Additional Study on the Musi River Crossing Bridge Project in the

Transcription

Study on Economic Partnership Projects
in Developing Countries in FY 2013
Additional Study on
the Musi River Crossing Bridge Project
in the Republic of Indonesia
Final Report
March 2014
Prepared for:
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Ernst & Young Shin Nihon LLC
Japan External Trade Organization
Prepared by:
Mitsui Consultants Co., Ltd.
Chodai Co., Ltd.
Infrastructure Development Institute- Japan
Preface
This repot summarizes the achievements of the “Study on Economic Partnership Project in Developing Countries in FY
2013” consigned to Mitsui Consultants Coo., Ltd., Chodai Co., Ltd. and Infrastructure Development Institute-Japan from
Ministry of Economic, Trade and Industry.
This study “Additional Study on the Musi River Crossing Bridge Project in the Republic of Indonesia” is intended to
examine the feasibility of the project of New Musi River crossing bridge in the center of Palembang city to enhance
economic development of not only South Sumatra province and Palembang city but also all of Indonesia through advantage
Japanese technology that will also be some benefits to Japanese companies.
It is hoped that this report will be of some help in the implementation of aforementioned project as well as serve as a source
of reference for the officials concerned in our country.
March 2014
Mitsui Consultants Coo., Ltd.
Chodai Co., Ltd.
Infrastructure Development Institute-Japan
Project Location Map and Photo
Project Location Map
Indonesia
South Sumatra Province
Palembang City
8
Project Site
4
5
9
3
1
2
7
Banyuasn City
Source: Map of Indonesia – Prepared by Study Team
South Sumatra Province Map –
National Land Survey Institute (BAKOSURTANAL: Badan Koordinasi Survey dan Pemetaan Nasional) /
Palembang City Map and Planned Site for Construction of Bridge Crossing Musi River –
DINAS PERHUBUNGAN KOTA PALEMBANG
Photos
1-1
1-3
Ampera Bridge
1-2
Ampera Bridge
Fly Over of Southern Side of Ampera Bridge
2-1
Musi II Bridge
(Under Construction)
2-2
New Musi II Bridge
(Under Construction)
3-1
Palembang Western Ring Road
4
Swamp Area of Eastern Palembang City
6
Approach Site of Alternative Plan 4
5
7
Sei Lais Port of Eastern Palembang City
Residential Area around south approach between
alternative plan 1 to 3
8 Palembang Eastern Ring Road near Palembang Airport
(Already Land Preparation)
Source: Photographed by Study Team
9 Ship on Musi River
List of Abbreviation
Abbreviations
Indonesian Language（English）
A
ADB
(Asian Development Bank)
AMDAL
Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan Hidup (EIA)
ANDAL
Analisis Dampak Lingkungan Hidup
(Environmental Impact Analysis)
ASEAN
(Association of south-East Asian Nations)
B
BAPPEDA
Badan Perencana Pembangunan Daerah
BAPPENAS
(Regional Body for Planning and Development)
Badan Perencanaandan Pembangunan Nasional- Kementerian Negara Perencanaan
Pembangunan Nasional
(National Development and Planning Agency)
BCR
Benefit-Cost Raito
BD
Basic Design
BINA MARGA
Direktorat Jenderal Bina Marga
(Directorate General of Highways)
BLH
Badan Lingkungan Hidup
(Regional Environmental Management Agency)
BOT
Build Operate and Transfer
B/C
(Benefit / Cost)
C
CBD
(Central Business District)
COD
(Chemical Oxygen Demand)
D
DBO
(Design, Build, Operate)
DBL
(Design, Build, Lease)
DD
(Detail Design)
E
EIA
(Environmental Impact Assessment)
EIRR
(Economic Internal Rate of Return)
F
FIRR
FLARAP
(Financial Internal Rate of Return)
(Framework of Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan)
FS
(Feasibility Study)
G
GDP
(Gross Domestic Products)
G.L.
(Ground Level)
H
I
IC
(Inter Change)
IEDC
(Indonesian Economic Development Corridor)
J
JBIC
(Japan Bank for International Cooperation)
JJC
(The Jakarta Japan Club)
JETRO
(Japan External Trade Organization)
JICA
(Japan International Cooperation Agency)
K
KA-ANDAL
Kerangka Acuan –Analisis Dampak Lingkungan Hidup
KLH
Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup
(Ministry of Environment)
KLHS
Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis
(Strategic Environmental Assessment)
KEMHUB
Kementerian Perhubungan
(Ministry of Transport)
L
LARAP
(Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan)
M
MPA
(Metropolitan Priority Area)
MP3EI
Master Plan Percepatandan Per luasan Pembangunan Ekonomi Indonesia
(Master Plan for the Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia's Economic Development)
MRT
(Mass Rapid Transit)
N
NJOP
Nilai Jual Objek Pajak
NPV
(Net Present Value)
O
OECD
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development)
ODA
O&M
(Official Development Assistance)
(Operation and Maintenance)
P
PC
(Pre-stressed Concrete)
pcu
(passenger car unit)
PELINDO
Pelabuhan Indonesia
(Indonesian state-owned Port management Company)
PHC
(Prestressed High-strength Concrete)
PPP
(Public Private Partnership)
P/Q
(Pre-Qualification)
PT.
Perseroan Terbatas (Limited Company)
R
RKL
Pencana Pengelolaan Linkunngan Hidup
(Environmental Management)
RPL
Pencana Pemantauan Lingkunngan Hidup
(Environmental and Monitoring Plan)
Rp
(Rupiah)
S
SMEJ
(Small and Medium Enterprise Japan)
SNG
(Substitute Natural Gas）
SOx
(Sulfur Oxide)
SPPL
Surat Pernyataan Kesanggupan Pengelolaandan Pemantauan Lingkungan Hidup
(Statement of Environmental Management and Monitoring Commitment)
STEP
(Special Terms for Economic Partnership)
T
U
UKL
Upaya Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup
UPL
Upaya Pemantauan Lingkungan Hidup
US$
(United States dollar)
V
VGF
(Viability Gap Funding)
Table of Contents
Preface
Project Location Map and Photos
List of Abbreviation
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Executive Summary
1
Background and Necessity of the Project .......................................................................................................... 1
2
Basic Policy for Determining Project Content................................................................................................... 1
3
Overview of the Project ..................................................................................................................................... 8
4
Implementation Schedule ................................................................................................................................ 22
5
Project Location Map ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 1
Overview of Host Country and Sector
1.1
Overview of Transportation Sector in Indonesia .................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1
Development Status of Transportation Sector in Indonesia ............................................................ 1-1
1.1.2
Status of Transportation Sector Development in Project Area........................................................ 1-1
(1)
Status of Public Transportation ....................................................................................................... 1-1
(2)
Development Status of Roads / Bridges ......................................................................................... 1-2
(3)
Status of Transportation by Water ................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2
Overview of the Project Site ................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.2.1
General Outline of Project Site ....................................................................................................... 1-5
(1)
Overview of South Sumatra Province............................................................................................. 1-5
(2)
Overview of Palembang City .......................................................................................................... 1-5
1.2.2
Land Use Status/Development Status in Palembang City and Peripheral Area .............................. 1-6
(2)
Palembang City Development Plan ................................................................................................ 1-6
(3)
Related Development Plans / Studies ............................................................................................. 1-9
1.2.3
Status of Entrance into Region by Japanese Corporations ........................................................... 1-12
(1)
Main Japanese Corporations Upgrading Quality of Coal in South Sumatra Province ................. 1-13
(2)
Japanese Corporations in South Sumatra Province and Palembang City Where Beneficial Effects
Are Expected ............................................................................................................................................ 1-14
(3)
Other Main Japanese Corporations That Are Scheduled to Enter ProjectArea............................. 1-15
(4)
Industries Park Development Plan in Project Site ........................................................................ 1-16
Chapter 2
2.1
Study Methodologies
Study Contents and Methodologies ........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1.1
Study Contents ................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1.2
Study Items ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1
(1)
Review of Existing Study / BINA MARGA Detailed Design ...................................................... 2-1
(2)
Grasp of Conditions Along Road (Land Usage, Facility Location), Traffic Conditions, Shipping
Channel Conditions and Environmental & Social Conditions.................................................................... 2-1
(3)
Grasp of Current Status of Development Plan ................................................................................ 2-1
(4)
Confirmation of Beneficial Effects to Japanese Corporations ........................................................ 2-1
(5)
Review of Utilization of Japanese Technology ............................................................................. 2-1
(6)
Review of Route Planl .................................................................................................................... 2-2
(7)
Structure Review ............................................................................................................................ 2-2
(8)
Preparation of Comparative Review Table ..................................................................................... 2-2
(9)
Implementation System, Operation / Maintenance and Management System .............................. 2-2
(10)
Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2
Study System .......................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2.1
Study Methods ................................................................................................................................ 2-2
(1)
Work in Japan ............................................................................................................................... 2-2
(2)
Work in Indonesia ........................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.2
Study Implementation System ........................................................................................................ 2-3
2.3
Study Schedule ....................................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3.1
Study Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3.2
Main Interviewees .......................................................................................................................... 2-4
Chapter 3
Justification, Objective and Technical Feasibility of the Project
3.1
Background and Necessity of the Project ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.2
Upgrading and Streamlining Energy Usage............................................................................................ 3-2
3.2.1
Current Status of Energy Resources in Project Area ...................................................................... 3-2
(1)
Coal ................................................................................................................................................. 3-2
(2)
Biomass Energy Resources ............................................................................................................. 3-4
3.2.2
Upgrading and Streamlining Energy Usage in Project Area ........................................................... 3-4
(1)
Upgrading and Streamlining Energy Usage of energy resources in the Project Area ..................... 3-4
(2)
Contribution to other projects to be implemented by Japan ........................................................... 3-5
3.3
Items Requiring Review to Determine Project Contents ........................................................................ 3-6
3.3.1
Topographic Features and Natural Conditions for Project .............................................................. 3-6
(1)
Topography and Geology................................................................................................................ 3-6
(2)
Rivers .............................................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.3.2
Transport Demand Forecast ............................................................................................................ 3-8
3.3.3
Route Plan..................................................................................................................................... 3-10
(1)
Basic Policy for Route Plan .......................................................................................................... 3-10
(2)
Route Design Conditions .............................................................................................................. 3-10
(3)
Comparative Review .................................................................................................................... 3-13
3.3.4
Review of Engineering Methods .................................................................................................. 3-14
(1)
Bridge Plan ................................................................................................................................... 3-14
(2)
Tunnel Plan ................................................................................................................................... 3-20
(3)
Comparative Review of Bridge Plan and Tunnel Plans ................................................................ 3-23
3.4
Project Plan Overview .......................................................................................................................... 3-23
3.4.1
Basic Policy for Determining Project Content.............................................................................. 3-23
3.4.2
Concept Design ............................................................................................................................. 3-24
(1)
River Crossing .............................................................................................................................. 3-24
(2)
Approach Bridge ........................................................................................................................... 3-26
3.4.3
Construction Plan and Calculation of Estimated Construction Costs ........................................... 3-28
(1)
Construction Plan.......................................................................................................................... 3-28
(2)
Calculation of Approximate Project Cost ..................................................................................... 3-30
3.4.4
Issues with Proposed Technology and Solutions .......................................................................... 3-31
(1)
Assuming shipping height as 40m ................................................................................................ 3-31
(2)
Issues with Proposed Technology and Solution ............................................................................ 3-32
Chapter 4
4.1
Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impact
Analysis of Current Situation (Environmental/Social) ....................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1
Environmental Administration ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1.2
Project Candidate Site..................................................................................................................... 4-1
(1)
Land Use Current Situation of the Project Site ............................................................................... 4-1
(2)
Pollution (Air Quality, Water Quality, Noise, Vibration) ................................................................ 4-2
(3)
Natural Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-3
(4)
Social Environment ........................................................................................................................ 4-3
4.2
Impact of Project Implementation upon Environmental and Social Aspects ...................................... 4-4
4.2.1
Envisioned Environmental and Social Impacts .............................................................................. 4-4
(1)
Pollution control measures.............................................................................................................. 4-4
(2)
Natural Environmental Aspects ...................................................................................................... 4-4
(3)
Social Environmental Aspects ........................................................................................................ 4-4
4.2.2
Comparative Review of Envisioned Environmental and Social Impacts ....................................... 4-5
4.2.3
Comparative Review of Alternative Technologies ......................................................................... 4-6
4.3
Overview of Environmental and Social Related Laws in Host Country ............................................ 4-7
4.3.1
Palembang City Plan....................................................................................................................... 4-7
4.3.2
Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment System .................. 4-9
4.3.3
Land Acquisition / Resettlement System ........................................................................................ 4-9
4.4
Items under the responsibility of Host Country (including implementation agencies and related
organizations) for Implementation of Project ............................................................................................... 4-11
(1)
Implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................ 4-11
(2)
Implementation of Resident Resettlement Plan ............................................................................ 4-11
(3)
Review of Alternative Plan ........................................................................................................... 4-11
(4)
Others / Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 4-11
Chapter 5
Financial and Economic Evaluation
5.1
Estimation of the Project Costs............................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.1
Costs for Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Relocation ............................................................. 5-2
5.1.2
Construction Costs .......................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3
Operation, Management and Other Costs ....................................................................................... 5-4
5.2
Results of Preliminary Financial and Economic Analysis ...................................................................... 5-4
5.2.1
Method Used for Preliminary Financial/Economic Evaluation ...................................................... 5-4
(1) Financial Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 5-4
(2) Economic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 5-5
5.2.2
Target Period for Preliminary Financial/Economic Analysis.......................................................... 5-5
5.2.3
Results of Preliminary Financial Analysis ...................................................................................... 5-6
(1) Traffic Volume and Toll Resistance (Reluctance) ............................................................................... 5-6
(2)
Financial Feasibility........................................................................................................................ 5-7
5.2.4
Results of Preliminary Economic Analysis..................................................................................... 5-9
(1)
Traffic Volume and Benefits ........................................................................................................... 5-9
(2)
Economic Feasibility .................................................................................................................... 5-12
5.2.5
Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 5-14
(1)
Outline .......................................................................................................................................... 5-14
(2)
