Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 613

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Review

Cost determination of the electro-mechanical equipment of a small hydro-power plant

B. Ogayar*, P.G. Vidal
Grupo de Investigacion IDEA, Escuela Politecnica Superior, University of Jaen, Campus de Las Lagunillas, s/n. 23071-Jaen, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 15 October 2007 Accepted 25 April 2008 Available online 17 July 2008 Keywords: Small hydro Cost Electro-mechanical equipment

a b s t r a c t
One of the most important elements on the recovery of a small hydro-power plant is the electromechanical equipment (turbinealternator), since the cost of the equipment means a high percentage of the total budget of the plant. The present paper intends to develop a series of equations which determine its cost from basic parameters such as power and net head. These calculations are focused at a level of previous study, so it will be necessary to carry out the engineering project and request a budget to companies specialized on the construction of electro-mechanical equipment to know its cost more accurately. Although there is a great diversity in the typology of turbines and alternators, data from manufacturers which cover all the considered range have been used. The above equations have been developed for the most common of turbines: Pelton, Francis, Kaplan and semiKaplan for a power range below 2 MW. The obtained equations have been validated with data from real installations which have been subject to analysis by engineering companies working on the assembly and design of small plants. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The cost of the electro-mechanical equipment (turbine, alternator and regulator) means a high percentage of a small hydropower plant budget (around 30% and 40% of the total sum). It stems from this the importance of the determination of that cost, which could directly inuence the project feasibility (Fig. 1). For the determination of the cost of the electro-mechanical equipment, there are graphs which can approximately calculate those costs. But these graphs refer to a distant time period, since they use to be at least 10 years old. Besides, manufacturers of turbines and alternators do not supply any information about cost, since every installation is different and complex. An example of these graphs are those developed by the Institute for Energy Diversication and Saving [Instituto para la Diversicacion y Ahorro de la Energa, IDAE, Spain], with which it is possible to determinate the cost of a turbine depending on its power and net head [7]. From an analytical point of view and analyzing the state of art for the calculation of the cost of electro-mechanical equipment, it has been checked that a great part of authors use an expression depending on the power (P) and net head (H) of the small plant. This expression is

COST a P b1 H c V=kW

(1)

where a, b and c coefcients depend on the geographical, space or time eld in which they are used. Among some bibliographical references, it should be remarked the contribution made by J.L. Gordon and Penman [3] two of the greatest specialists on the design of small plants. They were pioneers in using an equation which generally relates the cost of the equipment with its power and net head. Subsequently, several authors have developed different cost equations for different countries [1,11,12,15]. One of the most recent by Dr. Kaldellis [8,9], in 2007, for plants located in Greece was proposed. Some functions of costs that have been developed in the literature for various regions are shown in Table 1. This table also gathers the year in which that functions were proposed.

2. Cost analysis methodology Given that the different existing equations are more than 20 years old, checking large differences between them and having enough current data of costs depending on power and head, we carried out the determination of the constants a, b and c of expression (1). For the determination of these parameters a best-t analysis will be carried out for diverse costs. The methodology of this analysis has been included in the Appendix.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 34 953212858; fax: 34 953212478. E-mail address: bogayar@ujaen.es (B. Ogayar). 0960-1481/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.04.039

B. Ogayar, P.G. Vidal / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 613

CIVIL WORKS

COST 17:693P 0:3644725 H 0:281735 V=kW:

40% 30% TURBO GENERATOR SET

(15)

8%

22%

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

ELECTRIC, REGULATION AND CONTROL EQUIPMENTS

Fig 1. Distribution of investments on a hydro-power plant.

The graphic representation of the afore-mentioned surface is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. In these gures, it is noticeable how the cost is proportional to power and head, except in low heads, where the cost increases noticeably. Comparing real cost with that obtained through Eq. (15), the degree of approximation or error of the equation can be determined. The different plants whose committed error was calculated are shown in Table 2. In the above table, it is noticeable that errors range between 23.83% and 20.015%, so they are limited to a uctuation range of 20%. They are completely acceptable gures for a previous study.

The constants a, b, c are obtained through the following expressions.

