WAVE COMPUTATIONS AT REGIONAL SCALE AND LOCAL AREA OF GOCONG USING TELEMAC MODEL SUITE

Transcription

1 WAVE COMPUTATIOS AT REGIOAL SCALE AD LOCAL AREA OF GOCOG USIG TELEMAC MODEL SUITE TABLE OF COTETS ITRODUCTIO... 3 OBJECTIVES... 3 METHODOLOGY... 4 MODEL SETUP, DATA USED, CALIBRATIO AD VALIDATIO... 6 MODEL SETUP... 6 DATA USED Wave model setup of the whole South China Sea HD and sediment transport modeling in the extended study area D Hydrodynamic and sediment transport model in the detailed study area Topographic data Wind field data Wave field data CALIBRATIO AD VALIDATIO RESULT WAVE AD CURRET MODEL CALIBRATIO HD CALIBRATIO I THE EXTEDED AD LOCAL COMPUTATIOAL MODEL COCLUSIOS REFERECES APPEDIX LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1: Global model... 7 Figure 4.2: Extended Model (A)... 8 Figure 4.3: Local Model (B)... 8 Figure 4.4: Wind speeds of OAA wind data (used for wave forcing factor) and observed wind data at Go Cong site in the first campaign (16-31 October 2016) Figure 4.5: Wind directions of OAA wind data (used for wave forcing factor) and observed wind data at Go Cong site in the first campaign (16-31 October 2016) Figure 4.6: Wind speeds of OAA wind data (used for wave forcing factor) and observed wind data at Go Cong site in the second campaign (22 Feb-15 Mar 2017) Figure 4.7: Wind directions of OAA wind data (used for wave forcing factor) and observed wind data at Go Cong site in the second campaign (16-31 October 2016) Figure 4.8: CEP wind data (used for wave forcing factor) of the South China Sea Area11 1

2 Figure 4.9: Wavewatch-III data of the South China Sea Area Figure 5.1: Scope of study area and locations of model validation points Figure 5.2: Comparison of wave height contours calculated by TOMAWAC model with WAVEWATCH-III model at 18h on 11/10/ Figure 5.3: Water level calibration points of the Extended Computational Mesh Figure 5.4: Water level calibration of Ben Trai, Binh Dai, GanhHao regular observed stations Figure 5.5: Water level calibration of My Thanh, My Tho, RachGia regular observed stations Figure 5.6: Water level calibration of Song Doc, TraVinh, VamKenh regular observed stations Figure 5.7: The location fixed wave and sediment observation station Figure 5.8: Wave model calibration (wave height) at the observation site (16-30 October 2016) Figure 5.9: Wave model calibration (wave direction) at the observation site (16-30 October 2016) Figure 5.10: Wave model calibration (wave height) at the observation site (25 Feb-12 Mar 2017) Figure 5.11: Wave model calibration (wave direction) at the observation site (25 Feb-12 Mar 2017) Figure 5.12: Strickler s roughness coefficient distribution (K) after model calibration Figure A-1: Water level calibration at the points P1 P8 ( ) Figure A-2: Water level calibration at the points P9 P16 ( ) Figure A-3: Water level calibration at the points P17 P24 ( ) Figure A-4: Water level calibration at the points P25 P32 ( ) Figure A-5: Water level calibration at the points P33 P40 ( ) Figure A-6: Water level calibration at the points P41 P48 ( ) Figure A-7: Water level calibration at the points P46 P56 ( ) Figure A-8: Water level calibration at the points some island and nearshore locations ( ) Figure A-9: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P1-P8) ( ) Figure A-10: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P9-P16) ( ) Figure A-11: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P17-P24) ( ) Figure A-12: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P25-P32) ( ) Figure A-13: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P33-P40) ( ) Figure A-14: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P41-P48) ( ) Figure A-15: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P49-P56) ( )

