertaken through single or multiple contracts in different reaches.
Although, draft estimates for the works identified in feasibility report have
been prepared as per details given below, however, several additional
works identified by department of overriding priority needs to be
addressed at the time of framing A & F, Technical sanction package for
these small reaches.
1.42.
Package W8.2 for Major Canal

works
Rehabilitation
The canal appears to be in perfect condition in 80 % of its length to

sustain increased flow to meet demand of year 2029. In about 30
kms length , it is doubtful to sustain increased flow and where
rehabilitation work may have to be carried out. Nearly 6.0 kms
reach ( RD 29-31 and RD 38-42 Kms) would require major
rehabilitation work and may require construction of a parallel canal
as such major works cannot be executed in a span of 20 days
closure.
The detailed field survey and soil analysis work is being taken up to
investigate reasons for extensive damage of canal and propose
remedial rehabilitation work.The detailed package for such works
will be prepared separately and works contract packages to be
decided after finalization of works to be taken up in this project.
1.43.
Estimated cost of Sanctioned Civil Works
S.
N
o.
A&F
Ref
No
Particulars
E1.6
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKS FOR RGLC
E1.6/
Remodeling
Qty
Uni
t
Rate
Amount (in
lacs)
Origin
al
of
LS
50.00
Seureca(JV)STC
50.00
Add
15 %
over
SPR
57.50
Likely
cost
Estimated
cost( in
lacs)
8.3
P a g e | 88

Project
S.
N
o.
Qty

Stations)
A&F
Ref
No
Particulars
Uni
t
Rate
Amount (in
lacs)
existing
Escapes
ii
E1.6/
2
Construction
of
new
Canal
Escapes
LS
20.00
20.00
23.00
iii
E1.6/
3
Construction
of
new
Super
passage / Village
Road Bridges in
place of existing
VRB
LS
50.00
50.00
57.50
E1.6/
5
Raising of canal
banks and wall
upstream of canal
siphons
LS
100.0
0
100.00
115.0
0
13.5
vi
E1.6/
6
Rehabilitation
of
RCC
Aqueducts
and other RCC
structures
LS
100.0
0
100.00
115.0
0
1.7
320.0
0
368.0
0
Origin
al
Add
15 %
over
SPR
Likely
cost
Estimated
cost( in
lacs)
Canal
vii
Grand Total
23.50
1.44.
Additional works identified by CE (P), PHED

Jodhpur in the meeting held on 07/10/2014 and
subsequently by Field Engineers.
S.
No.
Description of identified work
Water level between RD 36.5 and RD 37, RD 171

and RD 172 is running higher to the FSL, whose
reason is to be investigated and remedial
measures to be proposed.
Seureca(JV)STC
Remarkesti
mated cost
(in lacs)
P a g e | 89

Project

Stations)
S.
No.
Description of identified work
Remarkesti
mated cost
(in lacs)
The Water overflow through escapes on the U/s of

PS-4 & 6 doesnt have passage to the natural
pond/drain, as a result it spread across fields and
become threat to the crops of inhabitants of
Bap /Lordiya Villages. Safe passage of escape
water
on U/s of PS- 4&6 required for which
proposals to be made.
Major
rehabilitation
works
Canal lining between RD 29 to RD 31 is to be

restored with similar type of lining as the existing
one is damaged after investigating the reason for
damage and remedial measures to be proposed.
Major
rehabilitation
works
Canal lining between RD 38 and RD 42 is damaged

due to swelling pressure of bentonite, as such box
section suitably designed canal with CNS
treatment foer swelling pressure is required in this
reach of 4 Km. The remedial measures to be
proposed after investigation.
Major
rehabilitation
works
Presently, earth embankment is every year build in

the flaring zone of all eight pumping station for
lowering and un-lowering of machines for de-silting
operation. It is thus suggested to build permanent
ramp adjoining to flaring zone on of its face so that
the time and money can be saved in filling the
earth and removal after de-silting. The remedial
measures to be proposed after investigation. The
flow in canal is being increased in November, 2015
and further bottlenecks, if any , to be identified
and remedial measures to be proposed after
investigations.
Major
rehabilitation
works
These works have been recently identified and detailed survey and
investigations are required to propose appropriate technical solution with
detailed drawings and estimates for technical sanction.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 90

Project

Stations)
Chapter 4.
1.45.
Operation &
Maintenance
Taking over of Operation & Maintenance
It is proposed that the contractor for this package would take over the
operation & maintenance of the 8 pumping stations within 3 months of
the placement of work order. During this period, the contractor would
arrange for the O&M personnel & get their CVs approved.
1.46.
Construction Period
It is proposed to keep a construction period of 18 months for this package.

