SB @ow OAS ead SBaw wockdo QHD Berar Cepeda one eesr send SEP CEYLON PETROLEUM CORPORATION To: JV of WEC/WIKA/CNCEC 14 Date: 20! March 2018 Attention: Mr. jimmy See Rev: A Document No: P4586-CPC-WEC-PR-CAL -0052 Status: Under Review Title: Fuel hydrant system hydraulic simulation report [item CPC Comments ‘The JV's Reply ] | f Provide references/standards for figures of | Viscosity, Vapour Pressure and Roughness of | Noted and references added | | pipes indicated in the Table 1. | I | No. of pumps required shall be 10 nos. each | Since the peak fuel demand is only having capacity of 273 m*/n & required head in | during a shor period of time, the contol | 2 | order to cater peak hour demand of 2646 m’/h, system can run the pumps with 108% which |then reaches the the max. ow of 2648 mith | ae line’ Fie cane sie tate ee ae | The simulation showed that 12" pipeline oan hat it chall be 16" se pas the | WoUd be enough to cater the demand of the simulation but it shall be 16" as per the | in order to be able to cater also possible Appendiv-1, topology of hydrant network and the | pjaher demand in the future the design Pl diagram of FHS at Apron A,B,C & E was chosen to go for 16 | [ie append, FHP BIG Gepcs COUPEE eros ana vate of 00/in bt 2500 I/min. But flow rate, Q in relevant spur line | the AIC stand isnot activated, which means 4 | indicate as 13.8 1/min, Please clarty no refueling is going on at tis stand. The flow indicated is because the flow ofthe adjacent stands forces the fuel to move. Kindly Reply Soon Our replies to the comments are ‘Signed for CPC Signed for the IV lofi(GPC COMMENTS INCORPORATED AND REASSUED FOR APPROVAL. ISSUED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION ‘APPROVED CEYLON PETROLEUM CORPORATION No.10 Bukit Batok Crescent, ‘The Spire, #14-06 Singapore 658079 Tol: (65) 6316 6038, Fax: (65) 6316 4218 DEVELOPMENT AND UPGRADING OF FUEL HYDRANT SYSTEM AT BANDARANAIKE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, SRI LANKA PRED | JG.UNGER~| 201418 | PROJECTNO | TILE cao _[ rscrraper"|""20ate | 5 oog FUEL HYDRANT SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ‘apo | SIMMY 201s SIMULATION REPORT. gi] VENDOR DOC / DG KO DOCUMENT NO P4586-CPC-WEC-PR-CAL-0052hansaténsult jaurgaselschat mbH Content Introduction. Basic Hydraulic Data Pump Data. Calculation Methodology and Related Error Sources .. 4.1 Assumptions and Simplifications... 42 Control Circuits and Regulators. 43° Check Valves. Rwne 4.4 Valve Characteristic. 4.5 Material Properties... 5 Hydraulic Simulations... 5.1 Fuel Demand... 5.2 Pressure Losses in the Hydrant System... 7 Results of the Simulation... 14 Page 2of 14 PaSBS-CPCWEC PR-CAL-OO5S- Fuel Hyarant System Hydraulic Simulation Reporthansdténsult neueselscat 1 Introduction This report provides the theory and design parameters for the hydraulic analysis and simulation model of the new fuel hydrant system at Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA), Sri Lanka. The aim is to verify the design of the new fuel hydrant system and the design of the new fue! farm, The study was carried out by hansaconsult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH, Germany using Kleopatra ® VS 1.0 under license of hansaconsult ‘The purpose of the hydraulic simulation analysis is to validate and determine: * future flow conditions at the new fuel hydrant system * evaluation of pressure shock risk ‘+ pump capacity and flow rate Furthermore, it is believed that having a simulation model of the fuel facility at present may help to avoid potential design and construction mistakes and may help to better plan for mitigation of potential operational risks. 