27 MWp 18.

7 MW SOLAR PV POWER PLANT

CLIENT

JINDAL POLYFLIMS PRIVATE LIMITED

28th Km Stone, Nashik Igatpuri Road, NH-3, Vill.- Mundhegaon, Taluka Igatpuri, Distt. Nashik, Maharashtra 422010 India

DEVELOPER
AUGUST ENERGY SOLAR TWO PRIVATE LIMITED

Innov8 Aerocity, Innov8 Coworking, Pride Plaza Hotel, H43F 64 Aerocity, New Delhi 110037, India

OWNERS ENGINEER
SGURR ENERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Clover Metropole, 4th Floor, Next to Clover Highlands, 25 NIBM Road, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune, Maharashtra 411048, India

EPC CONTRACTOR
SUNKIND INDIA LIMITED

AIHP Skyline, 1st Floor, Plot 97A, Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana 122001, India

Drawing / Document No SIL-AE-JPFL-CIV-85

DRAINAGE SYSTEM LAYOUT

R1 27-05-2026 MFF AS AK
& DESIGN
DRAINAGE SYSTEM LAYOUT
R0 08-05-2026 MFF AS AK
& DESIGN
Rev Date Description Prepared By Checked By Approved. By

Private Confidential Page 1 EPC : Sunkind India Limited

DRAINAGE DESIGN AND CALULATION OF
SOLAR POWER PLANT AT MUNDHEGAON,
IGATPURI, NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA

Prepared by:

Submitted to:

Mundhegaon, Igatpuri, Nashik, Maharashtra

May - 2026
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Hydrological Insights - Plot 5 - Design Basis and Assumptions................................................................. 3
2.1 Bed Slope Calculation ................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Peak Discharge by Rational Method .................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Recommended Drain Section ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Manning’s Hydraulic Capacity Check .................................................................................................................. 5
2.5 Final Design Check ............................................................................................................................................. 5
3 . Hydrological Insights - Plot 6 - Design Basis and Assumptions............................................................... 6
3.1 Bed Slope Calculation ................................................................................................................................................ 7
3.2 Peak Discharge by Rational Method .................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Recommended Drain Section ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.4 Manning Capacity Check.................................................................................................................................. 8
3.5 Final Design Verification ................................................................................................................................. 8
4 . Hydrological Insights - Plot 7 - Design Basis and Assumptions............................................................... 9
4.1 Bed Slope Calculation .............................................................................................................................................. 10
4.2 Peak Discharge by Rational Method .................................................................................................................. 10
4.3 Recommended Drain Section ...................................................................................................................... 11
4.4 Manning Capacity Check................................................................................................................................ 11
4.5 Final Design Verification ............................................................................................................................... 11
5 . Pipe Crossing / Periphery Outlet Design ........................................................................................................ 12
5.1 Important Note for Pipe System ......................................................................................................................... 15
6.0 Conclusion & recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 15
Justifications: ........................................................................................................................................................................... 17
1. Introduction
The present study focuses on the hydraulic design of surface drainage systems for different plots
within the project area based on computed peak runoff values derived from individual sub-basins.
The objective of the drainage design is to ensure safe and efficient conveyance of stormwater runoff
during high-intensity rainfall events while minimizing flooding, erosion, and waterlogging within
the site.

The drainage system has been designed considering the 50-year return period storm event, which
is commonly adopted for infrastructure and renewable energy developments. The analysis
incorporates watershed characteristics, Curve Number (CN), drainage area, lag time, and rainfall
intensity derived from the available IDF curve.

Table 1: Study area details

Site: Mundhegaon, Tal - Igatpuri, Dist – Nashik, Maharashtra
Lat - Long: 19.7834721 73.660226
Location Area (acres)
Plot 5 - Area Between Switchyard and Commercial
10
Building
Plot 6 - Open Scrap Yard 8
Plot 7 - Open Scrap Yard (Above) 7.5

2. Hydrological Insights - Plot 5 - Design Basis and Assumptions

Plot 5 exhibits moderate runoff generation with a revised 50-year peak discharge of approximately
0.466 m³/s. The plot possesses a bed slope of approximately 1 in 36, which indicates moderately
steep flow conditions. Although the slope is comparatively lower than Plot 6 and Plot 7, the
drainage system still requires erosion protection measures due to the concentrated runoff
generated from the contributing catchment area.