For the major items of this contract of supply & installation of pumps &
electrical equipment no design is required to be done by the contractor &
he can straight away finalise the manufacturer & submit related QAPs for
approval 0f Department.
For the items of HT Capacitors, the contractor would have to assess the
existing kVAR of capacitors attached to each of motor and provide for the
additional capacitors to achieve the desired PF.
For SCADA, the contractor would have to do some designing & get the
same approved from Department.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 91

Project

Stations)
Other civil works are of routine nature & can be accomplished in the
proposed time comfortably.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 92

Project

Stations)
Chapter 5. Cos
t Estimates
1.47.
Organization
The package of Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water

Conveyance System (RGL Canal and Pumping Stations) mainly consist of
Replacement of Pumps, up-gradation of electro-mechanical equipment,
repair & overhauling of electro-mechanical equipment, repair of civil works
and civil works related to Rajiv Gandhi Lift Canal.
The General abstract of cost for this package include item which are to be
replaced at eight pumping stations and other minor items of
repair/overhauling of electro mechanical equipment & civil works, details
of which are provided in separate estimates.
The overall organization of cost estimates for this package is as follows;
Annexur
e No
ES-GAC
ESQENW
ES-RO
Particulars
Abstract of Cost including New Works
Quantity Estimation of New Works
Cost Estimate of Repair/Overhauling of ElectroMechanical Equipment at PS No 1 to 8, RGLC,

Jodhpur
ES-QERO Quantity Estimate of Repair/Overhauling of ElectroMechanical Equipment at PS No 1 to 8, RGLC,
Jodhpur
ES-QEPC Quantity Estimation of Power Cables
ES-QECC Quantity Estimation of Control Cables
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 93

Project
Annexur
e No
ES-SP
ES-RA1
ES-OM
ES-ETR

Stations)
Particulars
Estimate for Surge Protection Arrangement at PS No
5&6
Rate Analysis of Equipment
Estimate of Operation & Maintenance for 10 Year
Period
Cost Estimate of repair of Existing Electric
Transformers at PS No 1 to 8
ES-QEETR
Quantity Estimation of repair of Existing Electric

Transformers at PS No 1 to 8
ES-VC
Detail Estimate of Valve Chambers for Flowmeters
The cost estimates of repair to civil work are arranged separately and are
as follows;
Annexur
e No
ESCWAC
ES-CW-R
ES-CWBR
ES-CWRQE
ES-CWR-1
ES-CWR-2
ES-CWR-3
ES-CWR-4
ES-CWR-5
ES-CWR-6
ES-CWR-7
ES-CWR-8
Particulars
Abstract of Civil Works
Abstract of Repair Works
Cost Estimate of Breaking Panel Room
Quantity Estimation of Repair of Civil Works
Quantity
No 1
Quantity
No 2
Quantity
No 3
Quantity
No 4
Quantity
No 5
Quantity
No 6
Quantity
No 7
Quantity
No 8
Estimation of Repair of Civil Works at PS

Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 94

Project
1.48.

Stations)
General Abstract of Cost
The general abstract of cost for the package of Rehabilitation and

Strengthening of Raw Water Conveyance System (RGL Canal and Pumping
Stations) comprising of Part A for supply of equipment, appurtenances
etc , Part B for installation of equipment of Part A, Part C civil works &
installation of equipment & appurtenances, Part C for Supply &
Installation of minor item, Part D for Civil Works, Part E Repair &
Overhauling and Part F Provisional Sum and is provided below;
SN
Particulars
Qty
Unit
Rate
Amount
Remar
k
Supply of Electro
Mechnical Equipments &
Instruments
Manufacturing,
testing,
inspection,
packaging,
forwarding,
insurance,
transportation,
storage
compete including all taxes
& duties at site of work
HSC mixed/radial flow

double
suction
type
pumping sets including
coupling with respective
motor, alignment etc
PS No 1 ( Q=8920 Cum/hr,
H=20.5 m)
Each
13930208
41,790,62
4.04
ii
H=17.5 m)
Each
13742594
41,227,
781.57
iii
H=22 m)
Each
14025378
42,076,1
35.21
iv
H=15.5 m)
Each
13827668
41,483,0
04.29
PS No 5 ( Q=4060.8
Cum/hr, H=80 m)
Each
8697750
52,186,
501.66
vi
PS No 6(Q=7916.4 Cum/hr,
H=45.5 m)
Each
15438775
46,3
16,323.66
vii
PS No 7 ( Q=6716.6
Cum/hr, H=19 m)
Each
7669052
23,
007,155.1
2
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Bare Pumps
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 95

Project
SN
Particulars

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
Amount
H=15.5 m)
Each
4704750
ii
H=43.5 m)
Each
6613975
iii
H=18.5 m)
Each
4704750
iv
H=26.5 m)
Each
4770078
Sluice Valves PN 1.0

rating with with operating
gear arrangement
1200 mm
30
Each
1884692
56,5
40,749.65
ii
1000 mm
15
Each
1489046
22,3
35,696.08
iii
800 mm
12
Each
1091372
13,0
96,466.46
14,
114,249.5
9
6,
613,975.1
3
14,
114,249.5
9
28,6
20,467.30
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Dual plate check valves

PN 1.6 rating
i
1200 mm
16
Each
989925
15,8
38,795.28
ii
1000 mm
Each
846884
2,
540,651.1
9
iii
800 mm
Each
381240
762,479.4
1
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Butterfly valves PN 1.6

rating with operating gear
arrangement
i
1600 mm
Each
1681797
5,0
45,389.97
ii
1200 mm
17
Each
926013
15,
742,217.2
6
iii
800 mm
Each
767755
-
iv
6
Remar
k
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
1000 mm
Electrical actuators for
sluice valves
Each
767755
7
67,754.68
24
Each
116665
2,7
99,951.00
Seureca(JV)STC
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
P a g e | 96

