Writereaddata FormB TOR PFR 21112019EJI51AN3DPR

DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT
THARANGAMBADI, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT,

TAMIL NADU
TASK MODULE - 5
FINAL DPR
PROJECT CODE: 512071415
For
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
TAMIL NADU
SEPTEMBER 2016
Indomer
INDOMER COASTAL HYDRAULICS (P) LTD.

(ISO 9001: 2008 CERTIFIED NABET-QCI AND CDC ACCREDITATED)
63, GANDHI ROAD, ALWAR THIRUNAGAR, CHENNAI 600 087.
Tel: + 91 44 2486 2482 to 84 Fax: + 91 44 2486 2484
Web site:www.indomer.com, E-mail:ocean@indomer.com
INDOMER COASTAL HYDRAULICS (P) LTD.
(ISO 9001 : 2008 CERTIFIED NABET-QCI AND CDC ACCREDITATED)
63, Gandhi Road, Alwar Thirunagar, Chennai 600 087.
Tel: + 91 44 2486 2482 to 84 Fax: + 91 44 2486 2484
Web site: www.indomer.com , E-mail: ocean@indomer.com
Client : Department of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu -
Project Title :
Module 5 - Final DPR.
Project Code : 512071415
Abstract : Indomer was awarded the consultancy contract for the preparation of Detailed Project Report
(DPR) for the Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi. The main scope of services
include consultancy services from investigation stage through planning, design of the facility
and provide construction supervision services during the project implementation stage.
In accordance with the TOR, Indomer completed the Task Module 1: Inception Report (IR) and
Task Module 2: Feasibility Report (FR) and submitted the reports to the Fisheries Department
and these were approved after presentation to the Expert Committee on 09.10.2014 and
06.05.2015 respectively.
The Draft Final Report (Task module 3) comprising draft designs, drawings and draft BOQ was
submitted on 21.09.15 and presented before the Expert committee at the meeting held on
14.10.2015. The committee made few suggestions which have been incorporated.
The present report - Task module 5 - Final DPR has been prepared incorporating the
suggestions of the expert committee, the improvements suggested by CWPRS on breakwater
cross-sections based on modelling study and meeting the requirements spelt out in the ToR.
Foreword : The materials presented in the report carry the copy right of Department of fisheries, Tamil
Nadu and Indomer Coastal Hydraulics (P) Ltd. and should not be altered or distorted or copied
or presented in different manner by other organizations without the written consent from
Department of fisheries, Tamil Nadu and Indomer Coastal Hydraulics (P) Ltd.
Document type : Controlled

References : Lr. No. DB/D2/F.712/2014-15 dated 04.08.2014
Date Report Type Originator Checked by Approved by Approver’s Sign
Mr. K. Dharmalingam
21.09.16 Final DPR √ R. Ranjitha Dr. P. Chandramohan
Mr. L. Ramasamy
Project Code : 512071415 Text pages : 470
File Location : F:/2016 Projects/May 16/512. F. Harbour Tables : 35
Figures : 49
Annexures : 4
INDOMER
INDOMER TEAM
Name Qualification Task
Ph.D. (Ocean Engineering)

Dr. P. Chandramohan Coastal Engineering
(Former scientist, CSIR-NIO, Goa)
B.E. (Civil),
K. Dharmalingam Port design
DIIT (Dock and Harbour Engineering)
Dr. Terry Machado Ph.D. (Marine Geology) Seabed surveys
Ph.D. (Ocean Engineering)

Dr. R. Mahadevan Mathematical modelling
(Former Professor, IIT, Chennai)
Ph.D. (Marine Biology)
Dr. Alfred R. Selvakumar (Former Asst. Director General, Marine fisheries
Marine Fisheries ICAR, New Delhi)
V. Vaigaiarasi M.E. (Hydrology) Mathematical modelling
Planning of Fishing
A.P. Anu M. Tech. (Ocean Tech. & Management)
Harbour
Oceanographic
G.Yogaraj MSc. (Physical Oceanography)
measurements
A. Baskaran D.C.E. (Civil) Topographic Survey
S. Karthikeyan D.C.E. (Civil) Bathymetric Survey
R. Ranjitha D.C.E. (Civil) Report preparation
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page i

Module 5 - Final DPR
INDOMER
EXPERT TEAM
Indomer Coastal Hydraulics [P] Ltd. : Planning, design and execution of project
L. R. Ramasamy, Former SE (TN Fisheries) : Planning & design of Fishing Harbour
Mars Synergy Geo Tech Pvt. Ltd., Chennai : Geo Technical Investigations
Dr. Narasima Rao,

(Former Professor, Dept. Ocean Engineering, IITM) : Geo Technical Engineering
Vasudevan. T. J M.ARCH, F.I.V : Architectural Planning & Design
Colonel Nallathambi .P,

M.E (Structural Engg) MBA, MCA, FIE, FIV : Foundation design & Structural Engineering
Anna University : CRZ and Demarcation of HTL and LTL
Central Water and Power

Research Station, Pune : Verification of Breakwater Design
Central Institute of Coastal Engineering

For fishery, Bangalore : Verification of Layout of Shore & Marine
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page ii

INDOMER
CONTENTS
Contents i
List of Tables iv
List of Figures vi
List of Annexures viii
Abbreviations ix
Executive Summary E1
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1
1.1. Development proposal 1.1
1.2. Final DPR - Task Module 5 1.2
2. BACKGROUND - HIGHLIGHTS OF EARLIER REPORTS 2.1
2.1. Fisheries at national level-a quick review 2.1
2.1.1. Vessel statistics 2.1
2.1.2. Export of fishery products 2.2
2.2. Fisheries in Tamil Nadu 2.3
2.2.1. Fishery statistics 2.3
2.2.2. Status of marine fisheries in Tamil Nadu 2.4
2.3. Description of project site 2.5
2.4. Existing infrastructures at Tharangambadi 2.5
2.5. Other Infrastructures 2.6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SCREENING 3.1
3.1. Physical environmental screening 3.1
3.1.1. Natural calamities 3.1
3.1.2. Coastal waters 3.5
3.1.3. Biological parameters 3.5
3.1.4. Tsunami impact 3.6
3.1.5. Littoral drift 3.6
3.1.6. CRZ related aspects 3.7
3.2. Socio economic screening 3.7
4. OCEANOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AND SEABED INVESTIGATIONS 4.1
4.1. Physical parameters 4.1
4.1.1. Wind 4.1
4.1.2. Waves 4.1
4.1.3. Storm 4.3
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page i

INDOMER
4.1.4. Tides 4.4

4.1.5. Currents 4.4
4.2. Topographic survey 4.4
4.2.1. Benchmarks 4.4
4.2.2. Indomer Bench Mark (IBM-6) 4.5
4.2.3. Topographical map 4.6
4.3. Seabed surveys 4.7
4.3.1. Bathymetry survey 4.7
4.3.2. Shallow seismic survey 4.8
4.3.3. Side scan sonar survey 4.9
4.4. Geotechnical Investigations 4.9
5. PLANNING OF LAYOUT AND FACILITIES 5.1
5.1. Tharangambadi-fishing village 5.1
5.2. Stake holders meeting 5.1
5.3. Basic requirements of layout 5.5
5.4. Sizing of marine facilities 5.5
5.4.1. Design data 5.6
5.4.2. Fish landing beach/wharf 5.7
5.4.3. Outfitting wharf 5.8
5.4.4. Repair wharf 5.9
5.4.5. Idle berthing wharf length 5.9
6. MODELLING STUDIES 6.1
6.1. Wave tranquillity 6.1
6.1.1. Model description 6.1
6.1.2. Basic equation 6.2
6.1.3. Model setup 6.4
6.1.4. Simulations 6.4
6.1.5. Results 6.5
6.2. Littoral drift 6.6
6.2.2. Model input 6.8
6.2.3. Results 6.8
6.3. Shoreline evolution 6.9
6.3.2. Model input 6.11
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page ii

INDOMER
6.3.3. Change in shoreline 6.11

6.4. Shore Protection 6.13
7. DESIGN OF SHORE FACILITIES 7.1
7.1. Background 7.1
7.2. Geotechnical Properties 7.1
7.3. Assessment of area 7.2
7.4. Preliminary design of shore facilities 7.9
A7.1. Annexure - Geotechnical report
8. DESIGN OF MARINE FACILITIES 8.1
8.1. Breakwaters 8.1
8.1.1. Design background 8.2
8.1.2. Design waves 8.3
8.1.3. Design depth 8.4
8.1.4. Design tide 8.5
8.1.5. Crest elevation 8.5
8.1.6. Crest width 8.6
8.1.7. Breakwater slope 8.6
8.1.8 CWPRS Flume Test and breakwater cross section 8.7
8.2. Wharf 8.8
8.3. Dredging 8.12
A8.1 Annexure - Breakwater Cross-section (CWPRS)
9. SUMMARY OF SHORE AND MARINE FACILITIES 9.1
9.1. Shore Facilities 9.1
9.2. Marine facilities 9.2
10. BILL OF QUANTITIES AND COST ESTIMATION 10.1
10.1. Shore facilities 10.1
10.2. Marine facilities 10.1
10.3. Summary of cost 10.3
A10.1 Annexure - BOQ's Shore facilities
A10.2 Annexure - BOQ's Marine facilities
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page iii
INDOMER
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1. Details of vessels in India
2.2. Marine Fish production
2.3. Export of Fishery Products
2.4. Marine Fisheries Statistics (2012 - 13)
2.5. Existing Infrastructure facilities at the project site and its environ
3.1. Past history of natural calamities
3.2. Details of cyclones that crossed Tamil Nadu coast during the period 1950 - 2000
3.3. Cyclonic storm that crossed the coast between Chennai and Nagapattinam
(1946 - 2011)
3.4. Details of Cyclonic Storms / Depressions affected Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu
3.5. Fishermen population
3.6. Employment status of fisher folk
3.7. Literacy status of fisher folk
3.8. Income status of fisher folk families
3.9. Housing facilities - residential status
3.10. Fishing days in a month
3.11. Fishing gears
3.12. Details of fishing crafts
4.1. Measured wave characteristics at 15 m water depth
4.2. Operational window
4.3. Design wave heights
4.4. Number of cyclones crossed the coast within 150 km (1877 and 2011)
4.5. Water depth with distance
5.1. Stake holders’ demand Vs acceptance status
5.2. Fleet details / fishing cycle
5.3. Summary of wharf length
6.1. Incoming wave parameters
6.2. Monthly volume of littoral drift
6.3. Shoreline changes - Years Vs Erosion/accretion
7.1. Quantity of fish/hour
7.2. Principal parameters of shore facilities
8.1. Depths and chainage of Southern breakwater
8.2. Depths and chainage of Northern breakwater
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page iv

INDOMER
8.3. Typical characteristics of Tetrapods

10.1 Summary of cost for shore facilities
10.2 Summary of cost for marine facilities
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page v

INDOMER
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1. Location Map
4.1. Wind rose January to December
4.2. Wave rose January to December
4.3. Variation of measured tides at Tharangambadi
4.4. Variation of current speed and direction & polar chart off Tharangambadi
4.5. Topographic map - 1:4500 scale
4.6. Bathymetry map - 1:10000 scale
4.7. Isopach map Based on Shallow Seismic survey - 1:10000 scale
4.8. Seabed map Based on Side scan sonar survey - 1:10000 scale
4.9. Borehole locations
5.1. Key plan of Proposed Fishing Harbour
5.2. Layout of Existing Fishing Harbour
5.3. Layout of Existing Fishing Harbour with bathymetry
5.4. Layout of Shore facilities
6.1. Wave tranquillity inside harbour basin - Incoming wave direction - N 70° E
6.5. Shoreline evolution
6.6. Shore Protection Groins
7.1a Auction hall 1A - Layout
7.1b Auction hall 1A - Structural Design
7.2a. Auction hall 1B - Layout
7.2b. Auction hall 1B - Structural Design
7.3a. Net mending shed - Layout
7.3b. Net mending shed - Structural Design
7.4a. Fishermen gear shed - Layout
7.4b. Fishermen gear shed - Structural Design
7.5a. Administrative office plan - Layout
7.5b. Administrative office plan - Structural Design
7.6a. Generator room - Layout
7.6b. Generator room - Structural Design
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page vi

INDOMER
7.7a. Security room - Layout

7.7b. Security room - Structural Design
7.8a. Toilet block - Layout
7.8b. Toilet block - Structural Design
7.9a. OHT details - Layout
7.9b. OHT details - Structural Design
7.10a. Canteen & Shops - Layout
7.10b. Canteen & Shops - Structural Design
7.11a. Fishermen rest shed - Layout
7.11b. Fishermen rest shed - Structural Design
7.12a. Workshop building - Layout
7.12b. Workshop building - Structural Design
7.13a. Communication tower - Layout
7.13b. Communication tower - Structural Design
7.14. RC sloping yard
7.15. Sections of Asphalted, Concrete, WBM Road surfaces and Compound wall
8.1. C/S of wharf with Gabions
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page vii
INDOMER
LIST OF ANNEXURES
A7.1 Annexure - Geotechnical report

A8.1 Annexure - Breakwater Cross-section (CWPRS)
A10.1 Annexure - BOQ's Shore facilities
A10.2 Annexure - BOQ's Marine facilities
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page viii
INDOMER
ABBREVIATIONS
Symbols Abbreviations
FR Feasibility Report
DOF Department of Fisheries
ToR Terms of Reference
DPR Detailed Project Report
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
CRZ Coastal Regulation Zone
BoQ Bill of Quantities
CMFRI Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute
GDP Gross Domestic Product
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
Sq.km Square Kilometre
MT Metric Tonne
Km Kilometre
ECR East Coast Road
m Metre
FRP Fiber Reinforced Plastic
MFV Mechanized Fishing Vessel
CEDAS Coastal Engineering Design Analysis System
RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete
PWD Public Work Department
WRO Water Resource Organization
MW Mega Watt
AD Anno Domini
Kmph Kilometre per hour
Hects Hectares
ECP Estimated Central Pressure
Hpa Hectopascals
cm Centimetre
mm Millimetre
G.O Government Order
NCEP National Centre for Environmental Prediction
CD Chart Datum
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page ix

INDOMER
MSL Mean Sea Level

RL Reduced Level
IS Indian Standard
SPT Standard Penetration Test
PBM Permanent Bench Mark
TBM Temporary Bench Mark
IBM Indomer Bench Mark
MFC Mechanized Fishing Craft
CICEF Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fishery
CWPRS Central water and Power Research Station
Kg Kilogram
ETP Effluent Treatment Plant
EMS Elliptic Mild Slope
NE North East
SW South West
rms Root Mean Square
CERC Coastal Engineering Research Centre
WBM Water Bound Macadam
LBH Land Bore Hole
OHT Over Head Tank
cu.m Cubic Metre
NIOT National Institute of Ocean Technology
CSR Coastal Service Regulation
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
GTS Great Trigonometrical Survey
WGS World Geodetic System
sq.ft Square feet
cu.ft Cubic feet
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page x

INDOMER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
E.1 BACKGROUND
The development of an all-weather fishing harbour at Tharangambadi is initiated by the

Government of Tamil Nadu to fulfilling the long term aspirations of the people of
Tharangambadi and its coastal villages like Chinnamedu, Chinnangudi, Thazhampettai,
Pudupettai, Perumalpettai, Vellakoil, Kuttiyandiyur, Chandrapadi, Chinnoorpettai. Indomer
was awarded the consultancy contract for the preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR)
for the proposed development. The main scope of services include consultancy services
right from investigation stage through planning, design of the facility and tendering services
and provide construction supervision services during the project implementation stage. The
following are the task modules:
 Task Module 1 - Inception Report
 Task Module 2 - Feasibility Report
 Task Module 3 - Draft Final Report
 Task Module 4 - EIA & CRZ reports
In accordance with the TOR, the Inception Report was submitted in September 2014 and
was approved by the Department of Fisheries (DOF) in October 2014. The Feasibility Report
(FR) forms the second task module comprising finalization of layout, design of various
components of the fishing harbour, capital cost of the project, and the financial viability
aspects of the proposed investment. This was discussed at the Expert Committee meeting
held on 06.05.15. The Committee made a few suggestions and improvements. The report
was accordingly revised and the final version of the Feasibility Report was submitted to the
Fisheries department on 29.06.15. The DFR was submitted on 21.09.15 and finalized after
taking into account the suggestions made by the expert committee at the meeting held on
14.10.2015. The layout was reviewed by CICEF, Bangalore in October. Subsequently, as
suggested at the Expert Committee meeting, CWPRS carried out modelling study to check
the technical adequacy of the breakwater section designed by Indomer for various depths
and submitted a report ‘Studies for the confirmation of breakwaters cross-section for the
development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Tamil Nadu.’ on 11.05.16.
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page E1

INDOMER
In the light of the above developments, the present final DPR (Module -5) report has been
prepared comprising detailed design, BoQ, drawings etc.
E.2 CHAPTERISATION
The Final DPR comprises 10 chapters covering the requirements detailed in TOR.
Chapter 1 - Introduction
This chapter is intended to provide, among things, the details of fishery status at National
and State level and the efforts made by Tamil Nadu government for the development of
fishing harbours and fish landing centres with a view to enhancing the economic status of
the fishing community in the aftermath of Tsunami and natural disasters occurring in the
region from time to time. The requirements included in the TOR for Task Module 5-Final
DPR are briefly highlighted.
Chapter 2 - Background - Highlights of earlier reports
The intention of this chapter is to discuss facts pertaining to fishery statistics at National and
State level, export details and how it has become relevant to develop additional fishing
harbours along the Tamil Nadu coast. The main focus is to bring out the fishery potential
which remains to be exploited in future by creation of fishing harbour.
Tharangambadi is historically known for its fishing activities. The existing auction cum net
mending shed still stands tall surviving the Tsunami of 2004 when most of the fishing
villages along the Nagapattinam coast suffered extensive damages so much so the fishing
activities which were the main bread and butter for the fishing community were totally
disrupted. In addition, this chapter discusses the project site, Uppanar River, archeological
and historical monuments such as Danish Fort, Masillamaninathar temple, road
connectivity, existing coastal protection measures etc.

