5 Supplimetary Information Report

Lanka Hydraulic Institute Ltd
Met-Ocean / Hydrodynamic Studies for Feasibility

Study of Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Terminal at Offshore Kerawalapitiya
Location Study / Site Selection for Installation of FSRU

Facility Offshore Kerawalapitiya
Consulting Service for Detailed Designs to Rectify

Possible Long Term Coastline Erosion of Wennappuwa
Fishery Harbour
Report No 5: Supplementary Information Report
Nov 2019
ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Client Client’s Representative
Ms. Angela Francesca O. Bernaldo

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
Project Project No.

Met-Ocean / Hydrodynamic Studies for
Feasibility Study of Proposed Liquefied Natural 1913
Gas (LNG) Terminal at Offshore Kerawalapitiya
Authors Date
Eng. (Dr.) Sanjeewa Wickramaratne Nov 2019

Eng. Lakshan Fernando
Eng. (Ms.) Nipuni Ranasinghe
Eng. (Ms.) Imalka Abeygunasekara
Approved by
Mr. J.K.P. Kurukulasuriya

Dr. K. Raveenthiran
Revision By Checked Approved Date
Keywords Classification
Hydrodynamic Modeling
Open
Wave Transformation Modeling
Layout Planning
Internal
Kerawalapitiya
FSRU
X Proprietary
Distribution
No. of Copies:
ADB, Philippines
LHI, Sri Lanka Soft Hard
01 02
Lanka Hydraulic Institute Ltd

177, John Rodrigo Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa, SRI LANKA.
Tel. +94 112650409 / +94 112650471, Fax +94 112650470, Email: lhi@lhi.lk
Met-Ocean / Hydrodynamic Studies for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal ADB
offshore Kerawalapitiya Supplementary Information Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1

2 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Details ...................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Scope of Met-Ocean / Hydrodynamic Studies ...................................................... 3
3 WAVE TRANSFORMATION STUDY ...................................................................... 5
3.1 Introduction and Modelling Scope ......................................................................... 5
3.2 Background of MIKE 21 SW Module..................................................................... 5
3.3 Input Data ............................................................................................................. 6
3.3.1 Bathymetry .................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Offshore Wave Data ............................................................................................. 6
3.4.1 Basic Analyses of Wave Data ........................................................................ 7
3.4.2 Basic Analyses of Wind Data ......................................................................... 8
3.4.3 Water Level ................................................................................................... 9
3.5 Simulation of Models and Interpretation of Results ............................................... 9
3.5.1 Qualitative Interpretation of Transformed Wave Characteristics .................. 11
3.5.2 Quantitative Interpretation of Transformed Wave Characteristics ................ 15
4 HYDRODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... 20
4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Modelling Software- MIKE 21 Flow Model FM .................................................... 20
4.3 Bathymetry ......................................................................................................... 21
4.4 Model Boundaries............................................................................................... 22
4.5 Model Calibration and Verification ...................................................................... 22
4.6 Interpretation of HD Model Results ..................................................................... 23
4.7 Derivations Based on Hydrodynamic Modelling .................................................. 32
5 SUMMARY BASED ON ALL MODEL SIMULATIONS ......................................... 33
ii Nov 2019
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Geographic Location of Kerawalapitiya, Sri Lanka ................................ 4
Figure 3-1: Model Bathymetry for Wave Transformations ........................................ 6
Figure 3-2: Time Series Variation of Sig. Wave Height at Source Point .................. 7
Figure 3-3: Wave Rose Diagram of Sig. Wave Height of Source Point ................... 8
Figure 3-4: Time Series Variation of Wind at Source Point ..................................... 8
Figure 3-5: Wind Rose Diagram at Source Point .................................................... 9
Figure 3-6: Time Series Variation of Hs at FSRU Location ................................... 10
Figure 3-7: Directional Distribution of Hs at FSRU Location ................................. 10
Figure 3-8: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during SW Monsoon ...... 12
Figure 3-9: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during NE Monsoon ....... 13
Figure 3-10: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during IM1 Monsoon .... 14
Figure 3-11: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during IM2 Monsoon .... 15
Figure 3-12: Extraction Points of Transformed Wave Data ................................... 16
Figure 3-13: Directional Distribution of Hs along Proposed Pipeline Route .......... 18
Figure 4-1: Regional and Local Model Bathymetry ................................................ 21
Figure 4-2: Measured and Model Predicted Water Levels ..................................... 22
Figure 4-3: Typical Water Current Field During SW Monsoon .............................. 23
Figure 4-4: Typical Water Current Field During NE Monsoon ............................... 24
Figure 4-5: Typical Water Current Field During Inter Monsoon 1 (Oct-Nov) ......... 25
Figure 4-6: Typical Water Current Field During Inter Monsoon 2 (Mar-Apr) .......... 26
Figure 4-7: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at FSRU ..................... 27
Figure 4-8: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at Points 1 and 2 ........ 28
Figure 4-9: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at Points 3 .................. 29
Figure 4-10: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at Point 4 .................. 30
Figure 4-11: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at Point 5 .................. 31
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Specifications of LNG Operation ............................................................. 2
Table 3-1: Max. Sig. Wave Heights at Pipeline Route............................................ 19
Table 4-1: Tidal Harmonic Constants for Model Boundaries .................................. 22
Table 4-2: Max. Water Currents at Pipeline Route ................................................. 32
ii Nov 2019
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is provided as a collection of supplementary information with respect to
following tasks that were completed for the aid of Ship Mooring Study.
1. Establishment of nearshore wave climate through Wave Transformation
Modelling
2. Establishment of water current field through Hydrodynamic Modelling
Corresponding nearshore wave and current statistics have been used for the
formulation of model scenarios of ship mooring simulations. In addition, Met
Oceanic Study Report presented the basic description of prevalent water currents
and wave parameters at FSRU location. This report provides descriptions of raw
data, modelling approach, set up, simulation algorithms, and excerpts of results.
Conceptual layout of FSRU location including its operational boundary, boundary of

