MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE ACCOUNT-INDONESIA

GREEN PROSPERITY PROJECT

REPORT
MCA-I Deliverable Review for
3rd Deliverable, R. 3.5 Detail Improvement of Project
Development
PT. Selo Kencana Energi

Green Prosperity Project

Activity 3 Window 3B1
W3B1-17

June 14, 2017

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Detailed Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 5

i
1. Executive Summary
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Name: Lubuk Gadang Hydro Power Plant
Proposal Number: W3B1-17
Grant Agreement Number: 2015/Grant /015
Grantee Name: PT. Selo Kencana Energi
Project Location: Sangir, West Sumatera
Project Phase: TAPP of Full Grant
TECHNICAL REVIEW SUMMARY/ RECOMMENDATION
Portfolio Lead Name: Gina Veronese
Date Received from GAST: 5 June 2017
Date Submitted to GAST: 14 June 2017
Deliverable Reviewed: 3rd Deliverable R3.5
Deliverable Quality Assessment Strengths, Weaknesses, Gaps and Risks:
1. Several errors that were identified in previous submittals regarding the slope
stabilization calculations and design have not been addressed in this submittal. Please
provide corrections to the slope stabilization analysis which, at a minimum address
the following:

a. Please review and revise the soil parameters used throughout the slope
stability calculations. The following errors and inconsistencies were identified
for the selected soil parameters in the slope and soil nail/shotcrete retaining
wall stability calculations:

i. Silt layers have been labelled as cohesive soil and have been assigned
cohesion values ranging from 31 to 56 kN/m2. Generally, silt does not
have cohesive strength for drained conditions. It is erroneous to
consider any cohesion from silt soils.

ii. Soil properties are not consistent between calculations. For example,
the unit weight of the soil used for the sliding stability analysis, on
page 28 (19.43 kN/m3) is different than the unit weight of the soil used
to calculate the maximum tension in the soil nail, on page 32 (18.39
kN/m3).

b. Drawings for the proposed shotcrete/soil nail wall are not complete. Please
provide, at a minimum, the following:

i. Lateral spacing of the soil nails.

ii. Minimum and maximum angle of inclination of the soil nails.

iii. Reinforcing requirements for shotcrete wall and soil nails.

iv. Minimum embedment length of the soil nails.

1
 v. Details for drainage discharge for geocomposite strip drain behind
wall.

c. Please perform a global slope stability analysis for the proposed slope
protection under normal loading conditions.

d. Internal stability calculations (ie, pullout resistance and tensile resistance of

soil nails, etc.) has only been calculated for Station 1+700. Please perform
internal stability calculations for all three slope protection sections.

e. It appears that the maximum tensile force at the wall facing (Tmax) has been
calculated incorrectly. The following errors were identified:

i. Tmax has been calculated for a wall height of 16 m. This is not

consistent with the wall cross-sections at Station 0+650 and Station
1+150.

ii. Ka has been calculated incorrectly. The assumed inclination of wall

face from horizontal, 115o, is inconsistent with what is shown on the
drawings or in the calculations.

iii. Tmax has been calculated irrespective of tributary area around the soil
nails. Per FHWA, Tensile forces may be estimatedconsidering an
influence area around individual nails.

2. The dimensions shown in the Drainage channel along of river normalization

calculations do not reflect the dimensions shown on the drawings. Please review and
revise.

3. The following errors and technical gaps were identified on the submitted drawings:

a. Locations of slope protection and waterway cover shown on drawings MHPP-

LBG-01-004 through MHPP-LBG-008 contradict what is shown on drawings
MHPP-LBG-05-001 through MHPP-LBG-05-004 and MHPP-LBG-07-001
through MHPP-LBG-07-010. Please clarify location of slope stabilization and
water conveyance cover.

b. Please provide match lines for all drawings which span more than one page.
This comment applies to all drawings.

c. Please provide legend for all hatching shown on the drawings.

d. On all drawings, please depict existing construction and proposed

construction in a manner that clearly identifies new and existing.

e. Please show limits of excavation on all drawings.

f. On all drawings, please include elevations of contouring shown on plans

(Minimum of every 5 m).

g. Contour lines appear to cross/overlap each other on several drawings.