Review in Event This Project Becomes Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway ................................ 5-16
Chapter 6
6.1
Planned Project Schedule
Planned Project Schedule ....................................................................................................................... 6-1
Chapter 7
Capabilities of Implementation Organizations in Host Country
7.1
Overview of the Project Implementation Organization .......................................................................... 7-1
7.2
Organization Structure for Project Implementation ................................................................................ 7-1
Chapter 8
8.1
Technical Advantages of Japanese Companies
International Competitiveness of Japanese Companies for the Project and Possibility of Securing Orders
................................................................................................................................................................ 8-1
8.1.1
Project Features .............................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.2
Potential for Japanese Companies to Participate in International Bidding ..................................... 8-1
8.1.3
Japanese Technology ...................................................................................................................... 8-2
(1)
Extradosed Bridge .......................................................................................................................... 8-2
(2)
Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Well Foundation ............................................................................................ 8-3
(3)
ALiCC Method ............................................................................................................................... 8-3
8.2
Contents and Values of Major Materials and Equipment Expected to be Procured from Japan ............. 8-4
8.2.1
Content of Materials/Equipment Procured from Japan................................................................... 8-4
8.2.2
Calculation of Japanese Technology Costs ..................................................................................... 8-5
8.3
Measures to Assist Japanese Corporations to Win Contract ................................................................... 8-5
Appendix 3.1
Boring Survey Data by BINA MARGA BD
Appendix 3.2
Documentations for Ship Channel Condition of Musi River
List of Figure
Executive Summary
Figure i Change in Traffic Flow Caused by Building of Musi III Bridge Route ............................................... 3
Figure ii Route Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure iii General Plan for Bridge ..................................................................................................................... 7
Figure iv Cross-Section Shape of Bridge .......................................................................................................... 9
Figure v Proposed Bridge Longitudinal Profile ................................................................................................. 9
Figure vi Proposed Bridge Cross-Section Diagram ......................................................................................... 10
Figure vii Longitudinal Diagrams of shipping height 50m and 40m in alternative plan 4 .............................. 12
Figure viii Project Location Map ..................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 1 Overview of the Host Country
Figure 1-1 Bus Route Map in the Palembang City ......................................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2 Location Diagram of Road/Bridge Development Status in Palembang City ................................ 1-3
Figure 1-3 Annual Cargo Volume at Boom Baru Port .................................................................................... 1-4
Figure 1-4 Number of Ships That Annually Use Boom Baru Port ................................................................. 1-4
Figure 1-5 Population Transition in Palembang City ..................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 1-6 Palembang City Priority Development Areas (2012 – 2032) ........................................................ 1-8
Figure 1-7 Palembang City Land Usage Plan (2012 – 2032) ......................................................................... 1-9
Figure 1-8 Trans Sumatra Expressway (Toll Road) Plan .............................................................................. 1-10
Figure 1-9 Palembang City Road Plan Diagram (2012 – 2032) ................................................................... 1-11
Figure 1-10 Map of South Sumatra Province ............................................................................................... 1-12
Figure 1-11 Locations of Japanese Corporations and Planned Project Sites in Project Area ....................... 1-13
Figure 1-12 Location map of industrial park development plan in the Project Site ..................................... 1-16
Chapter 3 Justification, Objectives and Technical Feasibility of the Project
Figure 3-1 Palembang City Project Site Location Map .................................................................................. 3-2
Figure 3-2 Map of Main Coal Fields in Indonesia .......................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-3 Breakdown of PT. Bukit Asam Coal Sales Destinations ............................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-4 Map of Coal Fields in South Sumatra Province ............................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-5 Musi River Shipping Channel in Vicinity of Project Site ............................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-6 Change in Traffic Flow with Musi III Bridge Route Plan ............................................................. 3-9
Figure 3-7 Route Plan ................................................................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-8 Standard Cross-Section Diagram for Roads Connecting to Musi III Bridge .............................. 3-11
Figure 3-9 Standard Cross-Section Diagram for Musi III Bridge ................................................................ 3-11
Figure 3-10 Bridge Type in Alternative plan 1 ............................................................................................. 3-15
Figure 3-11 Bridge Type in Alternative Plan 2 ............................................................................................. 3-15
Figure 3-14 Cross-Section Diagrams for Each Bridge Type ........................................................................ 3-19
Figure 3-15 Longitudinal Profile Diagram for Immersed Tunnel + Excavated Tunnel ................................ 3-20
Figure 3-16 Cross-Section Diagram for Immersed Tunnel + Excavated Tunnel .......................................... 3-20
Figure 3-17 Longitudinal Diagram of Shield Tunnel ................................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3-18 Cross-Section Diagram of Shield Tunnel .................................................................................. 3-22
Figure 3-19 Bridge Width Configuration...................................................................................................... 3-24
Figure 3-20 Cross-Section Shape of Bridge ................................................................................................. 3-25
Figure 3-21 Cross-Section Shape of Approach Bridge ................................................................................. 3-26
Figure 3-22 Proposed Bridge Longitudinal Profile ...................................................................................... 3-27
Figure 3-23 Proposed Bridge Cross-Section Diagram.................................................................................. 3-28
Figure 3-24 Longitudinal Diagrams of shipping height 50m and 40m in alternative plan 4 ........................ 3-32
Chapter 4 Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impact
Figure 4-1 Land Usage Status in Vicinity of Bridge Route Proposals ............................................................ 4-2
Figure 4-2 Land Usage Plan Diagram in Vicinity of Project Site ................................................................... 4-8
Figure 4-3 Retention Pond Construction Plan ................................................................................................ 4-8
Chapter 5 Financial and Economic Evaluation
Figure 5-1 Operation Format for Toll Road Development Projects, Project System and Arrangement of
Financing .............................................................................................................................................. 5-14
Figure 5-2 Projects Utilizing Private Sector in Indonesia ............................................................................ 5-15
Figure 5-3 Comparison of Road Project Format and Division of Roles among Government and Private Sector
.............................................................................................................................................................. 5-16
Figure 5-4 Kayu Agung – Palembang – Betung Toll Road Schedule ........................................................... 5-16
Figure 5-5 Alignment of Trans Sumatra Expressway ................................................................................... 5-17
Chapter 7 Implementing Organization
Figure 7-1 BINA MARGA Organization Chart .............................................................................................. 7-2
Figure 7-2 South Sumatra BAPPEDA Organization Chart ............................................................................ 7-3
Figure 7-3 Palembang City BAPPEDA Organization Chart .......................................................................... 7-4
Chapter 8 Technical Advantages of Japanese Company
Figure 8-1 Photo of Extradosed Bridge .......................................................................................................... 8-2
Figure 8-2 Structure of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Well Foundation ...................................................................... 8-3
Figure 8-3 Image of ALiCC ............................................................................................................................ 8-4
List of Table
Executive Summary
Table i Natural Conditions of Project Site ......................................................................................................... 2
Table ii Change in Traffic Flow with Musi III Bridge ....................................................................................... 2
Table iii Route Selection Comparison ............................................................................................................... 5
Table iv Comparison of Construction Cost Indices and Work Period Indices for Bridge Plan and Tunnel Plans
................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Table v Overall Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Table vi Estimated Construction Costs .............................................................................................................11
Table vii Bridge Construction Costs ................................................................................................................ 12
Table viii Estimated Traffic Volume ................................................................................................................ 13
Table ix Financial Internal Rate of Return ....................................................................................................... 14
Table x Economic Internal Rate of Return ...................................................................................................... 15
Table xi Net Present Value ............................................................................................................................... 15
Table xii Cost-Benefit Ratio ............................................................................................................................ 15
Table xiii Expected Traffic Volume When This Project is Implemented as Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Table xiv Costs When This Project is Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway ...................................................... 17
Table xv Comparison of Current Status of Land Usage .................................................................................. 17
Table xvi Comparison of Current Status of Social Environment..................................................................... 18
Table xvii Comparative Evaluation Standard for Expected Impact ................................................................. 19
Table xviii Comparison and Evaluation of Expected Impact .......................................................................... 19
Table xix Comparison of Environmental and Social Impacts of Each Type of Structure ................................ 21
Table xx In case of Implemented as Public Project ......................................................................................... 23
Table xxi In case of Implemented as PPP Project ............................................................................................ 24
Chapter 1 Overview of the Host Country
Table 1-1 Overview of Road / Bridge Development Status in Palembang City ............................................. 1-2
Table 1-2 Main Japanese Corporations Upgrading Quality of Coal in South Sumatra ................................ 1-13
Table 1-3 Japanese Corporations in South Sumatra Province Where Beneficial Effects Are Expected ....... 1-14
Table 1-4 Japanese Corporations in Palembang City Where Beneficial Effects Are Expected .................... 1-14
Table 1-5 Other Main Japanese Corporations That Are Scheduled to Enter Project Area ............................ 1-15
Chapter 2 Study Methodology
Table 2-1 Study Implementation System ........................................................................................................ 2-3
Table 2-2 Study Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 2-4
Table 2-3 List of Field Study Interviewees ..................................................................................................... 2-4
Chapter 3 Justification, Objectives and Technical Feasibility of the Project
Table 3-1 Coal Resources / Reserves in Each Coal Field Region (2012) ....................................................... 3-3
Table 3-2 Geological Conditions in Project Area (N Value) ........................................................................... 3-6
Table 3-3 Change in Traffic Flow with Musi III Bridge ................................................................................. 3-8
Table 3-4 Design Speed and Geometric Structure Values ............................................................................ 3-12
Table 3-5 Route Selection Comparison Table............................................................................................... 3-13
Table 3-6 Comparison of Construction Cost Indices and Work Period Indices for Bridge Plan and Tunnel
Plans ............................................................................................................................................ 3-23
Table 3-7 Overall Process Plan ..................................................................................................................... 3-28
Table 3-8 Estimated Construction Costs ....................................................................................................... 3-31
Table 3-9 Issues with Proposed Technology and Solutions .......................................................................... 3-33
Chapter 4 Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impact
Table 4-1 Comparison of Current Status of Land Usage ................................................................................ 4-2
Table 4-2 Comparison of Current Status of Social Environment ................................................................... 4-4
Table 4-3 Comparative Evaluation Standard for Expected Impact ................................................................. 4-5
Table 4-4 Comparison and Evaluation of Expected Impact ........................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-5 Comparison of Environmental and Social Impacts of Each Type of Structure .............................. 4-7
Chapter 5 Financial and Economic Evaluation
Table 5-1 Construction Costs in FS Implemented by BINA MARGA ........................................................... 5-2
Table 5-2 Construction Costs for Structure .................................................................................................... 5-3
Table 5-3 Bridge Construction Costs .............................................................................................................. 5-3
Table 5-4 Bridge Construction Costs .............................................................................................................. 5-4
Table 5-5 Estimated Traffic Volume ............................................................................................................... 5-6
Table 5-6 Traffic Volume When No Toll Charged Compared with Different Toll Rates ................................ 5-7
Table 5-7 Inflation Rate .................................................................................................................................. 5-7
Table 5-8 Cash Flow for Financial Analysis ................................................................................................... 5-8
Table 5-9 Financial Internal Rate of Return ................................................................................................... 5-9
Table 5-10 Vehicle Operating Costs for Each Travel Speed (2005) ............................................................. 5-10
Table 5-11 Vehicle Operating Costs for Each Vehicle Type and Travel Speed (2010) ................................. 5-10
Table 5-12 Travel Time Saving Benefits ...................................................................................................... 5-11
Table 5-13 Cash Flow for Economic Analysis ............................................................................................. 5-12
Table 5-14 Economic Internal Rate of Return .............................................................................................. 5-13
Table 5-15 Net Present Value........................................................................................................................ 5-13
Table 5-16 Cost-Benefit Ratio ...................................................................................................................... 5-14
Table 5-17 Expected Traffic Volume When This Project is Implemented as Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
.............................................................................................................................................................. 5-17
Table 5-18 Costs When This Project is Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway ................................................. 5-18
Table 5-19 Cash Flow Used for Financial Analysis (When Project is Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway). 5-19
Chapter 6 Planned Project Schedule
Table 6-1 Implementation as a Public Work Project ....................................................................................... 6-1
Table 6-2 Implementation as a PPP Project .................................................................................................... 6-2
Chapter 8 Technical Advantages of Japanese Company
Table 8-1 Track Record for Major Extradosed Bridges .................................................................................. 8-3
Table 8-2 List of Materials/Equipment Procured from Japan ......................................................................... 8-4
Table 8-3 Cost of Materials, Equipment and Services Procured from Japan.................................................. 8-5
Executive Summary
2
1 Background and Necessity of the Project
Owing to the coal, gas, palm oil, rubber and other abundant resources and growth of key industries, Palembang
City in South Sumatra Province in Indonesia is positioned as a priority development area in the Indonesia
Economic Development Corridor (IEDC). Therefore, the population of Palembang City has continued to increase
as the second largest city on the island of Sumatra (Approximately 1.54 million in 2011, approximately 1.74
million in 2012), and the residential areas, plant areas, commercial areas and other areas are expanded to the south
and east from the old part of the city in the north.
