REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

WETAKEYYAGAHA KUBURA FOR WASTE TO

ENERGY PROJECT

REFERENCE No:- LM8535

Report Prepared by:

Dr. N.H. Priyankara, - Senior Lecturer/Consulting Geotechnical Engineer

Dr. G.H.A.C. Silva - Senior Lecturer/Consulting Hydrological Engineer

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Faculty of Engineering,
University of Ruhuna,
Hapugala, Galle.

1st January 2016

1.0 Introduction

There is a proposal to develop “Wetakeyyagaha Kumura-Muthurajawela” land extends of

6.6299 Hectares at Balagala Watta, Elakanda for waste to energy project. Since this is a marshy
land, it is necessary to get approval from the SLLRDC for the proposed development. Therefore,
on the request of client Ms. Thilini Dharshani Wijesinghe, authors, Dr. N.H. Priyankara and
Dr. G.H.A.C. Silva, analysed the existing situation of the land as well as the ground after
proposed development with respect to geotechnical and hydrological aspects and results are
presented in this report. Recommendations on the proposed development to improve the
drainage also presented.

In order to get a clear picture of the land, authors visited the said site twice on 16/07/2015 and
on 15/09/2015. In addition, on the request authors, client has provided following
documents/information.
1. Plan of the site (Appendix 1)
2. Proposed development of the site (Appendix 2)
3. Topographical survey plan (Appendix 3)
4. Borehole logs at 5 locations (Appendix 4)

2.0 Sub surface soil profile

To identify the sub surface soil profile, 5 numbers of boreholes (BH-01 to BH-05) were done at
the locations as illustrated in Figure 1. Detailed descriptions of the sub-surface soil profile
encountered during field investigation are presented in the borehole logs in Appendix 4. The
following section described the general site condition that can be interpreted from the available
borehole test data. All depths indicated in this section are with respect to a zero datum at the
top of the boreholes.

Typical subsoil profile at BH-01 can be interpreted as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Sub surface soil profile at BH-01

Layer No. Position (m) Layer description Average SPT-N value

1 0 – 3.0 Peat 2
2 3.0 – 6.0 Clayey silty sand 9
3 6.0 – 8.0 Clayey coarse sand 25
4 8.0 – 10.0 Dense sand 41
5 >10.0 Highly weathered rock >50
The subsurface soil profile at BH-01 consists of 3.0 m thick soft peat layer followed by 5.0 m
thick clayey sand layer. A 2.0 m thick dense sand layer is below the clayey sand layer. Highly
weathered rock is encountered at a depth of 10.0 m from the ground surface. The water table is
at 0.3 m below the ground surface.The borehole was terminated at a depth of 11.8 m from the
ground surface.

Typical subsoil profile at BH-02 can be interpreted as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 – Sub surface soil profile at BH-02

Layer No. Position (m) Layer description Average SPT-N value

1 0 – 3.0 Soft sandy clay 3

2 3.0 – 5.0 Medium stiff sandy clay 9
3 5.0 – 8.0 Stiff lateritic clay 31
4 >8.0 Highly weathered rock >50

The subsurface soil profile at BH-02 consists of 3.0 m thick soft sandy clay layer followed by
2.0 m thick medium stiff sandy clay layer. Stiff lateritic clay layer is below the sandy clay.
Highly weathered rock is encountered at a depth of 8.0 m from the ground surface. The water
table is at 0.4 m below the ground surface. The borehole was terminated at a depth of 9.35 m
from the ground surface.
BH-01

BH-03

BH-02

BH-05

BH-04

Figure 1 – Locations of boreholes

Typical subsoil profile at BH-03 can be interpreted as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 – Sub surface soil profile at BH-03

Layer No. Position (m) Layer description Average SPT-N value

1 0 – 2.0 Soft sandy clay 2

2 2.0 – 4.0 Sandy clay 5
3 4.0 – 6.0 Medium dense clayey sand 10
4 6.0 – 7.0 Medium dense silty sand 22
5 7.0 – 12.0 Dense sand 45
6 >12.0 Highly weathered rock >50

The subsurface soil profile at BH-03 consists of 4.0 m thick soft sandy clay layer followed by
3.0 m thick medium dense clayey/silty sand layer. A 5.0 m thick dense sand is below the clayey
sand layer. Highly weathered rock is encountered at a depth of 12.0 m from the ground surface.
The water table is encountered at a depth of 0.4 m from the ground surface. The borehole was
terminated at a depth of 13.55 m from the ground surface.

