PART III PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR

MASANG-2 HEPP

Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition

CHAPTER 16 PROJECT SITE CONDITION

16.1 LOCATION
The Masang-2 Hydroelectric Power Project (hereinafter referred to as “the project”) is situated
approximately at 0°5’ to 0°10’ of the south latitude and 100°11’ to 100°15’ of the east longitude on
the upper course of the Masang River.

The project is administratively located in Agam Regency (Kabupaten), West Sumatra Province. The
project is located approximately 30 km northwest of Bukit Tinggi city, 100 km northwest of Padang
city, the capital city of west Sumatra. Main structures such as intake weir, waterway and powerhouse
are located in Palembayan Subdistrict (Kecamatan). Administrative map of Agam Regency is as
seen in Figure 16.1.1.

Source: Agam Regency

Figure 16.1.1 Administrative Map of Agam Regency

JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-1 August, 2010
Hydropower Development in Indonesia

Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition

16.2 TOPOGRAPHY
Physiographically the project site is located at the central Barisan system, which consists of a number
of NW-SE trending block mountains. The Masang River originates from Mt. Marapi (El. 2,891.3m)
and runs between these NW-SE trending block mountains. Around the project site the river flows to
northwest, subparallel to Great Sumatra Fault System.

The major tributaries flowing into the Masang river are Sianok, Guntung and Alahanpanjang rivers.
The project is sited between the confluence of Sianok and Guntung rivers, which is the most upstream
of the Masang river, and the confluence of Masang and Alahanpanjang rivers.

In this pre-feasibility study, topographic survey was conducted at the Masang-2 project area to obtain
topographic maps and cross sections of the following quantities.

Table16.2.1 Summary of Topographic Survey Conducted
Survey Item Quantity Remarks
1. Topographic mapping on 1:10,000 scale 30 km2 Project area
2. Topographic mapping on 1:2,000 scale 4.0 km2 Main project structure sites
3. River cross section survey 10 km

16.3 GEOLOGY
16.3.1 GENERAL
The project consists mainly of a weir, sand trap, intermediate pond, connection tunnel, headrace tunnel,
surge tank, penstock, and powerhouse. The geological investigations at the pre-feasibility stage were
conducted to evaluate project site geology and seismic geology.

The section summarizes the geological conditions of the project site while Volume IV Supporting
Report (2) details the results of the preliminary geological investigation and evaluations conducted at
the prefeasibility study.

16.3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The regional stratigraphy of the project site, as shown in Figure 16.3.1, begins with the Carboniferous
to Permian. These rocks and those of the Miocene intrusive rocks compose the bedrocks of the region.
The Quaternary rocks, consisting mainly of pumiceous tuff and andesite from the volcanic activity of
the Maninjau Volcano unconformably overlie extensively the older formations. The recent sediments,
represented by alluvium, are of limited occurrence.

The major geological structure is the Sumatran Fault Zone (SFZ), also called Great Sumatra Fault
System (GSF), one of the most seismically active zones in Indonesia. The SFZ, generally parallel to
the Sunda trench, results from the partitioning of oblique plate convergence into normal convergence
at the trench and represents right-lateral strike-slip faulting. According to Sieh and Natawidjaja (2000),

JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-2 August, 2010
Hydropower Development in Indonesia

totally 1.7oS to 0. fanglomerate and other colluvial deposits Pl Permian limestone rocks with some thin intercalations of slate. Accordingly seismic consideration needs to be conducted for structural design of the project. one of the most seismically active zones in Indonesia. approximately 90 km long. Seismic hazard assessment was conducted by using probalistic approach. sand and gravel Qpt Pumiceous tuff and andesite of slightly consolidated glass.1 Regional Geological Map 16.3.3 SEISMICILITY The project site is located close to the SFZ. phyllites and quartzite Ps Permian metamorphic rocks of phyllite. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-3 August. shards and pumice fragment Qmaj Andesite of Danau Maninjau caldera QTau Undifferentiated flows of lahars. slate and mica greywacke Figure16.000 Qal Alluvial deposits of silt. The major segment of the SFZ in the proximity of the project site is the Sianok segment (0.1oN). may be subsidiary to the SFZ Source: Modified from Geological Map of the Padang Quadrangle. is highly segmented and can be subdivided into 19 major segments on the basis of its geomorphic and topographical expressions. The NW-SE fault systems. which are parallel to the SFZ. local seismic design code and through review of some similar projects within Sumatra. 1:250. Several local NE-SW and NW-SE fault systems are also distributed in the general area of the project site. runs from the northeast shore of Lake Singkarak along the southwest flank of the volcano Marapi around the project site. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .3. Sumatra. which.900 km long.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition the SFZ.

Probabilistic method 0.14 Cornell formula 0. Laboratory test for foundation rocks 10 samples 7. highly fractured and sheared.12 – 0. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Laboratory tests for construction material 10 samples Source: JICA Study Team (1) Geological Mapping Geological mapping.2 Summary of Geological Investigation Conducted Survey Item Quantity Remarks 1.15 2. as shown in Figure 16. hard.13 Rock foundation 3.3. seismic refraction survey. The rock.1 Summary of Obtained Design Seismic Acceleration Approach Design seismic coefficient Remarks 1. The limestone at outcrops is generally gray to dark gray. highly fractured and highly jointed. The design seismic coefficient through probabilistic analysis is consistent with that from Indonesia Seismic Map. Indonesia seismic map 0. Table16. The rock at outcrops is generally green to greenish grey.3. Geological mapping on 1:10.2.3.3.10 – 0. they are in the order of geological time from old to young 1) Limestone with some interbedded slate. core drillings. in-situ and laboratory tests. Core drilling 460 m 12 boreholes 4.3. locally intercalated with slate and sandstone.16 – 0. mainly in the southern part of the project site.3.920 m Main project structure sites 3. The location of geological investigation is given in Figure 16.3. soft to extremely weak. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-4 August.2. Accordingly in view of the type of structures under consideration. the intermediate pond dike and the powerhouse would be founded on the rocks. construction cost and the safety and environmental consequences of failure the design seismic coefficient for the prefeasibility study is recommended conservatively to be 0. generally strikes N120E and dips 45 degrees toward northwest. Standard penetration test 55 times 6. The weir for Plan B.000 scale 25 km2 Project area 2.4 GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS The geological investigation for the pre-feasibility study consisted of geological mapping.18 Highly weathered tuff foundation 16. The quantity of geological investigation conducted is summarized in Table 16. The greenstone (serpentinite) is of limited occurrence.3. They are both parallel to those of existing similar projects within Sumatra. Existing similar projects 0. 2) Greenstone and 3) Pumiceous tuff with some andesitic rock association. indicates that three geological units are distributed in the project site.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition The design seismic coefficients obtained are summarized in Table 16. Table16.15 for design of the weir and intermediate pond dike.12 – 0. Field permeability test 92 sections 5. The limestone is exposed chiefly along the Masang River valley and at the southern part of the project site.1. Seismic refraction survey 6.

1. >4.800 – 4.8 3. >4.2 – 2.0 – 11.600 Slightly weathered rocks - Inlet area of waterway route (Plan B/C).6 – 9. 2.2 – 6.700 – 2. etc. 1.500 Highly weathered fine-grained tuff 1.0 – 36.0 4.600 Slightly weathered rocks - Intermediate pond dike site (Plan B/C). L-5 and L-6 1. which underlies the fine-grained tuff is brown to greenish gray. 1. 3.) 0. 300 – 500 Surficial deposits (talus.700 – 3.3 – 66.6 – 3. 820 – 1.) 1.) 0.100 – 2. 1.0 2.800 – 2. On the other hand.700 – 2. 700 – 1. 1. >3. fine-grained tuff and tuff breccia.0 – 6. Table16. alluvial.600 – 2. alluvial. The fine-grained tuff. ML-3 and ML-4 1.700 – 2. 1.6 – 14.6 3.4 4. etc. the tuff breccia.100 Moderately weathered tuff breccia 10.5 2. 1.700 Highly fractured limestone/weathered tuff breccia 3.800 Moderately weathered/fractured limestone 10.6 – 73.0 – 90. ML-7 to ML-11.0 4.9 – 21.3 2.0 – 3.2 3.200 Weathered fine-grained tuff 0.) 0.9 – 6. The inferred geological classification is summarized in Table 16.8 4. 3.0 2.600 Slightly weathered limestone - Connection tunnel (Plan B/C). consists of silt to sand and contains glass and pumice.200 Moderately weathered tuff breccia 15.100 Highly weathered fine-grained tuff 1. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . L-1 and L-2 1.6 – 76. etc.0 4.500 Moderately weathered limestone/ tuff breccia 5. In addition.9 3. 360 – 500 Surficial deposits (talus. etc. alluvial.100 Highly weathered/fractured limestone 1.8 2. ML-1 and ML-2 1.500 Highly weathered fine-grained tuff 0. generally yellowish brown to brown and slightly consolidated. 700 – 1.7 2. 300 – 450 Surficial deposits (talus. 880 – 1. alluvial.8 3.0 4. The pumiceous tuff can be subdivided into two rock types. ML-5 and ML-6 1.300 Slightly weathered limestone - Source: JICA Study Team JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-5 August.6 – 53.200 – 3.000 – 1.2 3.400 Highly weathered/fractured limestone 0. alluvial.0 – 9. ML-12 to ML-14 and L-3 to L-4 1.4 – 8.) 1. 400 – 500 Surficial deposits (talus. alluvial.300 Slightly weathered/fractured limestone - Weir site C. the recent alluvial and colluvial deposits are locally distributed in the project site. 300 – 500 Surficial deposits (talus. semi-consolidated and includes lots of andesitic and basaltic fragments.3 Geological Classification of Seismic Units Seismic velocity (m/sec) Interpreted geological classification Layer thickness (m) Weir site B. The alluvial materials contain a large quantity of subangular to rounded gravel and boulder of andesite.3.3 below. etc.3. 300 – 450 Surficial deposits (talus.) 0.800 Slightly weathered/fractured limestone - Surge tank and powerhouse (Plan A/B/C).500 Moderate weathered/fractured limestone 3.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Pumiceous tuff with some andesitic rock association is extensively distributed over the hill slopes within the project site. 820 – 1. (2) Seismic Refraction Survey The interpreted seismic data indicate that four velocity layers underlie the project site. etc.

0m Weir site A Weathered tuff breccia 5.4-30.85×10-6 MH-1: No water Weathered tuff 1.4 Summary of Boring Investigation Results Area Bore Location Geology Weathering/Fracturing Rock class 0-11.28×10-4 .4.51×10-3 MW-4: 5. The results of field permeability tests are given in Table 16.0m D 0-3.0m Highly 19.0-100m CL/CH 69.0m tuff breccia 11.94×10-3 MW-1: 3.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition (3) Boring Investigation and Field Tests The boring investigation together with field permeability test was conducted to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions of the project site.8-30m CM/CH Intermediate 0-6.0m Moderately 41.56×10-3 MW-7: No water pond site Fractured limestone 2.0m Moderately 6.0m Moderately 7.0m limestone 6.0-20m CM/CH Table16.00×10-3 MW-6: No water Weir site C Weathered tuff 2.0-7.1.00×10-4 .0-50.0-19.0m limestone 11.5m tuff MS-1 Plan A/B/C 0.0-19.0m tuff breccia 0-4.5 below.2m D MW-1 Right bank 11.0m CM/CH 41.22×10-5 .8-40.4m Completely 0-7.7-69.0m Highly 0.2.0-30.0m Weir site B Fractured limestone 2.85×10-6 .2m alluvial/colluvial 0-11.0m D/CL 0-4.0m Moderately 17.0-40.3.0m tuff breccia 9.51×10-3 MW-3: 15.0m alluvial/colluvial MP-1 Plan A/B/C 3. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .0m D/CL site 3.5-41.0m Moderately 11.8-30.0m Completely 0-10.4.5-28.1.0m Completely 7. Table16.0m Moderately 10.2-50.55×10-4 .0×10-3 cm/sec.0-30.0-30.0m Highly 9.7-40.0m Completely 0-6.0-30.8m alluvial/colluvial 0-9.2.0-23.0m alluvial/colluvial MW-7 Right bank 4.0-23.53×10-5 .0m CM Weir site B 23.0m Completely 0-4.0m limestone 17.16×10-6 .8m D/CL 4.0m Highly 3.0m alluvial/colluvial MW-9 Left bank 3.1.0-30.3.8m alluvial/colluvial 0-4.0-20.2.37×10-2 Weathered tuff breccia 7.4-17.2.5m D Surge tank 0.0m tuff breccia 4.0m Completely 0-10.0-30.99×10-3 .0m D/CL site 28.0m D/CL 0-9.0m Highly 4. The permeability in the foundation rocks is generally in the range of 1.0m D Powerhouse 0-3.0m Highly 10.4m alluvial/colluvial 7.4.76×10-4 . thereby indicating moderately permeable foundation rocks.07×10-3 MW-5: 14.5m alluvial/colluvial 0-0.8-30.7-40.0m D/CL MW-4 Right bank 7.0-30.8-20.0-100.0m D/CL 0-7.0-100.0m Highly 4.8-20.0m andesite 0-0.3.0m Completely 0-4.50.0-7.0m D MH-1 Plan A route 19.0-20.0m limestone 7.0m limestone 10.5m Completely 0-0.7m Moderately 3.45×10-6 .0m Highly 11.0m D/CL 19.0m D/CL 0-10.3.0-11.7m tuff 0-10.2.2-50.0m andesite 0-3.0×10-5cm/se to 1.0m D MW-5 Left bank 10.0-19.0m Completely 0-3.3.0-20m CM/CH 0-3.3.8-20.2m Completely 0-11.0-30.0m tuff breccia 41.63×10-4 .5m Alluvial and colluvial deposits 3.59×10-3 MW-9: No water Alluvial and colluvial deposits 1.0m D/CL 0-4.36×10-3 Source: JICA Study Team JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-6 August.5m Alluvial and colluvial deposits 5.0-19.0m alluvial/colluvial Headrace 10.4m D 0-7.73×10-5 Headrace route Weathered tuff breccia 2.0-20.5 Summary of Permeability Test Results Area Geology Permeability (cm/se) Groundwater (depth-m) Alluvial and colluvial deposits 3.8m Completely 0-9.0-50.0m Completely 0-3.5-41.8m tuff 4.8m D MW-3 Left bank 9.95×10-5 .2.8-40.0-20.0m D Weir site C MW-6 Left bank 4.8m Completely 0-4.7m CM/CH 3.0m slate 19.8m D Weir site A MW-2 Riverbed 4.0-11.0m Completely 23.5-41.0m tuff breccia 10.0m D 0-4.8m Highly 4.8-40.4-17.0m D/CL 0-10.0m D MW-8 Riverbed pond site 6.0m alluvial/colluvial 0-6.42×10-4 Weathered andesite 2.0m alluvial/colluvial 0-10.0m alluvial/colluvial 0-4.01×10-3 Intermediate Alluvial and colluvial deposits 1.0-50. The results of boring investigation are summarized in Table 16.

2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . moderately to highly fractured and can be classified into D to CL class rocks from Japanese Rock Classification Standard. The underlying limestone is exposed in the riverbed and at the right abutment. is composed of tuff breccia with alluvial and colluvial cover of about 10 m thick. The width of the streambed at the pond site is about 5 m. The underlying limestone crops out solely in the riverbed and is expected to be encountered at a depth of 35 to 40 m at the abutments.4. The geology of the intermediate pond site consists mainly of limestone and contains intercalated thin shale beds. however foundation treatment would be required to improve the permeability of the foundation rock. The geology of the weir site A. a tributary of the Masang River close to Kototinggi village.3. The geology of the site.5 shows the geological conditions of the weir site B. Weir site C – the site is located further 500 m downstream of the weir site B. From field reconnaissance and core observation the limestone is generally very hard and strong.5 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT SITE (1) Intake Weir Site Weir site A – The site is located approximately 300 m downstream of the confluence between the Cuntung river and the Sianok river. as shown in Figure 16. The thickness of the surficial deposits is in the order of 1 to 7 m. deep excavation or foundation treatment for the weir foundation would be required at the abutments. The thickness of the highly weathered tuff and tuff breccia is over 30 m at the abutments.3.6. Accordingly the weir foundation at the site will require deep excavation up to over 10 m deep to remove the overlying loose deposits and highly weathered tuff breccia or a combination of pile foundation to improve the bearing capacity of foundation rocks.28×10-4cm/sec to 2. The tuff breccia. Accordingly the foundation conditions at the weir are considered favorable with the weir structure founded in the limestone. The Masang River at the weir site shows U-shaped valley with a riverbed width of about 30 m. Figure 16. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-7 August. (2) Intermediate Pond Site The intermediate pond site is located at the lower course of a small stream. as shown in Figure 16.7. as shown in Figure 16. In addition. especially its upper part was highly weathered into a poor quality of D class rock mass in Japanese Rock Classification Standard.3. Alluvial and colluvial deposits as well as tuff locally overlie the limestone mainly along the stream valley. Because of poor quality of the weathered tuff and tuff breccia at the abutments. The left abutment is a thin ridge and the right abutment is a mountainous hillslope. The Masang River at the weir site shows wide V-shaped valley with a riverbed width of about 35 m. Weir site B – The site lies about 600 m downstream of the weir site A at the straight course of the river.3.3.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition 16. tuff breccia and limestone. The Masang River at the weir site shows wide V-shaped valley with a riverbed width of about 30 m. The thickness of these superficial layers is in the range of 1 to 4 m at the abutments and in the range of 1 to 6 m in the streambed. the permeability of the fractured limestone is in the range of 2.05×10-3 cm/sec and the limestone is thus considered to be moderately permeable rocks. consists mainly of tuff.

The geological conditions considered are based mainly on surface geological mapping and boring information obtained in the vicinity of the tunnel alignments. On the other hand. As seen from Figure 16. 1. No detailed geological data are available from the rock masses along the most part of the tunnel alignment at surface and at the tunneling depth. Similarly. about 40-m thick. The surge tank will be expected to be founded on moderately weathered andesite.630 m long connection tunnel and 4. Leakage. Consequently the general rock mass conditions are considered favorable from the viewpoint of tunneling and no major geological problems are to be expected during heading of the tunnels. moderately fractured and jointed and can be classified as CM to CH class rock in Japanese Rock Classification Standard. the interbedded slate is moderately to highly fractured and sheared and can be classified as D to CM class rock. the intermediate pond dike will be expected to be founded on the limestone. the foundation of the connection and headrace tunnels is expected to mostly be CM to CH class sandstone and tuff as well as tuff breccia. however. The boring investigation of MS-1 revealed that the tuff and tuff breccia. If such foundation condition would be encountered foundation treatment JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-8 August.95×10-5cm/se to 4. Accordingly. The limestone and interbedded slate at the intermediate pond site has moderate to low permeability with a permeability of 2. as shown in Figure 16. The connection and headrace tunnels will be located mostly in limestone interbedded with slate and locally in tuff and tuff breccia. the penstock will be located on the hillslope underlain by highly weathered tuff and tuff breccia.060 m long connection culvert. Here slope stability and foundation conditions are the major topics of the geological investigations. especially from the right abutment of thin ridge. would be likely to be encountered around the abutments and foundation rocks. and locally D to CL class rocks over several tens meters relating to the interbedded slate and highly fractured limestone.550 m long headrace tunnel along the left side of the Masang River. is highly weathered with a rock quality of D to CL class in Japanese Rock Classification Standard and the underlying moderately weathered andesite is moderately weathered with a rock quality of CM to CH class. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . (4) Surge Tank and Penstock Sites The surge tank and penstock areas are located at the left side of the Masng River immediately downstream of the confluence between the Masang River and the Alahan Panjang River.3.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition The limestone is generally hard. The rocks are expected to be D to CL class rock mass in Japanese Rock Classification Standard. In addition. For the foundation of fix points of the penstock the foundation tuff might be very poor with a rock quality of D class.8.8. (3) Connection and Headrace Tunnels (Plan B) In Plan B it is planned to construct 1. which is considered favorable in terms of bearing capacity.3. no groundwater was observed during borehole drilling around the abutments. indicating that groundwater level around the abutments was very low.59×10-3 cm/sec.