There are currently only two bridges crossing the Musi River: the Ampera Bridge and Musi II Bridge. The Musi
River flows through the center of Palembang City, dividing northern Palembang from southern Palembang. Traffic
is consequently concentrated onto the Ampera Bridge, the only bridge in the center of the city. The resulting traffic
jams are the foremost problem for the city, causing enormous economic losses.
Given these circumstances, the construction of a new bridge crossing the Musi River is a very high priority project
not only for Palembang City, South Sumatra Province but for Indonesia as a whole, and this project has been
earmarked onto the “Blue Book 2011 – 2014” list by BAPPENAS(Badan Perencana and an Pembengunan
Nasional – Kementerian Negara Perecanaan Pembangunan Nasional). Furthermore, a feasibility study for this
project was conducted in 2010 which was funded by Indonesia, and detailed design was performed from
November 2011 to 2013 byBINA MARGA (Dierctorat Jenderal Bina Marga) (however, the name was changed
from detailed design to basic design [hereinafter called BINA MARGABD] after the detailed design was
completed), and implementation of this project is necessary for Indonesia as a whole.
With this as the background, the first study was implemented with the infrastructure system export promotion
study project in the fiscal 2012. The first study consists of a project to construct a bridge over the Musi River that
flows through the center of Palembang City at a site that is 5 km downstream from the Ampera Bridge which has
aged considerably, and three alternative proposals plans were reviewed in the first study.
BINA MARGA considered implementation of BINA MARGA original plan as the recommended proposal plan
with funds from Indonesia. But, due to the resultof the First Study by METI, they recognized that the original plan
has not been implemented because of problems related to environmental & social considerations, shipping
channel, construction costand other conditions. Therefore, this Study Team was requested to implement the
follow-up study by BINA MARGA.
2 Basic Policy for Determining Project Content
2.1
Natural Conditions of Project Site
The natural condition of the Project site are shown in Table i.
1
Table i Natural Conditions of Project Site
Overview
Geography /
•
The area around Palembang City is flat, and there are many lowland swamps.
Geological
•
According to boring studiesof both the first study and BINA MATGA BD, there is tightly packed
Conditions
Musi River
ground at a depth of 20m or more (N value at depth of 20m or more is 30 or higher).
•
Overview
Shipping
In the target region for this study, the gradient of the Musi River is flat, the river width is wide,
with a tendency for sand drifts to be deposited.
•
Channel
Letter about ship channel condition from Ministry of Transportation was written to secure the
following. (Channel width: 240m, Min. height: 50m)
•
BINA MARGA reviewed a proposal with a shipping height of 70m after the BD. However, the
last time that a ship requiring a shipping height of 50m navigated the Musi River and stopped at
Boom Baru Port was four years ago. Currently, the maximum height of ships that traverse the
river is about 30m, with about five ships making calls per week. Therefore, it was determined
that the 70m proposal did not need to be reviewed during this additional study after discussion
with related agencies.
•
Indonesian Port Corporation (IPC) and BINA MARGA of Palembang City wrote the
memorandum that a ship height of the Musi River is able to down to 40m. So, it is considered
that the height bridge plan is one of alternative plan
Source: Prepared by Study Team
2.2
Transport Demand Forecast
In the BINA MARGA BD, a traffic volume study and traffic demand forecast have not been newly conducted, and
review was performed using the traffic demand forecast in the BINA MARGA FS.
Therefore, during this additional study, a review will be conducted based on the traffic volume that crosses the
Musi River when the Musi III Bridge is not built, and at the respective toll settings when the bridge is built, as
calculated in the first study, taking into consideration the results of the BINA MARGA FS. The change in traffic
flow in the first study is shown in Table ii andFigure i.
Table iiChange in Traffic Flow with Musi III Bridge
Whether or Not
Case
Musi III Bridge
Toll Setting
Traffic Volume (pcu/d)
(Rp/Number·km)
Musi III
Ampera
Musi II
Built
Bridge Not Built
–
–
–
109,442
47,935
Bridge Built
Case 0
0
42,806
66,636
47,935
Case 1
300
40,795
68,647
47,935
Case 2
600
38,966
70,476
47,935
Case 3
900
35,675
73,767
47,935
2
Figure i Change in Traffic Flow Caused by Building of Musi III Bridge Route
Without Musi III bridge
110,000pcu/d
48,000pcu/d
With Musi III Bridge
67,000pcu/d
43,000pcu/d
48,000pcu/d
Traffic Shift from Ampera Bridge
to Musi III Bridge
3
2.2.1
Route Plan
(1) Basic Policy for Route Plan
In the route plan in the BINA MARGA FS and BD, the bridge plan crosses the river at an angle of
approximately 50 degrees at a location on the Musi River with a width of approximately 1 km where there is a
shipping channel. In the first study, a total of three routes were reviewed, with the original BINA MARGA plan
designated as Alternative Plan 1, the planed location where the bridge goes across Kemaro Island and crosses
the Musi River at a right angle designated as Alternative Plan 2, and the location where the bridge crosses the
Musi River at a right angle on the upstream side of Kemaro Island designated as Alternative Plan 3. However,
the area around the approach on the right bank of the Musi River (south side) is a residential area that is densely
populated, bringing about problems related to land acquisition. Therefore, in this additional study, a proposal
will be added where the bridge can be free from the residential areas as much as possible and crosses the Musi
River at a location downstream which is designated as Alternative Plan 4, as explained in the comparative
review.
Figure ii Route Plan
Legend
Alternative plan 1
Alternative plan 2
Alternative plan 3
Alternative plan 4
(2) Comparative Review
The evaluation results of the routes are shown in Table iii.
4
Route
Main
Bridge
Type
Bridge
Length
Alternative plan 1
Cable-Stayed Bridge
Table iii Route Selection Comparison
Alternative plan 2
Alternative plan 3
Extradosed Bridge
Extradosed Bridge
Alternative plan 4
Extradosed Bridge
BINA MARGA BD:
4,470m
3,330m
3,350m
3,330m
METI Plan:3,380m
x Inferior to alternative x Inferior to alternative x For shortest length of x Has the longest route,
plan 3 since route is plan 3 since route is route form inner city, and is further from
longer (equivalent to longer
and traffic usage volume downtown than other
alternative plan 2).
will be higher since it is routes, resulting in a
Traffic
closer to downtown than lower traffic volume.
Volume
other plans
However, the volume of
traffic
that
passes
through Palembang City
will not change.
x Inferior to other plans in x There is concern about x Equivalent to other x Equivalent to other
terms of road structure impact on plants in plans from standpoint plans from standpoint
and impact on natural vicinity and temple on there are not large there are not large
environment since a Kemaro Island.
development plans in development plans in
portion goes through x The route is on tourism the area.
the area.
swamps.
development area on x There is concern about x The route avoid the
x The route is on tourism Kemaro
Island
by impact on plants in petroleum plant area on
Land
development area on Palemban City
vicinity and temple on the south side (PT.
Usage
Kemaro
Island
by
Kemaro Island.
Pertamina).
Palemban City
x Inferior to other plans in
terms of road structure
and impact on natural
environment since a
portion goes through
swamps.
x Passes through a small x Passes through a small x Passes through large x Although route will pass
village on the north side, village on the north side, village on north side, through small villages
but it is superior to but it issuperior to causing larger social on both south and north
alternative plan 3.
alternative plan 3.
impact than other plans.
sides of river, the social
Social
x Many residents will x Bridge passes through x Many residents will impact is minimal since
Considerat
need to be resettled built-up area on south need to be resettled this route does not pass
ions
since the bridge passes side, but this is true of since the bridge passes through residential areas
through
a
densely all four plans
through
a
densely for the most part
populated area on the
populated area on the compared to the other
south side.
south side.
plans.
BINA MARGA BD:
27.7 billion yen
34.8 billion yen
31.0 billion yen (3.5
39.6 billion yen
(3.1 trillion Rp)
(4.0 trillion Rp)
trillion Rp)
Bridge
(4.6 trillion Rp)
Constructi
METI Plan:
on Costs
30.8 billion yen
(3.5 trillion Rp)
BINA MARGA BD
x Cost is the lowest, but x Construction costs are x Construction costs are
x Construction costs are has problem of social higher than alternative higher than other Study
the higher, and social considerations
on plan 1 and 2 andhas Team proposals, but are
considerations
has equality with BINA problem
of
social lower
than
BINA
problem
MARGA BD.
considerations
on MARGA BD.
equality with BINA x This route has the
Evaluation METI Plan
MARGA BD.
lowest social impact,
x Cost is lower than BINA
and feasibility is the
MARGA BD, but has
highest.
problem
of
social
considerations on an
equality with BINA
MARGA BD
5
2.2.2
Review of Engineering Methods
(1) Bridge Plan
A review will be conducted for the items specified below for the bridge plan for this project, and a plan will be
formulated for economic bridge construction proposal. The following points must be considered when
determining the bridge length.
(i)
Conformity with Palembang City Road Network Plan
This planned bridge location will be in accordance with the road alignment adopted in the Musi III FS of
2010 that was based on the east ring road.
(ii)
Grade/ Longitudinal slope of approach road
The national standard in Indonesia for the maximum longitudinal slope is 3.0% (Design speed: 100km/h).
(iii)
Planned Bridge Height over Navigation Channel
The navigation channel conditions consist of a shipping channel width of 240m and shipping channel height
of 50m. The right bank side (north side of Palembang City) where the river is deep will be the main shipping
channel for alternative plan 1 to alternative plan 3. For alternative plan 4 on the downstream side, the main
shipping channel will be in the center portion of the river.
(iv)
Other Conditions at Bridge Locations
It has been found that the embankment height needs to be kept low due to geological conditions on land. The
embankment height on the back side of the bridge abutment will be determined using 6.0m as a rough
indicator of the location of the bridge abutment.
Based on these points,outline of each alternative plans are as follows.
[Alternative plan 1]
The main bridge type is Cable-Stayed Bridge. Alternative plan 1 requires a main span length of 360.0m to
provide a shipping channel width of B=240.0m due to the angle of the bridge to the river. Toward the left
bank of the river, outside of the channel, the economic span length is approximately 100m due to the cost of
coffering and pier work required to place piers in the river.
[Alternative plan 2]
The main bridge type is Extradosed Bridge. The main span length of 270.0m provides the required shipping
channel width of B=240.0m for alternative plan 2. Toward the left bank of the river, outside of the channel,
the economic span length is approximately 100m due to the cost of coffering and pier work required to place
piers in the river.
6
3
[Alterrnative plan 3]
The maain bridge tyype is Extradoosed Bridge. A main span
n length of 270.0m
2
was ddesignated fo
or alternativee
plan 3 to
t provide booth the required shipping channel
c
width
h of B=240.00m for the Muusi River and
d a navigationn
channel for the nearrby Musi Riveer tributary, which
w
is also navigated byy ships.
[Alternnative plan 4]
The maain bridge tyype is Extradoosed Bridge. The shippin
ng channel iss in the centeer of the riveer where it iss
deepestt. Therefore, the
t main spann will be 270.0m which saatisfies the shhipping channnel width of B=240.0m.
B
G
Plan for Bridge
Figure iii General
Alternativee
Plan 1
Alternativee
Plan 2
Alternativee
Plan 2
Alternativee
Plan 4
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
(2) Tunnnel Plan
In the BIINA MARGA
A BD, a requuest was madee to conduct a review of a tunnel propoosal as an altternative plann
along wiith the bridgee proposal duue to the factt that the con
nstruction cossts were estim
mated very hiigh and theree
are limittations on the shipping chaannel conditioons with a briidge.
b
on thee original BIN
NA MARGA
A
A compparison tablee for the cablle-stayed briddge in alternaative plan 1 based
proposaal calculatedd with the abbove conditioons is shown
n in Table ivv.The approxximate costs for both thee
immerssed tunnel + excavated tuunnel proposaal and shield tunnel propoosal are apprroximately ass high as twoo
times compared
c
to the
t cable-stayyed bridge inn the originall BINA MAR
RGA proposaal, and the work period iss
7
1.3 to 1.4 times longer than the bridge.
Furthermore, since this is an approximate estimate that was calculated with limited information and
conditions for both tunnel proposals, a more detailed review is necessary in order to specify outline of each
plan.
Table iv Comparison of Construction Cost Indices and Work Period Indices for Bridge Plan and Tunnel Plans
Cable-Stayed Bridge
Immersed Tunnel +
Shield Tunnel
(Original BINA MARGA Excavated Tunnel
Proposal)
Construction Cost Index
1.0
1.9 – 2.3
1.8 – 2.2
Work Period Index
1.0
1.3 – 1.4
1.3 – 1.4
(3) Comparative Review of Bridge Plan and Tunnel Plans
Based on the above information, the bridge plan is more realistic since the construction costs and work
period would both increase substantially with the tunnel plans, although they most likely would have less
excessive impact on the environment compared to the bridge plan.
3 Overview of the Project
3.1
Project Content
This project consists of constructing a bridge with a total length of approximately 3.3 km at a location
approximately 5km downstream from the road bridge across the Musi River that flow through the center of
Palembang City which has aged significantly (Ampera Bridge) plan of which conforms with the plan to cross the
Musi River in the ring road plan on the east side of Palembang City. The Route Plan and Review of Engineering
Methods resulted in the submission of a proposal for construction of an extradosed bridge with the route in
alternative plan 4. An overview of the proposed plan is described below.