The hydraulic analysis confirms that the proposed trapezoidal drain section is capable of safely
conveying the design discharge under the adopted storm condition. Because the drain is proposed
as an earthen section, wider bed width and flatter side slopes have been adopted to improve
hydraulic stability and reduce erosion susceptibility.
 Table :2 Plot 5 - Design Basis and Assumptions

Parameter Value
Plot 5 – Area between Switchyard & Commercial
A Plot
Building
Plot Area 10 Acre (0.0405 km²)
Rainfall Intensity 69 mm/hr
Runoff Coefficient (C) 0.6
Design Storm 50-Year
Drain Length 180 m
Drain Shape Trapezoidal
Start RL 605 m
End RL 600 m
Total Fall 5m
Side Slope 1.5H:1V
Freeboard 0.15 m
Manning’s n 0.04
Outlet Direction South

2.1 Bed Slope Calculation

S = Bed slope
ΔH = Difference between Start RL and End RL
L = Drain length

S = (605 - 600) / 180

Calculated Bed Slope = 0.0278 m/m = 2.78% = 1 in 36

2.2 Peak Discharge by Rational Method

Rational Method:

Q = 0.278 × C × I × A
Where:
Q = Peak discharge (m³/s)
C = Runoff coefficient = 0.60
I = Rainfall intensity = 69 mm/hr
A = Catchment area = 0.0405 km²

Q = 0.278 × 0.60 × 69 × 0.0405

Peak Discharge Q = 0.466 m³/s

Adopted Design Discharge = 0.56 m³/s

2.3 Recommended Drain Section

Table 3: Drain Section
Parameter Adopted Value
Bottom Width (b) 0.60 m
Flow Depth (y) 0.40 m
Freeboard 0.15 m
Total Depth 0.55 m
Top Width 2.00 m
Side Slope 1.5H : 1V
Drain Type Trapezoidal
Drain Condition Earthen / Lined

2.4 Manning’s Hydraulic Capacity Check

• Area A = y(b + zy) = 0.48 m²
• Wetted Perimeter P = 2.04 m
• Hydraulic Radius R = A/P = 0.235 m
• Manning’s Formula: Q = (1/n) A R^(2/3) S^(1/2)
• Drain Carrying Capacity = 0.73 m³/s

2.5 Final Design Check

Table 4: Design Check
Check Value
Required Discharge 0.466 m³/s
Adopted Design Discharge 0.56 m³/s
Drain Capacity 0.73 m³/s
 Image 1 : Plot 5 – Flood Inundation Map (50 Years)

3. Hydrological Insights - Plot 6 - Design Basis and Assumptions

Plot 6 exhibits comparatively higher runoff concentration and steeper drainage conditions, with a
calculated bed slope of approximately 1 in 25. The steeper hydraulic gradient increases flow
velocity and therefore raises the possibility of erosion and side scouring within the drainage
channel.

Although the peak discharge is approximately 0.373 m³/s, the steeper slope condition governs the
hydraulic behavior of the drain. Proper erosion protection measures such as PCC lining, stone
pitching, check drops, and outlet protection are therefore strongly recommended.

The hydraulic capacity verification indicates that the proposed drain section possesses adequate
carrying capacity and can safely convey runoff generated during the 50-year storm event.
 Table 5: Plot 6 - Design Basis and Assumptions
Parameter Value
A Plot Plot 6 – Open Scrap Yard
Plot Area 8 acres (0.0324 km² approx.)
Rainfall Intensity 69 mm/hr
Runoff
0.6
Coefficient
Design Storm 50-Year
Drain Length 397 m
Drain Shape Trapezoidal
Start RL 610 m
End RL 594 m
Total Fall 16 m
Side Slope 1.5H:1V
Freeboard 0.15 m
Manning's n 0.04
Outlet Direction South

3.1 Bed Slope Calculation

S = (610 - 594) / 397

S = 16 / 397 = 0.0403

Therefore, the bed slope is 0.0403 m/m or 4.03%.