INDOMER
Chapter 3 - Environmental and Social Screening
On physical environmental side, the occurrence of Tsunami 2004 and its devastation,
cyclone that passed through the region during the past century, wave climate, rainfall,
coastline changes and littoral drift, biological parameters etc are the main highlights of this
chapter.
The social screening paragraph included in this chapter broadly throws some light on
demography, literary status, living conditions, employment and housing status of the fishing
community in particular.
Chapter 4 - Oceanographic measurements and seabed investigations
This is the most important chapter which discusses the results of the oceanographic
measurements and seabed investigations carried out at the project site-both offshore and
onshore. These include measurements of wind, wave data compilation and validation,
establishment of design wave parameters, tides, currents, topographic surveys including
installation of benchmarks and seabed surveys comprising bathymetry, shallow seismic
survey, side scan sonar survey, and geotechnical investigation in terms of land and sea-
bores at the proposed site of development. The results provide the core input for the design
of shore and offshore structures included in Chapters 7 and 8.
Chapter 5 - Planning of layout and facilities
This chapter briefly gives details of how the layout was evolved based on the requirements
arrived at the Stakeholders meeting held on 08.08.14 and the subsequent suggestions made
by the Technical Committee at various meetings held on completion of each task module.
The layout was thus improved/finalized and the facilities such as beach landing facilities,
landing quays, outfitting quays, idle-berthing quays, repair quays, dredging required etc
have been discussed again in this chapter for completeness of this task module. The
proposed Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi is planned for handling 800 FRPs and 225
MFVs.

INDOMER
Chapter 6 - Modelling studies
The model studies were carried out again for the improved layout taking into account the
suggestions of the Technical Committee. This chapter covers in brief the results of model
studies to ascertain the parameters such as wave tranquillity inside the harbour basin for
different wave climate, shoreline changes, littoral drift and the shore protection measures.
This information has been extracted from the DFR-Task Module 3.
Chapter 7 - Design of shore facilities
In this chapter, a detailed account of the all the aspects pertaining to the planning and
design of all shore structures are discussed. This chapter briefly gives details of how the
facilities have been planned based taking into the account the suggestions made by the
Technical Committee at its meeting held on 14.10.15. The proposed shore and marine
facilities were reviewed and modified by CICEF, Bangalore in October. These include
assessment of areas and architectural design of various onshore structures such as auction
hall, port administration building, restaurant, rest-shed for fishermen, public toilets, utilities
and services, roads and pavements, greeneries etc. Detailed architectural design has been
made for each and every facility based on the geotechnical investigations for the design of
foundations.
Chapter 8 - Design of marine facilities
The offshore structures include design of breakwaters, wharf, sloping ramp, dredging etc.
Various options have been considered for the design of wharf which include pile type,
gravity walls, diaphragm wall etc and finally considering the poor soil characteristics of the
soil below the Seabed up to 15 - 18 m depth piling structure has been recommended based
on the recommendations of geotechnical expert. In respect of rubble mound breakwater
design, the recommendation of US Army Coastal Engineering Research Centre-which is
considered the authority for such shore protection walls, has been adopted. The recent
developments of armour design have also been discussed in this chapter. The design

INDOMER
sections have been tested in flume by CWPRS and the design has been modified and
finalized by CWPRS, Pune.
Chapter 9 - Summary of shore and marine facilities
A condensed list of both shore and marine facilities discussed in Chapters 7 and 8 is
provided in this chapter with brief description, sizes etc for quick reference.
Chapter 10 - Bill of quantities and cost estimation
The detailed BOQ has been worked out for each and every item of both onshore and
offshore facilities and separately appended as Annexures.
For ease of reference, a condensed list of item and cost for each facility has been prepared
and included in the text under this chapter.
This Final DPR (Draft) will form the base for the remaining Task Modules viz. preparation of
tender contract documents besides providing input for obtaining CRZ clearance process.
This chapter describes the cost of the shore facilities and the marine facilities proposed for
the Fishing Harbour based on the current schedule of rates (2016) obtained from the
Fisheries Department. The cost of development of the fishing harbour is summarized
below.

INDOMER
Sl. Cost
Name of Facility
No. (Rs. in Lakhs)
I Cost of civil works:
Onshore facilities 2226.5
Marine facilities 12774.8
Escalation (2017 - 2018) 800.00
Total 15801.3
II Lumpsum provisions:
Supervision charge - (2.5%) 395.00
Labor welfare fund - (1%) 158.00
Unforeseen items/contingencies - (2.5%) 395.00
Link road b/w Manikkapangu village to FH (LS) 150.00
Sinkage/Settlement for shore facilities (LS) 100.00
Total 1198.00
Grand Total 16999.3
Say 17000.00
Total cost = Rs. 170.00 Crores

INDOMER
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Development proposal
The improvements to the existing fishing facilities at Tharangambadi with sufficient

protection from waves, storm surges and Tsunami have been a long felt need of the fishery
folk of this region. The proposed development, initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu,
is aimed at fulfilling the long term aspirations of the people of Tharangambadi and its
neighbouring ten coastal villages.
Accordingly, tender was called for the development of fishing harbour at Tharangambadi
and Indomer was awarded the project of development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi
on 11.07.14 and the main scope of services include consultancy services right from
investigation stage through planning, design of the facility and provide construction
supervision services during the project implementation stage.
To start with, an Inception Report (Task module - 1) was prepared primarily to highlight the
various aspects of facility development and the methodology proposed to be adopted to
achieve the intended purpose i.e. realization of the fishing harbour in accordance with the
Terms of Reference included in the tender document. The Inception Report was approved
on 10.10.14.
Following this, a Draft Feasibility Report (Task module - 2) was submitted to the department
on 10.12.14 and subsequently reviewed at the Expert Committee meeting held on 06.05.15.
The Committee made a few suggestions and improvements, which were duly incorporated
and the final version of the Feasibility Report was submitted on 29.06.15.
Subsequently, a Draft Final Report (Task module - 3) was submitted to the department on
21.09.15 and the Expert Committee reviewed the report at the meeting held on 14.10.15.
The Committee made a few suggestions and improvements, which have been duly
incorporated in the Final DPR (Draft) - Task module 5 is submitted. EIA & CRZ Report (Task
Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page 1.1
INDOMER
module - 4) was submitted on 29.12.15. The expert committee met on 24.05.16 and
reviewed the DPR (Draft) (Task module - 5) report.
1.2. Final DPR - Task Module 5
This Final DPR is intended to provide a comprehensive report on detailed design, BoQ,
drawings etc. in line with the requirements spelt out in Module 5 for Final DPR.
INDOMER
2. BACK GROUND - HIGHLIGHTS OF EARLIER REPORTS
For completeness of the current exercise, the main highlights of the earlier two task modules
Module 1 - Inception Report and Module 2 - Feasibility Report have been condensed to the
extent necessary so that the present report presents glimpses of all the completed tasks plus
the requirements under this task module. For more details on the components such as
Fisheries statistics, it is suggested to refer the following reports.
 Module 1 - Inception Report

 Module 2 - Feasibility Report
 Module 3 - Draft Final Report
 Module 4 - EIA & CRZ reports
 Module 5 - Final DPR
2.1. Fisheries at National Level - A Quick Review
2.1.1. Vessel statistics
India has a coastline of about 8300 km including the coastlines of Andaman and Nicobar
Islands in the Bay of Bengal and Lakshadweep Islands in the Arabian Sea. The length of the
coastline of Indian mainland is 6100 km. Such long coastal stretch possesses immense
potential for the development and production of variety of sea foods. There are 3937
coastal fishing villages and 1896 fishery centers along the coastline of this country. As per
the census report published by Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) in 2010,
the total Fisher folk population is 4 million. Some useful data is available in the Hand Book
on Fisheries Statistics- 2010, published by Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The
details of the vessels are given in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1. Details of fishing vessels in India
Type of vessels Nos.

Total Fishing fleet operating in the country 243939
Mechanized fishing vessels (mainly trawlers and purse-seiners) 59743
Small scale beach landing crafts with outboard engines 76748
Traditional non-motorized crafts 107448
Deep sea fishing vessels 180
INDOMER
A major constraint hampering development of fishery sector is non-availability of matching

infrastructure in terms of fishery harbours and fish landing centres with modern amenities
with high quality and hygiene. With all that, India has the distinction of being the 3rd largest
producer of sea fish in the world scenario.
The fish production (both marine and inland) in the country was 7.52 lakh tonnes during
1950-51, which increased to 83.00 lakh tonnes during 2010-11 registering an annual average
growth rate of 16.72% both put together over a period of 60 years. The Inland sector’s
contribution was 51 lakh tonnes (61%) and that of marine sector was 32 lakh tonnes (39%)
during 2010-11. The fisheries sector has registered an annual growth rate of over 4% during
the last five years till 2011 level. The fish production in India is shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Marine Fish production
Fish production
Year
(tonnes)
1995-96 2707
2000-01 2811
2005-06 2816
2010-11 3250
The Economic Survey 2011-12 has revealed that the fisheries sector contributed 0.7% of
total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at factor cost and 5% of GDP at factor cost from
agriculture, forestry and fishing in the year 2011.
2.1.2. Export of fishery products
The export of fishery products in India was 171,820 tonnes during 1991-92 and touched a
level of 813,091 tonnes during 2010-11 valued at Rs. 1375 Crore and Rs. 12901 Crore
respectively. Frozen shrimp continued to dominate the export trade. The growth rate at five
year incremental period is summarized in Table 2.3.
INDOMER
Table 2.3. Export of Fishery Products
Export
Year Quantity Value
(tonnes) (Rs. in Crores)
1991-92 1,71,820 1376
1995-96 2,96,277 3501
2000-01 4,40,473 6444
2005-06 5,51,282 7019
2010-11 8,13,091 12901
2.2. Fisheries in Tamil Nadu
2.2.1. Fishery statistics
Tamil Nadu has a long coastline of 1076 km and it has more than 608 traditional coastal
fishing villages right from the historical period. The fisheries statistics for the year 2011-12
shows large fish landing exceeding 0.42 million tons. Based on the report prepared by Tamil
Nadu Marine Fisheries Census for the Year 2010, Department of Fisheries, Government of
Tamil Nadu, about thirty seven thousand fishing vessels, boats and small crafts are engaged
in fishing along the
Tamil Nadu coast between Neerodai at south and Pulicat Lake at north. Nagapattinam
district alone contributes around 16.57% of the total production of the state occupying the
second place among the thirteen coastal districts of Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu covers a land area of about 130,058 sq.km and it occupies the 11 th largest state
in India and 7th largest in population. The State has around 190,000 sq.km area of Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) and 41,412 sq.km area of continental shelf.
Fisheries have emerged as an important food production sector of the State contributing to
the livelihood as well as to the food security of a large section of the people. Tamil Nadu is
one of the foremost states in India showing steady increase in fish production and optimum
INDOMER
utilization of resources and is pioneering many innovative developmental and welfare

schemes.
The Government is committed to protect the traditional fishing rights of Tamil Nadu
fishermen, which among others include facilitating deep sea fishing, providing infrastructure
facilities such as construction of fishing harbours and fish landing centres, implementing
innovative schemes such as conversion/purchase of new mechanized fishing vessels for
Tuna fishing, establishing Fish Processing Parks in the coastal districts etc.
The vast fishery resources in marine sector offer tremendous scope for fisheries
development in the State.
2.2.2. Status of marine fisheries in Tamil Nadu
The details on the Marine Fisheries sector are given in below.
Table 2.4. Marine Fisheries Statistics (2012-13)
Coastal length 1076 km

Number of Coastal districts 13
Number of Fishing Villages 608
Marine Fisherfolk Population 8.11 lakh *
Fishing Crafts Registered (online)
1. Mechanized Fishing boats 5600
2. Traditional Crafts (motorized and
27426
non motorized)
Infrastructure Facilities
Major Fishing Harbours 3 (Chennai, Thoothukudi and Chinnamuttom)
Major Fishing Harbours under 6 (Thengapattinam, Colachel, Muttom,
construction Nagapattinam, Pazhayar and Poompuhar)
Medium Fishing Harbours 5
Jetties 8
Beach landing centres 363
Marine fishing production (2012-13) 4.28 lakh ton
Export (2012 - 13) 77,791 MT ** (Value Rs. 2995 crore)
*Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk Census 2010, ** MPEDA (Tentative figure)
INDOMER
2.3. Description of the project site
The project site is located in the village of Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district in Tamil
Nadu. Tharangambadi is situated 12 km north of Karaikal. The location map is shown in Fig.
2.1.
The airport located near Tharangambadi is Trichy Airport (128 km). It can be reached
through East Coast Road (ECR) running nearby and there are also buses to Chennai, Trichy,
Coimbatore, Madurai and other important towns.
The railway station located near Tharangambadi is the Mayiladuthurai railway station which
is about 40 km from the village. The railway line extended upto Tharangambadi is defunct.
The main objective of the development of a fishing harbour at Tharangambadi is to develop

the Tsunami destroyed Fish Landing centre into a protected fishing harbour basin in order to
facilitate fishing operation at all stages of weather conditions including Tsunami. After
detailed evaluation of various terrestrial and marine environmental parameters, availability
of backup land, distance from archaeological monuments (Danish Fort) and historical
monuments (Masillamaninathar Temple), and road connectivity etc., the present site has
been selected. The suitability of the site was finalized after discussion with the Stake holders
from the neighbouring villages at a meeting held on 08.08.14.
2.4. Existing Infrastructures at Tharangambadi
Tharangambadi village was one of the coastal villages, which suffered extensive damages
when Tsunami waves hit the coast of Tamil Nadu during December 2004. As a measure of
immediate protection to the coast, rubble stones quarried form the nearby areas were
placed along the coast for about 1 km towards north from Danish Fort to control erosion.
Other infrastructures available within the close proximity of project site are shown in
Table 2.5.
INDOMER
Table 2.5. Existing Infrastructure facilities at the project site and its environ
Sl.No Existing facility Remarks

1 Auction hall Within project site
2 Fish drying yard Within project site
3 Shore protection Seawall - 1100 m Within and near the project site
4 Storm drain Nearby project site
5 Danish Fort (archaeological monument) 675 m away from project site
Masilamaninathar Temple (Historical 510 m away from project site
6
monument)
7 Three roads connecting the project area Near project site
Brief description
 The existing auction hall (18 m x 5 m) has no separate bays for fish processing and
auctioning. There is no proper sanitation facility to maintain good and hygienic
standards. Because of this, the fishermen are currently using the auction hall as net
mending shed.
 A fish drying platform of size 18 m x 12 m is located nearly 180 m away on the north
side of the existing auction hall.
 Seawall is built along the stretch of about 1100 m mostly on the southern side of the
proposed harbour.
 Storm drain is present on the west side of the proposed project location. It mostly
drains the flood water during northeast monsoon for few days after a long spell of
rain.
 The Danish Fort, an archaeologically important place is located at a distance of
675 m away from the proposed southern breakwater. The Danish fort is also an
important tourist place in Tamil Nadu.
 Three roads giving access to the project site and is presently used by the fishermen
to gain access to the coastline in connection with their fish handling operations.
2.5. Other Infrastructures
Utilities/services
 Private Ice supply points for supplying ice for FRP Boats and MFV Vessels are located
near by the site
INDOMER
 The RCC high level Bridge constructed by PWD - WRO authorities in the approach road
to this site is in a damaged condition. A new bridge for the approach road to be
constructed and road connectivity to be given to the site
 There is Diesel Bunk available nearby site operated by Fishermen Co-operative society
which can be shifted and made use of after completion of this project
 Taluk Hospitals
 Indian Bank
 Post Office
 PPN Power plant of 430 MW - Gas based
 Chettinad Power Plant of 1320 MW - Coal based (Proposed)
Uppanar River
Uppanar is a major Brackish River connected to the Storm drain on the Southern side of
Danish Fort but its mouth gets closed major part of the year, i.e. other than November and
December.
Masilamaninathar temple
This temple is the oldest monument to survive in Tharangambadi. This was built by a king
Maravarman Kulasekara Pandiyan in 1305 AD. This Temple originally had three Mandapams
out of which two had gone into the sea. The inner most mandapam, a tottering structure is
in a precarious condition. Rubble mound Seawall laid by PWD - WRO Department protects
the temple by controlling erosion of beach near this temple.
INDOMER
GALLERY
Auction hall
Shore protection measures
INDOMER
Danish fort
Masilamaninathar temple
INDOMER
3. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SCREENING
3.1. Physical Environmental Screening
3.1.1. Natural Calamities
The past history shows that Nagapattinam district is exposed to natural calamities
particularly due to storms, cyclones, storm surge and tsunami. The damage is caused mainly
due to cyclones than any other natural calamities. The past history of the natural calamities
over the last sixty years is shown in Tables 3.1 to 3.4.
Table 3.1. Past history of natural calamities
Sl. Date of
Calamity Damages caused
No. occurrence
Storm wage in land upto
1 30.11.1952 -
5 miles
2 08.12.1967 Cyclone 7 lives and 15000 rendered homeless.
560 lives and 196 missing and damages to Port,
3 12.11.1977 Cyclone Irrigation systems, Road, Power supply and
communication including large No. of houses.
Floods due to heavy Crops damaged in large scale and affected normal
4 01.12.1984
rain. life due to heavy floods.
5 15.11.1991 Heavy rainfall Crops damaged.
Cyclone speed 1100 people lost their live hood Heavy damage to
6 04.12.1993
188 kmph. crop.
6065 life loss. 12821 cattle loss. 791 missing, 1922
7 26.12.2004 Tsunami waves injured. Houses loss and damages to shops and
building, business people.
Nisha Cyclone speed 20 Life Loss, 1174 cattle, 3 injured and 4,58,949
8 27.11.2008
80 kmph houses were damaged.
10 Life loss, 1492 Cattle loss, 56025 Huts, Pucca
11/2010
and Katcha houses were damaged. Paddy
9 and Heavy rain fall
76419 Hects, 461 Hects Horticulture and 28 Hects
12/2010
Ground nut crops were also damaged.
Hut damages partly 1468, Fully 24. Cattle loss 49.
10 31.12.2011 Thane Cyclone Crop loss 50,931.58 Hectares in all of Paddy, Sugar
cane, Banana and Ground nut.
INDOMER
Table 3.2. Details of cyclones that crossed Tamil Nadu coast during the period 1950 - 2000
District Intensity Jan Mar Apr May Oct Nov Dec Total
Kancheepuram Cyclone 1 0 0 0 3 6 1 11
Thiruvallur Severe
(Chengalpat) 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 7
Cyclone
Cuddalore Cyclone 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 4
Villupuram Severe
(South Arcot) 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 7
Cyclone
Cyclone 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 5
Nagapattinam
Tiruvarur Severe
1 0 0 0 0 4 5 10
Cyclone
Cyclone 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Ramanathapuram Severe
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Cyclone
Cyclone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tuticorin
Tirunelveli Severe
0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
Cyclone
Cyclone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kanyakumari Severe
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Cyclone
Cyclone 2 0 1 2 4 11 1 21
Total (Break Up) Severe
1 1 0 2 2 14 10 30
Cyclone
Source: Indian Meteorological Department (IMD)
Table 3.3. Cyclonic storm that crossed the coast between Chennai and Nagapattinam (1946-2011)
Max estimated
Sl. Max
Year Month Period wind speed – ECP Hpa
No. intensity
kmph
1 1946 Nov 14-21 CS 83 -
2 1952 Nov 26-30 SCS 200 -
3 1958 Nov 18-28 CS 91 996.0
4 1960 Nov 18-20 CS 109 995.7
5 1962 May 15-22 CS 83 994.0
6 1963 Oct 19-24 SCS 139 984.2
7 1964 Nov 03-08 SCS 116 995.8
8 1966 Apr/May 28-04 SCS 116 996.7
9 1966 Nov 01-11 SCS 189 961.0
10 1966 Nov 25-30 SCS 114 991.5
INDOMER
11 1967 Dec 04-08 SCS 131 988.0