2 Basic Hydraulic Data ‘The basic data used for hydraulic calculations are as follows: Product yet Ad Density 800 kg/m3 @ 15°C Viscosity 2.5 eSt (20°C) Vapor pressure mbar Pipe dimensions: ‘Schedule STD/40 | 4" (seamless pipe) 114.3x6.02 mm } 6” [seamless pipe) 168.3x7.4imm 8” (seamless pipe) 219.1x8.18 mm 110" (seamless pipe) 273.1 «9.27 mm 12" (seamiess pipe) 323.9x1031 mm 116" (seamless pipe) 323.9 x 12.70 mm 18” (seamiess pipe) 487 x 14.27 mm | 24” (seamless pipe) 610 x 17.48 mm | Roughness of pipes 0.05 mm (internally coated pipes) Flange Pressure Rating ‘ANSI Class 150 Necessary pressure at hydrant pit valves 4-6 bar ‘Table 1: Basic Hydraulic Data 1) ASTM Standard Specification D 165! ication for Aviation Turbine Fuels and JIG Product Specification Bulletin 96 2) Basic construction data for piping installations ~ Vulkan - 15" edition ~ 2006 Page 3 of 14 P586-CPC-WEC-PR-CAL_U0SE- Fuel Hyakant System Fiyaulic Simulation Report3 Pump Data hansdténsolt ingenias asolschall mbH ‘The number of pumps utilized for the fuel hydrant system is 9 pumps with the following main data: Type: Centrifugal pump Flow Rate: 273 mh Head (assumption): 126m Speed: 2900 min? Table 2: Pump Data at new Fuel Farm based on PID provided by CPC ‘Thus the maximum theoretical flow achievable is supposed to be 2457 m*/h. Page of 14 aSB6-CPC-WEC-PR-CAL-0087— Fuel Hyerant System Rydrautc Simulation Reporthansaténsult iourgeselschat mH 4 Calculation Methodology and Related Error Sources Pressures and flows depend on time and place. Furthermore, pressures, flows and controller activities mutually influence each other at all locations and at all times. Therefore, the results of the study cannot be expressed by a simple mathematical formula. It is necessary to build a simulation model which mimics all physical effects relevant to the problem (and ignores all effects which are not relevant) Each simulation shows the behaviour of a single process. The relevant data such as pressures and flow rates must be shown as functions of time. The evaluation can be carried out by running a large number of simulations at different operating conditions. This methodology has been used in the present study. The simulation model is based on considering a large number of small pipe segments which form the entire hydraulic system. The physical properties of these segments have to be adjusted to the local conditions, as found in the real system. The relevant properties are: © density of product * elasticity of pipe material and product ‘© damping (hydraulic resistance, internal damping) ‘+ elevations Each individual segment of each pipe may be considered as a hydraulic oscillator with its status fully defined by pressure and flow as functions of time and place, Other properties such as temperature and density are assumed to be constant due to the short investigation periods. Energy, mass and momentum balances mathematically describe the interactions between segments. This mathematical description forms a comprehensive system of non-linear differential equations (non-linear damping, cavitation). Numerical solution to this equation system determines the development of pressure and flow as a function of time for all pipe segments under consideration of the initial and boundary conditions. The initial conditions have been set up by presupposing the desired set point of the flow controllers and waiting for establishing of the steady state. The boundary conditions are given by the presupposed actuator speed and pump speed. The simulation model becomes the partial differential equation system which meets exactly the pressure shock theory when - as a hypothetical thought - the number of elements will be increased to infinity, The error caused by the finite size of the segments is controllable and negligible when compared to other possible error sources, ‘The largest error sources are the boundary conditions (particular the valve characteristics and the valve closing speed) as well as the unknown internal damping of the fluid. All simulations have been performed using hansaconsult's dynamic simulator KLEOPATRA® Version 10. 