3 Figure A-16: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (Cunnimao, Kolak, PhuQuoc, Con Dao, Qui hon, Phu Qui) ( ) Figure A-17: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P1-P8) ( ) Figure A-18: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P9-P16) ( ) Figure A-19: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P17-P24) ( ) Figure A-20: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P25-P32) ( ) Figure A-21: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P33-P40) ( ) Figure A-22: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P41-P48) ( ) Figure A-23: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P49-P56) ( ) Figure A-24: Wind rose of 1-4 point in SW (left) and E(right) s Figure A-25: Wind rose of 5-8 point in SW (left) and E(right) s Figure A-26: Wind rose of 9-12 point in SW (left) and E(right) s Figure A-27: Wind rose of point in SW (left) and E(right) s Figure A-28: Wind rose of point in SW (left) and E(right) s Figure A-29: Current rose at points 1,2,3 in Southwest and ortheast Figure A-30: Current rose at points 4,5,6 in Southwest and ortheast Figure A-31: Current rose at points 7,8,9 in Southwest and ortheast Figure A-32: Current rose at points 10,11,12 in Southwest and ortheast Figure A-33: Current rose at points 13,14,15 in Southwest and ortheast Figure A-34: Current rose at points 16,17,18 in Southwest and ortheast Figure A-35: Current rose at points 19,20,21 in Southwest and ortheast

4 1. ITRODUCTIO The coastal area of the Lower Mekong Delta (LMD) influenced by waves, tidal currents, changing sediment loads from the Mekong and Saigon-Dong ai river system, and storm surges from the East and West Sea. In addition, human activity has an impact on erosion and deposition processes through dyke construction and drainage, agriculture, aquaculture, and fishery exploitation along the coastal areas. In recent years, the impact of upstream dams, especially on the Mekong main river, has reduced sediment feeding into the LMD and its estuary. All of these impacts have caused shore erosion along approximately two thirds of the total coastline length, and a land loss rate of about 500 ha/year in the past ten years. In the future, climate change and sea level rise will make this situation worse. Figure 1.1 shows the LMD and seasonal wind patterns affecting the seasonal transport of sediment along the coastal zone; Figure 1.2 shows the estimation of erosion and deposition rates along the LMD coastal zone. The subject of this project is the coastal zone of the Vam-Lang, Kieng-Phuoc, Tan-Dien, and Tan-Thanh communes of the Go Cong district (Tien Giang province), located at the coordinates of 106o o47 40 Easting and 10 15' '45 orthing. Research area is contiguous to the Soai Rap River in the orth, to the Cua Tieu River in the South, to the East Sea in the East and to the Go Cong Eastern Dyke System. 2. OBJECTIVES The goal of the project is to model the coastal erosion situation of Go Cong with TelemacMascaret Modeling Suite to propose the coastal protection measures. This report presents the results of calibration and validation of flow and wave numerical models over the regional and local zones for further simulation in the LMDCZ. 3. METHODOLOGY A desirable approach for this project is integration from general to specific. Firstly, the whole LMDCZ should be considered in the context of South China Sea with its hydrodynamic characteristics. Secondly, the impact of human activities should be estimated, especially the reduction of sediment to the LMD and coastal area due to upstream Mekong dams. In addition, sea level rise from climate change should be accounted. The numerical approaches will be used for this work-package with consideration of experimental works in other work-package of the project. The well-known numerical models such as TELEMAC-2D, TOMAWAC and SISYPHE will be used to compute waves, currents, and sediment plumes in the LMDCZ. 4

5 The LMDCZ project will use the whole South China Sea model solutions for tidal and wave fields in the East and West Seas. The LMDCZ project will use the results obtained from the large-scale study as initial and boundary data for the simulations with very finescale resolution of tides, waves and geo-morphological changes. Then, the numerical simulations of the whole LMDCZ will provide boundary conditions for simulations of regional areas, which will in turn provide initial and boundary conditions for the study areas, that is Go Cong (largely impacted by the Mekong estuary and the East sea flow-wave regimes). Modeled shore protection measures for Go Cong should be considered both as hard and soft. The appropriate protection measures need to be assessed based on numerical models with consideration of physical models, focusing on their possible impact in the long term, under changing conditions for sediment sources and climate. In order to calibrate the model for flows and sediments, 2 additional measurement campaigns, each lasting 15 days, in the estuaries and in coastal zones along the lower Mekong Delta. The two 15-day measurement campaigns for each site is carried out in October 2016 and in February There are 6 stations planned for each campaign, including: 2 stations in Mekong (at My Thuan) and Bassac (at Can Tho) rivers (coincided with ational Hydrology Stations) for measuring discharges (Q) and suspended sediment concentration (SSC) by ADCP. 2 fixed stations at Go Cong and U-Minh; 2 mobile ships along the East and West seas Measured fields for the 4 latter stations will be: Water level (hourly at the 2 fixed stations) Vertical distribution of velocity Vertical distribution of salinity (5 points for each vertical line) Vertical distribution of sediments (5 points for each vertical line) Waves (height, period and direction) umerical models have reached a level of accuracy and detail over the past 25 years that most of the dominant processes in the coastal environment can be quantified. However, the numerical models are tools only for the coastal engineers and planners. I ideal, the study is should be divided into 2 parts: a) baseline study and b) measures assessment. Baseline studies of ocean and coastal conditions leading to: Baseline description of wind, waves and tides in the area Coastal classification Description of littoral drift conditions Equilibrium orientation of shorelines 5

