MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC HOUSING

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF WAT E R RESOURCES

BALAI BESAR WILAYAH SUNGAI CIDANAU-CIUJUNG-CIDURIAN
SATUAN KERJA NON VERTIKAL TERTENTU PEMBANGUNNAN BENDUNGAN KARIAN
A l a ma t : J l . U s t a d z U z a i r Y a c h ya N o . 1 S e r a n g B a n t e n Te l / F a x : ( 6 2 ) 2 5 4 2 0 6 1 11 / ( 6 2) 2 5 4 2 27 1 1 7

Review Design for Karian Multi-purpose Dam

Development Project

April 2015

KRC Consortium
Korea Rural Community Corporation (KRC), Korea
Korea Engineering Consultant Corp.(KECC), Korea
PT. Indra Karya (Persero), Indonesia
PT. Wiratman, Indonesia
PT. Mettana, Indonesia
 - CONTENT -
<Design Certification of Karian Dam, 2007>
<Technical Issues for the Design Certification>

<Review Design>
1. Outline of the Project
2. Hydrology & hydraulics
3. Geology & Geo-technology
4. Construction Materials
5. Design of Dam
6. Stability Analysis
7. Measurement Plans
8. River Diversion
9. Spillway
10. Intake & Outlet Facilities
11. Protection of Excavated Slope
12. Conclusion 2
<Design Certification of Karian Dam>

3
<Technical Issues for the Design Certification>
Review Design/
No Comments from Balai Bendungan
Answers
Additional geological and geotechnical investigations in 6 additional borings
tunnel site, and to check the existence of fault zone,
1
potential leakage and sliding in inundation area.:

The condition of groundwater level around the tunnel for the Reviewed tunnel
dewatering. In addition, classification using Bieniawskis excavation, dewatering
2
method along the tunnel and supporting

A geological expert has to observe the excavation result and Just recommended
3 do mapping on the form of surface geology map

4 The curtain grouting line and test grouting. Just recommended

The excavated slope of plunge pool requires attention to the Just recommended
5
possibility of scouring
The excavated slope in the right side of the plunge pool Suggested protection
6
methods
4
 Review Design/
No Comments from Balai Bendungan
Answers
The detailed technical plan for the instrumentation system, Prepared technical
7 instrument specification, calibration before installation, and specifications.
others.
A separated transportation road in order to avoid the New access road
8 damage along public transportation road.

9 The telemetry system and operation system Just recommended

To avoid the water conflict in the future, the distribution of Just recommended
10
the water has to be dealt with together
The Dam Safety Commission Team and Balai Bendungan Just recommended
11 Study Teams site inspection at every important stages
during the construction of dam.
<Other technical Issues>
12 Updating hydrological analysis for Coffer Dam Hydraulic analysis for
Coffer Dam
13 Review mutual behavior interference due to the adjacent Reviewed tunneling
blasting for tunnel excavation method and stability
5
 1. Outline of the Project
Project Objectives
DMI water supply to Tangerang, Banten. (9.1 m3/sec)
Flood control (60.8 million m3) and Small hydro-power generation
Supplementary DMI water supply to Serang, Cilegon cities & supplementary irrigation
water supply to the existing areas of Ciujung irrigation scheme. (5.5 m3/sec)

Project Location
Karian Dam : Ciberang river (a tributary of Ciujung river)
About 3 hours by car from Serang city, Banten.

Administration
Karian dam scheme: in the southeast of Kabupaten Lebak.
Karian dam site: Pasir Tanjung village, Rangkasbitung Sub District.
The dam and its reservoir site copes about 11 villages from 4 sub-districts such as
Rangkasbitung, Maja, Cimarga, and Sajira.
6
7
 <Main Features and Details of Project>

(1) Operation Features of the Project:

Watershed : 288 km2
Annual Average Runoff : 20.2 m3/s
Design Flood (Peak, 1/2 of : 1,850 m3/s (Design discharge: 658 m3/s)
PMF)
PMF (Peak) : 3,671 m3/s (Max discharge: 3,190 m3/s)
Storage Area : 15.93 km2 (Normal High Water Level)
Total Storage : 314.71 mil.m3
Effective Storage : 207.48 mil.m3
Flood Control Storage : 60.80 mil.m3
Dead Storage : 46.40 mil.m3
Amount of Water Supply : 14.6 m3/s (5.5 m3/s to Serang, 9.1 m3/s to Tangerang)
Dead Water Level : EL. 37.50 m
Low Water Level : EL. 46.00 m
Normal High Water Level : EL. 67.50 m
Flood Water Level : EL. 70.85 m
Maximum Water Level : EL. 71.22 m

8
(1) River Diversion Works
Design Flood (Peak) : 775 m3/s (25-year flood)
Primary & Downstream Coffer Dam
Type : Random Earth Fill Dam
Dam Crest Elevation : EL 31.00 m (Primary), EL 24.50m (D/S)
Crest Width : 8.0 m
Slope
Primary : 1:1.8 (Up & Downstream)
D/S : 1:3.0 (Up & Downstream)
Upstream Coffer Dam
Type : Central Cored Rockfill Dam
Dam Crest Elevation : EL 39.00 m
Crest Width : 10.0 m
Dam Crest Length : 137.0 m
Slope : 1:3.0 (Upstream), 1:2.5 (Downstream)
Diversion Tunnel
Location : On the right side of the dam
Length : Diversion tunnel No. 1: 512.6 m, No. 2: 506.35 m
Inside diameter : 4.5 m
Type : Horseshoe-shaped tunnel
Closing gate : Steel sliding gate
Bottom elevation : EL. 20.0 m (inlet portal), EL. 19.0 m (outlet portal)
Tunneling Method : A.S.S.M
Plug Concrete Length : 20.0 m
9
(1) Main & Saddle Dams
Main Dam
Type : Central Cored Rockfill Dam
Length : 516 m
Dam Crest Elevation : EL 72.5 m
Crest Width : 10.0 m
Slope : 1:3.0 (Upstream), 1:2.5 (Downstream)
Slope Protection : Random-Dumped Riprap (t=1.5 m, Upstream)
Hand-Placed Riprap (t=1.0 m, Downstream)
Saddle Dam 1, 2 & 3
Type : Central Cored Rockfill Dam
Length : 113 m (No 1), 447m (No 2), 342 m (No. 3)
Dam Crest Elevation : EL 72.5 m
Crest Width : 6.0 m
Slope : 1:3.0 (Upstream), 1:2.5 (Downstream)
Slope Protection : Random-Dumped Riprap (t=1.5 m, Upstream)
Hand-Placed Riprap (t=1.0 m, Downstream)

