Cirebon Power Plant_R0

7/24/2019 Cirebon Power Plant_R0

1/213

JOB NO. 2338

CIREBON ELECTRIC POWER PT

J A K A R T A

SOIL INVESTIGATION

FOR

POWER BLOCK AREA

CIREBON THERMAL POWER PLANT PROJECT

CIREBON, WEST JAVA

I N D O N E S I A

FINAL REPORT

AUGUST 2007

01 10/08/2007 All Issued Final Report, R0 Ir. Padmono, PE Ir.Iman Mulyana Ir.Wirastusrini, PE

No Date Page Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by


2/213

Final Report, Part I : Power Block Area Revision-00

Cirebon Thermal Power Plant Project, Cirebon, West Java August 13, 2007For Cirebon Electric Power PT, Jakarta Job No. 2350

PT. Soilens, Bandung Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover

Executive Summary

Table of Contents.......i

1 INTRODUCTION..1

2 SCOPE AND PURPOSE.......1

3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS...............1

3.1.Drillings...........1

3.2.Standard Penetration Tests......2

3.3.Undisturbed Samplings.......2

3.4.Water Level Observations.......2

3.5.Dutch Cone Penetration Test......2

3.6.Coordinate and Elevation of the Investigated Points.........3

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............3

4.1.Geology...3

4.2.Seismicity............4

4.3.Stratigraphy.........4

4.4.Soil Profile based on the UBC 1997.......6

5 LABORATORY TESTING...........6

5.1.Description of Test..........6

5.2.Engineering Properties of the Undisturbed Samples......6

5.2.1. Physical Properties......6

5.2.2. Strength Parameters.....8

5.2.3. Compressibility Characteristics...........8

6 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............9

6.1.Plant Site Preparation............9

6.1.1.Areal Fill..........96.1.2.Areal Settlements.....9

6.1.3.Vertical Drain and Deep Mixing...........11

6.1.4.Provisions Against Secondary Settlement.11

6.2.Liquefaction........11

6.2.1. General .......11

6.2.2. Liquefaction Analysis.11

6.2.3. Results of Analysis......12

6.3.Foundations.....12

6.3.1. General Foundation Criteria........136.3.2. Shallow Foundation....13


3/213

Final Report, Part I : Power Block Revision-00

Cirebon Thermal Power Plant Project, Cirebon, West Java August, 2007For Cirebon Electeric Power PT, Jakarta Job No. 2340

PT. Soilens, Bandung Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.3.3. Deep Foundation.....13

6.3.3.1. Axially Loaded PC-Piles...14

6.3.3.2.Negative Skin Friction on Piles....14

6.3.3.3. Laterally Loaded Piles..15

6.3.3.4. Allowable Pile Capacity...15

6.3.3.5. Pile Spacing..16

6.3.3.6. Pile Driving Procedures .......16

6.3.3.7. Full Scale Vertical Pile Loading Test.......17

6.3.3.8. Lateral Load Test......196.3.3.9. Pile Dynamic Analyzer (PDA) Test.....19

6.4. Chemical Properties of Water Samples..........21

6.5. Hydrology...........22

6.6. Inspection and Monitoring......22

Plates :

PLATE 1.1 to PLATE 1.15 : Areal Settlements Analysis

PLATE 2.1 to PLATE 2.2 : Vertical Drain Calculation and Spacing

PLATE 3.1 to PLATE 3.13 : Liquefaction Analysis

PLATE 4.1 to PLATE 4.15 : Axial Spun Presstresed Concrete Pile Capacity

PLATE 5.1 to PLATE 5.5 : Lateral Pile Capacity Curves Pinned Pile Head

PLATE 6.1 to PLATE 6.5 : Lateral Pile Capacity Curves Fixed Pile Head

PLATE 7.1 to PLATE 7.5 : Lateral Pile Response Pinned Pile Head

PLATE 8.1 to PLATE 8.5 : Lateral Pile Response Fixed Pile Head

PLATE 9.1 to PLATE 9.3 : Allowable PC Pile Capacity

Appendices:

Appendix A.1 : Project Location Map

Appendix A.2 : Boring Log

Appendix A.3 : Graph of 2 ton DCPTAppendix A.4 : Map of Seismic Risk Zones of Indonesia

Appendix A.5 : General Cross Section

Appendix B.1 : Laboratory Test Table

Appendix B.2 : Consolidation Curves

Appendix B.3 : Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test

Appendix B.4 : Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test

Appendix B.5 : Grainsize Analysis


4/213

Final Report, Part I : Power Block Revision-00

Cirebon Thermal Power Plant Project, Cirebon, West Java August, 2007For Cirebon Electeric Power PT, Jakarta Job No. 2340

PT. Soilens, Bandung Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix C.1 : Term and SymbolsAppendix C.2 : Equipment and Procedures

Appendix C.3 : Conversion Factors

Appendix C.4 : Analytical Procedures


5/213


Cirebon Thermal Power Plant Project, Cirebon, West Java August 13, 2007

For Cirebon Electric Power PT, Jakarta Job No. 2350

PT. Soilens, Bandung Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical engineering report is carried out by PT. Soilens for Cirebon Electric

Power PT. It contains the discussion on engineering properties of the groundrecommendations of foundations system and solution of the anticipated geotechnical

problem for the Power Block area as part of Cirebon Power Plant Project.

This final report presents a comprehensive sub-surface information of the proposed plant

site and a geotechnical assessment for the site preparation, and foundation of variousstructures to be constructed. This includes analyses of areal settlements, soil improvement,

liquefaction analysis, deep pile foundation and other relevant information for design of the

proposed plant.

The analysis of axial compressive and tension pile capacities were performed using

PLEAXI computer program. The analysis of lateral pile capacities were performed using

Lpile Plus V5 computer program based on p-y method.

This work is carried out under the PO No.: 7017-CI-004 dated June 28, 2007 from

Cirebon Electric Power PT. to PT.SOILENS.

2 SCOPE AND PURPOSE

The purpose of the investigation is to explore the soil at the proposed plant site and toprovide recommendations in relation to the foundation design. The scope of the

investigations included:

(1) Soil drilling of 15 points, with a total depth of 480 m, performing standard

penetration test, collecting undisturbed samples, and continuous coring.(2) Performing Dutch Cone Penetration Test of 2 ton capacity at 8 points(3) A laboratory testing program on undisturbed and disturbed samples to evaluate the

engineering characteristics of the sub surface strata encountered.

(4) Performing engineering analysis to evaluate and to provide site specific geotechnicalinformation, should include recommendation on most suitable foundation type for

each facility, recommendation on soil improvement, area settlement and others.However, detail analysis and calculations of foundation design in relation to the

foundation arrangement and configuration, and working load is beyond the scope of

works of this report.

The lay-out of the project and the location of the investigated points are shown in

Appendix A.1.

3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

3.1 Drillings

The field investigations were carried out by a team consisting of Iman Mulyana as TeamLeader, Ujang, Mamay, Omay, E. Slamet, Unang M, Iyang as Drilling Master, Untung as

CPT Master and Arif S. as Assistant Geologist.

The drillings were carried out using 6 (six) Long Year drilling machine with Long Year

535-RQ pumping unit. The bore holes were advanced by continuous coring using NX-

size, single tube core barrels apparatus with outer diameter of 73 mm. All drillings weresupervised by the Assistant Geologist, who also maintained a continuous logging on the


6/213




PT. SOILENS, Bandung Page 2

core samples. These core samples were placed in wooden boxes, each containing 5 meterlong of samples, and stored at the site. The undisturbed soil samples were carried out on

cohesive soil at approximately 5 meter interval or at every change in soil layer.

