Feasibility Study Geological Report Simonggo PDF

Part 13 Geological Survey for
Simanggo-2 HEPP
PROJECT FOR MASTER PLAN STUDY OF HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
IN INDONESIA
SUPPORTING REPORT (2), Part 13
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR SIMMONGO-2 HPP RPOJECT
Table of Contents
Page
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Geological Survey ................................................................ 1-1
1.3 Methodology of the Geological Survey ........................................................................ 1-2
1.3.1 Geological mapping ........................................................................................ 1-2
1.3.2 Seismic refraction survey................................................................................ 1-2
1.3.3 Laboratory test for construction materials ..................................................... 1-3
1.4 Quantity of the Geological Survey ................................................................................. 1-3
2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ........................................................................ 2-1

2.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Regional Geology ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Regional Tectonic and Seismic Setting ......................................................................... 2-2
2.3.1 Regional tectonic setting ................................................................................. 2-2
2.3.2 Historical and instrumental earthquakes around the project site ................... 2-3
2.4 Estimation of Design Seismic Coefficient .................................................................... 2-5
2.4.1 Seismic design criteria .................................................................................... 2-5
2.4.2 Review of existing similar hydropower projects ............................................ 2-6
2.4.3 Estimation of peak ground acceleration by probabilistic analysis ................. 2-7
2.4.4 Estimation of design seismic coefficient by Indonesia Seismic Map
(ISM)............................................................................................................... 2-9
2.4.5 Recommended design seismic coefficient for the project ............................ 2-11
3 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Site Reconnaissance and Geological Mapping .............................................................. 3-1
3.2.1 Surface geological characteristics ................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2 Slope instability ............................................................................................. 3-4
3.4 Seismic Refraction Survey ............................................................................................ 3-5
3.4 Laboratory Tests for Construction Material .................................................................. 3-5
3.4.1 Sand ................................................................................................................ 3-6
3.4.2 Rock block ..................................................................................................... 3-6
4 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATION OF THE PROJECT

SITE ............................................................................................................................. 4-1
-i-
4.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Intake Weir Site ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2.1 Weir B site....................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.2 Weir C site ...................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.3 Weir A site ...................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3 Intermediate Pond Dike Site ......................................................................................... 4-4
4.3.1 Intermediate pond dike B site ......................................................................... 4-4
4.3.2 Intermediate pond dike C site ........................................................................ 4-4
4.4 Connection and Headrace Tunnels (Plan B) ................................................................ 4-5
4.5 Surge Tank and Penstock Area ...................................................................................... 4-6
4.6 Powerhouse Site ............................................................................................................ 4-6
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Geological Hazards and Recommendations................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Potential geological hazards ........................................................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Recommendations for design and construction of the project ....................... 5-3
5.2.3 Further geological and geotechnical surveys .................................................. 5-4
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Location of seismic refraction survey ............................................................................ 1-4

Figure 2.1 Regional geological map (Note: Symbols are the same as those in Table 2.1
above) ............................................................................................................................. 2-2
Figure 2.2 Location of earthquake epicenters within ±2 geographical degrees from the
Simonggo-2 weir site in the period since 1973 to 2010 (from USGS seismic
database) ........................................................................................................................ 2-4
Figure 2.3 Recent and historical major earthquakes along the SFZ and Subduction Zone
(modified from EERI Special Earthquake, May 2007) .................................................. 2-5
Figure 2.4 Location of existing hydropower projects in Sumatra ................................................... 2-7
Figure 2.5 Cumulative number of the earthquakes versus magnitude for the period of 100
years around the Simonggo2 project site ....................................................................... 2-8
years around the Simonggo2 project site ....................................................................... 2-9
Figure 3.1 Geological map with location of sampling for construction material ............................ 3-9
Figure 3.2 Outcrops of massive sandstone with interbedded slate .................................................. 3-1
Figure 3.3 Highly fractured sandstones due to faulting on road cut slope ...................................... 3-2
Figure 3.4 Outcrops of tuff A, showing massive tuff (A) and columnar joints (B)......................... 3-2
Figure 3.5 Outcrops of tuff B along the Kasturi stream (A) and (B), as well as on road cut
slope (C) and (D)............................................................................................................ 3-3
Figure 3.6 Shear zone within sandstones (A) and a series of waterfalls within the tuff A (B)........ 3-4
Figure 3.7 View of soil collapse and soil erosion in the project site ............................................... 3-5
Figure 3.8 No 6 potential sandstone quarry site .............................................................................. 3-7
Figure 4.1 Geological section of the weir axis alternative B .......................................................... 4-8
-ii-
Figure 4.2 Geological section of the intermediate pond axis alternative B..................................... 4-9
Figure 4.3 Geological section along the connection and headrace tunnel alignment
alternative B ................................................................................................................. 4-10
TABLES
Table 1.1 Items and Methods of Laboratory Tests Performed for Construction Materials ............. 1-3
Table 1.2 Quantity of Geological Survey for the Simonggo-2 Project ........................................... 1-3
Table 2.1 Regional stratigraphy of the project site .......................................................................... 2-2
Table 2.2 Summary of design seismic coefficients of the similar projects in Sumatra ................... 2-6
Table 2.3 Summary of the estimated peak ground accelerations .................................................... 2-9
Table 2.4 Zone and zone coefficient ............................................................................................. 2-10
Table 2.5 Foundation type and correction factor ........................................................................... 2-10
Table 2.6 Return period and basic earthquake acceleration .......................................................... 2-10
Table 2.7 Design seismic acceleration estimated by ISM ............................................................. 2-10
Table 2.8 Summary of obtained design seismic acceleration ........................................................ 2-11
Table 3.1 Geological classification of seismic units ...................................................................... 3-5
Table 3.2 Location of sand source sampling ................................................................................... 3-6
Table 3.3 Summary of laboratory tests for fine aggregate material ................................................ 3-7
Table 3.4 Location of potential rock quarry Sites ........................................................................... 3-7
Table 3.5 Summary of laboratory tests for coarse aggregate material ............................................ 3-7
Table 4.1 Japanese rock mass classification standard ..................................................................... 4-2
Table 4.2 Estimated rock mass parameters at the weir B site ......................................................... 4-2
Table 4.3 Japanese Rock classification and empirically estimated rock parameters....................... 4-3
Table 4.4 Estimated rock mass parameters at the weir C site ......................................................... 4-3
Table 4.5 Estimated rock mass parameters at the intermediate pond dike B site ............................ 4-4
Table 4.6 Estimated rock mass parameters at the intermediate pond dike C site ............................ 4-5
Table 4.7 Estimated rock mass parameters for the waterway route ................................................ 4-5
Table 4.8 Estimated rock mass parameters for the surge tank and penstock area ........................... 4-6
Table 4.9 Estimated rock mass parameters for the powerhouse site ............................................... 4-7
Table 5.1 Recommended quantity of boring investigation for feasibility study ............................. 5-4
APPENDIX
Appendix A List of Earthquakes around the Project Site

Appendix B Interpreted Seismic Velocity Profiles
-iii-
Project for Master Plans Study of Hydropower Development Volume IV, Geology
In Indonesia Geological Survey for Simanggo-2 HPP
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Geological survey was carried out for the Pre-feasibility Study for Simonggo-2 Hydroelectric Power
Project under the Project for the Master Plan Study of the Hydropower Development in Indonesia. The
Simanggo-2 project is a ROR-type scheme and mainly includes intake weir, intermediate pond dike
(regulating pondage), connection tunnel, headrace tunnel, surge tank, penstock, powerhouse, etc.
This supporting report presents the results of the geological and geotechnical investigations and
recommendations for the proposed Simonggo-2 project scheme. The analyses, conclusions and
recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding of the project scheme and on
the geological and geotechnical consideration and evaluation of the existing project site conditions at
the time of the geological survey as well as on some engineering judgments.
In addition, the geological survey was done by PT. CONUUSA ENERGINDO, a subcontractor of the
Project for the Master Plan Study of Hydropower Development in Indonesia.
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The geological survey work for the pre-feasibility study included geological mapping, seismic
refraction survey and some laboratory tests for construction materials. The purposes of the geological
survey were to explore and evaluate the foundation conditions and slope stability around the planned
project structure sites, as shown briefly below:
a) To evaluation the geological and geotechnical suitability of the project sites for the proposed
ROR-type hydropower projects;
b) To provide geotechnical data and parameters necessary for geotechnical analyses and design of
the proposed projects at the pre-feasibility Study stage; and
c) To foresee and provide solution against geological hazards or problems that may arise due to
subsurface conditions.
The scope of the geological survey is enumerated below:
a) Review of previous investigation reports and selected published geologic maps and documents
pertinent to the project site;
b) Seismic refraction survey;
1-1
c) Site reconnaissance and geological mapping;
d) Laboratory tests for construction materials;
f) Geotechnical analyses and evaluations of the data obtained; and
g) Recommendations on mitigation or solutions for the identified geotechnical problems and impact
in relation to design and construction of the proposed project structures.
1.3 METHODOLOGY OF THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
1.3.1 GEOLOGICAL MAPPING

Geological mapping was conducted with a topographical map of 1/10,000 scale to produce detailed
geological maps. The geological mapping was carried out around the project site and its surroundings,
mainly covering intake weir site, intermediate pond dike site, connection and headrace tunnel
alignments, surge tank site, penstock site, powerhouse site, known faults and some identified
lineaments.
In addition to morphological features, distribution of lithological unit and major geological structures,
the surface geological mapping was focused mainly on below:
- Type/distribution/color/condition/composition of surficial deposits;
- Type/color/weathering/alteration/jointing/hardness/mineral composition of rocks;
- Distribution/dip/strike/size/fracturing condition of geological structures (fault, fold, etc.);
- Distribution/condition/indication/size of slope instability; and
- Distribution/condition (location, flow amount, temperature, color, smell, etc.) of seepage and
spring.
1.3.2 SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY

The seismic refraction survey was conducted along the proposed main project structure sites to
determine the nature and thickness of the overburden materials and depths to bedrocks and
groundwater table and to locate the distribution of weak zones (faults and shear zones).
The seismic refraction survey was carried out by using an OYO McSeis 170f type Seismic Instrument
with 24 seismometers (geophones). Hammer was used to generate seismic source. Geophone intervals
along the survey lines were maintained at 10 meters to produce high resolution data on subsurface
layers. The shot was recorded and reviewed at the site. The recorded data were plotted on
time-distance graphs, and then interpreted into profiles of seismic wave velocity layers. The deduced
seismic wave velocity layers were shown in profiles, using the ground surface profile.
1-2
In addition, the seismic wave velocity layers distinguished were geologically and geotechnically
interpreted in correlation with the findings in surface geological mapping.
1.3.3 LABORATORY TEST FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

Five representative river alluvial samples were taken from the present riverbed materials and five rock
block samples from rock outcrops. These samples were tested to evaluate the suitability of the selected
potential construction material source areas in accordance with ASTM as shown in Table 1.1 below.
Table 1.1 Items and Methods of Laboratory Tests Performed for Construction Materials
Test Item Standard or Method Sample No.
1. Sieve analysis of aggregates ASTM C 136 10
2. Specific gravity and water absorption (fine aggregate) ASTM C128 10
3. Specific gravity and water absorption (coarse aggregate) ASTM C127 10
4. Clay lumps and friable particles in aggregate ASTM C 142 10
5. Soundness tests by sodium sulfate (for coarse and fine) ASTM C 88 10
6. Abrasion test of coarse aggregate by Los Angeles machine ASTM C535 10
7. Chemical (alkali) reactivity test ASTM C289 10
1.4 QUANTITY OF THE SURVEY

The geological survey originally proposed for the pre-feasibility study was composed of geological
mapping, seismic refraction survey, core drillings, in-situ and laboratory tests. However, the core
drilling investigation and relevant in-situ tests had not got permission from local governments during
the contracted survey period and were canceled.
The site work of the geological survey started in middle December 2010 and ended in early February
2011. The quantity of the survey is summarized Table 1.2 below while the location of the seismic
refraction survey is shown in Figure 1.1.
Table 1.2 Quantity of Geological Survey for the Simonggo-2 Project

Survey Quantity
Survey Item Unit Remarks
Contracted Performed
1. Geological mapping km2 25.0 25.0
2. Seismic refraction survey m 5,000 7,440 Hammering
3. Core drilling m 250 0 8 boreholes
4. Standard penetration test Nos. 30 0
5. Field permeability test Nos. 50 0
6. Rock core samples Nos. 20 10
7. Laboratory test for foundation rocks Nos. 20 0
8. Laboratory test for construction material Nos. 10 15
1-3
Figure 1.1 Location of Seismic Refraction Survey
1-4
CHAPTER 2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
2.1 GENERAL
The Simanggo-2 project is situated approximately at 2°16’ to 2°20’ of the north latitude and 98°22’ to
98°26’ of the east longitude on the middle course of the Simanggo river around Rarabintang village,
about 40 km west of Doloksanggul City.
Geologically the project site is located approximately 30 km southwest of the Sumatran Fault Zone
(SFZ), also called Great Sumatra Fault System (GSF), one of the most seismically active zones in
Indonesia, it is thus imperative to evaluate the seismic hazard at the project site and to design the
project facilities to withstand the anticipated ground motions.
This chapter presents the pre-feasibility-level regional geological and seismic hazard assessment and
provides the recommended design seismic coefficient for structural design of the project based on
existing and published information as well as brief project site inspection. Some similar projects
within Sumatra were reviewed to supplementarily determine design seismic parameter.
2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Physiographically the project site is located on the Barisan Mountains, which are rugged hills with
summits from 700m to 2,000m above sea level. The Simanggo River runs on the west slope of the
Barisan Mountains and originates from Mt. Simangan Dungi (El. 1,460.0m) and the Mt. Ginjang (El.
1,685.2m). The river first flows to southwest, then joins the Lae Cinendang River and finally
discharges into the Indian Ocean.
The regional stratigraphy of the project area is given in Table 2.1 and the regional geological map is
shown in Figure 2.1. The region is underlain by a basement of Early Permian to Late Carboniferous
metamorphic rocks of sedimentary origin. They consist mainly of quartzose sandstones, slates and
phyllites. From Late Trassic up to Late Permian intrusions locally took place, represented by Sibolga
Complex of granite and diorite. These basements are overlain extensively by Toba Tuffs of
Pleistocene age, consisting mainly of partially welded and unwelded ashflow tuffs and occasionally
reworked pyroclastic deposits.
The most important geological structure in the region is the NW-trending SFZ, which runs
approximately 30 km northeast of the project site. In addition to the SFZ, some small faults, definite
and indefinite, are distributed in the vicinity of the project site (Figure 2.1). They are 1) NW-SE fault
system and 2) NNW-SSE fault system. The NW-SE fault system is probably subsidiary to the SFZ.
2-1
Table 2.1 Regional stratigraphy of the project site

Age Symbol Formation Lithoogy
Pleistocene Qvt Toba Tuffs Rhyodacitic tuffs, welded in part or unwelded
Late Permian to Late Sibolga Granite, diorite and pegmatite
MPisl
Trassic Complex,
Late Carboniferous to Kluet Metaquartzose arenites, metawackes, slates and
Puk phyllites
Early Permian Formation
(Source: Geological Map of the Sidikalang Quadrange, Sumatra, 1:250,000)
Figure 2.1 Regional geological map

(Note: Symbols are the same as those in Table 2.1 above)
2.3 REGIONAL TECTONIC AND SEISMIC SETTING
2.3.1 REGIONAL TECTONIC SETTING

Sumatra Island is the northwest-oriented physiographic expression, situated at the boundary between
the Eurasian and Indian Plates. The subduction zone around the Eurasian and Indian plates, called the
Sunda Trench is formed due to the northeastward movement of the Indian plate relative to the
Eurasian plate. This results in oblique convergence at the Sunda Trench. The SFZ, which is generally
parallel to the trench, results from the partitioning of oblique plate convergence into normal
convergence at the trench and represents right-lateral strike-slip faulting. Most deformations in
Sumatra are concentrated between the Sunda Trench and the SFZ.
2-2
The SFZ, totally 1,900 km long, traverses the hanging wall block of the Sunda subduction zone,
roughly coincident with the active Sumatra volcanic arc. According to Sieh and Natawidjaja (2000),
the SFZ is highly segmented and is divided into 19 major segments on the basis of its geomorphic and
topographical expressions. These fault segments generally range in length from 35 km to 220 km. The
major segments of the SFZ in the proximity of the project site are a) Renun Segment and b) Toru
Segment.
The Renun segment (2.0oN to 3.55oN), approximately 225 km long, is the longest segment of the SFZ.
The segment traverses the western flanks of the 80-km-long Toba caldera underlain by approximately
73,000-year-old Tobu Tuff. The Runun segment generally strikes 40 degrees northwest and dips
vertically. The segment offsets the Toba Tuff approximately 2 km at its most southeastern end and
therefore reportedly has a 27 mm/yr slip rate for the fault. The Renun segment was the source of some
major historical earthquakes.
The Toru segment (1.2oN to 2.0oN), approximately 95 km long, is well delimited by some bends, and
characterized by contractional bend at southeastern end and by dilatational step at the northwestern
end, respectively. The Toru segment strikes 45 degrees northwest and dips vertically. The segment
accommodates significant components of dip slips and reportedly has a approximately 24 mm/yr slip
rate for the fault. The Pahae Jahe earthquake of Ms 6.4 occurred in 1984 at the northern end of the
Toru segment.
2.3.2 HISTORICAL AND INSTRUMENTAL EARTHQUAKES AROUND THE

PROJECT SITE
The project site is a region of high seismicity. Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of recent earthquake
epicenters recorded by seismic instruments for events greater than magnitude 5 from 1973 to present
while Appendix A lists the earthquakes searched through USGS National Earthquake Information
Center.
Earthquakes are distributed mostly between the subduction zone and the FSZ and especially
concentrated along the subduction zone and the FSZ. In addition, the earthquakes around the FSZ
generally have deep focal depths – represented by blue and green dots in Figure 2.2, whereas the
earthquakes around the subduction zone shows shallow focal depths – represented by yellow and
brown dots in Figure 2.2.
Historical earthquakes have caused surface ruptures along the SFZ. Figure 2.3 gives historical major
earthquakes along the SFZ and the subduction zone. The smaller ellipsoid shapes in Figure 2.3
indicate some surface rupture on the some segment of the SFZ, while the larger ellipsoid shapes along
the subduction zone in Figure 2.3 indicate recent and historical megathrust events associated with the
subduction zone and the SFZ. The seismic sources are dominated by the subduction zone and the
strike-slip-type SFZ. The subduction zone and the SFZ are both active and capable to generate
earthquakes up to Mw=9.15 (December 26, 2004) and Mw=7.7 (1892), respectively
2-3
Simonggo-2 weir site
Figure 2.2 Location of earthquake epicenters within ±2 geographical degrees from the
Simonggo-2 weir site in the period since 1973 to 2010 (from USGS seismic database)
Notable historical earthquakes in the vicinity of the project site include:
- Along the Renun segment of the SFZ, magnitude mb = 6.8, 22 February 1916, strong
shaking at Tarutung valley.
- Along the Renun segment of the SFZ, magnitude mb = 6.8, 24 January 1921, strong shaking
similar to the above 1916 earthquake.
- Along the Renun segment, magnitude Ms = 7.2, 1936, strong shaking at Tarutung valley.
- Along the Toru segment of the SFZ, Pahae Jahe earthquake, magnitude Ms = 6.4, 1984.
- Along the Toru segment of the SFZ, magnitude Ms = 6.6, 25 April 1987, approximately 50
km from the Simonggo-2 project site (weir site).
2-4
Simonggo-2 Project Site
Figure 2.3 Recent and historical major earthquakes along the SFZ and Subduction Zone
(modified from EERI Special Earthquake, May 2007)
2.4 ESTIMATION OF DESIGN SEISMIC COEFFICIENT
2.4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