Typical subsoil profile at BH-04 can be interpreted as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 – Sub surface soil profile at BH-04

Layer No. Position (m) Layer description Average SPT-N value

1 0 – 2.0 Soft sandy clay 2

2 2.0 – 4.0 Clayey sand 9
3 4.0 – 6.0 Medium stiff lateritic clay 16
4 6.0 – 11.0 Stiff lateritic clay 26
5 >11.0 Highly weathered rock >50

The subsurface soil profile at BH-04 consists of 2.0 m thick soft sandy clay layer followed by
2.0 m thick clayey sand layer. A 7.0 m thick lateritic clay is below the clayey sand layer. Highly
weathered rock is encountered at a depth of 11.0 m from the ground surface. The water table is
encountered at a depth of 0.6 m from the ground surface. The borehole was terminated at a
depth of 12.05 m from the ground surface.
Typical subsoil profile at BH-05 can be interpreted as shown in Table 5.

Table 5 – Sub surface soil profile at BH-05

Layer No. Position (m) Layer description Average SPT-N value

1 0 – 2.0 Soft sandy clay 3

2 2.0 – 4.0 Clayey sand 8
3 4.0 – 6.0 Medium dense clayey sand 14
4 6.0 – 12.0 Stiff lateritic clay 26
5 >12.0 Highly weathered rock - 2 >50

The subsurface soil profile at BH-05 consists of 2.0 m thick soft sandy clay layer followed by
4.0 m thick clayey sand layer. Stiff lateritic clay layer is below the clayey sand layer. Highly
weathered rock is encountered at a depth of 12.0 m from the ground surface. The water table is
encountered at a depth of 0.6 m from the ground surface. The borehole was terminated at a
depth of 12.3 m from the ground surface.

Based on the borehole logs as reported in Appendix 4 and information provided in Table 1 to
Table 5, the sub surface at the site can be idealized as shown in Figure 2. It can be noted that the
ground surface is about 0.5-0.6 m above MSL. The average SPT-N value at each layer is also
illustrated in the Figure 2.

0m 0.5 MSL
0.3 m
Peat/Soft sandy clay N=2

3.0 m

Sandy clay N=8

6.0 m
Medium dense sand N=26
8.0 m

Dense sand N=43

12.0 m

Highly weathered rock N>50

Figure 2 – Subsurface soil profile

Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that, the entire land covered with a layer of peat with
soft organic clay to an average depth of 3.0 m. The medium stiff sandy clay is below the peat
layer. It can be noted that dense sand is at an average depth of 6.0 m below the ground surface.
The ground water table is very close to the existing ground surface.

It is very clear that due to low shear strength, high compressibility and high water content of
peaty soil will not provide favourable conditions for construction on them. In addition, due to
very low permeability of peaty soil and presence of high water table, infiltration capacity of the
sub surface is very low.
3.0 Hydrology

3.1 Hydrology of the area

The Muthurajawela marsh receives water from direct rainfall, run-off from the Dandugam Oya,
from local catchments like surrounding higher grounds, and probably occasionally during
floods, from the Kalu Oya and Kelani
Ganga. There is loss of water from the
Negonbo Lagoon area by evaporation of open water and
evapo-transpiration of the vegetation.
Very poor drainage accompanied with
rainfall and inflow exceeding losses to
the atmosphere in the wet season, and
vice versa in the dry season. There is a
net outflow from the area. The marsh
acts as a source of fresh water to its
surroundings, especially to the tidal
delta and the lagoon. The water level in
the marsh, and probably also the marsh
itself is slightly higher in the centre than
along its fringes. Water levels vary with
General Flow direction the seasons, but the retention time is
long enough to leave the area
inundated, or saturated, during the
year.
Hamilton Canal Other than evapotranspiration the
Sea balance flows to the sea mainly via the
outlet of the Negombo lagoon and for
Proposed site lesser part through the Hamilton Canal
in the mouth of the Kelani Ganga. The
western boundary of the marsh is
formed by the bund road along
Hamilton Canal between Hendala and
Bopitiya, about 10 km long and 0.4 - 1.0
m above MSL (Figure 3 and Figure 4).
Figure 3 - Proposed site and its vicinity
There are number of open sub-canals
crossing the marsh in east-west
direction. The extensive drainage system includes numerous more or less deteriorated canals
and low bunds with roads and paths. Most of these structures, however, including low parts of
the Hamilton Canal bund, area inundated during floods. Then a more or less continuous sheet
of water flows towards the Hamilton Canal. Figure 5 schematically explains the flow patterns.
 Proposed site