12 1969 Oct 21-23 CS 105 995.0
13 1972 Dec 01-08 SCS 131 984
14 1977 Nov 08-23 SCS 185 984.7
15 1984 Nov/Dec 27-02 SCS 78 990.3
16 1991 Nov 11-15 CS 100 990.0
17 1993 Dec 01-04 SCS 198 974.0
18 1994 Oct 29-31 SCS 65-85 (G-132) 990.0
19 1996 Nov/Dec 28-06 SCS 120 -
20 2000 Nov 26-30 SCS 189 -
21 2008 Nov 26-27 SCS 63 -
22 2011 Dec 30-31 SCS 140 -
SCS -Severe Cyclonic Storm
CS -Cyclonic Storm
Table 3.4. Details of Cyclonic Storms / Depressions affected Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu
Sl. Date of
System Place of Crossing Details of Damages
No Crossing
Caused torrential rain in Tamil Nadu during the period
3-6th Cuddalore recorded 38 cm rainfall on 4th and
Ootacamund recorded 33 cm on 5th. Floods and
1 DD 4th Nov Cuddalore landslides due to heavy to very heavy rain took a toll of
120 lives in Tamil Nadu of which 90 were in Nilgiris
District. Considerable damage to houses and crops
were reported in Tamil Nadu.
Heavy to very heavy rainfall occurred in many places in
Chingleput District in Tamil Nadu. Chennai City
Crossed Andhra recorded 25 cm rainfall on 13th SHAR experienced
Coast close to winds of hurricane strength for more than 24 hours on
SHAR. System 13th / 14th with peak wind speed in gusts reaching 174
14th Nov.
2 SCS moved parallel kmph. Two rain bridges between Sulurpet and Tada
1984
and close to were washed away disrupting the rain traffic between
Tamil Nadu Chennai and Nellore. System claimed 54 lives in Tamil
coast. Nadu of which 17 were in Chennai city. Damage to
property and crops in Madras District were put around
crores.
Widespread rain occurred over Tamil Nadu with
scattered heavy to very heavy falls. About 15,000
persons in Thanjavur District and 20,000 persons in
North Tamil
1st Dec. South Arcot District were affected by the cyclone.
3 SCS Nadu Coast
1984 Standing crops in about 50,000 acres in Mayiladuthurai
North of Karaikal.
and Nagapattinam taluks of Thanjavur District were
submerged due to heavy rains. Two villages were
reported have been marooned.
INDOMER
Gale force winds of 80-90 kmph were confined to a

strip of about 70 kms along the Coast. And 15.20 kms
Between
th inland. Several stations in Tamil Nadu reported rainfall
15 Nov. Nagapattinam
4 CS exceeding 20 cms on 15th. Seven coastal Districts
1991 and Cuddalore
reported widespread damages to standing crops and
near Karaikal
properties due to inundation by flood waters. About
300 people lost their lives.
Karaikal and neighbouring areas reported gale force
winds of 198 kmph in gusts. On account of torrential
rains in coastal Tamil Nadu. Extensive damage to
property and standing crops has been reported. About
4th Dec. 100 people lost their lives. Total loss of property and
5 VSCS Karaikal
1993 damage to standing crops has been estimated to be
about Rs. 700 crores. The system affected a population
of 4.5 lakhs. Storm surge of 3-4 m occurred along the
coastal stretch of 50-60 kms with sea water inundation
inland upto about 22 kms.
Chennai City recorded winds of 80 kmph gusting to
132 kmph at the time of landfall. Cyclone caused heavy
31st Oct. to very heavy rainfall in North Tamil Nadu. Due to gale
6 SCS Chennai
1994 force winds and heavy rains 69 persons lost their lives.
Damage to crops. Structures and roads were estimated
around Rs. 60 crores.
Impact of the cyclone was felt in the coastal belt of
6th Dec. North Tamil Nadu in the form of gale force winds
7 SCS Mahabalipuram
1996 exceeding 100 kmph over Chennai city and suburbs.
No loss of life has been reported.
Gales of the order of 100-110 kmph experienced in
Cuddalore / Pondicherry. Part of Nagapattinam and
Villupuram Districts. 10 persons lost their lives in Tamil
8 VSCS 29th Nov. Cuddalore
Nadu and 2 in Pondicherry. Loss to crop and partial
damage of Kutcha houses - No floods. Rain Thozhdur
45 cms. Kilacheruvai 45 cms.
No serious damage reported in Tamil Nadu and
9 CS 26th Nov. Karaikal Karaikal but damages reported on 26th caused
widespread wind and heavy rainfall.
DD – Depression; SCS – Severe Cyclonic Storm; CS – Cyclonic Storm; VSCS - Very Severe Cyclonic Storm
The morphology of this region is influenced by the 3 climatic conditions, viz., southwest
monsoon (June - September), northeast monsoon (mid October to mid February) and fair
weather period (March to May). Unlike the northern part of the east coast of India, the
southern part of the coast is influenced more by the northeast monsoon conditions than
those during the other two seasons.
INDOMER
Waves
Wave action prevails high during northeast monsoon followed by southwest monsoon. The
coastal currents within 2 km distance from the shore are greatly influenced by wind
followed by tides. The nearshore remains more dynamic and turbulent due to persistent
action of seasonal wind, high waves and coastal currents. The volume of littoral drift is
relatively low with the annual net drift close to equal on either direction (nodal drift).
Rainfall
The major part of the northeast monsoon rain takes place during October to December
which contributes 60% of total annual rainfall. There will be a scattered rain during
southwest monsoon period between June and September. The annual normal rainfall in
Nagapattinam District is 1173 mm.
3.1.2. Coastal waters
Examination of water quality of this region indicated that the nearshore water is well mixed
without any stratification and they do not differ substantially both in vertical and spatial
directions. Various results on the chemical and biological parameters indicated that the
water is well oxygenated, nutrient rich and biologically productive at primary and secondary
levels. The sub-tidal benthic fauna is moderately rich in diversity and numbers compared to
inter tidal benthic fauna.
3.1.3. Biological parameters
The marine flora and fauna also indicate the existence of diverse population. The area is rich
in fishery both pelagic and demersal. In general, the dominant catches are fishes such as
sharks, skates, oil sardines, lesser sardines, Thrissocles, Perches, Caranx, Chirocentrus,
anchovies, silver bellies, seerfish, eels, ribbon fish, clupeides, Sphyraena sp., mullets,
Leiognathus, mackerels, tunnies, Pomfrets, sciaenids, Trichiuridae, crabs (Portunus
sanguinolentus) and penaeid prawns represented by Penaeus monodon, P. indicus,
INDOMER
Metapenaeus monoceros and M. dobsoni. The study on various oceanographic parameters

and the information on adjacent region indicate that the coastal water is clean and highly
productive.
3.1.4. Tsunami impact
As indicated in earlier sections, the Tsunami of December 2004 resulted in heavy disastrous
effects in terms of human loss, damages to property including the fishing gears, boats etc. in
Tharangambadi. Nagapattinam district was the most affected part in Tamil Nadu, accounting
for 6,064 out of the total casualties of 8009 in the state. A large number of the casualties
were from the fishing community, who were living close to the seashore. The property
losses impacted the fishing industry, as most of the boats were damaged by the inundation
besides heavy loss of cattle, houses and property. The fisheries sector suffered very severe
damages never before witnessed in this region. Tharangambadi fishing village was almost
totally swept into the sea and a sizeable number of the fishing community lost their life on
the early hours of 26.12.04. All boats beached on the shore were washed into the sea. The
type and the extent of destruction still remain a nightmare among the surviving fisher folks.
3.1.5. Littoral drift
This particular coast is exposed with relatively low littoral drift and it almost remains a nodal
littoral drift. However, there will be marginal erosion expected on the north side of the
northern breakwater and deposition on the south side of the southern breakwater. The
places of archaeological importance like Danish Fort, Masilamaninathar temple will be
protected by the accumulation of sand on southern side of the south breakwater. Beach
stabilization aspect that may be required on the northern side will be studied and
appropriate remedial measures will be suggested.
INDOMER
3.1.6. CRZ related aspects
Danish Fort: It is a Government notified Archaeological protected monument and the

notification specifies 100 m radius as the Prohibited Area. Therefore the southern boundary
of the proposed fishing harbour and also the southern breakwater are planned leaving
675 m from the port, i.e. 575 m from the prohibited zone the Fort.
3.2. Socio Economic Screening
Tharangambadi is a place having the historical Danish Fort. The fishing village is actively
engaged in fishing activities over several centuries and has glorious past dating back to Tamil
rulers ending in Danish and British rule in the later part of the History. Tharangambadi
Beach had been identified as an ‘Ozone Rich Beach’ due to prevalence of excessive dose of
Ozone Breeze.
Social Status: There are six coastal Taluks in Nagapattinam District and they are Kilvelur,
Nagapattinam, Tharangambadi, Vedaranyam, Sirghazhi and Poompuhar. Tharangambadi
taluk comprises ten fishing villages with a total Fisherman population of 14468 comprising
7485 males and 6983 females. The details are furnished in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5. Fishermen population
Sl.
Village Population Male Female
No.
1 Chinnamedu 678 367 311
2 Chinnangudi 2456 1276 1180
3 Thazhampettai 497 268 229
4 Pudupettai 1342 684 658
5 Perumalpettai 1425 737 688
6 Vellakoil 437 247 190
7 Kuttiyandiyur 1409 721 688
8 Tharangambadi 4514 2295 2219
9 Chandrapadi 1514 796 718
10 Chinnoorpettai 196 94 102
Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk Census 2010.
INDOMER
Other details concerning socio economic screening such as employment status, education,
literacy, income details etc. are briefly shown in Tables 3.6 to 3.10.
Table 3.6. Employment status of fisher folk
Fresh Employed
Sl. Net Allied
Village Fishing Fish Others Total
No. Making Activities Govt. Pvt.
Trade
1 Chinnamedu 176 21 - - 2 18 4 221
2 Chinnangudi 662 238 - 2 17 42 8 969
3 Thazhampettai 103 17 - 1 1 - 11 133
4 Pudupettai 336 4 - 2 9 3 60 414
5 Perumalpettai 311 115 6 3 7 28 5 475
6 Vellakoil 120 15 1 7 1 7 1 152
7 Kuttiyandiyur 344 120 - - 1 35 18 518
8 Tharangambadi 1036 233 5 7 29 44 60 1414
9 Chandrapadi 406 87 1 1 3 7 17 522
10 Chinnoorpettai 50 5 - - - - 2 57
Table 3.7. Literacy status of fisher folk
Sl. Literate Literacy Rate

Village Illiterate
No. Degree Non-degree (%)
1 Chinnamedu 16 511 63 89.32

2 Chinnangudi 42 1818 311 85.63
3 Thazhampettai 11 340 86 80.32
4 Pudupettai 45 884 289 76.27
5 Perumalpettai 77 987 203 83.98
6 Vellakoil 17 342 29 92.53
7 Kuttiyandiyur 33 1090 125 89.98
8 Tharangambadi 220 2861 803 79.33
9 Chandrapadi 67 1015 253 81.05
10 Chinnoorpettai 2 130 39 77.19
INDOMER
Table 3.8. Income status of fisher folk families
Rs. 24,000 Rs. 35,000 Rs. 50,000

Sl. Upto Above
Village to to to Total
No. Rs. 24,000 Rs. 1,00,000
35,000 50,000 1,00,000
1 Chinnamedu 201 11 8 14 1 235
2 Chinnangudi 932 20 11 10 16 989
3 Thazhampettai 153 3 5 1 0 162
4 Pudupettai 431 6 8 17 4 466
5 Perumalpettai 850 68 15 9 2 944
6 Vellakoil 150 12 0 1 0 163
7 Kuttiyandiyur 592 52 16 4 2 666
8 Tharangambadi 1393 71 25 5 1 1495
9 Chandrapadi 507 41 1 0 0 549
10 Chinnoorpettai 76 0 0 0 0 76
Table 3.9. Housing facilities - Residential status
Residential Status
Sl.
Village Lite Others Total
No. Thatched Tiled Concrete
roofed
1 Chinnamedu 6 0 7 150 1 164
2 Chinnangudi 83 11 38 422 1 555
3 Thazhampettai 8 0 0 108 0 116
4 Pudupettai 42 1 7 271 0 321
5 Perumalpettai 64 0 19 259 0 342
6 Vellakoil 9 0 2 87 1 99
7 Kuttiyandiyur 35 0 32 255 0 322
8 Tharangambadi 37 11 12 1002 0 1062
9 Chandrapadi 63 1 48 237 0 349
10 Chinnoorpettai 0 0 0 51 0 51
INDOMER
Table 3.10. Fishing days in a month
Sl.
Village Single day 2 to 5 days 6 to 8 days Above 8 days
No.
1 Chinnamedu 174 0 0 0
2 Chinnangudi 628 26 0 0
3 Thazhampettai 103 0 0 0
4 Pudupettai 331 3 0 0
5 Perumalpettai 303 3 0 1
6 Vellakoil 117 2 0 0
7 Kuttiyandiyur 341 3 0 0
8 Tharangambadi 974 49 0 17
9 Chandrapadi 385 12 1 4
10 Chinnoorpettai 47 0 0 0
Table 3.11. Fishing gears
Types of gears
Sl. No. of Masula
Village Gill Shore Trawl Long- Cast
No. Boats Trap Others Total
Net Seine Net Liners Net
1 Chinnamedu 0 62 7 0 1 1 0 0 71
2 Chinnangudi 2 67 6 2 2 0 2 0 79
3 Thazhampettai 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
4 Pudupettai 1 30 0 6 0 0 0 0 36
5 Perumalpettai 0 15 21 0 0 1 0 6 43
6 Vellakoil 0 10 7 8 0 2 0 6 33
7 Kuttiyandiyur 0 36 37 1 0 0 0 32 106
8 Tharangambadi 9 66 1 5 0 1 0 39 112
9 Chandrapadi 0 15 1 2 0 0 0 36 54
10 Chinnoorpettai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18
INDOMER
Table 3.12. Details of fishing crafts
Sl. Operators (Nos)