4.1 Assumptions and Simplifications The configuration of the system has been simplified due to the demand on computing power for dynamic simulation. Only the most significant parts of the supply system have been used for the dynamic analysis. The equipment at the fuel depots has been modelled according to the piping design and utilizing typical properties of equipment items specified. Page Sof 14 PA5BE-CPCWEC-PR-CALO0S2- Fuel Hydrant System Hycrauile Simulaion ReporthansclSnsult Ingenisurgeselschaft mbH 4.2 Control Circuits and Regulators All controllers have been assumed to be standard PID controllers with suppressed derivative (D) portion {rate time t, = 0} and with limited integral () portion at the low (0) and high (1) level of the controller output. A standard PLC module has been used as a template to model the controller. This module digitally mimics a classical analogue PID controller and is similar in its behaviour to other manufacturers’ PID controllers. Controller outputs have been assumed to impose directly on the associated variables such as valve stem position. Controller parameters used in simulations have only been roughly estimated in order to achieve stable behaviour of closed control loops without further optimizations. 43° Check Valves All check valves have been assumed to close delay-free and damping-free. This means that negative flows through check valves were not possible in the simulation. 4.4 — Valve Characteristic Three basic curves have been investigated: linear, equal percentage according to VDI/VDE 2173, and an assumed “open/close” curve. The latter one has been identified as completely unsuitable and therefore not considered any further. The curves are shown in Figure 1. At relative valve positions below 0.05, the equal percentage curve breaks down because of the fact that it must end up in point (0.0). open/close | as] | oes 7 co pareniags [mT \ Figure 1: Basic forms of valve characteristic Page 8 of 14 PaSEECPCWECPRCALDISI- Fuel Hydrant System Hyarautc Simulation ReporthanscSnsult lngenturgeseschat moH In this range, the curve is assumed to be linear. Regarding to the dynamic behaviour of the whole system, the values in this range are particularly important but they are hard to obtain from manufacturers. ‘The closing/opening speed of valves is assumed to be constant due to no better information available. This simplification might be very rough because the true course of the valve stem in time has a large influence on the dynamic behaviour as well as the characteristic curve itself. 45 Material Properties Modulus of elasticity of fluid: Er = 1.8 x 10° N/m* Modulus of elasticity of pipe: Ex = 211 x 10° N/m?. The influence on the speed of sound caused by the pipe elasticity has been calculated as follows: p= density of the fluid (ke/m*) © velocity [m/s] d pipe diameter (m] s =wall thickness {m] The elasticity does not contain any correction factors for dissolved air. Air can significantly support ‘the damping of the surges. Therefore, the assumptions are conservative. Page 7 of 14 'PAGBE-CPC-WEC-PR-CAL0062- Fuel Hydrant System Fycraule Simdaton Reporthe hansaconsult geneureoetchat m0! 5 Hydraulic Simulations 5.1 Fuel Demand ‘The overview over the hydraulic system is shown in Appendix 1. The hydrant system is being fed from the pump station located at the Fuel Farm which is, from the perspective of the hydrant system, a flow source capable to provide 2457 m?/h at approx. 11 bar via two 18” underground feeder pipes for the connection to the existing aprons. Apron E West is being fed by two 10” underground loop lines. directly from the main header inside the fuel farm. The 18” underground feeder pipes are running up to the new Valve Vault 2 and running from there on as 12” underground feeder pipes to the new Valve Vault 3 and connect apron A to the new system, The peak hour fuel demand is given with: 1. With an amount of 2400 m?/h in chapter 2.5.3 of the scope of work 2. AS ATM during peak hour (one way) with 42.6 A/C Based on the above given values a minimum peak hour demand has been determined based on internationally used and recognized utilisation factors. The utilisation factor is a non-dimensional value that defines the ratio between arrival rate and service rate (per time unit). Typically, the gate utilisation factor at conventional airports varies between 0.5 and 0.8, This utilisation factor accounts for demand variability and for the time required to manoeuvre aircraft in and out of gates. The utilisation factor was first established by Horonjeff, R. and McKelvey, F.X. in their design guidelines "Planning and Design of Airports" and later refined and developed by the Federal Aviation Administration under DOT/FAA/ND-95/3 "Vertiport Capacity - Analysis Methods" chapter 4.1.3 and 414. 