Project
SN
Particulars

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
Amount
Remar
k
Rate
Analysi
s

butterfly valves
27
Each
116665
3,1
49,944.88
Electrical hoist of 3 tonne

capacity
Each
294908
2,3
59,263.06
Electrical hoist
tonne capacity
Each
549017
4,
392,136.2
3
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
10
Spare motor at PS
PS No 8 - 490 kW
Nos.
2450000
Air Cushion Valve, 200

mm
Pumping station office
furniture for PS1-PS7 as
per Scope of Work
Pumping station office
furniture for PS5 as per
Scope of Work
33/6.6 KV HT Power
Transformers along with
OLTC
and
all
other
accessories
PS No 5. 12.5 MVA
Each
125000
Lot
100000
2,4
50,000.00
8
75,000.00
7
00,000.00
Market
Enquiry
Market
Enquiry
Market
Enquiry
Lot
250000
2
50,000.00
Market
Enquiry
Each
7686117
Each
335394
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
33/.433 KV, 250 KVA

Transformers
for
LT
Supply
6.6 Kv FCMA/HFSR soft
starter for the following
KW of motors
650 KW for PS-1
15,
372,234.9
7
2,
683,153.7
4
Each
934051
5,6
04,305.03
ii
560 KW for PS-2
Each
854403
iii
680 KW for PS- 3
Each
934051
5,
126,418.5
5
5,6
04,305.03
iv
560 KW for PS-4
Each
854403
1200 KW for PS-5
12
Each
1064384
vi
1300 KW for PS-6
Each
1064384
vii
460 KW for PS-7
Each
803718
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
i
11
12
13
14
15
16
of
15
Seureca(JV)STC
5,
126,418.5
5
12,
772,602.1
5
6,3
86,301.08
4,8
22,308.98
P a g e | 97

Project
SN
Particulars
viii
490 KW for PS-8
17
6.6 KV additional HT
Capacitor
Banks
to
achieve minimum power
factor of 0.995 & above
LT APFC Panel with
Capacitor Banks of 100
KVAR
RTCC Panel
18
19
20
Auxiliary
Panel
for
actuator of new valves (
sluice
+
butterfly
valves)
For 3 actuators

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
Amount
Each
803718
4,8
22,308.98
KVAR
631
29,
126,303.2
9
Remar
k
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Nos.
193685
14
Nos.
169000
1,
549,480.7
1
2,3
66,000.00
Rate
Analysi
s
Market
Enquiry
Nos.
40909
6
46182
40,909.26
ii
For 6 actuators
Nos.
68182
340,910.4
7
iii
For 9 actuators
Nos.
88637
21
(i)
33 kV HT Panel with one

incomer and 1 out goings
14
Nos.
943296
(ii)

Nos.
1104006
22
CT of the following sizes

for transformers
9
Amp.
35000
400 ampere
177,273.4
4
13,
206,147.3
2
2,
208,011.9
3
315,000.0
0
ii
600 ampere
Amp.
35000
35,000.00
iii
1200 ampere
Amp.
35000
35,000.00
23
i
100 ampere
Amp.
35000
200 ampere
Amp.
35000
315,000.0
0
24
i
Market
Enquiry
Market
Enquiry
Market
Enquiry

for 6.6 KV VCB
210,000.0
0
ii
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Market
Enquiry
Market
Enquiry
Control Cables
4 core, 4 Sq. mm.,1.1KV,
XLPE,armoured,Cu
1617
Sq.
mm.
Seureca(JV)STC
437
705,821.9
6
Rate
Analysi
s
P a g e | 98

Project
SN
ii
iii
iv
vi
vii
viii
25
i
ii
iii
iv
v
26
27
28
i
Particulars
4 core, 2.5 Sq. mm., 1.1KV

XLPE,armoured,Cu
4 core, 1.5 Sq. mm,1.1
KV,XLPE INSULATED Cu
Armoured solid control
cable
4 core, 1.5 Sq. mm,1.1 KV,
XLPE INSULATED Cu
cable
2 core 1 Sq. mm.,1.1 KV,
XLPE INSULATED RS-485
Solid control cable
2 core 1.5 Sq. mm.,1.1 KV,
XLPE INSULATED Cu solid
control cable
2 core 1 Sq. mm.,Twisted
Pair Armoured Shielded
Copper Cable
16 core 1.5 Sq. mm.,1.1
KV,
XLPE INSULATED Cu
Armoured multicore control
cable
Power Cables
33 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX300 sq.
mm. armoured Al
mm. armoured Al
6.6 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX400
sq. mm. armoured Al
6.6 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX185
sq. mm. armoured Al
1.1 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX185
sq. mm. armoured Al
Pressure
Sensor
&
Transmittor with all the
accessories
PLC cum RTU panel at
each
of
8
pumping
stations
and
SCADA
system at PS No 5
Full Bore Magnetic Flow
Meters
1200 mm

Stations)
Qty
Unit
80
Rate
Amount
Remar
k
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Sq.
mm.
352
7589
Sq.
mm.
258
160
Sq.
mm.
352
Sq.
mm.
634
15547
Sq.
mm.
169
2,6
26,946.92
Rate
Analysi
s
10143
Sq.
mm.
141
1,
428,202.7
9
500
Sq.
mm.
634
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
394
Sq.
mm.
3841
1003
Sq.
mm.
2990
360
Sq.
mm.
3136
660
Sq.
mm.
1763
1150
Sq.
mm.
908
116
Each
10673
350
24
Set
Each
28,161.35
1,
955,505.7
4
56,322.70
221,770.6
2
316,815.1
7
7896077
747108
Seureca(JV)STC
1,
513,395.6
2
3,0
00,240.69
1
,128,931.1
4
1,
163,841.5
3
1,0
44,368.00
1
,238,065.1
1
7,8
96,076.65
17,9
30,598.19
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
P a g e | 99