Village
No. FRP Vallam MFB
1 Chinnamedu 15 1
2 Chinnangudi 64 22
3 Thazhampettai 26 1
4 Pudupettai 40 53
5 Perumalpettai 54 4
6 Vellakoil 22 3
7 Kuttiyandiyur 45 4
8 Tharangambadi 148 68
9 Chandrapadi 127 26
10 Chinnoorpettai 25 -
To be registered 180 4
Total 746 186
Based on the report by the Asst. Director, Fisheries Department, Nagapattinam – North
Tharangambadi-Heritage Town
Tamil Nadu Government, through its Tourism Department has declared Tharangambadi as
Heritage Town on 30.11.06 understanding its fame. Further, in its GMS 2610 / Education
Department, dt 6.12.80, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued orders declaring Danish
Fort on Danish castle at Tharangambadi as a protected Monument under the act subsection
(1) of section 3 of Tamil Nadu, Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological sites
and issued necessary notification declaring the aforesaid monument as protected
monument under sections 3 (3) of the said act. Also, this was published in Tamil Nadu
Gazette. The total area is of 7.17 acres. Accordingly the boundaries are clearly specified in
the schedule with survey Field number, in Sathankudi village and Mayuram Taluk of Tanjore
District. The project site has taken into consideration, the guidelines issued in the G.O.
PoiyathaPillayar Temple - Built by Kulasekara Pandiyan in 1306 AD.
INDOMER
Tourism
Tharangambadi will become one of the best Tourist Centre and Heritage town in Tamil Nadu
after Development of proposed fishing harbour and other developments. It is a rare
privilege to have a historic Danish Fort so close to the main road (ECR) at a distance of
around 550 m. All tourists travelling in their own vehicles via Tharangambadi will step into
the town and enjoy the beauty of the beach and Ozone breeze.
INDOMER
4. OCEANOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AND SEABED INVESTIGATIONS
More details on the oceanographic measurements and seabed investigations are given in
the report Task Module 2 - Feasibility report “Development of Fishing Harbour at
Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu - Feasibility report”. Some of the salient
findings are described below.
4.1. Physical Parameters
4.1.1. Wind
In order to get the wind climate for the project region, the wind data are extracted from the
National center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). The NCEP dataset contains the
easterly and northerly Components wind over a spatial grid of 0.5 x 0.5 at 6 hourly
intervals. The wind data were compiled for one year over one grid viz., Latitude: 11.0°N to
11.5°N and Longitude: 80.0°E to 80.5°E. The monthly wind roses are shown in Fig. 4.1
4.1.2. Waves
The directional wave data measured close to project site at 15 m water depth are presented as
monthly wave roses in Fig. 4.2. The predominant wave characteristics at 15 m water depth are
given in Table 4.1.It shows that the significant wave height is around 0.5 m from March to May,
0.75 m from June to October, 0.75 m and 1.25 to 1.5 m from November to February. The
predominant zero crossing wave periods remain around 5 s over the whole year. The
predominant wave direction prevails around 90° during March to May, 100° to 105° in June to
October, and 65° to 85° in November to February. The frequent occurrence of storms and
depressions during northeast monsoon from October to February would temporarily increase
the wave activity in this region.
INDOMER
Table 4.1. Predominant wave characteristics at 15 m water depth (Measured)
Significant Zero crossing Predominant

Month Wave height Wave period Wave direction
(m) (s) (deg. N)
January 1.5 5 85
February 1.25 5 85
March 0.5 5 80
April 0..5 5 90
May 0.5 5 90
June 0.75 5 105
July 0.75 5 105
August 0.75 5 100
September 0.75 5 100
October 0.75 5 100
November 1.25 5 65
December 1.25 5 75
Operational window
The operational window for different significant wave heights based on measured data is
shown in Table 4.2. It shows that the significant wave heights are less than 2.0 m
throughout the year except during cyclonic days.
Table 4.2. Operational Window
Number of days more than the

Month specified wave height
>0.5 >1.0 >1.5
January 31 17 1
February 29 14 1
March 18 - -
April 16 1 -
May 22 1 1
June 29 3 -
July 22 - -
August 27 1 -
September 28 2 -
October 26 2 -
November 24 8 1
December 31 25 2
Sum 303 74 6
Percentage 82 20 2
INDOMER
Design waves
The 3 hourly measured wave data on significant wave height for one year were subjected to
long term wave statistics and for the estimation of design waves for different design period.
The design significant wave heights were estimated using Weibull statistical distribution.
Based on the Weibull distribution, the design wave heights for different return periods are
shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3. Design wave heights
Design significant
Return period
wave height
(years)
(m)
2 2.5
5 2.9
10 3.1
25 3.5
50 3.7
4.1.3. Storm
The number of cyclones occurred within the vicinity of 150 km to the project location
between the years 1877 and 2011 are shown in Table 4.4. The Totally 99 cyclones had
occurred in 135 years, out of which 46 storms had occurred in November followed by 20
storms in October.
Table 4.4. Number of cyclones crossed the coast within 150 km (1877 and 2011)
Occurred in 150 km
Month
vicinity
January 3
February 1
March 1
April 3
May 7
June -
July -
August -
September -
October 20
November 46
December 18
Total 99
INDOMER
4.1.4. Tides
The measurements were carried out for the period of 30 days from 15.09.14 to 15.10.14.
The tide data were recorded at 15 minute interval. The measured water levels were reduced
to Chart Datum (CD) and the variation of tides is shown in Fig. 4.3. The measured tides at
site show that the tides are semidiurnal. The spring tidal range existed around 0.90 m and
the neap tidal range existed around 0.35 m. The tide levels reported for Nagapattinam with
reference to CD are given below.
Nagapattinam
Tide
(Predicted tide table, SOI, 2014)
Mean High water Spring 0.65 m
Mean High Water Neap 0.47 m
Mean Sea Level 0.34 m
Mean Low Water Neap 0.20 m
Mean Low Water Spring 0.03 m
4.1.5. Currents
The measurement of currents at 1 km offshore for the period of 15 days from 05.10.14 to
20.10.14 is shown in Fig. 4.4. It shows that they vary between 0.08 and 0.2 m/s. The
influences of tide are not seen in the measured current data. The current direction
predominantly remained between 130° and 220°.
4.2. Topographic Survey
The Topographic survey was carried out 2600 m along the coast and 750 m over the region
where land facilities are proposed.
4.2.1. Bench Marks
PBM: The Naval Hydrographic Office, Dehradun has established a PBM in Berth No. 1 at
Karaikal Port. The details of this PBM are:
INDOMER
Geographical Coordinates UTM Coordinates Reference Reduced

(WGS 84) (Zone 44) Level Level *
Description
w.r.t. MSL w.r.t. CD
Latitude, N Longitude, E X (m) Y (m)
(m) (m)
PBM
Karaikal Port - 10˚49’54.38” 79˚50’56.28” 0374178 1197616 (+) 3.910 (+) 4.250
Berth 1
*MSL = (+) 0.34 m w.r.t. CD as per the records of Indian Tide Table.
4.2.2. Indomer Bench Mark (IBM-6)
The reference Level of PBM was then carried over to the site and Indomer has fixed Bench
Mark called IBM-6 for the future reference at site. The description of IBM-6 is: Concrete
block 20 cm x 20 cm projecting 50 cm above ground and is embedded with ‘INDOMER’
engraved steel plate. The details are:
Geographical Coordinates UTM Coordinates Reference Reduced

(WGS 84) (Zone 44) Level Level *
Description
w.r.t. MSL w.r.t. CD
Latitude, N Longitude, E X (m) Y (m)
(m) (m)
IBM - 6
engraved metal
cap Concrete
10˚31’13.81” 79˚51’39.25” 0375356 1163188 (+) 2.403 (+) 2.743
block erected at
Tharangambadi
near wind mill
IBM-6 Concrete Block at site
TBM: The reference Level of PBM was then carried over and transferred to fifteen locations
called Temporary Bench Marks (TBM 1 to TBM 15) at Tharangambadi site. The details of the
established TBMs are given below.
INDOMER
Geographical Coordinates UTM Coordinates RL

Description (WGS 84) (Zone 44) w.r.t.
Latitude, N Longitude, E X (m) Y (m) CD (m)
Nagoor Fishing Harbour septic tank top level (Near overhead tank)
TBM - 1
10˚49’27.17” 79˚50’48.97” 0373953 1196781 (+) 3.863
Nagoor Fishing Harbour benchmark pillar top along left side of entrance gate
TBM - 2
10˚49’25.83” 79˚50’47.93” 0373921 1196740 (+) 3.326
Community hall terrace in Chinnoorpettai Village(Near government school)
TBM - 3
10˚59’11.01” 79˚51’9.56” 0374646 1214714 (+) 8.111
Floor level of well near Seethala Devi Amman temple in Chandrabadi village
TBM - 4
10˚59’47.65” 79˚51’13.96” 0374784 1215839 (+) 3.270
Front Side cement floor of Seethala Devi Amman temple in Chandrabadi village
TBM - 5
10˚59’47.29” 79˚51’14.19” 0374791 1215828 (+) 2.871
Top level of concrete platform (Near boat landing area) in Chandrabadi village
TBM - 6
10˚59’59.93” 79˚51’15.59” 0374835 1216216 (+) 3.497
Second step left corner of Sri MahaKaliamman Temple In Chandrabadi Village
TBM - 7
10˚59’59.99” 79˚51’11.38” 0374707 1216206 (+) 3.077
Top level of the culvert in Tharangambadi to Karaikal route main road
TBM - 8 (Near Uppanar river bridge)
11° 01’ 28.88” 79° 50’ 56.39” 374262.5 1218950.7 (+) 4.552
Pillar basement level at the road junction along the side of Tharangambadi village office
TBM - 9
11° 01’ 34.24” 79° 51’ 2.64” 374452.9 1219114.9 (+) 3.404
Platform level to the right side of Danish Fort entrance
TBM - 10
11° 01’ 30.81” 79° 51’ 20.66” 374999.3 1219007.4 (+) 3.424
Front Side of Masilamaninather temple in Tharangambadi, near Nandhi statue
TBM - 11
11° 01’ 35.41” 79° 51’ 23.86” 375097.1 1219148.3 (+) 3.472
Platform top level opposite to AngalaParmeswari amman Temple, Tharangambadi
TBM - 12
11° 01’ 45.70” 79° 51’ 21.42 ” 375024.2 1219464.7 (+) 4.269
Entrance of Renugadevi amman Temple, left side corner of second step
TBM - 13
11° 01’ 50.55” 79° 51’ 15.65” 374849.7 1219614.4 (+) 3.054
Top level of concrete platform, existing auction hall at Tharangambadi village
TBM - 14
11° 01’ 52.07” 79° 51’ 19.71” 374973.2 1219660.4 (+) 3.615
Wind mill concrete pedestal at Tharangambadi (Existing Auction hall)
TBM - 15
11° 01’ 53.46” 79° 51’ 19.65” 374971.4 1219703.1 (+) 3.559
4.2.3. Topographical map
The topographical survey charts are prepared covering an area of 2600 m along the coast
and 750 m inland in WGS 84 spheroid with UTM coordinates supplemented by Geographical
coordinates indicating the latitude and longitude. The ground elevations are represented
INDOMER
above Chart Datum (CD). The topography map representing the proposed fishing harbour
area is also presented in scale 1:4000 in Fig. 4.5.
Storm drain is present on the west side of the proposed project region is running parallel to
the coastline approximately a distance of 150 m from the shoreline at an average width of
15 m joining with Uppanar River. The Uppanar River is running southern side of the project
area and Renugadevi temple is identified 200 m from shoreline with elevation of (+) 2.7 m
and Masilamani Nathar temple at 70 m from shoreline with elevation of (+) 3.4 m. The
survey data shows that the maximum elevation is about (+) 4.4 m w.r.t CD which is nearby
Masilamani Nather temple. The historical fort called Danish fort is present around 750 m
south of the project region. The southwest side of the project region is mostly residential
area occupied by the local fisher folks with some small scale industries like ice factories.
Stagnant water was observed during monsoon season near the coast as freshwater runoff.
4.3. Seabed Surveys
4.3.1. Bathymetry Survey
The bathymetry map prepared in 1:10000 scale covering the fishing harbour region is
presented in Fig. 4.6. The variation of depth is even with contours running parallel to the
coastline. Bathymetry contours upto 8 m depth are comparatively closer with steep gradient
of 1:70 slope. Beyond 8 m water depth till 13 m depth, the seabed is relatively flat with
1:140 slope. The occurrence of water depth with distance from shoreline is shown in
Table 4.5.
INDOMER
Table 4.5. Water depth with distance
Depth w.r.t. CD Distance from shoreline

(m) (m)
3 200
4 300
5 350
6 400
7 450
8 550
9 700
10 900
11 1200
12 1500
13 1800
4.3.2. Shallow seismic survey
The processed seismic data leading to the existing sediment thickness above the acoustic
basement are presented in Isopach map in 1:10000 scale and is shown in Fig. 4.7. The
typical sea floor records derived from seismic survey along different transects are also
shown in Fig. 4.7.
The seismic reflection signify that there are three sediment layers occurred below seabed
i.e. layer 1, layer 2 and layer 3. Layer 1 consists of silty clay with an average thickness of 2 to
6 m, beneath which is layer 2 consisting of silty sand with an average thickness of 1 to 3 m
and further down is the layer 3 consisting of sand with an average thickness of 2 to 4 m.
Central point of the survey area i.e. at 800 m distance from the shore the sediment
thickness is approximately recorded 7 m below the seabed.
The subsurface sediment of the survey area appears to be mostly composed of silty sand,
sand and silty clay. The seismic penetration indicates that the minimum sediment thickness
is varying from 4 to 14 m below the seabed in the survey area. This means, at the shoreward
end of the study area the sediment thickness below sea floor is atleast 4 m. Because
multiple backscattering signals (due to shallow depth) limit further penetration and results
INDOMER
as acoustic basement. Beneath the seabed three sediment layers exist. In this survey region,
the shallow seismic data does not show any presence of hard strata within the penetration
limit. The sediment stratum below the seabed is composed of three layers. Layer 1 consists
of silty clay, beneath this layer 2 consists of silty sand and further down the layer 3 consists
of sand. This upward fining stratum indicates gradational deposition in calm environment.
Overall sediment thickness in the study area is varying from at least 4 m in the nearshore to
14 m in the seaward end of the study area. The survey region is found to be free from
formation of like rocks, sunken objects, wreckage debris or any hard strata within the limit
of penetration.
4.3.3. Side scan sonar survey
Based on the data derived from the side scan records on different transects, the seafloor
characteristics and seabed map in 1:10000 scale is shown in Fig. 4.8. The analysis of side
scan data shows that the seabed in the nearshore area i.e. upto 600 m distance from the
coastline is covered by fine sand. Thereafter the seabed is covered with silty sand with some
of sporadic sand patches. In the middle of the survey area at 900 m distance from the
shoreline, a patch of sand with marginal clay is identified. Southern side nearshore of the
survey area exposed bedrock is identified at 2 m water depth in wave breaking zone. The
side scan sonar survey indicates that the whole seafloor of study area is carpeted with silty
sand with a few small surficial patches of clay. In the middle part of the survey area, a
bedrock stub is identified at 1 m water depth. This rock stub is about 2 m height. The side
scan data is not covered in this region because of depth constrain. The thick and
widespread blanket of marine mud across the deeper parts of the study area indicates that
oceanographic conditions are typically quite and conducive to deposition.
4.4. Geotechnical Investigations

In order to carry out the foundation design for the shore facilities and marine facilities, bore
hole test were carried out four on land and four in sea. The locations of boreholes on land
and in sea are shown in Fig. 4.9. All the bores and field tests were undertaken by Mars
Synergy Geo Tech Pvt Ltd., Chennai, a local geotechnical firm in accordance with IS.1896 and
IS.2131. The soil samples were taken at various depth and standard laboratory tests were
INDOMER
conducted as per IS. 2720. The borehole operations and the laboratory tests were
supervised by Mars Synergy Geo Tech Pvt Ltd., Dr. Narasima Rao former professor, IITM,
Chennai.
The main features are:

 Making 4 No.s of Boreholes on land and 4 No.s of Boreholes in sea
 Collecting soil samples at regular depth intervals
 Conducting SPTs at every 1.0 m/1.50 m depth intervals
 Conducting laboratory tests on samples collected
 Submitting report with laboratory test results and recommendation for foundations.
In general, on the land side, the soil profiles are fairly uniform, up to a depth of 6 to 7 m at
the top with medium dense to dense sandy layers followed by 6 to 7 m thick soft clay below.
Below the soft clay layer there are dense sand layer and hard clay layer found in land based
bores.
In the Marine borehole, the soil profile is more or less similar to the land soil formations
excepting that soft clay layer are found even at a shallower depth. The entire geotechnical
report submitted by Development of fishing harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam
District, Tamilnadu - Geotechnical Investigation Report is attached here in Chapter 7.
INDOMER
5. PLANNING OF LAYOUT AND FACILITIES
For better understanding of the entire development process an attempt has been made to
discuss the various task modules leading to preparation of this DPR.
5.1. Tharangambadi-Fishing Village
There are ten coastal villages engaged in fishing activities in Tharangambadi taluk in
Nagapattinam district with a fleet strength of 746 FRP vessels and 186 MFVs. The details of
the Fishing crafts are given in Table 3.12. Generally, each Fishing Harbour is designed for a
specific number of crafts and the number will remain almost constant except that the sizes
may increase when replacement becomes necessary at the end of economic life of crafts.
However, with a view of accommodating some marginal increase in the number of fishing
crafts, the proposed Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi is planned for handling 800 FRPs
and 225 MFVs. This chapter presents the reasons for setting up various shore and marine
facilities. More details on the design of the shore and marine facilities are presented in
Chapters 7 and 8.
5.2. Stake Holders Meeting
With a view to getting the opinion and suggestions of user community of the fishing harbour
and thereby evolving a layout consistent with their requirements, a meeting was arranged
by the fisheries department with the main stakeholders on 08.08.2014. Besides the officials
of the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Department, more than 250 people from 16 fishing villages
within the jurisdiction of Tharangambadi Taluk participated in the meeting. The Joint
Director, Fisheries Department conducted the proceedings. He explained the purpose of
the meeting, which was to seek the suggestions of the stakeholders so that the project, on
completion, would serve the intended purpose. Before taking up the agenda items for
deliberations, he requested MD, Indomer to highlight the salient features of the proposed
project so as to make the general public and the stakeholders in particular become familiar
with the project details and offer suggestions for the betterment of project in totality.
Indomer exhibited a model layout describing the various facilities both offshore and
INDOMER
onshore. MD, Indomer made a power point presentation of various facilities through a
typical model layout (exclusively devised for the occasion) and the timeline for the
implementation of the project.
The interactive session with the stakeholders was very useful and they raised very valid
suggestions based on their experience and the Tsunami effect. The main points which were
relevant to the proposed development that emerged during the interactive session are
summarized in the Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Stake holders’ Demand Vs Acceptance status
Sl. Raised by
Demand / Suggestions Acceptance Status
No. Name Village
Provision of groynes / Accepted (Action by
1 RMS in Chandhirapadi to Shri. Pandurangan Chandhirapadi respective department)
arrest erosion.
Provision for erosion Accepted for
protection by breakwater consideration
2 Shri. Thangaraj Kuttiyandiyur
and separate provision for
FRP boats
Provision for 200 MFC and Accepted.
3 Shri. Rajendran Vellakovil
800 FRP
Provision for Fish drying Accepted.
4 Shri. Rajasekaran Perumal Pettai
area
Provision of Groins / RMS Accepted.
5 Shri. Sudhakar Thalampettai
to prevent erosion
Provision of Groins / RMS Accepted for
6 Shri. Narayanan Chinnangudi
to prevent erosion consideration.
Employment Accepted to provide
opportunities and erosion common facilities for all.
7 protection measures and Shri. Nagaraj Chinnamedu
allocation of facilities on
village basis.
Provision of Bypass road To be considered by
Muslim Samadh
8 upto the proposed fishing Tharangambadi concerned department
Trade Union
harbour
Employment Accepted as inbuilt
9 opportunities at the Shri.Kaja Mydhin Hassan Street component of the
proposed fishing harbour facility.
Provision of Children’s Does not fall within the
Women Self Help
10 park and swimming pool Tharangambadi purview of proposed
Group
development
Provision of Diesel bunk, Provision of Diesel bunk
swimming pool, rail included and swimming
11 connectivity. Nethaji Mandram Tharangambadi pool, rail connectivity to
be taken up by
concerned authority
Provision of Bypass road Does not fall within
12 and football ground Shri. Murugan Tharangambadi purview of the proposed
facility.
INDOMER
Provision of Seamless Included in the facility