6 Description of variability in above conditions Regional and extended zones modeling Sufficiently long recording of time series of tides and waves is normally not available at a project site as basis for establishment of design conditions, whereas wind recordings and weather maps are normally available from local meteorological stations and international organizations (OAA, CEP,.etc.). Such wind and air pressure data are very suitable as input data for spectral wind wave models and 2D or 3D hydrodynamic flow models. The combination of advanced numerical wave and hydrodynamic models and powerful computers thus makes it possible to run long time series, i.e. decades of years, of hydrodynamic and wind wave simulations thereby providing basis for establishment of a baseline description of the following offshore conditions: Winds Waves Currents and flushing conditions Tides and storm surges Possible shorter recording time series of waves, tides and currents are suitable for calibration of the numerical models. The established time series of regional marine parameters are thereafter suitable for statistical description of normal conditions as well as of design conditions. Furthermore, the established regional models can provide boundary conditions for local wave, hydrodynamic and sediment transport models Local area modeling The study of the conditions in the local project area will normally require the establishment of local models. The new generation of such models are Flexible Mesh Models, in which the local model resolution can be adjusted as required. This technique provides the possibility of modeling large areas in one single model without shifting to several layers of finer grid models 4. MODEL SETUP, DATA USED, CALIBRATIO AD VALIDATIO 4.1. MODEL SETUP Figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 depict the research scope of the models with different scales and levels of details. The Regional computational model (RCM) was established for the whole South China Sea with the aim of deep-water waves modeling to get wave and current boundary data for more detailed models. The main boundary for the RCM model itself are located at Malacca, Luzon and Taiwan Straits. Model A is an extended model, used to simulate offshore boundary conditions (tidal, storm surge, wave, current generated by wind, etc.) for coastal study areas. The spatial 6

7 scope of Model A was chosen broadly enough to ensure that the effects of uncertainty at the open boundary to the main study area were minimized. In this study, model A covers an area of about 130 km diameter around the LMD coastline of from Dong Ho Lake (RachGia Province) to Long Hai cape (Vung Tau Province). The bottom of the seabed at about m 3.29 m. TAIWA STRAIT LUZO STRAIT MALACCA STRAIT Figure 4.1: Global model Figure 4.2: Extended Model (A) Figure 4.3: Local Model (B) Model B is a detailed model of the study area and used to predict the coastline dynamics under different extreme condition and to estimate the effectiveness of a structural 7

8 measures. The open boundary data for the model B are extracted from the results of model A simulation. Because the actual data is only within the range of model A, this report only presents calibration and validation results for the RCM Model and Model A. The parameters of model A are also used for model B DATA USED Wave model setup of the whole South China Sea Forecast tidal levels are used at open boundaries of the model. These tidal levels were predicted based on the harmonic constituents obtained from the analysis of global tidal data monitored with satellites and corrected with real measured data. All datasets are integrated within FES2014 database. Wave heights, periods, frequencies, directions for the Malacca, Luzon and Taiwan straits are extracted from WAVEWATCH-III database HD and sediment transport modeling in the extended study area Upstream open boundaries at river estuaries are 7discharge boundaries. Two of discharge boundaries are located near the hourly observed station so they are provided with real discharge data. For the 5 other boundaries, flow data are generally extracted from the results of the 1D hydrodynamic model (MIKE11). The mentioned above 1D model has been established, calibrated, validated and used by the SIWRR in different research projects in the recent several years, so the model is highly reliable. In the wave model, these boundaries are assumed to be closed boundaries (land or wall boundary) D Hydrodynamic and sediment transport model in the detailed study area For upstream discharge boundary, the discharge data used are similar to model A. For the seaward open boundaries, water level data used are extracted from simulation results of model A. For the wave model, seaward open boundaries are extracted from the wave simulation results of model A. Upstream boundaries are also assumed to be Land Boundary (Closed Wall) Topographic data The topographic data used in this study were inherited from different sources and earlier researches: For estuarine areas (Soai Rap, Cua Tieu, Cua Dai, Ham Luong) and coastal areas of Go Cong, Can Gio and the Ganh Rai Gulf, the topographic data is extracted 8