Project
SN
Particulars

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
Amount
Remar
k
s
ii
1600 mm
Each
960568
7,6
84,542.08
29
Acoustic Doppler flow

Meter for open canal
Nos.
1290960
2,
581,920.5
9
30
Ultrasonic Level Sensor

with all the accessories
17
Each
49807
31
Dismantling Joints
Phase I Pumps
846,722.6
9
for
1200 mm Diameter
36
Each
165484
5,9
57,410.99
ii
1000 mm Diameter
18
Each
114516
2,
061,282.5
2
iii
800 mm Diameter
Each
76369
458,215.4
2
Installation
of
Electromechanical
Equipment
&
Instruments
Installation, Testing &
Commissioning
of
following complete in all
respect as per scope of
work
HSC mixed/radial flow
double
suction
type
pumping sets including
coupling with respective
motor, alignment etc
H=20.5 m)
Each
1044766
ii
H=17.5 m)
Each
1030695
iii
H=22 m)
Each
1051903
iv
H=15.5 m)
Each
1037075
PS No 5 ( Q=4060.8
Cum/hr, H=80 m)
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Each
652331
Seureca(JV)STC
3,
134,296.8
0
3,0
92,083.62
3
,155,710.1
4
3,111,225.
32
3,
913,987.6
2
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
P a g e | 100

Project
SN
Particulars

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
vi
PS No 6(Q=7916.4 Cum/hr,
H=45.5 m)
Each
1157908
vii
PS No 7 ( Q=6716.6
Cum/hr, H=19 m)
Each
575179
Amount
3,
473,724.2
7
1,
725,536.6
3
Remar
k
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
Bare Pumps
i
H=15.5 m)
Each
352856
ii
H=43.5 m)
Each
496048
iii
H=18.5 m)
Each
352856
iv
H=26.5 m)
Each
357756
Sluice Valves PN 1.0

rating with with operating
gear arrangement
1200 mm
30
Each
94235
ii
1000 mm
15
Each
74452
iii
800 mm
12
Each
54569
1,
058,568.7
2
1,4
88,144.40
1,
058,568.7
2
2,
146,535.0
5
1,
413,518.7
4
1,
116,784.8
0
654,823.3
2
4
i
Dual plate check valves

PN 1.6 rating
1200 mm
16
Each
49496
791,939.7
6
ii
1000 mm
Each
42344
127,032.5
6
iii
800 mm
Each
19062
38,123.97
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
Butterfly valves PN 1.6

rating with operating gear
arrangement on delivery
of each pump (1200 mm).
i
1600 mm
Each
84090
84,089.83
ii
1200 mm
17
Each
46301
787,110.8
6
iii
800 mm
Each
38388
-
Seureca(JV)STC
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
P a g e | 101

Project
SN
Particulars

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
Amount
Remar
k
Supply
iv
1000 mm
38388
117,963.1
5
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
219,606.8
1
2,0
80,000.00
%age
of
Supply
Market
Enquiry
2,8
36,500.00
CE(SP)
Rates
43,750.00
%age
of
Supply
38,387.73
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

sluice valves
24

butterfly valves
27
MOT of minimum 3 Ton

Capacity with transverse
and longitudinal travelling
capability
Electrical hoist of 15
tonne capacity for all
pumping stations
Removal of Zero Velocity
valves
installed
on
pumping mains at Pumping
Station No 5 & 6 and
manufacturing,
testing,
inspection & installation of
MS pipe length including
flanges of same diameter
with inlined and external
epoxy coating complete in
all
respect
to
the
satisfaction of EIC
Replacement of 1200 mm
MS rising main of PS N0 3
damaged
due
to
settlement along with the
cost of pedestalsincluding
earthwork, construction of
anchors
blocks,
thrust
blocks,
cross
walls,
transverse blocks, pipe
support
structures,
installation
of
specials;
inside
cement
martar
lining, outside gunniting as
per specification; clearing
the site; disinfections etc.
complete in all respect as
per the specification &
scope of work for 12 mm
thicknesses
Air Cushion Valve, 200
mm
Each
5833
139,997.5
5
Each
5833
157,497.2
4
8
8
100
Each
14745
Each
Each
27451
260000
Mtr
Each
Seureca(JV)STC
28365
6250
P a g e | 102

Project
SN
Particulars

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
Amount
Remar
k
13
33/6.6 KV HT Power
Transformers along with
OLTC
and
all
other
accessories
PS No 5. 12.5 MVA
Each
384306
768,611.7
5
14
15
i
33/.433 KV, 250 KVA

Transformers
for
LT
Supply
6.6 Kv FCMA/HFSR soft
starter for the following
KW of motors
650 KW for PS-1
Each
16770
134,157.6
9
Each
46703
280,215.2
5
ii
560 KW for PS-2
Each
42720
256,320.9
3
iii
680 KW for PS- 3
Each
46703
280,215.2
5
iv
560 KW for PS-4
Each
42720
256,320.9
3
1200 KW for PS-5
12
Each
53219
638,630.1
1
vi
1300 KW for PS-6
Each
53219
319,315.0
5
vii
460 KW for PS-7
Each
40186
241,115.4
5
viii
16
17
18
490 KW for PS-8