(1) Sand Sand materials were needed for the fine aggregates of concrete. The alluvial deposits are predominately coarse sand with some gravel. Absorption <3.15 13. Table 16. The limestone in the foundation area is suitable for the founding of the powerhouse.6 summarizes laboratory test results of the samples. because the foundation limestone is hard and strong and the overburden is thin. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . rock fill and impervious materials.95 13. no major foundation problems will be expected. Table16.86 13.0% 6.3. Soft particle <1. around the weir site (SS-4) and close to the powerhouse site (SS-5) were inspected.6 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS The construction materials required for the construction of the project structures were fine and coarse aggregates. although highly fractured.49 2.15 14.05 11. The content of fines is zero to 2 % only. Especially the absorption values of the alluvial sands are high and should be verified in a later survey stage if the materials are to be used in concrete. The Dukuh sites are in operation by local people.3.7 gives the results of JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-9 August.71 2.33 2.67 2.3. quantity and quality of construction materials.5% 2. Soundness Na2SO4 12.40 4.6 Summary of Laboratory Tests for Fine Aggregate Material Test Criterion SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SS-8 1. (5) Powerhouse Site The powerhouse is planned at the left bank of the Masang River. At the prefeasibility study stage the field reconnaissance (geological mapping) together with limited laboratory tests was carried out to examine the possible source.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition such as mortared rockbolts should be implemented to guarantee stable foundations.60 2.0% 4. is considered to have a sufficient bearing capacity for foundation support of the planned powerhouse. Accordingly. The limestone.58 3.0% 18.3. grout and mortar. From field reconnaissance and boring investigation (MP-1). 16. Riverbed deposits around the Dukuh (SS-1 to SS-3). highly to moderately fractured with a rock quality of D to CH class in Japanese Rock Classification Standard.48 2.0% Source: JICA Study Team (2) Rock Quarry Several potential limestone quarries (RS-1 through RS-5) around the project site were observed mainly as concreter coarse aggregate for the construction of project.6 Mg2SO4 15.79 4. Table 16. the overburden is about 1 to 3 m thick and the underlying limestone is very hard. Specific gravity >2.

76 2.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition laboratory tests. . Table 16.59 0. The low strength values of the limestone quarries were presumably due to weathering because these samples were taken from surface outcrops. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-10 August. The planned connection and headrace tunnels would be expected to be founded mostly on CM to CH class rock masses.89 0.0% Mg2SO4 15.0% 1.71 2.3.58 2.15 for design of the weir and intermediate pond dike.71 2. The intermediate pond site was favorable in terms of bearing capacity. Specific gravity >2. Absorption <3.32 3. Soundness Na2SO4 12.71 2.89 2.5% 2. .3.0% 25.3. UCS >500kg/cm2 182 141 163 255 372 Notes: 1) UCS = Unconfined compressive strength. Limestone quarry sites around the project site appeared available in quality and quantity as potential construction material sources but the strength characteristics should be confirmed at next survey stage.7 GEOLOGUCAL SUMMARY The preliminary geological and geotechnical investigations conducted at the pre-feasibility study stage indicate that the topographical and geological conditions of the project site are suitable for the development of the project. . In comparison with the weir sites A and C the weir site B is more suitable for founding of the weir construction because at the site the overburden is shallow and the foundation rock of limestone is hard and strong enough to support the planned weir foundation. 2) 1 kgf/cm2 = 98. The design seismic coefficient for the per-feasibility study of the Masang-2 project is recommended conservatively to be 0. No major geological problems are to be expected at tunneling.00 0. Abrasion <40. The basement rocks of the project site are Permian limestone rocks with some thin intercalations of slate. which is the major seismic source around the project site. Source: JICA Study Team 16. . The limestone rock is extensively covered by Quaternary tuff and tuff breccia from the volcanic activity of the Maninjau Volcano. The project site is located in a region of high seismic activity close to the active Great Sumatra Fault. The strength property should be confirmed at next investigation stage.3 5.7 Summary of Laboratory Tests for Coarse Aggregate Material Test Criterion RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 RS-5 1. . however the permeability and leakage of the foundation rocks should be considered especially leakage from the right abutment of thin ridge.1 32. As seen from Table 16.1kN/m2 (kPa). 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The mainly investigation results are summarized as follows: .0% 4. the index properties are satisfactory for concrete aggregates except for compressive strength.7.

Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Figure16. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .2 Location of Geological Investigations JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-11 August.3.

2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .3 Geological Map with Location of Sampling for Construction Materials JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-12 August.3.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Figure16.

2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .3.4 Geological Section of the Weir Axis Alternative A JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-13 August.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Figure16.

3.5 Geological Section of the Weir Axis Alternative B JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-14 August.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Figure16. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .

6 Geological Section of the Weir Axis Alternative C JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-15 August.3.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Figure16. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .

Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Figure16.3.7 Geological Section of the Intermediate Pond Axis JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-16 August. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .

2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .8 Geological Section along the Connection and Headrace Tunnel Alignment Alternative B JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-17 August.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Figure16.3.

3 82.6 26.4.3. (2) Relative Humidity The average monthly relative humidity at the Tabing-Padang station in the period of 1971 to 2002 is summarized below.9 25.4.1ºC on an average.2 and Figure 16.1 As seen. Research Institute for Water Resources Development under Ministry of Public Works (Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Air: PUSAIR.0 82.7 25. 16.5 % and there is a slight seasonal change ranging from 81. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The annual mean relative humidity in the period of 1971-2002 at the Tabing-Padang station is 82. there is no significant change of relative humidity throughout the year.1.1 METEOROLOGICAL DATA Climatic data such as air temperature.6 82. The location map of the stations is shown in Figure 16.9 84. wind velocity.7 26.4. Pan-evaporation has been observed at the Lubuk Sikaping and the Tanjung Pati stations. Pan-evaporation data is collected from Masang-3 HEPP report. relative humidity. and engineering reports on various hydropower development projects. sunshine duration have been observed at the Tabing-Padang station.7ºC in August or September to 26.2 82.4 METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOGY Meteorological Records and Hydrological Records are collected from Meteorological Climatological and Geophysical Agency (Badan Meteorologi Klimatologi dan Geofisika: BMKG). The availability of data is summarized in Figure 16.6ºC in May.6 83.0 26. the mean annual air temperature at the Tabing-Padang station is 26.1% in January to 84.5 As well as the monthly pattern of mean air temperature.8 25.4.4 81.1 82.7 25. (1) Air Temperature The average monthly mean air temperature at the Tabing-Padang station in the period of 1971 to 2002 is summarized below.3 26.6 % in November. Unit: % Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 81.4 26.4.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition 16. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-18 August.2 26.5 26.4 83. There is a slight seasonal change ranging 25.3 25. The catchment area of Masang-2 HEPP intake weir site is shown in Figure 16. Unit: ℃ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 26. formerly DPMA). which is collected from BMKG.2 83.4.6 81.1 81.

6 3.8 4.5 61.4 42.4 4.3 1.1 1.3 m/sec in January.1 Station Name: Tanjung Pati (1975-1985) Unit: mm/day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 3.9 55.5 3.1 Mean annual wind velocity at the Tabing-Padang station is 1.1 3.5 3. the seasonal variation of pan evaporation is generally small throughout the year. Sunshine duration generally decreases with an increase of rainfall.6 3. Unit: % Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 53.7 % on an average.9 3.1 1.9 3.7 52.3 1. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-19 August. The maximum duration of 61.4 50.1 57.0 0. but the others collected from BMKG in the period of 1990 to 2002 are around 0.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition (3) Sunshine Duration The average monthly mean sunshine duration at the Tabing-Padang station in the period of 1971 to 2002 is summarized below.1 4.4 % occur in June and November. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The highest sunshine duration therefore occurs in June in the dry season.2 3.1 m/sec. The wind velocity records collected from Masang-3 HEPP reports in the period of 1971 to 1989 are around 1 m/sec. (5) Evaporation Pan evaporation records are available at the Lubuk Sikaping station and the Tanjung Pati station. namely evaporation rate varies season to season following to mainly the variation of humidity.9 41.3 1.7 As seen.7 60.9 1.7 40.1 1. because there is no great seasonal variation of relative humidity. (4) Wind Velocity The average monthly mean wind velocity at the Tabing-Padang station in the period of 1971 to 2002 is summarized below. respectively.7 % and the minimum one of 40.1 4.3 3.6 The ruling factors of pan evaporation may be air temperature and relative humidity.0 1.1 1.4 53.1 3. Unit: m/sec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 1.6 3.1 1.6 3.6 4.5 3.1 4. The average monthly mean pan evaporation at the Lubuk Sikaping and the Tanjung Pati stations is summarized below.1 1.7 4.1 m/sec ranging from 0.3 59. the mean annual sunshine duration at the Tabing-Padang station is 52.9 4. Station Name: Lubuk Sukaping (1979-1985) Unit: mm/day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 4. As seen in the above table.9m/sec in June and 1.6 3. February or March.1 3.3 4.3 55.

6 3 8 m m (1 9 6 9 . after regional office of PLN took responsibility for maintenance which the central office of PLN had taken. M an in jau : 3 . 1 9 9 m m (1 9 6 9 . 4 4 0 m m (1 9 6 9 . PLN formerly had own hydrological observation network (PLN-LMK Observation Network). Monthly rainfall records are collected in Masang-3 HEPP and HPPS2. besides daily rainfall records are collected from BMKG in this study.2 0 0 7 ) 600 500 Rainfall(mm) 400 300 200 100 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-20 August.1 9 9 3 ) 600 500 Rainfall(mm) 400 300 200 100 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Su liki: 2 . The rainfall gauging stations are operated and maintained under BMKG.2 RAINFALL DATA There are 13 rainfall gauging stations in and around the Masang River basin.1. Also the data availability at these stations is shown in Figure 16. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The location map of these stations is shown in Figure 16.2.4. (1) Monthly Rainfall Data The monthly distributions of mean annual rainfall are illustrated below.4.1 9 9 3 ) 600 500 Rainfall(mm) 400 300 200 100 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ko t o T in ggi: 2 . Currently most of these stations have broken down.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition 16.4.

and as 436. The catchment area of the station is described as 458 km2 in the records from 1975 to 1992.1 9 9 3 ) 600 500 Rainfall(mm) 400 300 200 100 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec As seen above. Patir. Besides. (2) Runoff Records The daily runoff records are collected from PUSAIR in Bandung and the daily water level records are collected from BPSDA in Bukit Tinggi. The daily runoff records are available from 1975 to 2008 except in 1988. Sungai Talang Barat. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . the annual mean rainfall at these stations ranges from 2.3 RUNOFF RECORDS (1) Water Level Gauging Station (AWLR Station) Only one water level gauging station has been installed in the Masang River basin. 1989.4 km2 in the records from 1993to 2008.000 scale map. Solok Bio-Bio. the catchment area of the station is measured as 475km2 based on 1:50. Hourly rainfall records of more than 50 mm were selected for estimating the characteristics of relatively heavy rainfall.000 mm to 4.600 mm per year. Hourly rainfall records are collected to determine the rainfall pattern for the flood analysis. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-21 August. It might be said that there exists little seasonality in the Masang River basin receiving rainfalls throughout the year. 7 9 7 m m (1 9 6 9 .4. 2003 and 2004. Muara Paiti. Maninjau. the catchment area of Masang-2 HEPP intake weir site is measured as 443km2.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Jam bak: 3 . 16. The station name is the Sipisang AWLR station located in the north of Palembayan town. (2) Hourly Rainfall Records Hourly rainfall records are available at the Gunung Melintang. Puar Datar and Halaban Dua rainfall gauging stations. The Sipisang AWLR station is operated by the regional office of the River Bureau under the Ministry of Public Works (Balai Pengendalian Sumber Daya Air: BPSDA). 1994. 2002. On this study. The average monthly mean runoff in the period of 1975-2008 is summarized below.

it is necessary to supplement the runoff records at the Sipisang station by infilling of missing data. Along this line. Therefore. the daily runoff records are available from 1975 to 2008 except in 1988. On the other hand.4 20. The outline of lowflow analysis is described below.7 29.6 23. 2003 and 2004.4 27. the Tank Model Method is applied in this study as a rainfall-runoff model.7 16. 1989. the monthly basin mean rainfall at the Sipisang station can be estimated for the period between 1973 and 1993. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-22 August. Then lowflow analysis by the Tank Model Method is carried out to simulate 21-year long-term monthly runoff data at the Sipisang station.1 20.4.9 As seen.2 21. it is highly expected that the runoff data should be of high accuracy because measurement on economic viability of project is highly dependent on the reliability of available runoff records. the remaining observation years still include data-missing periods. Further. Furthermore.8 22. Firstly. As described in the previous chapter. 2002.455mm in terms of the annual runoff depth. which is computed by dividing the annual accumulated runoff volume by the catchment area of the gauging station. On the Masang-2 HEPP. daily runoff records are required because the type of hydropower development scheme is runoff type. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . 16.9m3/s or 1. 1994. the reliability of the available runoff records at the Sipisang station for using calibration is evaluated by means of runoff coefficient and annual rainfall loss.0 21.8 18.6 21. the annual mean runoff at the Sipisang AWLR station is 21.5 18. the model parameters of which are calibrated by using rainfall and runoff records available in the period of 1982 to 1986.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Station Name: Sipisang (1975-2008) Unit: m3/s Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 22.4 LOWFLOW ANALYSIS (1) General Approach The continuous long-term runoff data for a time period of more than 20 years at the proposed intake weir site is normally required for evaluating an optimum development scale of the project through power output computation. Thus the runoff data at the Sipisang station can be supplemented and expanded for the period of 1973 to 1993 by constructing a rainfall-runoff simulation model. Finally the daily runoff data at the Masang-2 intake weir site is estimated with 14-year simulated monthly data and 7-year observed daily data.

(3) Test of Consistency of Rainfall Records The method of testing rainfall records for consistency is the double-mass curve technique. PCX = PX × ( M C / M a ) where. Double-mass analysis tests the consistency of the record at a station by comparing its accumulated annual or seasonal precipitation with the concurrent accumulated values of mean precipitation for a group of surrounding stations. PCX : Corrected rainfall at any time period at station x (mm) PX : Original recorded rainfall at any time period at station x (mm) MC : Corrected slope of the double-mass curve Ma : Original slope of the double-mass curve JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-23 August.1986.1986 ) Establishment of Rainfall .Runoff Coefficient .1986 ) Supplementation & Expansion of Monthly Runoff Records by Tank Model ( 1973 .Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Test of Consintency of Monthly Runoff Records at Sipisang Rainfall Records Estimation of Scrutiny of Runoff Records : Monthly Basin Mean Rainfall ( Reliability Check ) . 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .1993 ) Estimation of Long-Term Daily Runoff Daily Runoff Records at Masang-2 Intake Weir Site ( 1976. The corrected rainfall is determined by the following equation.Consistency of Records ( 1982 . Missing data at a station is supplemented by another station with linear regression equation which has the highest correlation coefficient. the simple regression analysis on the monthly basis are carried out among the selected stations. For the purpose of supplementing the missing rainfall records. 1991 ) ( 1973 .Annual Rainfall Loss . 1982 .Runoff Simulation Model ( Tank Model Method ) Calibration of Model Parameters ( 1982 .1993 ) (2) Estimation of Missing Data The observed rainfall records at all of the selected stations include several data interruptions.

the annual runoff depth of Masang River at the Sipisang station is computed by dividing the annual runoff volume by its drainage area of 475 km2 for the same period as above. because both rainfall and runoff records are available in this period for calibration of Tank Model parameters. Koto Tinggi. Case1 (1973-1986) Maninjau Koto Tinggi Suliki 0. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-24 August. 1) Relationship between Annual Basin Mean Rainfall and Annual Runoff Depth at the Sipisang AWLR Station The annual basin mean rainfall at the Sipisang AWLR station is estimated for the period of 1982 to 1986.21 0.10 Case2 (1987 to 1993) Koto Tinggi Suliki Jambak 0. Suliki Case2 (1987 to 1993): Koto Tinggi. Suliki.23 0. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . because it is the only gauge located in the Masang River.67 0. The established relationship between annual basin mean rainfall and annual runoff depth at the Sipisang station is as follows.74 0. Case1 (1973 to 1986): Maninjau. (5) Evaluation of Runoff Records at the Sipisang AWLR Station The Sipisang AWLR station is selected as a key stream gauge station for predicting the long-term runoff at the proposed Masang-2 intake weir site. Maninjau Station: 1979 to 1993 Suliki Station: 1988 to 1993 (4) Estimation of Basin Mean Rainfall at the Sipisang AWLR Station The basin mean rainfall at the Sipisang AWLR station is estimated by applying the Thiessen Method using the corrected data. The evaluated period of runoff records is determined to be 5 years from 1982 to 1986. The records of selected rainfall gauging stations are divided in two periods considering data availability. Jambak The tables below show the computed Thiessen coefficients for estimating basin mean rainfall at the the Sipisang AWLR station. On the other hand.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition The monthly rainfall records at the following stations are adjusted for the following periods.507mm.05 The estimated annual basin mean rainfall is 2.

Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition

Annual Rainfall Annual Runoff Annual Rainfall Runoff
Year (mm) Depth Loss Coefficient
1976 2,207 1,375 832 0.62
1982 2,430 1,253 1,176 0.52
1983 2,314 1,233 1,081 0.53
1984 3,339 1,318 2,022 0.39
1985 2,615 1,449 1,165 0.55
1986 3,029 1,450 1,579 0.48
1991 3,030 1,326 1,704 0.44
1993 3,027 2,101 925 0.69
Average 2,749 1,438 1,311 0.53

The difference between the annual basin mean rainfall and annual runoff depth is the so-called
evapotranspiration loss or annual rainfall loss.

The annual rainfall loss is analyzed for major rivers in Sumatra in HPPS2 as presented in Table
16.4.1. It is therefore found that the annual rainfall loss normally falls in a range of 700 to 1,500
mm a year which varies according to altitude, natural vegetation, seasonal distribution of rainfall,
etc.

As seen above, the rainfall loss at the Sipisang station varies from 800mm to 2,000mm. From the
hydrological point of view, the rainfall loss usually varies in a small range. Therefore it is
estimated that rainfall data or runoff data has some errors. The basin mean rainfall is adjusted
based on the following consideration.

z The annual runoff depth is likely to be constant rather than the basin mean rainfall, with
small variations of 1,200 to 1,500 mm. The observed record in 1993 is eliminated
because it might contain errors due to malfunctioning of water level recorder.

z Maninjau, Koto Tinggi, Suliki, Jambak rainfall gauging stations which are used for
estimating basin mean rainfall are located outside the Masang River basin. This fact
implies that the estimated basin mean rainfall might inevitably contain some error to
some extent.

The estimated annual basin mean rainfall in 1976, 1984 and 1991 are thus adjusted such that the
annual rainfall loss becomes 1,251mm, which corresponds to the mean annual rainfall loss in
1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986.

The adjusted relationship between annual basin mean rainfall and annual runoff depth at the
Sipisang station is given below.

JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-25 August, 2010
Hydropower Development in Indonesia

Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition

Annual Rainfall Annual Runoff Annual Rainfall Runoff
Year (mm) Depth Loss Coefficient
1976 2,626 1,375 1,251 0.52
1982 2,430 1,253 1,176 0.52
1983 2,314 1,233 1,081 0.53
1984 2,568 1,318 1,251 0.51
1985 2,615 1,449 1,165 0.55
1986 3,029 1,450 1,579 0.48
1991 2,577 1,326 1,251 0.51
1993 - - - -
Average 2,594 1,343 1,251 0.52

2) Double Mass Curve Analysis

Based on the adjusted annual basin mean rainfall and annual runoff depth at the Sipisang station,
the double mass curve is constructed as given below.
Accumulated Runoff Depth (mm)

10,000
1991

1986

1985
5,000
1984

1983

1982

1976
-
- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Accumulated Basin Mean Rainfall (mm)

As shown above, the annual basin mean rainfall and annual runoff depth are plotted on a straight
line, satisfactorily showing the hydrological consistency ready for Tank model analysis to be
discussed in the next section.

(6) Tank Model

1) Concept of Tank Model Method

The Tank Model simulation method is widely applied for estimating river runoff from rainfall
data. The Tank Model Method has been successfully applied for low-flow analysis in various
water resources development projects in Indonesia.

Basic concept of Tank Model

The basic idea of Tank Model is very simple. Consider a tank having a hole at the bottom and
another hole at the side as illustrated below.

JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-26 August, 2010
Hydropower Development in Indonesia

Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition

When the tank is filled with water, the water will be released from the holes as shown in the
above. In the tank model simulation, it is considered that the water released from the side hole
corresponds to runoff from a stream, and the water from the bottom hole goes into the ground
water zone.

The depth of water released from a hole is given by the following tank equation.

Q =α ×H

where, Q : Runoff depth of released water (mm)
α : Coefficient of hole
H : Water depth above the hole (mm)

Applied Tank Model

For the purpose of natural runoff simulation, four by four (4×4) tanks combined in series are
used.

The top tank receives the rainfall as inflow to the tank, while the tanks below get the supply from
the bottom holes of the tank directory above. The aggregated outflow from all the side holes of
the tanks constitutes the inflow in the river course.

To effectively trace dry conditions in the basin, several modifications are made on the basic
model. The model is firstly facilitated with a structure to simulate the moisture content in the top
tank. This sub-model is composed of two moisture-bearing zones, which contain moisture up to
the capacities of saturation. Between the two zones, the water transfers as expressed below.