restricted access, proposed pipeline routes and bathymetric information has also
been presented with this report.
As for the wave climate at FSRU, two dominant wave bands exist: 210°-255° and
330°-15°. Significant wave height at 15.5m depth (at FSRU) never exceeded 3.3m.
While the highest wave occurs from approx. 230° direction, up to 1.5m of sig. wave
height could be expected from north particularly during Dec-Feb. This fact need to
be taken into account by approaching/leaving vessels.
In terms of water currents, as derived from the hydrodynamic model show that the
dominant current flow is towards north (275°-360°) for SW, and all inter-monsoonal
conditions while it moves south during NE monsoon. Currents usually elevate upto
0.17m/s during NE monsoon period (Dec-Feb) with the average being close to 0.1m/s.
Rest of the period shows a max current of 0.11m/s where the average lies at 0.03m/s.
In terms of designing the pipeline and related infrastructure, one would use the
maximum current of 0.2m/s with a safety margin of 0.1m/s. Should the lines be
placed between Kalapugala reef and the shore, they are to face a slightly elevated
current of 0.3m/s.
1 Nov 2019
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Project Details
An LNG import and floating regassification terminal is planned off the coast of
Colombo, Sri Lanka. The terminal is to provide natural gas to newly converted
power plants within Colombo city, namely:
• existing Yugadanavi power plant and the proposed ones at Kerawalapitiya;
and
• power plants located at Kelanitissa.
Proposed regassification system is of the capacity 1 MTPA (2 MTPA peak capacity)

with one installed spare regassification train. The estimated initial base load LNG
demand is 0.6 MTPA which will be increasing to 1 MTPA in future. Detailed
technical specifications are listed in Table 1-1.
The supply of LNG (including transportation) is by an LNG Carrier Vessel (LNGC)

which is to be moored near the FSRU. LNG is then regasified on-board the FSRU
and resulting gaseous LNG is sent into two subsea pipelines. Each pipeline is then
routed to the power plants located at Kelanitissa and Kerawalapitiya.
Table 2-1: Specifications of LNG Operation