10
(1) Spillway
Hydraulic Features
Design Flood (Inflow) : 3,671 m3/s (PMF)
Design Discharge
Control Structure : 3,190 m3/s (PMF)
Chuteway : 3,190 m3/s (PMF)
Plunge Pool : 266 m3/s(100-year Frequency)
Structural Features
Approach Channel : Max. 92.7m long (Ogee Spillway)
: Max. 13.5m long (Side Channel Spillway)
Side Channel Type
Weir Length : 50 m
Weir Crest : EL. 67.50 m (N.H.W.L)
Gated Ogee Type
Weir Length : 25.0 m
Weir Crest : EL. 57.50 m
Regulating Gate : Radial Gate, 12.5m(W)13.4(H)2 gates
Chuteway
Slope : 1 / 4.0
Length : 117.4 m
Width : 49.0 m
Plunge Pool
Length : 88.0 m
Bottom Width : 49.0 m

11
Radial Gate (out of this package: Hydro-Mechanical works)
Number of gate : 2 Sets
Crest elevation : EL 67.5
Sill elevation : EL 67.2 (about)
Clear span : 12.5 m
Clear height : 13.4 m
Gate height : 13.7 m (13.4 + 0.3)
Type of hoist : 1-motor, 2-drums wire rope winding type (including:
gate position indicator, limit s/w, brake, cover, etc.)
Lifting height : 10 m
Lifting speed : 0.3 m/min 10%
Lofting capacity : 180 Ton
Capacity of motor : 22 x 6 P x 3 phase, 380V 50Hz
Hoist deck elevation : EL 72.5
Stop log (out of this package: Hydro-Mechanical works)
Type of stop log : Steel girder type
Clear span : 12.5 m
Clear height : 10.0 m (1.25 m x 8 blocks)
Lifting beam : 1 set of hook type lifting beam
Lifting device : Truck crane
Downstream Transition Channel
Design Discharge : 128 m3/s (10-year Frequency)
Channel Length : Approx. 111.0 m

12
 <Summary of Dam Scale>

Description Elevation Reference Remarks

Dead water level EL. 37.5 m Sediments of 100 years

Low water level EL. 46.0 m Intake Tunnel EL. of 45.0 m

Normal High Water EL. 67.5 m Water supply capacity of 14.6 90 % of reliability
Level m3/sec
Flood Water Level EL. 70.85 m 1/2 PMF Flood Control Storage:
60.8mil.m3
Maximum Water Level EL. 71.22 m PMF

Dam Crest Level EL. 72.5 m Freeboard 1.28 m If gated spillway, freeboard
should be more than 1.25m
above from M.W.L (Maximum
Water Level).

13
. MAIN DAM

<Diagram of Dam Scale>

D.C.L : EL.72.5 m: Freeboard 1.28 m
Total Storage : 314.7mil.m3 M.W.L: EL.71.22m : PMF
= F.W.L : EL.70.85m : PMF
Flood Control Storage : 60.8mil.m3 N.W.L : EL.67.5m: Water Supply of
14.6 m3/sec (90% reliability)
+ According to the reservoir operation simulation by
Effective Storage : 207.5mil.m3 using Hec-5

+
L.W.L : EL of 46.0m: Intake Tunnel EL of 45.0m

Dead Storage : 46.4mil.m3 D.W.L : EL.37.5m: Sediment of 100 years

D.W.L. was determined with Empirical Area-Reduction Method

14
 <Summary of Dam Design>

Description Characters Reference Remarks

1. Cross section USBR standard

- Core zone Crest width = 5 m U/S & D/S slope = 1 : 0.2 EL= 72.0 m

Crest width =1.5 m

- Fine filter zone U/S & D/S slope = 1 : 0.3 EL= 72.0 m
(each U/S & D/S)

Crest width =1.0 m

- Coarse filter zone U/S & D/S slope = 1 : 0.35 EL= 71.5 m
(each U/S & D/S)
U/S slope = 1 : 3.0
- Rock fill zone Crest width = 10 m EL= 72.5 m
D/S slope = 1 : 2.5

15
 <Summary of Dam Design>

Description Characters Reference Remarks

2. Gated Spillway Design of Small Dams of U.S.B.R.

PMF outflow
- Control structure EL. 57.5 m Capable of discharging 2,410 m3/s at
EL = 71.22m.

3. Side channel Design Q= 780 m3/s at EL = 71.22m. Flood Control

EL. 67.5 m
spillway Ciujung River Basic Plans(98) Storage: 60.8mil.m3

V/H (slope) =1/4

4. Chuteway Design Q=3,190 /s (PMF)
B= 49.0 m.

5. Energy dissipater

- Flip bucket type +

EL=12.5 m Design Q=266/s (100-year)
Plunge pool

16
 <Summary of Dam Design>

Description Characters Reference Remarks

6. D/S transition
Length=111 m Design Q=128 m3/s (10-year)
channel
7. Diversion works
Generally applied to Rockfill dam
- Diversion Method Tunnel
construction

Culvert Master
- Diversion tunnel Diameter 4.5 m x a 25-year flood selected as the design program by Haestad
Methods and the
size 2 lanes flood (Q=775/sec).
calculation by using
the HEC-5.

Design standard byMinistry of

- Tunnel Type C-Type, D-type Agriculture, Forest and Fishery, Japan
1996

17
 2. Hydrology & hydraulics
Low Flow Analysis
Flow discharge
Catchment
Station Period of Remarks
area ()
95% (/sec)
35 years
DD 2006 Rangkasbitung 288 4.00 O
(1970~2004)
Review Design 40 years
Rangkasbitung 288 3.36
2014 (1970~2009)

Sediment Analysis (equation: C/C study in 1995, Ciujung-Cidurian Integrated Water

Resources Study (1995, JICA))
Items Flow discharge Specific sediment deposit Sediment storage for
(annual average discharge) volume 100 years

DD 2006 20.2 m3/sec 2,011 m3/year/km2 57.92 (106 m3)

Note: Review Design: Flow discharge=21.0 m3/sec (1970 ~ 2009)

18
Isohyet Map of Probable of Maximum Precipitation (PMP)
around the Watershed of the Karian Dam

19
 Available rainfall data
Study Rainfall station PMP
DD 2006 1982 ~ 2003 680 mm (Isohyet map 2003)
(22 years)
Review Design 1982 ~ 2013 800 mm (Isohyet map 2013)
2014 (32 years) 633 mm (Gumbel EV-1)

Flood Flow Analysis (Snyder unit hydrograph method)

Study 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 1000-yr 1/2PMF PMF

DD 2006 615 775 890 1,010 1,421 1,850 3,671

Review Design
506 664 790 937 1,418 1,731 4,295
2014

Note) PMF 4,295: in case applied from 800 mm 20

<Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Hydrograph>

4,500
PMF=4295 m3/sec
PMF=3671

Flood Discharge (m3/sec)

3,000

1,500

DGWR PMF
Review PMF

0
1 4 7 11 14 17 21 24 27 31 34 37
Time (hour)

<PMF Hydrograph 2006> <PMF Hydrograph 2014>

21
PMF Values of the Karian Dam Compared with Saguling Dam, Cirata,
Jatiluhur and other Dams in Indonesia (Review of 2014)