6.6 KV additional HT
Capacitor
Banks
to
achieve minimum power
factor of 0.995 including
cables
and
all
other
accessories
LT APFC Panel with
Capacitor Banks of 100
KVAR
RTCC Panel
Each
40186
46182.
06
KVAR
63
Nos.
9684
241,115.4
5
2,
912,630.3
3
77,474.04
14
Nos.
8450
118,300.0
0
19
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
Auxiliary
Panel
for
actuator of new valves (
sluice
+
butterfly
valves)
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 103

Project
SN
i
Particulars
For 3 actuators

Stations)
Qty
Unit
1
Rate
Nos.
Amount
2045
2,045.46
ii
For 6 actuators
Nos.
3409
17,045.52
iii
For 9 actuators
Nos.
4432
8,863.67
20
(i)

14
(ii)

21
i
Nos.
47165
660,307.3
7
Nos.
55200
110,400.6
0

for transformers
400 ampere
Nos.
1750
15,750.00
ii
600 ampere
Nos.
1750
1,750.00
iii
1200 ampere
Nos.
1750
1,750.00
22
i
100 ampere
Nos.
1750
200 ampere
Nos.
1750
15,750.00
23
i
ii
iii
iv
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply

for 6.6 KV VCB
10,500.00
ii
Remar
k
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
Control Cables
4 core, 4 Sq.
mm.,1.1KV,XLPE,armoured,
Cu
4 core, 2.5 Sq. mm., 1.1KV
XLPE,armoured,Cu
4 core, 1.5 Sq. mm,1.1 KV,
XLPE INSULATED Cu
cable
4 core, 1.5 Sq. mm,1.1 KV,
XLPE INSULATED Cu
cable
2 core 1 Sq. mm.,1.1 KV,
XLPE INSULATED RS-485
Solid control cable
1617
mtr
22
80
mtr
18
7589
35,291.10
1,408.07
mtr
97,775.29
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
13
160
mtr
2,816.13
%age
of
Supply
11,088.53
%age
of
Supply
18
350
mtr
32
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 104

Project
SN
vi
vii
viii
24
i
ii
iii
iv
v
25
26
27
28
i
Particulars
2 core 1.5 Sq. mm.,1.1 KV,

XLPE INSULATED Cu solid
control cable
2 core 1 Sq. mm.,Twisted
Pair Armoured Shielded
Copper Cable
16 core 1.5 Sq. mm.,1.1
KV,
XLPE INSULATED Cu
Armoured multicore control
cable
Power Cables
mm. armoured Al
mm. armoured Al
6.6 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX400
sq. mm. armoured Al
6.6 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX185
sq. mm. armoured Al
1.1 KV (U),XLPE, 3CX185
sq. mm. armoured Al

Stations)
Qty
Unit
15547
Amount
mtr
8
10143
131,347.3
5
mtr
7
500
71,410.14
mtr
15,840.76
394
mtr
288
113,504.6
7
1003.5
mtr
224
225,018.0
5
360
mtr
235
84,669.84
660
mtr
132
87,288.11
1150
mtr
68
78,327.60
17
Pressure
Sensor
&
Transmittor with all the
accessories
PLC cum RTU panel at
each
of
8
pumping
stations
and
SCADA
system at PS No 5
Full Bore Magnetic Flow
Meters at PS 1 to 8
116
Each
3736
63,504.20
Each
800
92,854.88
Set
592206
592,205.7
5
24
Each
37355
29
1600 mm
Construction
of
RCC
chambers
for
housing
Electromagnetic
Flow
Meters
1200 mm
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
24
Each
Each
384,227.1
0
4
,762,581.1
1
Detail
Estimat
e
48028
198441
Seureca(JV)STC
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
%age
of
Supply
896,529.9
1
ii
Remar
k
%age
of
Supply
32
Ultrasonic Level Sensor

with all the accessories
1200 mm
Rate
P a g e | 105

Project
SN
Particulars

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
Amount
1600 mm
Each
258536
Acoustic Doppler flow

Meter for open canal
Nos.
64548
31
Provision for civil work in

form of roomand provision
for
providing
electric
connection and battery
backup for flow meter
Nos.
500000
32
Dismantling Joints
Phase I Pumps
36
Each
8274
30
2,
068,286.2
2
129,096.0
3
5
00,000.00
for
1200 mm Diameter
297,870.5
5
ii
1000 mm Diameter
18
Each
5726
103,064.1
3
iii
800 mm Diameter
Each
3818
22,910.77
2
3
4
Supply & Installation of

the
following
electromechanical
equipments
and
instruments
Manufacturing,
testing,
inspection,
packaging,
forwarding,
insurance,
transportation,
storage
& duties and Installation of
followingCooling Pipe for gland at
the driving and non driving
end of pumps.
Air Vent System for
pumps
Pump motor coupling in
replacement of exisitng
one
Submersible
type
Dewatering
Sump
Pumps
with
Q=100
cum/hr, H=15 m for Pump
House with 150 mm dia
flexible delivery pipe of
minimun 25 m length
Remar
k
Detail
Estimat
e
%age
of
Supply
Market
Enquiry
p
16
Each
650
10,400.00
13
Each
1300
16,900.00
Each
26000
26,000.00
18
Each
204546
Seureca(JV)STC
3,6
81,833.06
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Market
Enquiry
Market
Enquiry
Market
Enquiry
Rate
Analysi
s
P a g e | 106