Hamilton Canal

Figure 4 - Site location and canal network

Canal trace
Plot boundary
Flow direction

Figure 5 – Site area and general drainage pattern

3.2 Surface Drainage

The long edge of the land (towards northern side) is having a canal which is not properly
maintained and completely covered with vegetation at the time of inspection. Apparently the
flow of water through the canal is disturbed by growth of vegetation and also the limited/no
slope to support the flow. However the direction of flow is recognized towards westwards
where the Hamilton canal is located. There is another minor canal partially going around the
plot originating from south side of the plot and connecting the westward canal and eventually
flowing to Hamilton canal which is located about 100 m away from the edge of the plot.

Expected development: The plot is to be used for a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) to Energy
project.

Plot area: The total plot area is 6.6299 Hectares (0.066299 km2).

Land use: The entire area is covered with relatively short bushes along with grass that grows
efficiently throughout the year having no short of water due to the high water table. The
existing canal network around the proposed site has not maintained properly (Figure 6) where a
thick layer of vegetation is currently available on the surface of each canal along with some of
the debris/sediment deposits that may have been generated during the rainy season. There is
almost stagnated flow condition at the canals due to low elevation variation and improper
maintenance.
 Canal trace
Plot boundary
Flow direction

Figure 6- Existing situation at the site

4.0 Hydrologic Studies

Method 1

Excess surface runoff generation calculation through Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
method:

Soil distribution across the area; Soil type D (Table 6) according to subsurface soil
profile as shown in Figure 2.
 Table 6 – Soil group classification

Before the proposed development (under the prevailing conditions) :-

The curve number for Open Spaces: good condition CN = 80 (for soil Group D) (Table 7).
1000
Hence 𝑆 = − 10 = 2.5 inches.
80
Total Precipitation = 12 inches
(12−0.2×2.5)2
Excess runoff = 𝑃𝑒 = = 9.45 inches (before development)
12+0.8×2.5

After proposed development

The curve number for Commercial and business areas (85% impervious) CN = 95 (Table 7)

1000
𝑆= − 10 = 0.526
95

(12−0.2×0.526)2
𝑃𝑒 = = 11.295 inches
12+0.8×0.526

Impact of the proposed development is to cause 11.295 - 9.45 = 1.845 inches (46 mm) of
additional runoff from the design storm, a 19.5 % increase.

Method 2

Excess surface runoff generation estimation through Hydrological Modeling:

HEC-HMS model of US Corps of Engineers was employed to carry out the hydrologic and
which was useful to mimic the flood propagation within the study area. The model study
consists of identification of model elements, parameterization and defining extreme
precipitation scenarios.
Model Elements for Represented Scenarios

To carry out hydrologic modeling it is necessary to spatially identify the following model
elements under different scenarios;

Existing Scenario: Catchment characteristics, drainage conditions, type of land use, surface and
subsurface soil profiles, level of ground water table, hydraulic conductivity/soil permeability of
near surface, surface storage/water clogged areas.

Future Scenario: Catchments (altered because of the proposed development).

Hydrologic Model (HEC HMS Model) Schematization

Model Schematization

For HEC HMS model the overall plot area has been considered as one single catchment
assuming the drainage of the entire plot area would be concentrated towards single outlet for
which hydrograph was derived using the model. SCS unit hydrograph technique was used in
computation of the flood hydrographs for 50 year return period storm. SCS CN (Curve
Number) technique was used in runoff generation through the surface flow.