9 from the surveying reconnaissance of 1/5.000 scale topographic plane. In the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, under the framework of the Baseline Survey Project implemented by the SIWRR and the ICOE as well as survey work-package of this research. For coastal areas from HCMC to Kien Giang, the topographic data was extracted from the map (scale of 1/100,000) published by the avy in The topography in other areas of the South China Sea was extracted from the SRTM30_PLUSV6.0 database from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Californian University, USA. This is a dataset with 30" 30" resolution, constructed from the satellite-gravity model, in which the gravity-to-topography ratios are corrected by 298 million ADCP depth points Wind field data Wind field data is the most important input parameter for the wave computation model. The background wind data used in this study derived from the modeling results of the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) of the ational Center for Environmental Prediction, the part of the US ational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (CEP/OAA). The wind field results obtained from the reanalysis simulation, which includes the model validation with the measured data from the global marine observation stations system so the data should be highly reliable. This wind field data is from with a time step of 1 hour and a grid size of o 0.312o. This is a very good dataset for the wind and weather research. Wind speed (CEP) [m/s] Wind speed (Observed) [m/s] Figure 4.4: Wind speeds of OAA wind data (used for wave forcing factor) and observed wind data at Go Cong site in the first campaign (16-31 October 2016) 9

10 Wind direction [deg] Wind Direction [deg] Figure 4.5: Wind directions of OAA wind data (used for wave forcing factor) and observed wind data at Go Cong site in the first campaign (16-31 October 2016) Wind speed (CEP) [m/s] Wind speed (Observed) [m/s] Figure 4.6: Wind speeds of OAA wind data (used for wave forcing factor) and observed wind data at Go Cong site in the second campaign (22 Feb-15 Mar 2017) Wind Direction (CEP) [deg] Wind Direction (Observed) [deg] Figure 4.7: Wind directions of OAA wind data (used for wave forcing factor) and observed wind data at Go Cong site in the second campaign (16-31 October 2016) 10

11 Figure 4.8: CEP wind data (used for wave forcing factor) of the South China Sea Area Wave field data The wave and wind data collected at Bach Ho drilling platform in 1996 was collected for the model calibration and validation purposes. The wind data used to verify the reliability of wind data extracted from the CFSR model. The wave data used to verify the TOMAWAC model. The satellite-monitored wave data used to calibrate the South China Sea model in this research was provided by France's AVISO organization. Concretely, the datasets are combined in Ssalto/Duacs wave-field toolset (compiled from wave monitored by different satellite system such as Jason-1 and Jason-2, Topex/Poseidon, Envisat, GFO, ERS-1 and ERS-2, and Geosat). This data only includes significant wave height, with a time step of 1 day, a coarse 1o 1o space grid, and is available from September 14, 2009 to present. The wave simulation results of the WAVEWATCH-III model used for comparison with the TOMAWAC results are also provided by CEP/OAA. This dataset includes such wave 11

12 components as significant wave height, maximum wave period, and average main wave direction. The data has a time step of 3 hours, 0.5o 0.5o space grid, available from 2005 to present. Figure 4.9: Wavewatch-III data of the South China Sea Area 5. CALIBRATIO AD VALIDATIO RESULT 5.1. WAVE AD CURRET MODEL CALIBRATIO To calibrate and validate the TOMAWAC wave model for the whole South China Sea (SCS) domain, we compare the wave results pattern from the SCS model with the following wave data: (i) Observed wave data from the satellites of France's AVISO organization, and (ii) Wave pattern simulated using the WAVEWATCH-III model of the CEP/OAA in the US. 12

13 For the current calibration of the South China Sea we use the FES2014 H and UV values at certain points in the deep water (P1-P56) and certain points located near-shore or around islands (Kolak, Tioman, Kuantan, Cendering, Curimao, Bintulu, Phu Qui, Con Dao). Figure 5.1: Scope of study area and locations of model validation points 13

14 The results of comparing the wave period and peak wave direction between the TOMAWAC and WAVEWATCH-III models in depicted in the Appendix figures A.1 A.8 for tides, A.9 A.16 for the wave heights and A.17 A.24 for the wave directions. The pictures show a high correlation between the predicted results of the two models Figure 5.2: Comparison of wave height contours calculated by TOMAWAC model with WAVEWATCH-III model at 18h on 11/10/ HD CALIBRATIO I THE EXTEDED AD LOCAL COMPUTATIOAL MODEL The riverine flow regime and the tidal flow at the estuaries of the extended and local model are calibrated and validated in with the data collected from government permanent gauge stations including: RachGia, Song Doc, GanhHao, My Thanh, Can Tho, Ben Trai, My Thuan, TraVinh, Binh Dai, My Tho, VamKenh and Vung Tau). 14

