LAMPUNUT HYDROPOWER PLANT

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

PT ADARO POWER

03.10.2022 10588-IFL-THA-OD-0053 | Revision 1 ©

ILF CONSULTING ENGINEERS

699, Modernform Tower, 22nd floor, Srinagarindra Road, Phatthanakan, Suanluang, 10250 Bangkok, Thailand
Phone: +66 / 2 / 090 2977 to 80
Email: [email protected] | www.ilf.com

PT Kwarsa Hexagon
Jl. Rancabolang No. 36 Bandung 40286, Indonesia
Phone: +62 22 7562 107
Email: [email protected] | www.kwarsahexagon.co.id
Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

REVISIONS

1 03.10.2022 Comments considered Luthfi Hanafi Firda H. P M. Wagner

0 31.08.2022 First Issue Luthfi Hanafi Firda H. P M. Wagner

REV. DATE ISSUE, MODIFICATION PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 2/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

DISCLAIMER
This Tender Document for the Lampunut Hydropower Plant has been prepared by
ILF Consulting Engineers (Asia) Ltd. (“ILF”) in consortium with PT Kwarsa Hexagon
(“KH”) for the exclusive use by PT Adaro Power, hereinafter (“Employer”). The
documents are based in part on information outside of ILF’s and KH’s control. While
the information provided in this document is believed to be accurate and reliable
under the conditions and subject to the qualifications set forth herein, ILF does not
make any representations or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy
or completeness of such information.
It should be noted that the procedures adopted in the studies underlying this
document are practical and reasonable, but given the residual risk associated with
any prediction and the variability which can be experienced in natural conditions,
ILF and KH take no liability for, and gives no warranty against, hydrological or
geological conditions being different from those estimated.
Use of this Documents and any of the information contained herein by anyone else
than the Employer (“Third Party User”) is strictly prohibited. All information
contained in this Document is of confidential nature and may be disclosed by the
Employer only to third parties for other purposes than executing the Lampunut
Hydropower Plant.
The Employer acknowledges and agrees that damages to ILF and KH alone would
not be an adequate remedy for any breach by the Employer of any of the above
provisions, and that the remedies of injunction and specific performance as well as
any other equitable relief for any threatened or actual breach would be more
appropriate remedies.
This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the Employer, ILF and KH shall
be governed, interpreted and construed in all respects in accordance with the laws
of the Kingdom of Thailand.
All rights are reserved. This document or any part thereof may not be copied,
photographed, scanned or reproduced in any way for other purposes than
executing the Lampunut Hydropower Plant by the Employer.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 3/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

STRUCTURE OF DOCUMENTS

Part 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCEDURES

Section 1 Instructions to Bidders (ITB)

Section 2 Proposal Data Sheets (PDS)

Section 3 Evaluation and Qualification Criteria

Section 4 Proposal Forms

Part 2 EMPLOYERS REQUIREMENTS

Section 1 General Requirements and Scope of Work

Section 2 Design Requirements

Section 3 Technical Specifications Civil Works

Section 4 Technical Specifications Hydromechanical Works

Section 5 Technical Specifications Electromechanical Works

Part 3 CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT

Section 1 EPC Agreement Term Sheet

Section 2 Measurement and Payment Specification
Section 3 Contract Forms

Part 4 ATTACHMENTS

Section 1 Design Report

Section 2 Topography Report

Section 3 Hydrometry Report
Section 4 Geology Report

Section 5 Geotechnical Report

Section 6 Outline Design Drawings

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 4/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................11
1.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................12
1.2 Location and Project Area .........................................................................................12
1.3 Project Description ....................................................................................................13
1.4 Available Information.................................................................................................14

2 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ..............................................................................15

2.1 General .....................................................................................................................15
2.2 Parameter interpretation ...........................................................................................15
2.2.1 Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPT) .................................................................15
2.2.2 NSPT ........................................................................................................................16
2.3 Bearing Capacity.......................................................................................................18
2.3.1 Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPT) .................................................................18
2.3.2 NSPT ........................................................................................................................20

3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ...............................................................................24

3.1 Analysis Method........................................................................................................24
3.1.1 Codes, Standards and References ...........................................................................24
3.2 General Requirements ..............................................................................................24
3.2.1 Material Used ............................................................................................................24
3.2.2 Software Used ..........................................................................................................24
3.2.3 Design Criteria ..........................................................................................................25
3.3 Slope Stability Calculations .......................................................................................25
3.4 Slope Stability Intake Area ........................................................................................27
3.4.1 Soil Parameter ..........................................................................................................27
3.4.2 Geometry Model Intake Area ....................................................................................27
3.4.3 Slope Stability Intake Area ........................................................................................27
3.4.4 Initial Phase Intake Area ...........................................................................................28
3.4.5 Recommended Slope Intake Area.............................................................................29
3.4.6 Summary Slope Safety Factor Intake Area ...............................................................30
3.5 Slope Stability Waterways .........................................................................................31
3.5.1 Soil Parameter Waterways ........................................................................................31
3.5.2 Geometry Model Waterways .....................................................................................31
3.5.3 Slope Stability Analysis Waterways...........................................................................32
3.5.4 Initial Phase Waterways ............................................................................................32
3.5.5 Recommended Slope Water Way Area .....................................................................34
3.5.6 Summary of Slope Safety Factor Waterway ..............................................................35
10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 5/50
Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

3.6 Slope Stability Head Pond.........................................................................................35

3.6.1 Soil Parameter Head Pond........................................................................................35
3.6.2 Geometry Model Head Pond Area ............................................................................36
3.6.3 Slope Stability Analysis Head Pond ..........................................................................36
3.6.4 Initial Phase Head Pond Area ...................................................................................37
3.6.5 Recommended Slope Head Pond Area.....................................................................38
3.6.6 Summary of Safety Factor Head Pond Area .............................................................39
3.7 Slope Stability Penstok .............................................................................................40
3.7.1 Soil Parameter Penstock ...........................................................................................40
3.7.2 Geometry Model Penstock Area................................................................................40
3.7.3 Slope Stability Analysis Penstock Area .....................................................................41
3.7.4 Initial Phase Penstock Area ......................................................................................41
3.7.5 Recommended Slope Penstock Area ........................................................................42
3.7.6 Summary of Safety Factors Penstock Area ...............................................................43
3.8 Slope Stability Block C ..............................................................................................43
3.8.1 Soil Parameter Block C .............................................................................................43
3.8.2 Geometry Model Blok C Area....................................................................................44
3.8.3 Slope Stability Analysis Blok C Area .........................................................................44
3.8.4 Initial Phase Blok C Area ..........................................................................................45
3.8.5 Load Phase Blok C Area ...........................................................................................46
3.8.6 Summary Safety Factor Blok C Area .........................................................................48

4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION..............................................................49

4.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................49
4.2 Recommendation ......................................................................................................49