The detailed classification of the soil samples after refinements in relation to the laboratorytest results are presented in boring logs included in Appendix A.2.

The information on the logs also includes the field test results and locations of samples.The samples were brought to PT.SOILENS Soil Laboratory in Bandung where the tests

were performed.

3.2 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)

The standard penetration test was performed in accordance to the ASTM Standard method

D1586. The test consists of driving a standard split spoon sampler into the soil at requireddepth in a bore hole.

A hammer of 63.5 kg weight falling freely from a height of 75 cm on the drill rod is used

to drive the sampler. The number of hammer blows to drive the second and the third 15 cmof penetration are called the SPT N-value which represents the number of blows per 30 cm

of penetration. The standard penetration test was performed at 2.0 meter interval. Inaddition, pocket penetrometer tests were also performed on cohesive soil samples that

indicated plastic behavior. The SPT results presented in the boring log enclosed in this

report.

3.3 Undisturbed Samplings

The undisturbed samples were taken from cohesive soil at depth interval of approximately

5 meters. This is done by taking samples from bore hole by means of seamless thin walledsteel tube commonly known as shelby tube.

The tube is 76.2 mm in diameter and has beveled butting edge at the lower end. It isconnected to the drill rod and pushed by static force into the bottom of the hole. When the

tube is almost full, it is withdrawn from the hole, removed from the drill rod, sealed at bothends with paraffin, and shipped to PT. Soilens soil laboratory in Bandung for testing.

When ready for test, the samples are ejected from the tubes cut into required length and

subjected to various laboratory tests.

3.4 Water Level Observations

The elevation of ground water level in the bore holes varies from 0.85 to 0.90 m below theexisting ground surface. The ground water level in each bore hole was recorded every

morning and evening, 24 hours after completion of the drilling through the end of the

whole field work. Table 1 shows the water level elevation in each borehole.

The ground water conditions observed during drilling may not represent the groundwater

conditions during construction. The ground water conditions will fluctuate with wet anddry seasonal. We recommend that the water levels be verified just before construction.

3.5 Dutch Cone Penetration Test

One unit of 2-ton capacity Dutch Cone Penetration Test equipment with accessories wasused for the sounding test at site. The test was carried out in accordance with the ASTM D

3441. The cone penetration test consists of pushing into the soil, at a sufficiently slow rate,


7/213





a series of cylindrical rods with a beconus at the base for measuring the cone resistance andfriction resistance every 20 cm intervals.

The results of cone and friction resistance then plotted on a graph, showing the variation

with depth of cone resistance, ratio of local friction to cone resistance and total friction.The tests results are presented in Appendix A.3.

Based on the test results, cone and total resistance of 1000 kg/cm2were achieved at depthsof 18.60 meter to 19.60 meter, respectively, from the existing ground surface.

3.6 Coordinate and Elevation of the Investigated Points

The coordinates and elevations of the investigated pointa are listed in Table 1. Theinvestigated point positions were determined using an existing Benchmark as the

reference.

Table 1 : Coordinates and elevations of the investi gated points

Coordinate

NoInvestigated

PointEast North

Elevation

(m)

Depth

(m)

Depth to

ground waterlevel

(m)1 BH-12 236341.460 9251052.930 +1.271 30.45 1.20

2 BH-13 236372.437 9250950.349 +0.215 30.45 0.50

3 BH-14 236423.346 9251056.548 +0.168 30.45 1.05

4 BH-15 236348.007 9251021.005 +1.366 30.45 1.00

5 BH-16 236364.924 9250977.719 +0.538 45.45 1.30

6 BH-17 236381.312 9250984.099 +0.542 30.45 0.607 BH-18 236463.391 9251046.875 +0.343 30.45 0.70

8 BH-19 236471.427 9251026.786 +0.129 30.45 0.50

9 BH-20 236483.486 9251054.908 +0.214 30.45 0.60

10 BH-21 236491.524 9251034.819 +0.269 30.00 1.40

11 BH-22 236501.668 9251076.970 +0.316 30.45 1.50

12 BH-23 236520.071 9251030.966 +0.753 30.45 1.43

13 BH-24 236531.464 9251081.660 +0.851 30.45 0.75

14 BH-25 236483.989 9251018.008 +0.287 30.45 -

15 BH-26 236525.001 9251052.003 +0.683 45.45 0.80

16 CPT-21 236441.635 9251010.844 +0.312 14.60

17 CPT-22 236421.819 9251031.058 +0.154 11.60

18 CPT-23 236388.279 9250994.324 +1.251 12.80

19 CPT-24 236483.486 9251054.908 +0.214 12.60

20 CPT-25 236526.253 9251060.528 +0.552 11.40

21 CPT-26 236531.564 9251081.660 +0.851 12.20

22 CPT-27 236552.636 9251024.704 +0.843 12.80

23 CPT-28 236571.259 9251066.558 +0.894 12.40

24 CPT-31 236471.424 9251110.377 +0.284 15.40

4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Geology

Generally, the project site lies on the Alluvial Formations, consisting of homogeneous orinterlaminated fined grained soils, mainly clays and silts, intercalated with coarse grained


8/213





soils of fine to medium grained sands and occasionally coarse grained sands and gravels.This Alluvial Formation is unconformably underlain by the Undifferentiated Young

Volcanic Product Formation, comprising of fine to coarse grained volcanistic materials

(Achdan et.al & Djuri, GRDC 1992 & 1995)

The flat to lowland topography (not elevated level terrain) of the project site indicates the

presence of reworked sedimentrary soils due to the Holocene (thousands year ago) Recent stream action, introduced principally by the Cimanuk River. The coarse grained

soils are generally uncemented (occasionally very weak or slightly cemented) sedimentary

rounded-altered fragments, derived from the pre-existing Undifferentiated Young ProductFormation

4.2 Seismicity

The purpose of study on seismic risk of the project site, was performed based on the

following references :

( 1 ) Seismic Zones for building construction, Beca Carter Holling & Ferner Ltd. andthe Indonesian Counterpart Team, New Zealand Steering Committee, Vol 2 & 3,

1987.( 2 ) Kertapati E.K. et al., Earthquake Ground Shaking Hazard Map of Indonesia, scale

1 : 5.000.000, 1999.

( 3 ) Standar Nasional Indonesia, SNI 03-1723-2002, Tata cara perencanaan ketahanangempa untuk bangunan gedung, BSN.

( 4 ) Preliminary Map of Seismic Risk Zones of Indonesia, compiled by PT. SOILENS(August 30, 2005), scale : 1 : 5.000.000.

Referring to the the above reference the site is located in the zone with a base rock max.

horizontal acceleration of 0.10 g for 500-year return period earthquakes. The seismicoccurrence risk is considered by the following expression :

N

TNT

R )1

1(1, = ..(1)

Where:

RN,T = Seismic occurrence risk

N = the life time of the structures, years

T = earthquake mean return period, years

For earthquake mean return period of 500 years and building life time of 50 years, the

anticipated occurrence risk is approximately 10 %. The map of Seismic zone of Indonesiapresented in Appendix A.4

4.3 Stratigraphy

The conditions of the subsurface soils in the project site was determined from visualdescription of the core samples, SPT N-values, laboratory tests and CTP. The lateral and

vertical extents of the soil stratum was deduced from subsurface cross sections made fromthe boring and CPT log as shown in Appendix A.5 thus the stratigraphy may not be

accurate in between the boreholes or CPT points.

