(1) River Diversion Works : 775 m3/s (25-year flood) Design Flood (Peak) 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
(1) Main & Saddle Dams Main Dam Type Length Dam Crest Elevation Crest Width Slope Slope Protection Saddle Dam 1, 2 & 3 Type Length Dam Crest Elevation Crest Width Slope Slope Protection
: Central Cored Rockfill Dam : 516 m : EL 72.5 m : 10.0 m : 1:3.0 (Upstream), 1:2.5 (Downstream) : Random-Dumped Riprap (t=1.5 m, Upstream) Hand-Placed Riprap (t=1.0 m, Downstream) : Central Cored Rockfill Dam : 113 m (No 1), 447m (No 2), 342 m (No. 3) : EL 72.5 m : 6.0 m : 1:3.0 (Upstream), 1:2.5 (Downstream) : Random-Dumped Riprap (t=1.5 m, Upstream) Hand-Placed Riprap (t=1.0 m, Downstream)
(1) Spillway Hydraulic Features Design Flood (Inflow) Design Discharge Control Structure Chuteway Plunge Pool Structural Features Approach Channel Side Channel Type Weir Length Weir Crest Gated Ogee Type Weir Length Weir Crest Regulating Gate Chuteway Slope Length Width Plunge Pool Length Bottom Width
: 3,671 m 3/s (PMF) : 3,190 m 3/s (PMF) : 3,190 m 3/s (PMF) : 266 m 3/s(100-year Frequency) : Max. 92.7m long (Ogee Spillway) : Max. 13.5m long (Side Channel Spillway) : 50 m : EL. 67.50 m (N.H.W.L) : 25.0 m : EL. 57.50 m : Radial Gate, 12.5m(W)×13.4(H)×2 gates : 1 / 4.0 : 117.4 m : 49.0 m : 88.0 m : 49.0 m
Radial Gate (out of this package: Hydro-Mechanical works) : 2 Sets Number of gate : EL 67.5 Crest elevation : EL 67.2 (about) Sill elevation : 12.5 m Clear span : 13.4 m Clear height : 13.7 m (13.4 + 0.3) Gate height : 1-motor, 2-drums wire rope winding type (including: Type of hoist gate position indicator, limit s/w, brake, cover, etc.) : 10 m Lifting height : 0.3 m/min ± 10% Lifting speed : 180 Ton Lofting capacity 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 Clear span Clear height Lifting beam Lifting device
: : : : :
Steel girder type 12.5 m 10.0 m (1.25 m x 8 blocks) 1 set of hook type lifting beam Truck crane
Downstream Transition Channel Design Discharge : 128 m 3/s (10-year Frequency) Channel Length : Approx. 111.0 m
Elevation
Reference
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 Level Flood Water Level
EL. 67.5 m EL. 70.85 m
Water supply capacity of 14.6 m3/sec 1/2 PMF
Maximum Water Level
EL. 71.22 m
PMF
Dam Crest Level
EL. 72.5 m
Freeboard 1.28 m
Remarks
90 % of reliability Flood Control Storage: 60.8mil.m3
If gated spillway, freeboard should be more than 1.25m above from M.W.L (Maximum Water Level).
MAIN DAM
Total Storage : 314.7mil.m 3
”
=
Flood Control Storage : 60.8mil.m3
+ Effective Storage : 207.5mil.m3
M.W.L: EL.71.22m : PMF F.W.L : EL.70.85m : ½ PMF N.W.L : EL.67.5m: Water Supply of 14.6 m3/sec (90% reliabili ty) According to the reservoir operati on sim ul ation by usin g 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
Characters
Reference
Remarks
USBR standard
Crest width = 5 m
U/S & D/S slope = 1 : 0.2
EL= 72.0 m
Fine filter zone
Crest width =1.5 m (each U/S & D/S)
U/S & D/S slope = 1 : 0.3
EL= 72.0 m
-
Coarse filter zone
Crest width =1.0 m (each U/S & D/S)
U/S & D/S slope = 1 : 0.35
EL= 71.5 m
-
Rock fill zone
Crest width = 10 m
U/S slope = 1 : 3.0 D/S slope = 1 : 2.5
EL= 72.5 m
1.
Cross section
-
Core zone
-
Characters
Gated Spillway
-
Control structure
3.
Side channel spillway
EL. 57.5 m
EL. 67.5 m
Reference
Design of Small Dams of U.S.B.R.
PMF outflow Capable of discharging 2,410 m 3/s at EL = 71.22m.
Design Q= 780 m 3/s at EL = 71.22m. Ciujung River Basic Plans(’98)
Design Q=3,190 ㎥/s (PMF)
Design Q=266 ㎥/s (100-year)
V/H (slope) =1/4 4.