4. Francis turbines Carrying out linear correlation:

a e C

(10)

  Z 10:1542 0:439865X 0:127243Y R2 72:26% A b C (11) a e10:1542 25:698 b 0:439865 c 0:127243

(16)

B C

(17)

(12)

Since costs are determined by the independent variables, power and net head, as well as by the typology of turbines, it will be also necessary to discriminate between different types of turbines to determinate the value of the constants. The cost includes the ex-works market price of the electromechanical equipment (turbine, alternator, automatic valve, aspiration and pneumatic regulation elements). The maintenance cost is not included. For this analysis, we have used, among others, data from the small plants included in the project Study on Feasibility and Potential for refurbishment of Hydro-power Plants in the Province of Jaen, carried out on request of AGENER (Agency of Energy Management in the province of Jaen), as well as those included in Determination and Feasibility of Small Hydro-power Plants in the Andalusian Autonomous Community, project nanced by the Andalusian Energy Agency, organization belonging to the Ministry for Innovation, Science and Enterprise of the Andalusian Regional Government. The location of the plants is shown in Fig. 2. Obtained results for each type of turbine are described below. 3. Pelton turbines Carrying out the linear correlation, we obtain the plane

COST 25:698P 0:560135 H0:127243 V=kW:

(18)

The cost function of a Francis turbine (18) is graphically shown in Figs. 5 and 6; a strong cost increase for high power levels and heads lower than 100 m is noticeable. Incurred errors have ranged between 22.27% and 15.83%. The largest errors appear within the band of power level ranging from 300 to 400 kW (Table 3).

5. KaplansemiKaplan turbines The different constants for Kaplan and semiKaplan turbines have been obtained carrying out linear correlation in a similar way to that for Pelton and Francis turbines. Those constants are listed in Table 4. Cost equations would therefore be

COST 19:498P 0:58338 H 0:113901 V=kW

(19)

COST 33:236P 0:58338 H 0:113901 V=kW (13)

(20)

Z 9:78098 0:635275X 0:281735Y;

2

with a quite good t of R 93.16%. Once the equation Z is obtained, and according to Eqs. (10)(12) searched constants would value

a e9:7809 17:693 b 0:635275 c 0:281735

The cost function of a semiKlapan turbine (19) and Kaplan turbine (20) are graphically shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. In the same way, errors incurred using cost equations are shown in Table 5. These errors are similar to those obtained for Pelton and Francis turbines, since they range between 23.50% and 18.53%.

(14)
6. Summary of results The Table 6 lists the results obtained, including cost equations per power unit, their R2 related and error range, for each type of machine.

Cost equation for these constant values would be the following1

Cost is expressed in V/kW and referred as of 1st January 2008.

8 Table 1 Cost functions found in literature Cost function

B. Ogayar, P.G. Vidal / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 613

Country Canada Sweden USA United Kingdom Greece Switzerland Canada Greece

Year 1978 1979 1984 1988 2000 2000 2003 2007

Author Gordon and Penman [3,4] Lasu and Persson [10] Gulliver [6] Whittington [14] Voros [13] Chenal [2] Gordon [5] Kaldellis [8,9]

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

COST$ 9000P 0:7 H0:35 COST$ 97:436P 0:53 H0:53 COST$ 9600P 0:82 H0:35 COST$=kW 31:500P 0:25 H0:75 COST$ 40:000P 0:70 H0:35 COSTFRS 103 34:12 16:99,P 0:91 H0:14 COST$=kW 12:9P 0:82 H0:246 COSTV=kW 3:300P 0:122 H0:107

7. Validation of results Equations obtained for every type of turbine have been validated among engineering companies working in the design and assembly of small plants. It is noticeably that all of them perfectly full all manufacturing standards and that cost deviation is that

expected in every studied case for different types of real installations. These companies have provided the following actual costs of electro-mechanical equipment plants located in Europe and Northern Africa. We have simulated the various costs, using equations of Table 6, and then determined the various errors. In the

Fig 2. Map of location of plants.

B. Ogayar, P.G. Vidal / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 613

1000

Head m
400 200 800000

800 600

COST

600000 400000 200000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Power kw

Fig 3. Graphic representation of the cost of Pelton turbines.