22
. MAIN DAM

<Operation Rule>

- The ungated side channel spillway is arranged to release smaller

flood than the 1/2*PMF(FWL EL.70.85m) without any operation.
- The gated spillway is to be open in case the reservoir water level
becomes higher than FWL(EL.70.85m)

Flood
10-yr 25-yr 100-yr 1/2PMF PMF
frequency
Peak inflow
615 775 1,010 1,850 3,671
(m3/s)
Peak outflow
128 173 266 658 3,190
(m3/s)

Maximum water level

68.65 68.95 69.37 70.85 71.22
(EL. m)

23
 <Reservoir Flood Routing - PMF>
<PMF 2006> <PMF 2014>
Figure 6.12d. The Graph of Flood Routing of Spillway with Q- PMF.
4800

4400
Qi peak = 4.295,40 m3/s
4000

Qmax=3671m3/s 3600

Qo peak = 3.169,8 m3/s

Qmax =3190m3/s 3200

Discharge (m3/s)
2800

2400
in-flow

out-flow
2000

1600
EL=71.22 m
1200

800

400

0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Time (hour)

PMF
Section
DD 2006 Design Review 2014

Dam crest (EL. M) 72.50 72.50

Calculation results of reservoir peak inflow (/sec) 3,671 m3/s 4,295 m3/s
flood routing peak outflow (/sec) 3,190 m3/s 3,170 m3/s

Maximum water level (EL. m) 71.22 m 71.18 m

Freeboard (m) 1.28 m 1.32 m

24
 <Reservoir Flood Routing Flood Frequency>
DD 2006
Flood PMF
5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 1000-yr
frequency PMF (Isohyets)

Peak inflow
490 615 775 890 1,010 1,421 1,850 3,671
(m3/s)
Peak outflow
94 128 173 218 266 434 658 3,190
(m3/s)
Maximum water
level 68.42 68.65 68.95 69.16 69.37 70.08 70.85 71.22
(EL. m)

Review Design 2014

Flood PMF
100 years 1000 years 1/2 PMF
frequency (Isohyets)
Peak inflow
936.60 1,418.0 1,731.65 4,295.40
(m3/s)

Peak outflow (m3/s) 200.55 353.50 501.15 3,169.80

Maximum water level

69.09 69.76 70.31 71.18
(EL. m)
25
 <Hydraulic calculation of flood routing for Coffer Dam>

Elv. Crest : 39.00m

Elevation Freeboard =
Inflo
reservoir W
w

Storage Cofferda
m
D Diversion Tunnel Q out

Diameter Tunnel

Review Design 2014

Return Period Inflow Maximum Outflow Elevation (m)
(years) (m3/s) Maximum (m3/s)
Q-25 664.30 282.88 35.07
Q-50 788.80 298.97 36.69
Q-100 936.60 315.29 38.42
26
3. Geology & Geotechnology
<Dam Site>
Foundation Rock : CL-Class (Highly weathered rock)

Excavation Depth : 5m (by Drilling & Exploration)

Permeability : 10-2~10-4cm/s Curtain Grouting, depth

= 40m

Compressive Strength qu= 25.33 kg/cm2 ranging 1~97

kg/cm2 (very soft rock)

Consolidation Grouting for Bearing Capacity

27
<Location of Boring Holes>

28
<Geological Profile of Dam Axis>

29
 KB-30 (55~60m) KB-30 (60~65m)

Boring 2005

KB-31 (55~60m) KB-31 (60~65m)

30
 BH-01 Depth 00.00 05.00 meter

Additional
Inclined
Boring- at
BH-01 Depth 05.00 10.00 meter
Dam site
Year 2013

BH-01 Depth 10.00 15.00 meter

BH-01 Depth 15.00 20.00 meter

BH-01 Depth 20.00 25.00 meter

31
 BORING LOG
PROJECT : CONSTRUCTION OF KARIAN MULTI PURSE DAM PROJECT
LOCATION : Dam Site DATE : 02 - 18 Dec 2013
BORE HOLE NO : BH- 01- I BORING METHOD : Coring Sampling
ELEVATION : 121.00 m INCLINATIOIN : 450
COORDINATE : X = 642007,4269. Y = 9290686,9065 DIAMETER OF HOLE : 73 mm
DEPTH : 48.00 m DRILLER : Herman
WATER LEVEL : 10,00 m LOGGER : Ketut Subekti
AVERAGE CORE RECOVERY : 99.80% REVIEWED BY : Zainal Arifin
ROCK

WATER LEVEL
CORE QUALITY

ROCK CLASS

SAMPLING
COULUM DESIGNATION

GROUND
SOIL/ SOIL/ RECOVERY

DATE
DEPTH (RQD)

(m)
(m)
ROCK ROCK Description Cm %
UNIT TYPE SECTION (%) (%)
0 50 100 0 50 100
00.00 Top Soil Clay v v 0,00 - 0,60 M
Top Soil, clay, brown, soft, non plastisity, contain of root. 150
01.00
0,60 - 4,10 m
Boring Log of Clay, brown, soft, medium plastisity.

December, 02, 2013

02.00

Clay
150

Inclined 03.00

150
Boring, 2013 04.00

Aluvial (River Deposite)

4,10 - 9,30 m
Gravelly sand, brown, sand loose, coarse sand, gravel form sandstone,
05.00
subrounded - rounded, max size 2 cm. 150
D

Gravelly sand
06.00
December,
03, 2013
100
07.00
90
08.00
90
09.00
December, 04, 2013

90
9,30 - 11,35 m
10.00
Sand, blackish grey, sand loose, fine to medium sand, wet.
Sand

100

0%
10,00 m
11.00

100
12.00
Tuffaceous 11,35 - 12,20 m
sand
v v v Tuffaceous sand, yellowish white, medium loose, medium to coarse sand.
100
12,20 - 14,50 m
Tuffaceous

13.00
v Tuffaceous clay, yellowish grey, soft, medium plastisity.
clay

100
v v
14.00
December, 05, 2013

Tuffaceous Sandstone

100
14,50 - 20,80 m
15.00
v Tuffaceous sandy clay, brownish grey, soft, mediun to coarse sand, sub-
100
v v angular to rounded. CL
Tuffaceous sandy clay

16.00

100

17.00
v
100
v v
18.00
December,
06, 2013

100
19.00
v
v v
20.00
100
32
<Geological Profile of Other 5 Boring Holes, 2013>

33
Confirmation of Fault
Zone at Dam Site,
2013

Inclined
Boring

34
 <Confirmation of Fault Zone at Dam Site>

Review of JICA survey report, found fault zone from aerial photographs, but this site has too dense
existing report forest even hard to walk.
If the fault zone could be found, they should have found the evidence from the field
geological survey but they did not mention about it.
Even in the elastic wave exploration, there was no mention fault zone.
Also in explaining map there was no sign of clear fault, in the same way in the boring survey.