Chuteway B= 49.0 m.
5.
Energy dissipater
-
Flip bucket type + Plunge pool
EL=12.5 m
Remarks
Flood Control Storage: 60.8mil.m 3
Characters Length=111 m
Reference
Design Q=128 m 3/s (10-year)
Generally applied to Rockfill dam construction
Remarks
7. Diversion works -
-
-
Diversion Method
Diversion tunnel size
Tunnel Type
Tunnel
Diameter 4.5 m x 2 lanes
C-Type, D-type
a 25-year flood selected as the design flood (Q=775 ㎥/sec).
Design standard by 「Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fishery, Japan 1996」
Culvert Master program by Haestad Methods and the calculation by using the HEC-5.
2. H y d r o l o g y & h y d r au l i c s Low Flow Analysis Flow discharge of 95% ( /sec)
Remarks
O
Station
Period
Catchment area ( )
DD 2006
Rangkasbitung
35 years (1970~2004)
288
4.00
Review Design 2014
Rangkasbitung
288
3.36
Sediment Analysis
40 years (1970~2009)
( eq u a t i o n : C / C s t u d y i n 1 9 95 , C i u j u n g - C i d u r i a n I n t e g r a t ed W a t er
Resou rces Stud y (1995, JICA))
Items
DD 2006
Flow discharge (annu al average disch arge)
Specific sediment deposit volume
Sediment storage for 100 years
20.2 m3 /sec
2,011 m 3 /year/km2
57.92 (106 m3)
Isohyet Map of Probable of Maximum Precipitation (PMP) around the Watershed of the Karian Dam
Available rainfall data Study
Rainfall station
PMP
DD 2006
1982 ~ 2003 (22 years)
680 mm (Isohyet m ap 2003)
Review Design 2014
1982 ~ 2013 (32 years)
800 mm (Isohyet m ap 2013) 633 mm (Gumbel EV-1)
Flood Flow Analysis Study
(S n y d e r u n i t h y d r o g r a p h m e t h o d )
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 2014
506
664
790
937
1,418
1,731
4,295
4,500
PMF=4295 m3/sec
PMF=3671 ) c e s / 3 3,000 m ( e g r a h c s i D 1,500 d o o l F
DGWR PMF Review PMF
0 1
4
7
11
14
17
21
24
27
31
Time (hour)
34
37
PMF Values of the Karian Dam Compared with Saguling Dam, Cirata, Jatiluhur and other Dams in Indonesia (Review of 2014)
MAIN DAM
- The gated spillway is to be open in case the reservoir water level becomes higher than FWL(EL.70.85m) Flood frequency
10-yr
25-yr
100-yr
1/2PMF
PMF
Peak inflow (m3 /s)
615
775
1,010
1,850
3,671
Peak outflow (m3 /s)
128
173
266
658
3,190
Maximum water level (EL. m)
68.65
68.95
69.37
70.85
71.22
Qi peak = 4.295,40 m 3/s 4000
Qmax=3671m3 /s
3600
Qo peak = 3.169,8 m 3/s
3
Qmax=3190m /s
3200
) s / 2800 m ( e g2400 r a h c2000 s i D
3
in-flow out-flow
1600
EL=71.22 m 1200 800 400 0 0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Time (hour)
PMF Section
C a lc u l a t i o n r e s u l t s o f r e s e r v o i r flood routing
DD 2006
Design Review 2014
Dam crest (EL. M)
72.50
72.50
peak inflow (㎥/sec)
3,671 m3/s
4,295 m3/s
peak outflow (㎥/sec)
3,190 m3/s
3,170 m3/s
Maximum water level (EL. m)
71.22 m
71.18 m
48
5-yr
10-yr
25-yr
50-yr
100-yr
1000-yr
½ PMF
(Isohyets)
Peak inflow (m3/s)
490
615
775
890
1,010
1,421
1,850
3,671
Peak outflow (m3/s)
94
128
173
218
266
434
658
3,190
Maximum water level (EL. m)
68.42
68.65
68.95
69.16
69.37
70.08
70.85
71.22
Review Desig n 2014 Flood frequency
100 years
1000 years
1/2 PMF
PMF (Isohyets)
Peak inflow (m3/s)
936.60
1,418.0
1,731.65
4,295.40
Peak outflow (m3/s)
200.55
353.50
501.15
3,169.80
69.09
69.76
70.31
71.18
Maximum water level
PMF
: 39.00m
Freeboard =
Inflo
Stora e
Cofferda
Diversion Tunnel
Q out
Diameter Tunnel