FSRU Cargo Storage Capacity 174,000 m3 (Revised -Nov 2019)
Tank Type Membrane or suitable alternative.
FSRU Tank Design Pressure 70 kPaG
Cryogenic System Design -163°C
Temperature
Minimum Regasification TBC based on power plant minimum supply
Output specification.
Nominal Regasification Output 1 MTPA
Peak Regasification Output 2 MTPA
Boil Off Rate Max 0.15% per day
Nominal Gas Send-Out 80 barg (Max. 100 barg)
Pressure
Minimum HP Gas Send Out 10 ˚C
Temperature
BOG Management Efficient BOG management for up to 20 days of zero
send-out.
No venting allowed under normal operating conditions
required.
2 Nov 2019
A pre-feasibility study carried out before has recommended the FSRU option as
against a land based LNG receiving and regasification terminal. After an analysis of
tentative locations including Trincomalee, the study recommended deployment of
FSRU in Kerawalapitiya on the Western Coast of Sri Lanka as the most preferred
option. The report went into explaining that Kerawalapitiya area does not have
required draft near the shore, and construction of a jetty and breakwater facility is
also not feasible in near future, and thus proposing an offshore LNG receiving
facility using Single Point Buoy Mooring facility.
2.2 Scope of Met-Ocean / Hydrodynamic Studies

Lanka Hydraulic Institute Ltd (LHI) was proposed to undertake met-
ocean/hydrodynamic studies of the above project. This study would recommend to
bidders of FSRU a suitable site in Kerawalapitiya area to locate the FSRU
considering parameters such as proximity to coastline, bathymetry & water depth,
safety to neighbouring area, topography, proximity to the shipping route, and
sheltered area etc.
Thus, the scope of Met-Ocean / Hydrodynamic Studies includes following.
1. Location /site selection study for the installation of FSRU facility offshore
Kerawalapitiya
2. Analysis of FSRU with connected seaside facilities in the operating
conditions to determine suitable mooring configuration and marine
supporting facilities required for safe Ship to Ship LNG transfer and LNG
delivery.
3. Analysis of sea and weather conditions to assess its impact and operational
risks due to environmental and/or sea conditions of direct influence and
recommend an appropriate set of limiting sea states to safely connect a
LNGC moored alongside the FSRU
4. Analysis of Geophysical and Geotechnical data of the seabed at the
proposed location offshore and assess the need for dredging nearshore, and
an offshore/onshore jetty.
3 Nov 2019
5. Develop layouts and the basis for design of mooring facilities. In order to
achieve these tasks, a hydrodynamic analysis will be conducted using
hydrodynamic modelling software.
6. Prepare a location map showing general location, specific location, project
boundary and project site layout with coordinates
This Supplementary Information Report is presented as per the tasks 5 and 6

above.
Proposed FSRU Location
Kelanitissa Power Plant
Figure 2-1: Geographic Location of Kerawalapitiya, Sri Lanka
4 Nov 2019
3 WAVE TRANSFORMATION STUDY
3.1 Introduction and Modelling Scope

Transformation of wave characteristics from offshore to nearshore serves many
purposes. Typically, wave data measured/predicted offshore: in this instance at
83.6km off Kerawalapitiya, cannot be used directly for the modelling of nearshore
hydrodynamic processes. Instead they first have to be transformed to nearshore by
means of accepted coastal engineering practices. An industry standard software
package MIKE 21 Spectral Wave (SW) module has been utilized for wave
transformation in the spatial domain of interest.
Representation of results includes spatial variation of significant wave height; and

all wave parameters extracted near proposed SPM for its subsequent design
purposes. In brief, the transformation modelling serves following purposes.
1. Knowledge of nearshore wave climate.
2. Technical inputs (radiation stresses) for any subsequent model simulations.
3.2 Background of MIKE 21 SW Module