Field geological In sedimentation stage of the river, the soft part of the upper was cut little by little by
survey streams of river, and
sediments of river such as sand and gravel are deposited in 5-10m thickness.

Drilling 2 inclined drillings and 4 vertical drillings

Conclusion As a result of core logging, there are no sign of magmatic injection or serious
diastrophism, thus it shows low possibility of fault occurrence.
no need to take any special measures concerning a fault or an active fault

35
 4. Construction Materials
Location of Previous Borrow & Quarry
Volume of Materials Site
Target
(103 m3)
Available
Materials Upstream
Main Saddle (103 m3)
Coffer Sum
dam Dams
Dam

Core 146 15 15 176 420

S/Gravel 154 12 15 181 357

Rock fill &

Riprap 904 113 59 1,076 3,225

Additional Investigation for Sendi Mt.

- Rock : Andesite
- Comp. Strength : 702~717kg/cm2
- Absorption : 1.5~1.7%
- Estimated Volume : 4,000,000 m3
36
 <Alternative Quarry Site>
<Original Quarry Site>
Mt. Sendi not allowed to be processed further with consideration of:
The area of 4.25 ha: natural mixed forest (good condition of conservation).
Some areas coincide with the catchment area of the Cilaki river, Environmental
Prevention Area (river bank).
too close to settlements/villages from the location of the quarry ( 90 meter)

<Alternative Quarry Site>

Mt Name Field geological Survey Drilling & Lab test Remarks
Geblegan 19.2 km 5 holes New
Gentle dome shape, forest not dense, Compression Strength was quarry Site
Andesite or taffaceous sand stone formed by ejecta of 732Kg/cm2 -1,057 Kg/cm2
volcano Volume: 2.891.032 m3 (minimum
Compressive strength above 700 kg /cm2 by geologic vol: 1,400,000m3)
hammering
Puranta About 20 km Not conducted Reserved
Forest physiognomy dense quarry site
Columnar joint shape rock
Pongol 27 km Not conducted Reserved
10 meter deep coverage soil and dense forest quarry site
Cinihni 3 km 1 hole
Quantity sufficient but rock quality questionable fresh rock not distributed
37
<Location of Bore Holes in Geblegan Mt>

38
Cross section of Quarry area Geblegan hill

39
Core Box of
QBH-1,
Geblegan Mt,
New Quarry

40
Drilling Log of QBH-1, Geblegan Mt, New Quarry

41
 New Borrow Area

New Quarry Site

42
 <Access Road for New Quarry>
<Necessity of New Access Road>
To shorten the distance
If through existing provincial road the length of the access road will be about 35.4
kilometer meanwhile if using the new access road passing through the existing village
road it will be about 19.2 kilometer.
To avoid damage to the existing provincial road
The volume of embankment material is estimated to be 1.2 million cubic meter. They will
be transported by trucks weighing > 10 tons, while the existing provincial road has
been designed and constructed to resist the truck traffic weighing < 10 tons. Thus it is
very apparent to damage the road upon using the existing provincial road as an access
road without upgrading.
To keep off traffic jam in provincial road
The width of the existing provincial road is only 6.00 meters, and is an important
network of transportation linking Lebak county to Bogor county. Traffic jam will take
place whenever the carrier trucks with upload of embankment material are passing
there slowly. 43
 <Specification of construction materials>

Material Specification
Core material permeability: under 110-5 cm/sec
15-20% of less 0.05mm particles to be included.
Plasticity index: 15-30% and low plasticity.
USCS (Unified Standard Classification System): GC, SC, CL,
SM and CH.
maximum dry density: more than 95%.
Fine filter material coefficient of permeability: 10 to 100 times higher than core
materials.
not have viscosity
soil particle with below 0.074mm diameter: less 5%
Coarse filter the particle size of the materials: smaller than that of rock zone
material materials.
less than 5% of less 0.074 mm
maximum size of particle: less than 75 mm 44
 <Specification of construction materials>

Material Specification
Rock material Fresh and hard rock
maximum diameter of particles: 45 to 60 cm
the particles with diameter of less than 10 cm: less than 5%.
Specific gravity: more than 2.5
compression strength: more than 700kgf/cm2
Durability: less than 15%.

Slope protection (1) Upstream Slope Protection

material Random dumped riprap
average grain size: 30cm
Thickness: 1.5m
(2) Downstream Slope Protection
Hand-placed riprap
average grain size: 30cm
Thickness: 1.0m including bedding layer. 45
 <Design parameter of soil materials for
Karian Dam>
Review Design
No. Item Symbol Unit FS JICA 1985 KOICA 2005
2014
1 Natural water content Wn % 41,70 ~ 42,30 26,26 ~ 38,09 39,73 ~ 80,20
2 Specific gravity Gs - 2,66 ~ 2,62 2,567 ~ 2,642 2,528 ~ 2,647
3 Liquid limit WL % 55,60 ~ 58,70 49,20 ~ 82,33 66,21 ~ 118,85
4 Plastic limit WP % 32,00 ~ 34,50 27,26 ~ 43,48 38,40 ~ 69,06
5 Plasticity index lP % 23,60 ~ 24,20 19,56 ~ 38,85 26,21 ~ 61,16
6 Soil class - - MH MH ~ CH MH ~ OH
7 Sand part S % - 15,34 ~ 51,93 4,80 ~ 38,36
8 Silt part M % - 18,71 ~ 38,16 10,30 ~ 47,52
9 Clay part C % - 31,00 ~ 46,50 29,33 ~ 64,40

10 Optimal moisture content OMC % 26,55 24,50 ~ 39,95 30,16 ~ 44,85

11 Maximal dry density MDD t/m3 1,48 1,197 ~ 1,509 1,163 ~ 1,335
12 Permeability K Cm/s 2,4x10-7 6,86x10-8 ~ 1,06x10-7 6,05x10-7 ~ 3,11x10-7
Triaxial CU/CD
13 Cohesion efficient C' t/m2 2,00 5,78 ~ 7,16 2,10 ~ 9,50
Internal friction degree j' ...0 20,5 18 ~ 26 3,7 ~ 6,4
Consolidation
14 Compression index Cc - - 0,232 ~ 0,300 0,25 ~ 0,47
Coef of Consolidation Cv Cm2/s - (1,65~2,25)x10-2 4,56x10-2 ~ 7,53 x 10-3
15 Difference=Wn-OMC Dw % +15,45 (+1,76)-(+4,04) (+9.57) ~ (+35.35)
46
. MAIN DAM
5. Design of Dam
<Optimum Scale of the Dam>
D.C.L : EL.72.5 m: Freeboard 1.28 m
Total Storage : 314.7mil.m3 M.W.L: EL.71.22m : PMF
= F.W.L : EL.70.85m : PMF
Flood Control Storage : 60.8mil.m3 N.W.L : EL.67.5m: Water Supply of
14.6 m3/sec (90% reliability)
+ According to the reservoir operation simulation by
Effective Storage : 207.5mil.m3 using Hec-5

+
L.W.L : EL of 46.0m: Intake Tunnel EL of 45.0m

Dead Storage : 46.4mil.m3 D.W.L : EL.37.5m: Sediment of 100 years

D.W.L. was determined with Empirical Area-Reduction Method

47
<Layout of Karian Dam Site>

48
 . MAIN DAM

<Typical Cross-section of Main Dam>

Dam Type Center Core Rockfill Dam(CCRD) FS (85, JICA)

Crest Level EL. 72.5m plus1.28m of freeboard from M.W.L(EL71.22m).