¾
¾
Total Project Length
3,330m
River Crossing
1,010m
Bridge Approach
2,320m
General Bridge Design
8
F
Figure
iv Cross-Section Sh
hape of Bridgge
P
by Sttudy Team
Source: Prepared
Profile
F
Figure
v Propoosed Bridge Longitudinal
L
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
9
Figuree vi Proposedd Bridge Crosss-Section Diiagram
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
3.2
Connstruction Plann
The plannedd constructionn period in the time for com
mpletion for this project is approximattely 42 month
hs. Work willl
commence with
w deliveryy of the materrials, and prepparation of th
he constructioon yard, site ooffice and oth
her facilities..
Constructionn of the mainn and approacch bridges will
w be carried
d out concurreently. Bridgee deck work, paving workk
and clean-upp will be perfformed in seqquence. The overall
o
plan iss shown in Taable v.
Tabble v Overall Plan
P
Work Ite
ems
Year
Month 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
7
8
9
3
4
10 11 12 13
3 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 26 27 28 29 30 3 1 32 33 34 35 36 37
3 38 39 40 41 42
Total Construc
ction Schedule
Preparation
n Works
Construc
ction Yard
Substructur
re Work
Abutment
t (A1)
Pier（P1 ~P29)
Pier（P3
30)
Pier（P3
31)
Pier（P3
32)
Pier（P3
33)
Pier（P3
34~P62)
Abutment
t (A2)
Superstruct
ture Work
North Ap
pproach Bridge
Main Bri dge (EXD)
pproach Bridge
South Ap
Pavement
t
Finishing Work
W
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
10
3.3
Total Project Cost
An amount equal to 10% of the total of the construction costs and consultant costs will be allocated as
contingency funds. The approximate construction costs are shown in Table vi.
Table vi Estimated Construction Costs
Item
Main Bridge
(Steel / PC compound
Construction
cost
cost
(Million Rp)
(Million Yen)
Remarks
Superstructure
995,300
8,700
Bridge Length 1,010m
Substructure
892,300
7,800
Max Span 270m
Subtotal
1,887,600
16,500
Superstructure
411,900
3,600
Substructure
640,700
5,600
Span 29x40m
1,052,600
9,200
extradosed bridge)
Approach bridge (PCT
Construction
Girders Bridge)
Subtotal
Span 29x40m
Construction of Temporary
22,900
200
Structures
Construction Cost (1)
Material yard,
Girder production yard etc.
Total
2,963,100
25,900
Consultant Cost (2)
296,300
2,590
10% of (1)
Contingency (3)
296,300
2,590
10% of (1)
3,555,700
31,080
Total Construction Cost [(1)＋(2)＋(3)]
Approx. 31.0 billion yen
1Rp= ¥0.008741 (Foreign exchange rate as of January 20, 2014)
3.4
Issues with Proposed Technology and Solutions
As mentioned above, according to the memorandum between Indonesian Port Corporation (IPC) and BINA
MARGA of Palembang City, a shipping height of the Musi River has become reducible from 50m to 40m. Should
it is going to be the case, length of the approach bridge of alternative plan 4, which the study team recommends,
can be shortened by 640m and construction cost will be reduced by 3.5 billion yen from 31 billion yen to 27.5
billion yen. It is recommendable to apply 40m shipping height as this will make the more feasible and realistic..
11
Figure vii Longitudinal
L
D
Diagrams
of shipping heig
ght 50m and 40m in alternnative plan 4
Shipping Heig
ght 50m
Shipping Height 40m
Source: Prepared by Sttudy Team
3.5
Resuult on Financcial and Econoomic Evaluattion
3.5.1
Costts
(1) Landd Acquisition, Resettlemennt and Relocattion Cost
The costts for land accquisition, ressident resettleement, relocaation of utilitties and otherr items in thee area that iss
influenceed by this prooject (bridge and
a road deveelopment worrk) are estimaated to be appprox. 7,333 billion
b
Rp.
(2) Construction Costts
a compiled in Table vii Bridge
B
Consttruction Costts. Regardingg
The consstruction costts (for bridgee and road) are
the cost per
p 1km for the road secttion, the standdard unit pricce for toll road constructiion in the “Trrans Sumatraa
Master Plan”
P
of 37.344 billion Rp was
w referred to, and the leength of bridgge was desiggnated as 40k
km which is a
portion of
o the ring roaad.
uction Costs
Table vii Bridge Constru
Unit: 1 biillion Rp(Unit for figures in parenthheses is 100 million yen))
BINA MA
ARGA
BD Plan
Altternative Plann 1
Alternaative Plan 2
Alternative P
Plan 3
Alteernative Plan 4
Bridge
4,6110(396)
3,522(3008)
3,171(277)
3
3,9799(348)
3,555(3100)
Road
1,4664(128)
1,464(1228)
1,464(128)
1,4644(128)
1,464(1288)
Total
6,0774(524)
5,986(4336)
4,635(405)
4
5,4422(475)
5,019(4388)
Note: Calcculated using 1 Rp = 0.0088741 yen (Forreign Exchan
nge Rate as off January 2014)
Source: Prepared
P
by Study
S
Team
O
Costs
(3) Operaation, Mainteenance and Other
An amouunt equal to 2%
2 of the coonstruction coosts/y is assum
med for the daily
d
operatioonand manag
gement costs,,
and an am
mount equal to 5% of the constructionn costs/y is en
nvisioned for periodic repaair costs. It iss thought thatt
periodic repair costs will
w incur eveery ten years after
a
the bridge is placed in
i service / opperation.
12
3.5.2
Traffic Volume
Traffic volume estimated in the BINA MARGA FS is shown inTable viii. In the FS, the project target section of
25.6km is divided into five sub-sections, and traffic volume in 2014, 2020 and 2025 is estimated.
When each of the project sections are averaged, the total traffic volume that is estimated to travel in the
northbound and southbound directions is 19,924 vehicles in 2014, 23,730 vehicles in 2020, and 31,184 vehicles in
2025. In addition, since the unit in the table is vehicles, when it is multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to convert the value
to passenger car unit (pcu), the traffic volume in 2014 is 29,885 pcu, 35,595 pcu in 2020, and 49,776 pcu in 2025.
In this additional study, the project section was changed from 25.6km to 40km.It was assumed that the traffic
volume in the extended section of 14.4km would be the same as the average traffic volume in the 25.6km section.
Furthermore, in this additional study,it was assumed that there would be long-distance traffic of 4,500 pcu/d
(3,000 vehicles/d) using the Trans Sumatra Expressway on top of the above traffic.
Additionally, traffic volume is expected to grow after 2025 at a yearly rate of 6.5%, reaching saturation status of
approx. 100,000 pcu, and remaining constant after this, which is the same as in the first study.
2014
a, BinaMargaFS
(Vehicles/d)
b, pcu(a X1.5)
Trans Sumatra
Traffic
(Average pcu)
Table viii Estimated Traffic Volume
2020
Northbound
Southbound
9,932
9,992
14,898
-
Total
Northbound
Southbound
19,924
11,992
11,738
14,988
29,885
17,989
-
4,500
-
2025
Total
Northbound
Southbound
Total
23,730
17,054
16,129
33,184
17,607
35,595
25,582
24,194
49,776
-
8,996
-
-
12,326
Source: PekerjaanStudiKelayakanJalandanJembatanMusi III Palembang, Average/PCU (×1.5)
Prepared by Study Team
3.5.3
Overview of Preliminary Financial Analysis
Table ix shows the calculation results for the Financial Internal Rate of Return for the BINA MARGA BD plan,
alternative plan 1, alternative plan 2, alternative plan 3and alternative plan 4 with the price level converted to 2020
when the bridge will be placed in service at the assumed toll charges of 300 Rp, 600 Rp and 900 Rp per 1km in
2010, taking into consideration the inflation rate from 2010 until the bridge is placed in service.
13
Table ix Financial Internal Rate of Return
(Figures in parentheses are results of the First study)
Toll per 1km
(2010 Price)
BINA MARGA
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
BD Plan
1
2
3
4
300Rp/km
600Rp/km
900Rp/km
0.8%
2.8%
3.3%
2.1%
(4.1%)
（3.9%）
（4.4%）
（3.3%）
6.9%
9.2%
9.8%
8.4%
(9.6%)
(9.3%)
(10.0%)
(8.5%)
10.8%
13.4%
14.2%
12.5%
(12.8%)
(12.5%)
(13.3%)
(11.6%)
2.8％
9.1％
13.4％
The results of the calculated values in the additional study does not show significant changes for the most part
from the first study (However, regarding the BINA MARGA BD plan, the fact that the costs have increased
dramatically has been reflected, worsening the conditions).
When a toll of 300 Rp or 600 Rp is charged per kilometer in 2010, the Financial Internal Rate of Return for the
BD plan or any of the alternative plans does not reach the rate of return of 13 – 15% that is generally expected in
Indonesia at any of the toll charge levels,signifyingthat this project cannot be implemented with the Build,
Operate and Transfer (BOT) method as a pure private sector toll road project. In other words, it cannot be
financially viable even with the government participation covering the costs for land acquisition, resettlement
and relocation. That is, in order to achieve this project, in addition to the government covering the costs for land
acquisition, resettlement and relocation, financial support for the project by means of various subsidies,
preferential tax measures, low interest loans or othermeasures as required, whichconstitutes the same conclusionas
reached in the first study.
3.5.4
Overview of Preliminary Economic Analysis
Table x shows the economic internal rate of return (EIRR)for the scenario that the said project is implemented as a
free road or a toll road (with toll charges of 300Rp/km, 600Rp/km and 900Rp/km) for t BINA MARGA FS,
alternative plan 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The evaluation is based on rear terms. AS the BINA MARGA FS is based on the year 2010 price, the other
alternatives are also evaluated based on the 2010 price.
The EIRR of all alternative plans exceeds the opportunity cost of capital in Indonesia (about 13 – 15%).In all
alternative plans, the alternative plan 2 only covers the yen loan standardthat exceeds the hurdle rate of around
15%. However, the project is construction of freeway included new bridge, Therefore, each alternative plan is
economically feasible because the EIRR is the more than capital opportunity cost for necessary to low calculated
value. However, for the economic analysis on BINA MARGA FS, the traffic demand did not include traffic
volume of Trans Sumatra Expressway and based on the traffic volume before the year 2010.
14
Free
300 Rp./km
600 Rp./km
900 Rp./km
BINA MARGA
BD
13.0%
12.6%
12.2%
11.4%
Table x Economic Internal Rate of Return
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
1
2
3
15.3%
15.9%
14.5%
14.8%
15.4%
14.0%
14.3%
15.0%
13.6%
13.5%
14.1%
12.8%
Alternative Plan
4
15.2%
14.7%
14.3%
13.4%
The net present value in which scenario the discount ratio is 4.5% is shown inTable xi, and the cost benefit ratio
discounted by capital cost of 12.5% is shown in Table xi.
Table xi Net Present Value
(Unit: billion Rp, Values in parentheses are 100 million yen)
BINA MARGA
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
BD
1
2
3
4
Free
15,517
16,874
17,194
16,456
16,843
300Rp/km
14,460
15,816
16,137
15,399
15,785
600Rp/km
13,492
14,849
15,169
14,431
14,818
900Rp/km
11,760
13,116
13,437
12,699
13,086
Note: Converted at Rp = ¥0.008519
BINA MARGA BD
Free
300Rp/km
600Rp/km
900Rp/km
3.5.5
3.22
3.07
2.93
2.68
Table xii Cost-Benefit Ratio
Alternative
Alternative
Plan 1
Plan 2
4.00
4.24
3.81
4.04
3.64
3.86
3.33
3.53
Alternative
Plan 3
3.72
3.55
3.39
3.10
Alternative
Plan 4
3.98
3.79
3.62
3.31
Consideration
(1) Operation, Maintenance and Other Costs
Judging from the results of the preliminary financial and economic analyses hereof, materialization ofthis
project as a toll road project coupled with appropriate participation by the private sector is more realistic
solutionthan doing itas a public project free road should this project are provided with suitable financial
assistance. In addition to reducing the financial burden on the part of government by utilizing private sector
funds subject to agreement by the parties for implementation as a private sector toll road, one can expect
higher quality services in O&M by utilizing private sector knowhow and experience in maintenance and
management.
Development of the legal system related to utilization of the private sector has shown progressin recent years,
and work is proceeding on quite a few projects that utilize the private sector to develop toll roads. Although
there are fewer cases in which road projects have been developed using PPP compared to cases in which
development has been performed using BOT, many project candidates will be qualified on the PPP project list
15
such as the Palembang – Indralaya Toll Road which is adjacent to this project. Also, there are cases in which
work has already began, such as the Solo – Kertosono Toll Road. This project therefore can be developed
under PPP scheme should suitable support by the government be provided.
(2) Review in Event This Project Becomes Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
1) Alignment and Traffic Volume when This Project is Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
Table xiiishows the rough expectations for traffic volume when this project is developed as part of the Trans
Sumatra Expressway. The traffic volume on the Trans Sumatra Expressway was calculated based on the traffic
volume study conducted in 2009 in order to prepare the “Trans Sumatra Master Plan”, with the yearly increase
in traffic volume assumed to be 6.5% until 2020. The target section is approximately 110km long, going north
from KayuAgung to Palembang City, going through Palembang City on the north side, and ending in Betung
(section from Palembang City to Betung is not shown in the diagram).