Review Desig n 2014 Return Period (years)
Inflow Maximum (m3 /s)
Outflow Maximum (m3 /s)
Elevation (m)
Q-25
664.30
282.88
35.07
Q-50
788.80
298.97
36.69
Q-100
936.60
315.29
38.42
3. G eo l o g y & G e o t ec h n o l o g y
Foundation Rock : CL-Class (H i g h l y w e a t h e r ed r o c k )
Excavation Depth : 5m (by Drilling & Exploration)
Permeability : 10 -2~10-4cm/s
Curtain Grouting, depth
= 40m
Compressive Strength q u= 25.33 kg/cm2 ranging 1~97 kg/cm2 (v e r y s o f t r o c k ) Consolidation Grouting for Bearing Capacity
KB-30 (55~60m)
KB-30 (60~65m)
KB-31 (55~60m)
KB-31 (60~65m)
Boring 2005
BH-01 Depth 00.00 – 05.00 meter
Additional Inclined Boring- at Dam site
BH-01 Depth 05.00 – 10.00 meter
Year 2013 BH-01 Depth 10.00 – 15.00 meter
BH-01 Depth 15.00 – 20.00 meter
BORING LOG PROJECT LOCATION BORE HOLE NO ELEVATION COORDINATE DEPTH WATER LEVEL AVERAGE CORE RECOVERY
DEPTH (m)
E SOIL/ T ROCK A D UNIT Top Soil
00.00
SOIL/ ROCK TYPE
: : : : : : : :
COULUM
Description SECTION
v
Clay
v
02.00
03.00
04.00
3 1 0 2 , 2 0 , r e b m e c e D
05.00 06.00
07.00
08.00
, r e 3 1 m 0 e 2 , c 3 e 0 D
y a l C
) e t i s o p e D r e v i R ( l a i v u l A
DATE BORING METHOD INCLINATIOIN DIAMETER OF HOLE DRILLER LOGGER REVIEWED BY L S S G D E V A I N E L L N L C P U R ) m K M O E ( C A R O S G T A R W 0
0,00 - 0,60 M Top Soil, c lay, brown, soft, non plastisity, contain of root. 0,60 - 4,10 m Clay, brown, soft, medium plastisity.
01.00
Boring Log of Inclined Boring, 2013
CONSTRUCTION OF KARIAN MULTI PURSE DAM PROJECT Dam Site BH- 01- I 121.00 m X = 642007,4269. Y = 9290686,9065 48.00 m 10,00 m 99.80%
: 02 - 18 Dec 2013 : Coring Sampling : : : : :
450 73 mm Herman Ketut Subekti Zainal Arifin
CORE RECOVERY
DESIGNATION
(RQD)
Cm
50
%
(%)
(%) 100
0
50
100
150
150
150
4,10 - 9,30 m Gravelly sand, brown, sand loose, coarse sand, gravel form sandstone subrounded - rounded, max size 2 cm. d n a s y l l e v a r G
150
D 100
90
90 09.00
10.00
11.00
3 1 0 2 , 4 0 , r e b m e c e D
Tuffaceous sand
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
3 1 0 2 , 5 0 , r e b m e c e D
17.00
18.00
, r
90
9,30 - 11,35 m d n a S
e n o t s d n a S s u o e c a f f u T
s u o y e a c l a f c f u T
Sand, blackish grey, sand loose, fine to medium sand, wet.
100
10,00 m
v
v
v
v v
100
11,35 - 12,20 m Tuffaceous sand, yellowish white, medium loose, medium to coarse sa 12,20 - 14,50 m
100
Tuffaceous clay, yellowish grey, soft, medium plastisity.
100
v
100
14,50 - 20,80 m
v y a l c y d n a s s u o e c a f f u T
v
Tuffaceous sandy clay, brownish grey, soft, mediun to coarse sand, su
v
angular to rounded .
CL
100
100
v v
v
100
% 0
Confirmation of Fault Zone at Dam Site, 2013
Inclined Boring
Field geological survey
JICA survey report, found fault zone from aerial photographs , but this site has too dense 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.
In sedimentation stage of the river, the soft part of the upper was cut little by little by 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
4. C o n s t r u c t i o n M at er i al s Location of Previous Borrow & Quarry Site
Volume of Materials Target (103 m3) Materials Main dam
Upstream Coffer Dam
Saddle Dams
Available (103 m3) Sum
Core
146
15
15
176
420
S/Gravel
154
12
15
181
357
113
59
1,076
3,225
Rock fill & Riprap
904
Additional Investigation for Sendi Mt.