T 2 = TC ( XP / PS − XS / SS )

where, T2 : Transfer of moisture between primary and secondary zones
(if positive, transfer occurs from primary to secondary, and vice versa)
TC : Constant
XP : Primary soil moisture depth

JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-27 August, 2010
Hydropower Development in Indonesia

7 is applied for estimating evapotranspiration in the basin. Therefore. Station Name: Lubuk Sukaping (1979-1985) Unit: mm/day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 4. Number of Tanks 4×4 Calculation Time Interval 1 month Calculation Period 1982 to 1986 Observed Runoff at Sipisang Station 1982 to 1986 Basin Mean Rainfall at Sipisang Station 1982 to 1986 Monthly Average Evaporation at Lubuk Sikaping 1979 to 1985 The pan evaporation record at the Lubuk Sikaping station is applied.2 3. the best coincidence between the simulated and observed runoff at the Sipisang station is obtained under the tank parameters as follows. T1 : Transfer of the water from lower tank with capillary action TB : Constant There are many tank model parameters such as hole coefficients of each tank.9 3. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-28 August.9 4.3 3. T 1 =TB (1 − XP / PS ) where. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .8 4. These parameters cannot be determined mathematically. 2) Input Data for Calibration Model The applied model and simulation condition for calibration are given below. The pan coefficient of 0. the water goes up by capillary action so as to fill the primary soil moisture with the transfer speed T1 as given below.7 4.1 3) Calibration Results Through several trial-and-error calculations.4 4. The average monthly pan evaporation is given below. The period for calibration set from 1982 to 1986 because there are continuously rainfall records and runoff records. and height of side holes of each tank.6 3.1 4.1 4. these parameters are subject to determination through trial-and-error calculations comparing the calculated runoff with the actually observed runoff.6 3.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition PS : Primary soil moisture capacity XS : Secondary soil moisture depth SS : Secondary soil moisture capacity When the primary soil moisture is not saturated and there is free water in lower tanks.1 4.

52 0.48 0.254 1.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Hole Coefficient Height of Hole (mm) β α1 α2 H1 H2 Tank-1 0.51 As seen above.0 0.605 1.265 mm.000 2.49 1984 2.350 15.241 1.143 1.635 1.227 0. hydrological indices of the observed runoff at the Sipisang station are 0.268 mm.579 1.0 0.300 0.314 1.0 Tank-4 0.233 1.010 0.50 0.321 1.615 1.171 0.52 0.51 and 1.0 30. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-29 August.203 1.006 0.332 0.47 1985 2. On the other hand.430 1.337 1.215 0.449 1.050 0. The rainfall-runoff relationship of simulated runoff is summarized below.54 1986 3. Annual Annual Runoff Depth Annual Rainfall Loss Rainfall (mm) (mm) Runoff Coefficient Year (mm) Observed Simulated Observed Simulated Observed Simulated 1982 2.697 1.400 1. These derived hydrological indices are judged to be in the hydrologically reasonable range.0 0.50 1983 2. the average runoff coefficient and rainfall loss of the simulated runoff are derived to be 0.340 1.177 1.53 0.56 Average 2.0 Tank-3 0.314 1.029 1.0 The rainfall-runoff relationship of the simulated runoff is examined compared with the observed runoff as summarized below. respectively.030 0.001 0.268 0.070 0.395 0. (6) Prediction of the Long-Term Runoff at the Sipisang AWLR Station The tank model with the calibrated parameters in the above is applied to generate the monthly runoff at the Sipisang station dating back to the period of 1973 to 1993 by use of the estimated monthly basin mean rainfall.0 Tank-2 0. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .55 0.350 0.166 1.52 and 1.450 1.000 0.265 1.000 5.081 1.

48 1975 1. Time Interval Daily Observed Daily Runoff 1976.053 . it is difficult to collect long-term daily rainfall and runoff data in Masang River basin and the monthly runoff records are supplemented and extended with Tank Model method. 963 .381 . 1.071 .53 1988 2. 1.450 1. 0. 1. 1.333 .538 1.53 1976 2. 0. Nevertheless. 1.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Annual Annual Runoff Depth Annual Rainfall Loss Runoff Coefficient Year Rainfall (mm) (mm) (mm) Observed Simulated Observed Simulated Observed Simulated 1973 2.166 1.203 .697 1.254 1.159 .177 1.215 .314 1.410 .646 . respectively.54 1974 2.255 .195 . 1993 (8) Long-Term Runoff at the Masang-2 Intake Weir Site The long-term daily runoff at Masang-2 intake weir site for 21 years in the period of 1973 to 1993 is estimated from the predicted long-term daily runoff at the Sipisang station by using the following equation.47 1985 2. 1.44 0.874 .053 0. the average runoff coefficient and rainfall loss of the simulated runoff are derived to be 0.314 1.51 1992 2. 1. So the combination of daily observed runoff and simulated monthly runoff is used for setting the daily flow duration curve.57 1983 2.4. 1991 Simulated Monthly Runoff 1973 to 1975. 1.010 .474 .62 0.205 . These hydrological indices are judged to be within the hydrological reasonable range. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . 1. 1.41 1981 2.184 .674 . 1. The condition of data is summarized below. 0.321 1.233 1.615 1.061 . The flow duration curve as shown in Figure 16. 1. 1.377 1. 0.371 848 836 1.54 1986 3. 1. 1.53 0.390 0.47 1991 3.797 .55 0.360 0.50 0. 0.213 . 0.54 Average 2. 1982 to 1986.222 . 866 . 1. 919 .52 0.48 0.622 .188 .38 1977 2.251 . 1. 0.245 1.025 .159 1. 0.030 1.122 .821 . 1.155 0.081 1.50 and 1.214 0.49 1979 2.5.63 1993 3.231 . 893 .252 . 1.132 .403 . is drawn by arranging the discharges in JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-30 August. 1987 to 1990. 0. 0. 939 . 0.029 1.50 1984 2.332 0.395 .264 . 0. 1.430 1.704 1.635 1. 1992.45 1990 2. 990 .882 .579 1. 0.208 1.401 1.50 1982 2.58 1989 2. The value of simulated monthly runoff data is regarded as simulated daily runoff in same amount. 0. 1977 to 1981.222 mm. 1. 1.326 1.292 . 1.367 . daily runoff data is required for power output computation because the type of scheme is runoff type.46 1978 2.027 .56 1987 2.42 1980 2. (7) Daily Flow Duration Curve For Masang-2 HEPP.50 As seen in the table. 0.333 . 1.449 1.516 .492 0.

which is empirically developed in USA Department of the Interior is used. the average water level is 0. Location of the observation is at the Masang-2 intake weir site (St.1) and the Sipisang AWLR station (St. For estimating the probable floods.2). which synthesizes the various probable runoff hydrographs from the probable basin mean rainfalls based on the relationship between unit of basin mean rainfall and its runoff.6.5 FLOOD ANALYSIS (1) General Approach Flood analysis is carried out to estimate the probable floods with various return periods as well as the probable maximum flood (PMF) at the Masang-2 intake weir site which are basically required for design of spillway and diversion facilities. the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) unit hydrograph.06) 2 where. In this study.4. The Equation of H-Q rating curve is given below.000 km2.85 m3/s calculated with H-Q rating curve. H-Q rating curve is established on the basis of observed water level and discharge. the unit hydrograph method is applied. QD : Runoff at Masang-2 intake weir site (m3/sec) QW : Runoff at Sipisang AWLR station (m3/sec) AD : Catchment area at Masang-2 intake weir site (=443km2) AW : Catchment area at Sipisang AWLR station (=475km2) (9) Water Level Observation and Discharge Measurement The field investigation of 3 month water level observation and 30 times discharge measurement was carried out from 2010 October 6th to 2011 January 7th by the sub-contractor.75m and the average runoff is 23. that is the so-called unit hydrograph. and hydrograph is established on the basis of observed water level and H-Q rating curve. Q : Runoff (m3/sec) H : Water level (m) The observed average runoff is about 15% of probability on the duration curve shown in Figure 16. It is generally agreed that the unit hydrograph method is applied for catchment areas less than 3. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .5. Q = 36. because no hourly flood hydrograph is available at the JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-31 August. 16. Consequently. Hydrograph is illustrated in Figure 16.4.55 × ( H + 0. QD = QW × ( AD / AW ) where.4.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition descending order and assigning probabilities to each discharge. and determination of dam height.

Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Sipisang AWLR station to construct the unit hydrograph. 6-hour of rainfall duration covers 63% of all. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Besides. heavy rainfall occurs intensively in a short duration and sporadically in a limited area. The rainfall duration of selected 63-storm rainfall is arranged. Among the storm rainfalls bigger than 50mm. Hourly rainfall records exceeding 50 mm within 12 hours were selected for estimating the hourly rainfall hyetograph of heavy storm rainfall which might cause flood. The general approach of flood analysis is outlined below. 6-hour of rainfall duration covers 80% of all among the storm rainfalls bigger than 100mm. which represents the characteristics of the storm rainfalls in Masang River basin. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-32 August. the design rainfall duration time is estimated as 6-hour. z Relationship between rainfall depth and duration (DD Analysis) z Relationship between rainfall depth and area (DA Analysis) a) Depth-Duration (DD) Analysis Generally. So. (2) Rainfall Analysis 1) Depth-Area-Duration (DAD) Analysis DAD analysis is carried out to examine the following relationships.

Pb = f a × P0 where.. Pb = P0 × exp[−kA n ] where. Time (hour) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cumulative Rainfall Depth 0% 47% 78% 87% 95% 99% 100% Incremental Rainfall Depth 0% 47% 31% 9% 8% 4% 1% b) Depth-Area (DA) Analysis Generally. However. f a = exp[− kA n ] JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-33 August. To estimate the basin mean rainfall from the point rainfall. In general. because it is very unlikely that the rain storm center coincides with a rainfall gauging station. Therefore the average depth of storm rainfall (basin mean rainfall) is likely to be smaller than the point depth of storm rainfall. the area reduction factor under the given rainfall duration is given by the following equation. the area reduction factor showing the ratio of basin mean rainfall to point rainfall is introduced as expressed below. The design distribution of hourly rainfall is shown below. etc. 12 hours. 1 day. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The average of the 40 storm rainfalls is estimated as the design rainfall pattern.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition 40 of selected 63-storm rainfall have smaller duration time than 6-hours. heavy rainfall occurs intensively in a short duration and sporadically in a limited area. the exact determination of P0 is practically impossible. Constants k and n usually vary according to the given rainfall duration such as 1 hour. 6 hours. These constants are to be obtained through rainfall analysis based on the isohyetal maps of various major rain storms occurred in the river basin in question. relation between point rainfall depth and average area is expressed by an exponential equation given by the following equation. Pb : Average rainfall depth over an area A (mm) P0 : Maximum point rainfall at the storm center (mm) A : Area in question (km2) k. Pb : Basin mean rainfall (mm) P0 : Point rainfall (mm) fa : Area reduction factor If the Horton’s equation is applied. n : Constants for a given area The above equation is the so-called Horton’s Equation.

4 to 0. Firstly. the area reduction factor does not always increase with the enlargement of the point rainfall.50 Thirdly.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition However the available rain storm records in the Masang River basin are insufficient for reliable determination of the area reduction factor. The preliminary estimation of the design area reduction factor is carried out based on the following three approaches. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The following design area reduction factors are based on the rainfall analysis using the observed rain storm records.000 0. The average of ratios between basin mean rainfalls and annual maximum daily rainfalls of target stations is estimated as the area reduction factor. the area reduction factor showing the ratio of area rainfall to the maximum point rainfall varies from 0. A basin mean rainfall derives from an arithmetic average of an annual maximum daily rainfall of a target station and daily rainfall of another station at the same day.40 Musi HEPP (F/S in 1984) 586 0. the area reduction factor is estimated as 0. However.1 and 0.1 n 0. respectively.8 for the area rainfall amount.41 Masang-3 HEPP (Pre F/S in 1999) 993 0. Catchment Area Area Reduction Project Name (km2) Factor Besai HEPP (D/D in 1990) 415 0. Usually.463 0.50 Cibuni-3 (F/S in 1984) 1. Further. it is considered that the rainfall intensity in hyetal areas increases with the depth of point rainfall. the design area reduction factors examined in several hydropower projects varies from 0. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-34 August. In due consideration above.50 Malea HEPP (F/S in 1984) 1. the design area reduction factor is conservatively determined to be 0.5. A 443 (km2) k 0.63 Secondly. the relation between the daily point rainfall and the daily basin mean rainfall around the Masang River basin is analyzed to estimate the area reduction factor of the river basin.50.25 fa 0. the estimated design area reduction factors are examined in several other projects.45 Tampur-1 HEPP (F/S in 1984) 2.000 0. These constants have been widely and empirically applied in tropical rain forest area. The selected rainfall stations are the Payakumbuh and Maninjau stations.5 to 0.25. On the other hand.63 under the catchment area of 443 km2 for the Masang-2 intake weir site by applying the Horton’s equation assuming that constants of k and n are 0.

no historical rain storm records are also so far available. Hershfield from the rainfall records in the United States of America ¾ Historical approach by examining the historical maximum one over occurred in the area of interest The available basic climatological data such as dew point. the annual maximum 1-day rainfall records are available at the Payakumbuh rainfall gauging station. ¾ Meteorological (theoretical) approach in consideration of the upper physical limit of moisture source ¾ Statistical approach which is empirically developed by Dr.The rainfall records at the Payakumbuh station have recording periods between 1951 and 1993 with some interruptions in recording. humidity. Return Period Probable Point Rainfall (mm) Average (years) Gumbel LN 400 263 319 291 200 242 281 261 150 233 266 249 100 220 245 233 80 213 235 224 50 199 213 206 30 183 190 186 20 170 173 171 10 148 145 146 5 125 119 122 3 106 100 103 2 90 85 87 The probable point rainfall is estimated as the average of the probable rainfalls by the Gumbel and Log Normal distributions. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia ..Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition 2) Probable Point Rainfall Out of the available rainfall records around the Masang River basin. wind velocity in Masang-2 catchment area for the first meteorological approach are insufficient for the time being. PMP is estimated by the simple statistical Hershfield method using a series of the JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-35 August. Therefore. 3) Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Generally three (3) approaches are used for estimating the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) as follows. Further. because the estimated frequency curves by the Gumbel and Log Normal distributions have similar shapes. The probable point rainfalls at the station with several return periods are estimated through frequency analysis using the Gumbel and Log Normal distributions as summarized below.

Xm : Extreme value of 24-hour rainfall (PMP) (mm) Xn : Adjusted mean annual maximum rainfall (mm) Km : Statistical coefficient Sn : Adjusted standard deviation of a series of annual maximum rainfall As seen in the above equation. adjustment factors are obtained 97 % for fx1 and 89 % for fs1. Applying the values of Xn.6 mm and 38. Statistical Coefficient Km JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-36 August.5 % and 101.2 mm. Adjustment of Xn and Sn for Sample Size The adjustment factors of Xn (fx2) and Sn (fs2) for the length of record shall be obtained from the adjustment curves. respectively. PMP in question is assumed to be given as the adjusted mean annual maximum rainfall in question plus the Km times the standard deviation of a series of annual maximum rainfall in question. X m = X n + Km × Sn where. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Xn-m and Sn-m are estimated at 91.6 %. The obtained factors of fx2 and fs2 are 100. These statistical parameters are used for several adjustment necessary computing Xn and Sn. The Hershfield’s equation is expressed as follows. This method is widely applied in the basin where rainfall records are available but other basic climatological records are hardly obtainable.1 mm and 47. Xn-m. Concurrently with the above. which are computed after excluding the maximum rainfall in the series of rainfall data. Sn and Sn-m. respectively. Computation of Statistical Parameters The mean annual maximum rainfall (Xn) and its standard deviation (Sn) are calculated to be 96.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition annual maximum daily rainfall records.1 mm. The calculation process is as follows. respectively. Adjustment of Xn and Sn for Maximum Observed Event The adjustment factors of Xn (fx1) and Sn (fs1) for the maximum observed rainfall shall be obtained from the Hershfield’s adjustment curves. The PMP is estimated by applying a series of annual maximum rainfall in the Masang river basin.

m to 8 p. Computation of PMP at the Payakumbuh Station The adjustment mean annual maximum rainfall (Xn) is finally given as follows. Applying the mean annual maximum rainfall at the Payakumbuh station (Xn) is 96. X m = X n + K m × Sn Finally. the Km value is obtained to be 15.5. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-37 August. the PMP value yielded by the statistical procedure should be increased multiplying by the adjustment factor (fo). the point PMP at the Payakumbuh station is estimated to be 852 mm.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition The statistical coefficient Km shall be obtained from the empirical Km curves. Applying that the number of observation units is equal to 1. Since the recorded daily rainfall is computed based on the single fixed observation time interval (say 8 a.m). X n = f X1 × f X 2 ×X n In addition. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . the probable basin mean 1-day rainfalls with various return periods as well as PMP at the Masang-2 intake weir site are estimated as follows. S n = f S1 × f S 2 × S n The unadjusted point PMP (Xm) is computed as follows. the adjusted standard deviation of a series of annual maximum rainfall (Sn) is given as follows. the fo value is obtained to be 113 %. 4) Basin Mean Rainfall Applying the design area reduction factor of 0. PMP = f O × X m As seen.1 mm.5. Adjustment for Fixed Observational Time Intervals Rainfall observation has been carried out on the daily basis at the Payakumbuh station. the point PMP is adjusted using the adjustment factor fo as follows.

the unit hydrograph is developed by means of the SCS (Soil Conservation Service) synthetic hydrograph method. a) SCS Unit Hydrograph The SCS unit hydrograph is derived from the flood concentration time and unit basin rainfall.133t c JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-38 August.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Return Period Probable Rainfall (years) (mm) PMP 426 400 146 200 131 150 125 100 117 80 112 50 103 30 93 20 86 10 73 5 61 3 52 2 44 (3) Hydrograph Analysis 1) Unit hydrograph Since no flood hydrographs are available for the present flood analysis. The peak discharge of the unit hydrograph is calculated as follows. Unit hydrographs were evaluated for a large number of actual watersheds and then made dimensionless by dividing all discharge ordinates by the peak discharge and the time ordinates by the time to peak. qp : Peak discharge (m3/sec) A : Basin area (km2) Q : Total volume of the unit hydrograph (=1mm) tp : Time to peak (hours) SCS has determined that the time to peak ( t p ) and rainfall duration ( D ) are related to time of concentration ( t c ) as follows. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The SCS method was developed by analyzing a large number of basins with varying geographic locations. q p = 0. t p = 2 × tc / 3 D = 0. The unit hydrograph is constructed for a unit rainfall of 1 mm. An average of these dimensionless unit hydrographs was computed.208 AQ / t p where.

3 m3/sec/mm. The computed probable flood hydrographs as well as PMF are shown in Figure 16.97 × L0. PMP with the design rainfall hyetograph and the unit hydrograph. the concentration time ( t c ) was found to be about 6.4.7. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-39 August.2 hours qp 22. where H is the difference in elevation between the remotest point in the basin and the outlet) c) SCS Unit Hydrograph Calculation With a maximum length of travel ( L ) of 49km.1 hours 2) Probable Flood Hydrograph at Masang-2 Intake Weir Site The probable flood hydrographs including PMF at the Masang-2 intake weir site are derived by convolution of the probable basin mean rainfall.4.385 where.3 m3/s/mm tp 4. t c = 3.77 × S −0. A 443 km2 Q 1 mm L 49. The probable design flood discharges with various return periods together with PMF are collected from various hydropower projects in Sumatra as presented in Table 16.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition b) Flood Concentration Time The flood concentration time is defined as the time of travel from the most remote point in the catchment to the forecast point. The flood concentration time can be estimated by the formula of Kirpich as follows. the peak flow ( q p ) is found to be 22. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .2. tc : Flood concentration time (min) L : Maximum length of travel of water (km) S : Average slope (=H/L. and the rainfall loss is assumed to be 47 %.156 km tc 6. With a catchment area ( A ) of 443 km2.2 hours. The base flow is determined to be 14 (m3/s) from the average rainy-season discharge records at the Sipisang AWLR station. 3) Creager’s Coefficient for Probable Floods at Masang-2 Intake Weir Site Creager’s coefficient for probable flood is computed by the following equations.

8 and Figure 16.4.894(0. The probable floods at the Masang-2 HEPP are well plotted in reasonable range of design floods in Sumatra.02832) × C × (0. Probable floods at the Masang-2 Regulating Pond are estimated with the Creager’s coefficients of the Masang-2 intake weir site. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-40 August. The Creager’s curves are illustrated using the Creager’s coefficients of the Masang-2 intake weir site calculated in above.17 hours The results of flood analysis are estimated as follows.048 where.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Q p = (46 × 0. 4) Probable Floods at the Masang-2 Regulating Pond Site The time of concentration ( t c ) at the Masang-2 Regulating Pond is calculated as 0. 200 years as well as PMF and catchment area for the Masang-2 HEPP and other water resources development projects in the whole Sumatra. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . T Q C (year) (m3/s) PMF 4344 92 400 1493 32 200 1341 28 150 1280 27 100 1198 25 80 1152 24 50 1061 22 30 959 20 20 883 19 10 756 16 5 634 13 3 537 11 2 456 10 Figure 16.3861 × A) a a = 0.3861× A) −0.4.3 km tc 0. A 1 km2 L 1. 100. because short time interval rainfall records like 10-minutes do not exist in Masang River basin. 20.9 shows the relationship between probable flood peak discharges with return periods of 2. Qp : Peak discharge of probable flood (m3/sec) C : Creager’s coefficient A : Catchment area (km2) The Creager’s coefficients corresponding to the various return periods and PMF for the Masang-2 HEPP are enumerated in the table below.17 hour with the same method as the Masang-2 intake weir site.