As shown in the soil sections, the subsurface soil is found to be generally discontinuous inlateral extend and with irregular shapes extending throughout the project site. The subsoil


9/213





at the site can be classified into 4 (four) unit based on the physical appearance andengineering properties:

(1) Layer-1 : Very soft to soft of Clay or Silty Clay, with SPT N-values of less than

1 to 5(2) Layer-2 : Medium stiff to very stiff Clay or Silty Clay, with SPT N-values of >5

to 30(3) Layer-3 : Medium dense to dense Sand or Silty Sand, with SPT N-values of more

than 30

The description and the distribution of the above Unit are briefed as below:

(a) Layer-1

The subsoil in the upper unit is the top soil that consisted of cohesive soil of clay/silty claylayer. The top soil is distributed almost of all over the site and was confirmed in all the

exploratory boreholes and CPT sounding as shown in the soil profiles.

The colors of the upper unit are grey to brownish grey, high plasticity. The consistency isvery soft to soft, with SPT N-value of less than 1 to 5, average of 2. The thickness of

Layer-1varies from 8 to 14 m.

(b) Layer-2

Layer-2consists of clay/silt and sand layer, of low to high plasticity. The thickness of this

layer is vary from 3 m to 14 m. This unit is brownish grey to blackish grey in color. SPTN-values vary from >5 to 30, average of 16.

(c)

Layer-3

Layer-3 consisted of Clay/Silty Clay/Silty Sand of 3 to 20 m in thickness. The color of

this layer is brownish grey to blackish grey. The SPT N-values of this layer vary from 30

to 81, average of 40.

4.4 Soil Profile Based on The UBC 1997

The Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 classifies soil profile for earthquake design into 6types as follows:

Table 2: Soil Profile based on UBC 1997AVERAGE SOIL PROPERTIES FOR TOP 100 FEET (3048 MM) OF SOIL

PROFILESOIL

PROFILE

TYPE

SOIL PROFILENAME/GENERIC

DESCRIPTIONShear wave Velocity, Vs,

(m/s)

Standard Penetration

Test, N (or Nchforcohessionless soil

layers), (blows/foot)

Undrained Shear

Strength, Su, (kPa)

SA Hard Rock >5,000

SB Rock 760 to 1,500- -

SCVery Dense Soil

and Soft Rock360 to 760 >50 100

SD Stiff Soil Profile 180 to 360 15 to 50 50 to 100SE

1 Soft Soil Profile


10/213





The top layer consist of more than 30 m of soft clay with PI>20, wn >40 percent andaverage undrained shear strength (su) 99 kPa. The soil profile type SEor stif f Soil Profile

can thus be classified for this site based on UBC 1997.

5. LABORATORY TESTING

5.1 Description of Tests

Selected samples were tested to determine the classification and engineering characteristicsof the soil. All tests were performed in accordance to relevant ASTM standards.

The laboratory testing program was formulated with the following objectives in mind :

To provide data so that soil deposits may be adequately identified and classified.These also provide means of correlation with strength parameters resulting in a better

understanding of the physical behavior of the soils and facilitate the choice of design

parameters. To obtain relevant strength data to form the basis for foundation design, etc.

The laboratory test on undisturbed soil samples included the followings:

1. Index Properties Test:

Bulk and dry density (ASTM D1557) Water content (ASTM D2216)

Specific gravity (ASTM C127)

Atterberg limit (ASTM D4318) Sieve and hydrometer (ASTM D2487)

Porosity and void ratio (ASTM D2216)

2. Mechanical Properties Tests:

Unconsolidated undrained triaxial test (ASTM D2850)

Consolidation test (ASTM D2435) Unconfined compression test (ASTM D2166)

The results of laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B. Selected properties andparameters are discussed in the following paragraphs.

5.2 Engineering Properties of the Undisturbed Samples

The engineering properties of the subsoil were interpreted from results of the laboratorysoil test and are summarized in Appendix B. The following sections discuss the

engineering properties of each unit as introduced in Section 4.3

5.2.1 Physical Properties

(a) Layer-1

Layer-1 in general consisted of very soft clay layer. The bulk densities (m) vary from 24.1

to 27.5 kN/m3, and dry densities (d) vary from 6.4 to 13.8 kN/m3, which is a normal range

for clay.


11/213





The natural moisture water contents of the Layer-1 are generally in the range of 35 % to115 %. The majority of the moisture water contents are relatively closed to their liquid

limits indicating normaly consolidated of very soft to very soft clay.

The plasticity index and liquid limits of this unit indicate that the majority of the subsoilcan be classified as high plasticity clay (CH) according ASTM standard. The large clay

content in soil passing No. 200 sieve was believed as the main reason for high liquidlimits. The liquid limits of the Layer-1 vary from 37 to 124 % thus classify the clay as

high plasticity.

The index properties and grain size distribution of Layer-1are summarized below with theaverage values in the bracket:

Natural water content, % 35 115 (63)

Liquid limit, % 37 124 (82)

Plastic limit, % 20 43 (33) Plasticity index, % 15 83 (48)

Bulk density, kN/m3 13.8 18.6 (16.1)

Grainsize distribution:

Gravel, % 0 12

Sand, % 0 70 (20)

Silt, % 12 41(23)

Clay, % 15 84 (56)

(b)Layer-2

Layer-2consist of clay, and silt layers. The bulk densities of this unit vary from 16.5 to18.0 kN/m3, and dry densities vary from 10.5 to 13.2 kN/m3. Its natural moisture water

contents generally fall in the range of 37 % to 58 %.

The plasticity index and liquid limits of this unit indicate that the majority of the subsoil

can be classified as clay (CH) or Silt (MH) according ASTM standard. The large claycontent in soil passing No. 200 sieve was believed as the main reason for high liquid

limits. The liquid limits of the Layer-2 are vary from 72 to 88 % thus classify the clay as

high plasticity.

The index properties and grain size distribution of Layer-2are summarized below with the

average values in the bracket:

Natural water content, % 37 58 (44)

Atterberg limits

Liquid limit, % 72 88 (79)

Plastic limit, % 32 42 (36)

Plasticity index, % 30 55 (44)

Bulk density, kN/m3 16.5 18.0 (17.1)

Grainsize distribution:

Gravel, % 0

Sand, % 2 7 (5)


12/213





Silt, % 13 41(25)

Clay, % 52 81 (69)

(c)

Layer-3

Layer-3consist of sand and clay respectively. No undisturbed samples was collected thus

no laboratory test results from this layer.

5.2.2 Strength Parameters

The undrained shear strengths (cu) and internal friction angle () of the cohesive soil takenfrom Layer-1, and Layer-2 were determined from the laboratory Unconsolidated

Undrained (UU) Triaxial test and from the laboratory unconfined compression test. The

undrained shear strength of Layer-3 were derived based on SPT N values with correlation

of su= 6N, N is average SPT N values.The following range of undrained shear strengths with the recommended average values in

bracket:

Table 3: Un-drained shear strengths of the subsoil and friction angle of the soil

Description Layer-1 Layer-2 Layer-3

SPT N-values Less 1-5 >5 30 >30

Un-drained shear strength (cu),kN/m2 2-43 (16) 13-98(54) >150

Internal friction angle (), degrees 0.3-8.5(3.1) 1.6-9.0(5.8) 0

Note : (1) Undrained shear strengths are predicted from SPT N-values

5.2.3 Compressibility Characteristic

The pre-consolidation pressures (Pc) in Layer-1 is much lower than the computed effective

overburden pressures, therefore the soil is under normally consolidated. For Layer-2 thepre-consolidation pressure (Pc) is higher than the effective overburden pressure, therefore

these units are over consolidated.