800000

COST

600000 400000 200000 1000 0 2000

800

600

400

Head m

200

500

1000

1500

Power kW
Fig 4. Graphic representation of the cost of Pelton turbines.

Table 2 Errors incurred by the use of Eq. (15) Name of the plant Santa Isabel Santa Isabel 2 Ntra. Sra. de Tiscar Ro Fro Sp-P3 Mata Bejid Sp-P2 Sp-P1 La Toba Cerrada de Utrero Acequia Hijuela de la Maja Valdepenas Ro Fro Cerrada de Utrero Acequia Almegijar Valdepenas Alhori II Ro Fro Sabinar Sabinar 2 P (kW) 25 30 58 80 93 100 113 178 190 365 400 510 600 750 750 900 900 1000 1000 1000 H (m) 88 88 85 155 100 80 180 75 80 160 165 109 145 160 225 110 112 155 200 300 Real cost (V/kW) 1400.00 1233.33 1034.48 1062.50 1021.51 1200.00 796.46 786.52 763.16 465.75 473.30 392.16 405.68 360.61 353.40 420.71 420.71 390.66 288.49 265.05 Simulated cost (V/kW) 1549.29 1449.62 1151.00 864.23 925.55 959.86 730.51 792.08 759.52 492.40 472.11 485.62 422.31 378.65 343.97 393.74 391.74 344.00 320.16 285.60 Error (%) 10.66 17.54 11.26 18.66 9.39 20.01 8.28 0.71 0.48 5.72 0.25 23.83 4.10 5.00 2.67 6.41 6.88 11.94 10.98 7.75

10

B. Ogayar, P.G. Vidal / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 613

Head m
300 200

Power kW
100 500 1000 1500 2000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000

COST

Fig 5. Graphic representation of the cost of Francis turbines.

500000 400000 300000 200000 300 1500 200 100000 2000

COST

1000

Head m
100 500

Power kW

Fig 6. Graphic representation of the cost of Francis turbines.

Table 3 Errors incurred by the use of the Eq. (18) Name of the Plant Cristo de la Fe Sp-F1 Potril Sp-F3 Cubillas Sp-F2 Pinos Puente Lojena Mocln San Clemente Nuevo Alcazar Mocln El Portillo 2 Rumblar El Portillo 1 Ro Fro Valdepenas P (kW) 200 235 250 263 300 313 350 350 400 450 500 550 750 1000 1000 1000 1500 H (m) 29 25 32 84 12 50 14 35.8 70 36 85 70 55.5 47 55.5 155 116 Real cost (V/kW) 788.83 744.68 880.00 760.46 720.00 511.18 840.00 805.71 473.30 471.19 424.07 377.00 353.40 315.53 302.91 317.00 260.00 Simulated cost (V/kW) 860.89 801.52 750.28 645.00 767.49 625.01 690.33 612.59 521.95 531.77 449.39 436.68 378.04 328.66 321.78 282.36 233.45 Error (%) 9.13 7.63 14.74 15.18 6.60 22.27 17.82 23.97 10.28 12.86 5.97 15.83 6.97 4.16 6.23 10.93 10.21

analysis, it has been included the results obtained by these equations that have been recently developed for European country and Canada. Analyzing the results in Table 7, it should be noted that the errors incurred using the equations developed in this paper lie within a band of uctuation between 19.52% and 9.50%. As shown in Fig 9, the costs have been compared using the proposed equation and real cost for the plants considered. The errors incurred by the equations reviewed in this paper are higher than those incurred by our equations. However, the function proposed by Kaldellis [8,9] and Voros [13] matches real cost reasonably well (Fig 10).

Table 4 Constants calculated in KaplansemiKaplan turbines a SemiKaplan Kaplan 1.9498 3.1196 b 0.41662 0.41662 c 0.113901 0.113901 R2 91.70 91.72

B. Ogayar, P.G. Vidal / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 613

11

Head m
20 15 10 5 500

Power kW
1000 1500 2000 400000

COST

300000 200000 100000

Fig 7. Graphic representation of the cost of semiKaplan turbines.