All project facilities should be designed to withstand a level of earthquake-induced ground shaking.
Two levels of design earthquake ground motion are generally considered and defined according to
international guideline (ICOLD, 1989) as follows:
a) Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE): The MCE is defined as the largest reasonably
conceivable earthquake, which is considered likely to occur along a recognized fault or a
2-5
seismological area. The MCE is the upper bond of the expected magnitude on a given
seismic source, in general related to 5,000 years to 10,000 years return periods.
b) Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE): The OBE is the level of ground motion that all structures
must be able to withstand and still remain functional. Any damage due to earthquake is
repairable. The OBE ground motions are expected occur during the lifetime of the structure
and generally correspond to 100 years to 500 years return periods.
The selection of seismic design criteria is generally based on the type of structures under consideration
and the safety and environmental consequences of failure. The ROR-type Simonggo-2 project mainly
include some low risk structures (low impact), such as small and low weir dam, low dike pond and so
on. Accordingly, the OBE is considered as design earthquake in the return period of 100 to 200 years.
2.4.2 REVIEW OF EXISTING SIMILAR HYDROPOWER PROJECTS

A number of hydropower projects, which are mainly ROR type, have been constructed within the
Sumatra, mostly in the proximity of the SFZ. Table 2.2 summarizes design seismic coefficients of
these projects, while Figure 2.4 gives the locations of these project as well as the Simonggo-2 projects.
As seen from Table 2.2, the design seismic coefficient, k-values of these similar projects are mostly in
the range from 0.12 to 0.15.
Table 2.2 Summary of design seismic coefficients of the similar projects in Sumatra
Design Seismic
Project Name Design Facility Remarks
Coefficient
Tes-1 All structures 0.15 ROR. completed in 1991
Besai All structures 0.15 LHD, completed in 2001
Musi Intake dam 0.18 ROR, completed in 2006
Other structures 0.15
Underground structures 0.08
Singkarak Open structures 0.20 LHD, completed in 1998
Underground powerhouse 0.10
Merangin-2 Open structures 0.15 ROR, completed in
Remun All structures 0.12 ROR, completed in 2005
Asnhan No.2 Tanga arch dam 0.24 ROR, completed in
Other open structures 0.12
Asahan No. 3 Intake weir 0.15 ROR, under construction
Open structures (more than 20m high) 0.12
Open structures (less than 20m high) 0.15
Underground structure 0.12
Peusangan All structures 0.15 ROR, under construction
2-6
Peusangan
Lake Toba
Asahan No.2
Asahan No.3
Renun
Simonggo-2
Singkarak
Merangin
Tes-1
Musi Besai
Figure 2.4 Location of existing hydropower projects in Sumatra
2.4.3 ESTIMATE OF PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION BY PROBABILISTIC

ANALYSIS
The probable peak ground acceleration (PGA) in the return period of 100, 200 and 500 years was
probabilistically evaluated on the basis of the instrumental earthquake records from 1973 to 2010. A
total of 236 events of magnitude greater than 5 occurred in the area within a distance of about 200 km
from the weir site.
In addition, these seismic events were recorded with different magnitudes, such as body wave
magnitude mb, surface wave magnitude Ms, and moment magnitude Mw. The saturation levels are for
mb=6.5, for ML=7.5 and for Ms=Mw=8.0 according to Kramer (2007).
The formulas used for the seismic hazard assessment are as follows.
1) Gutenberg-Richter Recurrence Law (magnitude-Recurrence Relationship)
Log(N) = a – bM (1)
Where N is the number of earthquakes per given time interval of magnitude greater than or
equal to M. a and b are Gutenberg-Richter coefficients for that seismic events.
2-7
2) Distance Attenuation Relationship
a = 2000 e 0.8M / (d2 + h2 + 400) Cornell (1968) (2)
a = 5000 e 0.8M / (r + 40)2 Estava (1973) (3)
Where,
M: Magnitude of earthquake in Richter scale

d: Distance from epicenter to the project site (or damsite) in km
h: Depth of focus in km
r: Distance from focus to the project site (or damsite) in km
a: Peak ground acceleration in gal or cm/sec2
e: The exponential constant
Around the project area, the cumulative number of earthquakes for the period of 100 years and of 200
years is shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6, respectively. Accordingly, the peak horizontal ground
acceleration (a) at the damsite for each earthquake was estimated by the formulas of Cornell and
Estava for comparison. In the course of the preliminary seismic hazard assessment, the seismic sources
within 200-km radius around the weir site were assumed to be a seismic zone. The estimated peak
ground accelerations are summarized in Table 2.3 below.
Relationship between Accumulated Frequency and Earthquake Magnitude

for 100 years around the Simonggo2 Project Site
1000
Accumulated Frequency (Nc)
100
10
1
5 6 7 8 9
Earthquake Magnidude (M) Log(Nc)=6.3194 - 0.6646 (M)
years around the Simonggo2 project site
2-8
Relationship between Accumulated Frequency and Earthquake Magnitude

for 200 years around the Simonggo2 Project Site
10000
1000
Accumulated Frequency (Nc)
100
10
1
5 6 7 8 9
Earthquake Magnidude (M) Log(Nc)=6.6204 - 0.6646 (M)

years around the Simonggo2 project site
Table 2.3 Summary of the estimated peak ground accelerations

Perk Horizontal Ground Acceleration (g)
Return period 100 years Return period 200 years Return period 500 years
Cornell Formula 0.10 0.14 0.22
Estava Formula 0.19 0.27 0.44
Accordingly, the probable peak ground acceleration, which was estimated with widely used Cornell
Formula at the weir site, was in a range of 0.10g to 0.14g for the return period of 100 and 200 years.
2.4.4 ESTIMATION OF DESIGN SEISMIC COEFFICIENT BY INDONESIA

SEISMIC MAP (ISM)
The design seismic coefficient for the hydropower project can be generally estimated by local seismic
code, the “PETA ZONA GEMPA INDONESIA, 2005” - Indonesian Earthquake Zone Maps published
by Water Resource Development and Research Center in 2005, as follows:
a d = Z × a c × v and k h = R × a d / g (4)
Where, ad: Design seismic acceleration on the ground surface (gal)
ac: Basic seismic acceleration (gal)
Z: Zone correction coefficient
2-9
v: Correction factor for type of foundation ground
kh: Design horizontal seismic coefficient
R: conversion factor
According to the ISM, the Simonggo-2 project site is located in Zone E, the zone correction
coefficient, Z, was thus taken to be 1.3 (intermediate value) according to Table 2.4. The correction
factor, v was given to be 0.80 for the weir site and 1.10 for the dike pond site (Table 2.5) for the rock
foundation. In addition, the conversion factor, R is generally in the range of 0.40 to 0.60 empirically
and was intermediately set to be 0.50.
The design seismic coefficients (kh) for the return periods of 100 and 200 estimated by the
above-mentioned formula are given in Table 2.7.
Table 2.4 Zone and zone coefficient

Zone Zone Correction Coefficient, Z
A 0.0 – 0.3
B 0.3 – 0.6
C 0.6 – 0.9
D 0.9 – 1.2
E 1.2 – 1.4
F 1.4 – 1.6
Table 2.5 Foundation type and correction factor

Dominant Period Correction
Foundation type
Ts (sec) v
Rock Ts < 0.25 0.80
Diluvium 0.25 < Ts < 0.50 1.00
Alluvium 0.50 < Ts < 0.75 1.10
Soft Alluvium Ts > 0.75 1.20
Table 2.6 Return period and basic earthquake acceleration

Return Period Basic seismic acceleration
T (Year) ac (g)
10 0.127
20 0.155
50 0.196
100 0.227
200 0.255
500 0.289
1,000 0.313
5,000 0.364
10,000 0.385
Table 2.7 Design seismic acceleration estimated by ISM

Design seismic coefficient (g)
Return Period
(year) Weir and pond sites Other stuctures
(rock foundation) (soil foundation)
100 0.12 0.16
200 0.13 0.18
2-10
2.4.5 RECOMMENDED DESIGN SEISMIC COEFFICIENT FOR THE PROJECT

These design seismic coefficients obtained above are summarized in Table 2.8. As seen from Table
2.8, the design seismic coefficients obtained by probabilistic method are consistent with that by
Indonesia seismic map. They both are also parallel to those of existing similar projects within
Sumatra.
Table 2.8 Summary of obtained design seismic acceleration

Approach Design seismic coefficient Remarks
1. Existing similar projects 0.12 – 0.15
2. Probabilistic method 0.10 – 0.14 Cornell formula
0.12 - 0.13 Tuff A and B foundations
3. Indonesia seismic map
0.16 - 0.18 Pyroclastic deposit foundation
In addition, the Simonggo-2 project is located within highly seismically active zone, especially close
to the active fault – the Renun segment of the SFZ with an average slip rate of approximately 27
mm/year.
Accordingly, the design seismic coefficient for the per-feasibility study of the Simonggo-2 project is
recommended conservatively to be 0.15 for design of the weir and intermediate pond dike, and 0.18
for the design of other structures, respectively.
2-11
CHAPTER 3 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
3.1 GENERAL
The geological investigation conducted at the prefeasibility stage for the Simanggo-2 project included
geological mapping, seismic refraction survey, and some laboratory tests for construction materials.
This chapter presents the geological survey results.
3.2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND GEOLOGICAL MAPPING