The consolidation properties for cohesive subsoil obtained from the laboratory tests and

the recommended average values are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Compressibility Characteristic of the Subsoil

Description Layer-1 Layer-2

Compression Index, cc 0.29-1.51(0.78) 0.34-0.47(0.38)

Preconsolidation Pressure (Pc),kPa 17-550(116) 247-646(413)


13/213





6. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Plant Site Preparation

6.1.1 Areal Fill

To form the final grading level of the proposed development, low lying area will beraised to an elevation of +5.00 m MSL to keep the site should always be dry and free

from any flooding during the plant life time. The fill thickness will range of 3.63 to4.87 m. Based on the laboratory tests, the original soil layers is to weak to carry the

proposed fill height. Failure will occur as the safety factor against failure of the original

soil layer, based on the conservative estimate is less than 1.0.

Reclamation could be done using sand obtained from along the coastal area. Before

reclamation over the proposed plant area we have to remove any organic material.Analysis on ultimate bearing capacity for each borehole point gives the following

results:

Table 5: Ultimate bearing capacity calculation results

Borholecu

(kN/m2)

qult

(kN/m2)

Fill

thickness(m)

p

(kN/m2)

SF against

bearing capacityfailure

BH-12 10 51.4 3.73 61.54 0.83

BH-13 13 66.8 4.78 78.87 0.85

BH-14 8 41.1 4.83 79.69 0.51

BH-15 5 25.7 3.63 59.89 0.43

BH-16 12 61.7 4.46 73.59 0.84

BH-17 10 51.4 4.45 73.42 0.70

BH-18 10 51.4 4.65 76.72 0.66

BH-19 41 210.7 4.87 80.35 2.62

BH-20 47 241.5 4.78 78.87 3.06

BH-21 11 56.5 4.73 78.04 0.72

BH-22 14 71.9 4.68 77.20 0.93

BH-23 13 66.8 4.25 70.12 0.95

BH-24 9 46.3 4.20 69.30 0.67

BH-25 2 10.3 4.71 77.71 0.13

BH-26 2 10.3 4.32 69.79 0.15

Note:

1. cu = undrained shear strength

2. qult = ultimate bear ing capacity = 5.14 cu.

3. p = fill pressure = fill thickness x fill density (16.5 kN/m2)

4. SF = Safety Factor =

p

ultq

6.1.2 Areal Settlement

Settlement analysis due to areal fill is carried out for points at the center of the fill.

Stress distribution at each soil layer is calculated based on the elasticity theory using

Bousinesqs equations. The settlement to occur is estimated using Terzaghis onedimensional compression model with soil parameters obtained form oedometer test in


14/213





the laboratory. The results of the settlement calculation presented in PLATE 1.1 toPLATE 1.2, summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Summarized areal settlement analysis results

Borhole Fill (m)Unit Weight

(kN/m3)

Average Load(kN/m

2)

Settlement(mm)

Time required toreach 90 %

consolidationsettlements

(Years)

BH-12 3.73 16.5 61.53 1164 6.8

BH-13 4.79 16.5 78.95 1577 1.6

BH-14 4.83 16.5 79.73 1770 8.1

BH-15 3.63 16.5 59.96 1056 4.6BH-16 4.46 16.5 73.62 1414 6.9

BH-17 4.46 16.5 73.56 1798 2.4

BH-18 4.66 16.5 76.84 820 8.1

BH-19 4.87 16.5 80.37 754 5.7

BH-20 4.79 16.5 78.97 1209 8.1

BH-21 4.73 16.5 78.06 1323 5.7

BH-22 4.68 16.5 77.29 1198 5.7

BH-23 4.25 16.5 70.09 1169 5.7

BH-24 4.15 16.5 66.38 1782 4.6

BH-25 4.71 16.5 77.76 1033 3.8

BH-26 4.32 16.5 71.23 915 6.0

Under the fill layer of about 3.7 to 4.8 meter the proposed plant site will undergo arealsettlement. That is due to consolidation process of the upper soft layer of about 12 meter

thick under the fill weight.

Because of very soft original soil layer, we do not recommend filling the area with very

high fill in straight until elevation of +6.5 m MSL. With average undrained shearstrength of about 16 kN/m2 the ultimate bearing capacity of the original layer will beonly 82 kN/m2. The maximum fill height that can be supported by the original layer

without failure is hfill=qult/(fill x SF). Using SF (Safety Factor) of 1.5 and fill 16.5kN/m2then hfill= 3.3 meter.

Therefore, 2 stages of filling should be performed to avoid failure on the original softlayer. First stage is filling the proposed plant area to +3.50 m MSL, and wait until

settlement finishes within about 3 years. After the first-stage settlement then the second

filling until elevation of +6.50 m MSL can be done and wait until the second settlementfinishes within next three years before plant construction.


15/213





6.1.3 Vertical Drain and Deep Mixing

Waiting 3 years for site preparation is not an attractive choice for a project with tight

schedule like this power plant project. To speed up consolidation process of the top 11

m layer installation of vertical drains over the proposed plant site together withsurcharging (filling) can be a good solution in terms of cost efficiency and construction

ease. We propose using synthetic band-shaped drain (wick-drain) of 100 mm wide and6 mm thick for vertical drains installed until about 11 m depth below the existing

ground surface. By using drain spacing of about 1.5 m in triangular pattern the

consolidation process of the original soft layer can be expected to be finished withinabout 3 month. The two stages of filling then can be finished within about six month.

PLATE 2 shows drain spacing calculation using Baron theory for vertical drains.

Other method of ground improvement should be considered of the time available for site

preparation is less than 6 (six) months. Deep mixing or deep compaction to mix reagents

such as cement powder or lime with in-situ soil can be considered for groundimprovement. This type of improvement will increase the strength and reduce the

compressibility of the soft layer. However, Contractor specialist in this field should becontacted for further assessment.

6.1.4 Provisions Against Secondary Settlement

Although consolidation settlement has been finished, the designer of the plant should beaware of the remaining secondary settlement that is still to be experienced by the project

site during the lifetime of the plant due to creep of the original soft soil layer. Such asettlement is estimated to be in the order of ten percent of the consolidation settlement,

i.e. about 15 to 20 cm, during the plant lifetime. For example, connection between pipe

resting directly on the ground and structure resting on pile should take intoconsideration this remaining settlement. Otherwise, problem will arise after some years

of construction because of this settlement, which may not be of the same magnitude atevery point.

6.2 Liquefaction

6.2.1 General

The basic cause of liquefaction is the built-up of excess pore pressure caused by

earthquake induced vibrations. The excess pore pressure can cause loose cohesionlessmaterial to lose strength, and results in large settlements of the structures supported on

this material; or in the case of the pile foundations, the soil may lose its ability to

provide lateral resistance for the piles during liquefaction.