Slope Ratio = 1 / 0.0403 = 24.8 ≈ 1 in 25

3.2 Peak Discharge by Rational Method

Q = 0.278 × C × I × A
Where:
C = 0.60
I = 69 mm/hr
A = 0.0324 km²

Q = 0.278 × 0.60 × 69 × 0.0324

 Peak Discharge Q = 0.373 m³/s

Adopted Design Discharge = 0.45 m³/s

3.3 Recommended Drain Section

Table 6: Plot 6 - Drain Section

Parameter Recommended Value
Bottom Width (b) 0.50 m
Flow Depth (y) 0.35 m
Freeboard 0.15 m
Total Depth 0.50 m
Top Width 2.00 m
Side Slope 1.5H:1V
Drain Type Trapezoidal
Drain Condition Earthen / Lined

3.4 Manning Capacity Check

Area A = 0.359 m²

Wetted Perimeter P = 1.762 m

Hydraulic Radius R = 0.204 m

Calculated Manning Capacity = 0.622 m³/s

3.5 Final Design Verification

Table 7: Plot 6 – Dessing Check

Check Value
Required Discharge 0.373 m³/s
Adopted Design Discharge 0.45 m³/s
Drain Capacity 0.62 m³/s
 Image 2 : Plot 6 – Flood Inundation Map (50 Years)

4. Hydrological Insights - Plot 7 - Design Basis and Assumptions

Plot 7 exhibits the steepest drainage condition among all analyzed plots, with a bed slope of
approximately 1 in 14. This represents a very steep hydraulic gradient and therefore produces
relatively high flow velocity during intense rainfall events.

Even though the calculated peak discharge is approximately 0.350 m³/s, the steep slope
significantly increases erosion potential within the earthen drainage section. Consequently, Plot 7
requires the highest level of hydraulic protection among all plots.

The proposed trapezoidal drain section is hydraulically adequate based on Manning’s capacity
verification; however, additional erosion control measures such as stone pitching, energy
dissipation structures, and regular maintenance are strongly recommended to maintain long-term
drain stability.
 Table 8: Plot 7 - Design Basis and Assumptions
Parameter Value
A Plot Plot 7 – Open Scrap Yard (Above)
Plot Area 7.5 acres (0.03035 km² approx.)
Rainfall Intensity 69 mm/hr
Runoff Coefficient 0.6
Design Storm 50-Year
Drain Length 118 m
Drain Shape Trapezoidal
Start RL 622.5 m
End RL 614 m
Total Fall 8.5 m
Side Slope 1.5H:1V
Freeboard 0.15 m
Manning's n 0.04
Outlet Direction South

4.1 Bed Slope Calculation

S = (622.5 - 614) / 118

S = 8.5 / 118 = 0.0720

Therefore, the calculated bed slope is 0.0720 m/m or 7.20%.

Slope Ratio = 1 / 0.0720 = 13.88 ≈ 1 in 14

4.2 Peak Discharge by Rational Method

Q = 0.278 × C × I × A
Where:
C = 0.60
I = 69 mm/hr
A = 0.03035 km²

Q = 0.278 × 0.60 × 69 × 0.03035

Peak Discharge Q = 0.350 m³/s

Adopted Design Discharge = 0.42 m³/s

4.3 Recommended Drain Section
Table 9: Plot 7 - Drain Section

Parameter Recommended Value

Bottom Width (b) 0.50 m
Flow Depth (y) 0.35 m
Freeboard 0.15 m
Total Depth 0.50 m
Top Width 2.00 m
Side Slope 1.5H:1V
Drain Type Trapezoidal
Drain Condition Earthen / Lined

4.4 Manning Capacity Check

Area A = 0.359 m²

Wetted Perimeter P = 1.762 m

Hydraulic Radius R = 0.204 m

Calculated Manning Capacity = 0.831 m³/s

4.5 Final Design Verification

Table 10 – Plot 7 – Design Check

Check Value
Required Discharge 0.350 m³/s
Adopted Design Discharge 0.42 m³/s
Drain Capacity 0.83 ³/s
 Image 3 – Plot 7 – Flood Inundation Map (50 years)

5. Pipe Crossing / Periphery Outlet Design

RCC NP3 pipes have been recommended at the drain periphery crossings and outlet locations
because they provide adequate hydraulic carrying capacity, structural strength, durability, and
erosion resistance under the adopted 50-year storm condition. Since Plot 6 and Plot 7 exhibit
relatively steep bed slopes, RCC pipes are more suitable for safely conveying concentrated runoff
without deformation or scouring compared to earthen or flexible pipe systems. A 600 mm diameter
RCC NP3 pipe has been adopted based on Manning hydraulic capacity verification, which confirms
that the pipe capacity exceeds the required design discharge for all three plots.