600000

COST

400000 200000 20 15 1500

2000

Head m

10

1000

Power kW
5 500

Fig 8. Graphic representation of the cost of Kaplan turbines. Table 5 Errors incurred using cost Eqs. (19) and (20) Name of the Plant D-642-AET D-862-AEC D-646-AEV D-972-AET D-13112-AES D-5310-AEV Puente del Obispo D-13112-AEC D-868-AEV Electra San Juan Pursima Concepcion D-8610-AEV D-15132-AES Las Chozuelas D-12140-AET Las Chozuelas Electra San Juan D-15134-AEC D-16144-AES D-1088-AEV D-7512-AEV Las Chozuelas San Rafael Casas Nuevas P (kW) 9.4 15.9 53.4 60.2 62.9 65.4 100 118.9 142.7 145 150 163.3 178 186 203.2 220 225 300.7 311.9 325.2 365.9 530 1000 1500 H (m) 1.5 1.5 5 3 1.8 9 2.5 3 7 7 18 13 3 6.25 4.6 6.25 7 4.6 4 9 18 5.4 4 6.17 Real cost (V/kW) 6170.21 3710.69 1573.03 1362.13 1701.11 1467.89 1100.00 874.68 840.93 827.59 700.00 887.94 747.19 698.92 659.45 659.09 622.22 478.88 461.69 445.88 409.95 405.66 360.61 278.33 Simulated cost (V/kW) 4971.08 3646.89 1557.00 1537.73 1588.25 1292.20 1164.14 1029.63 839.59 831.72 732.11 722.66 811.72 727.52 715.11 658.99 641.98 567.63 564.44 502.13 432.86 399.09 284.07 212.91 Error (%) 19.43 1.72 1.02 12.89 6.63 11.97 5.83 17.71 0.16 0.50 4.59 18.61 8.64 4.09 8.44 0.02 3.18 18.53 22.26 12.61 5.59 1.62 21.23 23.50

8. Conclusions We have obtained equations which facilitate the determination of the cost of electro-mechanical equipment from easily available parameters in any small hydro-power plant: net head and power. These expressions have been differentiated for the most common types of turbines: Pelton, Francis, Kaplan and semiKaplan, and for a power range below 2 MW. All equations t the original costs quite well, as R2 exceeds 75% in all cases.

Table 6 Summary cost equations, error range and R2 Turbine type Pelton Francis Kaplan SemiKaplan Cost function (V/kW) Error range (%) 23.83, 20.015 22.27, 15.83 23.50, 18.53 23.50, 18.53 R2 (%) 93.16 72.26 91.70 91.72

(21) COST 17:693P 0:3644725 H0:281735 (22) COST 25:698P 0:560135 H0:127243 (23) COST 33:236P 0:58338 H0:113901 (24) COST 19:498P 0:58338 H0:113901

Table 7 Validation of results and errors incurred Turbine type P (kw) H (m) Real cost (V/kw) 550 1375 544 938 655 209 172 1225 1000 701 589 367 827 875 410 1591 700 775 583 567 882 500 Simulated cost (V/kw) 504 1341 560 788 571 177 201 1173 984 745 590 420 649 758 337 1016 579 721 513 539 640 452 Voros equation (V/kw) 409 820 631 741 611 251 291 2174 1459 1278 1061 927 1541 1667 862 1662 1346 507 354 375 426 2026 Chenal equation (V/kw) 1330 1754 1582 1671 1560 1145 1209 2535 2188 2095 1974 1842 2230 2292 1805 2284 2119 1440 1253 1283 1347 2089 Gordon equation (V/kw) 361 179 884 518 805 2995 2811 457 1049 1569 2604 1159 941 759 1660 409 992 329 387 404 246 1608 Kaldellis equation (V/kw) 979 1272 1115 1193 1106 796 837 1702 1458 1380 1280 1254 1489 1537 1211 1564 1423 1068 945 963 1018 1375 Error simulation (%) 8.36 2.45 2.84 15.93 12.84 15.24 16.85 4.28 1.59 6.26 0.14 14.61 21.48 13.39 17.78 36.15 17.26 6.96 12.01 4.95 27.51 9.50 Error chenal (%) 141.85 27.56 190.59 78.26 138.19 448.35 603.38 106.89 118.76 198.84 235.28 402.37 169.67 161.98 339.73 43/59 202.76 85.80 114.81 126.37 52.69 317.75 Error voros (%) 25.72 40.39 15.93 20.95 6,76 20.33 69.37 77.42 45.90 82.28 80.25 152.85 86.31 90.49 110.05 4.46 92.34 34.60 39.40 33.77 51.72 305.18 Error gordon (%) 34.43 86.97 62.46 44.75 22,91 1334.35 1535.83 62.72 4.94 123.76 342.25 216.,08 13.77 13.29 304.41 74.30 41.69 57.60 33.58 28,68 72.12 221.66 Error kaldellis (%) 78.06 7.48 104.73 27.28 68.87 281.33 386.97 38.86 45.79 96.82 117.28 241.92 80.04 75.68 195.15 1.70 103.22 37.84 62.03 69.88 15.37 174.93