TABLES
Table 2-1: Geotechnical Parameter Interpretation from Sondir Data.....................................16
Table 2-2: Parameter Interpretation from NSPT ...................................................................18
Table 2-3: Recapitulation of soil bearing capacity from DCPT ..............................................19
Table 2-4: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-01 ..................21
Table 2-5: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-02 ..................21
Table 2-6: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-03 ..................21
Table 2-7: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-06 ..................22
Table 2-8: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-08 ..................22
Table 2-9: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-12 ..................22
Table 2-10: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-13 ................22
10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 6/50
Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Table 2-11: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-14 ................23
Table 3-1: Traffic Load form (DPU,2011) and the Load off the Road ....................................25
Table 3-2: Safety Factors Bearing Capacity (SNI:8640-2017) ..............................................25
Table 3-3: Slope Stability Design Criteria (SNI:8640-2017) ..................................................25
Table 3-4: Design Parameters for Analysis Intake Area........................................................27
Table 3-5: Summary of results slope stability analysis intake area .......................................31
Table 3-6: Design Parameters for Analysis Water Way Area ................................................31
Table 3-7: Summary results analysis Water Way Area .........................................................35
Table 3-8: Design Parameters for analysis at Head Pond ....................................................36
Table 3-9: Summary of results analysis slope at Head Pond ................................................40
Table 3-10: Design Parameters for Analysis Penstock Area .................................................40
Table 3-11: Summary of results analysis Head Pond ...........................................................43
Table 3-12: Design Parameters For Analysis .......................................................................44
Table 3-13: Summary of results analysis Block C .................................................................48
Table 4-1: Summary of Safety Factors Slope Initial Phase ...................................................49
Table 4-2: Resume Safety Factor Block C ............................................................................49
Table 4-3: Summary Safety Factors with benches................................................................50

FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Adaro camp site and CHPP ................................................................................11
Figure 1-2: Project location Lampunut hydropower plant. .....................................................12
Figure 1-3: Lampunut River ..................................................................................................13
Figure 2-1: Bearing Capacity Graph based on Sondir Data ..................................................20
Figure 3-1: Nodal points, element discretization for finite element calculation on slope ........26
Figure 3-2: Situation Map .....................................................................................................27
Figure 3-3: Geometry model Initial Phase.............................................................................28
Figure 3-4: Safety Factor Calculation Results for Initial Phase .............................................28
Figure 3-5: Shear Stress of Initial Phase ..............................................................................29
Figure 3-6: Geometry of slope with benching .......................................................................29
Figure 3-7: Safety Factor Calculation Result for slopws with benches ..................................30
Figure 3-8: Shear Stress Slope with Benching .....................................................................30
Figure 3-9: Situation Map .....................................................................................................32
Figure 3-10: Geometry model Initial Phase...........................................................................32
Figure 3-11: Safety Factor Calculation Results for Initial Phase ...........................................33
Figure 3-12: Shear Stress of Initial Phase ............................................................................33
Figure 3-13: Geometry of slope with benching .....................................................................34

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 7/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Figure 3-14: Safety Factor Calculation Result for Sloping with Beching ................................34
Figure 3-15: Shear Stress Slope with Benching....................................................................35
Figure 3-16: Situation Map ...................................................................................................36
Figure 3-17: Geometry model Initial Phase...........................................................................37
Figure 3-18: Safety Factor Calculation Results for Initial Phase ...........................................37
Figure 3-19: Shear Stress of Initial Phase ............................................................................38
Figure 3-20: Geometry of sloping with Benching ..................................................................38
Figure 3-21: Safety Factor calculation result for slopw with benches ....................................39
Figure 3-22: Shear Stress slope with benches .....................................................................39
Figure 3-23: Situation Map ...................................................................................................41
Figure 3-24: Geometry model Initial Phase...........................................................................41
Figure 3-25: Safety Factor Calculation Results for Initial Phase ...........................................42
Figure 3-26: Geometry of penstock slope during construction ..............................................42
Figure 3-27: Safety factor calculation penstock slope during excavation ..............................42
Figure 3-28: Shear stress in penstock sloe during excavation ..............................................43
Figure 3-29: Shear Stress Slope with Benching....................................................................44
Figure 3-30: Geometry model Block C Initial Phase .............................................................45
Figure 3-31: Safety Factor calculation results for Initial Phase ..............................................45
Figure 3-32: Potential Shear Stress at Initial Phase ..............................................................46
Figure 3-33: Geometry Model Load Phase ...........................................................................46
Figure 3-34: Safety Factor calculation results in the Load Phase .........................................47
Figure 3-35: Cross Section Slip Plane in the Load Phase .....................................................47

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 8/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

ABBREVIATIONS

Adaro PT Adaro Power

approx. approximately
ca. approximately (ca.)
CEN European Committee for Standardization
CHPP Adaro Met Coal Handling Process Plant
d/s Downstream
ILF ILF Consulting Engineers (Asia) Ltd.
incl. Include
ISO International Standards Organization
KH PT Kwarsa Hexagon
max Maximum
NTP Notice to Proceed
PLN PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara
PH Powerhouse
PLT Point Load Test (rock mechanics)
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
QM Quality Management
SNI National Indonesian Standard
SPT Standard Penetration Test
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
u/s upstream
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
WGS World Geodetic System
W Width

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 9/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

LIST OF UNITS AND SYMBOLS

Units and Symbols

°C degree Celsius
a Year (annum)
g acceleration of gravity
ha hectare
km kilometer
km2 Square kilometer
K Kelvin
m Meter
m2 square meter
m3 cubic meter
m/s meter per second
m3/s cubic meter per second
M Million
Mt Mega ton (million metric tons)
masl meters above sea level
MCM Million cubic meter
mm millimeter
MPa Mega Pascal
MUSD million USD
t Ton (metric ton)
USD US Dollar

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 10/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

1 INTRODUCTION
PT Adaro Power (“Adaro”) has retained the consortium consisting of ILF Consulting
Engineers (Asia) Ltd. (ILF) and PT Kwarsa Hexagon (KH) (“the Consultant”) with a
letter of appointment on 28th of April 2021 to carry out Consultancy Services for the
development and implementation of the small scale Lampunut Hydropower Plant
(Lampunut HPP) located in Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia.
The main purpose of the project is to supply electric energy to Adaro MetCoal
Handling Processing Plant (CHPP) owned by PT Maruwai Coal. As per today the
Lampunut CHPP is supplied by Diesel generation with 6 units of 2.1 MW. This
Diesel generation should be partially replaced by hydropower generation lowering
energy supply costs for the mining facilities.

Figure 1-1: Adaro camp site and CHPP

For the partial replacement of Diesel Generation it is intended to make use of the
Lampunut River passing through the concession area for the Maruwai Coal mine.
The Consultant has carried out an Alternative Study for the Lampunut HPP and
later for the selected Alternative, a complete Feasibility Study (FS). After approval
of the Feasibility Study, the detailed engineering design and tender documents are
elaborated.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 11/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

1.1 OBJECTIVES
Within the context of the design works, geological and geotechnical investigations
are performed. The present geotechnical investigations are intended to determine
the geotechnical conditions within the project area as a basis of the design works.
The general objective of this report is to present the slope stability and other
geotechnical conditions at the project sites to allow for adequate project design.

1.2 LOCATION AND PROJECT AREA

The Lampunut HPP is located in the Barito Tuhup District, Murung Raya Regency,
Central Kalimantan Province. Figure 1-2 below gives an overview of the project
location.

Figure 1-2: Project location Lampunut hydropower plant.

The Lampunut River is a left-hand tributary to the Barito River flowing close to the
camp site from north to south. The Lampunut River has an unexploited reach that
could be used for hydropower generation. This river reach is situated between a u/s
located River Diversion Channel planned for mining purposes and a d/s limit given
by a forestry permit for mining purposes that delimits developing options in a
distance of approximately 2 km south west of the Lampunut Camp site.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 12/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

The project area lies in an undulated region which is characterized by moderately

incised river valleys, an effective gradient with various small waterfalls on the
Lampunut River and tributaries. The area is covered by a dense vegetation of
secondary forest. Figure 1-3 below shows the Lampunut River.