The surface geologic features through geological mapping are shown in Figure 3.1 and are
summarized in the following section.
3.2.1 SURFACE GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Four geological units were identified and classified, including 1) Sandstone with some interbedded
slate, 2) Tuff A (welded tuff and 3) Tuff B (Partially welded or semi-consolidated tuffs).
(1) Sandstone intercalated some thin slate
The sandstones with some interbedded slates belong to Kluet Formation of the Early Permian to Late
Carboniferous metamorphics and compose the bedrocks of the project area. These rocks are exposed
mainly on the mountain slopes of above elevation 450 meters around the project area. The headrace
tunnel, the surge tank and the penstock would be founded largely on these rocks.
A B Sandstone
Slate
Sandstone
Figure 3.2 Outcrops of massive sandstone with interbedded slate
Theses rocks generally strike N45W and dip 25 to 30 degrees to the north. As shown in Figure 3.2, the
3-1
sandstone at outcrops is in general grayish white, massive, slightly jointed and weathered. They can
just be broken by many blows of geological hammer at outcrops and therefore was considered to be
sound and to have an estimated uniaxial compressive strength of more than 50 MP. These rocks were
occasionally observed to be moderately to highly fractured or jointed especially associated with local
faulting (Figure 3.3).
A B
Figure 3.3 Highly fractured sandstones due to faulting on road cut slope
(2) Tuff A (welded tuff)
The welded tuff is of limited occurrence in the project area and is distributed solely along the
Simanggo River. The proposed weirs and powerhouse would be founded on the welded tuff.
The tuff A, presumably Quaternary age, is generally light gray, massive and slightly jointed mainly
with columnar joints (Figure 3.4). The joints within the tuffs were presumably due chiefly to cooling
and locally to faulting. The rocks are very hard and strong at outcrops and require more than one blow
of geological hammer to fracture it even at outcrops.
Accordingly the rocks were roughly estimated to have uniaxial compressive strength of more than 50
MP at fresh condition and of more than 20 MP at outcrops associated with slightly to moderately
weathering.
A B
Figure 3.4 Outcrops of tuff A, showing massive tuff (A) and columnar joints (B)
3-2
(3) Tuff B (Partially welded tuffs)
The tuff B is extensively distributed on the valleys and lower slopes of the project area. The
intermediate pond dikes, the weir abutments, the intakes and the connection tunnel between the weir
and the immediate pond would rest on the tuffs. These tuffs consist mostly of variably semi-welded to
unwelded pyroclastic-flow and fallout tephra deposits with some reworked materials. These tuffs, in
general gray, appear variable in terms of hardness, are mostly hard and stand vertically at their natural
conditions (Figure 3.5), and locally loose and susceptible to erosion and collapse. These tuffs consist
mainly of gravel and sand with some fine ash deposits, and can be classified as Gravelly SAND (SP)
or Silty SAND (SM) by the visual-manual procedure of ASTM.
A B
C D
Figure 3.5 Outcrops of tuff B along the Kasturi stream (A) and (B), as well as on road cut
slope (C) and (D)
In addition, surficial deposits locally overlie the tuffs, especially on the lower slopes of the project area.
These surficial deposits consist mainly of valley-fill alluvium, hillslope colluvium and reworked
pyroclastic materials. They are loose and approximately 1 to 5 m thick.
(4) Local faults
Three local faults were found along the valleys through topographical interpretation and geological
mapping. They are hereinafter called Simanggo fault sub-parallel to the Simanggo River, Kasturi fault
along the Kasturi river, and Sitapung fault along the Sitapung river, respectively.
3-3
The Kasturi fault shows a vertically shear zone within the Early Permian to Late Carboniferous
sandstone (Figure 3.6A) and a series of waterfalls within the Quaternary tuff A (Figure 3.6B). This
may indicate the fault is a strike slip faulting.
A B
Figure 3.6 Shear zone within sandstones (A) and a series of waterfalls within the tuff A (B)
In addition, the Kasturi river covered by Quaternary Tuff B is characterized by straight course and
deep V-shaped valley, this may indicates that the river valley is formed by faulting movement after
Quaternary. The river morphology and the surface trace of the Kasturi fault present in Quaternary Tuff
A within the Simanggo River indicate that the fault may be “potentially active” in geological terms, i.e.
movement since Quaternary.
For the fault to be considered a significant earthquake hazard that would influence the design of the
dam, it is necessary to determine whether movement has occurred on the fault within the last 10,000 to
20,000 years. At the site reconnaissance, no evidences of faulting during Holocene (the last 10,000
years) time or the surface traces within recent deposits were found with respect to these local faults.
Accordingly these faults seemed to inconclusively be active.
3.2.2 SLOPE INSTABILITY

Small-scale soil collapses and surface erosions were observed mainly within the tuff B along the river
rim slopes and road cut slopes, as shown in Figure 3.7. These collapses are shallow and small in size,
generally 2 to 5 m deep, 20 to 50 m wide and 20 to 50 m long.
Moreover, although no large-scale soil collapse or landslide was identified either through
topographical interpretation or site reconnaissance; because of unfavorable geological features, stable
conditions of the tuff slopes are likely to be changed by slope alterations due to cut or fill, saturation of
slope materials from impounded water.
Accordingly some slope instability will be expected in the development of the project, such as
foundation excavation and pond impoundment.
3-4
A B
Figure 3.7 View of soil collapse and soil erosion in the project site
3.3 SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY

The seismic refraction survey was performed to evaluate the subsurface conditions of the project
facilities; including depth to and strength of the bedrocks, depth to groundwater and subsurface
stratigraphy. Because of no borehole information available, the basic geological units were identified
based on the interpreted seismic velocity and the site-specific information through geological
mapping.
The locations of the seismic survey lines are shown in Figure 1.1. The interpreted seismic profiles are
given in Appendix B while the inferred geological classification is summarized in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1 Geological classification of seismic units

Seismic velocity Layer thickness
Interpreted geological classification
(km/sec) (m)
Weir site (Plan B), SL-1, SL-2 and SL-3
1. <800 Surficial deposits (talus, alluvial, etc.) 1.0 – 5.0
2. 1,000 – 1,800 Tuff B (partially welded tuff) 15 – 30
3. 1,800 – 2,000 Tuff A (welded tuff) 15 – 30
4. 2,000 – 3,000 Slightly weathered sandstone/slate > 50
Connection tunnel alignment (Plan B), SL-4
Intermediate pond dike site (Plan B), SL-5, SL-6, SL-7 and SL-8
Connection tunnel alignment (Plan C), SL-9
Intermediate pond dike site (Plan C), SL-10
Headrace tunnel inlet (Plan C), SL-11 and SL-12
3-5

Powerhouse site (Plan A/B/C), SL-13 and SL-14
3. 1,800 – 2,000 Tuff A (welded tuff) 15 – 30
4. 2,000 -3,000 Slightly weathered sandstone/slate > 50
The interpreted seismic data indicate four velocity layers underlie the project site. The first layer with
velocity of less than 800 m/sec is consistent with surficial loose deposits such as talus, colluvial, and
riverbed material. The secondary layer with velocity varying from 1,000 m/sec to 1,800 m/sec is the
interpreted tuff B. The third layer has a fairly narrow range of low seismic velocity (1,800 to 2,000
m/sec). The velocity values correlate to slightly weathered, jointed tuff A (welded tuff) observed at
outcrops along the Simanggo river. Similarly the fourth layer is consistent with slightly weathered and
jointed sandstone/slate observed at rock outcrops along the proposed penstock route.
3.4 LABORATORY TESTS FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

Laboratory tests as well as field reconnaissance (geological mapping) were conducted to examine the
possible source, quantity and quality of construction materials.
3.4.1 SAND
Some sand was needed for the fine aggregates of concrete, grout and mortar. Riverbed deposits on the
Simanggo River, around the powerhouse site (AS-1 through AS-5) and about 4 km upstream from the
Parlilitan village (AS-8), consisted mainly of fine to coars-grained sand (well graded SAND) and was
small in quantity.
On the other hand, riverbed deposits around the Beringin village, about 12 km far from the Parlilitan
village (AS-6) and along the Riman River around Sihombu Village, about 10 km far from the
powerhouse area (AS-7), were composed mainly of medium to coarse sands and were large in quantity.
Table 3.3 summarizes laboratory test results of the samples. Accordingly, the riverbed sand tested are
recommendable as fine concrete aggregates.
Table 3.2 Location of sand source sampling

Sample No. Coordinate Location
AS-1 2o16’55.4” 98o23’37.5”
o
AS-2 2 16’59.5” 98o23’07.0”
o
AS-3 2 16’58.4” 98o22’57.5” Close to the powerhouse area along the Simango river
o
AS-4 2 16’59.8” 98o22’52.0”
o
AS-5 2 16’42.3” 98o23’22.7”
Around the Beringin village, 12 km far from Parlilitan
AS-6 2o17’28.6” 98o31’08.0”
village toward Doloksanggul
Along the Riman River around Sihombu Village, about 10
AS-7 2o14’25.7” 98o27’39.7”
km far from the powerhouse area toward Pakat
Along the Simanggo River around the Sion Timur
AS-8 2o20’57.5” 98o28’06.8”
Village, about 4 km far from Parlilitan village
3-6
Table 3.3 Summary of laboratory tests for fine aggregate material

Test Criterion AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8
1. Specific gravity >2.5% 2.68 2.66 2.68 2.68 2.67 2.67 2.68 2.67
2. Absorption <3.0% 3.58 4.14 4.49 4.84 6.34 7.97 9.79 5.15
3. Soundness
Na2SO4 12.0% 21.48 4.03 6.83 7.30 4.90 - - -
Mg2SO4 15.0%
4. Clay lump <1.0% 0.85 0.65 0.80 1.05 0.45 1.85 1.45 1.25
5. Silt content <3.0% 0.22 0.64 1.48 0.74 0.16 0.36 0.24 0.20
6. Soft particle <1.0%
3.4.2 ROCK BLOCK

Rock blocks were required for the coarse aggregates of concrete, gabion, stone riprap, masonry, etc.
Quartzose sandstone quarry sites, RBS-1 through RBS-7 as shown in Table 3.4, were inspected at the
present geological investigation. Table 3.5 outlines the laboratory test results of rock quarry sources.
Table 3.4 Location of potential rock quarry Sites

Sample No. Coordinate Location
RBS-1 2o17’15.4” 98o23’29.4” Close to the powerhouse site
o
RBS-2 2 17’27.1” 98o23’30.6” Around the Laumaga Village
o
RBS-3 2 17’15.1” 98o23’07.4” Around the Laumaga Village
o
RBS-4 2 19’21.7” 98o25’41.4” Around Sion Selatan, 1km eastern of intake site
o
RBS-5 2 19’55.3” 98o23’44.6” Around Kasturi Village, 3km NW of pond dike site
o
RBS-6 2 19’27.5” 98o25’37.4” Around Sion Selatan, 1km eastern of intake site
o
RBS-7 2 19’56.0” 98o23’46.0” Around Kasturi Village, 3km NW of pond dike site
A B
Figure 3.8 No 6 potential sandstone quarry site
Table 3.5 Summary of laboratory tests for coarse aggregate material

Test Criterion RBS-1 RBS-2 RBS-3 RBS-4 RBS-5 RBS-6 RBS-7
1. Specific gravity >2.5% 2.73 2.59 2.59 2.57 2.56 2.70 2.77
2. Absorption <3.0% 3.03 1.17 1.05 2.98 2.28 1.65 3.31
3. Soundness
Na2SO4 12.0% 1.09 0.92 0.36 3.01 2.54 - -
Mg2SO4 15.0%
4. Abrasion <40.0% 28 24.4 30.7 68.5 54.1 20.3 24.7
5. UCS <500kg/cm2 606 579 679 334 434 195 633
Notes: 1) UCS = Unconfined compressive strength, 2) 1 kgf/cm2 = 98.1kN/m2 (kPa).
3-7
As stated in Table 3.5 above, several sandstone quarry sites within and around the project site were
available in quality and quantity and therefore were recommended to be used.
3-8
Figure 3.1 Geological map with location of sampling for construction material
3-9
CHAPTER 4 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONDITION

OF THE PROJECT SITE
4.1 GENERAL
At the prefeasibility study stage, three alternative layouts, Plan A, Plan B and Plan C were proposed
for comparison assessment purposes. Plan A, the Simanggo-2 project Site (1-1901-41) originally
proposed in HPPS2 in 1989, consisted of an intake weir, headrace tunnel, surge tank, penstock and a
surface power station. In order to effectively use the potential for hydropower generation and to
provide more peak load hydropower generation, Plan B and Plan C were proposed in the present study.
The general layouts of Plan B and Plan C were almost the same and both included an intake weir,
intermediate pond, connection and headrace tunnels, surge tank, penstock and a surface power station.
The following presents the preliminary geological conditions for the various project facilities
including weir, intermediate pond dike, connection tunnel, headrace tunnel, surge tank, penstock and
surface powerhouse.
4.2 INTAKE WEIR SITE
4.2.1 WEIR SITE B

The weir site B for Plan B is located at the beginning of the northsouth course of the Simanggo River
immediately downstream of great river bend. The width of the Simanggo River at the weir site is about
50 m. The right and left abutment slopes have an average slope of 25 degrees at the lower part and of
30 degrees at the upper part.
Figure 4.1 shows geological conditions of the weir site B. The right and left abutment slopes are
underlain by partially welded tuff (Tuff B) which is covered by overburden of about 1 to 5 m thick.
The Simanngo valley is covered by welded tuff (Tuff A).
The tuff A at outcrops is generally massive, slightly jointed and weathered, and locally moderately
fractured by local faults or shear zones. The tuffs at outcrops can be classified as CM to CH class rock
mass based on Japanese Rock Classification Standard (Table 4.1). On the other hand, the tuff B at the
right and left abutment slopes is soft rocks and can be classified as D to CL class rock mass according
to Japanese Rock Classification Standard.
On the basis of the above preliminary geological assessment, the proposed weir site was considered to
4-1
be geologically suitable for the construction of the proposed concrete weir. The overburden overlying
the tuff B on the right/left abutment slopes generally ranges in thickness from 1.0 to 5.0 meters and
have low strength and high permeability. These deposits should be removed from the weir foundation.
Accordingly, the excavation depth of the weir foundation will be 1.0 to 5.0 meters in depth from the
ground surface at both abutments and zone meters from the riverbed at the river valley up to the top
surface of D - CL class rock mass within the tuff B and to the top surface of CM – CH class rock mass
within the tuff A, respectively. Locally highly fractured tuff A should also be removed.
Table 4.1 Japanese rock mass classification standard

Rock
Description
Class
The rock mass is very fresh, and the rock forming minerals and grains undergo neither
A weathering nor alteration. Joints are extremely tight and their surfaces have no visible
sign of weathering. Sound by hammer blow is clear.
The rock mass is fresh and solid. There is no open joint and crack. But rock forming
B minerals and grains undergo a little weathering and alteration partly. Sound by hammer
blow is clear.
The rock mass is slightly weathered and relatively solid. The rock forming minerals and
grains undergo weathering except for quartz. The rock is contaminated by limonite, etc.
CH The cohesion of Joints and cracks is slightly decreased and rock blocks are separated by
firm hammer blow along joints. Clay minerals remain on the separation surface. Sound
hammer blow is a little dim.
The rock mass is moderately weathered and somewhat softened by weathering, except
for quartz. The cohesion of Joints and cracks is somewhat decreased and rock blocks are
CM
separated by ordinary hammer blow along the joints. Clay materials remain on the
separation surface. Sound by hammer blow is somewhat dim.
The rock mass is highly weathered and soft. The rock forming minerals and grains are
softened by weathering. The cohesion of Joints and cracks is decreased and rock blocks
CL
are separated by soft hammer blow along the joints. Clay materials remain on the
separation surface. Sound by hammer blow is dim.
The rock mass is completely weathered and decomposed, and remarkably soft. The rock
forming minerals and grains are softened by weathering. The cohesion of joints and
D
cracks is almost absent. The rock mass collapses by light hammer blow. Clay materials
remain on the separation surface. Sound by hammer blow is remarkably dim.
Note: Japanese Standard by Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI).
In addition, because no in-situ and laboratory test results are available, the rock mass parameters, as
shown in Table 4.2 for design were roughly determined from the conventionally adopted empirical
table of design parameters (Table 4.3).
Table 4.2 Estimated rock mass parameters at the weir site B

Item River valley Left/Right abutment
Geological unit Welded tuff (Tuff A) Partially welded tuff (Tuff B)
Rock classification (Japanese standard) CM – CH class rocks D – CL class rocks
Unit weight (ton/m3) 2.0 1.8
Unconfined compressive strength (MPa) 20 10
Internal friction anger (degree) 35° 25°
Cohesion (kPa) 3,000 500
Deformation Modulus (MPa) 2,000 500
4-2
Table 4.3 Japanese rock classification and empirically estimated rock parameters
Rock qu Es Ed c φ V
class (kgf/cm2) (kgf/cm2) (kgf/cm2) (kgf/cm2) (degree) (km/sec)
A-B Over 800 Over 80,000 Over 50,000 Over 40 55 – 65 Over 3.7
CH 800 - 400 80,000 - 40,000 50,000 - 20,000 40 - 20 40 – 55 3.0 – 3.7
CM 400 - 200 40,000 - 15,000 20,000 - 5,000 20 - 10 30 – 40 1.5 – 3.0
D-CL Below 200 Below 15,000 Below 5,000 Below 10 15 - 30 Below 1.7
Source: Rock classification and its application, K. Yoshinaka, et al., Japanese Society of Civil
Engineering, 1989.
Note: qu = Unconfined compressive strength, Es = Modulus of elasticity, Ed = Modulus of
deformation, c = Cohesion, φ= Internal friction angle, V= Velocity of elastic wave, 1 kgf/cm2
= 100 kPa = 0.1 MPa.
4.2.2 WEIR SITE C

The weir site C for Plan C is located 1,500 m downstream of the weir site B. The width of the
Simanggo River at the weir site is about 50 m. The right abutment slope has an average slope of 25
degrees and the left abutment slope has an average slope of 30 degrees. A series of waterfalls are
present immediately downstream of the weir site. Consequently the proposed weir site was considered
to be topographically suitable for the development of the project.
On the other hand, the geological condition of the weir site C is basically the same as that at the weir
site B. Similarly, the rock mass parameters of the weir site C were empirically determined and given
in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Estimated rock mass parameters at the weir site C

Item River valley Left/Right abutment
Geological unit Welded tuff (Tuff A) Partially welded tuff (Tuff B)
Rock classification (Japanese standard) CM – CH class rocks D – CL class rocks
Unit weight (ton/m3) 2.0 1.8
Unconfined compressive strength (MPa) 20 10
Internal friction anger (degree) 35° 25°
Cohesion (kPa) 3,000 500
Deformation Modulus (MPa) 2,000 500
4.2.3 WEIR SITE A

The weir site A for Plan A is located further 500 m downstream of the weir site C. The geological and
topographical conditions of the site are generally similar to those at the weir sites B and C. The rock
mass parameters for the prefeasibility level design will refer to the above-mentioned.
4-3
4.3 INTERMEDIATE POND DIKE SITE
4.3.1 INTERMEDIATE POND DIKE SITE B

The intermediate pond dike site B for Plan B is located at the middle course of the Kasturi river, a
tributary of the Simanggo River. Around the pond dike site the Kasturi river shows deep, narrow
V-shaped valley and the valley bottom is about 10 m wide. The right and left abutment slopes have an
average slope of 35 to 40 degrees and 30 to 35 degrees, respectively.
The geology of the pond dike site, as shown in Figure 4.2, consists mainly of tuff B which is covered
by overburden deposits of 1 to 3 m in thickness. Generally the tuff B is partially welded or
semi-consolidated pyroclastic deposits. As indicated above, the tuff B can classified as D to CL class
rock. For the foundation of the pond dike embankment it is desirable to found on the tuff B of
relatively homogeneous quality in order to avoid irregular settlement of the dike embankment.
According to the conventionally adopted empirical table of design parameters, as shown in Table 4.3
above, the rock mass parameters for the design of the proposed pond dike embankment were roughly
determined and summarized in Table 4.5 below.
Table 4.5 Estimated rock mass parameters at the intermediate pond dike site B
Item River valley and left/right abutment Remarks
Geological unit Partially welded tuff (Tuff B)
Rock classification (Japanese standard) D – CL class rocks
3
Unit weight (ton/m ) 1.8
Unconfined compressive strength (MPa) 10
Internal friction anger (degree) 25°
Cohesion (kPa) 500
Deformation Modulus (MPa) 500
In addition, although no major faults are observed to be located within the intermediate pond dike site,
as mentioned above, the Kasturi fault – a local, old and inactive small fault is expected to traverse the
pond dike site. The fault and associated shear zone would largely contribute to potential for
liquefaction of foundation soil – partially welded tuff B. Accordingly the expected geological risk with
the tuff B foundation in the intermediate pond dike site is plastic deformation, differential settlement,
low strength value and bearing strength.
4.3.2 INTERMEDIATE POND DIKE SITE C

The intermediate pond dike site C for Plan C is located about 1,500 m downstream of the intermediate
pond dike site B at the lower course of the Kasturi river. Topographically similar to the pond dike site
B, the pond dike site C shows deep, narrow V-shaped valley with a valley width of about 10 m. The
right and left abutment slopes have an average slope of 40 degrees and 50 degrees, respectively.
The geological condition of the pond dike site C is the same as that at the pond dike site B. The pond
4-4
dike embankment is expected to rest on the tuff B and the rock mass parameters of the pond dike site
C were empirically determined and given in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Estimated rock mass parameters at the intermediate pond dike site C
Item River valley and left/right abutment Remarks
Geological unit Partially welded tuff (Tuff B)
Rock classification (Japanese standard) D – CL class rocks
Unit weight (ton/m3) 1.8
Cohesion (kPa) 500
Deformation Modulus (MPa) 500
4.4 CONNECTION AND HEADRACE TUNNELS (PLAN B)