Crest Width 10.0m by USBR & maintenance economical efficiency

Extra Embankment 0.51m at the maximum height

Core Zone Core crest: 72.0m, Crest Width: 5.0m

Steep Slope: 1:0.2 (Up and Down Stream)
.
Fine Filter Zone Core crest: 72.0m, Crest Width: 1.5m (Up/Down Stream)
Steep Slope: 1:0.3 (Up and Down Stream)
Coarse Filter Core crest: 71.5 m Crest Width: 1.0m (Up/Down Stream)
Zone Steep Slope: 1:0.35 (Up and Down Stream)
Rock Zone Core crest: 72.5m,
Steep Slope Upstream: 1:3.0, Downstream: 1:2.5 49
 Typical Section of Dam Axis
Core
Fine Filter
Coarse Filter
Rock

Curtain Grouting (2Rows)

- Spacing of Holes : 1.5m
- Spacing of Rows : 2.0m
- Grouting Depth : Max. 45m
50
. MAIN DAM
<Foundation>

Excavation

Impervious Reaching to bedrock of CL or CM

Zone
Rock Reaching to weathered rock
Zone

51
. MAIN DAM
<Grouting Plan>
Item Description
Foundation - Permeability : Around 110-4cm/s (sepuluh pangkat minus empat)
Condition - Rock Class : CL, D
Curtain - 2 rows (hole spacing: 1.5m, row spacing: 2.0m)
Grouting - Depth (45m to 27m)

Blanket - 1 row along the dam axis, for complementation of

Grouting curtain grouting (hole spacing: 3m)
- Depth (1/2 of curtain grouting depth)
Consolidation - 2 rows (hole spacing: 3m, row spacing: 3m)
Grouting - Depth 10m
Rim - 1 row, Length 46m from the end of left bank
Grouting - Hole spacing 1.5m, Depth 20m

52
 . MAIN DAM

Grouting Profile & Layout

3,000
Consolidation Grouting Hole

Main Dam Crest

Depth 27m Depth 27m

Downstrea
Depth 35m Depth 35m
Curtain Grouting Hole

2,000
Grouting

m
Depth 45m
Dam Axis
for

2,000
Upstream
spillway

2,000
1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

Curtain Grouting

3,000 3,000

3,000
Grouting Type Drilling Curtain Grouting
Curtain Grouting 27,932
Blanket Grouting
Blanket Grouting 748
Consolidation Grouting 6,880 Consolidation Grouting
Rim Grouting 620
Total 36,180m

53
 . MAIN DAM

6. Stability Analysis

Evaluation of Earthquake risk factor for Dam

Score
Risk Factor
Extreme High moderate Low
Capacity 100 100-1.25 1.0-0.25 < 0.25
(106 m3) (6) (4) (2) (0)
Dam Height 45 45 30 30 -15 < 15
(m) (6) (4) (2) (0)
Population of damage 1000 1000-100 100-1 0
area (12) (8) (4) (0)
Downstream damage Very high High Slightly high Moderate No Damage
grade (12) (10) (8) (4) (0)

Scoring of Karian Dam: Capacity (6) + Height (6) + Population (12) + Damage (12) = 36

54
. MAIN DAM

<Slope Stability Analysis >

Risk classification
Requirement without damage Requirement without collapse
Total of
Risk Class Class
Risk factor Year Analysis mode Year Analysis mode

Seismic or
0-6 I (Low) IV 100-200
Seismic coeff.
10,000
dynamic coeff.
N=50-100 Ad 0.1g (MDE)

7-18 II (Moderate) IV 50-100 5,000 Seismic or

Seismic coeff.
N=50-100 Ad 0.1g (MDE) dynamic coeff

19-30 III (High) IV 50-100

Seismic coeff.
3,000 Seismic or
N=50-100 Ad 0.1 (MDE) dynamic coeff

IV 50-100 1,000 Seismic or

31-36 IV (Extreme) N=50-100 Ad 0.1
Seismic coeff.
(MDE) dynamic coeff

Determination of Return period : Class IV, return period 10,000 (MDE)

55
. MAIN DAM

<Slope Stability Analysis >

Earthquake Map

Earthquake map (100-year return period) 56

. MAIN DAM

<Slope Stability Analysis >

Earthquake Map

Earthquake map (10,000-year return period) 57

. MAIN DAM
6. Stability Analysis
<Seismic Coefficient>

Seismic Coefficient for Karian Dam (Review Design)

- Standard: PETA HAZARD GAMPA INDONESIA 2010
- Foundation condition: Soft Rock
- Location of Dam site: 000000000 (www.pusair-pu.go.id)
- PGAm = Fpga x Spga

Return period (year)

Foundation 100 (OBE) 10,000 (MCE)

FPGA SPGA PGAM FPGA SPGA PGAM

Soft Rock 0.148 1.2 0.1776 0.657 1.0 0.657

58
. MAIN DAM

<Seismic Coefficient>

Modified seismic coefficient at the dam site by y/h

Seismic coefficient (K) by return period
y/h
100 year 5,000-year 10,000-year

0.25 0.1809 0.5674 0.8032

0.50 0.1510 0.4735 0.6701

0.75 0.1376 0.4317 0.6110

1.00 0.1243 0.4290 0.5519

59
. MAIN DAM

<Slope Stability Analysis >

Analysis Conditions (recommendation from the Balai Bendungan)

case Water Level Conditions Load Combination
Normal Water Level Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure and Pore
1
And Steady Seepage Pressure.
Normal Water Level Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure, Pore Pressure
2
And Steady Seepage and Seismic Force.
Maximum Water Level Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure and Pore
3
And Steady Seepage Pressure.
Water Level is draw-down rapidly N.W.L to L.W.L and Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure, Pore Pressure
4
Transient Seepage and Seismic Force.
Water Level is draw-down rapidly M.W.L to L.W.L and Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure and Pore
5
Transient Seepage Pressure.
Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure, Pore Pressure
6 Directly after Construction
and 1/2 of Seismic Force.