13 Shri. Boominathan Tharangambadi
communication tower
Provision of Slipway Included in the
Joint Director
workshop, Heavy duty development.
14 (Fisheries Nagapatinam
transformer, Coal Storage
Department)
facilities, etc…
INDOMER
STAKE HOLDERS MEETING - GALLERY
INDOMER
5.3. Proposed Layout of Fishing Harbour
5.3.1. Factors Considered
i) Adequate length of coastline to provide all marine facilities such as beach landing
facilities for FRPs and full-fledged landing wharf, outfitting wharfs, berthing wharfs,
repair wharfs etc. for the MFVs matching the fishing operational needs
ii) Two breakwaters - one on the south and the other on the north side with appropriate
opening to facilitate movement of crafts to provide a sheltered basin
iii) Adequate depth
iv) Adequate backup area to provide the onshore facilities such as auction hall, net
mending shed, truck parking areas, roads, pavements, boat repair yards etc.
The location of the Fishing Harbour in Tharangambadi with various amenities like Approach
roads and the details of the other water bodies are shown in the Key plan presented in Fig.
5.1.
5.3.2. Access road to Fishing Harbour
The key plan shows the existing road to the proposed Fishing Harbour and the link road
proposed from the Manickapangu village. The neighbouring structures like Danish Fort,
Masilamaninathar Temple and the dwellings of the Tharangambadi town.
5.3.3. Fishing Harbour Layout
The layout of the shore and marine facilities which has been evolved to meet the above
requirements and those of the stake holders is shown in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3. The detailed
layout of the shore facilities proposed for the Fishing Harbour is shown in Fig. 5.4.
The parameters there governed, for the assessment of stretch of coastline requirement for
the development of water front facilities are:
 Beach landing space for FRPs

 Landing wharf for unloading catch for MFVs
INDOMER
 Idle berthing wharf for berthing after unloading

 Outfitting wharf with installations to supply fuel, ice etc.
 Repair wharf for carrying out minor adjustments/repair before sailing
 Boat repair facility yard
These are assessed based on the number of crafts and fishing cycle as shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Fleet details/ fishing cycle

Motorized vessels
Length Landing per boat
Boats Fishing trip (days)
(m) (kg)
17 50 4 350-440
18 50 4 350-450
19 125 5 440-650
FRPs less than
800 1 (daily basis) 20-30
10 m long
Source: Department of Fisheries
Design data
 20% of the FRP vessels may not go to fishing and 10% for trawlers because of
maintenance, minor repairs etc.
 The vessels will go on 4 - 5 days trip and FRPs on daily basis
 During peak season 40% trawlers will arrive in a day with 20% increase in catch
 Turnaround time for MFVs (docking, undocking, loading etc) is assumed to be 9 to 10

minutes depending on the type of vessels
 The average landing wharf length for a boat consists of average length of the boat +
10% spacing between the boats to facilitate safe maneuvering
 Unloading rate for FRPs varies
 Unloading rate for trawlers 4500 kg/hour
INDOMER
The layout now evolved in this DFA is based on various suggestions made by the Technical
Committee at its meeting held on 14/10/2015 followed by various suggestions made by
the CICEF for the improvement of the layout to meet the functional requirements of fishing
vessels in terms of proximity of various shore structures from the wharf and the closed
cycle movement of fishing trawlers. In addition, the sizes of wharf for FRPs and various
categories of trawlers together auction and landling halls and other associated buildings
have been revised.
5.4.2. Fish landing beach/wharf
Below 10 m size FRP - 800 numbers - Landing beach
Generally, for traditional boats (smaller FRP vessels) whose fishing cycle is 1 day, full-
fledged landing facilities are not provided and they are beached perpendicular to the coast
unlike in the case of big trawlers which get berthed alongside the marginal wharf (wharf).
During various interactions and at the stake holders meeting held in August 2015, the local
fishermen expressed their intention to have adequate beach landing area. Accordingly, the
requirement was reviewed again at the Expert Committee meeting held on 06.05.15 and a
coastline of 300 m was considered adequate. This provision falls in line with the facilities
provided for Poombuhar where a beach landing space of 100 m is earmarked for servicing
some 350 nos of 8 m FRPS. If this is taken as a guideline then a beach landing space of 300 m
would technically be capable of meeting the requirements over 1000 FRPs whereas the
maximum number of vessels expected to utilize the Tharangambadi fishing harbour is
estimated at 800. As suggested by the Expert Committee, an exclusive auction hall is
planned for FRPs which will be handling about 16t to 24 t per day.
MFVs-Landing wharf
Landing wharf for 17 m long trawlers
 No. of boats operating per day = 0.9 x (50/4) (4 days trip)

= 11.25
 No. of arrivals in peak hour = 0.4 x 11.25 = 5 numbers
 Average landing per boat = 300 kg
INDOMER
 Peak landing per boat with

Additional 20% catch = 300 x 1.2 = 360 kg
 Total turnaround time for a vessel = 9 mins (Based on ground conditions)
 No of berths to handle = 5 x (9/60) = 1 approx
Length of the landing wharf = 1 (17 + 1.7)
= 18.7 m say 20 m

= 11.25
 No. of arrivals in peak hour = 0.4 x 11.25 = 4.05
= 5 numbers
 Total turnaround time for a vessel = 9 mins (based on ground conditions)
 No of berths to handle = 5 x (9/60) = 1 approx
Length of the landing wharf = 1 (18 + 1.8) = 20 m

= 22.5 (25)
 No. of arrivals in peak hour = 0.4 x 25 = 10 numbers
 Total turnaround time for a vessel = 9 mins (based on ground conditions)
 No of berths to handle = 10 x (9/60) = 2
Length of the landing wharf = 2(20 + 2) = 44 m
Total length of Landing wharf = 85 m
5.4.3. Outfitting wharf
17 m long
 No of boats required outfitting in peak season = 5

 Time taken for each boat to receive fuel, water, ice = 15 minutes
 No of berth required for outfitting in 8 hrs = (5 x 15) / (8 x 60) = 1
Length of outfitting jetty = 1 x 18.7 = say 20 m
INDOMER
18 m long

 No of berth required for outfitting in 8 hrs = 5 x 15 / (8 x 60)=1
Length of outfitting jetty = 1 x 19.8 = say 20 m
19 m long

 No of berth required for outfitting in 8 hrs = (10 x 15) / (8 x 60) =1
Length of outfitting jetty = 1 x 21 = 21 m
Total length of outfitting wharf = 61 m say 60 m
5.4.4. Repair wharf
Provision is made for one 19 m vessel

 20 m = 1 x (19 + 2) = 21 m
 Total repair wharf required = 21 m
Repair wharf = 20 m
5.4.5. Idle berthing wharf length
For designing purposes, it is generally assumed that only 50 percent of the total vessels will
need to be considered. On this basis, the requirements are evaluated.
17 m long
Assuming the boats berth 5 abreast

Idle berthing length required = 0.9 x (17+1.7) x (50/2) x (1/5)
= 84.15 m say 85 m
18 m long

= 89.1 m say 90 m
INDOMER
19 m long

= 236.25 m say 240 m
Total idle berthing wharf = 85 m + 90 m + 240 m = 415 m
The landing wharf - 85 m, outfitting wharf - 60 m, and repair wharf - 20 m in all 165 m will
be available to function as idle berthing wharf and hence a provision of 185 m only is made
instead of 415 m for exclusive idle berthing within the available coast length of 700 m. The
summary of the wharf length is given in Table 5.3
Table 5.3. Summary of wharf length
SI. Coastline/wharf
Type of wharf 17 m 18 m 19 m FRPs
No. length (m)
1 Fish landing wharf FRPs (m) - - - 300 300
Landing wharf (MFV) 20 20 45 85
Exclusive provision
60
2 Outfitting wharf (m) 20 20 22 within 200 m beach
(rounded off)
front
No separate wharf
3 Repair wharf (m) - - 22 20
required
4 Idle-berthing wharf (m) 50 50 150 On beach 185
5 Sloping yard 30 30
Waste disposal & ETP 20 20
TOTAL 700
Note:
 All the wharfs are aligned in a straight line which provides the flexibility to
accommodate the required number of vessels at any point of time depending on the
actual site conditions at the time of berthing.
 The marginal wharf has been designed for accommodating 225 trawlers whereas the
present fleet strength is only 176. The design is made on a conservative side to meet
marginal expansion in future in terms of additional number of trawlers, vessel sizes etc.
 The entire design concept of the wharf is based on docking and undocking time, time
required for unloading of fish, idle time, fishing days etc. which by themselves would
have some cushion built in the system-which may become handy to meet additional
length of wharf during peak hour landing.
INDOMER
In view of the flexibility available on the lines discussed above it is felt that the wharf length
requirement for various uses need to be considered in totality and the built-in cushion
available in the system would meet the additional requirement if any for individual services.
INDOMER
6. MODELLING STUDIES
This section deals with the model studies carried out by Indomer using MIKE 21 software to
study the suitability of the proposed layout in terms of wave tranquillity inside the harbour
basin, shoreline changes and littoral drift movement. Apart from other parameters such as
bathymetry, the main input required for the study is wave climate comprising wave height,
wave period etc. The primary task is to establish these parameters.
6.1. Wave tranquillity
The wave tranquillity studies inside the harbour basin were carried out using the MIKE 21
EMS (Elliptic Mild-Slope) Wave Module.
6.1.1. Model description
MIKE 21 EMS is based on the numerical solution of the ‘mild-slope’ wave equation originally
derived by Berkhoff in 1972. This equation governs the motion of time harmonic water
waves (linear waves) on a gently sloping bathymetry with arbitrary water depth. In case of
constant water depth, the basic equation reduces to the classical Helmholtz equation.
The linear model includes shoaling, refraction, diffraction, wave breaking, bed friction and
back-scattering. Partial reflection and transmission through breakwaters is also included.
Sponge layers are applied where full absorption of wave energy is required, e.g. at offshore
boundaries. The model has been used to determine harbour resonance and seiching as well
as wave transformation in coastal areas. The model also includes a general formulation of
radiation stresses, which apply in crossing wave trains and in areas of strong diffraction and
wave breaking.
MIKE 21 EMS is based on a quiet unique solution method. The time harmonic variation is
subtracted and the elliptic equations are reformulated as mass and momentum type
equations, which are discredited using a Finite Difference scheme. The normal ADI
INDOMER
(alternating direction implicit) algorithm is invoked and the equations are solved by means
of double sweep algorithm.
6.1.2. Basic equations
The MIKE 21 EMS module solves the mild-slope wave equation expressed in two horizontal
dimensions as,
c g  2
  (cc g  )  0
c t 2
where c is the phase celerity, c g is the group velocity and  the surface elevation and 
the horizontal gradient operator.
By introducing the pseudo fluxes P* and Q*, this equation can be rewritten as a system of
first order equations, which are similar to the mass and momentum equations governing
nearly horizontal flows in shallow water,
c g  P  Q
  0
c t x y
P  
 cc g  0
t x
Q 
 cc g  0
t y
The harmonic time variation can be extracted from the above equations by using
  S ( x, y, t )e iwt
P   P(x , y , t )e iwt
Q   Q(x , y , t)eiwt
The time variations in S , P, Q is a slow variation, which is due to the solution procedure i.e.
iteration towards a steady state. This leads to the following set of equations, which have
been generalized to include internal wave generation, absorbing sponge layers, partial
INDOMER
reflection and transmission from breakwaters and other structure, bed friction and wave
breaking.
S P Q
1  2 S    SGeneration
t x x
P S
1  3 P  c g 2 0
t x
Q S
1  3Q  c g 2 0
t y
Where,
cg
1 
c
cg
2  i   fs
c
cg
3  ( i  f p )  f s  e f  eb
c
 - Surface elevation above datum (m)

P - Pseudo flux density in the x-direction (m 3 /m/s)
Q - Pseudo flux density in the y-direction (m 3 /m/s)
S,P,Q - complex function of x, y and t
h - Total water depth = d +  (m)
c - Linear phase velocity (m/s)
cg - Linear group velocity (m/s)
d - Still water depth (m)
g - Gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
 - Wave frequency (1/s)
i - Imaginary unit
SGeneration - Source magnitude per unit horizontal area, m 3 /m/s
INDOMER
6.1.3. Model setup
To ensure a good representation of wave transformation inside the harbour, a highly

detailed model was set up with rectangular grid. The simulation area considered is
approximately 2000 m along the coast and 1700 m into the sea off the coast of
Tharangambadi Village. The grid spacing selected is 5 m in both x and y directions. The grid
system comprised of approximately 1, 36, 000 computational points.
Input
The model requires the following input parameter:
 Bathymetry
 Incoming wave height, period and direction
6.1.4. Simulations
The shoreline orientation near Tharangambadi village, where a fishing harbour is proposed
to be developed, is nearly in the N 9° W direction. The proposed Tharangambadi harbour
opens to the Bay of Bengal on the northern side of the basin. The wave tranquillity studies
were carried out for four incoming wave directions given in the Table 6.1 below:
Table 6.1. Incoming wave parameters
Incoming wave
Wave period
Sl. No. direction w.r.t. Remarks
(s)
North
1 70° 6, 8 and 10 Predominant direction in NE monsoon
2 90° 6, 8 and 10 Predominant direction in NE monsoon
Predominant direction in SW monsoon and
3 110° 6, 8 and 10
fair weather period
4 0° 6, 8 and 10 Hypothetical case - waves direct entry
INDOMER
6.1.5. Results
Incoming wave direction - (N70°E): The wave tranquillity conditions inside the harbour
basin for waves approaching from N70°E with wave periods of 6, 8 and 10 seconds are
shown in Fig. 6.1. The wave roses (Chapter8) indicate that the frequency of occurrence of
waves from N70°E is 15% mostly during October to January in NE monsoon period. It is
observed that the diffraction coefficient of waves entering the harbour reduces to 0.2 at 118
m from the harbour entrance. The diffraction coefficient reduces to <0.1 along the sides of
the harbour basin leading to good tranquillity.
shown in Fig. 6.2. The wave roses (Section 5) indicate that the frequency of occurrence of
waves from N90°E is 15% mostly during October to January in NE monsoon period. It is
observed that the diffraction coefficient of waves entering the harbour reduces to 0.2 at 70
m from the entrance of the harbour. The diffraction coefficient reduces to <0.1 along the
sides of the harbour basin leading to good tranquillity.
shown in Fig. 6.3. The wave roses indicate that the frequency of occurrence of waves from
N110°E is 15% mostly during February to September in SW monsoon and Fair-weather
period. It is observed that the diffraction coefficient of waves entering the harbour reduces
to 0.2 at 30 m from the entrance of the harbour. The diffraction coefficient reduces to <0.1
along the sides of the harbour basin leading to good tranquillity.
Incoming wave direction - (N0°E): The wave tranquillity conditions inside the harbour basin
for waves approaching from N0°E with wave periods of 6, 8 and 10 seconds are shown in
Fig. 6.4. Waves from this direction entering the harbour basin is very rare (frequency of
occurrence <2%). It is observed that the relative wave heights (diffraction coefficient ≡ H’/H)
of the diffracted waves were rapidly reducing from the entrance inside the harbour and
INDOMER
were close to 0.1 along the berthing wharf. The diffraction coefficient of 0.2 was observed
along the breakwater on the eastern side of the basin from the harbour entrance.
Discussion: The wave tranquillity studies were carried out for 4 predominant wave
directions, viz. N70°E, N90°E, N110° and N0°E, for the wave periods of 6, 8 and 10.
Simulation studies indicate that the proposed layout provides adequate shelter for the
waves approaching from these predominant directions giving total tranquillity inside the
harbour basin. Hence, from the point of view of tranquillity requirements, the proposed
layout for breakwaters is acceptable.
6.2. Littoral Drift
The DHI- LITPACK model suite is a convenient tool for studying the coastal processes related
sediment transport in the wave breaking zone. The different modules in DHI- LITPACK model
suite are LITSTP, LITDRIFT, LITLINE, LITTREN, LITPROF, which are used respectively to
estimate the non cohesive sediment transport, longshore current, littoral drift, shoreline
evolution, sedimentation in trenches and cross-shore profile evolution. In the present
study, the littoral sediment transport along the coast has been evaluated using the LITDRIFT
model.
6.2.1. Model Description
LITDRIFT is a deterministic numerical model which consists of two major parts, viz. i) a
hydrodynamic model and ii) a sediment transport model (STP).
The hydrodynamic model includes propagation, shoaling and breaking of waves, calculation
of the driving forces due to radiation stress gradients, momentum balance for the cross-
shore and longshore direction giving the wave setup and the longshore current velocities.
Having computed the longshore current by the hydrodynamic module, points are selected
across the coast, which are representative for the littoral drift estimation. The sediment
transport calculations carried out by the STP module are made to reflect the local conditions
INDOMER
with respect to the energy dissipation, the percentage of non-breaking waves and the rms
values of wave heights.
The total sediment transport is dominated by transport contributions from areas where
wave breaking occurs. This gives the distribution of sediment transport across the profile,
which is integrated to obtain the total longshore sediment transport rate. By considering
the variation in the hydrodynamic climate (e.g. the yearly wind, wave, tide, storm surge and
profile conditions) it is possible to determine the net gross littoral climate at a specific
location. The flowchart of LITDRIFT module is:
SEDIMENT WAVE, WIND & CROSS SHORE