It is planned to construct the 5,550 m long waterway alignment, including 1,570 m long connection
tunnel between the intake weir and intermediate pond, and 3,980 m long headrace tunnel between the
intermediate pond and surge tank along the right side of the Simanggo River that flows toward the
south and then the west. There are high mountains along the tunnel route, some unnamed peaks, which
rise up to 982 m, 750 m and 670 m in elevation, respectively.
No detailed geological survey was done for the tunnel route. On the basis of the geological mapping
and limited seismic refraction survey, the geology of the tunnel route is composed mainly of quartzose
sandstone with some interbedded slate between the proposed surge tank and intermediate pond, and
the tuff B between the proposed intermediate pond and weir, as shown in Figure 4.3.
The rock mass quality along the tunnel is expected to be classified in Japanese Standard as follows:
Rock type Rock class Length (m) Percentage (%) Remarks

CM to B 3,490 62% Total length:5,550m
Sandstone
D to CL 1,650 30%
Tuff A CM to CH 210 4%
Tuff B D to CL 200 4%
above, the rock mass parameters for the design of the proposed tunnels were roughly determined and
summarized in Table 4.7 below.
Table 4.7 Estimated rock mass parameters for the waterway route
Item Headrace tunnel Connection tunnel
Geological unit Sandstone interbedded with slate Tuff B
Rock classification (Japanese standard) CM to B D to CL D to CL
Unit weight (ton/m3) 2.2 2.0 1.8
Unconfined compressive strength (MPa) 40 10 10
Internal friction anger (degree) 45° 25° 25°
Cohesion (kPa) 3,000 500 500
Deformation Modulus (MPa) 5,000 500 500
4-5
The D to CL class sandstone with some interbedded slate would be encountered mainly over some
meters at the inlet area associated highly weathered and jointed zone. The D to CL class zones
including tuff B will require more support and however are not expected to cause any major geological
problems during the tunnel excavation.
4.5 SURGE TANK AND PENSTOCK AREA

The surge tank and penstock areas are located at the right side of the Simanggo River valley near the
Rambung village. Here the foundation conditions are the major topic of the geological investigation.
The surge tank is located in about 500 m away from the right bank slope of the Simanggo River. The
steep slope of the ridge trending east-west in direction will be excavated for surge tank construction
work. The surge tank will be excavated at an elevation of 540 m and is expected to be founded on
massive, slightly weathered and less jointed quartzose sandstone. The foundation rocks of the surge
tank are expected to be classified as CM to B class rock mass in Japanese Rock Classification
Standard.
Similarly, the penstock foundation will be located on the predominant sandstone bedrocks which can
be classified as CM to B class rock mass in Japanese Rock Classification Standard.
above, the rock mass parameters for the design of the proposed tunnels were roughly determined and
summarized in Table 4.8 below.
Table 4.8 Estimated rock mass parameters for the surge tank and penstock area
Item Surge tank/Penstock Remarks
Geological unit Sandstone
Rock classification (Japanese standard) CM to B
3
Unit weight (ton/m ) 2.2
Cohesion (kPa) 3,000
Deformation Modulus (MPa) 5,000
4.6 POWERHOUS SITE

The surface powerhouse is planned at the right bank of the Simanggo River near the Rambung village.
Along the rive bank and riverbed the tuff A of good quality is exposed. At the toe and lower part of the
slope are some colluvial deposits. The thickness of the overburden is 1 to 5 m. The powerhouse is
proposed to be founded on the tuff A.
The exposed tuff A, as observed around the intake weir sites, is generally massive, slightly jointed and
weathered, and can be classified as CM to CH class rock mass based on Japanese Rock Classification
4-6
Standard. Furthermore, the overburden is thin. Accordingly, no foundation problems are expected for
the construction of the proposed surface powerhouse at the planned powerhouse site.
Similarly, the rock mass quality and design parameters of the powerhouse were empirically
determined and given in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9 Estimated rock mass parameters for the powerhouse site
Item Powerhouse site Remarks
Geological unit Tuff A
Rock classification (Japanese standard) CM – CH class rocks
Unit weight (ton/m3) 2.0
Cohesion (kPa) 3,000
Deformation Modulus (MPa) 2,000
4-7
Figure 4.1 Geological Section of the Weir Axis Alternative B
4-8
Figure 4.2 Geological Section of the Intermediate Pond Axis Alternative B
4-9
Figure 4.3 Geological Section along the Connection and Headrace Tunnel Alignment Alternative B
4-10
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary geological and geotechnical investigations conducted at the pre-feasibility study stage
mainly included site reconnaissance, geological mapping, seismic refraction survey and laboratory
tests of potential construction materials. On the basis of the preliminary geological and geotechnical
investigations results the topographical and geological conditions of the project site were considered
suitable for the development of the project.
The mainly investigation results are summarized as follows:
- The geology of the project site consists mainly of Early Permian to Late Carboniferous
metamorphic sandstone/slate and Quaternary tuff B (partially welded tuff) with a limited
occurrence of Quaternary tuff A (welded tuff). Except for several local and inactive faults, no
major faults were observed within the project site.
- The proposed weirs were expected to be founded on the tuff A for the river valley and tuff B for
abutments, the intermediate pond dikes on the tuff B, the connection tunnel on the tuff B, the
headrace tunnel on the sandstone, the surge tank and penstock on the sandstone, and the
powerhouse on the tuff A. These foundation rocks were not expected to cause any major
geological problems associated with the construction of the proposed project structures.
- The geological conditions at alternative Plan B and Plan C are similar considering rock mass
quality and geological profiles.
- Slope instability associated with the development of the project would occur especially within
the tuff B but will be manageable technically and economically because of their small size.
- Some sandstone quarry sites within the project site are appropriate potential construction
material sources in quality and quantity, and no noticeable problems were found out by
laboratory test. On the other hand, alluvial sands alone the Simanggo River and Riman River in
the proximity of the project site are available in quality but small in quantity.
- The project site is located within a region of high seismic activity and the project structures
should thus be designed to withstand the expected level of earthquake-induced ground shaking.
The design seismic coefficient for the per-feasibility study of the Simonggo-2 project is
recommended conservatively to be 0.15 for the design of the weir and intermediate pond dike,
and 0.18 for the design of other structures, respectively.
5-1
5.2 GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.2.1 POTENTIAL GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS

As stated before the geological and geotechnical conditions of the project site are suitable for the
development of the project. However some potential geological hazards are expected to be
encountered during the construction and subsequent operation of the project, as listed below:
- Intermediate pond dike site – Foundation conditions.
- Reservoir rim slope stability behind the intermediate pond - Earthquake-induced landslides of
reservoir slopes.
- Activity of the Kasturi fault
(1) Intermediate Pond Dike Foundation Conditions
The intermediate pond dike is planned to rest on the tuff B - partially welded tuff. The tuff B is
expected to have a low strength and small bearing capacity. In addition, the Kasturi fault will traverse
the intermediate pond dike foundation. The fault and associated shear zone would largely contribute to
potential for liquefaction of the foundation tuff B and lead to decreased strength and bearing capacity
of the foundation tuff B.
Accordingly the expected geological hazard with the foundation tuff B in the intermediate pond dike
site is plastic deformation, differential settlement, low strength value and bearing strength. Additional
boring investigations will be required to explore and evaluate foundation rock mass conditions.
(2) Reservoir Rim Slope Stability
The reservoir rim slopes behind the intermediate pond are extensively covered by the tuff B. The tuff
B, semi-consolidated to non-consolidated pyroclastic deposits, consists mainly of coarse-grained sand
and fine-grained volcanical ash. These volcanical deposits are generally hard and stable at their natural
condition but seem to be susceptible to erosion by action of running water; deep gulley erosion and
associated collapse are common in the volcanical deposits.
These have a low potential for liquefaction during strong earthquake shaking, especially after
impoundment. Once liquefied, large-scale landslides due to liquefaction would occur along the rim
slopes of the intermediate pond. These landslides would lead to great reduction of the intermediate
pond storage capacity by sediment accumulation and even cause dike embankment collapse at worst
case.
(3) Activity of the Kasturi fault
As previously mentioned, the Kasturi fault traverses the planned intermediate pond site. Further,
topographical interpretation and brief site reconnaissance indicate a probability of Quaternary fault.
Having moved within the last 10,000 years (since Holocene), the fault would be most susceptible to
5-2
renewed activity. If so, the fault would pose a surface-rupture hazard to the planned intermediate pond
dike. Accordingly the seismic hazard of the fault has to be explored and evaluated in detail in terms of
surface rupturing and activity.
5.2.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE

PROJECT
(1) Rock Mass Parameters
Because no laboratory and in-situ test data for foundation rocks are obtained, it is thus difficult to
evaluate the rock mass conditions and mechanical properties of the foundation rocks. For the purpose
of preliminary design of the project structures, it is recommended to use the roughly estimated rock
mass parameters according to the conventionally adopted empirical table of design parameters, as
given in Chapter 4, Geological and Geotechnical Conditions of the Project Site.
(2) Cut Slope Stability
The main cut slopes in the project site will be excavated at the following locations:
- In the area of intake weir abutments
- In the area of intermediate pond dike
- In the areas of the inlet and outlet of the connection tunnel
- In the areas of the intake of the headrace tunnel
- In the area of the surge tank
- In the area of the powerhouse
These cut areas or slopes will be associated with the following geological units:
- Tuff B – Partially welded soft rock
- Tuff A – Welded, slightly jointed and weathered soft rock
- Sandstone interbedded with slate – Slightly jointed and weathered, massive, hard rock
Because no geotechnical data are available for determining the strength properties of these rocks to
give a reasonable factor of safety for the design of the cut slopes, empirical geometric standards for cut
slopes are referred to determine the stable cut slopes.
The slope inclinations adopted for the various geological units are as follows:
- Tuff B: 1:0.8 (Vertical to Horizontal)
- Tuff A: 1:0.5 (Vertical to Horizontal)
- Sandstone/Slate: 1:0.3 (Vertical to Horizontal)
5-3
In addition, for design of cut slopes, especially within the tuff B, measures are taken in order to drain
the slopes and take care of the surface water. Diverting water away from the slope by introducing
ditches is often recommendable.
5.2.3 FURTHER GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL SURVEYS