43 A/C from peak hour forecast multiplied with the gate occupancy time of 30 minutes as an average, divided by 60 minutes and by a factor of 0.8 (peak hour gate utilisation) follows to 26.8 A/C 26.8 A/C divided into 1/3 code E and 2/3 code C aircrafts follows to: code E= 18 code C x 2500lpm = 22500Ipm 18 x 1200lpm = 21600Ipm Total= 44,100lpm = 2646 m?/h theoretical peak hour demand During start and stop of the refuellings, different maximum flow can occur. The determined amount of simultaneous refuellings for the different aircraft codes had been distributed to the aprons as shown in the table below. ‘Apron Aircraft Mix A 3x Code € & 4x Code C | 8 3x Code E & 4x Code C c 2x Code F & 4x Code C E ‘1x Code E & 6x Code C Table 3: A/C mix at various aprons Page Bol 14 'PAEBE-CPC-WECPR-CAL-0O52= Fuel Hycrant System Hydraulic Simulation Reporthe hansaconsult irgemeunosotchah ‘The peak hour fuel demand is based on the given aircraft mix to WEC by CPC (ref.: Volume 2 - Scope of Work). For the determination of peak hour fuel demand per apron the follo used: 1g data for refuelling were © Code C aircraft with max. 1200 /min © Code E aircraft with max. 2500 I/min 5.2 Pressure Losses in the Hydrant System Pressure losses shall be kept low in order to ensure sufficient working pressure for the dispensers and in the same time not to produce unnecessary energy losses. Usually pressure of approx. 8 bars in the piping system is considered as sufficient for all dispensers available on the market. Modern dispensers work satisfactory even at 2 pressure of 4-6 bars. Pressure losses depend on the actual flow pattern which changes all the time during normal operation. Usually the most critical situation appears when big fuel consumption occurs at far end of the hydrant system (i.e, far away from the hydrant pump station). Typically 1-3 bar pressure loss under such condition can be considered acceptable. The flow velocity shall in general not exceed 2.5 m/s. The printout of the graphical representation of the simulation model can be seen in Appendix 1 (separate sheet for the sake of legibility). This printout reflects the topology of the hydrant network but it should not be confused with a layout drawing and is not to scale. It consists of pipes with fittings, valves and equipment items relevant to the hydraulic behaviour (e. g. dispensers, meters, hoses, pumps etc.) connected at the hydraulic nodes (mainly tees) and forming the entire hydrant network as it exists now or will be extended in the future. Connection points between pipes are called hydraulic nodes and each piece of pipe is located between to such hydraulic nodes: “from node” and “to node”. Each hydraulic node can connect one or more pipes. An example of a hydraulic node is a tee. Pressure values are exposed in the model through a pressure property of a hydraulic node. The model contains following nodes with their steady state pressure values. Node | P [bar] [Na 96 mS na [94 na [8a NS [8a Ne [82 n7 [82 ns [80 no | 80 Table 4: Pressure values at all main hydraulic nodes based on refuelling case 1 Page 9 of 14 'PASB5-CPC-WEC-PR-CAL-OOSE= Foal Hydrant System Hyéraule Simulaon Reporthansdfénsult nleurgeselschan moH ‘Agraphic representation of a node (N7) with a displayed actual pressure value is shown like this: et N6 Figure 2: Node exemple (pressure values} Flow rates (Q) and velocities {V) inside the pipes can be read from the respective properties and displayed as follows: LI Figure 3: Node exemple (flow and velocity values} ‘The main hydraulic parameters, including diameters, pipe lengths, friction coefficients (zeta) as well as hydraulic properties of the fluid are part of the model and configured in accordance with the project documentation via dialog boxes specific to the object types. They are not displayed in the printout in order to maintain the legibility of the printout. An example of a dialog box for the pipes is shown below: roped |View | Sustn] Ost | a toy |_| cen |e Figure 