Design Rainfall event

This 50 year local flood based on the 50 year rainfall event derived from IDF curves. Fifty (50)
year rainfall was selected as the proposed development consists of permanent structures and
hence significant extreme event would be a requirement for a meaningful investigation. A
rainfall histogram was derived using Alternate Block Method using the Colombo IDF curves of
Ranathunga D G L for 50 year return period. The design rainfall event is presented in Figure 7
below.

Desing Storm for 50-years return period

80.0

70.0

60.0
Rainfall depth (mm)

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
300

390

480

660

750

840
120

210

570

930
30

1110

1200

1290

1470

1560
1020

1380

Time (min)

Figure 7 – Design storm for 50 years return period

Model Outputs

The main output of the model is the discharge hydrographs for the 50 year design storm event
and these outflow hydrograph was used as concentrated and lateral flow output at the
hypothetical catchment outlet. HEC HMS model setups for the existing and future scenario are
given in Figure 8.

Figure 8 - HEC HMS model setups for the existing and future scenario

HEC HMS Model Results

The outputs from the HEC HMS model is the inflow flood hydrographs from the hypothetical
catchment consisting the entire project area as given in Figure 8. Extreme rainfall event (50 year
return period) before and after proposed development are given in Figure 9 and Figure 10
respectively.

Generated discharge for 50 year return period storm

1. Prevailing conditions

Existing condition: Open Spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, etc,: good condition: grass cover on
75% or more of the area (CN number 80 with soil group D) (Table 7)

2. After proposed development

Expected condition after proposed development: "Commercial and business area with 85%
impervious" (CN = 95 with soil group D) (Table 7)
 Figure 9 - Generated discharge at 50-year storm for the present conditions

Figure 10 - Generated discharge at 50-year storm for the proposed development

The discharge hydrographs (both existing and after proposed development) suggest that the
peak flow concentrated close to the peak of the storm (exact position would depend on the exact
time lag from the peak of the storm which is assumed to be 100 min in this case). The
hydrograph variations due to proposed development can easily be compared with the existing
conditions.

The cumulative runoff generation due to 100 year design storm:

Before development = 237 mm

After development = 279 mm

So impact of proposed development is to cause 276 -237 mm = 39 mm of additional runoff from

the design storm, a 16.5 % increase.
Table 7 -
5.0 Recommendation for site development

1. Since water table is very close to the existing ground surface, it is recommended to raise the
finish ground elevation (after development) by 1.0 m using either soil or sand fill.

2. In order to counter the excess runoff generation, design and maintain a detention
pond/canal to retard the excess runoff generation within the plot area and allowing
draining to existing canal network.

Total land area = 0.066299 km2

The maximum excess surface runoff expected = 3314.95 m3
In order to avoid flooding, it is necessary to retard the excess runoff within the land using a
detention canal or/ and a detention pond.
As existing canal bed level is at -0.051 MSL (about 0 MSL) (See Topographical survey plan –
Appendix 3), it is recommended to keep the proposed canal bed level at 0.5 MSL, thus
excess runoff may drain towards existing canal network under gravity flow.

By considering the surface runoff direction, it is recommended to place a detention canal at

north most corner of the land as shown in Figure 11.
Length of the canal = 400 m
Width of reservation for the canal = 7 m
Effective width of the canal = 3 m (There is a 2 m land reservation in either side of the canal)
The maximum water depth in detention canal = 1.5 m
The maximum capacity of the detention canal = 1800 m3

The remaining excess surface runoff (1514.95 m3) retard using a detention pond
The maximum water depth in detention canal = 1.5 m
The surface area of the detention pond = 1010 m2
By keeping 5 m reservation around the pond, it is recommended to place a 30 m x 50 m
detention pond at north-west corner of the land as shown in Figure 11

3. Drastic improvements in maintenance of peripheral canals are needed. It is recommended to

construct Gabion walls up to 1.0 m above MSL at both banks of the existing peripheral
canals to protect the bank erosion.

4. The right bank of the proposed detention canal is recommended to construct using
reinforced concrete (upto 1.0 m above MSL) to minimize the seepage beyond the detention
canal. However, banks of all other peripheral canals are constructed using gabions allowing
seepage towards the said premises, which may minimize the flooding in the other areas
(Figure 11)