Table xiii Expected Traffic Volume When This Project is Implemented as Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
Length
(km)
KayuAgung – Palembang City
Palembang City
Palembang City – Betung
25
40
45
Traffic Volume (2020)
Trans Sumatra
Palembang City
11,000
11,000
24,000
19,000
-
Total
11,000
35,000
19,000
2) Cost and Financial Soundness When This Project is Implemented as Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
Table xiv shows an evaluation of the costs at 2014 prices when this project is implemented as part of the Trans
Sumatra Expressway. Out of the total cost of 9.262 trillion Rp., the cost of the bridge is 3.555 trillion Rp., and
the cost of the road is 5.707 trillion Rp. The Study Team moved the point where the Musi III Bridge crosses
the river to the east and recalculated the figures (Refer toTable xiv). For the road costs, the toll road standard
referred to in the “Trans Sumatra Master Plan” was used, but the construction costs for small structures etc.
other than interchanges and the Musi III Bridge are not included.
Table xivCosts When This Project is Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
Unit: 1 billion Rp(Unit for figures in parentheses is 100 million yen)
Cost (2014 Prices)
Bridge (Extradosed Bridge)
3,555 (310)
Road
5,707 (499)
Total
9,262 (809)
Notes: 1 Rp = 0.008741 yen (Foreign exchange rate as of January 20, 2014)
The financial internal rate of return when this project is part of the Trans Sumatra Expressway is approx. 11.9%,
meaning that the project lacks financial soundness as a BOT project without government support. Therefore, it
is low possibility to implement the project by BOT.
16
3.6
Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impacts
3.6.1
Analysis of Current Situation of Natural and Social Environment
(1) Land Use Current Situation of the Project Site
The results of a comparison of the current status using a satellite image1, land usage map in Palembang City and
site reconnaissance for the land usage statuswith the bridge route proposal under this project are shown in Table
xx.
There is farmland (including fruit, timber, rubber and other plantations), green areas (including unused land,
wasteland and other land) in the northern part around the Musi River through which all four route pass.
Alternative plan 1, alternative plan 2 and alternative plan 3 all pass through densely populated residential areas
along the banks of the Musi River. In contrast, alternative plan 4 bypasses these densely populated residential
areas, but it goes through marshy areas and farmland.
Table xv Comparison of Current Status of Land Usage
Alternative Plan 1
Alternative Plan 2
Alternative Plan 3
Alternative Plan 4
Residential Area (50%)
Marsh, Farmland, Green
Space (40%)
Space (30%)
Space (40%)
Space (60%)
Recreation Area (Kemaro
Island) (5%)
Island) (5%)
Island) (5%)
Water Area (5%)
Water Area (5%)
Water Area (5%)
SeiLais Port2 (10%)
Water Area (10%)
(2) Pollution (Air Quality, Water Quality, Noise, Vibration)
According to environmental monitoring data from the Palembang City Environmental Management Agency
(BLH Kota Palembang) in 2011, air quality along the main roads in Palembang City satisfies the environmental
standards of Indonesia. Organic compounds (Chemical Oxygen Demand: COD) and inorganic compounds (iron,
copper, manganese, zinc, etc.) in the Musi River water both exceed environmental standards, which is caused
by water drainage from the Palembang urban area and untreated sewage water. Noise along the roads in the
center of Palembang City slightly exceeds the environmental standards of Indonesia. In contrast, vibration was
not observed.
(3) Natural Environment
There are no areas in the vicinity of any of the routes that have been proposed for this project that have been
designated as reserves by Indonesian laws, international treaty or otherwise. Furthermore, according to the
results of interviews with the Palembang City Environmental Management Agency (BLH Kota Palembang),
there are not any habitats for important species that require protection, but the access road passes through
marshland. It can be assumed that this area is the habitat for a diverse range of animals and plants. Accordingly,
1
Based on analysis of Google Earth satellite image (dated April 10, 2013)
Only about 20% of the SeiLais Port site is used by SeiLais Port, with other area consisting of marshland
2
17
during project implementation, an adequate review of the impact on this marshland and the ecosystem that it
hosts needs to be performed.
(4) Social Environment
An overview of the social environment in the target area for this project is shown inTable xvi. The residents that
will be impacted as projected from analysis of satellite images is the smallest with alternative plan 4. Based on
the results of interviews with the Palembang City Environmental Management Agency, there are not any ethnic
minorities or indigenous people in the vicinity of the target area for this project. However, it has been confirmed
that there are squatters along the banks of the Musi River, so it can be projected there are a number of poor
people in the area.
In addition, the plantations represent the livelihood for the residents, and a number of short-term workers from
the island of Java work on them.
There are no historical or cultural assets that have been designated for protection by law in the target area for
this project, but due to the fact that there is a pagoda on the west end of Kemaro Island where the bridge route is
located with alternative plan 1, 2 and 3, a review needs to be conducted to determine that there will not be an
impact on this pagoda. In addition, since Palembang City has plans for the development of a resort on Kemaro
Island that will include building of a restaurant and cottages, progress on this plan needs to be taken into
consideration.
Table xvi Comparison of Current Status of Social Environment
Item
Structure3
(No. of
Dwellings)
No. of Residents
Impacted4
Alternative Plan 1
Alternative Plan 2
Alternative Plan 3
Alternative Plan 4
• North Side of River:
Approx.100dwellings
Approx. 70 dwellings
Approx. 100 dwelling
Approx. 5 dwellings
• South Side of River:
Approx. 270 dwellings Approx. 200 dwellings
Total:
Total: 270 dwellings
Total: 90 dwellings
Approx. 370 dwellings
1,517 persons
1,107 persons
1,476 persons
There is a pagoda below
There is a pagoda near the There is a pagoda near
Cultural Assets the location of the
location of the bridge.
the location of the bridge.
bridge.
369 persons
N/A
Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on Study Results
3.6.2
Impact of Project Implementation upon Environmental and Social Aspects
(1) Comparative Review of Envisioned Environmental and Social Impacts
Due to the above results, a score was assigned to items for which there may be an impact on pollution, natural
environment and social environment based on the standard inTable xvii, and the results of a comprehensive
evaluation are shown in the comparison table shown inTable xviii. A judgment was made concerning pollution
3
Calculated based on average of 4.1 persons per household in South Sumatra Province in which structures identified by image
analysis were assumed to be dwellings where there is one household(Value after decimal point discarded)
4
18
from standpoint of the possible impact on the health of the residents. Due to the fact that the current values
cannot be used for the proposed route for the air quality, an assumption was made for the current values based
on the traffic volume that was confirmed by means of field reconnaissance, and whether or not there will be an
impact due to implementation of this project and the scale of impact were reviewed.
Table xvii Comparative Evaluation Standard for Expected Impact
Score
+2
+1
0
-1
-2
-3
Standard
Significant positive impact is expected.
Minor positive impact is expected.
There will not be an impact, or the extent of the impact can be ignored.
Minor negative impact is expected.
Significant negative impact is expected, but it is not irreversible.
There is an irreversible impact.
Table xviii Comparison and Evaluation of Expected Impact5
Alternative Plan Alternative Plan Alternative Plan
1
2
3
Item
Air
Pollution
Measures
Noise
Vibration
Natural
Environment
Ecosystem
Hydrology
Land
Social
Environment
Resettlement
of Residents
Living/
Livelihood
Alternative Plan 4
It is expected that
the current values
are very low, and
that the impact due
to the new increase
in traffic will be
minor [-1]
Exhaust gas discharge volume reduction effect due to dispersion of traffic
volume and alleviation of traffic congestion [+1]
Impact on living environment for residents in the vicinity brought about by the
noise / vibration generated during construction and after bridge is placed in
service [-2]
Lessening of noise generated by cars due to dispersion of traffic volume and
alleviation of traffic congestion [+2]
Impact due to
Impact due to
Impact due to
Impact due to loss of
loss of green
loss of green
loss of green
green area which
area which
area which
area which
accounts for approx.
accounts for
accounts for
accounts for
60% of total route
approx. 40% of
approx. 30% of
approx. 40% of
length [-3]
total route length total route length total route length
[-2]
[-1]
[-2]
Change in Musi River channel (topography) / change in flow conditions due to
bridge pier construction work and presence of bridge piers in river [-1]
Impact on air
quality due to
further increase
in volume of
traffic [-2]
Impact on air
quality due to
further increase
in volume of
traffic [-2]
Impact on air
quality due to
further increase
in volume of
traffic [-2]
Loss of land due to land acquisition [-2]
Resettling
Impact
Approx. 1,517
persons [-3]
Impact on living/
livelihood [-2]
Resettling
Resettling
Resettling Impact
Impact
Impact
Approx. 369 persons
Approx. 1,107
Approx. 1,476
[-1]
persons [-2]
persons [-3]
Impact on living/ Impact on living/ Impact on living/
livelihood [-1]
livelihood [-3]
livelihood [-2]
Impact on fishing activities due to change in ecosystem brought about by
changes in water areas [-1]
5
The impact on living/livelihood was evaluated with the relative total score for loss of land + resident resettlement + ecosystem (loss
of green areas including farmland).
19
Alternative Plan Alternative Plan Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan 4
1
2
3
Creation of traffic jams during construction due to traffic restrictions [-1]
Social
Infrastructure Alleviation of traffic congestion due to dispersion of traffic volume after bridge
is placed in service [+1]
Impact of noise/ Impact of noise/ Impact of noise/
Cultural
vibration on area vibration on area vibration on area No cultural assets
Assets
around pagoda
around pagoda
around pagoda
[0]
[-3]
[-2]
[-1]
Change in landscape
on undeveloped land
Change in landscape on recreation site and disturbance
Landscape
(marshes/farmland)
of harmony [-1]
and disturbance of
harmony [-1]
-20
-16
-17
-15
Evaluation
+4
+4
+4
+4
Item
Based on the above results, the judgment was made that alternative plan 4 is the leading proposal since it has the
lowest negative impact on the environment and society.
(2) Comparative Review of Alternative Technologies
During this study, in addition to conducting a review of the bridge plan, a review was also conducted for
alternative proposals that use immersed tunnel + excavated tunnel and shield tunnel structural technology, and
a comparison of the environmental and social impacts is shown in Table xix.
20
Table xix Comparison of Environmental and Social Impacts of Each Type of Structure
Technology Proposal 2
Evaluation
Immersed Tunnel + Excavated
Item
Bridge Plan
Shield Tunnel
Tunnel
¾ Uses imported steel.
¾ Uses domestic concrete.
¾ Construction is large in
Environmental
¾ Brings about significant
¾ Construction is large in
scale, requiring a
and Social
change
in
landscape
scale,
requiring
land
for
a
temporary construction
Impact
¾ Changes in areas shaded
large-scale temporary
yard.
from sun
construction yard (Expected
¾ Environmental and social
¾ Has impact on size of
area: 200m x 200m).
concerns during
ships.
¾ Environmental and social
construction since work
concerns during
period is long.
period is long.
¾ Portion of river needs to be
shut off during construction,
placing limits on use of river
by ships, etc.
¾ Impact on riverbed due to
sediment, scouring, traction,
etc.
¾ Dredging required, with
impact on water quality.
Construction
¾ Approx. twice the cost of
¾ Approx. twice the cost of
–
bridge plan
bridge plan
Costs
Environmental
Medium
Large
Medium
and Social
Impact
3.6.3
Items to be Achieved by Host Country (including implementation agencies and related organizations) for
Implementation of Project
(1) Implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment
According to ordinance No. 11 of the Minister in charge of the environment of 2006, due to the fact that this
project involves the construction of a bridge and requires the acquisition of land in excess of 5km to build the
road, an Environmental Impact Assessment (AMDAL) needs to be conducted.
The business operator will conduct public consulting several times from the planning stage until approval is
granted, and explain the project plan to the residents. An environmental Assessment Scoping Document
(KA-ANDAL), an Environmental Impact Statement (ANDAL), Environment Monitoring Plan (RPL) and
Environment Management Plan (RKL) need to be prepared, and approval obtained from the AMDAL
committee that is comprised of persons from the South Sumatra Province Environmental Management Agency
(BLH Provinsi) and other agencies.
(2) Implementation of Resident Resettlement Plan
Due to the fact that the number of persons that need to be resettled exceeds 200 for all four routes, a Land
Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP) needs to be prepared. When the project is implemented,
resident explanatory meetings and consultative meetings need to be held about the time the population census is
taken in order to explain an overview of the project, survey overview, environmental impact scoping results
21
(positive and negative impacts brought about by project) and resettlement policy.
(3) Review of Alternative Plan
The environmental impact and number of residents that need to be resettled will vary depending upon the line
form of the bridge section and access route, structure type and standards. Therefore, the project implementation
agency will review these alternative plans in view of environmental and social impact at the stage of
full-fledged FS that is supposed to be performed in the nearest future.
(4) Others / Monitoring
BINA MARGA which is the implementation agency for this project needs to conduct monitoring of the
respective environmental items from the time before construction is started until after the bridge is placed in
service.