- Rock : Andesite - Comp. Strength : 702~717kg/cm2 - Absorption : 1.5~1.7% - Estimated Volume : 4,000,000 m3
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)
Field geological Survey
Drilling & Lab test
Remarks
19.2 km Gentle dome shape, forest not dense, Andesite or taffaceous sand stone formed by ejecta of
5 holes Compression Strength was
volcano Compressive strength above 700 kg /cm2 by geologic hammering
Volume: 2.891.032 m3 (minimum
Puranta
About 20 km Forest physiognomy dense Columnar joint shape rock
Not conducted
Reserved quarry site
Pongol
27 km 10 meter deep coverage soil and dense forest
Not conducted
Reserved quarry site
Cinihni
3 km
1 hole
Geblegan
732Kg/cm2 -1,057 Kg/cm2
New quarry Site
vol: 1,400,000m3)
Cross section of Quarry area Geblegan hill
Core Box of QBH-1, Geblegan Mt, New Quarry
Drilling Log of QBH-1, Geblegan Mt, New Quarry
New Borrow Area
New Quarry Site
To shorten the distance
To avoid damage to the existing provincial road
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.
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
Specification permeability: under 1 ×10-5 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%.
Core material
Fine filter material
Coarse 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% the particle size of the materials: smaller than that of rock zone materials. less than 5% of less 0.074 mm
Specification
Rock material
Slope protection material
(1) Upstream Slope Protection Random dumped riprap average grain size: 30cm Thickness: 1.5m (2) Downstream Slope Protection Hand-placed riprap average grain size: 30cm
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%.
Item
Symbol
Unit
FS JICA 1985
KOICA 2005
Review Design 2014
1 2 3
Natural water content Specific gravity Liquid limit
Wn Gs WL
% %
41,70 ~ 42,30 2,66 ~ 2,62 55,60 ~ 58,70
26,26 ~ 38,09 2,567 ~ 2,642 49,20 ~ 82,33
39,73 ~ 80,20 2,528 ~ 2,647 66,21 ~ 118,85
4 5 6 7 8 9
Plastic limit Plasticity index Soil class Sand part Silt part Clay part
WP lP S M C
% % % % %
32,00 ~ 34,50 23,60 ~ 24,20 MH -
27,26 ~ 43,48 19,56 ~ 38,85 MH ~ CH 15,34 ~ 51,93 18,71 ~ 38,16 31,00 ~ 46,50
38,40 ~ 69,06 26,21 ~ 61,16 MH ~ OH 4,80 ~ 38,36 10,30 ~ 47,52 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/m 3
1,48
1,197 ~ 1,509
1,163 ~ 1,335
12
Permeability Triaxial CU/CD
K
Cm/s
2,4x10-7
6,86x10-8 ~ 1,06x10-7
13
Cohesion efficient
C'
t/m2
2,00
5,78 ~ 7,16
2,10 ~ 9,50
20,5
18 ~ 26
3,7 ~ 6,4
0,232 ~ 0,300 (1,65~2,25)x10-2
0,25 ~ 0,47 4,56x10-2 ~ 7,53 x 10-3
(+1,76)-(+4,04)
(+9.57) ~ (+35.35)
j'
14
Internal friction degree Consolidation Compression index
... 0
Cc
-
-
15
Coef of Consolidation Difference=Wn-OMC
Cv Dw
Cm 2/s %
+15,45
6,05x10-7 ~ 3,11x10-7
MAIN DAM
5. D es i g n o f D am
Total Storage : 314.7mil.m 3
”
=
Flood Control Storage : 60.8mil.m3
+ Effective Storage : 207.5mil.m3
M.W.L: EL.71.22m : PMF F.W.L : EL.70.85m : ½ PMF N.W.L : EL.67.5m: Water Supply of 14.6 m3/sec (90% reliabili ty) According to the reservoir operati on sim ul ation by usin g 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
MAIN DAM
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 W idth: 1.0m (Up/Down Stream)
Zone
Steep Slope: 1:0.35 (Up and Down Stream)
Rock Zone
Core crest: 72.5m,