Figure 1-3: Lampunut River

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Lampunut HPP is a run-off river hydropower project whose proposed concept
and main parameters have been selected based on an alternative and optimization
study conducted in 2021.
The project is planned as two independent hydropower plants in serial hydraulic
cascade – a downstream scheme for immediate implementation and an upstream
scheme that could be possibly implemented later when the power demand
increases.
Each of the hydropower plants counts with a gated intake weir, desander, free flow
channel, headpond with spillway chute, penstock and powerhouse.
The downstream located Lampunut HPP consists of the following main structures:
▪ Gated weir with left bank intake.
▪ 2062.75 m long free flow conveyance system composed of two (2) parts;
120.0 m long first part from the intake to the desander and 1942.75 m long
second part from the desander to the headpond.
▪ A desander with two(2) chambers.
▪ A headpond with an active volume of 368 m3.
▪ A 128 m long stepped chute.
▪ A 489 m long and 1.4 m diameter penstock composing of buried GRP and
surface steel penstock parts.
▪ Surface powerhouse with 2 horizontal Francis units.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 13/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

▪ Electrical connection with a 3.4 km long 11 kV transmission line to the CCHP

Diesel generating units.
The project is planned as a run-off river scheme and neither of the cascade
schemes (upstream or downstream) has storage capacity.

1.4 AVAILABLE INFORMATION

The following data, reports and documents have been collected and are used for
the preparation of this study report. Reference in the report is given by the number
in brackets.
[1] Kwarsa-Hexagon (July 2019): Final Pre-FS Report, Mini-Hydro Plant Project
Lampunut MHEPP;
[2] Adaro (March 2020): Lampunut River Diversion and Water Supply
Requirement;
[3] Adaro (November 2019): Update of Lampunut River Diversion Study, Final
Report;
[4] Adaro (no date specified): Aero photogrammetric survey, 5m contour intervals,
LiDAR Topography of the project area with 1 m contour intervals, and
boundary shape files including protected forest area;
[5] Adaro Services (December 2019): Lampunut Mine Surface Water
Management Plan (2019 – 2024), Document Number 146-STP43-MC-
LORWMS-2018;
[6] Adaro Services (March 2020): Lampunut River Diversion and Water Supply
Requirement Presentation and Presentation excerpt covering the schematic
raw water demand system handed over on 11.06.2021;
[7] SMEC (March 2021): Study Review Lampunut River Diversion – Pengalihan
Sungai Lampunut, Ref. No. 7022198, Revision 1;
[8] Golder (March 2019): Lampunut Coal Mine, Mine Pits Geotechnical
Investigations and Engineering Assessment;
[9] ILF – Kwarsa Hexagon (October 2021): Lampunut Hydropower Plant,
Alternative Study, Revision 0.
[10] Supriatna S. et al, 1995, Geology of the Muara Teweh Quadrangle,
Kalimantan, 1:250,000, Geol. Res. Dev. Centre, Bandung
[11] National Earthquake Study Center, 2017, Peta Sumber Dan Bahaya Gempa
Indonesia Tahun 2017

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 14/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

2 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
2.1 GENERAL
This chapter gives a general overview of the geotechnical conditions at the
Lampunut project works and its vicinity and presented the geotechnical calculations
performed up to date.
More information on geomorphology, slopes and the drainage system of the area
is presented in the Geological Report together with the geological investigations
and laboratory test results.

2.2 PARAMETER INTERPRETATION

2.2.1 Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPT)

The results of interpretation of geotechnical parameters based on sondir data are
shown in Table 2-1 below:

CPT Depth Depth qc Lithology Meyerhof ɣ φ Cu E

Max (m) (kg/cm2) (t/m2) (kN/m3) (kg/cm2) (kPa)
(m)
S-03 3.2 0 1.6 10 Clayey Sands 2.5 15 0.50 2,500
and Silts
1 2 53 Medium Sand 13.25 17 30-35 13,250
2 2.4 154 Dense or 38.5 22 35-40 77,000
Cemented Sand
S-05 4.6 0 1 15 Organic clays 3.75 15 0.75 3,750
mixed soil
1 2 92 Medium Sand 23 19 30-35 23,000
2 2.4 140 Dense or 35 21 35-40 70,000
Cemented Sand
2.4 4.2 95 Medium Sand 23.75 19 30-35 23,750
4.2 4.6 200 Dense or 50 24 35-40 100,000
Cemented Sand
S-06 4.4 0 0.2 5 Organic clays 1.25 14 0.25 1,250
mixed soil
0.2 2 18 Loose Sand 4.5 15 20-25 4,500
2 3.6 28 Medium Sand 7 15 30-35 7,000
3.6 4.4 200 Dense or 50 24 35-40 100,000
Cemented Sand
S-07 5.4 0 0.2 4 Organic clays 1 14 0.20 1,000
mixed soil
0.2 1.6 15 Loose Sand 3.75 15 20-25 3,750
1.6 3.2 45 Medium Sand 11.25 16 30-35 11,250
3.2 5 93 Very Shell 23.25 19 35-40 23,250
Sands,
Limerock
5 5.4 202 Dense or 50.5 24 35-40 101,000
Cemented Sand
S-07a 7.8 0 1.2 3 Organic clays 0.75 14 0.15 750
mixed soil
0.2 3 13 Loose Sand 3.25 15 20-25 3,250
1.6 4.6 42 Medium Sand 10.5 16 30-35 10,500

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 15/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

CPT Depth Depth qc Lithology Meyerhof ɣ φ Cu E

Max (m) (kg/cm2) (t/m2) (kN/m3) (kg/cm2) (kPa)
(m)
3.2 7.2 53 Very Shell 13.25 17 35-40 13,250
Sands,
Limerock
5 7.8 157 Dense or 39.25 22 35-40 78,500
Cemented Sand
S-15 3.8 0 0.2 5 Soft - 1.25 14 0.25 1,250
Insensitive Non
-Fissured
Inorganic Clay
0.2 1.2 15 Loose Sand 3.75 15 20-25 3,750
1.2 3.4 70 Medium Sand 17.5 18 30-35 17,500
3.4 3.8 195 Dense or 48.75 24 35-40 97,500
Cemented Sand
S-16 6 0 0.4 6 Organic clays 1.5 14 0.30 1,500
mixed soil
0.4 3.2 17 Loose Sand 4.25 15 20-25 4,250
3.2 3.8 30 Medium Sand 7.5 16 30-35 7,500
3.8 5 48 Very Shell 12 16 35-40 12,000
Sands,
Limerock
5 5.6 75 Medium Sand 18.75 18 30-35 18,750
5.6 6 209 Dense or 52.25 24 35-40 104,500
Cemented Sand
S-17 5.8 0 0.4 6 Organic clays 1.5 14 0.30 1,500
mixed soil
0.4 2.4 20 Loose Sand 5 15 20-25 5,000
2.4 5.2 81 Medium Sand 20.25 18 30-35 20,250
5.2 5.8 209 Dense or 52.25 24 35-40 104,500
Cemented Sand
S-25 6 0 1.2 8 Organic clays 2 14 0.40 2,000
mixed soil
1.2 4.4 19 Loose Sand 4.75 15 20-25 4,750
4.4 5.6 85 Medium Sand 21.25 18 30-35 21,250
5.6 6 200 Dense or 50 24 35-40 100,000
Cemented Sand
[Soil Classification Based on Results From Sondir Data (Schmertmann, 1974), Interpretation of Internal Shear
Angles (Schmertmann, 1978), Interpretation of E Value with Sondir Data (Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990)]
Table 2-1: Geotechnical Parameter Interpretation from Sondir Data

2.2.2 NSPT
The use of empirical correlation is an effort to maximize test results from the
laboratory and the limited availability of field investigation data (Ameratunga et al.,
2016). The following is a recapitulation of geotechnical parameter interpretation
data from NSPT data based on empirical correlation:

Titik Depth N-SPT NSPT Unit Saturated Internal Cohesion Modulus Shear
(M) (blows/ft) Weight Unit Friction (Cu,KPa) Elasticity Strength
(kN/m3) Weight Angle (mPa) (Kpa)
(kN/m3) (φ)
BH-01 2.00 2.45 5 15.50 17.05 0 33.335 3.5 17.32
4.00 4.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 16/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Titik Depth N-SPT NSPT Unit Saturated Internal Cohesion Modulus Shear
(M) (blows/ft) Weight Unit Friction (Cu,KPa) Elasticity Strength
(kN/m3) Weight Angle (mPa) (Kpa)
(kN/m3) (φ)
6.00 6.45 26 17.95 19.74 9.02 1617.2 500.06 225.16
8.00 8.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
10.00 10.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
12.00 12.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
14.00 14.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
16.00 16.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
18.00 18.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
20.00 20.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
BH-02 2.00 2.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
4.00 4.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
6.00 6.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
8.00 8.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
10.00 10.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
12.00 12.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
14.00 14.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
16.00 16.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
18.00 18.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
BH-03 2.00 2.45 60 21.42 23.56 0 400.02 24000 519.6
4.00 4.45 60 21.42 23.56 0 400.02 24000 519.6
6.00 6.45 60 21.42 23.56 0 400.02 24000 519.6
8.00 8.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
10.00 10.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
12.00 12.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
14.00 14.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
BH-06 2.00 2.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
4.00 4.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
6.00 6.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
8.00 8.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
10.00 10.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
12.00 12.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
14.00 14.00 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
BH-08 2.00 2.45 6 15.90 17.49 0 40 24000 51.96
4.00 4.36 60 21.42 23.56 0 400.02 24000 519.6
6.00 6.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
8.00 8.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
10.00 10.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
12.00 12.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
14.00 14.00 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
BH-12 2.00 2.10 60 21.42 23.56 41.83 0 24000 519.6
4.00 4.45 11 16.42 18.06 0 73.337 4400 95.26
6.00 6.45 9 15.70 17.27 0 60.003 1600 34.64
8.00 8.45 8 16.11 17.72 0 53.336 3200 69.28
BH-13 2.00 2.45 18 17.13 18.84 0 120.006 7200 155.88
4.00 4.01 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 17/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Titik Depth N-SPT NSPT Unit Saturated Internal Cohesion Modulus Shear
(M) (blows/ft) Weight Unit Friction (Cu,KPa) Elasticity Strength
(kN/m3) Weight Angle (mPa) (Kpa)
(kN/m3) (φ)
6.00 6.20 20 17.33 19.07 0 133.34 8000 173.2
8.00 8.10 60 21.42 23.56 22.728 2025 1774 519.6
BH-14 2.00 2.45 8 16.11 17.72 0 53.336 3200 69.28
4.00 4.45 12 16.52 18.17 0 80.004 4800 103.92
6.00 6.01 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
8.00 8.01 60 21.42 23.56 20.83 3732 1154 519.6
Note :
Corelation Score of N-SPT with Unit Weight (Source : Terzaghi and Peck, 1943)
Corelation Score of N-SPT with Angle of Internal Friction (Source : Teng, 1962)
Corelation Score of N-SPT with Cohesion (Source : Ameratunga, 2016)
Corelation Score of N-SPT with Young Modulus (Source : Skemthon, 1968)
Corelation Score of N-SPT with Shear Strength (Source : Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)
Table 2-2: Parameter Interpretation from NSPT

2.3 BEARING CAPACITY

2.3.1 Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPT)

The bearing capacity value based on sondir data is shown in Table 2-3 below:

Sondir Width Depth Tip Cone Cone Allowable Bearing

Area Resistance Resistance Capacity (Meyerhof (1959)
B Df Ap qc qc Qa Qa
(m) (m) (m2) (Kg/Cm2) (tsf) (tsf) (T/M2)
S-03 1 0 1.00 3 2.7 0.1 0.2
1 -1 1.00 8 7.3 0.2 0.5
1 -2 1.00 43 39.1 1.3 2.6
1 -3 1.00 158 143.8 4.8 9.6
1 -3.2 1.00 200 182.0 6.1 12.1
S-05 1 0 1.00 5 4.6 0.2 0.3
1 -1 1.00 15 13.7 0.5 0.9
1 -2 1.00 92 83.7 2.8 5.6
1 -3 1.00 69 62.8 2.1 4.2
1 -4 1.00 70 63.7 2.1 4.2
1 -4.6 1.00 200 182.0 6.1 12.1
S-06 1 0 1.00 5 4.6 0.2 0.3
1 -1 1.00 13 11.8 0.4 0.8
1 -2 1.00 18 16.4 0.5 1.1
1 -3 1.00 65 59.2 2.0 3.9
1 -4 1.00 151 137.4 4.6 9.2
1 -4.4 1.00 200 182.0 6.1 12.1
S-07 1 0 1.00 4 3.6 0.1 0.2
1 -1 1.00 15 13.7 0.5 0.9
1 -2 1.00 65 59.2 2.0 3.9
1 -3 1.00 39 35.5 1.2 2.4

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 18/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Sondir Width Depth Tip Cone Cone Allowable Bearing

Area Resistance Resistance Capacity (Meyerhof (1959)
B Df Ap qc qc Qa Qa
(m) (m) (m2) (Kg/Cm2) (tsf) (tsf) (T/M2)
1 -4 1.00 58 52.8 1.8 3.5
1 -5 1.00 93 84.6 2.8 5.6
1 -5.4 1.00 202 183.8 6.1 12.3
S-07a 1 0 1.00 3 2.7 0.1 0.2
1 -1 1.00 6 5.5 0.2 0.4
1 -2 1.00 28 25.5 0.8 1.7
1 -3 1.00 18 16.4 0.5 1.1
1 -4 1.00 50 45.5 1.5 3.0
1 -5 1.00 41 37.3 1.2 2.5
S-15 1 0 1.00 5 4.6 0.2 0.3
1 -1 1.00 11 10.0 0.3 0.7
1 -2 1.00 48 43.7 1.5 2.9
1 -3 1.00 53 48.2 1.6 3.2
1 -3.8 1.00 195 177.5 5.9 11.8
S-16 1 0 1.00 3 2.7 0.1 0.2
1 -1 1.00 13 11.8 0.4 0.8
1 -2 1.00 19 17.3 0.6 1.2
1 -3 1.00 14 12.7 0.4 0.8
1 -4 1.00 34 30.9 1.0 2.1
1 -5 1.00 48 43.7 1.5 2.9
1 -6 1.00 209 190.2 6.3 12.7
S-17 1 0 1.00 3 2.7 0.1 0.2
1 -1 1.00 8 7.3 0.2 0.5
1 -2 1.00 13 11.8 0.4 0.8
1 -3 1.00 18 16.4 0.5 1.1
1 -4 1.00 42 38.2 1.3 2.5
1 -5 1.00 94 85.5 2.9 5.7
1 -5.8 1.00 209 190.2 6.3 12.7
S-25 1 0 1.00 5 4.6 0.2 0.3
1 -1 1.00 7 6.4 0.2 0.4
1 -2 1.00 13 11.8 0.4 0.8
1 -3 1.00 24 21.8 0.7 1.5
1 -4 1.00 21 19.1 0.6 1.3
1 -5 1.00 31 28.2 0.9 1.9
1 -6 1.00 200 182.0 6.1 12.1
Table 2-3: Recapitulation of soil bearing capacity from DCPT

The bearing capacity graph based on sondir data shows the distribution of strength
on varied shallow foundations. The carrying capacity values above 6 T/M2 are in
the depth range of 2-6 m. This happens because the consistency value of the
lithology varies. In addition, the depth of rock from the ground surface varies as
well.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 19/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundation

0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0 12,0 14,0

-1

-2

-3
Depth (M)

-4

-5

-6

-7
Qa (T/M2)

S-03 S-05 S-06 S-07 S-07a

S-15 S-17 S-25 S-16

Figure 2-1: Bearing Capacity Graph based on Sondir Data

2.3.2 NSPT
Foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT, among others, for shallow
foundations and deep foundations. Each is described in the following sub-chapters:

2.3.2.1 Shallow Foundation

Referring to the Meyerhof method (1956), using the formula:
Qa = 0.08 NSPT (3.28 B +1)/3.28 B)2
were,
Qa = Allowable Bearing Capacity (T/M2)
NSPT = NSPT Value (blows/feet)
B = Foundation Width (M)
The empirical calculation of the bearing capacity of the soil, as follows:

Depth (M) Lithology Depth N- NSPT Qa

SPT (M) (blows/ft) (T/M2)
0.00 3.00 Soil Mixture, Clay, Sand, and Gravel Mixture 2.00 2.45 2 2.72
3.00 4.00 Sandy Clay has a gravelly 4.00 4.00 60 81.73
4.20 10.00 Carbonaceous Claystone 6.00 6.00 26 35.42
Carbonaceous Claystone 8.00 8.00 60 81.73

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 20/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Depth (M) Lithology Depth N- NSPT Qa

SPT (M) (blows/ft) (T/M2)
Carbonaceous Claystone 10.00 10.00 60 81.73
10.00 16.00 Mudstone 12.00 12.00 60 81.73
Mudstone 14.00 14.00 60 81.73
Mudstone 16.00 16.00 60 81.73
16.00 18.50 Sandstone 18.00 18.00 60 81.73
18.50 20.00 Sandstone 20.00 20.00 60 81.73
(Meyerhof, 1956)
Table 2-4: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-01

Depth (M) Lithology Depth N-SPT (M) NSPT Qa (T/M2)

(blows/ft)
0.00 2.20 Sandstone 2.00 2.00 60 81.73
2.20 5.20 Claystone 4.00 4.00 60 81.73
5.20 7.00 Mudstone 6.00 6.00 60 81.73
7.00 19.40 Sandstone 8.00 8.00 60 81.73
10.00 10.00 60 81.73
12.00 12.00 60 81.73
14.00 14.00 60 81.73
16.00 16.00 60 81.73
18.00 18.00 60 81.73
19.40 20.00 Claystone 20.00 20.00 60 81.73
(Meyerhof, 1956)
Table 2-5: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-02

Depth (M) Lithology Depth N-SPT (M) NSPT Qa (T/M2)

(blows/ft)
0.00 1.20 Sandy Clay, Gravel Mixture. 0.00
1.20 4.40 Sandy Clay 2.00 2.45 60 81.73
4.40 6.20 Silty Clay 4.00 4.45 60 81.73
6.20 7.00 Claystone 6.00 6.00 60 81.73
7.00 10.00 Claystone 8.00 8.00 60 81.73
Claystone 10.00 10.00 60 81.73
10.00 15.00 Mudstone 12.00 12.00 60 81.73
Mudstone 14.00 14.00 60 81.73
(Meyerhof, 1956)
Table 2-6: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-03

Depth (M) Lithology Depth N-SPT (M) NSPT Qa (T/M2)

(blows/ft)
0.00 1.00 Clayey Sand & Gravel Mixture 0.00
1.00 3.30 Sandstone mixture Clayey Sand 2.00 2.00 60 81.73
3.30 5.00 Claystone 4.00 4.00 60 81.73
5.00 10.20 Mudstone 6.00 6.00 60 81.73
8.00 8.00 60 81.73
10.00 10.00 60 81.73

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 21/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Depth (M) Lithology Depth N-SPT (M) NSPT Qa (T/M2)

(blows/ft)
10.20 15.00 Sandstone 12.00 12.00 60 81.73
14.00 14.00 60 81.73
(Meyerhof, 1956)
Table 2-7: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-06

Depth (M) Lithology Depth N-SPT (M) NSPT Qa (T/M2)

(blows/ft)
0.00 3.20 Sandy Silt 2.00 2.45 6 8.17
3.20 4.90 Silty Clay 4.00 4.36 60 81.73
4.90 5.60 Sandstone 0.00
5.60 7.50 Clayey Sandstone 6.00 6.00 60 81.73
7.50 10.00 Sandstone 8.00 8.00 60 81.73
10.00 10.00 60 81.73
10.00 15.00 Sandstone 12.00 12.00 60 81.73
14.00 14.00 60 81.73
(Meyerhof, 1956)
Table 2-8: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-08

Depth (M) Lithology Depth N-SPT (M) NSPT Qa

(blows/ft) (T/M2)
0.00 0.30 Gravelly Sand 0.00
0.30 1.50 Sandy Clay and Sandstone boulder 0.00
mixture
1.50 3.00 Clayey Sand 2.00 2.10 60 81.73
3.00 5.80 Sandy Clay 4.00 4.45 11 14.98
5.80 10.00 Sandy Clay, has a sandstone 6.00 6.45 4 5.45
8.00 8.45 8 10.90
(Meyerhof, 1956)
Table 2-9: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-12

Depth (M) Lithology Depth N-SPT (M) NSPT Qa (T/M2)

(blows/ft)
0.00 6.00 Sandy Clay 2.00 2.45 18 24.52
4.00 4.01 60 81.73
6.00 7.80 Clay 6.00 6.20 20 27.24
7.80 9.80 Mudstone 8.00 8.10 60 81.73
9.80 10.00 Claystone 0.00
(Meyerhof, 1956)
Table 2-10: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-13

Depth (M) Lithology Depth N-SPT (M) NSPT Qa (T/M2)

(blows/ft)
0.00 1.00 Sandy clay 0.00
1.00 5.00 Sandy Clay 2.00 2.45 8 10.90
4.00 4.45 12 16.35
5.00 5.40 Sandstone 0.00

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 22/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

5.40 6.00 Mudstone 0.00

6.00 7.00 Sandstone 6.00 6.01 60 81.73
7.00 10.00 Sandstone 8.00 8.01 60 81.73
(Meyerhof, 1956)
Table 2-11: Shallow foundation bearing capacity based on NSPT data on BH-14

Basically, as the depth increases, the NSPT value also increases. The bearing
capacity will increase as the NSPT value increases.
In the investigated area, NSPT 60 has been reached at an average depth of 5 m.
The bearing capacity of NSPT 60 is 81.73 T/m2.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 23/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

3.1 ANALYSIS METHOD

3.1.1 Codes, Standards and References

For the calculation of slope stability, the provisions, regulations and references as
listed below, including all amendments, shall apply, namely:
a) SNI 8460:2017: Persyarataan perancangan geoteknik (Geotechnical Design
Requirements)
b) National Earthquake Study Center (Pusat Studi Gempa Nasional), (2017),
Indonesia Earthquake Source and Hazard Map 2017
c) PLAXIS bv. (2006), Plaxis 2D-Version 8 Manual
d) Abramson, L. W., Lee, T. S., Sharma, S., & Boyce, G. M. (2001). Slope stability
and stabilization methods. John Wiley & Sons.
e) Gouw, T.L. (2014), Common Mistakes on the Application of Plaxis 2D in
Analyzing Excavation Problems, International Journal of Applied Engineering
Research, Research India Publications, ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 9, Number 21
(2014), pp. 8291-8331.
f) Mortier, I., Ampe, P., & Leo Van Cauter, L. Van Cauter. (2014). Numerical
analysis of slope stability reinforced by piles in over-consolidated clay.
g) Lindberg, N. (2020). Three-dimensional effects in slope stability for shallow
excavations: Analyzes with the finite element program PLAXIS.