6.2.2 Liquefaction Analysis

For the analysis of liquefaction, all borings containing sand material are analyzed todetermine whether this material is subject to liquefaction under 0.08 g and 0.10 g peak

ground accelerations (PGA) and earthquake magnitude of 6.9 Richter Scale. The

analysis is performed using the methods of Seed & Idris and Ishihara, using thefollowing equation:

d

o

od

org

PGA...65.0)( ''

= ......(1)


16/213





d

o

l

oFS

)(

)(

'

'

= .......(2)

Where :

d

o

)('

= average cyclic stress ratio developed during the earthquake

PGA = peak ground acceleration at the ground surface in g

g = acceleration of gravity, m/s2

o = total stress at depth of interest, ton/m2or kN/m2

'

o = effective stress (total stress minus pore water pressure) at depth, ton/m2or

kN/m

2

rd = reduction in acceleration with depth= 1-0.008 Z

Z = depth below ground surface, m

l

o

)('

= cyclic stress ratio required to induce liquefaction.

FS = factor of safety.

Figure 1 : Liquefaction curves criterion for fines5 %, 15 % and 35 %

Specifically, the

analysis consists of firstselecting the sands, silty

sands and clayey sandslayers occurring below

the water table that are

characterized byrelatively low standard

penetration test valuesthat may be susceptible

to liquefaction. The

standard penetrationtest values are then

normalized, the cyclic

shear stress isdetermined, and all

material having a factorof safety less than 1.0 is

concluded to beliquefiable.

6.2.3 Result of Analyses

Based on the analyses described in Section 6.2.2, for peak ground acceleration (PGA) of

0.08 g and 0.10 g with earthquake magnitude of 6.90 Richter Scale, the sand is not

potentially liquefiable with a safety factor of more than 1.0. The results of analysis arepresented in PLATE 3.1to PLATE 3.13.


17/213





6.3 Foundations

6.3.1 General Foundation Criteria

To have a good performance foundation of any structure must satisfy two independent

design criteria.

It must have an acceptable factor of safety against bearing type failure under a

maximum design load. Settlements during the structure lifetime must not be a magnitude that will cause

structural damage, or impair the operational efficiency of the facility.

Selection of the foundation type to satisfy the criteria depends on the nature andmagnitude of dead and live loads, the base area of the structure and the settlement

tolerances. Where more than one foundation type satisfies these criteria, the cost,scheduling, material availability and local practice will influence on the final selection of

the type of foundation.

6.3.2 Shallow Foundation

We do not recommend the use of shallow foundation for any important and settlement

sensitive structure because of the low bearing capacity of the original layer and therelatively large settlement that still to be experienced by the project site.

6.3.3 Deep Foundation

6.3.3.1 Axially Loaded PC-Piles

The most reasonable and acceptable foundation for any important and settlement

sensitive structure to be constructed here is driven pile. This is because driven pile is easyand fast to install and can transfer working load to a competent layer at deeper layer

stratum by by-passing the top soft layer, resulting in very small experienced settlement

The assessment of axial pile capacity is based on Pre stressed Concrete Spun Pile (PC-Pile) of 300 mm, 350 mm, 400 mm, 450 mm and 500 mm outside diameter, with 60

mm, 65 mm, 75 mm, 80 mm and 90 mm wall thickness, respectively.

The ultimate soil bearing capacity in compression and tension is calculated based on the

laboratory and field tests, by using the following equation :

Pult-cmp = fs.As+ qp.Ap.......................(3)

Where :Pult-comp = ultimate pile capacity in compression, kNfs = unit skin friction to pile, kN/m

2

= . cu, for cohesive soil

= ko.po.tan(), for cohesionless soil

= adhesion factor

= 0.50. 50.0)(

o

u

p

cfor

o

u

p

c1.0

= 0.50.25.0

)(

o

u

p

cfor

o

u

p

c >1.0

ko = coefficient of lateral earth pressure

= 1 sin


18/213





cu = undrained shear strength, kN/m2

Po = effective overburden vertical stress at depth under consideration,

kN/m2

As = outside surface area of pile, m

2

qp = unit end bearing capacity, kN/m2

= 9.cu, for cohesive soil= po.Nq, for cohesionless soil

Nq = dimensionless bearing capacity factor

Ap = cross section area of pile, m2

The shear strength (cu) of rock can be derived based on unconfined compression test with

correlation of2

uu

qc = . If there is no laboratory test results, the un-drained shear

strength derived based on SPT N-values using correlation of c u = 6N. The maximum

values of cu is 250 kPa for compressive and 100 kPa for tension. The analysis wasperformed by using computer program of PLEAXI. To aid the designer in designing a

foundation, the graph of pile capacities for each borehole point is provided in this report.The designer can select which borehole point close to a particular structure or to a

particular pile location so pile capacity can be obtained from the graph for that borehole.

The graphs showing the ultimate and allowable soil bearing capacity in compression and

tension against the embedment depth below plant site elevation of +5.0 m MSL are

shown in PLATE 4.1 to PLATE 4.15 enclosed in this report. The allowablecompressive capacity of spun piles are designed for a safety factor of 2 and the estimated

settlement of about 25.4 mm. The allowable tension capacities are designed for a safetyfactor of 3.

6.3.3.2 Negative Skin Friction on Piles.

Due to the site fill over the existing consolidated soil layers at the plant site, we

recommend to include the negative skin friction in calculating allowable

compressive bearing capacity. The magnitude of negative skin frictionPNactingon bored pile is presented in Table 7.

The unit negative skin friction is calculated as suggested by Bjerrum using the following

equations:

For cohesive soil : fs = 0.25 po..............................................................(4)

For cohesionless soil : )4

3tan(...

2

1oss pkf = .........(5)

Where :

fs = unit negative skin frictionpo = effective overburden pressure

ks = coefficient of lateral earth pressure

= internal friction angle of cohesionless soil

The ultimate negative skin friction then to be calculated by using the following equation:

PN = .D.LN.fs.......(6)

Where :


19/213





PN = ultimate negative skin friction on pileD = diameter of pile

LN = length of pile to neutral point

fs = unit negative skin friction.The negative skin friction on pile summarized as follows:

Table 7: Negative skin friction on pile (PN)

No Pile TypePile Dimension/

Diameter

Negative Friction (PN)

(kN)

1 Spun Pile dia. 300 mm 165





6.3.3.3 Laterally Loaded Piles

The analysis of the lateral capacity of the piles is performed by using Lpile Pluscomputer program developed by Ensoft. Lpile Plus uses a finite difference approximation

to solve the non-linear spring-beam/column model of pile-soil interaction. The stress-

strain response of the pile is modeled as a simple elastic material with E-pile assumed to

be b9600 kg/cm2. Where bis the characteristics compressive strength of concrete

of 500 kg/cm2for pc-pile.

The results of analyses for single piles are presented as curves of the lateral load versuspile head deflection and the lateral load versus maximum bending moment on the

following Plate :

PLATE 5.1 to PLATE 5.5 for Pinned/Free Pile Head

PLATE 6.1 to PLATE 6.5 for Fixed Pile Head

The pile response due to lateral load presented in curves on the following plate :

PLATE 7.1 to PLATE 7.5 for Pinned/Free Pile Head

PLATE 8.1 to PLATE 8.5 for Fixed Pile Head

6.3.3.4 Allowable Pile Capacity

(a).

Axial Compressive CapacityTo determine the allowable axial pile capacity in compression the equation (4)should be used.

s

ult

compallF

PP

comp

= ........................................................(4)

Where :Pall-comp = allowable soil bearing capacity in compression, kN

Pult-comp = ultimate soil bearing capacity, kN

FS = factor of safety, 2.0

Based on our experience a safety factor of 2.0 may be used in equation (4) to getthe allowable compressive capacity.