15 Figure 5.3: Water level calibration points of the Extended Computational Mesh The HD calibration also achieved adequate result (depicted in the figures ) for 2D modeling tool. 15

16 Figure 5.4: Water level calibration of Ben Trai, Binh Dai, GanhHao regular observed stations 16

17 Figure 5.5: Water level calibration of My Thanh, My Tho, RachGia regular observed stations 17

18 Figure 5.6: Water level calibration of Song Doc, TraVinh, VamKenh regular observed stations 18

19 The wave calibration and validation are performed with the sampled data of this project and sampled data of previously realized projects. The location of wave observation and mud-sediment sampling is how is figure The wave calibration results are showed in figure , showing high correlation between observed wave data and simulated wave result near to the location of observation station. Figure 5.7: The location fixed wave and sediment observation station The UTM-48 coordinate of the station: X= ; Y= Wave observation and sediment sampling time: October 2016 and 24 February-12 March Data recording frequency: 15 min/record Water sampling frequency: 2 hours/sample Wind measurement frequency: each 2 hours 19

20 Wave heights (simulated) [m] H1/3 [m] (Observed) [m] Figure 5.8: Wave model calibration (wave height) at the observation site (16-30 October 2016) Wave directions (simulated) [deg] Direction [deg] (Observed) [deg] Figure 5.9: Wave model calibration (wave direction) at the observation site (16-30 October 2016) Wave heights (simulated) [m] H1/3 [m] (Observed) [m] Figure 5.10: Wave model calibration (wave height) at the observation site (25 Feb-12 Mar 2017) 20

21 Wave directions (simulated) [deg] Direction [deg] (Observed) [deg] Figure 5.11: Wave model calibration (wave direction) at the observation site (25 Feb-12 Mar 2017) Figure 5.12: Strickler s roughness coefficient distribution (K) after model calibration 6. COCLUSIOS With nesting approach, TELEMAC2D and TOMAWAC has been calibrated well from the Regional (South China Sea) Model to Extended Model with water levels, discharges, tides, waves and currents, especially the validation results based on the in-situ data of the LMDCZ project in October 2016 and February-March The hydrodynamic regimes were simulated to understand the hydrodynamics of the LMDCZ and ready for creating the boundary conditions for the detail study areas of Go Cong. 21

22 7. REFERECES 1. Khang,. D Research on flow regime, sand-mud distribution in the coastal area between Soai Rap and Cua Tieu Estuaries. Proposal of coastal protection measures for Go Cong shoreline. SIWRR. 2. Khang,. D Research on flow regime, sand-mud distribution in the coastal area between Soai Rap and Cua Tieu Estuaries. Proposal of coastal protection measures for Go Cong shoreline. SIWRR. 3. Khang,.D Study on changes of hydrodynamic regime of coastal and estuarine areas affected by Vung Tau - Go Cong sea dyke project 4. Telemac user guide 5. Tomawac user guide 22

23 APPEDIX 23

24 Figure A-1: Water level calibration at the points P1 P8 ( ) 24

25 Figure A-2: Water level calibration at the points P9 P16 ( ) 25

26 Figure A-3: Water level calibration at the points P17 P24 ( ) 26

27 Figure A-4: Water level calibration at the points P25 P32 ( ) 27

28 Figure A-5: Water level calibration at the points P33 P40 ( ) 28

29 Figure A-6: Water level calibration at the points P41 P48 ( ) 29

30 Figure A-7: Water level calibration at the points P46 P56 ( ) 30

31 Figure A-8: Water level calibration at the points some island and nearshore locations ( ) 31

32 Figure A-9: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P1-P8) ( ) 32

33 Figure A-10: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P9-P16) ( ) 33

34 Figure A-11: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P17-P24) ( ) 34

35 Figure A-12: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P25-P32) ( ) 35

36 Figure A-13: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P33-P40) ( ) 36

37 Figure A-14: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P41-P48) ( ) 37

38 Figure A-15: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (P49-P56) ( ) 38

39 Figure A-16: Comparison of the significant wave height of the TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III modeling results at the validation points (Cunnimao, Kolak, PhuQuoc, Con Dao, Qui hon, Phu Qui) ( ) 39