Typical Section of Dam Axis
Curtain Grouting (2Rows) - Spacing of Holes : 1.5m - Spacing of Rows : 2.0m
MAIN DAM
Reaching to bedrock of CL or CM Reaching to weathered rock
MAIN DAM
Foundation Condition
Description
- Permeability : Around 1 ⅹ10-4cm/s (sepulu h pangkat min us empat) - Rock Class : CL, D
Curtain Grouting
- 2 rows (hole spacing: 1.5m, row spacing: 2.0m) - Depth (45m to 27m)
Blanket Grouting
- 1 row along the dam axis, for complementation of curtain grouting (hole spacing: 3m) - Depth (1/2 of curtain grouting depth)
Consolidation Grouting
- 2 rows (hole spacing: 3m, row spacing: 3m) - Depth 10m
Rim Grouting
- 1 row, Length 46m from the end of left bank - Hole spacing 1.5m, Depth 20m
MAIN DAM
Grouting Profile & Layout Consolidation Grouting Hole
Main Dam Crest Depth 27m
Depth 27m Depth 35m
Depth 35m
Depth 45m
Curtain Grouting
Grouting Type Curtain Grouting Blanket Grouting Consolidation Grouting Rim Grouting Total
Drilling 27,932 748 6,880 620 36,180m
Grouting for spillway
a e r t s n w o D m
Curtain Grouting Hole
Dam Axis
m a e r t s p U
Curtain Grouting Blanket Grouting Consolidation Grouting
MAIN DAM
6. Stability Analysis Evaluation of Earthquake risk factor for Dam Score Risk Factor Extreme
High
moderate
Low
Capacity (106 m3)
100 (6)
100-1.25 (4)
1.0-0.25 (2)
< 0.25 (0)
Dam Height (m)
45 (6)
45 – 30 (4)
30 -15 (2)
< 15 (0)
Population of damage area
1000 (12)
1000-100 (8)
100-1 (4)
0 (0)
Downstream damage grade
Very high (12)
Moderate (4)
No Damage (0)
High (10)
Slightly high (8)
Scoring of Karian Dam: Capacity (6) + Height (6) + Population (12) + Damage (12) = 36
MAIN DAM
Total of Risk factor
Risk Class
0-6
I (Low)
7-18
II (Moderate)
19-30 31-36
Requirement without collapse
Class Year
Analysis mode
Year
Analysis mode Seismic or dynamic coeff.
IV N=50-100
100-200 Ad ≥ 0.1g
Seismic coeff.
10,000 (MDE)
IV N=50-100
50-100 Ad ≥ 0.1g
Seismic coeff.
5,000 (MDE)
Seismic or dynamic coeff
III (High)
IV N=50-100
50-100 Ad ≥ 0.1
Seismic coeff.
3,000 (MDE)
Seismic or dynamic coeff
IV (Extreme)
IV N=50-100
50-100 Ad ≥ 0.1
Seismic coeff.
1,000 (MDE)
Seismic or dynamic coeff
Determination of Return period : Class IV, return period 10,000 (MDE)
MAIN DAM
MAIN DAM
MAIN DAM
6. S t ab i l i t y A n al y s i s
Foundation
Soft Rock
10,000 (MCE)
FPGA
SPGA
PGAM
FPGA
SPGA
PGAM
0.148
1.2
0.1776
0.657
1.0
0.657
MAIN DAM
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
MAIN DAM
Water Level Conditions
Load Combination
Normal Water Level And Steady Seepage Normal Water Level And Steady Seepage Maximum Water Level And Steady Seepage Water Level is draw-down rapidly N.W.L to L.W.L and Transient Seepage Water Level is draw-down rapidly M.W.L to L.W.L and Transient Seepage
Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure and Pore Pressure. Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure, Pore Pressure and Seismic Force. Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure and Pore Pressure. Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure, Pore Pressure and Seismic Force. Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure and Pore Pressure.
Directly after Construction
Self-Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure, Pore Pressure and 1/2 of Seismic Force.