20/213





(b). Axial Tension Capacity

To determine the allowable axial pile capacity in tension the equation (5)should

be used.

s

ult

tensionallF

PP tension= ..........................................................(5)

Where :Pall-tension= allowable pile capacity in tension, kN

Pult-tension= ultimate pile capacity in tension, kNFS = factor of safety, 3

Finally, the maximum allowable load both in compression and tension should be

checked against the allowable capacity of the pile material.

(c). Lateral Pile Capacity

We recommend using allowable lateral load based on a tolerable butt deflectionof 10 mm for pinned head and 6 mm for fixed head.

During design phase the lateral pile capacity presented in this report should be

checked against the capacity of pile material to resist bending moment and shearstress. This can be done by checking the interaction graph of axial load versus

bending moment issued by the pile manufacturer.

The pile penetration or length below plant elevation, allowable compressive,

tension and lateral pile capacity are presented in PLATE 9.1 to PLATE 9.3. It

should be noted that the allowable static axial pile capacities presented in thistable can be increased by 30 % to determine the transient load such as wind or

seismic.

6.3.3.5 Pile Spacing

Axial loading of group piles should be determined as the product of group efficiency

(reduction factor), number of piles in the group and the capacity of a single pile. Werecommend that for piles with center to center spacing of 3 pile diameters, the reduction

factor of 1.0 be used. The reduction factor of 0.70 for piles with a center to center spacingless than 3 pile diameters should be used. Center to center piles spacing less than a 2.5

pile diameter is not recommended.

For lateral loading, analyses based on Fleming show that no reduction in lateral capacitydue to pile group effects is envisaged provided the pile spacing is 4.5 pile diameter or

greater (center to center). In case pile spacing is less than 4.5 pile diameter in a group, werecommend reduction factor of 0.70 to analyze the lateral group capacity.

6.3.3.6 Pile Driving Procedures

(a). Driving Records

Probe piles should be installed first before any production pile. Observation on

probe pile should be performed at every area near the boring points to know the

sufficient length of embedment, final blows per 25 cm penetration, and totalblows of each probe pile.


21/213





After driving the probe piles, pile load tests on several piles at represented areashould be carried out to know pile behavior under loading and pile load capacity

at certain short-term settlement.

Driving of working piles are performed after issuing pile driving criteria for pilesat each represented area. The following data shall be recorded in the pile driving

record sheet.

(1) General data including project name, job number, pile driving record, date

and time of pile driving commencement and completion, pile number,

structures name, ground surface elevation and others.(2) Data of pile including pile identification number, pile diameter, pile length,

pile tip elevation, and others(3) Data of hammer including total weight of hammer ram weight, ram stroke,

rate energy per blow, hammer cushion.

We recommend that pile driving be performed from center to edge of the group toavoid or to limit possible heaving. A continuous heave measurement for all the

piles should be performed throughout the pile driving. Re-driving of piles shouldbe done if heave exceeds 25.4 mm.

We recommend using pile shoes to improve drive-ability and also to provide

protection at the pile tip.

(b). Pile Driving Criteria

The pile driving acceptance criteria should be based on the following :

(1).

Drive the pile to target level as defined by the nearest boring logs or pile testresults.

(2). If the pile comes to refusal above target level, continue driving until a blowcount of 100 blows/250 mm penetration or final set of 25 mm/10 blows. The

pile is then required to be driven for final setting in 2 t imes, without anyreduction in the driving resistance. If the resistance is not maintained at 25

mm/10 blows it is judged that the hard layer is thin and the pile is liable to

break through this layer. Therefore, the pile should be driven further to thetarget level.

(c). Use minimum pile driving equipment of K-35 with hammer weight of 35 kN or

equivalent for driving the pile with pile weight of 25 to 65 kN and requiredbearing capacity of 1000 to 1750 kN.

(d). Use minimum pile driving equipment of K-45 hammer weight of 45 kN orequivalent for driving pile with pile weight of 35 to 85 kN and required bearing

capacity of 650 kN to 2000 kN.

6.3.3.7 Full Scale Vertical Pile Loading Test

The design capacities in this report for properly installed conventional piles are based on

considerable experience with load tests as well as the application of geotechnical design

methods. It is recommended performing full scale pile loading tests for the axial anduplift modes to confirm the calculated ultimate to determine the safe loads capacities ofthe piles.


22/213





The test piles should be installed with the same procedures and details which will be usedfor production piles. This is especially important with bored piles where the performance

can be significantly influenced by the installation procedures. The test pile lengths should

be similar to the expected lengths of the production piles. If at all possible, the static loadtesting procedures and capacities should be such that the load test is carried out to a soil

failure. Having failure criteria will allow the penetration of the production piles to bemodified based on the load test results and the calculated pile-soil adhesion factors.

The tests should follow ASTM D1143 and ASTM D3689 procedure. The test should be

carried out on 2(two) of the first piles. This will enable an early evaluation and make itpossible to verify weather the pile system actually complies the contractors

specifications. The pile load testing program should consider the following :

The load shall be applied to the test pile by a hydraulic jack acting against a reaction

beam, which is anchored by two or four reaction piles or loaded platform with concrete

blocks.Reaction pile or counter loads and hydraulic jack each should have a capacity of

minimum 4 times the pile design load.

Vertical movement of the test pile and reaction piles are measured using at least 3 dial

gauges, each having a 50 mm travel and be accurate to 0.01 mm. The dial gauges should

be supported independently from the test pile and reaction piles.

The loads shall be applied in accordance with the cyclic loading procedure of the

respective ASTM standard. The entire test area must be sheltered from direct sunlight, wind and rain. The

shelter must be sufficiently lighted as to allow night monitoring.

The resultant of the load components must act along the longitudinal centerline ofthe test pile.

An effort is to be made to have the dial gages calibrated prior to the test in anacceptable testing laboratory and the certificate is to be submitted for records.

During test loading, read dial gages at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15 and 30 minutes after each

load increment, and 30 minutes intervals thereafter with max. 2 hours. Opticalreadings shall be taken on the reaction of anchor piles as well as the test pile before

each load increment is changed. During 24 hours hold, readings may be taken every3 hours after the first 2 hours.

The final report shall contain the following :

Identification, location and description of the test pile Description of the test apparatus, loading system and deflection measurement

procedure Tabulated field data

Time-settlement curve

Load-settlement curve Remarks explaining unusual events or data, and movement of reaction piles

Inspection logs for the test pile Calibration certificate of dial gauges and pressure gauges, indicating the serial

number of the gauges and date the calibration was performed

Pile loading test shall be performed minimum 21 days after pile driving. We suggestperforming minimum 2(two) static loading tests on plant site.


23/213





6.3.3.8 Lateral Load Test

It is recommended to perform lateral load test to confirm the calculated ultimate capacity

to determine the safe loads capacities of the piles. The tests should follow ASTM D3966

procedure.

The impact point for the lateral test load shall be as close as possible to the site elevation.

The impact point shall be finalized at the job site taking into account the loading device tobe actually utilized at the time of load test. The following requirement and boundary

limitation shall be applied for performing the lateral load test :

In the static loading, unless failure occurs first, the test pile shall be loaded to themaximum test load of 200 % of the design load in accordance with the standard

loading procedure stipulated in ASTM D3966, Section 6.1

In the dynamic (cyclic) loading, unless failure occurs first, the test pile shall be

loaded to the maximum test load of 200 % design load in accordance with thestandard loading procedure stipulated in ASTM D3966, Section 6.3

6.3.3.9 Pile Dynamic Analyzer (PDA Tests)

(a) We recommend performing Pile Dynamic Analyzer (PDA) Test to evaluate theultimate pile capacity at the time of testing. Based on the PDA test results,

CAPWAP analysis should be performed to provide refined estimates of static

capacity, assessment of soil resistance distribution, and soil quake and dumpingparameters for wave equation input.