4 (4) Water Level Observation and Discharge Measurement As mentioned in the chapter of lowflow analysis.7 20 883 19 1276.9 100 1198 25 1732. The catchment area of the power house site is 919.5 2 456 10 659. probable floods seem to be controlled by floods from the Masang River.0 10 756 16 8. the field investigation of 3 month water level observation and 30 times discharge measurement was carried out from 2010 October 6th to 2011 January 7th by the sub-contractor.5km2.61 m3/s calculated with H-Q rating curve in extrapolation.2 30 959 20 1386.9 200 1341 28 15.8 200 1341 28 1939.6 5 634 13 7. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Probable floods at the Masang-2 power house site are estimated with the Creager’s coefficients of the Masang-2 intake weir site as same as the regulating pond.8 10 756 16 1093. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-41 August.8 3 537 11 776.5 80 1152 24 13.8 50 1061 22 1534.1 400 1493 32 16.0 30 959 20 10.1 2 456 10 5.2 150 1280 27 14. The Equation of H-Q rating curve is given below.0 50 1061 22 12.8 20 883 19 10. So. At the power house site. the maximum water level is 2.2 5) Probable Floods at the Masang-2 Power House Site The Alahanpanjang River and the Masang River join together at the upstream of the Masang-2 Power House site. Consequently.3 400 1493 32 2158. Intake PH T Q C Q (year) (m3/s) (m3/s) PMF 4344 92 6281. The results of flood analysis are estimated as follows.2 5 634 13 916. because the catchment area of the Alahanpanjang River basin is smaller than the Masang River basin.5 100 1198 25 13.01m and the maximum runoff is 156.2 3 537 11 6.1 150 1280 27 1850.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Intake Pond T Q C Q (year) (m3/s) (m3/s) PMF 4344 92 49.3 80 1152 24 1665.

JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-42 August.0864 × C × QW where. The sedimentation load is herein predicted based on the estimated runoff and the sediment discharge rating curve at the intake weir site. The total suspended load is found from the following formula.10.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Q = 36. The samples were taken to a laboratory for further analysis. QS : Suspended load (ton/day) C : Total suspended sediment concentration (mg/L) QW : Flow discharge (m3/s) Several results are considered unreliable because they show very low concentration or very high concentration. rainfall intensity. On the basis of the estimated sediment discharge at the intake weir site. river gradient).06) 2 where. (3) Suspended Load Rating Curve The laboratory analysis results of the samples show the total suspended sediment concentration which is the combination of both dissolved and undissolved sediment. The field investigation was carried out at the Masang-2 intake weir site and Sipisang AWLR station. The sediment transport in the Masang River is judged to be higher than other rivers in the Sumatra. Q : Runoff (m3/sec) H : Water level (m) 16. The denudation rate showing the expected average annual erosion rate in a river basin is generally influenced by the topography (soil condition. deforestation of the land in the basin. Therefore these unreliable results will not be used in the determination of the suspended load rating curve.6 SEDIMENT ANALYSIS (1) General Sedimentation analysis is preliminarily carried out to estimate the denudation rate in the Masang River basin. The sieve analysis results of samples are shown in Figure 16.4. The values of Qs are plotted against their respective Qw values to determine the suspended load rating curve. (2) Suspended Load Sampling A total of thirty (30) suspended load samplings were carried out at the intake weir site where discharge measurements were taken.55 × ( H + 0. the design denudation rates adopted in other water resources or hydropower development projects in Sumatra are collected for comparison purposes. QS = 0. In addition. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .4. etc. The rating curve is established based on the in-situ sampling records obtained through the field investigation conducted in the course of the study.

65ton/m3) Assuming a void ratio of 60 % in sedimentation. The sediment load transport into an intake weir generally consists of suspended load and bed load. The catchment area of the Masang-2 intake weir site is 443km2. γ′ : Density of sediment (ton/m3) V : Void ratio of sediment γ : Unit weight of sediment (=2. because 10% is usually applied in Indonesia. which is equivalent to a denudation rate of 0. Consequently.06 ton/m3. For comparison purpose. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-43 August.4. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . design denudation rates of various schemes around the project site are presented in the following table. The density of sediment in appearance can be calculated by the following equation. Hence. It is generally accepted that it might be difficult to accurately measure the bed load in a natural river. the suspended load sediment Qs can be estimated.820 m3. The rate of bed load transport is estimated as 10% of the total suspended load.749 ton.87 mm per year.4615 × QW 1. Substituting runoff data. QS = 5.702 m3. (4) Total Sediment Load The annual suspended load sediment yield is simulated by applying the above rating curve to the simulated daily runoff at the intake weir site. the density of sediment is found to be 1. The rating curve equation is given below. the annual suspended load sediment is estimated at 348.11.7812 If the flow discharge Qw is known. the average annual suspended load sediment at the intake weir site is estimated at 369. γ ′ = (1 − V ) × γ where. the mean annual sediment inflow volume into the Masang-2 intake weir is estimated to be 383. the rate of bed load transport is empirically estimated at 10 to 30 % of the total suspended load.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition the suspended load rating curve is established as shown in Figure 16. Usually.

the design denudation rates vary from 0.309 0.50 Bt. of which falling velocity is slow. the design denudation rate of the Masang-2 intake weir is estimated as 0.500m3/year. Bayang-2 Pre-F/S W. Sumatra 993 0. 0. Sumatra 84 0. other equipment and hydraulic structures used in the project.1mm. 0. The laboratory test for water quality was carried out through the field investigation under the current study to identify the content of various chemical elements contained in the water in the Masang River. 16. The design annual sediment inflow volume into the Masang-2 intake weir is estimated to be 221. It is estimated that the fine size grain has small influence to the sedimentation in the intake weir.50 Upper Indragiri River Basin Jambi . The laboratory test results are presented in Table 16. Sumatra 320 0.87 mm/year at the Masang-2 intake weir site might not be in the appropriate range. Bayang-1 Pre-F/S W.4. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . As seen in the above table. Consequently.4. Tonggar W. for the Masang-2 HEPP it is important for the well being of hydraulic machinery. It is therefore judged that the water in the Masang River will have no JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-44 August.45 Bt.53 Merangin-2 D/D Jambi 1. there is place of gravel pit in the upstream of Masang River.72 mm/year. Nevertheless. Referring to the geology report in this study. The samples were taken to a laboratory for further analysis. The gravel extraction might not be continuously carried out. The table shows that the pH of the water in the Masang River is around 8.70 Lake Kerinci Jambi 1.7 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS Water quality is important because it is linked to the availability of water for various uses.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Project Name Project Stage Province Catchment Area Denudation Rate (km2) (mm/year) Masang-3 Pre-F/S W. 1999.053 0. so the design denudation rate of the Masang-2 intake weir should be estimated without influence of the gravel extraction in upstream.3. Water sampling is carried out three (3) times in total at the Masang-2 intake weir site. The assumed denudation rate of 0.34 to 0.34 Merangin-5 Pre-F/S Jambi 2.59 Middle Indragiri River Basin Jambi .50 Kampar River Basin F/S Jambi . it is difficult to estimate the volume of sediment yield from the gravel pit. The samples of suspended load might be influenced by the gravel extraction. The grain size distributions of the samples are consists of mainly fine size grain smaller than 0. Sumatra 36 0.70 Kotapanjang D/D Riau 3. and gravel extraction is seems to be carried out frequently.70 Bt. Specifically.5mm/year which is the middle of design denudation rates in other projects.72 Source: Masang-3 HEPP.337 0. 0.597 0.

JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-45 August.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition adverse effect on turbine and metal for hydropower use. because adverse effect is expected to occur under the pH value smaller than 4. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .5.

Toru 01-178-01-01 2.8 1.1 966 1.48 1973-1993 4 Lb. Baru Bt.168 0. Darang Kr.740 23. Kuantan 01-066-04-01 2. Musi 01-074-01-02 627 3.100 45. Hari 01-071-02-01 1. Aceh 01-001-01-01 1. Teunom 01-205-01-01 2.455 3.685 1.685 175. Jambu Aye 01-027-01-02 4.870 3.52 1974-1993 5 Tj.046 0. Wampu 01-040-01-01 3.45 1972-1993 Hydropower Development in Indonesia 2 Stabat S.843 128.211 77.339 3. Bendahara S.081 2.012 33.48 1977-1993 12 Tui Kareng Kr.8 1.082 1.346 107.3 2.70 1982-1993 13 Hp.3 2. Rokan 01-058-02-01 3.583 2. Pane 01-055-03-02 828 2. Station River Gauge ID Catchment Basin Annual Annual Annual Runoff Observation Final Report (Main) Name Basin Area Mean Mean Runoff Rainfall Coeff.2 2.403 3.250 28.099 206.204 0.2 2.332 1.61 1968-1993 16-46 11 Kp.7 1.466 1.1 1.50 1975-1993 6 Sungai Dareh Bt.437 183. No. Period Rainfall Runoff Depth Loss (km2) (mm) (m3/sec) (mm) (mm) Table 16. 2010 Project Site Condition . Hari 01-071-01-01 4.6 1.4.70 1973-1987 8 Martapura A.239 310.109 778 0.273 827 0.4 1.921 1.215 2.260 2.042 0.413 1.476 0.197 1. July 1997 August.125 36.024 0.9 2.666 1.9 1.73 1974-1991 Annual Rainfall Loss of Various River Basins in Sumatra Source : Sectoral Report Vol.857 743 0. Tl.821 225.79 1973-1993 Chapter 16 16 Despetah A.105 1. Sekampung 01-080-01-04 438 2.247 0.773 2.600 121.155 0.342 1.0 1.6 2.589 141.377 0.106 0. Pasaman 01-165-01-01 1.59 1960-1984 9 Banjarmasin W. Indrapura 01-141-01-01 468 2.014 0.1 1 Lhok Nibong Kr. Ampalu Bt. Sipelanduk Bt. 2 : Hydrology.54 1974-1993 JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 3 Lb.5 1.077 0. Musi 01-074-01-01 4.452 3.887 31.61 1972-1993 10 Kunyir W. Hydro Inventory Study.209 1.52 1972-1993 14 Air Batu Bt.414 0.325 2.73 1973-1993 15 Air Gadang Bt.663 1.68 1975-1993 7 Muara Inum Bt. Bawang 01-077-02-07 604 3.

341 4. Sumatera 4. Padang N.460 5. Aceh 106 360 530 600 1.602 4. Sumatera 587 240 530 720 780 1.890 1.670 7 Residual Basin-1 Kr.020 8 Jambu Aye Kr.453 10. Ular N.705 2. Sumatera 500 500 560 19 Brohol S. Sumatera 993 1. Masang W. Kampar Riau 552 1.390 3 Aceh-2 Kr. Sumatera 93 250 270 16 Baru S.187 2. Sumatera 248 44 74 93 120 28 Masang-3 Bt. Deli N. Ombilin Riau 1.260 1.2 Hydrology. Sumatera 30 79 138 175 190 226 277 43 Martapura Way Komering S.570 2. Bayang W.500 5 Peusangan-4 Kr.603 6.I.452 1. Lematang S.500 45 Mine Mouth Steam Plant A.510 4 Lawe Alas-4 Lawe Alas D.300 44 Lematang-4 A.400 37 Upper Sinamar Bt. Indragiri Riau 7.900 22 Wampu S. Lematang S.2 Probable Floods under Various Schemes in Sumatra Catchment Probable Peak Discharge (m3/sec) No Scheme River Province Area Return Period (year) PMF (km2) 2 20 100 200 1.664 3. Peusangan D.970 2. Antokan W.700 6.347 31 Batang Hari Bt. Wampu N.538 2. Peusangan D.597 1.500 4. Aceh 945 1.870 3.025 2. Merangin Jambi 2.755 39 Lower Kuantan Bt. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-47 August.851 4.344 Source: Hydro Inventory Study.102 4.168 3.667 6. Jambu Aye D. Sumatera 1. Sumatera 3.850 9 Rubek Kr.300 3.470 3.601 32 Batang Hari (Alt. Sumatera 196 269 1.192 5.878 3.180 3.I.198 1.300 2.250 12. Tampur D. Aceh 93 142 10 Residual Basin-2 Kr.800 25 Batang Bayang-1 Bt. Sumatera 139 580 740 820 960 1.140 Masang-2 Bt. Aceh 323 1. Hari Jambi 4. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Sumatera 1.624 8.900 2.136 2. Musi S. Masang-3 HEPP.180 8.470 2 Teunom-1 Kr.204 2. Teunom D.047 40 Ombilin Bt.383 38 Sukam Bt.600 6 Lake Laut Tawar Kr. Belawan N. Ketaun Bengkulu 449 500 800 980 1.010 1.000 1 Tampur-1 Kr.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Table 16.939 2.331 3. July 1997.I. Sumatera 36 340 27 Muko-Muko Bt. Percut N.177 2. Peusangan D.970 23 Limang S.013 430 820 1. Indragiri Riau 360 1.300 1.I. Sumatera 1. Sumatera 671 470 750 940 17 Pulau Tagor S. Aceh 900 2.092 13.274 34 Kiri-2 Bt. Serdang N.636 46 Ketaun-1 A. Aceh 5. Sumatera 959 300 940 24 Sipan Sihaporas Sipan Sihaporas N.937 4. Sumatera 341 280 530 690 15 Namobatang S. Percut N. Aceh 2.800 4.183 1. Aceh 195 500 810 940 1.321 1. Kampar Riau 699 2. Ular N. Aceh 128 320 480 550 940 11 Lalang S.) Bt.I.070 7.I. Renun N. Aceh D.446 35 Kapoernan Bt. Bayang W.000 11.I. Kampar Riau 1. Sectral Report Vol.300 30 Lake Kerinci Siulak Jambi 916 590 1. Sumatera 423 180 290 370 21 Renun A. Musi S.I.200 2.854 10. Jambu Aye D.120 8.531 33 Kiri-1 Bt.419 29 Merangin-5 Bt.181 36 Kotapanjang Bt.310 42 Musi (Regulation Dam) A.070 18 Karai S. Peusangan D. Sumatera 106 180 280 300 14 Helvetia S. Sumatera 443 456 883 1.I. Sumatera 759 390 720 940 20 Rampah S. Sumatera 254 250 410 610 12 Tembakau S. Hari Jambi 3.078 118 175 211 263 41 Musi (Intake Dam) A. Sumatera 171 140 230 340 13 Lausimeme S.464 3.814 5.337 1.I.825 1.4.030 1.537 7.590 7. Wampu N. Kampar Riau 3. Indragiri Riau 3.331 6.430 5. Aceh 3. Belutu N.205 7. Sumatera 84 590 26 Batang Bayang-2 Bt.000 10. 1999.870 2. Deli N. Masang W.

- 35 P-value as CaCO3 mg/lit 0.003 0.432 0.516 0.24 3.28 16 Manganese (Mn) mg/lit <0.35 1 1.34 6.02 0.07 17 Copper (Cu) mg/lit <0.007 28 Nitrates (NO3) mg/lit 0.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Table 16.02 26 Albuminoid mg/lit <0.11 8.64 39.52 9.37 13 Sodium (Na) mg/lit 8.9 3 Total Hardness mg/l 123.89 12 Magnesium (Mg) mg/lit 7.008 18 Turbidity NTU 41 37 52 19 Color Pt-Co-Unit 20 10 kol 10 kol 20 Electric Conductivity µ/Cm 254 313 303 21 Aluminum (Al) mg/lit 1.002 0.36 11. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .7 22 23 Lead (Pb) mg/lit 0.03 21.002 33 Oxygen (O2) mg/lit 7.9 31 Chlorides (Cl) mg/lit 7.72 1.8 24.11 2 Temperature ℃ 25.31 6.002 36 M-Value as CaCO3 mg/lit 25 24.1 27 Nitrites (NO2) mg/lit 0.4 24.008 0.0024 0.77 8.87 32 Phosphates (PO4) mg/lit 0.002 0.08 0.57 6.0025 25 Ammonium (NH4) mg/lit 0.52 17.42 24 Arsenic (As) mg/lit 0.3 Water Quality Analysis of Masang River No Water Quality Parameter Unit Sample-1 Sample-2 Sample-3 Date 2010/10/25 2010/11/25 2010/12/25 Weather Clear Cloud Cloud 1 pH 8.02 <0.79 7.02 < 0.73 .69 0.9 14 Potassium (K) mg/lit 1.02 30 Sulfates (SO4) mg/lit 17.049 <0.07 0.1 <0.8 15 Iron (Fe) mg/lit 1.07 8 Permanganate Value as O2 mg/lit 9.784 <0.09 8.579 0.17 34 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) mg/lit 1.06 10 Bicarbonates as CaCO3 mg/lit 135.42 0.008 0.58 93 97 5 Suspended Matter mg/lit 136 299 295 6 Total Solid mg/lit 261 327 343 7 Ignition Residue mg/lit 0.155 0.65 21.1 <0.666 29 Sulfities (SO3) mg/lit 0.96 2.48 41.55 9 Carbonates as CaCO3 mg/lit 0 10.42 22 Silica (SiO2) mg/lit 46.002 <0.4.072 <0.69 7.52 115 141 11 Calcium (Ca) mg/lit 37.09 7.74 8.7 131 126 4 Temporary Hardness mg/l 52.77 2.9 24.8 JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-48 August.001 0.052 <0.

2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .1 Location Map of Meteo-Hydrological Stations JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-49 August.4.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Figure 16.

Masang-3 HEPP Report.4. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Station Name ID ID Remarks 1 Maninjau 52B 22-0052-02 2 Limau Purut 52C 22-0052-03 3 Padang Panjang 53 22-0053-00 4 Bukit Tinggi 54 22-0054-00 1961- 5 Baso 54A 22-0054-01 6 Padang Mangatas 54C 22-0054-03 1965- 7 Payakumbuh 56 22-0056-00 1920- 8 Koto Tinggi 56A 22-0056-01 9 Suliki 56B 22-0056-02 1923- 10 Kota Baharu 57 22-0057-00 11 Bonjol 58C 22-0058-03 12 Jambak 58F 22-0058-06 13 Lubuk Sikaping 59 22-0059-00 Source: BMKG Monthly Rainfall Records Year BMG HPPS2 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 No. 1999.2 Availability of Climatic Records (1/2) JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-50 August. 1999. Station Name ID ID Remarks 1 Maninjau 52B 22-0052-02 2 Limau Purut 52C 22-0052-03 3 Padang Panjang 53 22-0053-00 4 Bukit Tinggi 54 22-0054-00 1961- 5 Baso 54A 22-0054-01 6 Padang Mangatas 54C 22-0054-03 1965- 7 Payakumbuh 56 22-0056-00 1920- 8 Koto Tinggi 56A 22-0056-01 9 Suliki 56B 22-0056-02 1923- 10 Kota Baharu 57 22-0057-00 11 Bonjol 58C 22-0058-03 12 Jambak 58F 22-0058-06 13 Lubuk Sikaping 59 22-0059-00 Source: HPPS2 Report. BMKG Figure 16.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Daily Rainfall Records Year BMG HPPS2 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 No.

2010 Project Site Condition . No. No.Sipisang 1 Bt.3 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 Source: HPPS2 Report. No. No. 1999 ID ID ID ID ID ID ID HPPS2 HPPS2 HPPS2 HPPS2 HPPS2 HPPS2 HPPS2 163-01-01 163-01-01 163-01-01 22-0043-01 22-0043-01 22-0043-01 22-0043-01 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 Hydropower Development in Indonesia 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 Figure 16. Masang 2 Tanjung Pati Pan Evapolation Air Temperature Relative Humidity 1 Lubuk Sikaping 1 Tabing-Padang 1 Tabing-Padang 1 Tabing-Padang 1 Tabing-Padang Sunshine Duration Station Name Station Name Station Name Station Name Station Name Station Name Station Name Station Name : Complite Data Daily Runoff Records : Incomplite Data Source: Pusair Bandung Monthly Runoff Records Source: BPSDA Bukit Tinggi Daily Water Level Records Final Report (Main) 01-164 01-164 01-164 ID ID ID ID ID ID ID -00-01 -00-01 -00-01 BMG BMG BMG BMG BMG Body P3SA 03106 03106 03106 03106 DPMA DPMA DPMA Management Source: Masang-3 HEPP Report. No.Sipisang . Masang 1 Bt. 1977 1977 1977 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 16-51 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 Availability of Climatic Records (2/2) 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Chapter 16 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 28years Remarks Remarks Remarks Remarks Remarks Remarks Remarks Remarks August. Pusair Bandung. 1999. Source: BMKG Source: BMKG Source: BMKG Source: BMKG Wind Velocity . No. Masang-3 HEPP Report. 1999.Sipisang . No. No.4. Masang 1 Bt.

4. Masang Masang-2 Basin 443km2 S.000 map JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-52 August. Sianok Figure 16.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition B. Alahanpanjang Power House Site B. Masang Sipisang AWLR station B.4 Catchment Area of Masang-2 Intake Weir based on 1:50. A. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Guntung Masang-2 Intake Weir Site B.