Intersecting topography lines were encountered on the following drawings:
MHPP-LBG-01-001 to MHPP-LBG-01-010, MHPP-LBG-05-001, MHPP-LBG-05-
002, MHPP-LBG-06-001 to MHPP-LBG-06-004, MHPP-LBG-07-001 to MHPP-
LBG-07-004, MHPP-LBG-08-001.

2
 h. Please include a north arrow on all applicable drawings. North arrows were
not found on MHPP-LBG-02-001, MHPP-LBG-05-001 through MHPP-LBG-05-
002, MHPP-LBG-07-001 through MHPP-LBG-07-004, MHPP-LBG-08-001,
MHPP-LBG-08-002, MHPP-LBG-08-004, MHPP-LBG-08-005, and MHPP-LBG-
08-008.

i. Please provide labels for all major features. This comment applies to all
drawings.

j. Cross-sections for River Normalization do not appear to be provided in

submittal, after Station 0+900. Please provide.

4. Drawings show a drainage channel is to be placed on one-side only of the proposed

river normalization improvements. Please review stormwater runoff calculations
clarify why a drainage channel is not needed on the other side of the river.

5. Cross-section at station 0+600 and similar sections show a steep slope adjacent to the
river normalization and proposed gabion wall. Please provide information regarding
excavation of slope adjacent to the proposed improvements. Please evaluate slope
stability and design of drainage structure for imposed loading from slope.

6. Please clarify how the earthquake seismic coefficient was calculated for the river
normalization and retaining wall analyses. The kh coefficient is not consistent with the
seismic coefficients presented in the 2nd deliverable, 3rd deliverable report submitted
on 20 March 2017, and the retaining wall stability analysis.

7. Two cross-sections were analyzed for the river normalization stability calculations.
Please perform analyses for all unique river normalization cross-sections including
but not limited to:

a. Many of the cross-sections depicted on the drawings show a sloped backfill.

Please provide a stability analysis for this condition.

b. Many of the cross-sections show the stone masonry drainage channel abutting
the gabion basket retaining wall. Please provide a stability analysis for this
condition.

8. Design Calculations for sizing drainage channel(s) appear to be based on a 2-year

precipitation event. Please revise to accommodate 25-year event, at minimum.

9. Please provide cofferdam layout, Cofferdam layout shall provide upstream and
downstream flood protection to facilitate construction of weir.

10. Please provide drawings, details, and calculations for proposed waterway cover.

11. The dimensions shown in the Drainage channel along of river normalization
calculations do not reflect the dimensions shown on the drawings. Please review and
revise.

12. Please provide water sedimentation analysis.

13. Please review/revise or confirm the hydraulic analysis for the weir under normal and
spillway design flood (SDF) conditions.

3
 14. Please provide design details and calculations for headpond railing.

15. Please provide designs and analyses for all proposed bridges.

16. Please provide inflows to the project for the 1, 3, 5, 10-year precipitation events to
provide information regarding the design of the cofferdam and temporary bypass
system.

17. Please submit complete fish ladder design and calculations.

Please refer to Table 1 below for details.

Cure Options:
The documents shall be updated as per comments during the Grant Agreement Amendment
phase. The Grant Agreement Amendment is being developed and includes a section in the
Terms of Reference for additional engineering by the Implementer that addresses the gaps
identified in this review.
OVERALL PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Upcoming Milestones and Critical Path: Grant Agreement Amendment completion and
signing

4
2. Detailed Summary
Table 1. Review Result

Project Doc. No. Document Title MCA-I REVIEWS CONTRACTOR REPLIES Result
Drawings MHPP-LBG-01-002 Layout 2 Dimensions are illegible. Please resubmit drawings so all
text is readable.
MHPP-LBG-01-010 Layout 10 Dimensions are illegible. Please resubmit drawings so all
text is readable.
MHPP-LBG-02-001 Weir Layout Please provide a demolition plan which shows limits of
existing conditions to be removed.