(b) It is noted that the soil is greatly disturbed when a pile is driven into the soil. As

the soil surrounding the pile recovers from the installation disturbance, a timedependent change in capacity often occurs. In this case we suggested to perform

PDA in two time for the same pile as follows:

Immediately after pile driving, and

21 days after pile driving.

The hammer for pile dynamic analysis should be warmed up before re-drivebegins by applying at least 20 blows to another pile. The maximum amount of

penetration required during re-drive should be 152.4 mm (6 inches) or the

maximum total hammer blows required will be 50, whichever occurs first.

(c) Equipment and Methodology Prepared the top of the pile head, prior to testing, by grinding the concrete

surface to a smooth and flat condition.

Drilled and plugged the concrete test pile in order to attach two strain

transducers and two piezo-electric accelerometers to the pile shaft at a distanceof 1.5 to 2.0 times the pile diameter below pile head.

The instrument then is connected to the PDA Collector computer by aninsulated multi-wire cable. The PDA computer should be located some

distance away from the instrumented test pile

Dynamic measurements then are obtained from the strain transducers andpiezo-resistive accelerometers by striking the pile head on four separate

occasions using a driving hammer as a drop weight. Each blow should be


24/213





cushioned by a purpose made plywood packer placed directly on top of thesmooth pile head.

Analog signal from transducers be conditioned, digitized, stored and processed

by PDA. Selected output from PDA typically included values such as :

the measured force and calculated maximum stress

transferred energy to the pile

calculated ram stroke

static pile capacity and others

(d) The following main Pile Driving Analyzer data input should be checked and beadjusted to the actual pile and soil condition in the project

Pile length below gages Pile cross section area at the gauges

Pile elastic modulus Unit weight of pile material Pile wave speed

Case damping factor Unit indicator

Display scale and transducer calibrations

(e) Methodology of CAPWAP Analysis

The CAPWAP computer program is a rigorous numerical analysis procedure

which uses the PDA measured force and velocity data to solve for soilresistance parameters.

A model of each pile should be divided into segments of approximately one

meter in length and trial soil resistance be assigned every second embeddedpile element and one extra resistance at the pile base, to model the base

response.

The soil model for each soil element contained a static resistance represented

by an elasto-plastic spring with an ultimate resistance and a limiting elastic

displacement, termed the quake

The soil damping modeled as a viscous dashpot with a damping factor which

related the magnitude of the dynamic soil resistance to the pile velocity.

The selected PDA measured pile top velocity for the test pile then is imposedas an input to the CAPWAP analysis and trial values is assigned to all soil

model parameters. The required pile top force then computed and thesolution compared with the measured force obtained from the selected

hammer blow. The agreement between computed and measured pile top forceshould be progressively improved by an iteration process in order to modify

the soil model parameters, total capacity and its distribution along theembedded pile shaft, damping factors and quakes until no further significant

improvement could be obtained in the model. The final soil parameters then

are deemed to represent a best match dynamic soil model for the test pile.These soil parameters and pile model, finally be analyzed to calculate both

shaft and base resistance, total mobilized capacity, and the static load-settlement response of both the pile head and the pile base.


25/213





(f) Detail procedures of PDA Test, apparatus to be applied, analysis, and reportingshall be in accordance with the requirement of ASTM D4945.

(g) All components of the apparatuses for obtaining dynamic measurement and the

apparatuses for recording shall be calibrated at least once a year.

(h) The PDA test and analysis should be performed by qualified and experienced

Engineer(s). We recommend performing 4 (four) points of PDA test for thisproject. Regardless of the project size, we consider that Engineer may adjust the

number and locations of dynamically tested piles based on design or construction

issues that arise

6.4 Chemical Properties of Soil and Water Samples

Chemical test, i.e., pH, chloride content, and sulfate content were performed on soil andwater samples obtained from borings to know the aggressivity of the soil against concrete

structure. The results of analysis are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8: Chemical properties of soil samples.

Test ResultNo Test

in ppm in %

1 pH 7.8-8.1(7.9)

2 Chloride (Cl) content 6409-13032(8987) 0.64-1.30(0.90)

3 Sulfate Content 3452-5546(4844) 0.35-0.55(0.48)

Table 9: Chemical properties of water samples.

Test ResultNo Test

in ppm in %

1 pH 6.1-6.9(6.6)

2 Chloride (Cl) content 15310-18515(17595) 1.53-1.85(1.76)

3 Sulfate Content 1766-1924(1817) 0.18-0.19(0.18)

The pH data indicates that the soils in the area are normal. The degradation of concrete iscaused by chemical agents in the soil or groundwater that react with concrete to either

dissolve the cement paste or precipitate larger which cause cracking and flaking. The

concentration of the water-soluble sulfate in the soils is a good indicator of the potential forchemical attack of concrete. Sulfate concentration in soil can be used to evaluate the need

for protection of concrete based on the information in the table below:

Table 10: Sulfate Attack Potential

Sulfate ion concentration, ppm Aggressiveness

>20,000 Very Severe

2,000 to 20,000 Severe

1,000 to 2,000 Moderate


26/213





The American Concrete Institute Code 218 recommends that for these conditions Type Vcement be used with a water cement ratio of less than 0.45. Other types of cement with fly

ash up to 10 % may be used if the maximum water cementitious materials ratio is reduced

to 0.4 or lowerBecause of the location of the project adjacent to a salt water and possibility of moisture

containing significant volumes of chlorides which could then be deposited on concreteexposed to wetting and drying cycles, considerations should be given to provide corrosion

protection to minimize chloride attack to the exposed concrete structures near or on the sea.

Chloride inhibitors are available as admixtures during concrete mixing.

6.5 Hydrology

To ensure easy drain of rain water runoff from the plant site, drainage ditch should beconstructed along the proposed road, around the buildings, the edges of the embankment or

excavation onto slopes. A vegetation cover should be established as soon as possible on theembankment and or excavation slopes to minimize erosion from the surface run-off. Run-off coefficient of 0.70 to 0.90 should be used for calculating design discharge on paved

area, and 0.50 for flat grassed areas with about 50 percent area impervious. We alsorecommend providing the area with impermeable surface drainage ditch, i.e., lined ditch, to

easily drain the surface water to a lower elevation.

6.6 Inspection and Monitoring

Geotechnical aspects of foundation construction and/or installation should be monitored by

a geotechnical engineer or his/her representative. Critical phases of the construction where

geotechnical inspection is crucial to success of the project are : During plant site reclamation, and soil improvements.

During pile load testing, for making change in situ driving criteria and depth

requirements to account for subsurface conditions.

During production pile driving to monitor depth requirements and potential hard driving

zones and others.


