Section 2: Technical Specification for Turbines, Governors, Main Inlet

Valves and associated auxiliaries

Sr.No.
1.

Clause
2.1.1
&
2.23 (D) to
(H)

Comments of SJVN
Separate

TS

sections

Replies after receipt from

WAPCOS
been Wapcos has agreed with SJVN,

have

envisaged for Butter fly valve, cooling

water

system,

LP

air

system

thereby accepted

and

Drainage & Dewatering system. Even

then items of above system have been
incorporated in this scope. Contradiction
2.

2.2.1.3

shall be clarified.
Selection of Turbine

capacity

as Accepted

225000.0 KW at a design head of 287.0m

may be clarified. In our opinion, turbine
output has to be more that above value at
3.

2.2.2.1

this head.
Supporting documents for selecting

Accepted

inertia constant (H) as 4 MW/MVA shall

4.

2.2.2.2

be submitted.
The figure of 356 does not have any Wapcos

has

submitted

the

unit, clarification & supporting document maximum momentary pressure as

shall be submitted in this regard.

387mWC. In our understanding, it

shall

5.

2.2.2.6

The supporting document for selecting

be

356mWC

(879.75-

525=355mWC). Please clarify.

Not accepted. As per CEA guideline

minimum weighted average efficiency as for Best practices The minimum

94% shall be submitted.

weighted

average

efficiency

obtainable for Reaction turbine is

6.

2.2.2.7 (III)
(b) & (c)

95%.
The 343.43m3/sec is rated discharge Not agreed. The comment was that
corresponding to rated output ( 900MW)

with 10% overload, the discharge

of plant as per DPR whereas

would

in this

clause it has been considered as running

increase.

The

increased

discharge should be specified here.

of 4 machine with 10% overload at FRL.

The contradiction shall be clarified.
7. 2.2.2.7 (III) (c)

It is not understood how tail race water

Ok. Row may be deleted.

level corresponding to 466.0 m3 will be

lower than 343.43 m3 and from where
this discharge of 466.0 m3 has been
considered.
8.

2.2.2.8

The clarification is needed for above.

Purpose of Incorporating this clause shall
be clarified & justified as power house

Ok. The clause may be deleted.

dimensioning

and

equipment

layout

planning has been carried out with

9.

10.

2.2.3

2.2.3.1

machine speed of 250 RPM only.

Approved DPR envisaged the hard

No hard coating has been proposed

coating for susceptible under water

in this clause. Kindly check the

components whereas no such provision is

same and include the details of hard

made in the specification. The reason for

coating in the clause.

same shall be provided.

Section-I does not cover any details in

Ok. Please include the same in the

respect of Petrographic analysis and Section-I

chemical analysis of water as referred in
this clause. Same shall be clarified.
11.

2.2.4.1 &
2.2.4.2 (a)

If turbine give output of 228426.40kW at Not agreed. The clause may be

a design head of 287.0 m at 100% Guide
vane opening then

how Turbine will

produce 110% output . Same shall be

clarify.

modified as following:
The following turbine outputs and
efficiencies shall be guaranteed by
the bidders in their bids
a)

228426.40kW output at the

design net head of 287 m and
less than 100% guide vane
opening

for 100% generator

output.
b) One hundred and ten percent
(110%) output of generator at
100% (full) guide vane opening
at the minimum (rated) head.
c) Turbine efficiencies at 110%,
100%, 90%, 80%, 75% and
70%

of

the

rated

turbine

outputs at various listed net

heads in the specified working
head

range.

At

lower

percentage of rated outputs viz

from 50% to 20% the value of
expected efficiencies shall be
stated in the bids.

12.

2.2.4.2

Criteria for selecting 2% as difference in

Relevant clause of other projects

efficiency between maximum efficiency may be submitted along with.

and that at rated output & rated head
shall be submitted..

13.

2.2.4.3 (1)

Criteria (standard, norms, benchmarks Accepted.

etc.)
for choosing this formula for
weighted average efficiency shall be
submitted.
Supporting documents for choosing Accepted
penalties values specified in clause for
shortfall of Output and weighted average
efficiency shall be submitted.

14.

2.2.4.4 (4)

15.

2.2.4.4 (7)

Criteria for selecting rejection limit value

as 2% or more needs to be supplied.

Relevant clause of other projects

may be submitted along with.

16.

2.2.5.1

It is requested to supply a copy of

IEC 60194

17.