12

Senhora Italy La frasnee France Sailant France Oum er rbia-Morocco Dronero Italy El portillo Spain Ferreras Spain Sauvage France Navas Spain Sp1 kaplan Sp2 kaplan Acheres France Saltos dellocca Italy Castrillo Spain Valgode Portugal Zennegat Belgium Trooz- Belgium Mor 1 Morocco Manteigas Portugal Cartignano Italy Muceres Portugal Palencia Spain

Francis Francis Francis Francis Francis Francis Francis Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan Pelton Pelton Pelton Pelton Semikaplan

400 80 450 240 420 2753 2342 102 300 485 900 450 260 200 670 110 300 200 300 300 170 500

92 50 24 26 28 70.64 53.28 2.5 3,1 3 3 8 3 3 7 5.05 3.9 90 178 150 170 3

B. Ogayar, P.G. Vidal / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 613

All the reviewed equations do not match real data as well as those proposed in this paper. This is due to the fact that the equations proposed here take into account different types of turbines and do not generalise. The cost includes the ex-works market price of the electromechanical equipment (turbine, alternator, automatic valve, aspiration and pneumatic regulation elements). The maintenance cost is not included. The results of these equations can be used to help determine the initial investment at a previous study level when planning refurbishment or new construction of small hydro-power plants without developing a complete project. All expressions have been validated with real installations existing in the provinces of Jaen and Granada (Spain) as well as in other countries in Europe (France, Italy, Belgium,Portugal) and Africa (Morocco), with committed errors lower than 20%;

COST (/kW)
1500 2500 3000 3500 1000 2000 500 0 SENHORA-ITALY LA FRASNEE-FRANCE SAILANT-FRANCE OUM ER RBIA-MOROCCO DRONERO-ITALY EL PORTILLO-SPAIN FERRERAS-SPAIN SAUVAGE-FRANCE NAVAS-SPAIN SP1-KAPLAN SP2-KAPLAN ACHERES-FRANCE SALTOS DELLCCA-ITALY CASTRILLO-SPAIN VALGODE-PORTUGAL ZENNEGAT-BELGIUM TROOZ- BELGIUM MOR 1-MOROCCO MANTEIGAS-PORTUGAL CARTIGNANO-ITALY MUCERES-PORTUGAL PALENCIA-SPAIN

COST (/Kw)
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 500 0

REAL COST (/kW) VOROS EQUATION (/kW) CHENAL EQUATION (/kW) KALDELLIS EQUATION (/kW) GORDON EQUATION (/kW)

SENHORA-ITALY LA FRASNEE-FRANCE SAILANT-FRANCE OUM ER RBIA-MOROCCO DRONERO-ITALY EL PORTILLO-SPAIN FERRERAS-SPAIN SAUVAGE-FRANCE NAVAS-SPAIN SP1-KAPLAN SP2-KAPLAN ACHERES-FRANCE SALTOS DELLCCA-ITALY CASTRILLO-SPAIN VALGODE-PORTUGAL ZENNEGAT-BELGIUM TROOZ- BELGIUM MOR 1-MOROCCO MANTEIGAS-PORTUGAL CARTIGNANO-ITALY MUCERES-PORTUGAL PALENCIA-SPAIN

Fig 10. Real cost vs. equations analyzed.