Further geological and geotechnical investigation works for next stage – Feasibility Study are
suggested to be conducted in order to further evaluate the foundation conditions and slope stability
along and around the proposed project structure areas, as shown briefly below.
1) To explore and evaluate subsurface conditions of the project sites for the development of the
ROR-type hydropower projects.
2) To provide geotechnical data and parameters necessary for geotechnical analyses and design of the
proposed projects in the Feasibility Study.
3) To confirm and provide solution against geological hazards or problems that may arise due to
subsurface conditions.
The geological and geotechnical investigation works is suggested to consist main of 1) Detailed
geological mapping around the main project structure sites, 2) Boring investigation and related in-situ
tests, and 3) Laboratory test for foundation rocks. Table 5.1 gives the recommended boring
investigations and relevant in-situ tests.
Table 5.1 Recommended quantity of boring investigation for feasibility study

Borehole Drilling depth Lugeon test SPT test Rock core
Area/Site
No. (m) (section) (time) sample
BW-1 20 4 10 3
Weir BW-2 20 4 0 3
BW-3 20 4 10 3
BD-1 30 6 15 4
Intermediate
BD-2 20 4 10 3
pond dike
BD-3 30 6 15 4
Connection BC-1 30 6 15 4
tunnel alignment BC-2 40 8 20 5
Headrace tunnel BH-1 30 6 0 4
alignment BH-2 50 10 0 5
Surge tank BS-1 30 6 5 4
Penstock and BP-1 60 12 5 5
powerhouse BP-2 20 4 5 3
Total 13 bores 400 80 110 50
5-4
Appendix A
List of Earthquakes around the Project Site

Appendix A List of Earthquakes around the Simanggo-2 Project
Latitude Longitude Focus Depth Magnitude Distance

No. Year
N E (Km) (Km)
1 1973 1.91 99.15 132 5.0 mb 93
2 1974 2.55 98.97 34 5.6 mb 66
3 1974 1.27 97.67 33 5.9 mb 144
4 1974 1.29 98.56 61 5.7 mb 116
5 1974 2.83 98.97 33 5.0 mb 83
6 1974 1.92 98.02 64 5.0 mb 63
7 1976 3.17 99.01 180 5.6 mb 114
8 1976 1.68 97.28 55 5.0 mb 145
9 1976 2.72 99.22 175 5.1 mb 99
10 1977 1.58 99.86 178 5.6 mb 180
11 1977 0.67 98.68 40 5.5 mb 186
12 1977 1.97 98.06 70 5.0 mb 56
13 1978 2.02 97.20 57 5.0 mb 140
14 1979 0.69 98.91 72 5.3 mb 190
15 1980 1.71 99.62 186 5.0 mb 150
16 1980 2.63 99.13 163 5.0 mb 86
17 1981 2.06 98.07 69 5.7 mb 49
18 1982 3.72 97.42 124 5.0 mb 190
19 1982 2.47 97.02 39 5.3 mb 156
20 1982 2.86 97.49 58 5.0 mb 119
21 1983 1.72 98.08 81 5.2 mb 77
22 1984 3.57 97.14 70 5.8 mb 198
23 1984 0.96 98.91 109 5.0 mb 161
24 1984 1.76 99.07 32 5.2 Ms 96
25 1984 1.90 99.18 40 5.4 mb 97
26 1984 1.94 98.97 150 5.0 mb 75
27 1984 0.85 97.53 42 5.0 mb 191
28 1985 1.63 98.78 105 5.3 mb 87
29 1985 1.36 98.42 76 5.4 mb 107
30 1986 1.14 98.51 92 5.1 mb 132
31 1986 2.04 98.00 66 5.4 mb 56
32 1986 1.62 98.97 126 5.2 mb 99
33 1987 2.24 98.87 11 6.6 Ms 51
34 1987 2.05 99.09 19 5.6 mb 80
35 1987 3.02 97.12 73 5.1 mb 164
36 1988 0.93 99.10 116 5.0 mb 172
37 1988 0.58 98.60 60 5.1 mb 195
38 1988 1.87 97.13 36 5.5 mb 152
39 1989 2.85 99.13 187 5.2 mb 98
40 1989 1.01 98.87 110 5.1 mb 154
41 1989 1.00 98.81 93 5.0 mb 154
42 1990 3.32 98.40 144 5.1 mb 110
43 1991 0.57 98.55 57 5.4 Mw 196
44 1991 2.24 97.06 33 5.2 mb 151
45 1991 0.94 97.41 26 5.1 mb 190
46 1992 1.49 99.07 125 5.1 mb 118
47 1993 3.14 97.63 67 6.2 Mw 126
48 1993 1.46 97.54 36 5.2 mb 137
49 1993 2.04 98.12 83 5.3 Mw 46
50 1995 1.29 97.88 53 5.4 Mw 130
51 1995 2.67 99.07 165 5.4 Mw 82
52 1995 3.46 97.27 35 5.1 mb 179
53 1996 0.86 99.46 110 5.0 mb 200
54 1996 3.44 97.94 33 6.3 Mw 135
55 1997 1.66 97.95 33 5.2 Mw 91
56 1997 2.88 97.33 57 5.6 Mw 136
57 1997 1.07 97.60 24 5.5 Mw 167
58 1997 1.07 97.60 28 5.9 Mw 167
59 1999 1.93 98.04 63 5.0 mb 61
60 2000 2.01 98.04 33 5.1 Mw 55

No. Year
N E (Km) (Km)
61 2000 2.49 97.22 33 5.0 mb 134
62 2000 1.44 99.07 94 5.2 mb 122
63 2001 0.88 98.94 80 5.2 Mw 171
64 2001 3.72 97.79 139 5.1 mb 170
65 2002 1.95 97.92 42 5.2 Mw 70
66 2002 1.93 97.00 26 5.0 mb 164
67 2003 0.54 98.06 45 5.5 Mw 202
68 2003 1.14 98.91 77 5.5 Mw 143
69 2003 2.08 96.82 33 5.8 Mw 180
70 2004 1.29 97.38 53 5.1 Mw 163
71 2004 1.98 97.93 41 5.4 Mw 67
72 2005 2.09 97.11 30 8.6 Mw 148
73 2005 1.52 97.08 30 5.4 mb 174
74 2005 1.63 97.17 30 5.3 mb 159
75 2005 0.93 97.91 30 5.0 mb 165
76 2005 1.23 97.49 30 5.9 mb 160
77 2005 0.85 97.52 30 5.0 mb 192
78 2005 2.84 98.76 30 5.2 mb 68
79 2005 1.78 97.10 30 5.3 mb 159
80 2005 1.63 97.08 30 5.0 mb 168
81 2005 1.00 97.87 30 5.4 mb 159
82 2005 1.31 97.14 30 5.0 mb 181
83 2005 0.92 97.87 36 6.1 mb 168
84 2005 2.39 97.16 30 5.2 mb 140
85 2005 1.01 97.82 30 5.8 mb 161
86 2005 2.47 96.76 26 5.1 mb 185
87 2005 1.04 97.46 23 5.1 mb 178
88 2005 1.97 96.94 26 5.3 mb 169
89 2005 1.00 97.90 36 5.1 mb 158
90 2005 1.75 97.13 27 5.1 mb 157
91 2005 1.08 97.58 30 5.0 mb 167
92 2005 1.32 97.10 30 5.0 mb 184
93 2005 1.62 97.13 30 5.0 mb 163
94 2005 1.03 97.48 23 5.1 mb 178
95 2005 1.61 97.05 26 5.2 mb 172
96 2005 1.25 97.15 25 5.3 mb 185
97 2005 1.22 97.16 22 5.2 mb 186
98 2005 1.17 97.12 24 5.1 mb 193
99 2005 0.87 97.48 24 5.0 mb 192
100 2005 2.14 96.63 26 5.3 mb 200
101 2005 1.78 99.21 30 5.5 Mw 107
102 2005 1.89 96.97 27 5.0 mb 168
103 2005 1.30 97.18 22 5.0 mb 179
104 2005 1.08 97.26 24 5.2 Mw 189
105 2005 1.34 97.12 24 5.0 mb 181
106 2005 0.92 97.91 30 5.0 Mw 166
107 2005 2.35 97.33 30 5.1 Mw 121
108 2005 1.77 97.10 27 5.7 Mw 159
109 2005 1.89 96.94 26 5.1 Mw 171
110 2005 1.86 97.07 26 5.2 Mw 159
111 2005 1.10 97.30 23 5.0 mb 184
112 2005 1.31 97.19 30 5.2 Mw 177
113 2005 1.70 97.12 22 5.8 Mw 160
114 2005 1.11 97.16 22 5.0 Mw 194
115 2005 1.13 97.24 26 5.1 Mw 187
116 2005 2.02 97.94 36 6.3 Mw 63
117 2005 1.17 97.14 25 5.0 Mw 192
118 2005 1.61 97.87 30 5.6 Mw 100
119 2005 1.89 97.01 25 5.1 Mw 164
120 2005 1.20 97.24 24 5.1 Mw 181