99 95% 10.9 1 100% 6.7 0.35 30 45% 16.73 25 50% 16.32 Probability of Exceedence Chapter 16 Average 17.31 Hydropower Development in Indonesia 45 JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 15% 22.6 0.29 65% 14.4.4 0.05 40% 17.31 5 85% 11.3 0.67 Figure 16. 2010 . Final Report (Main) Probability Estimated Runoff (%) (m3/s) Masang-2 Intake Weir Site 0% 78.91 35 35% 18.5 Flow Duration Curve of Estimated Daily Runoff at Masang-2 Intake Weir Project Site Condition August.99 5% 31.06 80% 12.55 15 16-53 70% 13.19 Site 55% 15.51 20% 21.5 0.81 10 75% 13.2 0.43 40 25% 20.48 0 90% 10.1 0.29 30% 18.57 20 Runoff (m3/s) 60% 15.8 0.32 50 10% 26.03 0 0.

0 Maximum Water Level 2.75m 0.60 m3/s 2010/12/23 40 20 0 2010/10/1 2010/10/16 2010/10/31 2010/11/15 2010/11/30 2010/12/15 2010/12/30 Figure 16.68 m3/s Minimum Runoff 13.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition 2. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .6 Result of Water Level Observation and Hydrograph Calculated with H-Q Rating Curve JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-54 August.0 Average Water Level 0.01m 2010/11/26 6:00 1.5 Minimum Water Level 0.4.61 m3/s 2010/11/26 6:00 160 140 120 Estimated Runoff with Discharge Measurement H-Q Rating Curve Runoff (m3/s) 100 80 Average Runoff 60 25.0 2010/10/1 2010/10/16 2010/10/31 2010/11/15 2010/11/30 2010/12/15 2010/12/30 180 Maximum Runoff 156.55m 2010/12/23 0.5 Water Level (m) 1.

2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .4.7 Probable Flood Hydrographs at Masang-2 Intake Weir Site JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-55 August.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition PMF 400 200 150 100 80 50 30 20 10 5 3 2 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 Time (hour) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 0 500 Discharge (m3/s) Figure 16.

000 100.000 100.000 Catchment Area (km2) Return Period = 200 year 100.000 1. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .000 200 C=28 Masagn-2 200 100 10 10 100 1.000 1.000 10.000 PMF C=92 Masang-2 PMF 100 10 10 100 1.000 Flood Peak Discharge (m3/s) 10.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Probable Maximum Flood 100.4.8 Relationship between Probable Peak Discharge and Catchment Area in Sumatra (1/2) JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-56 August.000 10.000 Flood Peak Discharge (m3/s) 10.000 Catchment Area (km2) Figure 16.

000 10.4.000 Flood Peak Discharge (m3/s) 1.000 Catchment Area (km2) Figure 16.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Return Period = 100 year 10.000 100.9 Relationship between Probable Peak Discharge and Catchment Area in Sumatra (2/2) JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-57 August. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .000 2 C=10 100 Masagn-2 2 10 10 100 1.000 Flood Peak Discharge (m3/s) 1.000 100.000 Catchment Area (km2) Return Period = 2 year 10.000 10.000 100 C=25 100 Masagn-2 100 10 10 100 1.

Final Report (Main) Intake06-Okt-10 100% Intake06-Okt-10 Intake06-Okt-10 90% Intake09-Okt-10 Intake09-Okt-10 Intake09-Okt-10 80% Intake22-Okt-10 Hydropower Development in Indonesia Intake22-Okt-10 JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 70% Intake22-Okt-10 Intake25-Okt-10 Intake25-Okt-10 60% Intake25-Okt-10 Intake05-Nop-10 Intake05-Nop-10 % 50% Intake05-Nop-10 Intake21-Nop-10 40% Intake21-Nop-10 Intake21-Nop-10 30% Intake25-Nop-10 Intake25-Nop-10 16-58 20% Intake25-Nop-10 Intake05-Des-10 Intake05-Des-10 10% Intake05-Des-10 Sipisang21-Des-10 0% Sipisang21-Des-10 Figure 16.4.01 0.00 10.00 Chapter 16 Sipisang25-Des-10 Grain Size (mm) Sipisang25-Des-10 Sipisang25-Des-10 Project Site Condition August.10 Sieve Analysis of Suspended Load Sipisang21-Des-10 0.10 1. 2010 .

Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Adopted Not Adopted 100.000 Suspended Load.000 y = 5. Qw (m3/s) Figure 16.11 Suspended Load Rating Curve JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-59 August.4. Qs (ton/day) 1.7812 100 10 1 1 10 100 Runoff.4615x 1.000 10. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .

GI Maninjau section. and PLTA Batang Agam (3 x 3. the forecast envisions base power of 121 MW as compared to peak power of 201 MW 1in 2019. 1 The diversity factor was excluded from consideration. the available power inclusive of this potential would be about 71 MW.5 POWER SYSTEM CONDITION Figure 16. Bukit Tinggi is connected to the aforementioned 150kV system. in parentheses) at each substation (bulk supply point). In this figure. Connection to this system will presumably also resolve the problem of voltage drop at Payakumbuh and Padang Luar. the available power inclusive of this potential would be about 65 MW. However.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition 16. and make it possible to secure most of the system base power required in 2027. 2019. and 2027. The power sources in this area able to make a direct contribution to base power are PLTA Maninjau (4 x 17 MW). 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . This would make it difficult to secure the power for this system shown in the figure in its entirety. which is connected to GI Payakumbuh.1 presents data for the power system in the vicinity of potential sites as of 2011. GI Simpang Empat is a bulk supply point on the northern end supporting the power demand in the far northern part of West Sumatra Province. using the estimated indicators for power demand formulated in Chapter 3. the figures in the circular symbols indicate the peak power (upper row) and base power (lower row. another big consumption center. It may be anticipated to become a source that is also required for eliminating the prospective problem of voltage drop in the distribution system connected to it. The potential site located on the northern shore of Lake Maninjau is situated outside the 150kV loop system encircling Padang. and limiting the system scope of the base power secured by this hydropower source to the GI Simpang Empat . For this area. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-60 August. The nearest major demand center is Bukit Tinggi. which is connected to GI Maninjau. 2 Hydropower :60% is applied. Considering the capacity factors2 of each source.5. Assuming improvement of the power supply and quality at Payakumbuh and Padang by connection to the 275kV system. and corresponding figures of 218 and 363 MW in 2027. and the loop system is scheduled to be connected to the 275kV system at Payakumbuh and Kiliranjao in 2012.5 MW).

1 Power system condition around potential site (Masang-2) JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-61 August.7 4×17 MW 3×3.0 27.0) Masang2 Maninjau 42.2 66.6 (49.Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition Year 2011 Simpang Empat 21. 2010 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .3 (27.5 MW Padang Luar Ke Kota Padang Year 2019 Simpang Empat 45.0) 4×17 MW 3×3.7) (39.2) Masang2 Maninjau 23.0 (14.5 MW Padang Luar Ke Kota Padang Year 2027 Simpang Empat 81.6) 4×17 MW 3×3.9 Masang2 Maninjau 11.6) (72.1) (39.0 119 120 (25.5.1 32.5 66.2) (71.5 MW Padang Luar Ke Kota Padang Source: JICA Study Team by reference to RUPTL2010-2019 Figure 16.

1 Original Layout of Masang-2 Scheme Main features of the original scheme are as follows: • Average annual runoff: 25. Source: HPPS-2 (1999) Sectoral Report Vol.9 m • Reservoir Minimum Operation Level (MOL): El. In the original plan.1. The Masang-2 scheme was originally formulated as a run-of-river type hydropower development project capable of daily peak generation.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation CHAPTER 17 PLAN FORMULATION 17. The original layout is as shown in Figure 17.1 August. 361. 11 Figure 17.9 m JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17.5 m3/s • Reservoir Full Supply Level (FSL): El. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .1.1. the peaking generation was considered possible by effect of a storage reservoir created by diversion weir on main stream of the Masang river.1 BASIC CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR OPTRIMIZARTION STUDY (1) Original Scheme The Masang-2 project site is located about 15 km north of Lake Maninjau and 90 km north of Padang city in West Sumatra Province. 354.

1 GWh (2) Alternative Powerhouse Site Using the original layout as a basis for the current optimization study. It is understood that the original Masang-2 powerhouse site was selected in initial phase of HPPS-2 on the basis of a temporary plan of the downstream Masang-3 scheme of which the reservoir FSL was set at El. m3 • Headrace tunnel (diameter x length): D3.1 m x 500 m • Powerhouse. it is decided to shift the powerhouse site 2.0 m • Power and energy generation. the available water head for power generation increases by more than 50 m. Such thick and weak layer causes difficulty of intake weir construction and increase of construction cost.6 mil. further reconnaissance was conducted along the downstream river course.2 August. During the preliminary review of the layout. tail water level: El. 200 m. 200. Masang and Guntung rivers. In the reconnaissance. Implementation of the Masang-3 project seems unrealistic. rock outcrop was found on river bed at a sharp bend of river in a range JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17. Such higher river bed level at the powerhouse site unfavorably results in reduction of power output by more than 15%. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Therefore. The Masan-3 scheme is a hydropower project with 90 m high dam. Pre F/S was conducted for theMasang-3 scheme and its reservoir FSL was lowered to El. it was revealed during the initial exploratory drilling that the original intake site is covered with weak volcanic sediment layer of more than 20 m thick at the river bed. plant discharge: 33.2 m3/s Average net head: 144. Max. In view of this situation. Topographic survey works and geological investigations by the JICA team were started at the original intake site. i. 167 m to avoid submergence of vast farm land and populated town on the upstream tributary (Alahanpanjan river). it was revealed that the river bed elevation at powerhouse site on the 1/50.6 MW Annual energy production: 256. However. the river bed elevation seemed about 20 m higher than the tail water level indicated in the original design. However.9 m x 6.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation • Active storage volume of reservoir: 0. (3) Alternative Options for Intake Site The original intake site (named Plan A) is located 500 m downstream from the junction of two rivers.000 map available at that time is several 10 meters higher than the originally estimated tail water elevation. By this shifting. its dam site is located within the natural reserve range. Also by the provisional rough measurement by a hand GPS device at the site reconnaissance. site reconnaissance in the Masang-2 project site was conducted.e.3 km downstream in the current study.700 m • Penstock (diameter x length): D3. To find more favorable intake sites. In the later phase of the HPPS-2.3 m Installed capacity: 39. The planned new site is just below the junction of the Masang river with the Alahanpanjan river. the idea of locating powerhouse on the original site is abandoned in the current study.

it will soon be filled with sediments. The power plant for longer peak duration and higher generation output requires larger water storage capacity of regulation pond. the idea of creating a reservoir (or pond) on the main stream is abandoned in the current study. River slope upstream of the intake site is steep and the Guntung river bed is filled with big boulders and sand/gravel.5 to 1. In addition to the creek closing embankment. (4) Flow Regulation Pond for Daily Peak Generation In the original HPPS-2 plan.0 km downstream from the original intake site. However. Instead of creating main stream reservoir. However. scale of excavation becomes excessively large in comparison with the pond storage volume. it is planned to build an intermediate regulation pond on the route of waterway utilizing natural creek or relatively flat land existing between the intake and the powerhouse. m3) on the main stream by a 20 m high diversion weir in order to regulate river flow for daily peak generation. the upper Masang and Guntung river basins are covered with volcanic materials. The river water contains considerable amount of volcanic silt and sand due to ground surface erosion. it is necessary to excavate the hill ground around the creek.3 August. In consideration of such topographic restriction. (6) Penstock Line JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17. This means that generation operation has to be interrupted frequently for the sediment flushing operations. This duration is considered to be the minimum limit for the practical system operation. flushing-out of accumulated boulders from the reservoir is extremely difficult.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation of 0. even if a daily regulation reservoir is created on the main stream. large scale excavation is required for creating a sufficient capacity pond. The rock outcrop was considered to have sufficient strength for supporting intake weir. it was proposed to create a storage reservoir (0.6 mil. it is foreseen that if river bed boulders in the upstream reaches are washed out by flood flows into the reservoir. due to relatively steep terrain slope. the peak duration time is fixed to be 4 hours a day for all alternatives. Therefore. This river stretch was selected as alternative intake sites (named Plans B and C). It is foreseen that. the reservoir water level has to be lowered periodically down to reservoir bottom and much of inflow water has to be discharged downstream without utilizing it for generation. Closing of a small natural creek on the waterway route by embankment cannot make a pond having sufficient storage capacity because of steep terrain slope. In addition. However. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The future daily peak load duration in Sumatra is estimated to be 4 to 7 hours a day. For flushing of deposited sediments to recover the original storage capacity. (5) Restriction of Peak Generation Duration The duration of peaking generation depends on daily load curve in the regional power system. In case of the Masang-2. as the natural creek depression is not enough to create a large pond sufficient for daily flow regulation. land topography along and around the route of waterway is relatively steep and does not suite to build large storage pond.

2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . a downstream alternative intake site area. elevation figures shown in the designs of HPPS-2 are revised on the basis of the new maps. Environmental impact caused by penstock line construction seems less serious.03 m3/s. (7) Topographic Data In the initial phase of the current study. Firm runoff (95% dependable inflow) estimated is 10. inflow at the intake weir needs to be partly released downstream. only a map with scale of 1/50. which joins the main stream at immediate downstream of the intake site B.67 m3/s.89 m3/s (>0.2 m3/s per 100 km2 of catchment area above the intake weir.2 x 445/100). • One 1/10. • Four 1/2. the following new maps prepared by local survey subcontractor of the JICA team were made available for optimization study. Long term average runoff (inflow) at the original intake site is estimated at 17. which were all made by field survey works. made by photogrammetric mapping utilizing available satellite images. the required minimum flow is decided to be 0. joining at 1 km downstream from the intake site B. The elevation information indicated in the new maps is used for the optimization study. the river just downstream of the intake weir becomes dry. Rate of the required minimum downstream flow is decided to be 0.50 m3/s comes from the tributaries in the 1 km stretch. Most of forest cover is production forest. respectively to the main stream on the 95% dependability. At least 0. To preserve natural environment of the downstream reaches.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation Surface slope of the hill between surge tank and the powerhouse is not so steep. (8) River Runoff Stream flow series of the Msang river is analyzed on daily basis in the foregoing Chapter 16.000 map covering whole project area (intake to powerhouse). Therefore.000 maps respectively covering a 1. Construction of surface type penstock is relatively easy though anticipated base rock surface is deep. It is estimated that those tributaries drain water of 0. This rate is applied to other hydropower projects constructed or being constructed in Sumatra.34 m3/s. The other is a left tributary Banban river covering catchment area of 15 km2. One of them is a right tributary Belukar river covering catchment area of 7 km2. (9) River Maintenance Flow If river water is fully diverted at intake weir to power waterway. intermediate pond area and a powerhouse area.4 August.16 m3/s and 0. This effect of JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17. It is recognized that there are large elevation differences between the old 1/50 000 map and newly surveyed map.000 was available for layout study. In the later phase. Two large tributaries join the main stream within about 1 km stretch downstream of the intake site B.5 km stretch around the original intake site. Since the catchment area of Masang-2 intake site is approximately 445 km2.

1. 142 m. Tail Water Level (TWL) at powerhouse is El. PLAN A PLAN C PLAN B Masang-2 HEPP Alternative Layouts Source: JICA Study Team Figure 17. Depth of soft overburden is more than 20 m at river bed. Layouts of them are shown in Figure 17. • Full Supply Level (FSL) at intake is El. • Adverse geology is encountered in the intake site. 358 m.2. • Gross head between the intake and the powerhouse is 216 m. 17.2 SELECTION OF OPTIMAL DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (1) Alternative Layout Plans Three alternative layout plans are taken up for optimization study.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation inflow is reflected on the requirement of minimum flow release from the intake weir.2.5 August. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .1 Alternative Layout Plans of Masang-2 Scheme Main features of each alternative plan are described in the following table: Alternatives Main Features Plan A • The intake site is identical to that in the original HPPS-2 layout. Concrete pile foundation is required in the intake weir and JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17.

Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation

intake structures.
• Total length of headrace waterway (intake to surge tank, except pond) is 7.40 km.
• Daily peak generation is made possible by a regulation pond created on small natural
creek by excavation. Pond storage capacity is limited.
Plan B • Intake site is shifted downstream by 0.5 km from the Plan A site. Geology at the
foundation is relatively good. Lime stone rock is exposed in river bed.
• FSL at intake is El. 344 m. TWL at powerhouse is El. 142 m.
• Gross head between the intake and the powerhouse is 202 m.
• Total length of headrace waterway (intake to surge tank, except pond) is 7.24 km. An
upstream 1 km long waterway is cut-and-cover culvert. Underground tunnel works are
reduced.
• Daily peak generation is made possible by a regulation pond created on small natural
creek by excavation. Pond storage capacity is limited.
Plan C • Intake site is shifted further downstream by 1 km from Plan A site. Geology at the
foundation is marginally good. Rock is exposed in the river bed.
• FSL at intake is El. 333 m. TWL at powerhouse is El. 142 m.
• Gross head between the intake and the powerhouse is 191 m.
• Total length of headrace waterway (intake to surge tank, except pond) is 6.90 km. An
upstream 0.5 km long waterway is cut-and-cover culvert. Length of waterway is 340 m
shorter than Plan B.
• Daily peak generation is made possible by a regulation pond created on small natural
creek by excavation. Pond capacity is limited.

(2) Maximum Plant Discharge and Required Pond Capacity

In the development scale optimization study in the succeeding Section 17.3, the discharge of 32.0 m3/s
is selected as the optimal maximum plant discharge. This plant discharge is also applied herein for all
alternative layouts. It is noted that this maximum plant discharge is decided taking into account the
restriction by the pond storage capacity. This means that the firm runoff is not fully used for peak
generation and part of the firm runoff is used for off-peak generation even in drought time.

The required active storage capacity in the daily regulation pond is calculated by:

(
V = 3600 T Q max − Q f )
Where, V = Required active storage volume in pond (m3)
T= Peaking time (hours/day)
Qmax = Maximum plant discharge for generation (m3/s)
Qf = Firm discharge for generation = 95 % dependable discharge (m3/s)

(3) Design Input Data

Basic input data for designing each Plan are listed in the following table:

JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17- 6 August, 2011
Hydropower Development in Indonesia

Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation

Design Input Data
Description Unit Plan A Plan B Plan C
1. Catchment area above intake weir km2 443 444 450
3
2. Average river runoff m /s 17.67 17.71 17.95
3
Firm runoff (95% dependable) (q) m /s 10.03 10.05 10.19
3
3. Min. downstream flow release from intake (qr) m /s 0.39 0.39 0.55
3
Inflow from tributaries in 1 km stretch m /s 0.50 0.50 0.34
3
Total min. river flow at 1 km downstream m /s 0.89 0.89 0.89
3
4. Firm discharge for generation (Qf) = q - qr m /s 9.64 9.66 9.64
5. Daily peaking time (T) hours 4 4 4
3
6. Max. plant discharge (Qp) m /s 32.0 32.0 32.0
3
7. Intermediate pond, active storage req’d (V) m 322,000 322,000 322,000
8. Intermediate pond, water surface area ha 4.0 4.0 4.0

(4) Designed Features

Designed features of principal facilities in each plan are presented in the following table:

Designed Features of Principal Facilities
Description Unit Plan A Plan B Plan C
1. Intake Weir (Un-gated concrete weir)
Height (below overflow crest) m 10 10 10
FSL El. m 358 344 333
2. Connection Culvert (free-flow flume with
box shape) None
Internal section size (W x H) m = 3.75 x 4.15 3.75 x 4.15
Length km = 1.06 0.72
3. Connection Tunnel (free-flow tunnel with
horse-shoe section)
Diameter m 3.75 3.75 3.75
Length km 2.85 1.63 1.63
4. Intermediate Pond
FSL El. m 353.2 339.9 329.2
MOL El. m 343.2 329.9 319.2
Drawdown m 10.0 10.0 10.0
5. Headrace Tunnel (pressure flow tunnel
with circular section)
Diameter m 3.75 3.75 3.75
Length km 4.55 4.55 4.55
6. Penstock (underground inclined shaft type)
Pipe diameter m 3.1 3.1 3.1
Length m 696 692 688
7. Powerhouse
Type Surface type Surface type Surface type

JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17- 7 August, 2011
Hydropower Development in Indonesia

Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation

Tail water level El. m 142.0 142.0 142.0
8. Generating Equipment
Installed capacity (total of 2 units) MW 55 52 48
Max. plant discharge m3/s 32.0 32.0 32.0
Rated net head m 191.7 178.8 168.1

(5) Construction Cost

Construction cost of each Plan is estimated by applying the estimation basis described in Chapter 19.
The estimated costs excluding contingencies are as follows:

Construction Costs Estimated for Each Plan
Unit: US$ million
Description Plan A Plan B Plan C
1. Civil Works
Intake facilities 20.18 6.91 7.42
Water way 42.02 41.34 39.28
Intermediate pond 15.48 15.05 12.85
Penstock and powerhouse 6.37 6.25 5.41
Sub-total 84.05 69.55 64.97
2. Mechanical & Electrical Works 47.63 45.50 43.19
3. Preparatory and Environmental Works 20.53 18.72 17.99
4. Engineering and Land Costs 31.08 27.39 25.87

TOTAL 183.29 161.16 152.02

(6) Power Generation Calculation
60
Masang-2: Plans A, B and C
For each Plan, power generation
50
calculation is carried out applying the
Natural River Flow
flow duration curves derived from the
40 Inflow to Intake
Discharge (m3/s)

21-year low flow analysis
(1973-1993) in Section 16.4. Daily 30

average discharge duration curve
20
applied is shown in Figure 17.2.2.
Because there is no significant
10
difference of the catchment areas of
the three Plans (443-450 km2), the 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
same river flow duration curve is
Probability of exceedence (%)
applied for all three Plans.