PARAMETERS CURRENT DATA PROFILE
LONGSHORE CURRENT
LONGSHORE TRANSPORT
ESTIMATION
TOTAL DRIFT
The annual drift is evaluated by the contribution of transport from each of the incident
wave occurring over the year. When calculating the annual drift, the wave climate in
LITDRIFT is described at specified intervals in a time series file where each data set describes
the characteristics of incident waves. The duration of the wave incident is given as a fraction
of a year. Then the total annual drift Qannual is calculated as the sum of the contributions
from all incident waves,
NSETS
Q annual   Q (i) .Duration (i)
i 1
S
Where NSETS is the total number of incident waves. The 3 hourly wave data are used as
input.
INDOMER
6.2.2. Model input
The input data for the LITDRIFT module is described below,
i) Orientation of the coast

ii) Bathymetry of the cross shore profile
iii) Time series of wave climate
iv) Sediment parameters
6.2.3. Results
The orientation of shoreline near the proposed Tharangambadi Harbour location is shown in
Fig. 6.5. It is oriented nearly in N 9° W direction in line with the one adopted for Poombuhar
and as recommended by the Expert Committee. In the littoral drift estimation all the
existing geomorphologic features has been considered in the LITDRIFT model.
The measured wave data at 15 m water depth have been given as input to LITDRIFT module
and the littoral drift has been estimated. The monthly volume of littoral drift is presented in
Table 6.2.
INDOMER
Table 6.2. Monthly volume of littoral drift
Quantity
Month (m3/month)
Northerly Southerly
January -22266 18532
February -24382 10837
March -5708 2542
April -13488 2236
May -19423 3030
June -44693 54
July -11505 405
August -27235 61
September -32122 129
October -16383 15576
November -10440 52275
December -8982 78260
ANNUAL -236627 183937
ANNUAL GROSS 0.42 x 10 m3/year
6
ANNUAL NET -0.05 x 106 m3/year

(-) = Northerly direction
(+) = Southerly direction
The littoral drift was towards north from April to September and towards south from
November to February. The total northerly transport was estimated as 2,36,627 m 3/year
and southerly transport was estimated as 1,83,937 m3/year. The total annual gross
transport was found to be 0.42 x 106 m3/year and the annual net transport was estimated to
be 0.05 x 106 m3/year. The littoral drift seems to be higher in the month of June, November
and December and low in the month of October. Compared to rest of east coast, it is
observed that littoral drift in this region appears to be low and tends to be a nodal drift zone
showing the annual drift towards north is almost equal to the drift towards south.
6.3. Shoreline Evolution
The shoreline evolution of the study region is estimated using the LITLINE module of DHI-
LITPACK model suite.
INDOMER
6.3.1. Model description
LITLINE calculates the shoreline position based on input of the wave climate as time series.
This model is based on a one-line theory, in which the cross-shore profile is assumed to
remain unchanged during erosion/accretion. The coastal morphology is solely described by
the shoreline position (cross-shore direction) and the coastal profile at a given long-shore
position. LITLINE calculations are based on a coordinate system in which the x axis is a
baseline that runs parallel to the primary shoreline orientation, while the y-axis runs from
the baseline in offshore direction. “Coastal or coastline profile” is used to denote the
variation of yc in the longshore (x) direction, while the cross-shore profile denotes the water
depth as a function of the cross- shore position relative to the shoreline position yc.
Continuity Equation for Sediment Volumes
The main equation in LITLINE is the continuity equation for sediment volumes expressed by,
y c x  1 Qx  Qsou x 
 
t h act x  x h act x x
Where,
yc(x) - distance from the baseline to the shoreline
t - time
hact(x) - height of the active cross-shore profile
Q(x) - longshore transport of sediment expressed in volumes
X - longshore position
Δx - longshore discretization step
Qsou(x) - source/sink term expressed in volume/Δx.
hact(x) and Qsou(x) are calculated based on user specifications, while the longshore transport
rate Q(x) is determined from tables relating the transport rate to the hydrodynamic
conditions at breaking. Δx is user specified, while Δt is determined from stability criteria.
From an initial shoreline position yinit (x), the evolution in time is determined by solving
continuity equation using an implicit Crank-Nicholson scheme.
The main features of LITLINE shoreline evolution module are as follows,
INDOMER
 Deterministic description of transport rate distribution over the profile

 Measured or pseudo time series as input
 Time varying sediment sources
 Wide range of coastal structures
 Graphics of results while calculating
6.3.2. Model input
The input data for the LITLINE module are:
i) Orientation of the coast

ii) Bathymetry of the cross shore profile
iii) Time series of wave climate
iv) Sediment properties
v) Orientation of structures
6.3.3. Change in shoreline
The shoreline near Tharangambadi is oriented nearly in N 9° W direction, and the layout of
the proposed Harbour is shown in Fig. 5.2.
The simulated shoreline evolution after 1, 5, 10 and 20 years adjacent to the proposed
fishing harbour near Tharangambadi is shown in Fig. 6.5.
After one year: The simulation shows that after a period of one year, the shoreline advances
by 5 m into the sea close to the southern breakwater and the accretion extends to 300 m
along the coast on the southern side. On the northern side of the north breakwater, the
shoreline experiences erosion up to 7 m into the shore and the erosion is noticed for a
distance of nearly 250 m along the coast.
After 5 years: After a period of 5 years, the shoreline advances by 20 m into the sea close to
the southern breakwater and the accretion trend extends 800 m along the coast on the
southern side. On the northern side of the north breakwater, the shoreline experiences
erosion up to 10 m into the shore and the erosion is noticed for a distance of nearly 500 m
along the coast.
INDOMER
After 10 years: After a period of 10 years, the shoreline advances by 25 m into the sea close
to the southern breakwater and the accretion trend extends 900 m along the coast on the
southern side. On the northern side of the north breakwater, the shoreline experiences
erosion up to 15 m into the shore and the erosion is noticed for a distance of nearly 600 m
along the coast.
After 20 years: After a period of 20 years, the shoreline advances by 30 m into the sea close
to the southern breakwater and the trend extends 1200 m along the coast on the southern
side. On the northern side of the north breakwater, the shoreline experiences erosion up to
20 m into the shore and the erosion is noticed for a distance of nearly 750 m along the
coast.
The simulated shoreline changes after 1, 5, 10 and 20 years adjacent to the proposed fishing
harbour near Tharangambadi are shown in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3. Shoreline changes - Years vs Erosion/accretion
Years Erosion Accretion

Into the shore Along the coast Into the sea Along the coast
1 5m 300 m 7m 250 m
5 20 m 800 m 10 m 500 m
10 25 m 900 m 15 m 600 m
20 30 m 1200 m 20 m 750 m
INDOMER
6.4. Shore protection
Generally, port development activities such as construction of breakwaters would alter the
wave climate and in turn the littoral drift, leading to undesirable accretion and erosion along
the coast. Hence, the management of littoral drift in the coastal region becomes an
important issue in port developmental activities.
In the coastal region near Tharangambadi, the net annual littoral drift estimated is relatively
very small. Also, the simulated shoreline evolution adjacent to the proposed fishing harbour
shows that the alterations in the shoreline after 1, 5, 10 and 20 years are not alarming.
Hence, it appears that there is no immediate need for beach nourishment schemes in the
form of beach fill and sand bypassing. However, it is essential to monitor the shoreline
adjacent to the proposed project area periodically, once the work on the proposed project is
initiated. After studying the changes in the shoreline for a few years, appropriate remedial
measures can be identified. In case if erosion is experienced, then the shore protection
groins can be constructed on the northern side and if needed, one on the southern side as
shown in Fig. 6.6. On the northern side of the north breakwater, three groins are proposed
for a length of 80 m, 60 m and 40 m from the HTL at 200 to 250 m spacing depending upon
the location of storm drain mouth and other facilities. Similarly on the southern side of the
south breakwater, one groin of length 80 m can be constructed near the Danish fort. The
exact location of the groin can be identified after observing the beach process during the
operation of the port.
INDOMER
7. DESIGN OF SHORE FACILITIES
7.1. Background
The proposed fishing harbour at Tharangambadi envisages handling mostly FRPs of size less
than 10 m length with a draft of around 1 m numbering to 800 and MFVs of size varying
from 17 m to 19 m length with a draft of 2 m to 2.5 m numbering to 225. The dredging
inside the harbour is proposed dredged depth for (-) 3.5 m CD. The area available is limited
and hence it is proposed to create additional land area by dumping the dredged material
and in the process an area of about 17.2 ha will become available. Because of this artificial
reclamation the depth at the proposed alignment of the wharf wall will be around (-) 2.2 m
CD. The length of the wharf wall to be constructed is about 350 m.
7.2. Geotechnical Properties
In order to ascertain the geotechnical properties of different layers of the soil both on land
and below seabed, 8 bore holes - 4 on land side where the onshore facilities are planned
and 4 in the seaside where the proposed marine facilities such as breakwaters and wharf
wall are to be constructed were carried out and the soil samples were analyzed. The findings
are discussed in Task Module 2 - Feasibility report and the report is again attached in this
report as Annexure A7.1. The results are condensed to the extent necessary for the design
of the proposed shore and offshore facilities.
INDOMER
7.3. Details of shore facilities
The area needed for the development of various shore facilities is arrived by considering a
provision of the following facilities. This will among others include the following items:
 Auction hall - A
 Auction hall - B
 Net mending yards
 Gear cloak rooms
 Administration block
 Generator room
 Electric substation
 Security kiosk
 Public Toilets
 Waste disposal unit
 Overhead tank
 Restaurants
 Fishermen rest shed
 Fresh water sump
 Two wheeler parking
 Four wheeler parking
 Boat repair shop
 Ice supply point
 Fuel station for bunkering activities
 Communication tower
 ATM
 Health center
 Shops
 Sloping yard
 Loading platform
 Internal roads and drains
 Drainage and sewerage
 Navigational aids
 Power and lighting
 Compound wall
 Green and landscaping
 Solar lamps
More details on the above facilities are discussed below.
INDOMER
Fish Auction cum packing hall: This is a vital facility where the fresh fish landed from the
fishing vessels are cleaned, sorted by species, size-wise, weighed, auctioned, iced, packed
and distributed to the markets. The auction halls are preferably located close to the landing
wharf to avoid long haulage of fish and the fish getting exposed to hot sun in the process.
The sequence of activities that will take place at the auction will generally conform to the
established procedures. The detailed layout of Auction halls are given in Figs. 7.1a and 7.2a.
The detailed design drawing of Action halls are given in Figs. 7.1b and 7.2b.
Table 7.1. Quantity of fish/hour
17 m-50 Nos/4-5 18 m-50 Nos/4-5

FRP-1 day trip 19 m -125 Nos/4-5
Calculation days per trip, days per trip
800 Nos days per trip-50 trips
parameters -50 trips 50 trips
A D
B C
Boats
operating/day/ 80% x 800=640 90% x 50=45 90% x 50=45 90% x 125=112
4-5 days
Arrivals in peak
40% x 640=256 40% x 45=18 18 40% x 112=45
hour
Average
30 kg 300 kg 350 kg 400 kg
landing/boat
1.2 x 350=420 kg
Peak landing 1.2 x 300=360 kg 1.2 x 400=480 kg
1.2 x 30=36 kg 420/4=105 kg/day x
per boat or 360/4=90 kg/day 480/5=96 kg
50=5250 kg
Total landing
36x 256=9216 kg 90 x 50=4500 kg 105 x 50=5250 kg 96 x 125=12000 kg
from boats
Grand total 10.0 t 4.5 t 5.25 t 12 t
Final total/day 31.75 t say 34 t
Source: CICEF, BLR
Assuming 75% of fresh fish goes to auction/packing hall and the balance 25% as trash fish
going for drying, fish meal etc. In fact, FRPs catch will be mostly handled at the beach and
may not pass through auction hall. However, for planning purposes, it has been also taken
into account. On this basis, fresh fish for auction hall 34 x 0.75 = 25.50 t which is handled in
auction hall/hour. Assuming fish auctioning process for each batch takes 1.5 to 2 hrs; fish
catch landed in 2 hrs will be 50 t, which is considered for area requirement. Each display
area 4.6 m x 2.6 m holding capacity 2.2 t of fish if arranged when in 11 rows and 4 columns
INDOMER
of fish boxes with a net weight of each box taken as 40 kg. The size of each is 0.5 m x 0.4 m x
0.3 m. Considering 3 sets of such box one above the other which can hold 6.24 t of fish,
[No. of display required 25.50/6.24 = 4 say 5 ]to be on the conservative side.
A fish handling auction area of 70.58 m x 18.06 m is provided as a minimum requirement

and one more auction hall of size 40.30 m x 18 m is provided for FRPs as suggested by the
Expert Committee. There will be still additional space to provide one or two more should it
be required later.
Fish loading area: This is an integral part of the fish auction hall provided on the back/rear
side with a lean to roof model to facilitate vehicle including refrigeration units access from
behind for receiving auctioned and packed fish for transportation to the designated places
for eventual distribution. The fish loading area will be of concrete surface with required
slope. This will be of size corresponding to the length of Auction halls with a width of 7 m.
Net mending yard: There is already a net mending shed existing at the site. This is small and
a bigger shed will be necessary compatible with the requirements of fishing vessels, FRPs in
particular. A provision of 2-net mending sheds each measuring 25.3 m x 10.3 m is made in
the present proposal-which will cater to the FRPs also. The detailed layout of Net mending
yard is given in Fig. 7.3a and the detailed design drawing of Net mending yard is given in Fig.
7.3b.
Gear cloak shed: Fishing gear shed with locking arrangements are required to be provided in
a Fishing Harbour to ensure safe custody of the fishing gears in these sheds rather than
keeping them in the fishing vessels. For this purpose, 2 units of 44 m x 7 m gear-shed are
envisaged in this proposal. It is preferable to provide these facilities behind the idle berthing
wharfs to avoid the trouble of boat operators carrying the heavy gears to a long distance if
the sheds are located elsewhere. The detailed layout of Gear cloak shed is given in Fig. 7.4a
and the detailed design drawing of Gear cloak shed is given in Fig. 7.4b.
INDOMER
Administrative Building and Health center: As in any port organization, this facility is
provided to manage and maintain the harbour facilities plus operation of all the fish
handling activities. Preservation of environment as per guidelines of the statutory
authorities is also vested with the harbour administration. Besides, safety and security
concern of the fishing harbour falls within its ambit. A building of size 18.23 m x 9.5 m will
be provided to accommodate various departments of harbour administration. This will be a
2-storeyed building and it will include health centre. The detailed layout of Administrative
Building is given in Fig. 7.5a and the detailed design of Administrative Building is given in Fig.
7.5b.
Generator and Electric substation: A provision of 7.59 m x 4.96 m each is made for these
essential services. The detailed layout of generator room is given in Fig. 7.6a and the
detailed design of generator room is given in Fig.7.6b.
Security kiosk: To control entry and exit of vehicles and visitors security system manned by
qualified personnel supported by electronic devices need to be provided. For this purpose, at
the entrance, security kiosk is provided in an area of 5.5 m x 5.5 m. The detailed layout of
security kiosk is given in Fig.7.7a and the detailed design of security kiosk is given in Fig. 7.7b.
Public toilet blocks: For the floating population who visit the harbour for business purposes,
minimum toilet facilities need to be provided. An area of 9.58 m x 6.11 m-2Nos. is provided in
the layout. The detailed layout of toilet block is given in Fig.7.8a and the detailed design of
toilet block is given in Fig. 7.8b.
Waste disposal unit: Septic tanks with adequate capacity shall be provided with each toilet
blocks in different buildings. Wash water and wastewater from restaurants shall pass
through screens and then will be allowed to settle in covered settling tank with vent. Fine
settled mater shall be pumped out and dried in sludge drying bed before disposal. Inorganic
matter shall be collected for disposal to MSW services. Fish waste collected from screen and
washing area along with organic waste from kitchen and restaurant shall be processed in
composting facility. Composted material shall be stored and periodically used for green belt
INDOMER
development or sold to outsiders. Shells shall be collected separately and dried. Dried
material may be sold for preparation of poultry food.
OHT: An OHT circular tank of 5 m diameter and 2.26 m height will be provided. The detailed
layout of overhead tank is given in Fig. 7.9a and the detailed design is given in Fig. 7.9b.
Restaurant/Shop/ATM: An area of size 23.2 m x 6.26 m is provided for Restaurant, shops