4 Implementation Schedule
The implementation schedule for this project that is programmed at this point is shown in the table below
assuming that this project is developed as a public project and that it is developed as a PPP project. And, should
this project be realized under PPP scheme, a detailed and precise feasibility study must be made on top of the
study that has already been completed by BINA MARGA, the FS that has already been completed by BINA
MARGA.( Refer toTable xx, Table xxi)
22
Table xx In case of Implemented as Public Project
23
Table xxi In case of Implemented as PPP Project
24
5 Project Location Map
Figure viii Project Location Map
Indonesia
Palembang City
Project Site
Banyuasin City
Source: Map of Indonesia – Prepared by Study Team
South Sumatra Province Map –
National Land Survey Institute (BAKOSURTANAL: BadanKoordinasi Survey danPemetaanNasional) /
Palembang City Map and Planned Site for Construction of Bridge Crossing Musi River –
DINAS PERHUBUNGAN KOTA PALEMBANG
25
Chapter 1
Overview of Host Country and Sector
1.1 Overview of Transportation Sector in Indonesia
1.1.1 Development Status of Transportation Sector in Indonesia
There continue to be delays in the development of roads in Jakarta and Indonesia as a whole, and there are many
roads that are not maintained adequately, resulting in increasingly serious traffic jams, and the problem of long
cargo holding time due to inadequate port capacity.
The Master Plan “Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia’s Economic Development 2011 – 2025 (MP3EI)” is
the basis for the infrastructure development plans of the Indonesian government under which it has established a
goal of Indonesia becoming one of the ten largest economies in the world by the year 2025. The main pillars of
MP3EI consist of developing six “economic corridors” throughout the country, improving connectivity
domestically and internationally, and strengthening development of human resources, science and technology.
During this process, plans call for approximately 45% of the total investment of Rp. 4.012 quadrillion (approx. 40
trillion yen) to be devoted to infrastructure development during a period of 15 years. However, the main issue in
order to achieve infrastructure plans consists of securing the financial resources, with the aim established in
MP3EI of procuring approximately half the funds from the private sector.
In particular, in MP3EI, the Jakarta metropolitan area has been positioned as the Metropolitan Priority Area
(MPA), and the public and private sectors in both Japan and Indonesia will cooperate in order to improve the
investment environment, including the development of infrastructure. Under the MPA concept, 18 projects in 9
sectors of infrastructure development related to railways, roads, ports, airports (including related facilities),
industrial parks, water supply and sewerage systems, waste disposal, flood countermeasures and electrical power
have been listed as projects that are to be implemented at an early stage, and construction of the Jakarta Mass
Rapid Transit (MRT) system has already commenced.
On the other hand, the poverty rate in rural areas (14.7%) in Indonesia is much higher than the poverty rate in
urban areas (8.6%) due to differences in the status of infrastructure development. In particular, 41% of district
roads in Indonesia are unpaved, and 24% of provincial roads are unpaved, illustrating the magnitude of the delay
in the development of roads in rural areas. In the “Asian Development Outlook 2013” study that was conducted
by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), development of infrastructure was raised as an issue that it vital to
improving the problems of poverty and the disparity in income levels in order to achieve comprehensive growth.
Regarding the problem of poverty in particular, the holding time for cargo and increase in logistic costs have been
pointed out as the main factors that are inhibiting growth of the manufacturing industry. Therefore, providing
support for growth of the manufacturing industry by improving the port, road and other infrastructure can be
expected to reduce the level of poverty by creating new jobs.
1.1.2 Status of Transportation Sector Development in Project Area
(1) Status of Public Transportation
Public transportation in Palembang City is called “Trans Musi”, which operates buses and water buses on routes
that extend in the East, West, South and North directions in the city, connecting the airport, urban area and Musi
River water transport. The bus transport network had five routes (Route A – E) in 2011, and three routes (Route
F – H)added in 2012 for a total of 8 routes. And while the network only operated 15 buses in 2010, this had
been increased to 120 buses in 2012, and as of December 2013, the network operated 180 buses. Plans call for
the number of buses and operation frequency to be increased further in the future to alleviate traffic jams and
facilitate a changeover by the local population from using cars and motorcycles to public transport.
1-1
There aree river waterr bus routes that start att the Amperaa Bridge witth the objecttive of allev
viating trafficc
congestion on the roadds. There are two routes: One
O goes to the
t east to Kemaro Islandd, past Dermaaga ferry portt
w side. The other route connects Keertapati railway station onn
on the easst side and too Sei Lais harrbor on the west
the west side. Both rooutes are opeerated while stopping
s
at th
he main areaas on the souuth and north
h sides of thee
Musi Riveer. Each wateer bus has a capacity of 255 persons.
Figuure 1-1 Bus Route
R
Map in
n the Palembaang City
Airport
AAL
Keetten
Sako
Pusri
Sei Lais
PS Mall
凡
凡例
Plaju
A: AAL – Ampera
A
B: Sako – PS
P Mall
Amperaa
C: Plaju – PS
P Mall
D: Karya Jaaya – Jakabaring
Jakaabaring
E: Airport – AAL
F: Pusri – PS
P Mall
G: Keeten – PS Mall
H: Karya Jaaya – AAL
Ketap
pati Sta.
I: Ampera – Sei Lais
J: Ampera – Ketapati Sta.
K
Karya
Jaya
ment of BAPP
PEDA(Badann Perencana P
Pembangunan
n Daerah）
Source: Prrepared by Sttudy Team baased on docum
(2) Development Statuus of Roads / Bridges
ped that wass
An overvview of the status of proggress concernning roads / bridges that have been nnewly develop
ascertaineed in the first study is show
wn in Table 1-1, and a locaation diagram
m is shown in Figure 1-2.
Location
(i)
Table 1-1Overview
w of Road / Bridge Develo
opment Statuss in Palembanng City
me
Overrview
Project Nam
(ii)
New Musi II
I
Bridge
East Ring Road
R
(iii)
Flyover
(iv)
Underpass
Currenntly under construction,
c
total lengthh 700m, Appprox.
projecct cost: 2.5 billlion yen, sch
heduled for coompletion in 2015
Gradinng has been completed
c
forr a portion onn the north sidde,
but it is
i still unpaveed
Flyoveer under consstruction at in
ntersection onn south side oof
Ampeera Bridge. Sccheduled for completion
c
inn 2015. Theree are
plans for
f constructiion of flyoverrs at three othher locations..
Underr constructionn in northeastern portion of Palembang City.
Schedduled for com
mpletion in 2015.
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
1-2
Source
S
of
Funds
BIN
NA MARGA
BIN
NA MARGA
NA MARGA
BIN
BIN
NA MARGA
Figure 1--2 Location Diagram
D
of Road/Bridge
R
Development
D
Status in Pallembang City
y
(ii) Graded East Side Ring
R
Road
(iiv) Underpasss under Consttruction
(i) New Musi
M II Bridge under
Constrruction (Persppective Draw
wing)
( Flyover uunder Constru
(iii)
uction
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
(3) Statuss of Transporrtation by Waater
Boom Baaru Port whicch is a river port
p on the Musi
M
River in
n Palembangg City is a m
major port for the city andd
South Sum
matra Provincce as a wholee. Passenger ships and carrgo ships from
m Jakarta andd other ports in Indonesia,,
as well ass ships from various
v
locatiions overseass such as Singapore and Malaysia,
M
makke frequent calls
c
at Boom
m
Baru Portt. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines andd other Japannese corporattions use the port, which is used for trransshipmentt
from locaal vessels origginating in Sinngapore to laarge ships for transport of cargo
c
to Japaan.
p
or moore of the carrgo handled by
b Boom Baaru Port, but it is also thee
Domestic traffic accouunts for 60 percent
xport volume,,
main interrnational portt for the expoort of coal, paalm oil, rubbeer, lumber annd other resouurces. The ex
value of exports
e
and domestic
d
traff
ffic all decreaased after the financial criisis of 2009, but the figures have beenn
on the inccrease since then.
t
In 20122, import voluume amounteed to 747 thoousand tons, export volum
me was 1.8188
million toons and domeestic traffic am
mounted to 5.109
5
million tons, and theese figures arre expected to
o continue too
increase inn the future.
ort annually decreased
d
bettween 2008 and
a 2010, butt
As shownn in Figure 1--4, the numbeer of ships thhat use the po
has been on the increaase since theen, with 3,610 ships callin
ng in 2012 compared
c
to 33,572 ships in
i 2008. It iss
1-3
expected that the number of ships that use Boom Baru Port will continue to increase in the future along with the
increase in the volume of cargo.
Figure 1-3 Annual Cargo Volume at Boom Baru Port
9,000,000 Cargo volume (ton)
8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Import
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
311,919 295,198 523,711 592,089 747,095 Export
2,648,950 1,349,630 1,619,030 1,507,450 1,818,240 Domestic
8,003,920 4,244,140 4,618,110 5,688,280 5,109,680 Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on Materials Provided by Indonesia Port Corporation (PERINDO)
Figure 1-4Number of Ships That Annually Use Boom Baru Port
4,000 3,500 Number of ships
3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Number of ships
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
3,572 2,648 2,465 2,832 3,610 Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on Materials Provided by PERINDO
1-4
1.2 Overview of the Project Site
1.2.1 General Outline of Project Site
(1) Overview of South Sumatra Province
South Sumatra Province, which is located in the southern part of Sumatra (Population: Approx. 7.6 million as of
2012, Area: Approx 87,000 km2), has been designated as a priority area for the promotion of development along
with Java and other areas in Sumatra in the “Indonesia Economic Development Corridor” (IEDC) concept, with
palm oil, coal, steel and shipment cited as the main industries.
Furthermore, the governor election for South Sumatra Province was held in June 2013, and Mr. Alex Noerdin
was reelected to a second term (Five years from 2013 to 2018).
(2) Overview of Palembang City
1)
Overview
Palembang City is the capital of South Sumatra Province (Area: Approx. 374 km2). The Musi River runs
through the center of the city, dividing the city into southern and northern areas. The city consists of 16 districts
and 107 sub-districts. The city accounts for approx. 20% of the population of South Sumatra Province, and as
shown in Figure 1-5, the population increased by approx. 15% to 1.74 million in 2012 from approx. 1.54
million in 2011.It is expected that the population will continue to grow in the future with the increase in
population due to economic growth and expansion of city functions that have been taking place in recent years.
Mr. Eddy Santana Putra was replaced as the mayor of Palembang City in July 2013 by Mr. Romi Herton
(previous vice mayor of Palembang City). The plans that were formulated during the term of the previous
mayor are being followed by the new mayor, Mr. Romi Herton, since he has been inaugurated.
Figure 1-5 Population Transition in Palembang City
2,000,000
1,800,000
Population(people)
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Population
2003
2007
2010
2011
2012
1,287,435
1,394,954
1,452,840
1,535,952
1,742,186
Source: Statistical Data on Palembang City
1-5
1.2.2 Land Use Status/Development Status in Palembang City and Peripheral Area
1)
Current Status of Land Use
Heretofore, the north side along the Musi River centered around the Ampera Bridge has been the Central
Business District (CBD) of Palembang City. Growth of the main industries that consist of coal, gas, palm oil
and rubber in recent years has led to increasing development of commercial buildings for banks, company
offices and other uses, factories and residential areas on the south side of the Musi River from the Ampera
Bridge. Large shopping centers and new residential communities are being developed.
The Sriwijaya Stadium that was constructed in 2004 so that international sports events could be held is actively
working to attract international sports events. The Third Islamic Solidarity Games, which is an international
sports event, was held from September 22nd to October 1st 2013, and a total of 41 countries that mainly
consisted of Islamic nations participated. Before this, the AFC Asian Cup was held in 2007, and the Southeast
Asian (SEA) Games 2011 were held, illustrating that the city is striving to become an international city and is
actively working to attract international sports events.
(2) Palembang City Development Plan
In accordance with the 20 year “Spatial Plan of City of Palembang (2011 – 2031)” that was formulated in 2010,
the “Spatial Plan of City of Palembang (2012 – 2032)” was formulated as a revised version in December 2012.
This plan was formulated during the administration of the previous mayor, Mr. Eddy Santana, but development
is proceeding in accordance with this plan since the mayor has been replaced. On the main revisions, the
priority placed on the following eight items.
A)
Development of river transportation system
B)
Development of arterial roads
C)
Development of road network
D)
Development of water routes
E)
Land reclamation by drainage
F)
Agricultural policy
G)
Fishing industry policy
H)
Development of rural electrification network
1)
Priority Development Areas in Palembang City
Out of the seven locations cited as priority development area in the previous Spatial Plan of City of Palembang
(2011 – 2031), the following four areas have been planned as priority development areas.
< Economic Development Areas >
A2: Jakabaring Area Development
Development in Palembang City which is divided by the Musi River has been centered in the northern side
of the city, and it is confronted with the issues of land use and transport. Due to the fact that this inhibits
growth of Palembang City and South Sumatra Province, the CBD needs to be developed and expanded.
Therefore, a new CBD has been planned as a strategic priority development project that will include
commercial areas, administrative areas, residential areas and sports complexes in the area on the southern
1-6
side of the Musi River from the Ampera Bridge, and the plan calls for large-scale expansion of city
functions.
A3: Karya Jaya Industrial Park Plan / Special Economic Zone Development
This is an area with many rubber factories and gas plants that consist of the key industries, and there are
plans for the improvement of the area and further development. In addition, this area has been designated
as a special economic zone, and there are plans for development to facilitate economic growth and
industrial growth in Palembang City.
A5: Production/Development of Coconuts / Development of New Towns in Talang Kelapa
Priority production areas have been planned for coconuts, which are a specialty product of Indonesia. In
addition, new towns have been planned as residential areas on land in outlying areas currently used for
agricultural purposes in order to secure wide ranging growth of residential areas, which are currently
concentrated in the center of Palembang City.