4: Hydraulic parameters for Kleopatra Page 100f 14 Pa586-CPC-WEC-PR-CAL-0052- Fuel Hycrant System Hycraulc Simuaton Reporthe hansaconsult pentunesstachat oH Further parameters can be set or viewed in an object inspector, An example of the object inspector display is shown below: 10,09971850356808| iSeeazezraaaizi It should be noted that every distribution pattern (flow rate and location) will generate slightly different results even if the total flow rate will be identical in all cases. Therefore, displaying apparently precise numbers will be of no value for judging hydraulic capacity of the hydrant system. Typical hydraulic resistances used for the calculation: Kind ZETA C.[m'/hy Elbow 90° 0,17 Elbow 45° O11 Tee 13 DBBV 12” 3464 DBBV 18” 3741 Table 5: Hydraulic resistances Page 11 of 14 4606:CPC-WEC:PR-CAL-0082- Fuel Hydrant Sysiem Hycraule Simulation Reporthansaconsult inponeeryeseorar nor! Verification of the accuracy: ‘The accuracy of the computer program used for the calculation shall be verified by a calculation “by hand” on an arbitrary segment of the hydrant system. The calculation sequence is as follows: Reynolds number Re: ved Where: v—flow velocity [m/s] d—inner diameter [m] v—kinematic viscosity [m*/s] Friction factor 4 calculated by the iterative Colebrook-Prandtl formula (considered as the most accurate in the industry): 1k =2- logy) ——= + —-0.269 oe d ) Where: k absolute roughness (m] Pressure drop Ap calculated by the Darcy-Weisbach equation: L Ap= dea Where: |= pipe length {m} 0 fluid density [kg/m?] For the verification of the accuracy, the pipe segment between node NS and N7 has been selected. vn |" | 18° Page 12 of 14 ‘PaGBE CPC WEG PR-CAL-ODSZ- Fuel Fyerant System Hydraulic Simulation ReporthanscSnsult Irosneunesesahat mbH 5 * 10e-6 m/s 100 kg/m? Reynolds number: Re = 220254 . 292,560 2510 Friction coeff Pressure drop: re S30» S00 43 32= 13313.87 N/m? ‘Ap = 0.0159047* S5-+55 ‘The pressure drop calculated by the Kleopatra software: Ap = 13640.06 N/m? Relative error/deviation: (13313.87-13640.06)/ 13640.06 * 100% = -2.45 % Since the hand calculation has been conducted with rounded numbers, pressure drop calculated by hand can be considered technically identical to the pressure drop calculated by the Kleopatra A cross check simulation of the case where the entire nominal flow of the pumping station is consumed at different points of the old and new parts of the fuel hydrant system have shown that the total pressure loss between the pump station and the far end of the hydrant system would amount to 2.4 bar, which is an acceptable value. Page 13 of 14 PAGO6-CPC-WEC-PR-CALO052- Fuel Hydrant System Hydreulie Simulation Reporthansaénsult Ingenieugaselschan mbt 7 Results of the Simulation With the feed lines with a pipe diameter of 18” (from the Fuel Farm to Valve Vault 2), 12” (from Valve Vault 2 to Valve Vault 3) and loop lines with a pipe diameter of 12” (Apron A, B + C) respective 10” for ‘Apron E West, it is possible to run the aprons with the above given amounts of simultaneous refuelling operations, ‘The flow velocity in the feed lines will be above 1.0 m/s, provided there is proper fuel demand, hence sufficient for a self-cleansing function of the system (1.0 ~ 1.5 m/s recommended). The flow velocity in the loop lines varies between 1.0 and 1.3 m/s. The flow velocity does not exceed 2.5 m/s under normal conditions. The pressure losses are expected tobe less than 2.5 bar. In the calculation, following distribution of simultaneous refuelling operations at the aprons was assumed, representing the aircraft mix based on the maximum pump outlet flow: Number of aircrafts Location 3x Code E 4x Code C ‘Apron A ae code E Aircraft refuelling data: ax Code C Apron B 2 Code E 4x Code C Apron C Code F= 3500 l/min Ix Code E H ex Codec Apron E ‘Table 6: Overview refuellings Based on this fleet mix, the total peak fuel demand is 2646 m#/h, which can be accommodated by the fuel hydrant system, Any similar distribution of the aircrafts between the various aprons will lead to similar results, Page 14.of 14 PESBECPCWEC-PRCAL-O052- Fol Hydrant System Hyerauiic Simulalon Report