Project
SN
Particulars

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
Amount
Submersible
type
Dewatering
drain
Pumps with Q=45 cum/hr,
H=15 m for Pump House
with 80 mm G.I. delivery
pipe of required length with
level Control.
18
Each
119182
Level
Scale
for
mechanical level gauge
Each
2500
Installation of Surge Shaft

of 300 mm diameter with
cost of all supporting
arrengments. (300 mm dia
MS pipe shall be supplied
by the department)
20,000.00
Manufacturing,
testing,
inspection,
packaging,
forwarding,
insurance,
transportation,
storage
& duties
of Additional
Zero Velocity Valves for
the rising mains of PS-5
and PS-6
Starter for Submersible

type Dewatering Drain
Pumps (Q=45 cum/hr ,
Starter for Submersible
type Sump Pumps
18
Starter
for
Roof
Extractor (motor rating415 volts, 3.7 KW, 50 Hz)
Remote control station
(push buttons)
for
pumpsets in replacement
of existing faulty units.
27
Push buttons for the

Wall Mounted Control
Cabinet
415 V, 3 Phase, 4 Wire
input 48 V DC 2.5 KW
output Battery Charger
cum distributor Bank
81
11
12
13
14
Nos.
60000
120,000.0
0
10
2,
145,281.4
0
Remar
k
Rate
Analysi
s
Market
Enquiry
Market
Enquiry
Instead
Surge
Tanks
are
propose
d
Each
13000
234,000.0
0
18
Each
19500
351,000.0
0
12
Nos.
3250
Each
Each
Market
Enquiry
62,400.00
Market
Enquiry
5200
230584
Seureca(JV)STC
Market
Enquiry
87,750.00
5200
Each
Market
Enquiry
421,200.0
0
1,
614,084.6
7
Market
Enquiry
Rate
Analysi
s
P a g e | 107

Project
SN
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Particulars
Qty
Unit
415 V, 3 Phase, 4 Wire

input 48 V DC5 KW
output Battery Charger
cum distributor Bank
48 volts, 100 Ampere

Hours nickel cadmium
battery
48 volts, 200 Ampere
Hours nickel cadmium
battery
3 phase 63 Amp TP MCB
and metal clad plug
socket + 1 single phase
32 Amp SP MCB and 32
Amp metal clad plug socket
7
1
71
Bearing Temperature
Indicator
with alarm
and trip contacts at all
the pumps.
34
Bearing
Temperature
Indicator at the driving
and non driving end of
motors
Provision for Cooling
System for PS-5 & other
PS
as
per
the
requirement
Civil Works
60
Providing, installation &

commisioning of one-way
surge tank through surge
protection system
At PS No 5 for Phase 2
rising main
Each
29131
Each
53663
Each
7800
553,800.0
0
116
272508
53,663.07
200 mm dia. Glycerine

filled
Dial
Pressure
gauge
Bourdon
type
along with accessories for
delivery side of the pumps
existing
Amount
203,919.6
8
Remodeling
of
Canal Escapes
Each
Rate
272,507.8
0
NGR Assembly
for
Transformer neutral

Stations)
Nos.
20800
20,800.00
Each
3900
452,400.0
0
Each
6500
221,000.0
0
Each
LS
LS
LS
Remar
k
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Rate
Analysi
s
Market
Enquiry
Market
Enquiry
Market
Rate
Market
Enquiry
6500
3
90,000.00
Market
Enquiry
500000
5
00,000.00
Market
Enquiry
Propose
d to be
execute
d in
separat
e
packag
e
6218712
Seureca(JV)STC
6,
218,712.0
Annex
ES-SP
P a g e | 108

Project
SN
Particulars

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
Amount
Remar
k
0
ii
3
At PS No 6 for Phase 2
rising main
Supply,
fabrication,
erection of Steel structure
for supporting the soft
starters
Construction of new Canal
Escapes
54
Construction of new Super

passage / Village Road
Bridges in place of existing
VRB
Raising of canal banks and

wall upstream of canal
siphons
Rehabilitation
of
RCC
Aqueducts and other RCC
structures
Spare Parts of Proposed

new Pumping Machinery
including
one
rotating
assembly, one mechanical
seal, one set of bearings
for pumps and one set of
bearings for motors
Making arrangement in the
inlet of Inverted Siphon to
join with gravity pipeline
for
diversion
of
flow
towards
Surpura
Headworks
LS
5151110
Nos.
25000
5
,151,110.0
0
1,3
50,000.00
0
-
Lot
19,445,90
8
Market
Enquiry
Propose
d to be
execute
d in
separat
e
packag
e
Propose
d to be
execute
d in
separat
e
packag
e
Propose
d to be
execute
d in
separat
e
packag
e
Propose
d to be
execute
d in
separat
e
packag
e
19,4
45,907.98
0
-
Seureca(JV)STC
Annex
ES-SP
Propose
d to be
execute
d in
separat
e
packag
e
P a g e | 109