The SW module simulates growth, decay and transformation of wind-generated
waves and swell in offshore and coastal areas. Wave formulation can be either:
 Directionally decoupled parametric formulation, or
 Fully spectral formulation
Among the two, fully spectral formulation includes wind-wave generation in
computation, and thus, is used to account for fetch generated waves in the project
domain. In particular, following physical phenomena are accounted for during the
simulation.
 Air sea interaction and wind wave generation

 Diffraction and wave breaking
 Bottom dissipation
 Wave energy transformation and White capping
5 Nov 2019
3.3 Input Data
3.3.1 Bathymetry
LHI completed a comprehensive bathymetric survey for this project in Oct/Nov
2019. Corresponding bathymetric and land information coupled with data from
Admiralty Maps are used to create a model bathymetry encompassing
Kerawalapitiya (Figure 2-1).
Figure 3-1: Model Bathymetry for Wave Transformations
3.4 Offshore Wave Data

UK Met Office (UKMO) provides hindcasted global wind and wave data: in this
instance, derived from WAVEWATCH III model. WAVEWATCH III™ is a third
generation wave model developed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). This system has a global domain of resolution
approximately 100 km, with nested regional domains for the northern hemisphere
oceanic basins at approximately 25 km resolution. Physics include wave field
refraction, nonlinear resonant interactions, and sub-grid representations of
unresolved islands etc. Wind data is provided by the Global Data Assimilation
System (GDAS) used by the Global Forecast System (GFS) weather model. The
spectral and statistical outputs are available in 3hr / 6hr /12hr basis for any region
of interest. Hence, the closest available source point to Kerawalapitiya at 7.2600°
6 Nov 2019
lat, 79.102000° long. is selected to retrieve 3 hourly wave data for 11 years (2005-
2015). This source point is approximately 84.3 km northwest of Kerawalapitiya, and
records a seabed depth of over 2000m.
Wave dataset contain 31,136 records of time series wave data including significant
wave height, peak wave period, and mean wave direction.
3.4.1 Basic Analyses of Wave Data

Prior to any detailed analyses on the wave data, they have been refined for errors
and inconsistency adhering to accepted norms (Caires, 2012). This is to;
1. Remove significant outliers which were not generated by storms
2. Expel any peculiar variation in the data that neither normal sea state nor
storms could create.
3. Check consistency of the data with respect to data point interval.
Hence generated refined series is then visualised in two means: a time series view
(Figure 3-2) and a rose plot view (Figure 3-3).
Based on plotted data, it is clear that the source point recorded its maximum sig.
wave height 3.81m on 27/06/2015.
Figure 3-2: Time Series Variation of Sig. Wave Height at Source Point
7 Nov 2019
Figure 3-3: Wave Rose Diagram of Sig. Wave Height of Source Point
In addition, the wave rose plot indicates that there is a clear cut two prominent
wave directions: SW and NNE, analogous to SW and NE monsoons that prevail in
the Indian Ocean.
3.4.2 Basic Analyses of Wind Data
Figure 3-4: Time Series Variation of Wind at Source Point
8 Nov 2019
Figure 3-5: Wind Rose Diagram at Source Point
Wind speeds and directions have been fully impacted by the two monsoons as
evident from the wind rose and time series diagrams. While SW wind amounts to
over 60% in the entire wind regime, high wind events have been mostly in the NE
sector including the highest recorded value of 14.91 m/s.
3.4.3 Water Level

Since the model scope is on operational perspective, starting water level is set at
Mean Sea Level.
3.5 Simulation of Models and Interpretation of Results

Transformed wave climate at FSRU point is shown in a time series plot of sig. wave
height (Fig 3-6) and a wave rose diagram (Fig 3-7).
Offshore Waves from NE changes direction to N and NNW as they propage