and ATM’s for the use of fishermen, visitors and those in the Fisheries office. The detailed
layout of restaurant is given in Fig. 7.10a and the detailed design of restaurant is given in Fig.
7.10b.
Fishermen rest shed: This is an important requirement to be provided to fishermen who

venture into sea at early hours and return home at late hours. This will have all the basic
facilities inside. The number of crews using the facilities will be as follows:
Normally, about 12 % of the estimated crew will be operating from the harbour.
Furthermore, the fishing vessels will have fishing cycle of 4-5 days. Considering all these
factors, initially 21.62 m x 8 m size Rest shed is proposed and can be enhanced later if
necessary. The detailed layout of fishermen rest shed is given in Fig.7.11a and the detailed
design of fishermen rest shed is given in Fig. 7.11b.
Freshwater sump: Fresh water supply will be provided to meet the requirements of fishing
vessels, manufacture of ice, other uses in restaurant, rest shed, administration Building etc.
A fresh water sump size is 6 m x 5 m.
Seawater Pump: Seawater is required for washing fishes and fish boxes, cleaning auction
hall, etc. For this purpose, a separate pumping arrangement from the harbour basin will be
done.
Vehicle parking area: During peak hour, the harbour will be flooded with 4-wheelers and 2-
wheelers in connection with transportation of fish to the market and other designated
places. For this purpose, an area of about 1870 sq.m is provided and will be suitably
INDOMER
enhanced depending on the intensity of traffic. The parking areas will be of concrete
surface.
Boat repair workshop: For attending to repairs and maintenance of fishing vessels, a
workshop of size 11.38 m x 8.09 m will also be provided. The detailed layout of boat repair
shop is given in Fig. 7.12a and the detailed design of boat repair shop is given in Fig. 7.12b.
Ice supply Point: Ice will be procured from outside external agency and it will provided for
fishing boats at ice supply point near wharf.
Fuel supply and storage: The project contemplates provision of 60 m long outfitting wharfs
where all the installations like ice, water and fuel supply point etc. will be provided.
Radio communication tower: This is yet another important facility to be provided to ensure
uninterrupted ship-to-shore communication link between fishing vessels and the shore and
to watch and regulate vessel movements and to provide information concerning fishing
grounds, movement of fishes, navigation aids etc. and other marine safety aspects following
MARPOL conventions and other safety regulations as applicable for small craft harbours.
This will be located at the wharf at a vantage location without affecting fishing activities.
The detailed layout of radio communication tower is shown in Fig. 7.13a and the detailed
design is given in Fig. 7.13b.
Sloping yard: Generally, for small crafts two types of dry docking repair facilities are
available:
 Slip way
 Sloping yard
A conventional slipway consists of two parallel rail tracks usually laid on concrete ramp or
pile structure sloping from shore to water which varies between 1 in 10 and 1 in 12
depending on the size of vessels. Every time the vessel is to be moved from water to shore
or vice versa it is hoisted on to a cradle on the rail track and then the cradle is pulled by a
INDOMER
winch operated on electrical or diesel motors. Slipway can easily handle vessels upto 25 t
which means bigger size trawlers.
The RC sloping yard with a size of 65 m x 30 m having a slope of 1V:10H is generally the
most preferred option from cost considerations matching with the sizes of vessels operating
at Tharangambadi and accordingly provided in the layout. Suitable area shall be earmarked
separately for FRPs and trawlers in the land area. The detailed drawing of slopping yard is
given in Fig. 7.14.
Internal roads and drains: A well-laid out net work of roads is provided and most of them
will be asphalted surface on a suitable sub-base to the adequate thickness designed on the
basis of BIS standards. The detailed drawing of road is given in Fig. 7.15.
Drainage and sewerage: Adequate storm water drains will be provided to collect storm and
rain water for eventual disposal into sea.
Navigational aids: Wherever absolutely necessary, appropriate navigational aids will be

provided to facilitate safe navigation.
Power and lighting: Approaches to the marine structures, walkways, street lights, buildings etc
need to be provided lighting for safety and security. To tide over emergency situations arising
due to electric power shut downs, breakdowns, important buildings like fish auction hall,
administration office, water supply systems etc. standby generator sets will be provided.
Compound wall: The entire land area of harbour boundary will be provided with a tall
compound wall so as to ensure safety and security at all times and the proposed security
system will form part of the overall arrangements.
Green and landscaping: Green and clean port concept is catching up the port sector more
so in the context of Clean India concept promoted by the government of India. This is all the
more necessary to control pollution levels in terms of air, water soil well within the
INDOMER
permissible norms of the authorities. Furthermore, this adds to the aesthetics of the
surroundings.
7.4. Preliminary Design of Shore Facilities
These include auction hall, net mending shed, workshop, restaurants, public toilets,
administrative building etc. Most of them except administration buildings are light weight
structures and single storied with sloping R.C roof supported on columns with individual
footings. The column loads may be generally around 20 to 25 t.
Design of foundation for columns
The weakest soil profile is at LBH2 (as per the soil classification given in Table 4.5). Net
mending and similar structures for other facilities are not heavily loaded and most of them
are sloping RCC roofs. The approximate maximum vertical downward load (inclusive of wind
load) on the columns is assumed to be around 20 tonnes and there can be upward pull of
about 5 tonnes during windy conditions. These loads are, however, approximate but are
good enough for foundation selection; but, for structural design, the exact loads and
moments are to be estimated based on approved structural analysis software programmes,
which analysis will be carried during detail engineering stage.
The maximum design loads adopted for the preliminary design are 15 to 20 tonnes, acting
vertically downwards and the upward pull is about 5 tonnes.
The weakest soil profile is at LBH-2 (among the land based bores, LBH-1 to LBH-4) as shown
in Table above;
Top soil: 4.0 m thick medium dense grayish sand (SM); b=1.70t/m3; =31o; N=15
2nd Layer: 4.0 m thick Dense silty sand (SW) b=1.80t/m3; =31o; N=35
Open rectangular shaped footing of size, 1.0 m x 1.5 m can be placed at a depth of 1.5 m
below EGL.
INDOMER
The maximum vertical load on the column = 20 tonnes
Net ultimate bearing capacity, u(net) = CNc.sc.dc.ic + D(Nq-1)sq.dq.iq. + ½ yBNy.sy.dy.iy

Where c = Cohesion;
= Density of the soil
D = Depth
B = Width of the footing
Nc, Nq & Ny = b.c. factors (I.S.6403)
s, d & i = Shape, depth and inclination factors (IS6403).
dq,dy = Depth factors
For the soil at the founding depth,
= 1.60 t/m3
B = 1.0 m
Df = 1.5 m
Ф = 31o
C = 0
Nc = 31
Nq = 21
Ny = 27
Sq = 1.13
Sy = 0.74
dq=dy = 1.102
ic=iq=iy = 1 (load is vertical)
u(net) = 0 + 1.7 x 1.5(21-1) x 1.13 x 1.102 x 1 + ½ x 1.7 x 1.0 x 27 x 0.74 x 1.102 x 1

= 63.50+18.71 = 82.21 t/m2
82.21
Safe bearing capacity = = 32.88 t/m2
2.5
Assuming temporary submergence due to heavy rain, the safe bearing capacity = 0.6 x 32.88
= 19.73 t/m2, say 20 t/m2
INDOMER
Internal roads and Hard surfaces
Double lane asphalted road is proposed to be constructed with the following layers:
 230 mm thick granular sub-base

 150 mm water bound macadam
 75 mm thick bituminous macadam
 20 mm thick premix bituminous carpet
The water bound macadam (WBM) surface proposed near the boat parking/boat building
would consist of the following cross section:
 230 mm thick granular sub-base
 150 mm water bound macadam
Similarly the fish loading area and vehicle parking area are proposed as concrete surface
with the following cross section over the WBM surface:
 100 mm thick M15 concrete layer

 150 m thick M20 reinforced concrete
Asphalted surface consists of double lane road of 5 m wide with 1650 m long. The cross
sectional details of the internal asphalted, WBM surface and concrete surface/road are
shown in Fig. 7. 1. The network of roads and their locations are shown in Harbour layout.
INDOMER
Architectural design of onshore facilities
In order to provide a professional look, all the landside facilities have been designed by
Architect based on the functional requirements at par with the facilities provided for similar
fishing harbours in the region.
The principal parameters of the various facilities included in the report are shown in the
Table 7.2.
Table 7.2. Principal parameters of shore facilities
Sl.No. Description Size Area sq.m No.s
1 Auction hall - A 70.58 m x 18.06 m 1274.67 1
2 Auction hall - B 40.30 m x 18 m 725.4 1
3 Net mending shed 25.3 m x 10.3 m 260.6 2
4 Gear cloak room 44 m x 7 m 308 2
Administrative building
5 18.23 m x 9.5 m 173.18 1
Health centre
6 Generator room 7.59 m x 4.96 m 37.64 1
7 Electric substation 7.59 m x 4.96 m 37.64 1
8 Security room 5.5 m x 5.5 m 30.25 1
9 Public Toilets 9.58 m x 6.11 m 58.53 2
10 Waste disposal unit 9.73 m x 9.32 m 90.68 1
11 Overhead tank 5.5 m dia. 30.258 1
12 Restaurants, ATM & Shop 23.2 m x 6.26 m 145.23 1
13 Fishermen rest shed 21.62 m x 8 m 172.96 1
14 Fresh water sump 6mx5m 30 1
15 Two wheeler parking 1443.7 sq.m
16 Four wheeler parking 1441.28 sq.m
17 Boat repair shop 11.38 m x 8.09 m 92.06 1
18 Ice supply point to meet requirement
19 Fuel point to meet requirement
20 Communication tower 10.46 m x 10.46 m 109.41 1
21 Sloping yard 65 m x 30 m 1950 1
22 Existing Auction hall 5 m x 12 m 60 1
Internal roads and drainage and
23 to meet requirement
sewerage
24 Power and lighting to meet requirement
25 compound wall 850 m
26 Greeneries and landscaping 2420 sq.m
27 Solar lamps to meet requirement
28 Access road (Future Expansions) 2 km
29 Link Road 350 m
INDOMER
8. DESIGN OF MARINE FACILITIES
The marine facilities have been designed in order to develop a calm Harbour basin to
protect from wave generated during Southwest and Northeast monsoon season and also
during Fair weather period.
It has been designed to give total wave tranquillity throughout the year. In order to arrive at
suitable layout, the wave climate and the wave tranquility studies are carried out. Also
during planning of the layout and the Harbour basin, the disaster anticipated due to Storm
and Cyclone (Storm surge) and Tsunami are considered. The opening of the breakwater has
been planned in such a way that it will allow the natural bypass of Littoral drift and easy
entry of fishing vessels in conjunction with approaching wave direction. Accordingly the
layout has been evolved in consultation with Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for
Fishery (CICEF) and Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS), Pune. The
breakwater design and cross section presented by Indomer in DFR (Draft Final Report) have
been verified through Flume Test and modified by Central Water and Power Research
Station (CWPRS), Pune.
8.1. Breakwaters
Indomer’s design
The breakwater layout proposed for the fishing harbour at Tharangambadi is shown in
Fig. 5.1. It comprises two breakwaters, one on the southern side and another on the
northern side. It has been designed that both the southern breakwater and the northern
breakwater will be made of rubble mound type with armour protection on the seaside
covered by large size stones and/or artificial concrete blocks, in this case by Tetrapods.
The southern breakwater will be 1070 m long and the northern breakwater will be of 340 m
long. The distance between the two breakwaters along the shore will be 700 m. The gap at
the entrance of the harbour at offshore between the southern breakwater head and
northern breakwater head for the entry of boat is planned as 100 m. The area of the
INDOMER
harbour basin encompassed thus by these two breakwaters will be about 21.2 Ha. The vast
space available within the tranquil harbour basin will offer protection for the boats as
anchorage areas in case of extreme weather conditions arising out of meteorological/
oceanographical disturbances like cyclones, tsunami etc.
8.1.1. Design background
The different stretches of southern and Northern breakwater across different depths are
shown below in Table 8.1 and 8.2.
Table 8.1. Southern breakwater- Chainage vs water depth
Chainage Design depth

Stretch
(m) (m)
1 0-85 0-1
2 85-155 1-2
3 155-295 2-3
4 295-475 3-4
5 475-690 4-5
6 690-970 5-6
7 970-1060 6-6.5
8 1060-1070 Round head
Table 8.2. Northern breakwater- Chainage vs water depth
Chainage Design depth

Stretch
(m) (m)
1 0-55 0-1
2 55-110 1-2
3 110-210 2-3
4 210-250 3-4
5 250-330 4-4.5
6 330-340 Round head
INDOMER
Design aspects
i) Annual wave climate and design wave
ii) Crest elevation to meet no overtopping conditions
iii) Design slopes on seaside and basin side
iv) Crest width
v) Slope protection - primary armour, secondary armour, core etc.
vi) Toe protection
vii) Required Modelling studies
viii) Bedding layer aspects
ix) Other factors - ease of construction, material availability etc. and
x) Latest development in design concepts if any
8.1.2. Design waves
Normally, it is H1/3 or Hs (significant wave) which is being followed right from the days when
the empirical formula devised by Hudson became so popular during 1950s. The same is
being followed even now, though some improvements were suggested by several authors in
the field more so by Van der Meer-who, based on model studies, introduced some
additional empirical factors to make Hudson formula more meaningful consistent with
ground realities. These included wave period, breaking wave conditions, permeability of
core, angular approach of waves etc. amongst others-which did not find a place in the
Hudson formula. The application of the coefficients developed by Van der Meer is rather
cumbersome for practicing engineers and further, such fineness might not be that necessary
from practical considerations. In any case, all these are based on studies with waves
impinging on distorted breakwater models whereas it will be highly impossible to reproduce
ocean wave characteristics and internal structure of breakwater, notwithstanding the fact
the Froude scale modelling requirements are generally complied with.
The CERC (Coastal Engineering Research Centre, US Army) which authored the famous Shore
Protection Manual, the bible for port engineers, suggested later in 1990 to adopt a higher
wave height , H1/10 ≈ 1.27 Hs in order to minimize damages and consequential maintenance
cost. This is widely being accepted now especially for major harbours involving construction
INDOMER
of breakwaters in deep waters. This is taken into consideration for the current exercise also.
While recommending Hmax for vertical walls, the BS 6349-7:1991 has also given a little more
preference to H1/10 than H1/3 (Hs) for the design of rubble mound breakwaters in the context
of experience gained over a period of time.
In the case of Tharangambadi, the actual Hs is around 1.25 m to 1.50 m during NE monsoon
season and during the rest of the period it is much less as elaborately discussed in the
Feasibility Report (Pages: 8.1 and 8.12) and this was based on one year measurements taken
close to the region of the proposed development. However, for the design of rubble mound
breakwaters, following the usual practice it is proposed to adopt a wave height with a
return period of 50 years. The Weibull distribution of waves for different return period is
shown in the Table 4.3.
The design wave having the significant wave height of 3.7 m with a return period of 50 year
has been chosen and the design wave period is determined as 8 s.
Design Wave = 3.7 m
8.1.3. Design depth
If H1/10 is chosen for design, then the design wave height will be 1.27 x Hs ≈ 4.7 m, which will
more advantageous in terms of minimizing overtopping of waves besides ensuring more
stability for the breakwater.
Wave breaking criteria is (Hb/hb) = 0.78,

Hb = 4.7 m
hb =
= 6.02 m
The depth at which the wave will break is 6.02 m say 6 m.
Design depth = 6 m
INDOMER
If the depth is below this level, the available depth at the site will govern the design wave
height as per the above expression. Thus the different design wave heights followed for
different design depths for southern and northern breakwaters are given in Tables 8.1-8.2.
8.1.4. Design tide
The MHWL reported for the site is (+) 0.65 CD m and the Highest High Water are reported as
(+) 0.90 m (Feasibility Report Page 8.13).
Design tide = 0.65 m CD
8.1.5. Crest elevation
The crest elevation will be estimated based on the wave run-up, storm surge and above that
the freeboard if required. To compute wave run-up, empirical formulae are available.
However, for the sake of simplicity, the crest elevation is fixed at one full design wave height
above the design water level as recommended by Quinn (Design and Construction of Ports
and Marine structures, 1980, p186).
On this basis the crest level is arrives as detailed below.
Parameters Water level

HHWL 0.65 m
design wave (50 years) 3.70 m
Storm surge 0.6 0 m
Total 4.95 m say 5 m.
Crest elevation for Breakwater = 5 m
This will ensure almost “Nil overtopping” conditions except during cyclones, which
phenomenon is not a frequent occurrence. Furthermore, even in the unlikely event of
overtopping, there should be no cause for anxiety in respect of safety of fishing vessels
which are mostly confined to shore side and the overtopping may not cause any damage.
INDOMER
8.1.6. Crest width
CEM (Coastal Engineering Manual-Formerly SPM - Shore Protection Manual) recommends

three times the size of the primary armour thickness. From maintenance consideration a
crest width of 5 m is considered appropriate as is the practice adopted for similar fishing
harbour in this region.
Crest width = 5 m
8.1.7. Breakwater slope
Seaside (slope exposed to sea) 1: 2

Harbour side (slope lee side in harbour basin) 1:1.5
Breakwater layers
These are the slopes generally recommended for rubble mound breakwaters with 2-layer
quarry stones or tetrapods as primary armours.
The typical characteristics of Tetrapods are shown in the Table
8.3.
Table 8.3. Typical characteristics of Tetrapods
Unit weight (T) 50 40 32 25 20 16 12.5 8 4 2 1 0.5 0.25