2.2.5.3

Safe operating zone for machine in the

cavitation as well as non cavitation zone
shall be clearly specified in the
specification.
Supporting documents for limiting the
speed rise limit of 45% shall be provided.

18.

2.2.5.4 (1)

Seismic force considered in Section I as

Please cross check the relevant

documents since as per IS 12837,
the speed rise limit has been set
from 35 % to 55 %.
Ok. The base document may also

per

be specified).

clause

1.8.7.1

are

0.33g

for

Horizontal and 0.22g for Vertical whereas

it is different as per this clause. The
contradiction of values shall be clarified.
Justification for incorporating this clause Not agreed. Please submit the
may be clarified with benchmark relevant documents as per latest
documents or other guideline documents. guidelines issued by Govt. of India

19.

2.2.6.8 (3)

20.

2.3.2.4 &
2.3.2.5

21.

2.3.6.1

Justification for selecting Materials, Supporting document not attached

manufacturing method etc. for different
component of Turbine shall be provided
with their merits/demerits.

22.

2.3.6.1.2

Analysis document with merit & demerits Supporting document not attached
shall be provided for selecting material
and manufacturing methodology for
Runner so that suitability at Arun-III HEP
shall be ensured.

23.

2..4.13..1

24.

2.5.3.1 (i)

25.

2.6.1.2

Supporting documents for limiting the Not agreed. The period for runaway
runaway speed test period as two (2) speed test has to be provided in the
minutes shall be provided.
specification or minimum of CEA
guidelines has to be adhered to.
Reason for selecting wicket gate closing Range to be supplied along with
time range from 0-20 seconds shall be supporting document.
supplied. It is understood that being a
hydro-mechanical item closing of wicket
gate in 0 seconds is impossible.
287.0m is design head for the machine, Ok. To be incorporated in technical
whereas static head corresponding to specification.
FRL & M/c Centre line is higher (845-525
= 320m), Therefore, discrepancy in the
value shall be clarified as it will impact the
design of MIV.

Calculation document for considering

static pressure as 320.0mWC and
Transient pressure rise as 430.5 m shall
be submitted.

Please submit the document for

transient pressure rise of 430.5
cumecs

26. 2.6.2 (A) (iii)

to (ix)

Justification of calculations for selecting

the listed parameters in this clause shall
be provided.

27. 2.6.2 (B) (i)

Justification documents shall be Kindly

submit
the
supporting
submitted for selecting the design of MIV document along with relevant
opening under differential pressure of standard.
50%.

28. 2.6.2 (B) (i)

& (ii)

Criteria (standard, norms, benchmarks

etc.) for choosing opening and closing
time range as 60-120 sec shall be
submitted.
Section-I does not cover any such details
as referred in this clause. Same shall be
clarified.

Kindly
submit
the
supporting
document along with relevant
standard.

Seismic force considered in Section I as

To be changed.

29.

2.6.2 (C)

30.

2.6.2 (D)

per

clause

1.8.7.1

are

0.33g

Please the calculations along with

the relevant documents for all the
calculations for above values.

Ok. Please include the same in the

Section-I

for

Horizontal and 0.22g for Vertical whereas

it is different as per this clause. The
contradiction of values shall be clarified.
The calculation in respect of maximum
hydrostatic pressure of 534mWC shall be
submitted.

31.

2.6.5.1 (d)

32.

2.6.5.16

Justification for selecting Ultrasonic flow Both methods provide for flow
detector shall be provided as winter measurement (one equipment to be
Kennedy type flow meter is also proposed provided only)
in clause 2.9.1.

33.

2.7.1

Justification for selecting separate OPU Not agreed. . Documents of similar

system of Turbine and MIV shall be project to be provided.
submitted

34.

2.7.7

The guide vane control through head is Ok. Same shall be incorporated.
not considered in governor as per clause
2.5.3 whereas it has been described in
this clause. Contradiction in this regard
shall be clarified.

35.
2.14.1

36.

2.16

The supporting document shall be

submitted for proposing the various kind
of test to be performed for Turbine
equipments.
It is not clear from this clause whether
Field acceptance test for performance
and efficiency in respect of guaranteed
figure to be performed on one unit or all
unit. Same shall be clarified and
elaborated.

There is no clause 2.6.2.8. Kindly

submit the calculations for the same.

The question relates to the

supporting documents for the
necessity of tests to be included in
the TS. Kindly provide the relevant
supporting document.
Ok. Same shall be incorporated in
the TS