Project
SN
10
Particulars

Stations)
Qty
Unit
Rate
Provision for false ceiling,

wall panelling, flooring and
installation of 2 nos. air
conditioners at PS 5
Repairs/Overhauling
Lot
Dismantling, Transportation
& Installation of 33/6.6 KV,
10 MVA Transformer from
PS No 5 to PS No 6
Dismantling, Transportation
& Installation of 33/6.6 KV,
6.3 MVA Transformer from
existing location to PS No 2
Nos.
Replacment of Large &

small ball of Kinetic Air
Valves
installed
on
pumping mains
Replacement of Mild Steel
Cage epoxy painted 3 mm
thick with provision of
locking arrangement for
protection of Air Valves
installed on pumping mains
including
transportation,
installation etc complete
job
Repair/Overhauling
of
existing transformers on all
pumping stations
Repair/Overhauling
of
Electro
Mechanical
Equipment
at
various
Pumping Stations
28
Job
10000
Job
10000
Lot
Repair of Civil Works at All

the Headworks
Lot
Provisional Sum
Provisional sum for cost of

repair work/replacement of
electro-mechanical
items
etc, not identified above
but
required
to
fulfill
contract obligations. The
rate analysis of these items
shall be got approved from
Engineer-in-Charge.
LS
E
1
550000
5
50,000.00
65000
130,000.0
0
Nos.
65000
Remar
k
Market
Enquiry
Market
Enquiry
65,000.00
Market
Enquiry
2
80,000.00
Market
Enquiry
70,000.00
Market
Enquiry
8,4
38,975.93
Annex
ES-ETR
24,8
17,487.43
Annex
ES-RO
9946290.7
6
9,9
46,290.76
Annex
ESCWAC
5,000,000
5,0
00,000.00
Lot
8,438,975.
93
24817487
Total (Rs)
(Rs in
Crores)
Amount
Seureca(JV)STC
830,4
52,946.80
83.05
P a g e | 110

Project
Year of
O&M
Particulars
QTY

Stations)
4
months
12
months
12
months
12
months
12
months
12
months
12
months
12
months
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
144,90,0
00
144,90,0
00
144,90,0
00
144,90,0
00
144,90,0
00
144,90,0
00
144,90,0
00
5,00,000
5,00,000
5,00,000
5,00,000
5,00,000
5,00,000
5,00,000
1,00,000
1,00,000
1
00,000
Rate
144,90,0
00
Manpower
48,30,0
00
On call manpower and

machinery
External Finishing
after attending minor
repairs
such
as
damage to plaster,
etc. for all buildings,
under the contract
Internal
finishing
(distemper /painting)
after attending minor
repairs
such
as
damage to plaster,
etc. for all buildings
under the contract in
3rd year, 7th year and
10th year of contract
for all Buildings, under
the contract.
1,
1.00
00,000
1.00
00,000
1,
00,000
1
,00,000
5,
1
,00,000
1
,00,000
5
,00,000
5,00,000
Material
for
maintenance
for
repairs to mechanical
equipments , electrical
items and instruments
0
17,
32,705
17
,32,705
17
,32,705
17
,32,705
3045417
71
15,
22,709
15
,22,709
15
,22,709
37118790
18,
55,939
18
,55,939
50,000
50,000
Mechanical items
34654090
6
Electrical items
Instrumentation
SCADA
and
2,50,000
ISO Certifications
2,
Annual
recurring
charges of CMMS
00,000
Consumables
50,000
Hiring of vehicles with

POL
2,
17,32,705
1
7,32,705
17
32,705
15
,22,709
15,22,709
1
5,22,709
15
22,709
18
,55,939
18
,55,939
18,55,939
1
8,55,939
18
55,939
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
00,000
,00,000
,00,000
,00,000
2,00,000
2,00,000
2
00,000
12,500
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
9,00,000
9,00,000
9
00,000
3,
9,
9
,00,000
00,000
2,25,000
00,000
Mobile phones
81
3,000
60,750
43,000
,43,000
,43,000
,43,000
2,43,000
2,43,000
2
43,000
Data cards
16
1,000
4,000
16,000
16,000
16,000
16,000
16,000
16,000
16,000
2,
,00,000
Seureca(JV)STC
,00,000
2
P a g e | 111

Project
53,
82,250
Sub Total
% Escalation
5%
MF
Escalation Amount
Contractor's Profit and
taxes
Total
Cost
Yearly
O&M Cost
years
16.9%
O&M
for

Stations)
216,6
0,353
221,
60,353
216,
60,353
216,
60,353
2
16,60,353
22
1,60,353
53,
82,250
10,8
3,018
22,
71,436
34,
14,213
46,
67,941
59,84,356
7
5,36,639
88,
7,939
9
,08,255
38,3
7,944
41,
22,864
42,
31,333
44,
42,900
46,65,045
5
0,11,367
51,
3,212
62,
90,505
265,8
1,314
285,
54,653
293,
05,899
307,
71,194
3
23,09,754
34
7,08,360
356,
1,503
10
Total Cost of package G 1.A is 121.68 Cr. The general abstract of cost is
available at Annexure ES-GAC and Operation & maintenance estimates is
available at Annexure ES-OM.
216,
0,353
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 112

Project
1.49.