MAIN DAM
Case
Required Safety Factor
Seismic 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
Remarks
MAIN DAM
Downstream Slope (SF=1.667) Downstream Slope Steady state with Seismic Load (y/h=0.25, Fr: 100-year)
1.340
Upstream Slope Steady state with Seismic Load (y/h=0.25, Fr : 100-year)
1.667
100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 ) 40 m L 35 E 30 ( 25 n 20 o 15 i t a 10 v 5 e l 0 E -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50 -55 -60
100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 ) 40 m L 35 E 30 ( 25 n 20 o 15 i t a 10 v 5 e l 0 E -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
Distance (m)
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Distance (m)
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
MAIN DAM
Downstream Slope (SF=1.667) Downstream Slope Rapid Draw (NWL-MWL) with Seismic Load (y/h=0.25, Fr: 100-year)
Upstream Slope Rapid Draw (NWL-LWL) with Seismic Load (y/h=0.25, Fr: 100-year)
1.667
1.177
100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 ) 45 40 m L 35 E 30 ( 25 n 20 o 15 i t a 10 v 5 e l 0 E -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45
100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 ) 45 40 m L 35 E 30 ( 25 n 20 o 15 i t a 10 v e 5 l 0 E -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45
MAIN DAM
y/h
100-year U/S D/S
Return Period 5000 years 10,000 years 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
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
Remarks
Steady
Figures of Analysis result are attached in the Review Design Report
1/2 of seismic
MAIN DAM
K yo L
3 .80
4 .36
3 .91m
10
10
3
5
9
m /sec
m
3
37 .3 m
320 m
/sec
/day
herein ,Q :Leakage Quantity (m
3
/sec)
K :Permeabili ty Conductivi ty (3 .80 yo : h
2
2
d
10
9
m /sec)
d (37 .3m )
L :Length (320 m )
Based on the above formula, seepage is 4.36 ×10-5m3/sec and is considerably smaller than 20.2 m3/sec, annual inflow. This value is far less than 1 percent of allowable limit seepage
MAIN DAM
g w
herein, V :Critical flow velocity (cm / sec)
A r w
2
2
g : gravity accelerati on(9.8 10 cm / sec ) 3
w : submerged weight of grain( g / cm ) A: Area of grain impacted by flow (cm) 3 r w :Unit weight of water ( g / cm )
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 (cm/sec)
23.28
18.03
10.41
7.36
4.66
3.29
2.33
1.04
0.33
Permeability coefficient (K) of new borrow area for the core zone shall be 3.11 ×10-9m/sec and porosity of 50%, the maximum flow velocity inside the core shall be estimated as below V max
K io n
3.80 10
7
0.5
2.0
1.52 10 6 cm/sec
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 velocit cause piping phenomenon and no piping phenomenon is thought to occur inside the core.
MAIN DAM
Critical hydraulic gradient that causes a quicksand are calculated by Terzaghi’s following formula. ic
=
h
d
Gs 1
1 e
−
1
1 +
Herein,
Sf = Sf =
=
(1 n)(Gs 1)
2.572 − 1 1 + 0.664
= 0.945
critical
gridient Gs = Gravity of soil,2.572 e = Void Ratio,0.664 ≥
4.0
0.945 0.2
= 4.73
≥
4.0
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.
MAIN DAM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Distance (m)
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
MAIN DAM
Pore-Water Preassure
) m L E ( n o i t a v e l E
c e s / ø © m 7 0 0 e 2 9 6 1 .2 2 . 4
100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50 -55 -60
8 . 0
2
0.4
2
0. 0 . 2
6 . 0
1 .6
2 . 2 0 . 0
0.2 6 . 0
1.2
0 . 4
4 . 0
0 .8 2 . 0
2 . 0
2 . 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Distance (m)
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
MAIN DAM
c e s / ø © m 7 0 0 e 2 9 6 2 . 4
100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 ) 45 40 m - 35 L 30 E ( 25 n 20 o 15 i t a 10 v 5 e l 0 E -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50 -55 -60
0 3
5 4
2 0
0 5 5 3
2 5 5 5 0 4
5 6
0 6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Distance (m)
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
MAIN DAM
7. Measu rem ent Plan s Kinds & Quantity of Measuring Instrument Classification
Instrument
Qty
Settlement
Multi-Layer Settlement
1
Horizontal Displacement
Inclinometer & Horizontal Strainmeter
1
Pore Pressure
Piezometer
24
Earth Pressure
Earth Pressure meter
11
Seismic
Seismic Accesero graph
3
Leakage
Leakage pit