3
Volume m 20 16 12.5 10 8 6.3 5 3.2 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1
Height of
4155 3860 3550 3300 3060 2830 2620 2260 1790 1420 1130 900 710
tetrapod mm
Thickness of
double layer 5600 5200 4900 4500 4100 3800 3500 3000 2400 1900 1500 1200 950
mm
Quantity on
100 m
2 14 16 19 22 26 30 35 47 74 120 190 300 470
* Density of concrete = 2.5

T (tonne) = 0.984 long ton = 1.102 U.S ton
3 2
m = 35.314 cu.ft; mm = 0.039 inch; m = 10.764 sq.ft
Source: Tetrapods: Pierre Danel, Laboratorie Douphinois d’ Hydraulique, Grenoble, France
INDOMER
Concrete Capping
It is proposed to provide RCC concrete capping over the crest of the breakwater after
settlement using M30 concrete of thickness 300 mm
8.1.8. CWPRS Flume Test and breakwater cross section
The design of rubble mound breakwater has been made based on the parameters discussed
in the previous section. The design cross sections arrived by Indomer were presented earlier
in the DFR. As per ToR, the sections so designed by Indomer need to be tested through
Flume Test by CWPRS which was also suggested by the Expert committee at its meeting held
in 14th October 2015. Accordingly the details of design as contained in DFR (Task module 3)
were forwarded to CWPRS and a report has been received on 11.05.16, highlighting further
modification to the cross-section. The CWPRS report on breakwater cross sections at various
depths for southern breakwater and northern breakwater entitled ‘Studies for the
confirmation of breakwaters cross-sections for the development of fisheries Harbour at
Tharangambadi, Tamil Nadu.’ is attached as Annexure A8.1.
The BoQ and cost estimates will be compared with the earlier design made by Indomer and
suitably modified, if found necessary, and accordingly will be included in the Final DPR
(Final).
8.2. Wharf
The length and the elevation of the wharf have been arrived based on the
recommendations of CICEF and existing practice of the Department of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu.
The open type-with piled structure is the choice on the basis of the following considerations:
i) Known and easily available technology

ii) Construction is easier
iii) Subsoil conditions are suitable
INDOMER
The design is made accordingly:
Deck slab of 300 mm thick (RCC: M30 grade) placed over the beams of 7.0 m length along
the length of the berth and 6.0 m long beams perpendicular to berth direction. The deck
slab and beam are proposed to be supported by 2 rows of piles placed at a center to center
of 7.0 m along the length of the berth (as shown in Fig. 8.1).
The top level of the wharf is arrived based on the experience of the EE Nagapattinam,
Tamilnadu fisheries and it is (+) 2.5 m CD.
For a fishing berth with live load of 1 t/m2 ( as per I.S.4651) and considering the self weight
of the deck and the movement of trucks on the deck, the approximate maximum weight on
each of the piles is 110 tonnes (approx.).
These piles are designed for vertical load of 110 tonnes and lateral loads due to mooring
pulls of 5-10 tones.
Soil profile: considering the soil profiles based on 4 Nos of marine bores placed in the sea,
the soil profile near to the wharf is at MBH-2.
Hence, it is proposed to adopt 600 mm dia. bored cast in situ concrete pile of M30 conc. (in
marine environment, the minimum concrete grade is M30 as per I.S.456.)
The top level (terminating level) of the pile is at the bottom level of the top deck that is 1 t
+1.5 C.D.
The founding level of the pile = - (15.0 m+3xd) = - (15.0+3x0.6)
= - 16.8 m say -17.0 m level.

Hence the total length of the pile = 1.5+water depth+17.0
= 1.5+2.5+17.0= 21.0 m.
INDOMER
Estimation of the Vertical Load Carrying Capacity of Pile

As per I.S.2911-Part1/sec
Type of pile: Bored cast in situ concrete pile of M30 concrete.

Dia: 600 mm; Length = 21.0 m;
As per I.S.2911, Ultimate vertical load carrying capacity of pile, Qu= Qf+Qp;
where Qf = Skin friction
Qp = End bearing
Skin friction Qf1, (from Layer1, L1=3 m)
Qf1 = πdL1 Kv.avg. tan32° (only submerged densities are to be used)
= πx0.6x3x1x0.75x0.8x tan32°
= 7.95 tonnes
Skin Friction, Qf2 (from Layer2, L2=7.5 m)

Qf2 = πd L2 αcC
= πx0.6x7.5x0.8x1.5
= 16.96 tonnes

Qf3 = πd L3 αC
= πx0.6x1.5x0.3x12
= 10.18 tonnes
Skin Friction, Qf4 (from Layer4, L4=3 m)

Qf4 = πdL4. Kv.avg. tan32°
= πx0.6x3x1.2x0.8((12+15)/2) tan33°
= 47.59 tonnes
Qf5 = πdL5. Kv.avg. tan34°
= πx0.6x8.7x1.6x0.9((15+23.7)/2) tan36°
= 331.98 tonnes
Total skin friction=414.66 tonnes
End bearing, Qp= qNq Ap as per I.S.2911-part1/sec2
INDOMER
Q= 15dia x γ’=15x0.6x0.85 = 7.65t/m2
Nq=70 , for ф= 36° from fig.1 (amended) of I.S.2911-part1/sec-2
2
Hence, Qp= q.Nq.Ap = 7.65x70xπ x 0.6
4
= 151.33 tonnes
Hence, ultimate vertical load carrying capacity of pile.
Qu= Qf+Qp=565.99 tonnes
Safe vertical load carrying capacity of 600 mm dia. and of 21.0 m long pile (Bored cast in situ
concrete pile of M30 Concrete)
= = 226.39 say = 220 tonnes
Required safe capacity = 110 tonnes
Hence, provision of 600 mm dia. & 21.0 m long (in 2 Nos) at a center to center spacing of
7.0 m is in order.
Approximately safe lateral capacity = 12.0 Tones/ per pile.

The requirement is 10 Ton bollard.
Hence, this foundation system is safe.
Earth retaining structure at the rear side of the piled wharf
To retain the soil from flowing through the opening across the piles, it is necessary to
provide an earth retaining structure at the rear side. A rapid study was made and the
following options are identified:
INDOMER
i) Gabion type
The proposal involves polypropylene rope gabion boxes filled with rubble. This will be
designed in principle as earth retaining structure similar to the one shown for wharf
wall with block work. The bottom level will be at -4.0 m including provision for a
bottom layer in rubble for a thickness of 0.5 m.
ii) Geotubes filled with sand
This is similar to gabion type except that coarse sand will be filled in geotubes in
convenient sizes for handling and placing. The top level and bottom will be same as in
gabion type. This is cheaper and has become popular and in fact NIOT is adopting such
type for a project near Cuddalore for submerged breakwater in connection with shore
protection.
iii) Block work concept
This possibility was also studied. This will be a fool proof design but it requires a hard
bottom from settlement point of view. Whereas the soil at –m depth is which is
classified as weak sandy clay and below that also it is a weak soil from foundation
considerations. Further this is very expensive and highly skilled job as compared to
gabion or geo bag type of alternatives. In view of both cost and technical considerations
this option is dropped.
Amongst the first two options-gabion Vs geobag, both are technically feasible and
acceptable. However, geobag will be cheaper as compared with gabion. It is therefore felt
that it would be desirable to retain these two options and call for tenders for both the
options and depending on the cost one of the two options may be adopted.
The main features of the proposed design of wharf wall are shown in Fig. 8.1.
INDOMER
8.3. Dredging
The maximum size of vessel is 19 m long which will have a draft of 2 to 2.5 m (maximum
side) and with an under clearance of say 1 m and making provision for siltation if any, it is
proposed to dredge the basin to (-) 3.5 m CD. Approximate quantity of dredging estimated
at this stage is 120000 cu.m. This quantity is not substantial and can be primarily used for
reclamation to create additional backup land area and if something is still left, this can be
used as sand bank on the north of north breakwater where some erosion is likely to occur
due to natural processes. The question of dumping it offshore at the designated location
based on modelling study may not arise. However, this will be again reviewed at the DPR
stage on the basis of in-depth study of soil characteristics of dredged material.
Dredging depth = ( -) 3.5 m CD

Dredging quantity = 120000 cu.m.
Channel development
The entrance width will be 100 m wide to allow simultaneous entry of a number of vessels
at any one time. The channel will be aligned in 6.5 m depth contour as recommended by the
Expert Committee from littoral drift considerations and no dredging is envisaged in the
approach channel and the maintenance of the channel may not arise.
Furthermore, the vessel maneuverability studies mentioned in the TOR are generally
recommended for major cargo vessels and may not be required for small craft harbours in
view of the sizes of crafts, where the maneuvering/ operational methods are quite different
and in case of adverse weather conditions, the vessel movements are mostly controlled by
IMD and the communication tower located at the vantage point at the fishing harbour site
as also the established traditions and practices of the fisher folk of the region.
INDOMER
9. SUMMARY OF SHORE AND MARINE FACILITIES
9.1. Shore Facilities
 Auction hall - A 70.58 m x 18.06 m

 Auction hall - B 40.30 m x 18 m
 Net mending yard 25.3 m x 10.3 m
 Gear cloak room 44 m x 7 m
 Administration building 18.23 m x 9.5 m
 Generator room 7.5 m x 5 m
 Electric substation 7.59 m x 4.96 m
 Security kiosk 5.5 m x 5.5 m
 Public toilets 9.58 m x 6.11 m
 Waste disposal unit 9.73 m x 9.32 m
 OHT 5.5 m dia.
 Restaurants, ATM & Shop 23.2 m x 6.26 m
 Fishermen Rest shed 21.62 m x 8 m
 Fresh water sump 6mx5m
 Two wheeler parking area 1443.7 sq.m
 Four wheeler parking area 1441.28 sq.m
 Boat repair shop 11.38 m x 8.09 m
 Ice supply point to be contracted
 Fuel station to be contracted
 Radio communication tower 10.46 m x 10.46 m
 Sloping yard 50 m x 20 m
 Internal roads and drainage and sewerage
 Power and lighting
 Solar lamps
 Compound wall
 Greeneries and landscaping
INDOMER
9.2. Marine Facilities
 South breakwater 1070 m

 North breakwater 340 m
 Inside width between BWs 700 m
 Dredge depth (-) 3.5 m CD
 Dredging quantity 120000 cu.m
 Basin area 21.2 Ha
 Sloping yard 65 mx 30 m
 Landing wharf 85 m
 Outfitting wharf 60 m
 Repair wharf 20 m
 Idle berthing wharf 185 m (exclusive)
 Beach landing-FRPs 300 m
 Mean sea level 0.34 m
 Wharf level (+) 2.5 m CD
 Entrance width 100 m
Vessel related
 FRPs less than 10 m (800 Nos.) 1 - day trip 200 trips 40 kg/trip
 17 m trawlers (50 Nos. -4 days trip) 50 trips 300 kg/trip
 18 m trawlers (50 Nos.) 4 days trip 50 trips 350 kg/trip
 20 m trawlers (125 Nos.) 5 days trip 40 trips 400 kg/trip
 Fishing days/year 200
Catch-3 options Basic: Option 1: 8900 t, Option 2: 9600 t,
Option 3: 8100t
INDOMER
Backup area
Along the coast 700 m

South of NBW 40 m
South of SBW 140 m
Available land area 6.7420 Ha
Reclaimed area 49000 sq.m (to be reviewed at DPR stage)
This layout has been tested through modelling studies for the following parameters:
 Wave tranquillity
 Breakwater cross section
 Littoral drift
 Shoreline changes if any
 Shore protection measures
INDOMER
10. BILL OF QUANTITIES AND COST ESTIMATION
The unit rates for working out the cost estimates for marine works are based on the rates
pertaining to similar works executed at nearby region and also from the information
available with Indomer. For shore side buildings and structures the schedule of rates
published by the Fisheries Department has been adopted. However, the rates need to be
treated with caution and the variation may go ± 15% which is acceptable in the planning
stage.
The major cost goes for the construction of marine works such as breakwaters, dredging,
berthing wharf, wharf required for landing, outfitting, idle berthing purposes etc.
It must be noted that the cost does not include towards land acquisition and any CSR
activities which are normally expected for Private sector development.
10.1. Shore Facilities
The assessment of areas for each component such as auction hall, administration building,
net mending yard, gear-shed, restaurants, public toilets, pavements, roads etc have been
elaborately discussed in Chapter 7.
The BOQ and the unit rate assumed for each item of the proposed facility are shown in
Annexure A10.1 and the summary is shown in the Table 10.1.
10.2. Marine Facilities
The marine facilities will include the following items:

i) Breakwaters (South and North)
ii) Wharf wall in piled structure
iii) Dredging and reclamation
iv) Slopping yard
v) Rubble mound divide wall
vi) Others
INDOMER
The BOQ and unit rate adopted for each component of the facility are shown in
Annexure A10.2 and the summary is shown in Table 10.2.
Table 10.1. Summary of cost for Shore Facilities
Cost
Item No. Name of Facility
(Rs. in Lakhs)
1 Auction hall - A 456.10
2 Auction hall - B 134.10
3 Net mending shed (2) 73.50
4 Gear cloak room (2) 253.40
5 Administration building and Health center 38.90
6 Communication tower 85.00
7 Security kiosk 15.45
8 Public toilets (2 Nos) 48.70
9 OHT 14.75
10 Restaurants, ATM & Shops 32.30
11 Fishermen Rest shed 34.20
12 Boat repair workshop 64.85
13 Road 325.00
14 Compound wall & Entrance Arch 84.00
15 External electrification (Lights) 52.75
16 Generator room 11.80
17 Fresh water sump 6.70
18 Transformer yard 25.00
19 Waste disposal unit & decompose yard 25.00
20 Vehicle parking area (2 Nos) 25.00
21 Shore protection measure 100.00
22 Greeneries Development 10.00
23 Documentation charges 20.00
24 Advertisement charges 20.00
25 Rain water harvesting 10.00
Environmental study, Geotechnical and
26 200.00
EMP
Fire tender, extinguishers and associated
27 10.00
facilities
28 Provision for unexpected subsoil variation 50.00
Total 2226.5
INDOMER
Table 10.2. Summary of cost for Marine Facilities
Cost
Item No. Name of Facility
(Rs. in Lakhs)
1 Breakwaters
i) South breakwater 7775.00
ii) North breakwater 2333.00
2 Wharf wall with piled structure 2237.00
3 Sloping yard 174.30
4 Dredging, reclamation and Leveling 255.50
Total 12774.8
10.3. Summary of Cost
The total cost of construction of the Fishing Harbour is given below.
Cost
Sl.
Name of Facility (Rs. in
No.
Lakhs)
I Cost of civil works:
Onshore facilities 2226.5
Marine facilities 12774.8
Escalation (2017 - 2018) 800.00

Total 15801.3
II Lumpsum provisions:
Supervision charge - (2.5%) 395.00
Labor welfare fund - (1%) 158.00
Unforeseen items/contingencies - (2.5%) 395.00
Link road b/w Manikkapangu village to FH (LS) 150.00
Sinkage/settlement for shore facilities (LS) 100.00
Total 1198.00
Grand Total 16999.3
Say 17000.00
Total cost = Rs. 170.00 Crores

Writereaddata FormB TOR PFR 21112019EJI51AN3DPR

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

Writereaddata FormB TOR PFR 21112019EJI51AN3DPR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT

THARANGAMBADI, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT,

PROJECT CODE: 512071415

INDOMER COASTAL HYDRAULICS (P) LTD.

Document type : Controlled

Name Qualification Task

Ph.D. (Ocean Engineering)

Dr. Terry Machado Ph.D. (Marine Geology) Seabed surveys

Ph.D. (Ocean Engineering)

V. Vaigaiarasi M.E. (Hydrology) Mathematical modelling

A. Baskaran D.C.E. (Civil) Topographic Survey

S. Karthikeyan D.C.E. (Civil) Bathymetric Survey

R. Ranjitha D.C.E. (Civil) Report preparation

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page i

L. R. Ramasamy, Former SE (TN Fisheries) : Planning & design of Fishing Harbour

Dr. Narasima Rao,

Vasudevan. T. J M.ARCH, F.I.V : Architectural Planning & Design

Colonel Nallathambi .P,

Anna University : CRZ and Demarcation of HTL and LTL

Central Water and Power

Central Institute of Coastal Engineering

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page ii

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page i

4.1.4. Tides 4.4

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page ii

6.3.3. Change in shoreline 6.11

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page iv

8.3. Typical characteristics of Tetrapods

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page v

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page vi

7.7a. Security room - Layout

A7.1 Annexure - Geotechnical report

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page ix

MSL Mean Sea Level

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page x

The development of an all-weather fishing harbour at Tharangambadi is initiated by the

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page E1

Chapter 2 - Background - Highlights of earlier reports

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page E2

Chapter 3 - Environmental and Social Screening

Chapter 4 - Oceanographic measurements and seabed investigations

Chapter 5 - Planning of layout and facilities

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page E3

Chapter 6 - Modelling studies

Chapter 7 - Design of shore facilities

Chapter 8 - Design of marine facilities

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page E4

Chapter 9 - Summary of shore and marine facilities

Chapter 10 - Bill of quantities and cost estimation

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page E5

Total cost = Rs. 170.00 Crores

Development of Fishing Harbour at Tharangambadi, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu Page E6

1.1. Development proposal

The improvements to the existing fishing facilities at Tharangambadi with sufficient

1.2. Final DPR - Task Module 5

2. BACK GROUND - HIGHLIGHTS OF EARLIER REPORTS

 Module 1 - Inception Report

2.1. Fisheries at National Level - A Quick Review

2.1.1. Vessel statistics

Table 2.1. Details of fishing vessels in India

Type of vessels Nos.

A major constraint hampering development of fishery sector is non-availability of matching

Table 2.2. Marine Fish production

2.1.2. Export of fishery products