No. Year
N E (Km) (Km)
121 2005 1.35 97.16 24 5.0 Mw 177
122 2005 1.40 97.16 30 5.2 Mw 174
123 2005 1.38 97.11 26 5.0 mb 179
124 2005 2.17 97.76 24 6.1 Mw 75
125 2005 2.08 96.83 26 5.5 Mw 179
126 2005 1.01 97.49 33 5.0 mb 179
127 2005 2.10 96.85 28 5.0 Mw 176
128 2005 1.04 97.28 22 5.0 mb 191
129 2005 1.81 97.66 31 6.4 Mw 102
130 2005 0.93 97.49 22 5.0 Mw 186
131 2005 1.21 97.14 22 5.0 mb 189
132 2005 1.08 97.25 24 5.1 Mw 190
133 2005 1.36 97.17 22 5.2 Mw 175
134 2005 2.13 96.80 22 6.2 Mw 181
135 2005 1.97 97.13 30 5.3 Mw 149
136 2005 1.20 97.32 30 5.0 Mw 175
137 2005 1.24 97.23 27 5.3 Mw 179
138 2005 0.59 98.46 34 6.7 Mw 193
139 2005 1.99 97.04 30 6.9 Mw 158
140 2005 1.40 97.17 30 5.0 Mw 173
141 2005 1.21 97.15 23 5.0 mb 188
142 2005 1.29 97.12 24 5.1 mb 185
143 2005 1.46 97.15 24 5.8 Mw 171
144 2005 2.17 96.72 23 6.1 Mw 190
145 2005 1.81 97.09 25 5.5 Mw 158
146 2005 1.01 97.51 23 5.2 Mw 178
147 2005 2.14 96.80 27 5.3 Mw 181
148 2005 1.17 97.25 23 5.0 Mw 183
149 2005 1.82 97.08 21 6.7 Mw 159
150 2005 1.27 97.23 23 5.6 Mw 177
151 2005 2.43 97.14 43 5.2 Mw 143
152 2005 1.90 97.02 27 5.0 Mw 162
153 2005 1.09 97.42 25 5.3 Mw 177
154 2005 0.99 97.43 30 5.0 mb 185
155 2005 1.37 97.21 30 5.0 Mw 171
156 2005 2.01 97.83 30 5.0 mb 74
157 2005 1.47 97.14 30 5.0 Mw 171
158 2005 2.45 98.92 147 5.5 Mw 57
159 2005 1.11 97.24 23 5.2 Mw 188
160 2005 1.96 97.85 30 5.6 mb 75
161 2005 2.03 97.94 38 5.7 Mw 63
162 2005 1.23 97.27 30 5.5 Mw 176
163 2005 1.86 97.04 30 5.2 mb 162
164 2005 2.03 96.79 31 5.2 mb 184
165 2005 2.16 96.79 21 6.5 Mw 182
166 2005 1.16 97.27 24 5.6 Mw 182
167 2005 1.14 97.24 30 5.2 Mw 186
168 2005 1.36 97.20 30 5.1 Mw 173
169 2006 0.98 97.53 40 5.1 Mw 179
170 2006 1.61 97.10 26 5.2 Mw 167
171 2006 1.65 97.07 37 5.0 mb 168
172 2006 1.99 97.00 21 6.3 Mw 162
173 2006 3.17 97.10 11 5.2 Mw 174
174 2006 1.74 99.58 180 5.0 Mw 144
175 2006 1.24 98.14 30 5.0 mb 125
176 2006 1.71 97.15 20 6.3 Mw 157
177 2006 1.46 97.18 30 5.6 Mw 168
178 2006 1.16 97.15 30 5.0 mb 191
179 2006 1.12 99.59 14 5.3 mb 187
180 2006 1.07 97.47 50 5.0 Mw 175

No. Year
N E (Km) (Km)
181 2006 1.32 97.25 30 5.4 Mw 171
182 2006 1.33 97.13 25 5.0 mb 181
183 2006 1.11 97.43 23 5.2 Mw 174
184 2006 1.04 97.36 20 5.0 Mw 185
185 2006 3.39 99.08 204 6.3 Mw 139
186 2006 2.46 98.00 66 5.0 Mw 49
187 2007 1.73 97.11 30 5.0 Mw 160
188 2007 1.51 97.11 30 5.0 mb 171
189 2007 1.07 97.37 30 5.1 Mw 182
190 2007 1.96 97.91 35 5.9 Mw 70
191 2007 1.25 97.25 30 5.5 Mw 177
192 2007 2.01 96.75 30 5.0 Mw 189
193 2007 1.19 97.33 51 5.0 mb 175
194 2007 2.27 98.00 62 5.3 Mw 47
195 2007 2.08 96.69 30 5.0 mb 194
196 2007 0.89 97.54 30 5.0 mb 187
197 2007 0.87 97.53 30 5.0 mb 190
198 2007 1.80 99.32 145 5.4 Mw 116
199 2007 0.76 98.75 75 5.0 mb 178
200 2007 1.84 97.05 35 5.0 mb 161
201 2007 1.98 97.88 44 5.9 Mw 71
202 2007 2.22 96.76 35 5.0 mb 185
203 2007 2.09 96.81 23 6.1 Mw 181
204 2008 0.92 97.46 10 5.4 mb 189
205 2008 1.01 97.44 20 6.2 Mw 182
206 2008 1.34 97.16 23 5.0 Mw 178
207 2008 1.03 97.27 10 5.3 Mw 192
208 2008 1.14 97.15 32 5.0 mb 193
209 2008 1.64 99.15 10 6.0 Mw 111
210 2008 1.72 99.18 10 5.3 Mw 108
211 2008 0.82 97.48 23 5.1 Mw 197
212 2008 1.32 97.16 19 5.5 Mw 179
213 2008 1.34 97.19 16 5.7 Mw 175
214 2008 1.96 97.97 61 5.0 mb 64
215 2008 1.14 97.25 10 5.7 Mw 185
216 2009 1.88 96.72 10 5.0 mb 195
217 2009 1.42 97.17 23 5.6 Mw 171
218 2009 1.52 97.09 35 5.1 mb 173
219 2009 0.73 98.55 89 5.0 mb 178
220 2009 2.80 99.09 174 5.1 Mw 91
221 2009 3.36 97.65 24 5.2 Mw 143
222 2009 1.87 97.02 39 5.2 mb 163
223 2010 1.52 97.06 30 5.0 mb 176
224 2010 2.11 99.01 58 5.1 mb 70
225 2010 1.34 97.20 35 5.8 Mw 174
226 2010 2.38 97.05 31 7.8 Mw 152
227 2010 2.35 97.17 35 5.3 mb 139
228 2010 1.91 96.72 28 5.1 mb 194
229 2010 2.63 96.93 35 5.1 mb 169
230 2010 2.38 97.21 57 5.0 mb 134
231 2010 1.24 97.19 37 5.0 mb 182
232 2010 1.39 97.14 32 5.2 mb 176
233 2010 1.37 97.18 42 5.0 mb 174
234 2010 1.00 99.54 42 5.3 mb 193
235 2010 2.22 96.72 24 6.0 mb 189
236 2010 1.91 96.95 19 5.2 mb 170
Appendix B
Interpreted Seismic Profiles

Line-1.1
Line-1.2
Line-1.3
Line-2
Line-3.1
Line-3.2
Line-4.1
Line-4.2
Line-4.3
Line-4.4
Line-4.5
Line-5.1
Line-5.2
Line-5.3
Line-6
Line-7.1
Line-7.2
Line-8.1
Line-8.2
Line-9.1
Line-9.2
Line-9.3
Line-10.1
Line-10.2
Line-11.1
Line-11.2
Line-11.3
Line-12
Line-13.1
Line-13.2
Line-14
Vp-1 <800m/sec
Vp-2 1,00o - 1,800 m/sec
Vp-3 1,800 - 2,000 m/sec
Vp-4 2,000 - 3,000 m/sec

Feasibility Study Geological Report Simonggo PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Feasibility Study Geological Report Simonggo PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Part 13 Geological Survey for

SUPPORTING REPORT (2), Part 13

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR SIMMONGO-2 HPP RPOJECT

2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ........................................................................ 2-1

3 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS ..................................................................................... 3-1

4 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATION OF THE PROJECT

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 5-1

Figure 1.1 Location of seismic refraction survey ............................................................................ 1-4

Appendix A List of Earthquakes around the Project Site

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The scope of the geological survey is enumerated below:

b) Seismic refraction survey;

c) Site reconnaissance and geological mapping;

d) Laboratory tests for construction materials;

f) Geotechnical analyses and evaluations of the data obtained; and

1.3 METHODOLOGY OF THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

1.3.1 GEOLOGICAL MAPPING

- Type/distribution/color/condition/composition of surficial deposits;

- Type/color/weathering/alteration/jointing/hardness/mineral composition of rocks;

- Distribution/dip/strike/size/fracturing condition of geological structures (fault, fold, etc.);

- Distribution/condition/indication/size of slope instability; and

1.3.2 SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY

1.3.3 LABORATORY TEST FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

1.4 QUANTITY OF THE SURVEY

Table 1.2 Quantity of Geological Survey for the Simonggo-2 Project

Figure 1.1 Location of Seismic Refraction Survey

CHAPTER 2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY

2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Table 2.1 Regional stratigraphy of the project site

(Source: Geological Map of the Sidikalang Quadrange, Sumatra, 1:250,000)

Figure 2.1 Regional geological map

2.3 REGIONAL TECTONIC AND SEISMIC SETTING

2.3.1 REGIONAL TECTONIC SETTING

2.3.2 HISTORICAL AND INSTRUMENTAL EARTHQUAKES AROUND THE

Simonggo-2 weir site

Notable historical earthquakes in the vicinity of the project site include:

Simonggo-2 Project Site

2.4 ESTIMATION OF DESIGN SEISMIC COEFFICIENT

2.4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

2.4.2 REVIEW OF EXISTING SIMILAR HYDROPOWER PROJECTS

Figure 2.4 Location of existing hydropower projects in Sumatra

2.4.3 ESTIMATE OF PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION BY PROBABILISTIC

1) Gutenberg-Richter Recurrence Law (magnitude-Recurrence Relationship)

2) Distance Attenuation Relationship

a = 2000 e 0.8M / (d2 + h2 + 400) Cornell (1968) (2)

a = 5000 e 0.8M / (r + 40)2 Estava (1973) (3)

M: Magnitude of earthquake in Richter scale

Relationship between Accumulated Frequency and Earthquake Magnitude

Earthquake Magnidude (M) Log(Nc)=6.3194 - 0.6646 (M)

Relationship between Accumulated Frequency and Earthquake Magnitude

Earthquake Magnidude (M) Log(Nc)=6.6204 - 0.6646 (M)

Table 2.3 Summary of the estimated peak ground accelerations

2.4.4 ESTIMATION OF DESIGN SEISMIC COEFFICIENT BY INDONESIA

Where, ad: Design seismic acceleration on the ground surface (gal)

ac: Basic seismic acceleration (gal)

Z: Zone correction coefficient

v: Correction factor for type of foundation ground

kh: Design horizontal seismic coefficient

Table 2.4 Zone and zone coefficient

Table 2.5 Foundation type and correction factor

Table 2.6 Return period and basic earthquake acceleration

Table 2.7 Design seismic acceleration estimated by ISM

2.4.5 RECOMMENDED DESIGN SEISMIC COEFFICIENT FOR THE PROJECT