3.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3.2.1 Material Used

The classification of the technical properties of the materials used in this calculation
is as follows:
▪ Compressive Strength of Concrete : fc’ = 300 kg/cm² (24.9 Mpa)
▪ Specific Gravity Concrete : c = 2400 kg/m³
▪ Yield Stress of Steel : fy = 390 MPa
▪ Specific Gravity Steel : 4000 kg/m3
▪ Specific Gravity Concrete : 2400 kg/m3
▪ Specific Gravity Soil : 1700 kg/m³
▪ Specific Gravity Water : 1000 kg/m³

3.2.2 Software Used

▪ Microsoft Excel
▪ Plaxis 2D V20 and V8.6

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 24/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

3.2.3 Design Criteria

For the geotechnical design, the following design criteria are applied:
1. Load data are based on traffic mobilization heavy vehicle
Traffic load based on SNI 8460:2017.

STREET TRAFFIC LOAD LOAD OFF THE

CLASIFICATION (kPa) ROAD (kPa)
I 15 10
II 12 10
III 12 10
Table 3-1: Traffic Load form (DPU,2011) and the Load off the Road

2. Bearing capacity safety factor requirements

Safety Factor
Shallow Deep
Foundation Foundation
3.0 2.5
Table 3-2: Safety Factors Bearing Capacity (SNI:8640-2017)

3. Safety factor requirements

Design Criteria Note

permanent slope stability SF min = 1,5
Earthquake slope stability SF min = 1,1
Criteria for vertical deformation of uplift retaining concrete slab Max = 2,5 cm
Table 3-3: Slope Stability Design Criteria (SNI:8640-2017)

4. Structural analysis using plaxis 2D software.

3.3 SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS

The estimation of safety level for the slope stability at the project site is carried out
using the PLAXIS 2D 8.6 program package developed based on the finite element
method.
Figure 3-1 below shows the discretization process of elements on the slopes when
calculating using the finite element method. Each corner of each element is a node
that is connected to each other. The nodal point is where the calculation process is
carried out. Plaxis 2D is used to calculate safety factor in earthquake conditions.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 25/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Source: Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods, 1996, Pg 430

Figure 3-1: Nodal points, element discretization for finite element calculation on slope

The exact definition of the concept of slope safety factor in the finite element method
is stated as follows:
S max
SF =
S needed
Where:
SF Safety factor
S shear strength.
From the formula of SF, it can be explained that the Safety Factor is defined as the
ratio between the actual shear strength and the minimum shear strength required
under balanced conditions.
Based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure condition, furthermore, it can be expressed:

c +   tan 
SF =
c r +   tan  r

Where cr dan φr are the parameters of reduced shear strength. Parameter

reduction is carried out in stages until it reaches the collapse condition.
Until today, research on slope stability calculation methods in earthquake
conditions still recommends pseudo static analysis methods and displacement-
based methods as calculation methods used. The PLAXIS program is a method of
calculating earthquake conditions using an approach that refers to the Seed –
Whitman (1970). According to Lee (2004), the value of kh depends on the
magnitude of the earthquake acceleration, the duration of the earthquake and its
frequency. In general, the value of kh ranges from 0.1*PGA to 1*PGA.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 26/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

3.4 SLOPE STABILITY INTAKE AREA

3.4.1 Soil Parameter

The soil parameters used are geotechnical parameter interpretation data based on
soil investigation in BH-03, BH-04, BH-05, and geological observations on the
existing situation at the site:

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3

Identification
Soft clay Sand stone Clay stone
Identification number 1 2 3
Drainage type Undrained Undrained Drained
Colour
γunsat kN/m³ 15 18 18
γsat kN/m³ 16 19 19
E kN/m² 5000 48000 48000
ν (nu) 0.35 0.3 0.3
G kN/m² 1852 18460 18460
Eoed kN/m² 8025 64620 64620
cref kN/m² 16 75 78
φ (phi) ° 17 35 34
Table 3-4: Design Parameters for Analysis Intake Area

3.4.2 Geometry Model Intake Area

Geometry model for Slope Stability Critical Area on weir downstream, based on
situation map of topography data that STA 0+050 – STA 0+200.

Analysis Location

Figure 3-2: Situation Map

3.4.3 Slope Stability Intake Area

The analysis is carried out in 2 condition, namely:

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 27/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

1. Initial Phase, at this stage, gravity loading is carried out to determine the initial
loading conditions, namely the soil load of each layer against the gravitational
pressure.
2. Sloping with benching, at this condition the surface layer formed to reduce the
critical slip surface of slope.

3.4.4 Initial Phase Intake Area

Figure 3-3: Geometry model Initial Phase

From the results of the analysis stability of the slopes, a safety analysis was carried
out using the phi/c reduction method, namely the decrease in the value of the soil
shear strength and the incremental multiplier, namely the gradual addition of
loading until collapse occurs. The output of this analysis is the Safety Factor (∑
Msf), The value of the safety factor in this calculation is 1.173. The required
threshold value is 1.5. So at this stage the slope is considered stable, however
below its necessary safety factor.

Figure 3-4: Safety Factor Calculation Results for Initial Phase

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 28/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Figure 3-5: Shear Stress of Initial Phase

Base on output analisys model in initial phase, its known the shear stress occurs at
surface soil layer because lowest shear strength of surface soil layer. The needed
reinforced to improve slope safety factor to met the design criteria of safety factor
(SF=1,5). The shear stress is shown on Figure 5-4 below.

3.4.5 Recommended Slope Intake Area

Figure 3-6: Geometry of slope with benching

Slope reinforcement analysis was carried out with cutting sloping surface soil
become 1:1.5 and benching 3m every height 5m. Based on analysis the results a

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 29/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

safety factor of SF = 1.5027 which means this protection has met the design criteria
of safety factor (SF = 1.5). The result is shown in Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-7: Safety Factor Calculation Result for slopws with benches

Figure 3-8: Shear Stress Slope with Benching

Base on output analysis model in sloping with benching, its known the deformed
and benching it can reduce the shear stress occurs at surface soil layer. The shear
stress obtained is shown in Figure 3-8.

3.4.6 Summary Slope Safety Factor Intake Area

Based on the analysis of the safety factor that occurs, it can be concluded as
follows:

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 30/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Safety Factor Remarks

Calculation stages Safety Factor
allowable
Initial Phase 1.173 1,5 NOK
Sloping with Benching 1.5027 1,5 OK
Table 3-5: Summary of results slope stability analysis intake area

3.5 SLOPE STABILITY WATERWAYS

3.5.1 Soil Parameter Waterways

The soil parameters used are geotechnical parameter interpretation data based on
core drilling in S-03, BH-10, and geological observations on the existing situation at
the site. They are shown in Table 3-6 below.

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5

Identification Soft Stiff Silt Dense Hard Sandstone
Clay Sand Clay
Identification 1 2 3 4 5
number
Drainage type Undrained Undrained Undrained Undrained Undrained
Colour
γunsat kN/m³ 16 18 17 21 21
γsat kN/m³ 17 19 18 22 22
E kN/m² 4700 15200 16090 90400 55000
ν (nu) 0.334 0.334 0.3 0.334 0.3
G kN/m² 1761.619 5697.151 6186.923 33880 21150
Eoed kN/m² 7068 22860 21650 135900 74040
cref kN/m² 24 72 22 365 56
φ (phi) ° 14 16 37 33 43
Table 3-6: Design Parameters for Analysis Water Way Area

3.5.2 Geometry Model Waterways

The geometry model for the slope stability analysis on the critical area downstream
of the weir at the desander is based on the situation map of topography. The
steepest slope is in the desander area with +- 70 degrees.
Figure 3-9 below shows the location of the area.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 31/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Analysis Location

Figure 3-9: Situation Map

3.5.3 Slope Stability Analysis Waterways

The analysis is carried out under 2 conditions, namely:
1. Initial Phase, at this stage, gravity loading is carried out to determine the initial
loading conditions, namely the soil load of each layer against the gravitational
pressure.
2. Sloping with benching, at this condition the surface layer formed to reduce the
critical slip surface of slope.