40 Wave direction Figure A-17: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P1-P8) ( ) 40

41 Figure A-18: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P9-P16) ( ) 41

42 Figure A-19: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P17-P24) ( ) 42

43 Figure A-20: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P25-P32) ( ) 43

44 Figure A-21: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P33-P40) ( ) 44

45 Figure A-22: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P41-P48) ( ) 45

46 Figure A-23: Comparison of the peak wave direction simulated by TOMAWAC model with the WAVEWATCH-III model results at the validation (P49-P56) ( ) 46

47 4.82 % 4.45 % 4.19 % 4.11 % the point P1 in SW Above Below 1 the point P2 in SW Above Below 1 the point P3 in SW Above Below 1 the point P4 in SW Above Below % the point P1 in E Above Below 1 the point P2 in E Above Below 1.0 the point P3 in E Above Below % 2.98 % 2.84 % the point P4 in E Above Below 1 Figure A-24: Wind rose of 1-4 point in SW (left) and E(right) s 47

48 4.82 % 4.45 % 4.19 % 4.11 % the point P1 in SW Above Below 1 the point P2 in SW Above Below 1 the point P3 in SW Above Below 1 the point P4 in SW Above Below % the point P1 in E Above Below 1 the point P2 in E Above Below 1.0 the point P3 in E Above Below % 2.98 % 2.84 % the point P4 in E Above Below 1 Figure A-25: Wind rose of 5-8 point in SW (left) and E(right) s 48

49 3.41 % 3.25 % 3.14 % 3.07 % point P9 in SW Above Below 1 point P10 in SW Above Below 1.0 point P11 in SW Above Below 1 and direction at point P12 in SW Above Below % and direction at point P9 in E Above Below % 2.07 % 2.01 % point P10 in E Above Below 1 point P11 in E Above Below 1 point P12 in E Above Below 1 Figure A-26: Wind rose of 9-12 point in SW (left) and E(right) s 49

50 3.04 % 2.96 % 2.99 % 2.93 % point P13 in SW Above Below 1 point P14 in SW Above Below 1 point P15 in SW Above Below 1.0 and direction at point P16 in SW Above Below % 1.90 % 1.85 % 1.79 % point P13 in E Above Below 1 point P14 in E Above Below 1 point P15 in E Above Below 1 point P16 in E Above Below 1 Figure A-27: Wind rose of point in SW (left) and E(right) s 50

51 2.96 % 2.99 % 2.96 % 2.96 % point P17 in SW Above Below 1 point P18 in SW Above Below 1.0 point P19 in SW Above Below 1 point P20 in SW Above Below % 1.74 % 1.63 % 1.57 % point P17 in E Above Below 1 and direction at point P18 in E Above Below 1.00 point P19 in E Above Below 1 point P20 in E Above Below 1 Figure A-28: Wind rose of point in SW (left) and E(right) s 51

52 CURRET ROSES 4.19 % at point P1 in SW 5.31 % at point P1 in E % at point P2 in SW % at point P2 in E % at point P3 in SW % at point P3 in E Figure A-29: Current rose at points 1,2,3 in Southwest and ortheast 52

53 14.13 % at point P4 in SW % at point P4 in E % at point P5 in SW % at point P5 in E % at point P6 in SW % at point P6 in E Figure A-30: Current rose at points 4,5,6 in Southwest and ortheast 53

54 9.37 % at point P7 in SW % at point P7 in E 9.18 % at point P8 in SW % at point P8 in E % at point P15 in SW % at point P9 in E Figure A-31: Current rose at points 7,8,9 in Southwest and ortheast 54

55 10.66 % at point P10 in SW % at point P10 in E % at point P11 in SW % at point P11 in E % at point P12 in SW % at point P12 in E Figure A-32: Current rose at points 10,11,12 in Southwest and ortheast 55

56 at point P13 in SW % % at point P13 in E % at point P14 in SW % at point P14 in E % at point P15 in SW % at point P15 in E Figure A-33: Current rose at points 13,14,15 in Southwest and ortheast 56

57 20.56 % % % at point P16 in SW at point P17 in SW at point P18 in SW % % % at point P16 in E at point P17 in E at point P18 in E Figure A-34: Current rose at points 16,17,18 in Southwest and ortheast 57

58 42.20 % % % at point P19 in SW at point P20 in SW at point P21 in SW % % % at point P19 in E at point P20 in E at point P21 in E Figure A-35: Current rose at points 19,20,21 in Southwest and ortheast 58