Source JICA Study Team

Figure 17.2.2 Daily Average Discharge Duration Curve

JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17- 8 August, 2011
Hydropower Development in Indonesia

080 US$/kWh • Coal-fired plant generation cost for off-peak time benefit: Power: 223. The results of generation calculation are as follows: Results of Power Generation Calculation Description Unit Plan A Plan B Plan C a. 4-hour peak and 20-hour off-peak generations.. • Gas turbine generation cost for peak time benefit: Power: 96. Benefits of the peak time power and energy are evaluated applying generation cost of gas-turbine power plant suitable for peaking generation. kW E = Annual energy production. are as follows: Output Power (kW) Energy (kWh/year) Peak time output 24 P − E / 365 T (24 P − E / 365) = = x365 24 − T 24 − T Off-peak time output −TP + E / 365 24(−TP + E / 365) = = x365 24 − T 24 − T Remarks: P = Peak output (dependable). Benefits of the off-peak time power and energy are evaluated applying generation cost of coal-fired thermal power plant suitable for base load operation. kWh T = Peaking hour (hours/ day) Power and energy outputs of each Plan and their benefits are calculated in the following table. The equations for separation. Construction cost of each Plan is annualized by applying the capital recovery factor (=0. Plant factor (*) % 53 53 53 Remarks (*) : PF= (c/8. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . which are explained in Chapter 14.e.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation All three plans are capable of peaking generation for 4 hours a day by the effect of intermediate pond having the storage capacity of 322. Those thermal generation costs are explained in Chapter 14 and are summarized below. i.0417 US$/kWh Total outputs obtained by the generation calculations are separated to peak time output and off-peak time output. due to difference of working water head.23 US$/kW Energy: 0.67 US$/kW Energy: 0. the Plan A is highest in generation output and the Plan C is lowest.76)/a (7) Economic Comparison All three Plans are operated by mixed generation mode.000 m3.9 August.1009) based JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17. Annual average energy production GWh 255 240 225 d. 95% dependable power output (4-hour peak) MW 55 52 48 c. Maximum power output MW 55 52 48 b. However.

21 7.500 21.900 22.03 4.84 2.81 0. The net benefit of Plan A is much less than those of Plans B and C.46 2.30 2.100 29.20 3.75 Energy M US$ 8.99 2.49 16.26 15. Its proposed powerhouse site is located near to the Plan B intake site.76 Total annual cost (C) M US$ 19. B and C are further assessed from the engineering point of view as presented in the table below. Annual cost Annualized construction cost M US$ 18.6x10 196. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .500 26.12 Off-peak time: Power M US$ 5.10 August.2 km upstream of the Plan A intake site.63 3.9x10 185. The second economical layout is Plan C of which the net benefit is about 86% of Plan B.1009) Annual O&M cost (0.4x10 43.75 Total annual benefit (B) M US$ 20.45 3.10 4. Net annual benefit (B-C) M US$ 1.35 5.92 0.11 The layout Plan B is most economical among the three Plans as the net benefit is highest.41 17.34 (Total cost x 0.07 16. Its intake facility proposed is on the Guntung river located 1.800 6 6 Energy kWh/y 45. it was revealed that an IPP small hydro project (Guntung project) is in progress around the Masang-2 intake area. (8) Engineering Assessment The Plans A.1x10 39. Power and energy outputs separated Peak time: Power kW 31.200 6 6 Energy kWh/y 209. Impact of this IPP project to the Masang-2 project is also evaluated in the same table. Annual generation benefit Peak time: Power M US$ 2.9x106 2. At the later phase of the current study.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation on discount rate of 10% and project life of 50 years.71 19. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17.53 18.58 Energy M US$ 3. Economic Comparison of Alternative Layouts Description Unit Plan A Plan B Plan C 1. The Guntung project having generation capacity less than 10 MW is under planning stage at present.5% of total cost) M US$ 0.74 8.1x106 Off-peak time: Power kW 23.

temporary river diversion for intake construction is difficult. • It is necessary to procure partly the existing paddy fields on both X mental banks for construction of intake facilities. underground tunnel work on critical path is reduced. • If the Guntung project is realized. Thick volcanic soft overburden covers the river bed at intake site. But. This facilitates construction of temporary diversion facilities. Even if the Guntung project is realized. Plan B Technical • For access to the intake site.2 km. Costly concrete pile foundation is necessary for intake weir and sand trap. • River length where water flow diminishes due to water diversion at intake to power tunnel is about 8. Environ. • Connection culvert downstream of sand trap is open-air structure. there is no reduction of water flow to the Plan B intake. • Large farm land is not in the intake weir site. its length is only about 1.11 August. This results in unrecoverable reduction of project economy.5 km up to the junction with Alahan Panjang river. • The IPP Guntung powerhouse tailrace will be located between Plan A and Plan B intake weir sites. river water level downstream of powerhouse largely fluctuates. . Consequently. construction cost and time for intake facilities is reduced. particularly in drought month. water release from intake to downstream river is required to preserve environment. Environmental impact to animals is minimized. By this. While the river water is not used by riparian people for farming and living. water release from intake to downstream river is required to preserve environment.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation Engineering Assessment of Each Plan O: Superior to the other Plans △: Relatively superior X: Inferior Alterna. • River length where water flow diminishes due to water diversion at intake to power tunnel is about 8. • Waterway from intake to surge tank is underground structure.0 km up to the junction with Alahan Panjang river. Large scale excavation of right bank is necessary for constriction of temporary by-pass channel. While the river water is not used by riparian people for farming and living. • Because of peaking generation. It is shorter than other Plans • Adverse geology is encountered at intake site. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . • Due to the adverse geology.) for riparian people will be required.3 km X long. • At the intake site. • All structures including intake facilities. waterway and powerhouse are located outside protection forest. Assess Engineering Assessment Judgment tive Point Plan A Technical • Access to the intake site from the existing road is about 0. lime stone rock is exposed in river bed. Inflow to the Plan A intake probably decreases to 2/3 or less of the present estimate. Procurement of farm △ mental land is little. Base rock surface is as deep as 20 m. Warning system (siren. most of water of the Guntung river will by-pass the Plan A intake. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17. a new road from the existing road is O necessary on the right bank. etc. Environ.

Consequently. waterway and powerhouse are located outside protection forest. Intake site for the Plan A is inferior since the foundation geology is bad. water release from intake to downstream river is required to preserve environment. • River length where water flow diminishes due to water diversion at △ mental intake to power tunnel is about 7. except connection culvert. etc. river water level downstream of powerhouse largely fluctuates. • Waterway from intake to surge tank. Environmental impact to animals is minimized. • The IPP Guntung powerhouse tailrace will be located between Plan A and Plan B intake weir sites. a new road from the existing road is △ necessary on the right bank. construction cost and time for intake facilities is reduced. the Plan B is selected as the most optimal development layout for the Masang-2 HEPP. (9) Selection of Optimal Development Layout Based on the foregoing economical comparison and engineering assessment. particularly in drought month. Environ.) for riparian people will be required.12 August. Assess Engineering Assessment Judgment tive Point • Waterway from intake to surge tank. • Because of peaking generation. there is no significant difference between the Plans B and C. From the environmental point of view. • At the intake site. its length is only about 1. is underground structure. underground tunnel work on critical path is reduced. particularly in drought month. Rock exposed in the Plan C intake site seems to be in deeply weathered condition. While the river water is not used by riparian people for farming and living. etc. Plan A is environmentally inferior because the existing paddy filed is partly occupied by the intake facilities. river water level downstream of powerhouse largely fluctuates. Warning system (siren.5 km up to the junction with Alahan Panjang river. The Plans B and C are environmentally more superior than the Plan A. • All structures including intake facilities. By this. But. there is no reduction of water flow to the Plan C intake. • Connection culvert downstream of sand trap is open-air structure. • Because of peaking generation. weathered rock is exposed in river bed. is underground structure. Environmental impact to animals is minimized. • All structures including intake facilities. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation Alterna. Plan B is technically most superior because relatively sound base rock is exposed in the intake site and construction of the intake facilities is easy.2 km. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17. except connection culvert. Warning system (siren. waterway and powerhouse are located outside protection forest. Plan C Technical • For access to the intake site. This facilitates construction of temporary diversion facilities. Even if the Guntung project is realized. .) for riparian people will be required. The Plan C is therefore second superior among three Plans.

66 m3/s is usable as the 95% dependable discharge for generation. the minimum river flow increases to 0. This minimum flow satisfies the widely applied requirement of 0.71 m3/s) and Qmax is maximum plant JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17.2 km stretch downstream from the intake weir. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .2. discharge of at least 0.2 (4) and (5).2. four alternatives of maximum plant discharge are taken up taking into account the different water utilization factors (F). no off-peak time generation at the time of firm runoff.39 m3/s is released from the intake weir to the downstream reaches.3.1.2 m3/s per 100 km2 of catchment area. For the river maintenance purpose.13 August.3 SELECTION OF OPTIMAL DEVELOPMENT SCALE (1) Selected Layout Plan In the above Section 17.1 Selected Layout of Masang-2 HEPP (2) River Runoff As applied for generation calculations in Section 17.50 m3/s from relatively large tributaries. i.05 m3/s. Net discharge of 9. (3) Development Scale Alternatives As mentioned in Section 17. Therefore. To seek the optimal generation capacity.3.89 m3/s owing to inflow of 0. The overall layout of the Plan B is detailed in Drawing M-010 and presented in Figure 17.71 m3/s on average (Year 1973-1993).Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation 17.e. the Masang-2 scheme is designed for semi-peak generation even at the time of the firm discharge (95% dependable). the Plan B was selected as the optimal development layout. If the pond capacity is large enough. The river runoff in terms of 95% dependable runoff is 10. peak generation output is increased and generation operation is limited to peak time only. the catchment area at the intake weir of the Plan B is 444 km2 and the river runoff is 17. the daily peaking time is limited to 4 hours since there is topographic restriction in building large capacity regulation pond on the waterway route. The F is calculated by Qave / Qmax where Qave is long term average flow for generation (=17. In a 1. Source: JICA Study Team Figure 17.

63 km) JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17.4 3 0. For the headrace tunnel between the intermediate pond and the surge tank. For the penstock line between the surge tank and powerhouse. As to each different diameter tunnel.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation discharge. On the other hand.45 39. surface type penstock is selected since the ground surface slope is not so steep and surface penstock is more economical than the under ground penstock.5 (4) Economic Diameter of Tunnel and Penstock Regarding the power waterway.0 2. For the connection tunnel between the connection culvert end and the intermediate pond.65 x 4. annualized construction cost and reduced annual generation benefit are combined for each tunnel diameter and a certain diameter at which the combined cost becomes lowest is selected to be the economical diameter of the tunnel.2. the construction cost of tunnel (or penstock) is estimated for each different diameter. box shape concrete flume is applied.4 35.4 32 29.9 x 4. smaller diameter tunnel (or penstock) is lower in construction cost but the generation output contrarily decreases due to increased head loss in waterway.2 3.1 3. circular section is applied since flow in the tunnel is pressure flow and its internal pressure is relatively high.3 3.14 August. Optimal (economical) diameter of tunnel (or penstock) is selected hereunder.2 (7).3. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Calculated results of economic diameters are illustrated in Figure 17.50 35. Reductions of generation output (kW and kWh) corresponding to such loss head is calculated.06 km) Selected section size (w x h) 3. By this selection. Plant Discharge (m3/s) Waterway 39.55 32. the annualized construction cost and the reduced benefit are combined to make a total of annual cost and annual loss of benefit.75 x 4.0 4 0. Selected diameters of tunnels and penstock and size of culvert are listed below. Connection culvert (L = 1.5 1. Those alternatives are as follows: Alternative Factor ‘F’ Qmax (m3/s) 1 0. The penstock pipe is laid in open trench excavated. standard horse-shoe section is applied since such tunnel type is economical because the flow in tunnel is free flow and internal water pressure is low.60 29. Connection tunnel (L = 1. Max. The reduced generation outputs are converted to reduced benefits by applying the same method as described in Section 17. Loss of head in the tunnel (or penstocks) is calculated for several different diameters combined with various maximum plant discharges.4 2 0. The culvert is constructed by cut-and-cover method.8 x 4. For the connection culvert extended along the river bank from the intake sand trap to the connection tunnel inlet.

Trash rack with rake is provide at the intake entrance of which size is decided so that the flow velocity at the entrance is 1 m/s at the maximum.3 m/s at the maximum so as to settle sand particles larger than 0.5 mm. Headrace tunnel (L = 4. Connection Tunnel & Headrace Tunnel 4. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .75 3.25 3.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation Selected economical diameter 3.0 2.9 3.5 3. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17.0 m asl. a river outlet facility is provided for releasing the river maintenance flow of 0.0 5.3.6 m wide gap between pipe surface and excavated tunnel surface. The downstream end of the sand trap is joined to the connection culvert.5 Penstock Pipe Economic diameter (m) 4. discharge (m3/s) Source: JICA Study Team Figure 17.2 Economic Diameters of Tunnels and penstock Required thickness of tunnel concrete lining is estimated to be 10% of the tunnel internal diameter. (5) Design of Other Facilities The intake weir is a concrete weir with height of about 10 m above the deepest foundation in the river bed.65 4. The gap is completely backfilled with concrete after installation of the penstock pipe. At the downstream bay of the sand trap.75 3.55 km) Selected economical diameter 3.8 3.15 August.0 Culvert.0 20 30 40 50 60 Plant max. The basin is separated to double lanes by a center wall so that flushing of deposited sediment is conducted one by one without stopping water flow in either one of the lanes.1 3.65 3. Penstock pipe (L = 695 m) Selected economical diameter 3.5 2. Incoming water at the intake is led to the sand trap facility located just downstream of the intake. Intake structure is located on lest bank side of the weir.39 m3/s.0 3.4 3. The basin size is decided so that the flow velocity in the basin becomes 0.8 3. The weir has a 40 m wide ungated overflow type spillway of which crest elevation is equal to the Full Supply Level (FSL) of 344. The sand trap is a settling basin with rectangular cross section. A sand flushing sluice is provided on left bank side of the spillway near intake for flushing sediment deposited in front of intake entrance. Penstock pipe just downstream of the surge tank is laid in horizontal tunnel of which excavation diameter is decided so as to make a 0.9 3.

m 344.0 10.5 329.9 340. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .0 10. The head loss varies with the discharge in the culvert and tunnel.2 0. FSL at Intake Weir El. V= Required active storage volume of pond (m3) T= Peaking time (hours) Qmax = Maximum plant discharge (m3/s) Qf = Diverted firm discharge (m3/s) In order to always keep free flow state in the connection culvert and tunnel.1 329.371 0.3 0. m 329.3 Excavation Volume vs Resulted Storage Capacity JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17.5 339.3. Waterway head loss between intake and pond m 4.5 0.429 0. Therefore.4 35.286 2. the creek valley is narrow and insufficient for storing the required volume of water.3.322 0.9 330.0 344.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation A small natural creek crossing the waterway route is closed by a dike to create the intermediate pond.16 August. Relation between 0 excavation volume and resulted storage volume is 0 0.6 shown in Figure 17.0 5. The required storage volume in excess 2 of 0. Storage Volume and Water Levels of Pond Description Unit Max. it is necessary to excavate the ground around the creek to ensure the required storage capacity.5 4. m 339.0 MOL El. Plant Discharge (m3/s) 39. The full supply level (FSL) of the pond is decided taking into account the head loss at the maximum tunnel discharge being equal to the maximum plant discharge.1 339.4 32.14 MCM has to be ensured by excavation of 1 the ground around the creek. Water Level of Pond FSL El.9 4.1 4. Required active storage volume MCM 0.0 3. the pond water level has to be lower than the sand trap water level by the head loss. Required active storage volume of the pond varies with the peaking time and calculated by the following equation. The water diverted from the intake is stored in the pond for daily peak generation at the powerhouse. Figure 17. As seen in this Figure. Drawdown m 10.3.0 10.0 29. huge Pond Storage Volume Ensured by Excavation (MCM) excavation is required for ensuring the required storage capacity.4 0.0 4.1 0. However.14 MCM only.0 344.0 344. V = 3600T (Qmax − Q f ) where. Storage volume ensured by closure Excavation Volume (MCM) 3 of the creek with the embankment dike is about 0.0 The dike to close the creek is rockfill embankment 4 with clay core. The required water level difference depends on the head loss in connection culvert and tunnel.5 1.

03 3. Rated net head m 176.7 15. Plant Discharge (m3/s) 39.1 3.8 8.72 17.4 35. Preparatory and Environmental Works 21.39 25.95 18.85 15. Engineering and Land Costs 32.83 Waterway 46. Mechanical & Electrical Works 52.73 48.65 Penstock and Powerhouse 7.25 5. They are listed below: Surge Tank Diameters and Water Levels Description Unit Max.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation A surge tank of vertical shaft type with a bottom orifice port is provided at the downstream end of the headrace tunnel before connecting to the penstock.17 August.30 19. Installed capacity (total of 2 units) MW 63 57 52 48 (7) Construction Cost Construction cost of each alternative is calculated on the basis of work quantities calculated for each alternative and unit prices referred to in Chapter 19. Size of powerhouse is estimated on the basis of data of the other similar powerhouse projects. Size of the surge tank is decided by up-surging and down-surging oscillation analysis.1 14.5 Installed capacity (MW) 63 57 52 48 1. m 361 361 361 361 Lowest down-surging WL El.4 35.2 8.52 41.9 2.70 Sub-total 85.40 6.4 32.4 32.50 43.0 29. Highest up-surging WL El.4 32.05 12.95 6. Civil Works Intake facilities 8.4 178.0 29.4 35. Diameter of surge tank m 9.72 69.81 JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17.5 1. The results are in the following table: Construction Costs Estimated for Each Alternative Unit: US$ million Items Max.70 6. A tailrace is a short open channel extended from the powerhouse to the river bank edge.02 7.72 45. Invert level of the headrace tunnel beneath the surge tank is decided to be 10 m lower than the down-surge water level.5 7.71 27.1 13. m 315 316 316 316 Top of the tank is decided to be 3 m higher than the up-surging water level.75 18. Plant Discharge (m3/s) 39. Powerhouse is above-ground type concrete construction.98 4.91 6.5 1.0 29. head loss after pond m 15. Max. Capacity of generating equipment for each Alternative is calculated as follows: Generating Equipment Description Unit Max.8 179.34 39.47 2.55 64. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .58 Intermediate pond 23.22 29.88 76. Plant Discharge (m3/s) 39.41 43.8 2.4 177.

e.4 32.3. power output MW 63 57 52 48 2. peaking generation for 4 hours and off-peak generation for 20 hours.16 151.29 (8) Power Generation Calculation Similarly to paragraph (6) of the forgoing Section 17.0 29. 95% dependable output (4 hours) MW 63 57 52 48 3. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Plant Discharge (m3/s) 39. 60 63 MW River flow at intake 57 MW 50 52 MW Daily average turbine 48 MW 40 Discharge (m3/s) discharge Natural river flow 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Probability of exceedence (%) Source: JICA Study Team Figure 17. power generation calculation is carried out for each Alternative applying the same flow duration curve for the Plan B. Total generation output of each alternative is separated to peak time output and off-peak time output as explained in the JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17.18 August.3.4 35..10 161.13 175. Daily average turbine discharge duration curves of all alternatives are illustrated in Figure 17.2.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation TOTAL 192. Annual energy production GWh 242 241 240 238 4. i.4 Duration Curves of Daily Discharges The results of the generation calculations are as follows: Results of Power Generation Calculation Description Unit Max.2. Plant factor % 44 48 53 57 (9) Economic Comparison All alternatives are operated by mixed generation mode. Max.4. Benefits of peak time generation and off-peak time generation are evaluated separately as explained in paragraph (7) of the foregoing Section 17.5 1.

