MODELLING SCENARIOS Sample Clauses

MODELLING SCENARIOS. 3.1 The near field impact was modelled for different combinations of vertical density profile and ambient current velocity for 2009, 2013, 2020 and ultimate scenarios. For each assessment year, a set of three effluent flow rates, Q10, Q50 and Q90 were used, all based on the percentile of occurrence. The Q50 flow rate (the flow rate below which 50 percent of all effluent flow rates occur) was based on the average flow rate. The Q10 flow rate (the flow rate below which 10 percent of all flow rates occur) was calculated using a Q10 to Q50 ratio of 0.60. The Q90 flow rate was calculated using a Q90 to Q50 ratio of 1.28. These ratios are based on the findings from EEFS which are also in line with the actual measurement of effluent flow from SCISTW in 2004 and 2005. Based on the EEFS, the Q10 was representative of the flow rates that occurred between the 0 and 20 percentile (20 percent) and the Q90 was representative of the flow rates that occurred between the 80 and 100 percentile (20 percent) whereas the Q50 was representative of the remaining 60 percent. Table A5-1-4 below summarizes the adopted effluent flows. (m3/d) (m3/s) (m3/s) 2009 Q10 20 945,780 0.4561 0.0570 Q50 60 1,576,300 0.7602 0.0950 Q90 20 2,017,567 0.9730 0.1216 2013 Q10 20 996,660 0.4806 0.0601 Q50 60 1,661,100 0.8011 0.1001 Q90 20 2,126,105 1.0253 0.1282 2020 Q10 20 1,404,960 0.6775 0.0847 Q50 60 2,341,600 1.1292 0.1412 Q90 20 2,997,103 1.4454 0.1807 Ultimate Q10 20 1,680,000 0.8102 0.1013 Q50 60 2,800,000 1.3503 0.1688
MODELLING SCENARIOS. Sources of inert tracer for contaminant release modelling under this Project are summarized in Table
MODELLING SCENARIOS. Sediment sources modelled under this Project are summarized in Table 3.2. Two scenarios would be modelled for sediment dispersion modelling. Scenario C1 covers ▇▇▇▇▇▇ barge backfilling at the northernmost CMP, grab dredging (with 2 grab dredgers) at the middle CMP and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ barge capping at the southernmost CMP as well as other concurrent projects. Scenario C2 is similar except the dredging would be conducted with one TSHD. These two modelling scenarios are illustrated in Figure 3.4. Northernmost Plant Used ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Barge or TSHD (Model ▇▇▇▇▇▇ barge for worst case) Production Rate (m3/day) 26,700 Working Hour (hr) 24 Sediment Loss Rate (kg/s) 60.0000 (modelled as 5 min release at 0.75 hr interval) Moving source? No Middle Plant Used Two Grab Dredgers One TSHD Production Rate (m3/wk) 100,000 256,200 Working Hour (hr) 24 24 Scenario C1 Scenario C2 Sediment Loss Rate (kg/s) 1.4054 (for each grab dredger modelled as continuous release) 17.7917 (modelled as 20 min release at 2 hr interval) Moving source? No Yes Southernmost Plant Used ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Barge or TSHD (Model ▇▇▇▇▇▇ barge for worst case) Production Rate (m3/day) 26,700 Working Hour (hr) 24 Sediment Loss Rate (kg/s) 60.0000 (modelled as 5 min release at 0.75 hr interval) Moving source? No Method Statement for Water Quality Modelling Assessment ASSESSMENT APPROACH AND MODELLING CONSIDERATIONS