nearhsore (Fig 3-7). This is understood as the transformed point (FSRU location) is
close to the landmass and that NE waves undergo shoaling and diffraction. Nearly
80% of the wave climate is confined in the directional band of 210°-270°, and
nearly 99% of wave heights are less than 2.6m. Approx. 53% of waves record wave
heights higher than 1m. Wave climate is generally swell dominated where 74% of
waves exceeds wave period of 8s and 55% exceeds 10s.
9 Nov 2019
Figure 3-6: Time Series Variation of Hs at FSRU Location
Figure 3-7: Directional Distribution of Hs at FSRU Location
10 Nov 2019
In terms of spatial interpretation, transformed nearshore wave climate is presented
in both quantitative and qualitative means. Quantitative interpretation is through
extraction of transformed wave climate at selected 5 locations along the study span
(Figure 3-12). Corresponding Wave Rose diagrams provide required sig. wave
heights along the pipeline should such information be available during design
phase. Qualitative interpretation is through 2D spatial plots of transformed wave
characteristics (Figures 3-8 to 3-11).
3.5.1 Qualitative Interpretation of Transformed Wave Characteristics

All available wave data have been suitably utilised in the modelling to derive
resulting wave characteristics in the 2D spatial domain of interest. Wave
characteristics in this domain indeed contain time series variation of the above
spatial information. Therefore, a representative and common time step is selected
for the illustration of nearshore wave climate in all model scenarios.
Typical west coast reef line is absent in the study span and thus, swash zone is
rather narrow allowing larger waves reach ashore. However, presence of Kalapu
Gala reef upto Kerawaplapitiya creates changes in the wave breaking pattern
particularly south of FSRU location.
Here the sig. wave height attained in the study area during two major monsoons:
(NE, SW) and the two inter-monsoons have been presented. Wave regime being
temporally varied, a representative time step is selected in each monsoon period
for plotting purposes.
11 Nov 2019
Figure 3-8: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during SW Monsoon
12 Nov 2019
Figure 3-9: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during NE Monsoon
13 Nov 2019
Figure 3-10: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during IM1 Monsoon
14 Nov 2019
Figure 3-11: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during IM2 Monsoon
3.5.2 Quantitative Interpretation of Transformed Wave Characteristics

Since the qualitative analyses in section 3.5.1 are based on representative one time
step, its derivations could be far more weighted and numerically justified should the
entire time span be considered. This quantitative analysis thus uses extracted wave
data along the proposed pipeline route (Fig 3-12) for the entire model duration.
Extracted time series data have been plotted on Wave Roses which depict the
significant wave height and its directional distribution.
15 Nov 2019
Figure 3-12: Extraction Points of Transformed Wave Data
16 Nov 2019
(a)-Point 1 (b)-Point 2
(c)-Point 3
17 Nov 2019
(d)-Point 4
(e)-Point 5
Figure 3-13: Directional Distribution of Hs along Proposed Pipeline Route
18 Nov 2019
In addition, maximum wave heights attained at each point is presented in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Max. Sig. Wave Heights at Pipeline Route

Representative Co-ordinates Depth (m) Sig. Wave Height (Hs) (m)
Points along Minimum Maximum Mean
the Pipeline
Route
7° 2'22.63"N,
FSRU 15.4 0.05 3.31 1.28
79°49'29.15"E
7° 02' 10.47" N,
P1 13.4 0.04 3.63 1.09
79° 50' 06.61"
7° 01' 58.90" N,
P2 11.1 0.03 3.48 1.04
79° 50' 43.95"E
7° 01' 45.24" N,
P3 7.5 0.02 3.04 0.98
79° 51' 18.52"E
7° 01' 21.14" N,
P4 6.7 0.02 2.76 0.94
79° 51' 27.86"E
7° 01' 02.68" N,
P5 5.6 0.01 2.48 0.91
79° 51' 38.22"E
Following assessment is made based on the above depictions.
1) In general, significant wave height at 15.5m depth (at FSRU) never