60
. MAIN DAM

<Slope Stability Analysis >

Result of slope stability analysis with Normal and OBE conditions

Required Safety Seismic Safety factor
Case Remarks
Factor Condition Upstream Downstream
1 1.50 No 3.401 2.566 O.K

2 1.20 Yes (y/h=0.25) 1.340 1.667 O.K

3 1.30 No 3.039 2.566 O.K

4 1.10 Yes (y/h=0.25) 1.177 1.667 O.K

5 1.20 No 2.025 2.566 O.K

6 1.20 Yes (y/h=0.25) 2.310 2.018 O.K

Figures of Analysis result are attached in the Review Design Report

61
 . MAIN DAM

<Slope Stability Analysis >

Result of slope stability analysis with Normal and OBE conditions

Case 2 Rapid Draw Down, 100-year seismic load (SF=1.177)
Upstream Slope (SF=1.340) Downstream Slope (SF=1.667)
Downstream Slope
1.340 Steady state
with Seismic Load (y/h=0.25, Fr: 100-year)
Upstream Slope
Steady state
with Seismic Load (y/h=0.25, Fr: 100-year)

1.667

100
95
90
85
100 80
95 75
90
70
85
80 65
75 60
70 55
65 50
60 45

Elevation (EL-m)
55 40
50 35
45
Elevation (EL-m)

30
40
35 25
30 20
25 15
20 10
15 5
10 0
5 -5
0 -10
-5
-10
-15
-15 -20
-20 -25
-25 -30
-30 -35
-35 -40
-40 -45
-45 -50
-50
-55
-55
-60
-60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440

Distance (m) Distance (m)

Figures of Analysis result for all cases are attached in the Review Design Report
62
. MAIN DAM

<Slope Stability Analysis >

Result of slope stability analysis with Normal and OBE conditions

Case 4 Rapid Draw Down, 100-year seismic load (SF=1.177)
Upstream Slope (SF=1.177) Downstream Slope (SF=1.667)
Downstream Slope
Rapid Draw (NWL-MWL)
Upstream Slope
Rapid Draw (NWL-LWL) with Seismic Load (y/h=0.25, Fr: 100-year)
with Seismic Load (y/h=0.25, Fr: 100-year)

1.667

1.177

100
95
100 90
95 85
90 80
85 75
80 70
75 65
70 60
65
55
60
50
55
45
Elevation (EL-m)
50
45 40
Elevation (EL-m)

40 35
35 30
30 25
25 20
20 15
15 10
10 5
5 0
0 -5
-5 -10
-10 -15
-15 -20
-20
-25
-25
-30
-30
-35 -35
-40 -40
-45 -45
-50 -50
-55 -55
-60 -60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 4400 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440

Distance (m) Distance (m)

63
 . MAIN DAM

<Slope Stability Analysis >

Result of slope stability analysis with OBE, MDE and MEC conditions by y/h values
Hydraulic Return Period
y/h 100-year 5000 years 10,000 years Remarks
Conditions U/S D/S U/S D/S U/S D/S
0.25 1.340 1.667 0.503 0.851 0.389 0.735

0.50 1.487 1.751 0.587 0.946 0.482 0.828

Steady
0.75 1.563 1.805 0.650 1.017 0.541 0.898

1.00 1.646 1.861 0.668 1.034 0.619 0.971

Rapid draw 0.25 1.177 1.667 0.502 0.851 0.402 0.735

After Construction 0.25 2.310 2.018 1.522 1.337 1.222 1.376 1/2 of seismic

Figures of Analysis result are attached in the Review Design Report

64
 . MAIN DAM

<Seepage Analysis >

Seepage from the dam is estimated from the following formula

Q K yo L
3 .80 10 9 m /sec 37 .3 m 320 m
4 .36 10 5 m 3
/sec
3 .91m 3
/day
3
herein,Q :Leakage Quantity (m /sec)
K :PermeabilityConductivity(3 .80 10 9 m /sec)
yo : h 2 d 2 d (37 .3m )
L :Length (320 m )

Based on the above formula, seepage is 4.3610-5m3/sec and is considerably smaller than 20.2
m3/sec, annual inflow. This value is far less than 1 percent of allowable limit seepage

65
 . MAIN DAM

<Seepage Analysis >

Piping Examination by Justin Method
g w herein , V : Critical flow velocity (cm / sec)
V
A rw g : gravity accelerati on(9.8 10 2 cm / sec 2 )
w : submerged weight of grain( g / cm 3 )
A: Area of grain impacted by flow (cm)
rw :Unit weight of water ( g / cm 3 )
The formula above can be summarized as follows:
V 10.41 d
As a consequence, critical flow velocity for each size of grain particles is as follows:
Grain Size (mm) 5.0 3.0 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.001
Critical Flow Velocity
23.28 18.03 10.41 7.36 4.66 3.29 2.33 1.04 0.33
(cm/sec)

Permeability coefficient (K) of new borrow area for the core zone shall be 3.1110-9m/sec and porosity of 50%, the maximum
flow velocity inside the core shall be estimated as below
K io 3.80 10 7 2.0
Vmax 1.52 10 6 cm/sec
n 0.5
herein, i0: maximum hydraulic gradient
In addition , the maximum flow velocity inside (9.68 x 10-6 m/s) the core was found to be much slower than critical flow
velocity to cause piping phenomenon and no piping phenomenon is thought to occur inside the core.
66
 . MAIN DAM

<Seepage Analysis >

Piping Examination by Critical Gradient
Critical hydraulic gradient that causes a quicksand are calculated by Terzaghis following
formula.
h Gs 1
ic (1 n)(Gs 1)
d 1 e
1 2.572 1
= = = 0.945
1+ 1 + 0.664
Herein, critical gridient
Gs = Gravity of soil, 2.572
e = Void Ratio, 0.664

Sf = 4.0

0.945
Sf = = 4.73 4.0
0.2
Herein, i: gridient of outlet of flow (0.2, found in GeoStudio seepage result)

ic -of core zone is 0.945 and safety factor of 4.73 higher than required safety factor for critical
hydraulic gradient of 4.

67
 . MAIN DAM

<Seepage Analysis >

Finite Elements and Seepage Velocity vector
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
Elevation (EL-m)

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440

Distance (m)

68
. MAIN DAM

<Seepage Analysis >

Pore-Water Preassure

4.2692e-007 m/sec
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60 1.2
55

0.8
50
45
Elevation (EL-m)

40
35

2
30
25
20

0.20.2
1.6

0.6
0.4 0.2
15 0.2

0.6
0.2

0.4
10 1.2

0.4
0.8
5

0.2
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25

0.2
-30
-35
0.2

-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440

Distance (m)

Pore water preassure and Hydraulic Gradient of Dam body

69
 . MAIN DAM

<Seepage Analysis >

Total head of Dam body
Total Head

4.2692e-007 m/sec
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55 30
50
45
Elevation (EL-m)

40
35
30
25
20
15

45
20

50
10

35
5
25
0
-5

55

40
-10
65
-15
-20
60

-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440

Distance (m)

70
. MAIN DAM

7. Measurement Plans
Kinds & Quantity of Measuring Instrument
Classification Instrument Qty
Settlement Multi-Layer Settlement 1
Inclinometer & Horizontal
Horizontal Displacement 1
Strainmeter
Pore Pressure Piezometer 24
Earth Pressure Earth Pressure meter 11
Seismic Seismic Accesero graph 3
Leakage Leakage pit 1