Stations)
Basis for Cost Estimates
The costing of package of Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water

Conveyance System (RGL Canal and Pumping Stations) has been
performed based on the following sources:
Design of the Proposed Interventions.
PWD Standard Schedule of Rates (SOR) of Jodhpur Circle (2012)
of Rajasthan state.
Rates adopted in Major Water Supply Projects in PHED
RUIDP Rajasthan Standard Schedule of Rates (SOR)
WRD BSR
Consultants data bank and experience on similar projects.
Nominally applicable labor and material costs for items not
present in the aforementioned SOR.
Vendors Quotations & Rate analysis
1.49.1.
eads
Overh
All the civil work estimates like valve chambers, campus development
works are prepared based on the PWD BSR of Jodhpur Circle of Year 2012.
A factor of 10% is adopted for adjusting the BSR rates to current market
level and the rates adopted are taken from BSR year 2012.
The tender for the current proposals are proposed to put on bid on SPR
basis. A overhead factor for SPR contract of 10% is adopted in the current
proposals.
1.49.2.
Land
Acquisition:
No cost of land acquisition is included in the TS proposals.
1.50.
Spare Parts
A provision of spare parts for proposed pumping machinery to be replaced

at Pumping station No 1 to 7 is taken in the estimates. The provision kept
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 113

Project

Stations)
is taken as 15% of cost of the pump cost of pumpset costs (which is

adopted as 45% of total pumpset cost). It is not proposed to procure
spares for bare pumps as they are proposed to be replaced with increased
capacity pumps in year 2020-21. If required, the required spares for bare
pumps will be procured by the contractor.
1.51.
Provisional Sum
A lump sum amount of Rs 50.00 lacs is taken in the estimates to provide

for any work/items required to be executed/procured which is not in
project estimates and for any amount required to be deposited with any
agency.
1.52.
Rate Analysis
For large number of equipment, instruments, rates have been procured

from market vendors.
The rates obtained from vendor is further analysed for its total cost by
including VAT, Excise Duty, CES, Sales Tax as applicable, inspection
charges, contractors profit, and SPR Contract charges.
The detailed rate analysis for various equipments, appurtenances are
available at Annexure ES-RA.
1.53.
Quotations Liasoning
For large number of equipment, instruments, rates have been procured

from market vendors.
A list of such equipments and their vendors is provided below;
S. No.
Equipment
Vendor
Sluice & Butterfly

Valves, Electric
Actuators, Dual Plate
Check Valve
M/s RD Multiplex
Dismantling Joints &

Flanges
Electric Hoist
M/s Vinay Sales Corporation, Jaipur
Pumps & Motors
M/s Mather & Platt, M/s Grundfoss, M/s

KBL
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 114

Project

Stations)
S. No.
Equipment
Vendor
Transformers
M/s Uttam (Bharat) Electricals Private

Limited
Power & Control Cables
M/s KEI Induatries Limited, Mumbai
RTU & PLC Panels and

SCADA
M/s Schnieder
Pumps & Motors for

RWPS
M/s KBL
Soft Starters
M/s Jayshree Electron, Pune
10
Canal flowmeter
M/s MECHATRONICS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD
The quotations received from various vendors are available at Annexure

ES-Q1.
1.54.
Operation & Maintenance Cost
The operation & maintenance cost for the system for 10 years has been
worked out and is available at Annexure ES-OM. The energy consumption
at RWPS and WTP is also calculated and available at same Annexure.
Seureca(JV)STC
P a g e | 115

RGLC Ts Civil Work

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

RGLC Ts Civil Work

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,

JODHPUR URBAN WATER SUPPLY REORGANIZATION

DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR TECHNICAL SANCTION

REHABILITATION AND STRENGTHENING OF RAW

Jodhpur Urban Water Supply Reorganisation

Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water

JODHPUR URBAN WATER SUPPLY REORGANIZATION PROJECT

AND STRENGTHENING OF RAW

Technical Sanction Proposal

Administrative & Financial

Jodhpur Urban WaterAFD

Conveyance System (RGL Canal and Pumping

American Water Works Associations

Best Efficiency Point

Bureau of Indian Standards

Central Public Health & Environment

Central Processing Unit

Cubic Meters per Second

Clear Water Reservoir

Design Build Operate

Department of External Affairs

Green House Gas Emissions

High Level Filter Plant

Human Machine Interface

Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna

Indian Institute of Science

Indian Water Works Association

Low Level Filter Plant

Liter Per Minute

Liter per second

Million Cubic Feet

Milligram per liter

Million Liters per Day

Meters above Sea Level

Non Return Valve

Non Revenue Water

Nelson Turbidity Unit

Operation & Maintenance

Technical Sanction Proposal

Poly Aluminum Chloride

Public Health Engineering Department

Jodhpur Urban Water Supply Reorganisation

Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water

JODHPUR URBAN WATER SUPPLY REORGANIZATION PROJECT

AND STRENGTHENING OF RAW

2.1. COVERAGE AREA

Technical Sanction Proposal

Jodhpur Urban Water Supply Reorganisation

Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water

2.4. JODHPUR CITY

2.23. PUMPING STATIONS

Technical Sanction Proposal

Jodhpur Urban Water Supply Reorganisation

Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water

REHABILITATION OF CANAL AND SERVICE ROAD

3.3. SANCTIONED CIVIL WORKS

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

4.1. TAKING OVER OF OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

Technical Sanction Proposal

Jodhpur Urban Water Supply Reorganisation

Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Raw Water

JODHPUR URBAN WATER SUPPLY REORGANIZATION PROJECT

AND STRENGTHENING OF RAW