exceeded 3.3m indicating that wave regime is not depth limited. As per the
wave rose at FSRU (Fig 3-7), two dominant wave bands exist: 210°-255°
and 330°-15°.
While the highest wave occurs from appro.230° direction, up to 1.5m of sig.
wave height could be expected from north direction particularly during Dec-
Feb. This fact need to be taken into account by approaching/leaving vessels.
2) Analogous to NE and SW monsoons, two main wave directions: NW and SW
have been identified where a ration of 10%:40% exists for the amplitude.
3) It is noted that further nearshore locations than FSRU point record higher
wave heights due to wave shoaling. In this regard, the maximum wave
height of 3.63 is experienced at point P1. Sig. wave heights reduce as the
waves move further nearshore due to wave breaking.
4) Average Peak Wave Periods (Tp) ranges from 10s-12s indicating a swell
dominant wave regime.
19 Nov 2019
4 HYDRODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT
4.1 Introduction
Hydrodynamic study is essentially an investigation of the behaviour of water bodies
subjected to a variety of natural force fields. Knowledge of water currents and levels
is crucial to determine whether they remain safe for coastal users/fish folks, or in
the extreme context, cause erosion to destabilize the beach. Hence, the scope of
hydrodynamic study is:
1. to determine the water currents, levels that would attain in the study area
under simulated offshore wave attacks.
2. to monitor variation of current field near FSRU Location.
3. to derive hydrodynamic input data (fluxes and levels) for any subsequent
model assessments (eg. Dredging spill analyses).
4.2 Modelling Software- MIKE 21 Flow Model FM

MIKE 21 Flow Model FM is a standard software package used for modelling
hydrodynamics in the desired area. MIKE 21 Flow Model FM is the basic module in
MIKE 21 package that provides hydrodynamic basis for computations performed in
the modules of sediment processes and environmental hydraulics. The module
includes a facility to define following parameters:
 Bottom Shear Stress  Sources and Sinks
 Wind Magnitude / Direction and Friction  Eddy Viscosity
 Barometric Pressure Gradients  Wave Radiation Stresses
 Coriolis Force  Effect of Structures (i.e. breakwaters etc)
Flexible mesh system in the module facilitates better representation of coastal

structures and all other coastal details, at the same time retaining the overall
coherence of the entire model domain. This is achieved through resorting to
different resolution levels within the same model domain. Tide and wind information
is fed into the hydrodynamic (HD) model directly, whereas wave characteristics are
fed as wave radiation stresses from pre-simulated MIKE 21 SW model results. A
typical HD simulation results in water elevations and fluxes; from which water
currents could be determined.
20 Nov 2019
4.3 Bathymetry
Bathymetry data available at LHI, and the data from Admiralty Charts have been
suitably utilized to create a comprehensive bathymetry file of Kerawalapitiya area
and beyond. This includes a coarse resolution regional model and a fine resolution
local model (Fig 4-1). As for the latter, an unstructured mesh is used comprising of
triangles or quadrilateral elements. Resolution or the element size above is altered
across the domain for better representation of coastal structures where necessary.
Figure 4-1: Regional and Local Model Bathymetry
21 Nov 2019
4.4 Model Boundaries
Tide information is fed as boundary conditions in the HD Model and is based on
tidal constituents at Galle and Kalpitiya (Admiralty Tables, 2015). Consequently,
time series tides at the two locations have been derived with the aid of MIKE ZERO
Toolbox.
Table 4-1: Tidal Harmonic Constants for Model Boundaries

Amplitudes of Harmonic Phases of Harmonic
Model Constants (m) Constants (deg)
Boundaries
M2 S2 K1 O1 M2 S2 K1 O1
North-Kalpitiya 0.18 0.12 0.09 0.03 53 118 65 55
South-Galle 0.16 0.11 0.05 0.01 56 99 21 73
4.5 Model Calibration and Verification