71
. MAIN DAM

7. Measurement Plans
Kinds & Quantity of Measuring Instrument

72
<Technical Specification>
No Instrument Name Specification of Instruments
1 Piezometer Material : Stainless steel
Excitation : Pluck or swept frequency
Over voltage protection : 90V gas plasma arrester
Thermistor : 3k Ohms @ 25C
Range : 2200-3500Hz
Nominal zero value : 3130Hz
Thermal effect : 0.05% F.S/C
Pressure range option (kPa) : 345 ~ 6895
Over range : 2x rated pressure
Resolution : 0.025% FS
Accuracy : 0.1% FS
Non-linearity : < 0.5% FS
Temp range : -20 to +80C
Thermal effect : < 0.05% FS
Diameter x length : 20 x 140 mm
2 Earth pressure cell Pressure range option (kPa) : 344 ~ 1034
Over range : 150 % FS
Signal output : 2000 3500 Hz
Resolution : 0.025% FS
Accuracy : 0.1% FS
Linearity : < 0.5% FS
Outer diameter : 165, 245, 320mm
Active diameter : 150, 230, 305mm
Thickness : 7mm
Operating temp : -20 to +80C 73
 <Technical Specification>

No Instrument Name Specification of Instruments

3 Multilayer settlement Access casing OD : 33mm
Access casing length : 25mm
Bottom cap OD : 33mm
Material : PVC
Magnetic targets : 3 or 6 leaf
Plate magnetic targets : 33 x 300mm
Datum target : 33 x 60mm
4 Strong Motion Number of channels : 3 Channels
Accelerograph (Seismic Dynamic range : 108cB @ 200sps
Accelerograph) Resolution : 18-bits resolution @200 sps
Noise : Less than 8V RMS
Sampling rate : 100, 200, 250 sps
Input range : 2.5V
Sensor type : Triaxial EpiSensor Force Balance
Accelerometer
Full scale range : 0.25g, 0.5g, 1g, 2g or 4g
Bandwidth : DC to 200 Hz
Trigger bandwidth : 0.1Hz 12.5 Hz
Operating temperature : -20C to 70C

74
<Technical Specification>
No Instrument Name Specification of Instruments
5 Displacement monitor Wheelbase : 0.5m
set Probe diameter : 25.4mm
Probe length (include connector) : 710mm
Standard range : 30C from vertical
Data resolution : 0.005mm per 500mm
Repeatability : 0.002
System accuracy : 2mm per 25m
Temperature rating : -40C to 70C
Compatible casing sizes : 40-85mm
PDA operating system : WindowsMobile
Software : Field book 5
Memory : 128 MB
Data storage : 256/12mb
Battery life : 20 hours
Temperature range : -30C to 50C
Enclosure : IP67
6 Leakage pit Design standard : BS 3684 Pt 4
Material : stainless steel
Geometry option : 90, 45, 22.5 degree
Flow : 10 to 60 litres/second
Standard ranges option : 150, 300,500, 1500mm
Resolution : 0.025% FS
Accuracy : 0.1% FS
Operating temperature range : -20C to +80C
75
. MAIN DAM
8. River Diversion
<Coffer Dam Scale>
Temporary Upstream Downstream
Coffer dam Coffer dam Coffer dam
D.C.L: EL39.0m
F.W.L: EL37.8m
D.C.L: EL31.0m
F.W.L: EL30.4m
D.C.L: EL24.5m
F.W.L: EL23.1m

Temporary Upstream Downstream

Coffer dam Coffer dam Coffer dam
Design Flood 2-years 25-years
Peak Flood 327 m3/sec 775m3/sec
Peak Discharge 292m3/sec 292m3/sec 76
. MAIN DAM

<Typical Section of Upstream Coffer Dam>

Axis of Upstream Coffer Dam
ZoneMATERIAL
ZONE Coffer Dam
10,000 Core 1 IMPERVIOUS 15,336
7,000
Filter 23 FILTER
ROCK
12,438
4,000
Rock 4 RIPRAP 105,393
Coffer Dam crest EL. 39.000
Rip-rap 8,017

1,50
Total 141,184m3

0
1:2.
5
ROCK

.3

1:0
1:0.2
0
1:3. K

1:0.2
ROC

1:0

.3
4 Origial ground line
3 3
2 1 2

Core Assumea rock line Excavation line

Filter

Tunnel Scale
- Diameter: 4.5m 2 Lanes
Dimension
- Elevation: Inlet EL.20.0m, Outlet EL.19.0m
- No.1: 512.6m
Length
- No.2: 506.3m

77
<Layout & Profile of Diversion Tunnel >

Tunnel No. 1

Tunnel No. 2

78
<Typical Section of Tunnel>

79
. MAIN DAM

80
 <Tunneling Method and Stability>
<Dewatering & Waterproof method>
Assumed Groundwater Level
Waterproof Method

UAM
Item Pre-grouting
(Umbrella Arch Method)

Conceptual
Diagram

Dewatering
construct the diversion tunnel
during the dry season.
Concept
Nevertheless, when the
groundwater flows into the
diversion tunnel excessively
Feature
waterproof method should be
applied if needs waterproof.
Making a waterproof zone by putting the Making a waterproof zone and a
grouting liquid in with pressure around reinforced zone by putting the grouting
the tunnel excavation line liquid through the hollow steel pipe with
If it is necessary, it can be applied to the pressure around the tunnel excavation line
face of the tunnel
Very good waterproof effect Very good waterproof effect
Good reinforcement effect Very good reinforcement effect
Cost-effective Uneconomical

81
 <Other Technical Issues for Tunneling>
Unconfined Compressive
Review mutual behavior interference due to Strength along the diversion Tunnel
the adjacent blasting for tunnel excavation Unconfined Compressive
Hole. No Depth
Strength (kg/cm)
Excavation Workability according to Geotechnical KB-29 30.0 ~ 30.6 2.97
Condition (Atkinson, 1970)
Unconfined KB-30 62.6 ~ 63.0 3.32
Seismic
Excavation Compressive Spacing of Joint KB-31 54.5 ~ 54.9 0.95
Velocity
Workability Strength (cm)
Vp (km/s)
(kg/cm) 13.8 ~ 14.0 10.51
KB-32
Easy to rip 0.45~1.2 17~30 <5 14.2 ~ 14.3 1.79
Medium to
1.2~1.5 30~100 5~30
rip In this site, the excavation with machines is
Hard to rip 1.5~1.85 100~200 30~100 more appropriate than that with blasting and

Very hard Thus, it will possibly make minimize the

to rip ~ 1.85~2.15 200~700 100~300 mutual interference between the diversion
blasting tunnels.
blasting > 2.15 > 700 > 300

82
 <Analysis of application of one large
diversion tunnel>
The tunnel for diversion was planned as two parallel small tunnels.
It was suggested to make one large tunnel for diversion, because construction process
can be simpler and constructability can be better by the larger area.
<Comparison between parallel small tunnels and one large tunnel>

Two Parallel Small Tunnels

Item One Large Tunnel
(Detailed Design)

Conceptual
Diagram

Inner Area : 15.9 2 = 31.8 m2 Inner Area : 33.2 m2

Area
Excavation Area: 29.52 = 59.0m2 Excavation Area : 57.7 m2
83
One large tunnel has weaknesses as follows.
Additional ground reinforcement is necessary.
If one large tunnel, the supports like rock bolts, shotcrete and steel ribs
without additional ground reinforcement would not be enough to
maintain the stability of the tunnel during construction.
Accordingly, the construction period and cost would increase
remarkably by applying ground reinforcement.
Installation of penstock is not easy.
Penstock should be installed in the dry condition.
In case of two tunnels, one is for diversion water, and the other is for
penstock installation.