Please provide a cross section through the portion of the

wall upstream of the weir extending perpendicular from the
abutment, into the adjacent embankment.
MHPP-LBG-02-002 Cross-Section 1-1 Please show height of proposed backfill behind retaining
walls.
Please provide complete dam seepage and stability analysis
to include 10 cm thick layer of sand bedding below the
proposed weir. The revised dam seepage and stability
analysis should include results from the geotechnical
subsurface investigation to be performed. It may be
advantageous to remove or replace the sand bedding with a
lower permeability material that is not susceptible to piping.
Please provide connection details for all structures
including, but not limited to:
Proposed weir extension connection to proposed
and existing abutments.
Fish ladder connection to weir face and downstream
stilling basin.
Modifications to the existing weir connections to
existing abutment and walls.
Connections between retaining wall sections.
Please provide structural calculations for reinforcing for
proposed retaining walls.
MHPP-LBG-02-004 Cross-Section 3-3 Dimensions for base of retaining wall on right side of the
page do not align with retaining wall shown in the cross-
section. Please review and revise.
MHPP-LBG-02-009 Cross-Section 8-8 Cross-sections shows several vertical holes of unknown
height and diameter extending through the downstream
stilling basin. Please provide details for these features.
Please include details address the condition of piping from
underlying soils.
MHPP-LBG-02-012 Reinforcement Crest Weir Please clarify what type of concrete to be placed on existing
weir.
MHPP-LBG-03-001 Sandtrap Layout Cross- Drawing shows sandtrap and cross-section of sandtrap.
Section 1-1 Please clarify if additional work is proposed for the sandtrap.
Please identify existing and proposed construction.
MHPP-LBG-04-001 Headpond Layout Drawing shows headpond. Please clarify if additional work is
proposed for the headpond. Please identify existing and
proposed construction.

5
 MHPP-LBG-04-001 Cross Section 1-1, 2-2, 3-3
MHPP-LBG-05-002 Inspection Road Layout Sta.
1+150 Sta. 1+300
MHPP-LBG-05-004 Cross Section Sta. 1+200
MHPP-LBG-06-001 River Normalization Layout
Sta. 0+000 Sta. 0+150
MHPP-LBG-06-005 Long Section Sta. 0+000
to MHPP-LBG-06- Sta. 0+075 to Long Section
012 Ata. 0+900 Sta. 0+946.251
MHPP-LBG-06-015 Cross Section Sta. 0+200 to
to MHPP-LBG-06- Cross Section Sta. 0+900
029
MHPP-LBG-06-030 Detail of Gabion Wire
MHPP-LBG-07-008 Slope Stability Cross Section
to MHPP-LBG-07- Sta. 0+650 to Slope Stability
010 Cross Section Sta. 1+700
Drawing shows headpond cross-sections. Please clarify if
additional work is proposed for the headpond. Please
identify existing and proposed construction.
Please provide details for inspection road.
Section shows slope stabilization ends at approximately El.
610.00. Please clarify why slope stabilization does not
extend the full height of the slope.
Please indicate location of river normalization
improvements such as retaining wall and masonry drainage
channel.
Please provide elevation labels along the y-axis of the graph
for all sheets.
Geotextile is hard to see on the drawings due to border with
the gabion baskets. Please indicate limits of geotextile fabric.
Please clarify material placed below stone masonry drainage
channel. Please provide material type and thickness.
Please provide details for transition from shotcrete soil nail
wall and area adjacent to the water conveyance.
Please show the top of the existing slope on the drawings.

Technical Calculation Revision
MHPP-LBG-08-001 Power House Layout 1 Dimensions are illegible, please resubmit drawing with
legible text.
Gabion Wall Sta. The top width of the gabion B2 is inconsistent with what is
0+800 shown on the drawings. Please review and revise.
Active pressure coefficient Ka has been neglected from the
active earth force, Pa calculations. This may lead to an over-
estimation of the earth pressures due to the surcharge load.
Please clarify, review and revise.
Please provide definition for Phb and clarify how it is
different from Pabackfill.
Analysis of Gabion It is standard engineering practice to neglect passive
Wire (Sta 0+200) pressure when analyzing retaining wall. Please review and
revise calculations.
Resultant for surcharge loads due to temporary construction
traffic (da2) have been calculated incorrectly for all loading
and soil conditions. Please review and revise.
Stability calculation Water levels behind retaining wall vary depending on the
of retaining wall at loading condition. Please clarify why each water level was
weir area selected. It is generally more conservative to assume ground
water and ground surface.
Unpredictable Loads on the Retaining Wall appear to have
been applied to the resisting forces. Please review and
revise.
Slope of the retaining wall, is not consistent with what is
shown on the drawings. Please review and revise.
Active pressure 3, Pa3 has been calculated incorrectly. An
incorrect unit weight was used to calculate Pa3. Please
review and revise.