Calibration of the Hydrodynamic Model is crucial since inferences of the model
would be used for subsequent modelling and decision making purposes.
Model extracted water level at Colombo for a period of 2 weeks is compared with
the predicted tide. In consequence, model parameters have been appropriately fine
tuned that the model predictions would be well in line with measured tide (Figure 4-
2).
Figure 4-2: Measured and Model Predicted Water Levels
22 Nov 2019
4.6 Interpretation of HD Model Results
Fig 4-3 to 4-7 present the variation of current field in four major monsoonal
conditions.
Figure 4-3: Typical Water Current Field During SW Monsoon
23 Nov 2019
Figure 4-4: Typical Water Current Field During NE Monsoon
24 Nov 2019
Figure 4-5: Typical Water Current Field During Inter Monsoon 1 (Oct-Nov)
25 Nov 2019
Figure 4-6: Typical Water Current Field During Inter Monsoon 2 (Mar-Apr)
In addition, current field at FSRU and at five locations along the pipeline route (Fig
3-12) have been presented below in order to aid subsequent designs of marine
elements.
26 Nov 2019
Figure 4-7: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at FSRU
27 Nov 2019
(a)- at Point 1 (b) at Point 2
Figure 4-8: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at Points 1 and 2
28 Nov 2019
Figure 4-9: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at Points 3
29 Nov 2019
Figure 4-10: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at Point 4
30 Nov 2019
Figure 4-11: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at Point 5
31 Nov 2019
Summary of the information is listed in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Max. Water Currents at Pipeline Route

Representative Co-ordinates Water Current (m/s)
Points along the Minimum Maximum Mean
Pipeline Route
FSRU 7° 2'22.63"N,
79°49'29.15"E 0.00 0.17 0.05
P1 7° 02' 10.47" N,
79° 50' 06.61" 0.00 0.18 0.05
P2 7° 01' 58.90" N,
79° 50' 43.95"E 0.00 0.18 0.06
P3 7° 01' 45.24" N,
79° 51' 18.52"E 0.00 0.19 0.08
P4 7° 01' 21.14" N,
79° 51' 27.86"E 0.00 0.21 0.09
P5 7° 01' 02.68" N,
79° 51' 38.22"E 0.00 0.20 0.07
4.7 Derivations Based on Hydrodynamic Modelling
Water current assessment as a part of the hydrodynamic study provides a key

insight into the complex patterns of currents existing in the study area. HD model
results are available in terms of spatial variation (X-Y) of current magnitude and
direction for each time step simulated. From this, 2D spatial plots are derived to
depict current magnitudes and directions.
Water current field behaves inline with monsoonal variation, yet the higher influence
obviously coming from SW monsoon. As such, the dominant current flow is towards
north (275°-360°) where average magnitudes are lesser than 0.1m/s. Currents
move northwards at FSRU point for SW, and all inter-monsoonal conditions while
moves south during NE monsoon. Directions however scatter as waves move
further nearshore.
In terms of designing the pipeline and related infrastructure, one would use
maximum current of 0.2m/s with a safety margin. These current magnitudes are
however considered low and do not abruptly impact the designs.
32 Nov 2019
5 SUMMARY BASED ON ALL MODEL SIMULATIONS
Two mathematical models namely, wave transformation and hydrodynamics have

been simulated in a progressive step to scientifically interpret wave and water
current conditions likely to experience at FSRU point and along proposed pipeline
route. These statistics provide the basis for subsequent design of marine
structures.
Wave climate created by SW and NE monsoons differs from point to point, yet, an
FSRU unlike a breakwater does not alter the status quo. In general, significant
wave height at 15.5m depth (at FSRU) never exceeded 3.3m indicating that wave
regime is not depth limited. As per the wave rose at FSRU, two dominant wave
bands exist: 210°-255° and 330°-15°. While the highest wave occurs from approx.
230° direction, up to 1.5m of sig. wave height could be expected from north
particularly during Dec-Feb. This fact need to be taken into account by
approaching/leaving vessels. Wave shoaling will elevate wave heights at 11m-
13.5m water depths as the waves propagate but eventually undergo wave breaking
and record low sig. wave heights. In this regard, the maximum wave height of
3.63m is experienced at point P1. Average Peak Wave Periods (Tp) ranges from
10s-12s indicating a swell dominant wave regime.
In terms of water currents, as derived from the hydrodynamic model show that the
dominant current flow is towards north (275°-360°). Currents move northwards at
FSRU point for SW, and all inter-monsoonal conditions while moves south during
NE monsoon. Currents usually elevate upto 0.17m/s during NE monsoon period (Dec-
Feb) with the average hanging around 0.1m/s. Rest of the period shows a max current
of 0.11m/s where the average lies at 0.03m/s.
In terms of designing the pipeline and related infrastructure, one would use
maximum current of 0.2m/s with a safety margin of 0.1m/s. Should the lines be
placed between Kalapugala reef and the shore, they are to face a slightly elevated
current of 0.3m/s.
33 Nov 2019
ANNEX A
Layout Plan
34 Nov 2019