1
MAIN DAM
7. Measu rem ent Plan s Kinds & Quantity of Measuring Instrument
Specification of Instruments Material : Stainless steel Excitation : Pluck or swept frequency Over voltage protection : 90V gas plasma arrester Thermistor : 3k Ohms @ 25°C 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 +80°C Thermal effect : < 0.05% FS Diameter x length : 20 x 140 mm
2
Pressure range option (kPa) Over range Signal output Resolution Accuracy Linearity Outer diameter Active diameter Thickness
Earth pressure cell
: 344 ~ 1034 : 150 % FS : 2000 – 3500 Hz : ± 0.025% FS : ± 0.1% FS : < 0.5% FS : 165, 245, 320mm : 150, 230, 305mm 7mm
Instrument Name
3
Multilayer settlement
4
Strong Motion Accelerograph (Seismic Accelerograph)
Specification of Instruments Access casing OD Access casing length Bottom cap OD Material Magnetic targets Plate magnetic targets Datum target Number of channels Dynamic range Resolution Noise Sampling rate Input range Sensor type Full scale range Bandwidth Trigger bandwidth Operating temperature
: 33mm : 25mm : 33mm : PVC : 3 or 6 leaf : 33 x 300mm : 33 x 60mm : 3 Channels : 108cB @ 200sps : 18-bits resolution @200 sps : Less than 8μV RMS : 100, 200, 250 sps : ±2.5V : Triaxial EpiSensor Force Balance Accelerometer : ±0.25g, ±0.5g, ±1g, ±2g or ±4g : DC to 200 Hz : 0.1Hz – 12.5 Hz : -20°C to 70°C
Instrument Name
Specification of Instruments
5
Displacement monitor set
Wheelbase Probe diameter Probe length (include connector) Standard range Data resolution Repeatability System accuracy Temperature rating Compatible casing sizes PDA operating system Software Memory Data storage Battery life Temperature range Enclosure
: 0.5m : 25.4mm : 710mm : ± 30°C from vertical : 0.005mm per 500mm : ± 0.002° : ± 2mm per 25m : -40°C to 70°C : 40-85mm : Windows®Mobile : Field book 5 : 128 MB : 256/12mb : 20 hours : -30°C to 50°C : IP67
6
Leakage pit
Design standard Material Geometry option Flow Standard ranges option Resolution Accuracy
: BS 3684 Pt 4 : stainless steel : 90, 45, 22.5 degree : 10 to 60 litres/second : 150, 300,500, 1500mm : 0.025% FS : ±0.1% FS
MAIN DAM
8. River Diversio n
Upstream Coffer dam
Downstream Coffer dam
D.C.L: EL39.0m F.W.L: EL37.8m D.C.L: EL24.5m F.W.L: EL23.1m
Temporary Coffer dam
Upstream Coffer dam
Design Flood
2-years
25-years
Peak Flood
327 m3/sec
775m3/sec
Downstream Coffer dam
MAIN DAM
ZONE
7,000 4,000
Coffer Dam crest EL. 39.000 1 , 5 0 0
R OC K
. 0 1 : 3
3 . 2 . 0 : 0 : 1
1
1 : : 0 0 . 3 . 2
1
4 3
2
Filter
1
① Core 2 FILTER ② Filter 3 ROCK ③ Rock 4 RIPRAP ④ Rip-rap Total 1
10,000
1 :2 .5
Core
Assumea rock line
Origial ground line
Excavation line
Tunnel Scale
Dimension Length
- Diameter: 4.5m ⅹ2 Lanes - Elevation: Inlet EL.20.0m, Outlet EL.19.0m - No.1: 512.6m - No.2: 506.3m
Coffer Dam 15,336 12,438 105,393 8,017 141,184m3
K R O C
3
2
IMPERVIOUS
Tunnel No. 1
Tunnel No. 2
MAIN DAM
UAM (Umbrella Arch Method)
Pre-grouting
Conceptual Diagram
Dewatering construct the diversion tunnel during the dry season. Nevertheless, when the
groundwater flows into the diversion tunnel excessively 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
•
Concept
•
•
face of the tunnel Very good waterproof effect
•
Good reinforcement effect
•
Cost-effective
•
•
Feature
•
•
Very good waterproof effect Very good reinforcement effect Uneconomical
Review mutual behavior interference due to the adjacent blasting for tunnel excavation Excavation Workability according to Geotechnical Condition (Atkinson, 1970)
Excavation Workability
Seismic Velocity Vp (km/s)
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kg/cm²)
Spacing of Joint (cm)
Easy to rip
0.45~1.2
17~30
<5
Medium to rip
1.2~1.5
30~100
5~30
Hard to rip
1.5~1.85
100~200
30~100
Very hard to rip ~ blasting
1.85~2.15
200~700
100~300
blasting
> 2.15
> 700
> 300
Unconfined Compressive Strength along the diversion Tunnel
Hole. No
Depth
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kg/cm²)
KB-29
30.0 ~ 30.6
2.97
KB-30
62.6 ~ 63.0
3.32
KB-31
54.5 ~ 54.9
0.95
13.8 ~ 14.0
10.51
14.2 ~ 14.3
1.79
KB-32
In this site, the excavation with machines is more appropriate than that with blasting and
Thus, it will possibly make minimize the mutual interference between the diversion tunnels.
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.