3.5.4 Initial Phase Waterways

Figure 3-10: Geometry model Initial Phase

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 32/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

From the results of the analysis stability of the slopes, a safety analysis was carried
out using the phi/c reduction method, namely the decrease in the value of the soil
shear strength and the incremental multiplier, namely the gradual addition of
loading until collapse occurs.
The result of this analysis is the Safety Factor (∑ Msf), The value of the safety factor
in this calculation is 1.2873. The required threshold value is 1.5. So at this stage
the slope is considered not on the safe side.

Figure 3-11: Safety Factor Calculation Results for Initial Phase

Figure 3-12: Shear Stress of Initial Phase

Base on output analisys model in initial phase, its known the shear stress occurs at
surface soil layer because lowest shear strength of surface soil layer.
The needed reinforced to improve slope safety factor to meet the design criteria of
safety factor (SF=1,5). The shear stress is shown in Figure 3-12.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 33/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

3.5.5 Recommended Slope Water Way Area

Figure 3-13: Geometry of slope with benching

Slope reinforcement analysis was carried out with cutting sloping surface soil
become 1:1 and benching 3m every height 5m.
Based on analysis the results a safety factor of SF = 1.6084 which means this
protection has met the design criteria of safety factor (SF = 1.5). The result is shown
in Figure 3-13.

Figure 3-14: Safety Factor Calculation Result for Sloping with Beching

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 34/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Figure 3-15: Shear Stress Slope with Benching

Base on output analysis model in sloping with benching, its known the deformed
and benching it can reduce the shear stress occurs at surface soil layer. The shear
stress is shown in Figure 3-15.

3.5.6 Summary of Slope Safety Factor Waterway

Based on the analysis of the safety factor that occurs, it can be concluded as
follows:

Safety Factor Remarks

Calculation stages Safety Factor
allowable
Initial Phase 1.2873 1,5 NOK
Sloping with Benching 1.6084 1,5 OK
Table 3-7: Summary results analysis Water Way Area

3.6 SLOPE STABILITY HEAD POND

3.6.1 Soil Parameter Head Pond

The soil parameters used are geotechnical parameter interpretation data based on
core drilling in S-11, BH-11, BH-14, and geological observations on the existing
situation at the site.

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4

Identification
Firm Clay Stiff Clay Dense Sand Sandstone
Identification number 1 2 3 4
Drainage type Undrained Undrained Undrained Undrained
Colour

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 35/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4

Identification
Firm Clay Stiff Clay Dense Sand Sandstone
γunsat kN/m³ 18 18 18 21
γsat kN/m³ 19 19 19 22
E kN/m² 3600 21000 22400 49022
ν (nu) 0.334 0.334 0.45 0.3
G kN/m² 1349.325 7871.064 7724.138 18860
Eoed kN/m² 5414 31580 84970 65990
cref kN/m² 60 84 32 45
φ (phi) ° 22 22 34.6 43
Table 3-8: Design Parameters for analysis at Head Pond

3.6.2 Geometry Model Head Pond Area

Geometry model for Slope Stability Critical Area on weir downstream, based on
situation map of topography data that around Head Pond Area.

Analysis Location

Figure 3-16: Situation Map

3.6.3 Slope Stability Analysis Head Pond

The analysis is carried out under 2 conditions, namely:
1. Initial Phase, at this stage, gravity loading is carried out to determine the initial
loading conditions, namely the soil load of each layer against the gravitational
pressure.
2. Sloping with benching, at this condition the surface layer formed to reduce the
critical slip surface of slope.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 36/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

3.6.4 Initial Phase Head Pond Area

Figure 3-17: Geometry model Initial Phase

From the results of the analysis stability of the slopes, a safety analysis was carried
out using the phi/c reduction method, namely the decrease in the value of the soil
shear strength and the incremental multiplier, namely the gradual addition of
loading until collapse occurs.
The output of this analysis is the Safety Factor (∑ Msf), The value of the safety
factor in this calculation is 1.2511. The required threshold value is 1.5. So at this
stage the slope is unstable.

Figure 3-18: Safety Factor Calculation Results for Initial Phase

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 37/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Figure 3-19: Shear Stress of Initial Phase

Base on output analysis model in initial phase, its known the shear stress occurs at
surface soil layer because lowest shear strength of surface soil layer.
The needed reinforced to improve slope safety factor to meet the design criteria of
safety factor (SF=1,5). The shear stress is shown in Figure 3-19.

3.6.5 Recommended Slope Head Pond Area

Figure 3-20: Geometry of sloping with Benching

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 38/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Slope reinforcement analysis was carried out with cutting sloping surface soil
become 1:1.5 and benching 3m every height 5m. Based on analysis the results a
safety factor of SF = 1.7634 which means this protection has met the design criteria
of safety factor (SF = 1.5) as shown below.

Figure 3-21: Safety Factor calculation result for slopw with benches

Figure 3-22: Shear Stress slope with benches

Base on output analysis model in sloping with benching, its known the deformed
and benching it can reduce the shear stress occurs at surface soil layer. The shear
stress is shown in Figure 3-22.

3.6.6 Summary of Safety Factor Head Pond Area

Based on the analysis of the safety factor that occurs, it can be concluded as
follows:

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 39/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Safety Factor Remarks

Calculation stages Safety Factor
allowable
Initial Phase 1.2511 1,5 NOK
Sloping with Benching 1.7634 1,5 OK
Table 3-9: Summary of results analysis slope at Head Pond

3.7 SLOPE STABILITY PENSTOK

3.7.1 Soil Parameter Penstock

The soil parameters used are geotechnical parameter interpretation data based on
core drilling in BH-13, BH-14, BH-15 and geological observations on the existing
situation at the site:

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer3

Identification
Stiff Clay Sandstone Claystone
Identification number 1 2 3
Drainage type Undrained Undrained Undrained
Colour
γunsat kN/m³ 18 23 22
γsat kN/m³ 19 24 23
E kN/m² 21000 1154000 1774000
ν (nu) 0.334 0.3 0.3
G kN/m² 7871.064 443800 709600
Eoed kN/m² 31580 1553000 2129000
cref kN/m² 84 3732 2025
φ (phi) ° 22 20.83 22.73
Table 3-10: Design Parameters for Analysis Penstock Area

3.7.2 Geometry Model Penstock Area

Geometry model for the critical slope area based on the topography of the situation
map on the penstock alignment between Head Pond and Power House.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 40/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Analysis Location

Figure 3-23: Situation Map

3.7.3 Slope Stability Analysis Penstock Area

The analysis is carried out under 2 conditions, namely:
1. Initial Phase, at this stage, gravity loading is carried out to determine the initial
loading conditions, namely the soil load of each layer against the gravitational
pressure.
2. Sloping with benching, at this condition the surface layer formed to reduce the
critical slip surface of slope.