Fig 9. Real cost vs. simulated cost.

REAL COST (/kW) SIMULATED COST (/kW)

B. Ogayar, P.G. Vidal / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 613

13

a completely acceptable percentage for a previous study on the refurbishment of small plants. Acknowledgments We would like to thank all companies and organizations which have veried the validity of the equations obtained in this work, specially Saltos Del Pirineo, Hydroship and the Institute for Energy Diversication and Saving (IDAE). Appendix. Cost analysis methodology The expression of initial cost of electro-mechanical equipment is

      D A B X Y; C C C

(30)

Constants a, b, c are obtained by comparing Eqs. (27) and (30) through the following expressions

a eC A b C B c C

(31)

The function of cost per power unit will be

COST aP b1 Hc V=kW

(32)

COST aP b Hc V

(25)
References
[1] Anagnostopoulos JS, Papantonis DE. Optimal sizing of a run-of-river small hydropower plant. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48(10):266370. } [2] Raymond Chenal. Evaluation du cout de construction dune petite centrale hydro-electrique nouvelle et complete et du prix de revient du kwh (p < d 1000 kw). Suisse: MHylab. Available from: http://www.mhylab.com/fr/pages/ pdf/cout_PCH.pdf; 2000. [3] Gordon JL, Penman AC. Quick estimating techniques for small hydro potential. Int Water Power Dam Construction 1979;31(9):4651. [4] Gordon JL. Dissertation on site development and cost. WATERPOWER XII. Salt Lake City, Utah ,USA 2001. [5] Gordon JL. Determining Ballpark costs for a proposed project. Hydro Rev 2003;11(1):3741. [6] Gulliver JS, Avry D. Cost estimated for hydropower at existing dams. J Energy Eng 1984;10(3):20414. [7] IDAE (Instituto para la diversicacion y Ahorro de la Energa). Minicentrales Hidroelectricas. Madrid: IDAE; 2007. [8] Kaldellis JK, Vlachou DS, Korbakis G. Tecno-economic evalution of small hydro power plants in Greece: a complete sensitivity analysis. Energy Pol 2005; 33(15):196985. [9] Kaldellis JK. The contribution of small hydro power stations to the electricity generation in Greece: technical and economic considerations. Energy Pol 2007;35(4):218796. [10] Lasu S, Persson T. Mini power station in Sweden. Internationale Fachtagung uber Umbau und Erweitrung von Wasserkraftanlagen 1979:34. [11] Montanari R. Criteria for the economic planning of a low power hydroelectric plant. Renew Energy 2003;28(13):212945. [12] Sheldon LH. Cost analysis of hydraulic turbines. Int Water Power Dam Const 1981:33. [13] Voros NG, Kiranoudis CT, Maroulis ZB. Short-cut design of small hydroelectric plants. Renew Energy 2000;19(4):54563. [14] Whittinton HW, Wallace AR, Henderson DS. An economic analysis of capital costs in micro-hydro. In: Third international conference on small hydro, Cancun, Mexico, Hydro-88; p. 182197. [15] Willer David C. Powerhouse and small hydropower project cost estimated. In: Gulliver Johns S, editor. Hydropower engineering handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991. pp. 6.16.58.

Applying logarithms in the of expression (25), it is obtained

  log COST log aP b H c log a b 1log P clog H; (26)

Carrying out a variable change

Z log COST ; X log P Y log H

Expression (26) will remain the following way

Z log a bX cY;

(27)

Substituting data of cost, power and head of every plant whose data are known in the previous expression, it is obtained

Z1 log a bX1 cY1 Z2 log a bX2 cY2 Zn log a bXn cYn

(28)

Then we proceeded to search the plane AX BY CZ D 0 with the best t to data (Xk, Yk, Zk) using Eq. (28) and carrying out a multiple regression between the independent variables (X, Y) and (Z)

AX BY CZ D 0

(29)

Working out the value of Z, supposing C s 0 without restriction as the plane would not be vertical,