Item
Two Parallel Small Tunnels (Detailed Design)
One Large Tunnel
Conceptual Diagram
Area
• Inner Area : 15.9 × 2 = 31.8 m2 Excavation Area: 29.5×2 = 59.0m2
: 33.2 m2 Excavation Area : 57.7 m2
• Inner Area
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
MAIN DAM
9. Spillw ay Hydraulic Design of Spillway
•Maximum Water Level(MWL)
: EL. 71.22 m
•Flood Water Level(FWL)
: EL. 70.85 m
• Normal High Water Level(NHWL)
: EL. 67.50 m
•Weir Crest El evati on
: EL . 67.50 m (Si de channel spil l way) : EL . 57.50 m (Ogee spil l way)
• Design Flood (Inflow)
:3,671 m3/s (PMF)
• Design Discharge - Control Structure
: 3,190 m3/s (PMF)
- Chute
: 3,190 m3/s (PMF)
- Plunge Pool
: 266 m3/s (100-year)
Scale of Spillway
Side Channel Spillway
- The scale of the side channel spillway was determined so 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 “Th e Ciu j ung River Basin Basic plans” - So the crest length of side channel spillway was designed 50m
Gated Ogee Spillway
- After completing flood routing of the reservoir on the basis of a 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
MAIN DAM
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 (Ciu ju ng Ri ver Basic Pl an 1998)
Control Effects
(Unit: m)
Sabagi
Control Point
Rangkasbitung
Without Dam
With Dam
Water Level Decrease
Without Dam
With Dam
Water Level 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
Frequency Flood
MAIN DAM
Details of Spillway
• Control Structure [ Side Channel Type ] - Weir Length - Weir Crest [Gated Ogee Type] - Weir Length - Weir Crest • Chute - Chute Slope - Chute Length - Chute Width
• Plunge Pool - Length - Bottom Width
: 50.0 m (18m wi de side chann el) : EL 67.5m (N.H.W.L) : 25.0 m (B12.5m H13.4m 2gates) : EL 57.5m : 1 : 4.0 : 117.4m : 49.0m : 88.0m : 49.0m
MAIN DAM
General Plan of Spillway
Items Excavation Concrete Spillway Bridge
Qty 549,178m3 60,905m3 W7.5m L52.5m
Ref.
RC Slab Bridge
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
MAIN DAM
10. In take & Ou tlet Fac ilities 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~D7.7mⅹ36.65m
Penstock
D2.0mⅹ285m
Intake Range
EL.67.5m~EL.39.5m
Intake Inlet
2.5mⅹ2.5m, 4 bladed
Max. Capacity
6.0m3/sec
Dam Axis Plug~Tunnel Outlet
Main Valve
D2.0m, Hollow Jet Valve
Dissipation Facility
Stilling Basin W5.0mⅹH9.1mⅹL38m
MAIN DAM
Intake Tower Profile PROFILE
A
Section A - A
A
MAIN DAM
Detailed Section of Outlet Facility
11. Prot ectio n o f Excav ate ated d Slo pe Item
Reinforcement (Soil Nail)
Decrease of the Gradient
Conceptual Diagram
•
Concept
e r u t a e F
s h t g n e r t S s e s s e n k a e W
Reinforce a slope with soil nail, grouting, or anchor through slip surface to insure slope stability
Good constructability Good long-term stability Less influence to environments
•
Reduce slip load by decreasing of gradient of a slope to insure slope stability
Good constructability, economy Good long-term stability
•
•
•
•
•
Additional Additional land purchase is necessary More More influence to environments for excessive cut There is a limitation f or insuring the slope stability
•
In case that predicted slip surface is located below ground level, this method is not effective due to the limit of reinforcement
•
•
1 2. 2. C o n c l u s i o n Field
Point Dam body slope stability
Cause
Stability
Fault zone
Review Design
New quarry and borrow area
Applied new earthquake map
Comments from Balai Bendungan
Re-analyzed by Makdisi-Seed
Comments from Balai Bendungan
2 inclined borings and 4 vertical
(Earthquake Zone Map 2010) Analysis
borings and field geological survey and
Hydrology & Hydraulics
Seepage
Excavated Slope at right side of plunge pool
Freeboard of main dam Diversion tunnel capacity
Piping Analysis
Steep slope (1:0.5)
New PMF (4,295 m3/sec) Design Flood (25years) New borrow area
review previous reports Reinforce a slope with soil nail, anchor and etc.
Reservoir flood routing by using
HEC-5 Hydraulic analysis for the height
of the U/S coffer dam by using HEC-5 Re-analyzed piping safety by Justin Method and critical gradient
Remarks Safe from OBE condition by limited equilibrium method Safe from MCE condition by Makdisi-Seed Analysis
No need to take any special measures concerning a fault or an active fault Can be protected.
F= 1.32 m, “safe” (criteria: 1.25 m) “Safe”
Safe from piping by Justin Method and critical gradient
I n c o n c l u s i o n t h e r e v i ew ew d e s i g n c a n b e f u l l y a c c e p t a b l e f o r t h e f u r t h e r s t a g e o f t h e