< Development of Historical and Cultural Resources >
B2: Maintenance and Upgrading of Ancient Sriwijaya Kingdom Park
There are ruins of the Sriwijaya Kingdom in this area that represent the origin of Palembang City, and it
was designated as a historical park in 1993. Maintenance and renovations have been planned in order to
maintain the cultural assets in a sustainable manner to preserve the history and promote the area as a
tourist resource.
1-7
Figure 1-6 Palembang City Priority Development Areas (2012 – 2032)
Source: Palembang City BAPPEDA (Spatial Plan of City of Palembang)
Furthermore, a master plan for the “Spatial Plan of City of Palembang” is formulated every five years, but
minor modifications are made every year according to circumstances.
2)
Palembang City Land Usage Plan
In the “Spatial Plan of City of Palembang (2012 – 2032)”, the land usage plan diagram was revised as shown in
Figure 1-7, but there were no new additional land usage sites in the plan.
Furthermore, Palembang City is proceeding with development of restaurants, cottage type hotels and other
resort facilities on Kemaro Island, and Mr. Romi Herton, the new mayor, approved the plans, and constructions
is scheduled to start in 2014.
1-8
Figure 1-7 Palembang City Land Usage Plan (2012 – 2032)
Source: Palembang City Plan
(3) Related Development Plans / Studies
The plans / studies related to this plan are outlined in this section.
1) Musi III Bridge Construction Plan
BINA MARGA implemented a detailed design tailored to a review of the structure starting in November 2011
at the locations where the Musi River is to be crossed in the ring road plan on the east side of Palembang City
with funds from Indonesia, and it was completed in June 2013. However, the project name has been changed
from detailed design and is now basic design. Regarding the detailed plan (basic plan), land acquisition
problems on the route planned by BINA MARGA, limitations on the structural technology due to the shipping
channel and various other conditions, as well as higher project costs compared to when the F/S was performed,
have made it necessary to conduct an additional review.
2) Blue Book
The Blue Book is a list of priority projects that have been selected by BAPPENAS (National Development
Planning Agency of Indonesia). As a results of a request that was received from the Ministry of Public Works,
the Musi III Bridge Plan has been included in the list in the Blue Book 2011-2014 and revised version issued in
2013 as the priority loan project to be implemented with support from overseas. Furthermore, it is expected that
the “Blue Book 2015 – 2019” be issued after the new president is inaugurated in October 2014.
1-9
3) Transs Sumatra Exppressway Plaan
As shownn in Figure 1-8, BINA MA
ARGA has plaanned an exprressway that will connect the southern and northernn
portions of
o Sumatra, and a feasibbility study was
w conducteed in 2010. The “South Sumatra Kaayu Agung –
Palembanng – Betung Toll
T Road Prooject” which comprises a portion
p
of thee plan passes through Paleembang City,,
and as shoown in Figurre 1-9, a routte that passess through the west side off Palembang C
City has been
n included inn
the PPP book
b
list at BAPPENAS
B
a a PPP baseed priority prroject. Howevver, there aree problems reelated to landd
as
acquisitioon, environmeental consideerations and other
o
issues, and BINA MARGA
M
is cconsidering an
a alternativee
proposal that
t passes thhrough the easst side of Paleembang City..
Figuree 1-8 Trans Suumatra Expreessway (Toll Road)
R
Plan
Pekanbaru – Padang
P
Traans Sumatra Corridors have
h
been
plannned on the east side of Suumatra from
Bakkauheni to Bannda Aceh.
Total Length: 1,9980km
A railway
Paleembang
citiees that
govvernment
six ports.
from
m Bandar Laampung to
willl connect eiight major
plaay a centraal role in
operrations, five airports
a
and
Palembaang –
Bengku
ulu
Source: South Sumaatra BAPPEDA (RENCAN
NA JALAN DAN
D
JEMBAT
ATAN DI PRO
OVINSI SUM
MATERA
SELATAN)
1-10
Figure 1-9 Palembang City Road Plan Diagram (2012 – 2032)
The route included in the PPP
book list
Source: Palembang City BAPPEDA
4) Tanjung Api Api Port Development Plan
Tanjung Api Api Port is a sea port that is located approximately 70 km north of Palembang City, and
development of this crucially important port has been planned as a priority in “MP3EI 2011 – 2025” to
streamline transport of the abundant resources in South Sumatra to domestic and international destinations.
Passenger ferry service connecting Tanjung Api Api Port with Muntok on Bangka Island began in November
2013.
In addition, the government of Indonesia has designated the area surrounding Tanjung Api Api Port in the
northeastern portion of South Sumatra Province as a special economic zone, and has a plan to attract investment
for a site area which includes land created by means of landfill that measures a total of 4,000 hectares, with a
focus on the wealth of energy resources on the island of Sumatra. Furthermore, improvements to the road that
connects the said special economic zone with Tanjung Api Api Port need to be made since the development of
logistics infrastructure is vital to receive approval as a special economic zone. On the other hand, due to the fact
that large ships cannot berth at Tanjung Api Api Port since there are shoals around the port, there is an
alternative proposal concept for the establishment of a special economic zone on Bangka Island located
approximately 30 km to the north where the water depth is adequate for large ships to berth (Refer to Figure
1-10).
1-11
Figure 1-10 Map of South Sumatra Province
Muntok Port
Jambi Province
Bangka Island
Tanjung Api Api Port
Palembang City
Bengkulu Province
Lampung Province
Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on Maps Provided by South Sumatra BAPPEDA
1.2.3 Status of Entrance into Region by Japanese Corporations
As shown in Figure 1-11, Japanese corporations have established a paper pulp plant and various other facilities in
South Sumatra Province. In Palembang City, Japanese corporations have established a rubber factory and
pharmaceutical plant, and there are plans for the construction of a geothermal power plant, a plant to improve the
quality of coal, and a SNG plant, illustrating that they have contributed to the growth of Palembang City and
South Sumatra Province as a whole.
An outline of the respective Japanese corporations and the expected beneficial effects is provided in the following
section.
1-12
Figure 1-11 Locations of Japanese Corporations and Planned Project Sites in Project Area
Paper Pulp Plant
(Tel: Marubeni, JBIC, Nippon Paper)
Geothermal Power Plant
Planned Site (Marubeni)
Palembang City
Coal Fired Thermal Power
Plant Planned Site
Pharmaceutical Plant
(Kirin, Mitsubishi Corp.)
SNG Plant Planned Site
(Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries)
Mitsui
O.S.K. Lines
Coal Improvement
Plant Planned Site
(Kobe Steel)
Rubber Factory
(ABP: Itochu)
(1) Main Japanese Corporations Upgrading Quality of Coal in South Sumatra Province
Various Japanese corporations are proceeding with the development of the effective utilization of low-quality
coal in South Sumatra Province, and devoting efforts to facilitating smooth transport of coal with this project
will lead to the growth of the coal industry in this area, and contribute to the stable and sustained supply of coal
to Japan.
Table 1-2 Main Japanese Corporations Upgrading Quality of Coal in South Sumatra
Company
Outline
Expected Beneficial Effects
Kobe Steel is proceeding with a business plan for a fuel production
Kobe Steel plant in South Sumatra that transforms low quality coal (lignite) into
• When transporting coal to
high quality coal, to be utilized mainly for power applications.
Boom
Baru
Port
in
The development of low cost fuel that utilizes low-quality coal in
Palembang City, using the
South Sumatra Province has been planned for thermal power
Musi III Bridge (new bridge)
JCG
generation in Japan and various countries in Asia. Initially, plans
will reduce transport time
called for production to be started from 2015, but progress on the
and cost compared to using
plan has been delayed.
the Musi II Bridge.
Mitsubishi
Technology to enable the efficient combustion of low quality coal is
Heavy
being developed in South Sumatra Province.
Industries
* Products made by Japanese corporations are used for the mining machines, other heavy equipment and parts
(Komatsu, etc.), as well as for the vehicle parts (Tires: Bridgestone, etc.) at the coal mines.
1-13
(2) Japanese Corporations in South Sumatra Province and Palembang City Where Beneficial Effects Are
Expected
The Japanese corporations in South Sumatra Province and Palembang City where beneficial effects are
expected are shown in Table 1-3 and Table 1-4. Since it is currently expected that these corporations will use
the Ampera Bridge or Musi II Bridge to transport cargo across the Musi River, the construction of the new Musi
bridge will enhance the efficiency of transport, and can be expected to reduce the transport time and cost.
Table 1-3 Japanese Corporations in South Sumatra Province Where Beneficial Effects Are Expected
Company
Tel Corporation
(PT. Tanjungenim
Lestari Pulp and
Paper)
(Paper pulp
company)
Outline
• The Tel Corporation is a paper pump company that was • When pulp is transported
established with a 90% investment by Marubeni, 7% by
to Boom Baru Port, using
JBIC and 3% by Nippon Paper.
the Musi III Bridge will
• Currently, 450 thousand tons of pulp is being produced,
reduce the transport time
and this is expected to increase to 550 thousand tons in
and cost compared to
2 – 3 years. There is a plan to increase production
using the Musi II Bridge.
volume to 1.5 million tons in 2018.
Table 1-4 Japanese Corporations in Palembang City Where Beneficial Effects Are Expected
Company
Outline
• The South Sumatra Branch of Mitsui O.S.K. Lines is
• Directly connecting the
located here, and uses Boom Baru Port.
logistics center with the
• However, due to the fact that the Musi River is not deep
Ring Road – Musi III Bridge
enough, large ships owned by Mitsui O.S.K. cannot berth,
– the production site for
PT Mitsui
and container ships / barges are rented from local
transport in the southern
O.S.K. Lines
companies to call at Boom Baru Port. When cargo is
area of Palembang City will
Indonesia
transported to Japan, it is transported to Singapore or
reduce transport time and
(Mitsui O.S.K.
another seaport in the area by a local ship, where it is
cost.
Lines)
transshipped. The main cargo handled consists of rubber,
coffee, palm oil and lumber.
• The company also transports coal, but only within
Indonesia.
• Directly connecting the plant
with the Ring Road – Musi
• A facility that was being operated as a plant by the
Kirin
III Bridge – the production
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company was purchased by
Pharmaceutical
site in the southern area of
Kirin, with an investment made by Mitsubishi Corp., and
Plant
Palembang City will reduce
is not being operated as a Kirin pharmaceutical plant.
material delivery and
product shipment costs.
• Based on an investment by Itochu, a rubber factory is
• Directly connecting the plant
being operated, which is one of the main local industries.
with the Ring Road – Musi
ABP
• Due to the fact that the resin from rubber trees (latex)
III Bridge – the Rubber
(Rubber
which is the material used to make rubber is mainly
production site in the
Factory)
produced to the south of the Musi River, when the raw
southern area of Palembang
material is transported to the factory, it passes over the
City will reduce transport
Musi River.
time and cost.
1-14
(3) Other Main Japanese Corporations That Are Scheduled to Enter Project Area
The other main Japanese corporations that are scheduled to enter the Project are described in Table 1-5.
Table 1-5 Other Main Japanese Corporations That Are Scheduled to Enter Project Area
Company
Geothermal Power
Plant Project
(Marubeni)
Coal-fired Boilers
Facilities
Construction
Project
(Kawasaki Heavy
Industries)
SNG Plant Project
(Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries &
Mitsubishi
Corporation)
Coal Fired
Thermal Power
Plant Project
Outline
In June 2011, Marubeni concluded a joint development contract with PT. Supreme Energy
of Indonesia and GDF Suez of France for the development of the Rantau Dedap geothermal
resource area in South Sumatra Province in Indonesia and preparations for construction of a
geothermal power plant. Under this project, the development rights for geothermal
resources in the Rantau Dedap area were acquired in December 2010, and the consortium
plans to develop geothermal resources in the Rantau Dedap area, construct a power plant
with an approximate output of 220 thousand kilowatts, and conclude a long-term electric
power selling contract with the Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN) (State Electricity
Company of Indonesia), with the goal of starting commercial operation in 2016. The
objective of implementing this project consists of contributing to stable supply of electric
power in Indonesia and promoting the development of clean energy.
Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. has received an order for two coal-fired boilers from PT
Rekayasa Industri (REKIND), a leading engineering and construction firm in Indonesia.
The boilers are scheduled to be delivered in March 2015.
PT Pupuk Sriwidjaja Palembang (Pusri), a fertilizer company run by the Indonesian
government, is planning to construct a fertilizer plant in Palembang, South Sumatra. The
boilers will be incorporated into a cogeneration system that will supply steam and power for
this plant's operation. Kawasaki will design and supply boiler critical equipment including
pressure parts and combustion systems, as well as the electrical and instrumentation systems
for operating and controlling the boilers. Kawasaki will also provide the basic design of
related equipment such as electrostatic precipitators and ash handling systems.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) and Mitsubishi Corporation (MC) have agreed
with the Indonesian government to collaborate in a large-scale substitute natural gas (SNG)
synthesis project utilizing Indonesia’s abundant low rank coal (LRC) which is conducted by
MHI/MC and Indonesian partners (government institution and private company), as a
follow up of Indonesia-Japan Energy Round Table. A feasibility study (F/S) has already
gotten under way with support from the Indonesian and Japanese governments. MHI, MC
and Indonesian partners plan to complete the F/S by March 2012, targeting inauguration of
commercial operation at a new SNG synthesis plant in 2017.The project plans call for
production of SNG at the new plant, to be built by MHI and Indonesian partners, through
coal gasification using abundant LRC in Sumatra.
Mitsui & Co., Itochu Corporation and Mitsubishi Corporation have a plan for the
construction of a coal fired thermal power plant around coal field in the southern area of
South Sumatra Province.