500 25.41 Energy M US$ 4.65 (Total cost x 0.72 2.45 2.0x106 51.000 Energy kWh/y 62.87 4.80 1.39 17.53 18. 5 52 MW (4-hour peak) Benefit .19 August.21 8.92 Off-peak time: Power M US$ 4. Installed capacity MW 63 57 52 48 2.43 5. Power and energy outputs Peak time: Power kW 42.41 2.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation said paragraph.3x106 196.07 16.5 Development Scale Optimization Result JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17.83 5.3.27 19.4 32.14 Energy M US$ 7.45 Variation of the net annual benefit with the installed capacity is graphically shown in Figure 17.000 Energy kWh/y 180. Annual generation benefit Peak time: Power M US$ 4.0 29.9x106 201.03 5.400 29.90 8. Plant Discharge (m3/s) 39.15 20.81 0.600 21.1x106 36. Net annual benefit (B-C) M US$ 0.50 4.54 17.5.4 35. Economic Comparison of Alternative Development Scales Description Unit Max.35 18.5% of total cost) M US$ 0.3.96 4.66 16. Construction cost of each alternative is annualized by applying the capital recovery factor of 0.78 Total annual cost (C) M US$ 20.500 23.51 7.5x106 3.1009.Cost (M US$) 4 3 2 1 0 45 50 55 60 65 Installed Capacity (MW) Source: JICA Study Team Figure 17.7x106 43.88 0.5 1. Power outputs and energy productions of each alternative and their benefits are calculated in the following table.08 3.5x106 Off-peak time: Power kW 20.46 2.40 Total annual benefit (B) M US$ 21.96 0. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .600 22.400 35.0x106 189.26 15.84 2. Annual cost Annualized construction cost M US$ 19.13 3.1009) O&M cost (0.

the benefit reaches the maximum at around the plant capacity of 52 MW (4-hour peaking mode). Further increase of the plant capacity results in reduction of the net benefit.Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation (10) Selection of Optimal Development Scale As seen in the above Figure 17.3. However.20 August. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17. the annual net benefit (B-C) increases with increase of plant capacity. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . A 52 MW peak generation for at least 4 hours is possible even in the drought year with 95% dependability. Therefore. the 52 MW plant capacity by the maximum plant discharge of 32 m3/s is selected as the optimal development scale.5.

1.3 PLANT DISCHARGE The generating plant is operated as a 4-hour peak and 20-hour off-peak generation mode depending of available daily river flow. However. 18. Any river flow up to this JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-1 August.0 m3/s taking into account the limited pond storage capacity.3.2 1.05 = = 3 Design flood (200-yr flood) m /s 1.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design CHAPTER 18 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 18.89 m3/s.1 HYDROLOGICAL CONDITIONS Long term low flow analysis for the Masang-2 project is conducted in the Section 16.2 MINIMUM DOWNSTREAM FLOW (RIVER MAINTENANCE FLOW) At the intake weir. The hydrological conditions related to the preliminary design are listed below: Description Unit Intake Interm’t Power- Weir Pond house 2 Catchment area km 444 0. as mentioned in Section 17. the maximum plant discharge is decided to be 32.2 659 3 Sediment inflow m /yr 222.39 m3/s at the maximum is released from the intake weir to the downstream river. In the 1 km downstream stretch from the weir site.39 m3/s) released from the intake weir. The required minimum river flow at that point is 0.2m3/s = 0. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .4. relatively large tributaries having total catchment area of 22 km2 join the main Masang river. This criteria is already applied to the some other on-going or completed hydropower projects in Sumatra. This rate is decided so as to meet the criteria of 0.341 15.9 920 3 Average river runoff m /s 17.1. to maintain minimum flow condition in the river reaches downstream of the weir. the water of 0.939 3 Construction flood (2-yr flood) m /s 456 5.89m3/s).1.1 DESIGN CONDITIONS 18. However.71 = = 3 95% dependable runoff m /s 10. A natural flow coming from the tributaries is 0.2 m3/s per 100 km2 of catchment area at the point about 1 km downstream of the weir site (444km2/100km2 x 0. river water except in flood time is fully diverted to the power tunnel.000 450 = 18.50 m3/s with 95% dependability and this flow is combined with the flow (0.

2.000 1. This elevation is regarded as the Full Supply Level (FSL) for the power intake. Shifting of the intake to upstream site interferes with the IPP project.0 m 340 Intake Weir Tailwater H-Q River bed El. 350.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design rate is diverted to the power waterway at the intake. constriction of the intake weir and sand trap structures is easy and not costly.1 INTAKE WEIR The intake weir is located 1 km downstream from the confluence of Masang river (Batang Sianok) with Guntung river (Batang Guntung).2.400 Discharge (m3/s) Source: JICA Study Team Figure 18. in which effect of high velocity approach flow in the upstream channel is taken into account. Design flood water level at the upstream side of weir is thus estimated at El. All waterway structures are designed for this discharge. Masang-2 Intake Weir H-Q Curve 355 200-yr flood = 1. 337 m 335 0 200 400 600 800 1. 337 m.341 m3/s) is preliminarily estimated at 6.341 m3/s 350 Intake Weir Spillway H-Q Elevation (m asl) 345 Spillway crest El.2 MAIN CIVIL STRUCTURES 18.0 m.1 Estimated Discharge Rating Curve at Intake Weir JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-2 August. 18. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . the height of weir above river bed is 7 m. This height is required to keep the water depth necessary at intake entrance. The crest elevation of the spillway is set at El. 344. Since the rock conditions are good. This location is selected taking into account the following: • Relatively hard base rock is exposed in the river bed and both abutments. Overflow depth of the design flood (1.200 1. The intake weir is concrete weir with un-gated overflow spillway.0 m. The selected spillway overflow width is 40 m so as to suit the river channel topography.1. The estimated rating curves are shown in Figure 18.2.0 m. As the river bed elevation at the weir is around El. 344. • An IPP powerhouse of the on-going Guntung project will be located 150 m upstream of the Masang-2 intake site.

0 m at the weir axis in order to flush sand deposits accumulated in front of intake entrance. A concrete channel with steep slope is extended upstream to facilitate sand flushing operation. Sill elevation of the sluice is set at El.0 m/s at maximum. 340. Depth of incoming flow on trash rack sill is decided to be as shallow as 3.0 m in total of 2 entrance bays. Design of the intake weir is shown in Drawing M-011.3 + 0. Size of them is W5. h L > A u v Where. whole river water is discharged from the weir by overflow. Intake entrance structure is equipped with trash rack and raking machine. Dimensions of the settling basins are decided by the following equation.2 INTAKE AND SAND TRAP The intake is located on right bank side of the intake weir.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design As it is foreseen that base rock surface is not deep. The river outlet facility is provided at the sand tarp downstream end. 351.2 m. width of trash rack is 11.8 = 350.5 mm or greater by applying usual practice. L = Required length of settling basin (m) JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-3 August. This location is selected so as to minimize abrasion damage on the outlet pipe and valves. non-overflow section on both abutments is built with concrete. safety allowance for concrete dam of 0.2. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . For required free-board of the non-overflow section. 18.0 m A 5.0 m by the following calculation: Z = Flood WL + 0. When the intake is completely closed. The sand trap is double lane settling basin with rectangular cross section. The design flow-through velocity in the basin is decided to be 0. A service gate and a maintenance stoplog are provided in the sluice.5 m are taken into account.0 m wide sand flushing sluice is provided on left bank side of the weir. 339.3 m of which sill elevation is El.8 m say 351. an estimated wave run-up height of 0.8 m x H4.3 m.5 = 350. Upstream river water level is lowered in short time and sediment flushing by natural flow is performed smoothly. it is able to drain sediment deposit in the basin one by one and to continue generation operation even during sediment draining. It is foreseen that natural river water before sand trapping contains much abrasive sand.0m.0 m x H4. Incoming flow is guided by double box type free-flow channels to the intake gates and then to the sand tarp.0 m3/s. It is expected that the sluice is capable of discharging 120 m3/s when the gate is full open under water level at FSL. The intake gate is W3. By use of the double basins.0 + 0. Since the maximum plant discharge is 32. Trash rack size is decided so that velocity of the incoming flow at the trash rack is 1.3 m/s at the maximum plant discharge.0 m to minimize entering of sediment load in the river. Particle size of sand to be removed is 0. The top elevation (Z) of the non-overflow section on both abutments is decided at El.

3 CONNECTION CULVERT The connection culvert is extended from the downstream end of the sand trap to the entrance of connection tunnel.e. Flow in the culvert is free flow state. The size of internal section is W3. Size of the flushing gate is 1.7 m (= 32.75 m. The maximum water depth (uniform flow) in the culvert is estimated at 3. The culvert has to cross over the large creek (Aek Bamban) at the downstream end of the culvert. 344. the required basin width is 19 m in total.06 km.3 m/s) The depth ‘h’ is decided to be 5.200 to allow the maximum discharge of 32.75 m and H4. two lanes of 9. Total head loss in the intake and sand trap is estimated to be 0.2 m.07 m/s.5 m wide basin. The culvert is box shape concrete flume with total length of 1.6 m to avoid submergence of sediment drain outlets during draining. As the basin depth is 5. Air space of at least 0.2. Thus.0/0.0 m.5 mm is 0. The downstream end of each basin is closed by stoplogs so that the sediment draining can be done while continuing generation operation. To restrict the flow-through velocity ‘u’ to below 0. Top cover slab is provided to avoid entering of eroded debris or tree leaves into the flume. Just after crossing the creek.5 m by 1.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design Α= Coefficient to compensate turbulent effect in the basin h -= Depth of settling basin (m) v= Vertical settling velocity of sand particle varying depending on size (m/s) u= Flow-through velocity in the basin (=0. The longitudinal slope is 1/1.3). i.15 m. the culvert is constructed as a box type bridge supported by four vertical concrete piers spaced at 20 m. Coefficient ‘A’ is estimated at 2. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-4 August.3 m. diameter of the pipe and valve is set at 0.39 m3/s by each set. The river outlet facility consisting of 2 sets of pipe conduit and closure valve is provided in the wall on the river side in the basins downstream bay. Top elevation of the walls is El.4 m is left between the flow surface and the culvert crown. Sediment accumulated in the basins is periodically flushed through sediment flushing culverts (one for each basin) extended from the bottom of basin’s downstream end to the river bank edge. For crossing the creek. Design of the intake and sand tarp is shown in Drawing M-012.5m.3 m/s. The culvert is constructed by cut-and-cover method. 18.0 m3/s. the required flow area is 106. the culvert is jointed to the connection tunnel. The incoming water flow in excess of the flow capacity of the downstream connection tunnel is removed by spillage flowing over side walls of the basin. The settling velocity ‘v’ for sand particle size of 0. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . the required basin length is 48 m. To discharge water of 0.6 m.

heavy rock support such as steel ribs and thick shotcrete cover with wire mesh will be required only in short stretches for tunnel construction. sand trap and connection tunnel at the time of maximum discharge. The water level drawdown in the pond is set at 10 m at the maximum in drought time.2.000 m3 as mentioned in Section 17.0 m3/s. It is foreseen that.9 m including outlet loss.9 m taking into account the water level drop in the intake. it is necessary to largely excavate the ground around the creek.3 (5). The tunnel length is 1.38 m is left between the flow surface and the tunnel crown.63 km.2. 18. as the tunnel passes through relatively firm rock. The pond is created on a small natural creek by closing it with rockfill embankment and by excavating the ground around the creek. Air space of at least 0.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design 18. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The FSL of the pond is decided to be El.75 m as selected as an economic diameter in the Section 17. The curves of pond storage capacity area including excavated part is shown in Figure 18.3 (4). Location of the closure embankment is selected so as to maximize the storage capacity. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-5 August. The water surface area required in the excavated part of the pond is approximately 2 ha. 339.4 m aiming at protection of the pond slope against erosion by tunnel outflow. To satisfy the storage volume requirement. Route and typical section of the tunnel are shown in Drawing M-010.2. Flow in the tunnel is free flow state. Its diameter is 3.2.4 CONNECTION TUNNEL The connection tunnel is extended from the downstream end of the connection culvert to the intermediate pond.38 m. At the outlet of the tunnel. The selected tunnel section is standard horse-shoe shape since the internal water pressure is low. The required tunnel slope is 1/700 at the maximum discharge of 32.. Total of water level drop between the sand trap and the pond is estimated at 3.5 INTERMEDIATE POND The required active storage volume of the pond is 322. an open channel with width of 12 m is extended down to El 329. The maximum water depth (uniform flow) in the tunnel is estimated at 3.

3 0. The spillway has a 25 m long overflow weir of which crest elevation is equal to the pond FSL (El 339.0) under 1. Rock materials excavated for enlarging pond space are used for the embankment.35 + 1. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The maximum drawdown will be 10. 343. For required free-board of the closure embankment (pond dike).0 m overflow depth.2 0.2 m3/s (=15.7 Storgae Volume (MCM) Source: JICA Study Team Figure 18.9 m).340. The foundation of the embankment is the weathered rock. which will seldom occur in the drought year. Detailed slope stability analysis will be required in the future study.6 0. The spillway is capable of discharging 47.4 0.9 m.35 m.0 m3/s at the maximum.1 0. safety allowance for embankment dam of 1.322 320 315 0. Aiming at slope stabilization on pond perimeter.000 m3. The top elevation (Z) of the pond dike is decided to be El.5 + 0. horizontal drain holes drilled into hill slope around the pond are tentatively planned.1 = 343.9 330 325 Active Storage 0.0 m JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-6 August.9 + 2.2 m3/s (200-year flood).5 m and clay core protection cover layer of 0.2 + 32. An overflow type spillway is provided on the right abutment of the closure embankment.0 m by the following calculation: Z = Flood WL + 0.2 Storage Capacity and Area Curves of Intermediate Pond The pond water level varies on the daily basis due to water use for daily peak generation. The pond has a dead space sufficient in volume for storing whole sediment inflow for 100 years. Design flood inflow from the pond catchment is 15.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design Wtaer Surface Area (ha) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 350 345 FSL = 339. The other inflow from the connection tunnel is 32.5 0. an estimated wave run-up height of 0. Sediment inflow for 100 years is estimated at 45.25 = 340.25 m are taken into account.0 m.0 0. The design flood water level is thus El.2.9 340 Elevation (m) 335 Volume Area MOL = 329. Those drain holes will be effective to stabilize the slope at the time of fast drawdown of water level. The creek closure structure is rockfill type embankment with central clay core.

6 HEADRACE TUNNEL The headrace tunnel is extended from the intermediate pond to the surge tank. Route and typical section of the tunnel is shown in Drawing M-010.0 m/s at the maximum. The size of surge tank is decided by provisional surging wave analysis. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The tunnel invert level at the surge tank is set at El.2.9 m so that the flow velocity at the tarshrack is 1.2. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-7 August. A 0.5m) can be used as a temporary diversion facility during construction. The tunnel length is 4. The pond structures are shown in Drawings M-013 and M-014. 305. The selected tunnel section is circular shape since the internal water pressure is relatively high.55 km. A stop valve is installed at the upstream end of pipe and a service valve is installed at the downstream end of the pipe.75 m as selected as an economic diameter in the Section 17. bottom outlet facility is provided in a foundation culvert laid on the deepest foundation.0 m to avoid air suction into the tunnel from surge tank during down-surging. 18. Top of surge tank is set at El.9 m at the maximum plant discharge. Estimated maximum up-surge level and the minimum down-surge level are El. Simple vertical surge tank with a bottom orifice is adopted. The culvert having D-shape section (W2. etc.3 (4).5 m x H5. Flow in the tunnel is pressure flow state. Selected diameter of the surge tank is 8. The tunnel invert elevation just downstream of the intake tower is set at El.2m x H2.4 m diameter steel pipe is laid in the culvert from concrete plug below clay core to downstream end of the culvert. Heavy rock support such as steel ribs and thick shotcrete cover with wire mesh will be required only for such weak rock area. an intake tower is provided to accommodate a trash rack with raking equipment and a tunnel closure gate. Its diameter is 3. The size of tarshrack is decided to be W5.7 SURGE TANK A surge tank is provided between the headrace tunnel and the penstock to avoid excessive pressure rise in the waterway system and to supplement or absorb water flow during transient operation of turbines. 18.5 m. intake trash rack and tunnel bends.0 m in order to provide sufficient intake submergence below the pond MOL for avoiding air suction into the tunnel.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design For emergency withdrawal of pond water in the future. respectively. Losses due to friction. It is foreseen that most part of the tunnel passes through firm lime stone except some short stretches passing weak rock. Total loss of head in the tunnel is estimated at 8.3 m. 361. are included.2 m and El 316. Height of the tank is thus 59 m. 364 m and bottom of surge tank (headrace tunnel) is set at El 305 m. At the upstream end of the tunnel in the pond. 322.

The Y-branch is located nearby the powerhouse. The upper 190 m long horizontal part is embedded in the tunnel extended from the surge tank bottom and laid at El 304 m. A 150 kV outdoor switchyard is located on east side of the powerhouse premises. Machine erection bay and control/office bay are also included in the powerhouse.1 m from the surge tank end to the downstream Y-branch as selected in the Section 17. Two units of main generating equipment and their auxiliaries are accommodated in the building. 18. Along the penstock pipe in the open trench. i.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design 18. During construction of powerhouse substructure. The turbine setting level is set at El. The ground formation elevation around the powerhouse is set at El. 18. insitu rock on the tailrace channel will be left unexcavated for the purpose of coffering.0 m. 25 m upstream from the powerhouse center. 142. The foundation condition seems suitable for the powerhouse.e. 150 m.2. It is necessary to review the river water level in the future detailed study The powerhouse design is shown in Drawing M-016. Normal river water level estimated from the field topographic survey is El.3 (4). 140. 149 m. Penstock line is shown in Drawings M-015.10 PROJECT FEATURES The principal features of the project are summarized in the following table.9 POWERHOUSE The powerhouse to accommodate two 26 MW generating equipment is above-ground type and located on the left bank of the Masang river and at 300 m downstream from the confluence with the Alahan Panjang river. A steel penstock pipe is laid in horizontal tunnel downstream of surge tank and then in an open trench excavated on hill slope down to powerhouse site.8 PENSTOCK Surface type penstock is adopted taking into account site topography.2. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-8 August. The selected site is relatively flat and wide in topography and suitable for locating powerhouse and switchyard. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Tailrace is an excavated open channel extended from the powerhouse to the river bank edge. The pipe diameter is decided to be 3. 150 m. The water level of the design flood (200-year flood) at the powerhouse site is assumed at El.0 m. The tail water level for the generating equipment is provisionally fixed to be El. 141 m and river bank edge elevation is around El. Hard rock (lime stone) is exposed on the river bank wall at the powerhouse site.8 m. The two pipes after Y-branch to the turbine inlets have diameter of 1. a stairway is provided for penstock inspection.2. The powerhouse is a reinforced concrete building.

71 95% dependable runoff m3/s 10.550 9 Surge Tank Type Vertical cylindrical shaft Diameter x Height m D8. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . diameter x length m D3.0 Height (overflow section) m 7 Active storage volume None 4 Intake & Sand Trap Intake Type Horizontal inlet with screen Sand trap type Double settling basins Max.8 Max.0 12 Generating Equipment Installed capacity (total) MW 52 Number of units nos. m 344.75 x 4. presuure flow tunnel Headrace tunnel.05 3 Intake Weir Type Ungated concrete weir FSL=Weir crest elev. m 339. 2 Gross head below pond m 197.5 x 59 10 Penstock Type Surface type Steel pipe diameter x length m D3.15 x L 1.9 Rated head m 178.0 8 Headrace Tunnel Type Circular section.9 Water surface area ha 4.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design Project Features in Preliminary Design of Masang-2 HEPP Description Unit Principal Features 1 Location West Sumatra Province 2 Hydrology Catchment area km2 444 Average annual runoff at intake m3/s 17.060 6 Connection Tunnel Type Horse-shoe section.9 MOL El.1 x 677 Pipes after Y-branch D1.75 x H4. m 142. plant discharge m3/s 32.630 7 Intermediate Pond Type Creek excavated and closed by embankment FSL El.75 x 1.50 Active storage volume MCM 0.8 m x 17 m x 2 nos 11 Powerhouse Type Above-ground type Building structure Reinforced concrete Tailrace Open Channel Tail water level El. diameter x length m D3. El.0 Gross storage volume MCM 0.0 5 Connection Culvert Type Concrete flume with box section (free flow) Internal section size x Length m W3. m 329.322 Drawdown m 10.0 Peaking oeration time hr/day 4 Annual energy production GWh 240 JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-9 August. free flow type Connection tunnel. discharge diverted m3/s 32.