Where:

• 𝑄= pipe discharge capacity, m³/s

• 𝑛= Manning’s roughness coefficient

• 𝐴= flow area, m²

• 𝑅= hydraulic radius, m

• 𝑆= pipe slope

• 𝐷= pipe diameter, m
For 600 mm dia RCC pipe:

Table 11: Pipe capacity and size for plot 5, 6, and 7

Plot Pipe Diameter Slope Used Approx. Pipe Capacity Required Q
Plot 5 600 mm 0.0278 ~1.18 m³/s 0.56 m³/s
Plot 6 600 mm 0.0403 ~1.42 m³/s 0.45 m³/s
Plot 7 600 mm 0.072 ~1.90 m³/s 0.42 m³/s

Table 12 : Required Pipe System Components

Component Requirement
Pipe type RCC NP3 Hume pipe
Diameter 600 mm
Inlet structure RCC/stone masonry headwall
Outlet structure Headwall with apron
Bed protection PCC apron / stone pitching
Erosion control Required, especially Plot 6 and Plot 7
Pipe invert Match with drain bed level
Bedding Proper compacted bedding below pipe
 5.1 Important Note for Pipe System
Manning’s roughness coefficient 0.013 is the standard Manning’s roughness coefficient commonly
recommended for concrete pipes, RCC pipes and smooth finished pipe surfaces.

For final construction drawing, pipe exact length and inlet/outlet invert levels should be fixed
based on actual periphery/road crossing width. However, hydraulically, 600 mm dia RCC NP3
pipe is safe for all three plot crossings.

6.0 Conclusion & recommendations

The drainage design for Plot 5, Plot 6, and Plot 7 has been carried out using the Rational Method for
the 50-year return period storm. The proposed earthen trapezoidal drain section is hydraulically
adequate for all three plots (refer Table14).

Plot 5 generates the highest design discharge of 0.466 m³/s and has a moderate bed slope of 1 in
36. Plot 6 has a design discharge of 0.373 m³/s with a steeper bed slope of 1 in 25, while Plot 7 has
a design discharge of 0.350 m³/s with the steepest bed slope of 1 in 14. Although the proposed
drain section is hydraulically safe, Plot 6 and Plot 7 require special erosion protection due to their
steep gradients.

The proposed drainage system is suitable for safely conveying stormwater runoff during the 50-
year storm event. However, as the drains are proposed to be earthen, turfing, stone pitching at
vulnerable reaches, check drops, outlet protection, and regular desilting are recommended to
minimize erosion, scouring, and long-term maintenance issues.

Hydrological Interpretation

The hydrological assessment indicates that the drainage system is hydraulically adequate for
conveying runoff generated during the 50-year return period storm event. The project site
generally exhibits moderate to steep natural topographic gradients, which support efficient
stormwater conveyance but simultaneously increase erosion susceptibility in steeper reaches.

Among all plots, Plot 7 governs the steepest hydraulic condition, while Plot 5 contributes the
highest runoff discharge. Therefore, proper drain stabilization measures, periodic maintenance, and
outlet protection arrangements are essential for ensuring long-term hydraulic performance and
minimizing erosion, flooding, and waterlogging risks across the project area.
 Table 13 : Comparison Table – Drainage Design for Plots 5, 6 & 7
Parameter Unit Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 7

Area Between
Open Scrap Yard
Plot Description - Switchyard & Open Scrap Yard
(Above)
Commercial Building

Plot Area Acres 10 8 7.5

Plot Area km² 0.0405 0.0324 0.0304
Design Storm - 50-Year 50-Year 50-Year
Rainfall Intensity mm/hr 69 69 69
Runoff Coefficient (C) - 0.6 0.6 0.6
Drain Length m 180 397 118
Start RL m 605 610 622.5
End RL m 600 594 614
Total Fall m 5 16 8.5
Bed Slope m/m 0.0278 0.0403 0.072
Bed Slope % 2.78% 4.03% 7.20%
Slope Ratio - 1 in 36 1 in 25 1 in 14
Outlet Direction - South South West
Peak Discharge (Q) m³/s 0.466 0.373 0.35
Adopted Design
m³/s 0.56 0.45 0.42
Discharge
Bottom Width (b) m 0.6 0.5 0.5
Flow Depth (y) m 0.4 0.35 0.35
Freeboard m 0.15 0.15 0.15
Total Drain Depth m 0.55 0.5 0.5
Top Width m 2 2 2
Side Slope - 1.5H:1V 1.5H:1V 1.5H:1V
Manning’s n - 0.04 0.04 0.04
Drain Type - Trapezoidal Trapezoidal Trapezoidal