27/213

01

164

621

164

62

0

621

164

0.1

0.3

0.6

1.0

1.6

2.3

3.3

4.6

6.8

116

233

349

466

582

698

815

931

1048

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)

SettlementTime(years)

SettlementsbyFill(mm)

AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

61.53

1164

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

3.73

AREASE

TTLEMENTANALYSISBH-12

PLATE1.1

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

1350

1500

1650

1800

1950

2100

2250

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0 75 150

225

300

375

450

525

600

675

750

825

900

975

1050

1125

1200

0.00

0.60

1.20

1.80

2.40

3.00

3.60

4.20

4.80

5.40

6.00

6.60

7.20

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


28/213

01

577

791

577

79

0

791

577

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5

0.7

1.0

1.5

158

315

473

631

789

946

1104

1262

1419

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

78.95

1577

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.79

AREASE


PLATE1.2

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0.00

0.20

0.4

0

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


29/213

01

770

801

770

80

0

801

770

0.1

0.3

0.7

1.2

1.9

2.7

3.9

5.4

8.1

177

354

531

708

885

1062

1239

1416

1593

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

79.73

1770

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.83

AREASE


PLATE1.3

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0.00

1.00

2

.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


30/213

01

056

601

056

60

0

601

056

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.7

1.1

1.5

2.2

3.1

4.6

106

211

317

422

528

634

739

845

950

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

59.96

1056

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

3.63

AREASE


PLATE1.4

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0.00

0.50

1.0

0

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


31/213

01

414

741

414

74

0

741

414

0.1

0.3

0.6

1.0

1.6

2.3

3.3

4.6

6.9

141

283

424

566

707

848

990

1131

1273

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

73.62

1414

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.46

AREASE


PLATE1.5

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0.00

0.75

1.5

0

2.25

3.00

3.75

4.50

5.25

6.00

6.75

7.50

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


32/213

01

798

741

798

74

0

741

798

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5

0.8

1.1

1.6

2.4

180

360

539

719

899

1079

1259

1438

1618

AREASE


PLATE1.6

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.46

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

73.56

1798

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0.00

0.25

0.5

0

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


33/213

0

820

77

820

77

0

77

820

0.1

0.3

0.7

1.2

1.9

2.7

3.9

5.4

8.1

82

164

246

328

410

492

574

656

738

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

76.84

820

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.66

AREASE


PLATE1.7

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

1350

1500

1650

1800

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

1350

1500

1650

1800

0.00

0.80

1.60

2.40

3.20

4.00

4.80

5.60

6.40

7.20

8.00

8.80

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


34/213

0

754

80

754

80

0

80

754

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.8

1.3

1.9

2.7

3.8

5.7

75

151

226

302

377

452

528

603

679

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

80.37

754

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.87

AREASE


PLATE1.8

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

0.00

0.60

1.2

0

1.80

2.40

3.00

3.60

4.20

4.80

5.40

6.00

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


35/213

01

209

791

209

79

0

791

209

0.1

0.3

0.7

1.2

1.9

2.7

3.9

5.4

8.1

121

242

363

484

605

725

846

967

1088

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

78.97

1209

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.79

AREASE


PLATE1.9

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0.00

0.80

1.60

2.40

3.20

4.00

4.80

5.60

6.40

7.20

8.00

8.80

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


36/213

01

323

781

323

78

0

781

323

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.8

1.3

1.9

2.7

3.8

5.7

132

265

397

529

662

794

926

1058

1191

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

78.06

1323

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.73

AREASE


PLATE1.10

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0.00

0.60

1.2

0

1.80

2.40

3.00

3.60

4.20

4.80

5.40

6.00

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


37/213

01

198

771

198

77

0

771

198

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.8

1.3

1.9

2.7

3.8

5.7

120

240

359

479

599

719

839

958

1078

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

77.29

1198

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.68

AREASE


PLATE1.11

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

1350

1500

1650

1800

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

1350

1500

1650

1800

0.00

0.60

1.2

0

1.80

2.40

3.00

3.60

4.20

4.80

5.40

6.00

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


38/213

01

169

701

169

70

0

701

169

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.8

1.3

1.9

2.7

3.8

5.7

117

234

351

468

585

701

818

935

1052

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

70.08

1169

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.25

AREASE


PLATE1.12

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0.00

0.60

1.2

0

1.80

2.40

3.00

3.60

4.20

4.80

5.40

6.00

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


39/213

01

782

661

782

66

0

661

782

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.7

1.1

1.5

2.2

3.1

4.6

178

356

535

713

891

1069

1247

1426

1604

AREASE


PLATE1.13

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16

4.15

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

66.38

1782

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0.00

0.60

1

.20

1.80

2.40

3.00

3.60

4.20

4.80

5.40

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


40/213

01

033

781

033

78

0

781

033

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.3

1.8

2.5

3.8

103

207

310

413

517

620

723

826

930

AREASE


PLATE1.14

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.71

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

77.76

1033

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0.00

0.40

0.8

0

1.20

1.60

2.00

2.40

2.80

3.20

3.60

4.00

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


41/213

0

915

71

915

71

0

71

915

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.9

1.4

2.0

2.9

4.0

6.0

92

183

275

366

458

549

641

732

824

AREASE


PLATE1.15

PT.SOILENS

CIREBONTH

ERMALPOWERPLANTPR

OJECT

UnitWeight,

(kN/m

3)

Approvedby

Preparedby

Checkedby

Ir.Padmono,PE

Ir.KabulS.MSC

JobNo.

2358

16.5

4.32

Ir.Wirastusrini,PE

LOAD-SETT

LEMENTS

TIME-SETTLEMENTS

Settlements(mm)

LayerThickness(m)



AverageLoad(kN/m

2)

71.23

915

0150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

1350

1500

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11012

0

130

FILLLOAD,kN/m

2

SETTLEMENTS,MM

0150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

1350

1500

0.00

0.60

1.20

1.80

2.40

3.00

3.60

4.20

4.80

5.40

6.00

6.60

TIME,Years

SETTLEMENTS,MM


42/213

Input

C h

2.9

E-07m/s=

9.1

5m/yearCoff.ofconsolid

ationforhorizontalflow

ToactivateIterationgotothemenu

T

120days=

1.0E

+07sec.

Consolidationtime

extra

options

calculation

d

0.0

65m

65mm

Theequivalentdiameter

andactivateiteratio

U h

0.9

5ratio

95%

Degreeofconsolidationrequired

t

12.0

0m

Draindepth

A

10,0

00m

Area

Outputm

1.

77

D

1.7

7

m

4,0

52

Numberofdrains

D D

1.6

9

m

48,6

19m

Totalamount

D

1.5

7

m

U

t(days)

0%

0

10%

4

20%

9

30%

14

40%

20

50%

28

60%

37

70%

48

80%

64

90%

92

99%

184

Calculationprogramf

ord

eterminingdraindistanceaccordingBarron

Triangularpattern

Squarepattern

Draininflu

encezone

PT.SOILENS

PLATE2.1

2358

PadmonoPE

KabulS.MSCE

WirastusriniPE

CIREBONTHERMALPOWERPLANTPROJECT,W

ESTJAVA

DRAINSPACINGCALC

ULATIONFORDETERMININGDRAINDISTANCE

JobNo

Preparedby

Checkedby

Approvedby

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 0

14

28

42

56

70

84

98

112

126

140

154

168

182

196

210

224

238

252

266

280

Times(days)

ConsolidationDegree,%


43/213

CheckedbyK

abulS,

MSCE

PLATE2.2

ApprovedbyW

irastusrini,PE

DRAINSPACINGvs

TIMEREQUIREDTOREACH95%

SETTLEMENTS

JobNo.

2358

PT.SOILENS

PreparedbyP

admono,P

E

CIREBONTHERMA

LPOWERPLANTPROJECT,

WESTJAVA

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

Documents

Cirebon Power Plant_R0