Their operation devices.3 HYDRO-MECHANICAL WORKS The hydro-mechanical works comprise steel gates.8 (6) Sand Trap. Trash Rack With raking equipment 5. The hydro-mechanical works preliminarily designed are described below.3 1 9. Bottom Outlet Maintenance Valve Type: Steel hydraulic valve φ0.5 x 1. Entrance Stoplog Type: Rope hoisted slide panels 3. water turbines for generating equipment and their mechanical auxiliaries including turbine inlet valves are not included in the hydro-mechanical works.0 x 4.0 1 4. Sand Flushing Gate Type: Rope hoisted fixed wheel gate 5.8 x 4. End Stoplog Type: Rope hoisted slide panels 4.4 1 40 (12) Pond.8 x 4. Bottom Outlet Conduit Type: Steel pipe laid in culvert φ0.0 x 4. WxH (m) Q’ty Acting water head (m) (1) Intake Weir. Inlet Gate Type: Rope hoisted fixed wheel gate 3.3 2 5 (9) Connection Culvert.15 1 5 (10) Connection Tunnel.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design 18.5 2 9 (7) Sand Trap. River Outlet Valve Type: Cast steel spindle valve φ0.75 (11) Pond.5 1 40 JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-10 August.0 1 11 (2) Intake Weir. Sediment Darin Gate Type: Motor drive spindle gate 1.8 (5) Intake.75 x 5. Sand Flushing Stoplog Type: Rope hoisted slide panels 5. raking machine.8 2 3.0 1 11 (3) Intake. valves and penstock pipes. Bottom Outlet Control Valve Type: Steel hydraulic valve φ0. Size.75 x 4.5 2 9 (4) Intake.4 1 40 (13) Pond. trash racks. are also included in the works. hoists. etc.5 x 3.2 x 3. However.8 (8) Sand Trap. stoplogs. hydraulic systems.3 2 9. Entrance Closure Gate Type: Rope hoisted fixed wheel gate 3. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Outlet Stoplog Type: Rope hoisted slide panel 3.

Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design (14) Penstock pipe Type: Steel pipe laid on trench φ3. neither 26MW×2 units nor 52MW×1 unit will affect great influence to the power system in case of tripping of turbine generator because power system capacity of Sumatra is more than 3.4 GENERATING EQUIPMENT 18. station service transformer and traveling crane are to be installed in the powerhouse. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .8 2 14 18. HDWiz (developed by J-Power. The reliability and flexibility of maintenance and operation e. drainage system. Nevertheless.1 1 Static 221 φ1. unit capacity and number of unit has been decided taking following items into consideration.2 UNIT CAPACITY AND NUMBER OF UNIT Generally. Influence of the unit capacity to the power system b. based on existing hydropower plant data around the world) has been used for the designing of the electrical equipment. switching device such as circuit breaker.8m and discharge of 32m3/s.4. water supply system. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-11 August.600MW. However. using net head of 178.6 2 Static 221 (15) Powerhouse. optimum unit capacity of the turbine generator is determined in consideration of influence to the power system. Draft Tube Stoplog Type: Rope hoisted slide panel 3. The level of current manufacturing technology d. 3 phase synchronous generator (maximum capacity : 28. Discharge variation between wet season and dry season As for the subject A of the influence of the unit capacity to the power system. oil supply system. development timing and transportation restriction.5 x 1.8 . 18. a large unit capacity is said to be more economical merits of scale. for the turbine generator. Vertical shaft type of Francis turbine (maximum output : 26MW).1MVA). control equipment. compressed air supply system.1.1 GENERAL Masang-2 hydropower project is run of river type with intermediate pond and has capacity of 4 hours peak operation and maximum output of 52MW. Transportation route and weight restriction c.4. a.

26MW×2 units has been determined for the Masang-2 hydropower project taking especially the reliability and flexibility of maintenance and operation and discharge variation between wet season and dry season into consideration. Finally. Regarding the subject b of transportation route and weight restriction. 2 units option has a great advantage over the discharge variation. As per the subject c of the level of current manufacturing technology.926 ˙=. Pt = 9. type of turbine can be determined by close relation between effective head and turbine output.3 TURBINE (1) Turbine Output Rated turbine output at rated effective head of 178. main transformer (1 unit option) of 60t is estimated the heaviest electrical equipment for the project. during dry season. 2 units option has an advantage over because one of the unit can be operated in case of another unit is in stop condition such as fault or maintenance. Necessity of reinforcement or replacement of bridge shall be examined in the next detailed design stage. there is not any serious problem during wet season.8m and rated discharge of 16m3/s per unit can be calculated as follow. 26.8 × 16. However. there is no any special problem for the transportation.0 × 0.4. There is already existing paved national road in the suburbs of the project site and construction purpose road to be built to the project site. According to result of the above comparison.000 kW where Pt : Rated turbine output per unit(kW) Hn : Rated effective head(m) Qt : Rated water discharge per unit(m3/s) ηt :Turbine efficiency(%) (2) Type of Turbine Generally. turbine will be operated less than 30% rated output and consequently it will cause serious problem to the turbine such as cavitation and vibration.8 × 178. Therefore. 18. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . there is not any special consideration to the influence of the unit capacity to the power system. Regarding the subject d of the reliability and flexibility of maintenance and operation.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design Therefore. Vertical shaft Francis type turbine can be selected taking Masang-2’s effective head and JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-12 August. as for the discharge variation between wet season and dry season.8 × Hn × Qt × ηt = 9. Therefore. both 1 unit and 2 units option can be made by electrical equipment manufacturer around the world.

8m. the actual size of runner shall be offered from the turbine manufacturer in the next detailed design stage.1m.00m. However. With this in mind. Hs can be calculated as -2. (6) Size of Runner Designing of turbine runner is to determine the principal dimensions of the turbine and weight of the turbine. (9) Penstock and Inlet Valve One (1) line penstock is bifurcated into two (2) pipes for 2 units and connected to inlet valves. (4) Turbine Center Elevation Turbine center elevation can be determined based on the draft head (Hs).Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design turbine output into consideration. According to the study result.9m-14. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-13 August. the turbine center elevation is 140. based on the specific speed of Ns 123m-kW. Therefore. which in turn. also can be decided by the cavitation coefficient of the turbine related to the optimum turbine specific speed (Ns). 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . As a result of calculation. loss of head is 14.1m=178. Ns 123 m-kW is obtained by calculating the relation between the effective head and specific speed previously adopted for similar projects. (7) Rated Revolving Speed Specific speed (Ns) of Francis type turbine generally is between 70 to 300 m-kW.6 m. Detailed coating method shall be specified in the next detailed design stage. maximum diameter of runner is estimated 1. The Inlet Valve will be of the by plane Valve type with a diameter of approximately 1.7m and weight of turbine is 4tons. the revolving speed of the turbine is obtained as 500 min-1. (3) Runner Material Stainless steel anti-corrosion type such as 13 chrome high nickels stainless steel is recommended to be applied for the runner material. effective head is 192. (8) Turbine Aeration System Aeration piping system for the runner and draft tube shall be studied in the next detailed design stage. Surface of runner and wear ring shall be coated (hard or soft) in case of water quality. (5) Effective Head Effective head can be calculated by gross head (192.38m by using the above relation.9m) – friction loss of waterway.

1MVA and power factor of 90% lag is selected.973 / 0.100kVA where、 Pg : Rated generator capacity(kVA) Pt : Rated turbine output per unit(kW) ηg : Generator efficiency(%) p.1MVA Rated power factor 0.f (kVA) = 26. (1) Type of Generator Type of generator can be determined by revolving speed and generator capacity and normal type is adopted for the Masang-2 project taking generator capacity and revolving speed into consideration. Rotation direction Counter clockwise from view of generator top Rated revolving speed 500min-1 Rated capacity 28.0kV Rated frequency 50Hz Excitation method Brushless excitation JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-14 August. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design 18.000 × 0.90 Rated voltage 11.4. 28. the rated generator capacity is 28. air cooled type with water heat exchanger system is applied to the cooling system. (4) Generator Rating Principal specifications of the generator are as follows. and enclosed hood.90 ˙=.100kVA.4 GENERATOR A three phase alternating current synchronous generator with vertical shaft rated capacity of 28. lag As the results of above calculation. (2) Rated Generator Capacitor Rated generator capacity can be calculated from the rated turbine output. (3) Insulation and Cooling Method F class is adopted for insulation of the stator and rotor.f : Power factor(%). Pg = Pt × ηg / p. power factor and generator efficiency as follows.

and then supply to the each equipment through strainer and sand separator.. low voltage synchronous system is applied in consideration of generator capacity. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . The oil supply system is composed of oil pressure pump( regular use. generator cooler and oil supply system cooler are installed at the powerhouse. One is low voltage synchronous system (connection point is low voltage side of main transformer) and another is high voltage synchronous system (connection point is high voltage side of main transformer). ventilation shall be installed at lower side of main transformer and supply the power to the each equipment. oil leakage tank and control board. (4) Parallel in Circuit Breaker There are two connection methods between generator and power system. transmission line and control board and it can be located at control room in the powerhouse. lighting. (3) Water Supply and Drainage System Water supply system for the cooling of turbine. generator. main transformer. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-15 August. generator bearing.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design 18. Water drainage pit shall be prepared at bottom of powerhouse and leakage water shall be drained by water drainage pump. main transformer. (5) Control System Regarding control system.5 AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT (1) Oil Supply System Oil supply system for the inlet valve operation purpose and governor operation purpose are installed at each unit. oil pressure tank and general uses are installed at the powerhouse. (2) Compressed Air Supply System Compressed air supply system (regular use. (6) Station Service Transformer Station service transformer for the auxiliary equipment power source for the turbine. Regarding connection method of the Masang-2. generator. oil pressure tank. stand by use). one-man control system is applied for control of turbine. stand by use) for the generator brake. improvement circuit breaker and simplicity of station service power. Water will be taken from drafty tube by water supply pump.4. (7) Traveling Crane Maximum capacity of main hook is determined by the maximum weight of installed equipment and generator rotor is the heaviest equipment generally. auxiliary equipment. oil sump tank.

5 OUTDOOR SWITCHYARD EQUIPMENT AND TRANSMISSION LINE 18. the main transformer shall be located at outdoor switchyard which is adjacent place of powerhouse. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . 18. Maximum weight of transformer (including trailer) is expected to be 100 tons and it can be transported to the project site. However. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-16 August.0 kV :Secondary 150 kV – Rated Capacity :Primary 56. one (1) transformer per two (2) turbine generator shall be applied for the Masang-2 hydropower project taking into improvement of transformer’s reliability and reduction of construction cost consideration. the conventional type which is economical advantage shall be adopted from the point of view of the installation space and construction cost. efficiency and installation space consideration. There are conventional type and Gas Insulated Switchgear type.5.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design Masang-2 hydropower project.2MVA :Secondary 56. the generator rotor of 47 tons is estimated the heaviest equipment. Regarding location. Three-phase transformer is recommended to be adopted and to be designed taking into transportation restriction.1 OUTDOOR SWITCHYARD EQUIPMENT FOR MASANG-2 (1) Main Transformer One (1) transformer per one (1) turbine generator is desirable from the point of view of the operation.2MVA – Rated Frequency :50 Hz – Rated Frequency :Outdoor type – Cooling method :OFAF (Oil forced Air Forced ) (2) 150kV Outdoor Switchyard Equipment 150kV outdoor switchyard equipment shall be installed at adjacent of powerhouse same location as the main transformer. Main specification of the main transformer is shown as follows. – Rated Voltage :Primary 11.

1 Single Line Diagram for Masang-2 JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-17 August. Source: JICA Study Team Figure 18. bus and transmission line are shown as follows.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design 150kV outdoor switchyard equipment consists of 150kV bus. stringing and steel structure. supporting insulator.5. circuit breakers. Whole single line diagram including generator. main transformer. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . voltage transformer for protective relay/metering. disconnecting switches. current transformer for protective relay/metering.

b) System access point In the study of system access.(Maninjau –Simpang Empat T/L) ◎ ◎ × - - - 1 (Along vicinity of Masang River) 34kms GI Padang Luar ○ ○ - ◎ ○ - 2 80kms GI Simpang Empat △ ◎ × - - - 3 (Along vicinityof Masang River) 100kms Inc. etc. natural preserves.(Maninjau –Simpang Empat T/L) 4-Add (Detour-route against Nature ◎ ◎ - ○ ○ - conservation(through protection 38kms forest)) JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-18 August. The relative merits of each access method were assessed from four perspectives. T/L Construction Environmental issues Aspects System Natural Forest Resident Candidates Length Topography Operation conservation class imposition Inc.2 TRANSMISSION LINE Source: JICA Study Team based on RUPTL Figure 18.5.2 Reference between Location of Masang-2 and Transmission Development Plan a) Voltage class applied Judging from the rated capacity of the generator. The Study Team made a relative assessment of distance and topography.) and system operation only when there were prohibitive factors.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design 18. but made assessments with respect to environmental factors (forested tracts.5. it would be appropriate to have a voltage of at least 150 kV for system access. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . as follows. a selection was made of methods based on the existing and planned transmission facilities indicated in RUPTL.

. in the case of access to GI Padang Luar.3). As for the topographical factors related to transmission tower construction. like the 150kV transmission line feeder connection between Maninjau and Simpang Empat. Therefore.2. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . At the same time.0. along the mountain on its northern side. If the route distance for Candidate 1 is assigned the value 1. it was decided to add a route to the GI Simpang Empat that detours to avoid this natural preserve to the list of study subjects as Candidate 6. there is much undulation in the mountainous terrain.0. there is no straight-line route. for the zone study subjects as Candidates 4 and 5. The shortest route would lie in extension of the transmission line from the Masang-2 power station along the Masang river to the village side. ii) Environmental aspect The prospective site of the power house is near the border between the regencies of Agam (Kabupaten Agam) and Pasaman (Kabupaten Pasaman). and this would hold advantages for hauling materials and assuring a patrol route. and that for Candidate 3 (access to GI Simbang Empat). consisting of feeder connection to the Maninjau-Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line.(Maninjau –Simpang Empat T/L) (Detour-route against Nature ◎ ◎ - ○ ○ - conservation(through non-regulated 54kms area)) GI Simpang Empat 6-Add (Detour-route against Nature × ◎ - ○ ○ - 120kms conservation) Evaluation : Good ◎→○→△→△△→× Not good i) Transmission line construction Considering construction of a transmission line extension to the three aforementioned candidates (Candidate 1 . there is a comparatively close road leading to Bukit Tinggi. In addition. This was given the highest rating. however.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design 5-Add Inc. In this case. on the Agam side. extension along the Masang River would offer the shortest distance to the 150kV Maninjau-Simpang Empat for the route (entailing the shortest distance or the shortest route for extension that can basically be confirmed by map). The Masang River forms this border. The Study Team also decided to add two other routes (one passing through the protection forest and another that does not pass through the protection forest). and this could make it difficult to take full advantage of this road. Candidate 1 would allow a more unified and simpler construction method than the other candidates because the route would pass through on the village side. but the river itself is in Pasaman. and it was thought that the line would go down the Masang River. it is estimated that that for Candidate 2 (access to GI Padang Luar) would be 2. the line would cross the Batastinjaulau and Sinanggamaur mountains and the natural preserve along the Masang River. transmission line construction over this route would not be practicable. In reality. In the case of Candidate 3 (access to GI Simpang Empat). 3. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-19 August.

Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line would bring substantial benefits. In this respect. To make a comparison in respect of the supply-demand balance.3 MW at GI Simpang Empat in 2019. To draw a comparison in respect of power quality.Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line. which would form the terminal system. because GI Payakumbuh (a 275/150kV substation) has a close electrical distance with GI Padang Luar. On the contrary. but it would also enable construction without JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-20 August.Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line free of any environmental constraints would presumably be preferable in the cost aspect to system access to GI Padang Luar (because the cost advantage would outweigh the extra line length). a parallel two-circuit line will be constructed for system access with GI Padang Luar. pi feeder connection ¾ Two-circuit line. If a feeder interconnection is made to the Maninjau . Once the line comes out on the village side in connection to the Maninjau - Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line. the following three systems are conceivable. Judging from the rated capacity of the potential site. it may be noted that RUPTL foresees a peak demand of 45. and no problems as regards the protection relay system (distance or ground orientation). and the route for system access to GI Simpang Empat along the lines of Candidate 5 (Candidate 6). Similarly. pi feeder connection ¾ Feeder connection Because the four-circuit pi feeder connection would require a physical increase in the number of lines. ¾ Four-circuit line. the terrain would be basically flat. For this reason. 2 cct). the route through a district without any forest-related constraints (Candidate 5). 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . could be expected to improve the voltage at GI Simpang Empat. it would entail a higher construction cost. As for the type of transmission line and protection relay system. the 2019 peak power at GI Padang Luar is 66 MW. selection of a route to the Maninjau . feeder connection to the Maninjau . and most of the demand could be absorbed by this potential site. There is also thought to be no problem as regards voltage. the table shows the increases in distance that would be entailed by the route through the protected forest area (Candidate 4). most of this output would be consumed by GI Simpang Empat. however. and the transmission tower foundations and structures could be built virtually in line with the standard design. In the case of feeder connection to the Maninjau .Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line with a maximum generated output of about 40 MW.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design iii) System operation Of the route zones for connection to the Maninjau .Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line. connection of the potential site to GI Padang Luar would merely decrease the power flow from GI Payakumbuh to GI Padang Luar. there would be no obstacles to the standard specifications (1 HAWK. interconnection of a hydropower station in close proximity to GI Simpang Empat.

an in-depth study was made of feeder connection to the Maninjau . there would be no problem with a two-circuit pi feeder connection. The two-circuit pi feeder connection would reduce the construction cost by an amount commensurate with the two-circuit decrease.GI Simpang Empat . if grid extension toward the northern end is not a consideration. This situation could require compensation for reactive power. Specifically. for operation as a four-circuit pi feeder connection.potential site). and this would require a switch to a protection relay system that could protect the other terminals.Simpang Empat line (1 HAWK. This would not only be inefficient but also lengthen the electrical distance somewhat as regards the primary bus voltage (GI Maningua . Based on the above. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . a single transmission tower would be built to specifications permitting the installation of four circuits. As for the type of transmission line applied for this feeder connection. it would be possible to operate with a two-circuit line pi feeder connection or to construct a standard tower (with installation of two circuits per tower) and an additional transmission line in anticipation of grid extension toward the northern end. it could be the same as the Maninjau . Therefore. unless a particular site offers overwhelming benefit and rationality.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design modification of the current protection relay system on the Maninjau . Initially. Operation of other terminals is not a part of system operation in Indonesia at present. 2 cct). Because the potential site and GI Maninjau could become the power source terminals. failure and suspension of supply between the potential site and the GI Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line would result in routing of the potential site output through GI Maninjau. inclusive of the route zone1. 1 The objective of this study is not a rigorous search for a single answer but an examination of all the possible candidate sites. JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-21 August. Such problems are particularly liable to surface in the event of grid extension in the aforementioned northern terminal direction beginning from GI Simpang Empat. a carrier-type protection relay system would have to be installed. in extension of the grid toward the northern end of West Sumatra Province as noted above. and the installation must take account of factors such as an increase in the work load of system operators.Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line (both through the forest reserve area and through the area without environmental constraints) and GI Padang Luar system access. and this would complicate the power system operation somewhat. Feeder connection would result in three-terminal operation.Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line. Naturally. but could present difficulties in the aspect of system operation.

2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia . Source: JICA Study Team Figure 18.3 Types of Connection c) Route zone The figure below shows the route zone between the potential site and GI Padang Luar. Feeder connection pi feeder connection pi feeder connection Figure 18. Two-circuit line.4 Route Zone (Masang-2) i) Technical perspectives on transmission lines and transmission towers There is an elevation difference of about 750 meters between the potential site and GI Padang JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-22 August. and for feeder connection to the Maninjau-Simpang Empat 150-kV transmission line.5.5.Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design GI Simpang Empat GI Simpang Empat GI Simpang Empat Potential site Potential site Potential site Masang‐2 Masang‐2 Masang‐2 GI Maninjau GI Maninjau GI Maninjau Four-circuit line.

as already described. It was assumed that the northern or southern end of the route zone would be adopted as the practical route. As far as possible. In this pre-FS study. that is. The existence of residential areas in the vicinity would also hold the possibility of consignment of transmission line maintenance to local monitors after the construction is finished. The route from the potential site to the Maninjau . However. the distance from communities must also be studied. because the zone in question does not contain any scenic districts.Maninjau line. In addition. The selection of route zone was made with consideration of the terrain at both points and the area between them. the Study Team considered a number of options for the route zone. As such. The straight-line route in the direction of Bukit Tinggi crosses the Ladangatas. Although the zone apparently does not contain any plantations or other large-scale farming tracts. after coming down from the mountain. the selection took account of the slope grade angles and the up and down grade angles. Transmission line extension through a protected forest area would call for curtailment of the development area to the minimum requisite in this area. and the prospect of compensation would also have to be taken into account. The cost calculation in this study adopted the Candidate 5 route. the line would pass through an area of rice paddies before connection with the Simpang Empat . and the up and down grades (of no more than 35 percent every 200 m). Batasarik. For this reason.) ii) Environmental and social concerns Selection of the route zone avoided natural preserves and other factors fatally blocking construction. there is a possibility of passage through a timber industry forest. the maximum elevation en route would reach 550 meters. the shortest route was taken. Here as well. and the elevation difference is estimated to be about 100 meters.Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line goes down to the village side. In the future process of detailed route selection. construction of transmission lines in the vicinity of communities would require consideration of items such as land acquisition and blockage of sunlight. There are no problems with detraction from scenery. a route across mountains for an elevation difference of just under 400 meters was selected. and Galanggang mountains. it does contain several villages. which avoids the natural reserve area (and goes through an area without constraints). JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 18-23 August. Full surveys and examination of the on-site topography would also be necessary. the slopes on both banks along rivers (selection of fairly gentle grades of no more than 30 percent).Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design Luar. a selection could be made of a route befitting the times. 2011 Hydropower Development in Indonesia .