Drain Condition - Earthen / Lined Earthen / Lined Earthen / Lined

Hydraulic Area (A) m² 0.48 0.359 0.359
Wetted Perimeter (P) m 2.04 1.762 1.762

Hydraulic Radius (R) m 0.235 0.204 0.204

Drain Carrying
m³/s 0.73 0.62 0.83
Capacity
 Table 14: Plotwise Drain Dimensions
Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 7
Parameter
Adopted Value Recommended Value Recommended Value
Design Q50 0.466 0.373 0.35
m³/s 0.60 m 0.50 m 0.50 m
Flow Depth (y) 0.40 m 0.35 m 0.35 m
Freeboard 0.15 m 0.15 m 0.15 m
Total Depth 0.55 m 0.50 m 0.50 m
Top Width 2.00 m 2.00 m 2.00 m
Side Slope 1.5H: 1V 1.5H:1V 1.5H:1V
Drain Type Trapezoidal Trapezoidal Trapezoidal
Drain Condition Earthen / Lined Earthen / Lined Earthen / Lined

Image 4 – Generalized drain cross Section

Justifications:
1. Adopting Runoff Coefficient (C = 0.60)

Basis for Selection of Runoff Coefficient

The runoff coefficient represents the fraction of rainfall that appears as direct surface runoff. The
value depends mainly on land use, soil permeability, vegetation cover, surface slope,
imperviousness, and drainage characteristics.

The project area consists mainly of solar plant development area, compacted open ground, internal
roads, weathered basaltic soil, partially barren land, and moderate vegetation cover. The hydrology
report also indicates Hydrologic Soil Group B with moderate infiltration characteristics.
Therefore, the site does not behave like a fully paved urban catchment having very high runoff, nor
like dense vegetated forest land having very low runoff. Hence, a moderate runoff coefficient was
considered appropriate.

Standard Reference Runoff Coefficient Range

Surface Type Typical Runoff Coefficient (C)

Dense forest / grassland 0.10 – 0.30
Agricultural land 0.30 – 0.50
Open barren land 0.40 – 0.60
Moderate / Compacted soil 0.50 – 0.70
Roads / paved area 0.70 – 0.95
RCC / fully paved urban
0.90 – 1.00
area

Adopted Value

Considering the mixed land use, moderate infiltration characteristics, weathered soil conditions,
and proposed solar plant development, the following runoff coefficient was adopted:

C = 0.60

Reason for Using Same Value for All Plots

The same runoff coefficient was adopted for Plots 5, 6, and 7 because all plots belong to the same
geographical conditions, exhibit similar soil, topographic, and land use conditions. A uniform runoff
coefficient ensures consistency and provides a conservative design approach for stormwater
drainage sizing using the Rational Method.

Drain Side Slope and Bed Slope

Justification for 1.5H:1V Side Slope

The side slope of 1.5H:1V was selected for the proposed trapezoidal drain because the drain is
partly earthen and the site consists of weathered soil and basaltic material. Earthen drains
generally require flatter side slopes to maintain slope stability and reduce the risk of side collapse
due to rainfall saturation, erosion, and maintenance activities.

Reference has been taken from the Chow, V.T. (1959) – Open Channel Hydraulics and USBR –
Design of Small Canal Structures and etc.

Reference Side Slope Table

 Recommended
Material / Soil Condition
Side Slope
0.25H:1V to
Hard rock cutting
0.5H:1V
Stiff clay / firm soil 1H:1V
Ordinary earth / weathered soil 1.5H:1V
Sandy / loose soil 2H:1V
Very loose / saturated soil 2.5H:1V or flatter

Based on the observed site condition and standard engineering practice, 1.5H:1V is considered
suitable and safe for the proposed earthen trapezoidal drain.

*** End of the Report***