Therefore, the two parallel small tunnels planned in detailed design, is

proper to this project.
84
. MAIN DAM
9. Spillway
Hydraulic Design of Spillway
Maximum Water Level(MWL)
Flood Water Level(FWL)
Normal High Water Level(NHWL)
Weir Crest Elevation
Design Flood (Inflow)
Design Discharge
- Control Structure
- Chute
- Plunge Pool
: EL. 71.22 m
: EL. 70.85 m
: EL. 67.50 m
: EL. 67.50 m (Side channel spillway)
: EL. 57.50 m (Ogee spillway)
:3,671 m3/s (PMF)
: 3,190 m3/s (PMF)
: 3,190 m3/s (PMF)
: 266 m3/s (100-year)
85
 Scale of Spillway

Side Channel - The scale of the side channel spillway was determined so
Spillway that 10-years frequency flood can be decreased to 5-years
frequency flood in the Rangkasbitung as a main control
point in the downstream according to The Ciujung River
Basin Basic plans
- So the crest length of side channel spillway was designed
50m

Gated Ogee - After completing flood routing of the reservoir on the basis of a
Spillway wide range of the gates sizes and examining construction costs as
well as hydraulic aspects, the scale of the gated ogee spillway is
determined to be
12.5m(B) x 13.4m(H) x 2gates

86
 . MAIN DAM
<Flood Control Plans>
Basic Direction
10-year frequency flood shall be decreased to be 5-year frequency
flood in the Rankasbitung as a main control point by the Karian dam
(Ciujung River Basic Plan 1998)

Control Effects (Unit: m)

Control Sabagi Rangkasbitung
Point
Water Water
Without With Without With
Frequency Level Level
Dam Dam Dam Dam
Flood Decrease Decrease

5-years 11.33 3.71 -7.62 6.67 6.00 -0.67

10-years 12.96 4.68 -8.28 7.23 6.53 -0.70
50-years 16.09 6.77 -9.32 8.26 7.61 -0.65
100-years 17.30 7.71 -9.59 8.65 8.01 -0.64

87
. MAIN DAM
Details of Spillway

Control Structure
[ Side Channel Type ]
- Weir Length : 50.0 m (18m wide side channel)
- Weir Crest : EL 67.5m (N.H.W.L)
[Gated Ogee Type]
- Weir Length : 25.0 m (B12.5mH13.4m 2gates)
- Weir Crest : EL 57.5m
Chute
- Chute Slope : 1 : 4.0
- Chute Length : 117.4m
- Chute Width : 49.0m
Plunge Pool
- Length : 88.0m
- Bottom Width : 49.0m
88
 . MAIN DAM

General Plan of Spillway

Items Qty Ref.

Excavation 549,178m3
Concrete 60,905m3
Spillway Bridge W7.5mL52.5m RC Slab Bridge

89
. MAIN DAM

3D Modeling of Karian Dam and Spillway

From Karian Reservoir

To Rangkasbitung
Advantage of 3D Numerical Model Test
1. Easy to check serious design and test errors between design calculation and physical
model test and 3 D numerical model test through comparison the results.
2. Easy to make alternative designs by changing numeric model. Crest of the
approach guide wall was changed to 72.5 m, to be same as the dam crest.
90
. MAIN DAM

10. Intake & Outlet Facilities

Summary of Intake Tower Summary of Outlet Facility

Classification Contents Classification Contents

Location Right Bank of the Dam Location End of D.Tunnel No.1

Type Free-Standing Tower Type Valve Chamber House
Dimension D8.5~D7.7m36.65m Penstock D2.0m285m
Dam Axis Plug~Tunnel Outlet
Intake Range EL.67.5m~EL.39.5m
Main Valve D2.0m, Hollow Jet Valve
Intake Inlet 2.5m2.5m, 4 bladed
Dissipation Stilling Basin
Max. Capacity 6.0m3/sec Facility W5.0mH9.1mL38m

91
92
. MAIN DAM
Intake Tower Profile
PROFILE

A A

Section A - A
. MAIN DAM
Detailed Section of Outlet Facility

94
11. Protection of Excavated Slope
Item Reinforcement (Soil Nail) Decrease of the Gradient

Conceptual
Diagram

Reinforce a slope with soil nail, Reduce slip load by decreasing of

Concept grouting, or anchor through slip gradient of a slope to insure slope
surface to insure slope stability stability
Strengths

Good constructability Good constructability, economy

Good long-term stability Good long-term stability
Less influence to environments
Feature

Additional land purchase is

Weaknesses

In case that predicted slip surface necessary

is located below ground level, this More influence to environments for
method is not effective due to the excessive cut
limit of reinforcement There is a limitation for insuring the
slope stability

95
 12. Conclusion
Field Point Cause Review Design Remarks
Dam body slope New quarry and Applied new earthquake map Safe from OBE condition by
stability borrow area (Earthquake Zone Map 2010) limited equilibrium method

Comments from Re-analyzed by Makdisi-Seed Safe from MCE condition by

Makdisi-Seed Analysis
Balai Bendungan Analysis

Fault zone Comments from 2 inclined borings and 4 vertical No need to take any special
Stability Balai Bendungan borings and measures concerning a fault
or an active fault
field geological survey and
review previous reports
Excavated Slope Steep slope (1:0.5) Reinforce a slope with soil nail, Can be protected.
at right side of anchor and etc.
plunge pool

Freeboard of main New PMF (4,295 Reservoir flood routing by using F= 1.32 m, safe (criteria:
dam m3/sec) HEC-5 1.25 m)
Hydrology &
Diversion tunnel Design Flood (25- Hydraulic analysis for the height Safe
Hydraulics
capacity years) of the U/S coffer dam by using
HEC-5
Piping Analysis New borrow area Re-analyzed piping safety by Safe from piping by Justin
Seepage Justin Method and critical Method and critical gradient
gradient
In conclusion, the review design can be fully acceptable for the further stage of the
project, the implementation of the Karian Dam construction. 96
Thank you very much !!!
97