3.7.4 Initial Phase Penstock Area

Figure 3-24: Geometry model Initial Phase

From the results of the analysis stability of the slopes, a safety analysis was carried
out using the phi/c reduction method, namely the decrease in the value of the soil
shear strength and the incremental multiplier, namely the gradual addition of
loading until collapse occurs.
The output of this analysis is the Safety Factor (∑ Msf), The value of the safety
factor in this calculation is 2.85. The required threshold value is 1.5. So at this stage
the slope is stable.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 41/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Figure 3-25: Safety Factor Calculation Results for Initial Phase

3.7.5 Recommended Slope Penstock Area

Figure 3-26: Geometry of penstock slope during construction

Slope cutting carried out according to planned excavation during penstock

construction. Based on analysis the results a safety factor of SF = 1.585 which
means this excavation has met the design criteria of safety factor (SF = 1.5).
The result is shown below.

Figure 3-27: Safety factor calculation penstock slope during excavation

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 42/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Figure 3-28: Shear stress in penstock sloe during excavation

Base on output analysis model in sloping, its known the deformed and benching it
can reduce the shear stress occurs at surface soil layer. The shear stress is shown
in Figure 3-28.

3.7.6 Summary of Safety Factors Penstock Area

Based on the analysis of the safety factor that occurs, it can be concluded as
follows:

Safety Factor Remarks

Calculation stages Safety Factor
allowable
Initial Phase 2.85 1,5 OK
Sloping 1.58 1,5 OK
Table 3-11: Summary of results analysis Head Pond

3.8 SLOPE STABILITY BLOCK C

3.8.1 Soil Parameter Block C

Based on geological hazard mapping, is known potential slip surface. Analysis
slope for Block C soil parameters used are geotechnical parameter interpretation
data based on core drilling in BH12, and geological observations on the existing
situation at the site:

Layer 1 sandy Layer 2 Layer 3

Identification clay Sandy clay Sand
soft firm compact
Identification 1 2 3
number
Drainage type Undrained Undrained Drained
Colour
γunsat kN/m³ 14 16 17
γsat kN/m³ 15 17 18
E kN/m² 4000 15000 20000
ν (nu) 0.28 0.3 0.35
G kN/m² 1563 5769 7407
Eoed kN/m² 5114 20190 3210e3
cref kN/m² 13 23 15

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 43/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Layer 1 sandy Layer 2 Layer 3

Identification clay Sandy clay Sand
soft firm compact
φ (phi) ° 15 21 30
Table 3-12: Design Parameters For Analysis

3.8.2 Geometry Model Blok C Area

Geometry model for Slope Stability Critical Area on downstream, based on situation
map of topography data that STA 0+325 – STA 0+225 is shown in Figure 3-29
below.

Figure 3-29: Shear Stress Slope with Benching

3.8.3 Slope Stability Analysis Blok C Area

The analysis is carried out in 3 phases, namely:
1. Initial Phase, at this stage, gravity loading is carried out to determine the initial
loading conditions, namely the soil load of each layer against the gravitational
pressure.
2. Load Phase, the external loading phase, namely traffic loads and pipe and
foundation loads. Load vehicle and Load : 50 kN/m2
3. Earthquake phase: pseudo static earthquake load stage using spectral
acceleration 0,025 g

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 44/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

3.8.4 Initial Phase Blok C Area

Figure 3-30: Geometry model Block C Initial Phase

From the results of the analysis there is a potential for ground movement of 0.41 m.
To determine the stability of the slopes, a safety analysis was carried out using the
phi/c reduction method, namely the decrease in the value of the soil shear strength
and the incremental multiplier, namely the gradual addition of loading until collapse
occurs.
The output of this analysis is the Safety Factor (∑ Msf), the potential for ground
movement |u| under normal conditions the following is the result:
▪ Safety Factor (∑ Msf) 1.698
▪ displacement |u| 0,3704 m

Figure 3-31: Safety Factor calculation results for Initial Phase

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 45/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Figure 3-32: Potential Shear Stress at Initial Phase

3.8.5 Load Phase Blok C Area

Figure 3-33: Geometry Model Load Phase

The output of this analysis is the Safety Factor (∑ Msf), the potential for ground
movement |u| under normal conditions and when a collapse occurs the following is
the result:
▪ Safety Factor (∑ Msf) 1,185
▪ Displacement with load 0,0002509 m
▪ Displacement ultimate |u| 5091 m

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 46/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Figure 3-34: Safety Factor calculation results in the Load Phase

Figure 3-35: Cross Section Slip Plane in the Load Phase

In this Load Phase, it is known the potential for soil movement and slip planes when
a collapse occurs. There is a maximum ground movement of 0.4869 m. This
potential failure occurs due to the calculation of the safety factor, namely phi/c
reduction in decreasing the shear strength of the soil parameter. The value of the
safety factor in this calculation is 1.185. The required threshold value is 1.5. So at
this stage the slope is unstable.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 47/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

3.8.6 Summary Safety Factor Blok C Area

Based on the analysis of the safety factor, the following summary of results is
obtained:

Safety Factor Remarks

Calculation stages Safety Factor
allowable
Initial Phase 1.698 1,5 OK
Load Phase 1.185 1,5 NOK
Table 3-13: Summary of results analysis Block C

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 48/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

4.1 CONCLUSION

1. The soil bearing capacity based on the sondir data shows the distribution of
strength on varied shallow foundations. The carrying capacity comes with
values above 6 T/m2 are in the depth range of 2-6 m.
2. The bearing capacity will increase as the NSPT value increases. In the
investigated area, NSPT 60 has been reached at an average depth of 5 m. The
bearing capacity of NSPT 60 is 81.73 T/m2.
3. Based on analysis for initial phase intake, water way and head pond area the
Safety Factor cannot meet the value safety criteria (SF ≥ 1.5) according to the
requirements of SNI : 8640-2017 Persyarataan perancangan geoteknik
(Geotechnical Design Requirements). The result for initial phase can follow the
table:

Safety Factor
Analysis Area Safety Factor Remarks
allowable
Intake 1.173 1.5 NOK
Water way 1.2873 1.5 NOK
Head pond 1.2511 1.5 NOK
Penstock 2.85 1.5 OK

Table 4-1: Summary of Safety Factors Slope Initial Phase

4. The output analysis shows the critical shear stress on the surface soil layer, that
means the surface soil layer formed to increase the safety factor criteria.
5. The geological hazard mapping shown the Block C potential slip surface. The
safety factor analysis for global slip surface is summarized below:

Safety Factor
Analysis Area Safety Factor Remarks
allowable
Initial phase 1.698 1.5 OK
Load phase 1.185 1.5 NOK
Table 4-2: Resume Safety Factor Block C

4.2 RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above conclusions for critical area it is recommended to establish
surface soil layer formed with 3 meter wide bench every 5 meters of height.
The results of the slope stabilization analysis obtained for this case with benching
are shown in Table 4-3 below:

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 49/50

Lampunut Hydropower Plant
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
03.10.2022

Safety Factor
Analysis Area Benching Height Sloping Safety Factor Remarks
allowable
Intake 3m 5m 1:1.5 1.5027 1.5 OK
Water way 3m 5m 1:1 1.6084 1.5 OK
Head pond 3m 5m 1:1.5 1.7634 1.5 OK
Penstock 1.585 1.5 OK
Table 4-3: Summary Safety Factors with benches

The requirement of SNI : 8640-2017 foresees for linear structures to executed a

soil investigation point every 50-200m. These investigations should be executed
during the construction works.
It is also strongly recommended to employ during the excavation works
permanently a geotechnical engineer for the revision of soils and subsoil
encountered and the definition of additional slope protection measures or more
detailed investigations, as deemed appropriate to avoid active movements during
construction and operation.

10577-ILF-THA-OD-0053_P4S5 Geotechnical.docx | Revision 1 | © Page 50/50