5 Supplimetary Information Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Supplimetary Information Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lanka Hydraulic Institute Ltd

Met-Ocean / Hydrodynamic Studies for Feasibility

Location Study / Site Selection for Installation of FSRU

Consulting Service for Detailed Designs to Rectify

Report No 5: Supplementary Information Report

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Ms. Angela Francesca O. Bernaldo

Project Project No.

Eng. (Dr.) Sanjeewa Wickramaratne Nov 2019

Mr. J.K.P. Kurukulasuriya

Revision By Checked Approved Date

Lanka Hydraulic Institute Ltd

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1

Conceptual layout of FSRU location including its operational boundary, boundary of

Proposed regassification system is of the capacity 1 MTPA (2 MTPA peak capacity)

The supply of LNG (including transportation) is by an LNG Carrier Vessel (LNGC)

Table 2-1: Specifications of LNG Operation

2.2 Scope of Met-Ocean / Hydrodynamic Studies

This Supplementary Information Report is presented as per the tasks 5 and 6

Proposed FSRU Location

Kelanitissa Power Plant

Figure 2-1: Geographic Location of Kerawalapitiya, Sri Lanka

3 WAVE TRANSFORMATION STUDY

3.1 Introduction and Modelling Scope

Representation of results includes spatial variation of significant wave height; and

3.2 Background of MIKE 21 SW Module

 Air sea interaction and wind wave generation

Figure 3-1: Model Bathymetry for Wave Transformations

3.4 Offshore Wave Data

3.4.1 Basic Analyses of Wave Data

3.4.2 Basic Analyses of Wind Data

Figure 3-4: Time Series Variation of Wind at Source Point

Figure 3-5: Wind Rose Diagram at Source Point

3.4.3 Water Level

3.5 Simulation of Models and Interpretation of Results

Offshore Waves from NE changes direction to N and NNW as they propage

Figure 3-6: Time Series Variation of Hs at FSRU Location

Figure 3-7: Directional Distribution of Hs at FSRU Location

3.5.1 Qualitative Interpretation of Transformed Wave Characteristics

Figure 3-8: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during SW Monsoon

Figure 3-9: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during NE Monsoon

Figure 3-10: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during IM1 Monsoon

Figure 3-11: Nearshore Wave Climate in Kerawalapitiya during IM2 Monsoon

3.5.2 Quantitative Interpretation of Transformed Wave Characteristics

Figure 3-12: Extraction Points of Transformed Wave Data

Table 3-1: Max. Sig. Wave Heights at Pipeline Route

Following assessment is made based on the above depictions.

1) In general, significant wave height at 15.5m depth (at FSRU) never

4.2 Modelling Software- MIKE 21 Flow Model FM

 Bottom Shear Stress  Sources and Sinks

 Wind Magnitude / Direction and Friction  Eddy Viscosity

 Barometric Pressure Gradients  Wave Radiation Stresses

 Coriolis Force  Effect of Structures (i.e. breakwaters etc)

Flexible mesh system in the module facilitates better representation of coastal

Figure 4-1: Regional and Local Model Bathymetry

Table 4-1: Tidal Harmonic Constants for Model Boundaries

North-Kalpitiya 0.18 0.12 0.09 0.03 53 118 65 55

South-Galle 0.16 0.11 0.05 0.01 56 99 21 73

4.5 Model Calibration and Verification

Figure 4-2: Measured and Model Predicted Water Levels

Figure 4-3: Typical Water Current Field During SW Monsoon

Figure 4-4: Typical Water Current Field During NE Monsoon

Figure 4-7: Directional Distribution of Water Current Field at FSRU

(a)- at Point 1 (b) at Point 2