1-15
(4) Industries Park Development Plan in Project Site
Government of both South Sumatra Province and Palembang City has an industrial park development plan in
the Project Area. These plans aim to expand urban development by interested corporations in overseas
such as Japanese corporations.
None of Japanese corporations have a plan to establish these factories and offices for conceptual phase of both
South Sumatra Province and Palembang City. But, several Japanese corporations express their interest in
progress of these industrial park development plans, based on current situation of the Project Area that is
developing in years later. These industrial park development plans will produce benefits traffic infrastructure
improvement through implementation of the Project.
Figure 1-12 Location map of industrial park development plan in the Project Site
Industrial Park Candidate
Site by Palembang City
Industrial Park Candidate Site
by South Sumatra Province
1-16
Chapter 2
Study Methodologies
2.1 Study Contents and Methodologies
2.1.1 Study Contents
The study is an additional study (hereafter: second study) from the first study that the study team not only propose
to revised plan to BINA MARGA but also establish a foothold for project implementation in the future by Japan
by incorporated the superiority of Japanese technology and fostered a common understanding of the high
necessity of the cooperation of Japan. In particular, Japanese technology is thought to have superiority for the
superstructure, substructure, soft ground measures, work on rivers and other such work. In addition, Japan has a
grasp of the current situation in the target areas for the Trans Sumatra Expressway Plan and other related plans,
and will reevaluate the outcomes of the above work while reorganizing the beneficial effects for Indonesia and
Japan.
2.1.2 Study Items
The items of study are set out below in line with the objectives of the study.
(1) Review of Existing Study / BINA MARGA Detailed Design
The problems / issues for the project will be extracted on review of the first study and detailed design
implemented by BINA MARGA
(2) Grasp of Conditions Along Road (Land Usage, Facility Location), Traffic Conditions, Shipping Channel
Conditions and Environmental & Social Conditions
Current conditions that BINA MARGA has problems around the project area will be reviewed. In addition, the
soil properties, shipping channel and other natural conditions that needs to be known in order to perform design
of the bridge structure.
(3) Grasp of Current Status of Development Plan
Related development plans such as the eastern ring road of Palembang City on which construction has already
been started, the Trans Sumatra Expressway Plan, movement/ transfer of functions of existing port (Boom Baru
Port) and industrial park development plans will be reviewed.
(4) Confirmation of Beneficial Effects to Japanese Corporations
The beneficial effects for Japanese corporations that have advanced in South Sumatra Province will be
substantiated by interviews. As well, it is checked the information and data of the detailed production volumes,
logistics routes, number of transport vehicles and transport time at each corporation by the interview.
Additionally, the study will be conducted concerning the transport time with the new route in order to review
the quantitative beneficial effects brought about by this project. Moreover, collection of information is
implemented regarding Japanese corporations that can be expected to participate in resource development
utilizing the abundant resources in the target region and venture into industrial park development and other such
work.
(5) Review of Utilization of Japanese Technology
The superiority of Japanese technology and inclination to implement the technology with this project will be
confirmed by interviews to Japanese corporations that have Japanese technology that can be utilized with this
project, And also, BINA MARGA and other local related ministries and agencies will be built indispensable
common understanding to Japanese cooperation for the project implementation.
2-1
(6) Review of Route Plan
Route plan of each alternative plan is reconsidered. Moreover, the smallest social impact route plan is
considered.
(7) Structure Review
Structural plan of each alternative plan is reconsidered. The contents are not only the alternative plans in the
first study such as Extradosed bridge and Cable-Stayed Bridge, but also tunnel plan submitted as alternative
proposals by BINA MARGA.
(8) Preparation of Comparative Review Table
A comparative review will be conducted for each route proposal after confirming the traffic conditions,
environmental and social considerations, Japanese technology related to the structure and construction,
economic and financial soundness, resource / industrial plan status and conformity with development status and
other related plans. The proposal that is recommended by the study team will be submitted, and consultation /
review will be conducted with BINA MARGA and other local implementation agencies.
(9) Implementation System, Operation / Maintenance and Management System
The problems/issues concerning the establishment of an operation and management system for organized the
implementation system on the Indonesian side for the project implementation by Japan will be considered.
(10) Implementation Plan
The implementation plan that can be achieved by Japan will be considered by review of requests from the
Indonesian side.
2.2 Study System
2.2.1 Study Methods
(1) Work in Japan
1) Advance Preparations
Review of study implementation plan, and collection / analysis of existing related materials
2) Planning / Design
Review of bridge route, review of design standards, and review of structure plan and outline design.
Confirmation of geological conditions and Musi River properties and other conditions required for detailed
design in the study/project area
3) Environmental / Social Analysis
Review of environmental and social considerations, confirmation of legal requirements and licensing
concerning environmental and social considerations
4) Rough Estimation of Project Expenses / Construction Plan
Calculation of project costs, review of maintenance and management plan, review of construction plan, and
review of implementation system and implementation schedule
2-2
5) Financial / Economic Analysis
Cost benefit analysis and review of economic / financial relevance of project
6) Report Preparation, Reports to Related Organizations, etc.
(2) Work in Indonesia
1) Field Study and Collection of Information
Confirmation of existing conditions, updating of relevant existing study data, consultation and discussion with
relevant authorities, collection of related development plans and other relevant materials, collection and review
of data on geology (including soil) and river properties in the study/project area, collection of social
environment materials and data, collection of traffic-related materials and data, collection of Indonesian design
standards, collection of materials and data related to estimation / quantification
2) Information Analysis and Review
Analysis and review of information related to socioeconomic conditions and social environment considerations
as well as data relevant to bridge route, project implementation plan, structure plan, outline design, maintenance
and management plan, construction plan, estimation / quantification.
3) Meetings with Relevant Authorities
Study report and explanation of study findings from each site to relevant authorities.
2.2.2 Study Implementation System
The study implementation system is shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1StudyImplementation System
Name
Position
Company Name
Project Manager/
Road and Bridge Planner
Chodai
Project Implementation Planner /
Environmental and Social Analyst
MCC
Yuji IKEDA
Road Engineer
IDI
Masahiro KOHNO
Urban Planner
MCC
Project Coordinator
MCC
Akira ARIKADO
Structure Planner (* Study in Japan only)
Chodai
Ichiro GOTANDA
Financial and Economic Analyst
(* Study in Japan only)
IDI
Kenji OKAZAKI
Financial Planner (*Study in Japan only)
Chodai
Haruki AKIYAMA
Masaharu FUJISHIMA
Minoru SUGIMOTO
2-3
2.3 Study Schedule
2.3.1 Study Schedule
The study schedule is shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 Study Schedule
2013
November
2014
December
January
February
March
Field survey
Study in
Japan
2.3.2 Main Interviewees
Interviews were conducted with the relevant authorities / organizations shown in Table 2-3during the field study.
Table 2-4List of Field Study Interviewees
Organization
Name
Position
Ministry of Public Works
Mr. Harris Batubara
Director of Planning
BINA MARGA
Mr. Subagyo
Director of Technical Affairs
Mr. Herry Trisaputra Zuna
Head of Sub directorate of Freeway and
Urban Roads
Mr. Riel J. Mantik
Chief of Engineering Section of Urban Road
Sub directorate Engineering of Freeway and
Urban Roads
Mr. Slamat Muljono
Deputy Director for Policy and Strategy
Ms. Kiki Rizki
Staff of Sub directorate of Freeway and Urban
Roads
Mr. Dedy Gunawan
Head of Strategy Division Sub directorate of
Policy and Strategy
Mr. A. Sofian Lubis
Chief of Sub directorate of Highways
Development Region I D
Mr. Wilan Oktavian
Chief of Section for Program &Budget 1
Mr. Achmad Trvnajaya
PPK PIJN Metropolitan Palembang
（South Sumatra Province）
Ministry of Transportation
Mr. Yoshihiro Nakao
JICA Expert
Mr. Hideo Sasaki
JICA Expert
2-4
Organization
Name
Palembang City
Ms. Hj. Anaheryana
BAPPEDA
Position
Head
of
Data
Collection,
Monitoring,
Evaluation and Reporting
Mr. Muh. Nur. Hendratna
Subhead of Field Spatial
Ms. Tuti Alawiyah
Sanitation Section
Mr. H. Eddy Hermanto
Vice governor
Mr. H. Fazadi Afdanie
Field development expert of governor
South Sumatra Province BAPPEDA
Mr. Khairul Rnand
Director of Infrastructure Division
IPC
Mr. Gunta Prabawa:
General Manager
Mr. Capt Gerard A. Dungus:
Manager Kepanduan
Mr. Antor Wijaya
PT. Wiratman
Mrs. Sri Idayati
Director
Mr. Yuliano
Director Relation & Quality Management
Mr. Ireng Guntorojati
Structure Engineer
Embassy of Japan
Mr. Kazushi Furumoto
First Secretary
JICA Indonesia Office
Mr. Yuki Aratsu
Senior Representative
Ms. Kanae Mayuzumi
Representative
JETRO Jakarta Office
Mr. Kazuhiro Aizawa
Vice President Director
PT. Mitsui Indonesia
Mr. Kenta Kato
General Manager of
Mineral & Metal Resources Division
Marubeni Corporation
Mr. Toshiyuki Shimizu
Chief Representative
Jakarta Office
Mr. Hiroshige Seki
Senior Advisor of
Environment Infrastructure Dept.
Itochu Corporation
Mr. Masashi Kanai
Jakarta
Mr. Takeshi Sone
Asst. Representative For Project Investment
Manager, Plant Project Department No.1
Sumitomo
Mitsui
Construction
Co.,Ltd.
Kajima
Corporation
Indonesia
Mr. Tsuyoshi Kan
General Manager
Mr. Masaki Ogasawara
General Superintendent
Mr. Shinya Hamada
Representative of Indonesia Representative
Representative Office
Office
Taisei Corporation Jakarta Office
Mr. Tsutomu Yamazaki
Shimizu Corporation
Mr. Tetsuo Oishi
Chief Representative & General Manager
Jakarta Office
Mr. Takao Yamazaki
Senior Manager
PT Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Indonesia
Mr. Osamu Kawada
President Director
Mr. Toru Kimura
Marketing Manager
Mr. Isao Furuta
Mr. Hiroto Ishigaki
General Manager, Sales & Marketing
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal
Southeast Asia PTE.Ltd.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
2-5
Chapter 3
Justification, Objective and Technical
Feasibility of the Project
3.1 Background and Necessity of the Project
Owing to the coal, gas, palm oil, rubber and other abundant resources and growth of key industries, Palembang
City in South Sumatra Province in Indonesia is positioned as a priority development area in the Indonesia
Economic Development Corridor (IEDC). Therefore, the population of Palembang City has continued to increase
as the second largest city on the island of Sumatra (Approx. 1.54 million in 2011, approx. 1.74 million in 2012),
and the residential areas, plant areas, commercial areas and other areas are expanded to the south and east from
the old part of the city in the north.
There are currently only two bridges crossing the Musi River: the Ampera Bridge and Musi II Bridge. The Musi
River flows through the center of Palembang City, dividing northern Palembang from southern Palembang. Traffic
is consequently concentrated onto the Ampera Bridge, the only bridge in the center of the city. The resulting traffic
jams are the foremost problem for the city, causing enormous economic losses.
Given these circumstances, the construction of a new bridge crossing the Musi River is a very high priority project
not only for Palembang City, South Sumatra Province but for Indonesia as a whole, and this project has been
earmarked onto the “Blue Book 2011 – 2014” list by BAPPENAS. Furthermore, a feasibility study for this project
was conducted in 2010 which was funded by Indonesia, and detailed design was performed from November 2011
to 2013 (however, the name was changed from detailed design to basic design [hereinafter called BD] after the
detailed design was completed), and implementation of this project is necessary for Indonesia as a whole.
With this as the background, the first study was implemented with the infrastructure system export promotion
study project in the fiscal 2012.The first study consists of a project to construct a bridge (refer to Figure 3-1) over
the Musi River that flows through the center of Palembang City at a site that is 5 km downstream from the
Ampera Bridge which has aged considerably, and three alternative proposals plans were reviewed in the first
study.
BINA MARGA considered implementation of BINA MARGA original plan as the recommended proposal plan
with funds from Indonesia. But, due to the result of the first study by METI, they recognized that the original plan
has not been implemented because of problems related to environmental & social considerations, shipping
channel, construction cost and other conditions. Therefore, this Study Team was requested to implement the
follow-up study by BINA MARGA.
3-1
Figure 3-1
3 Palembanng City Projeect Site Locatiion Map
New Brridge
Candid
date
Locatioon
Am
mpera Bridge
Mussi II Bridge
3.2 Upggrading and
a Streaamlining Energy Usage
U
3.2.1 Curreent Status of Energy
E
Resouurces in Projeect Area
(1) Coal
d, with coal reesources reacching 105.2 billion
b
tons inn
Indonesiaa is the seventth largest prooducer of coall in the world
2012, andd reserves am
mounting to 21.1
2
billion toons. Coal pro
oduction in Inndonesia has tended to in
ncrease everyy
year, withh the volume of productioon increasing approximateely four timess over the paast 10 years. It
I is the thirdd
largest prroducer of cooal in Asia after China annd India, and
d coal is one of the mainn export resou
urces for thee
Indonesiaan economy. In
I addition, Indonesia
I
is the
t second laargest exporteer of coal in the world aft
fter Australia,,
with the export
e
volum
me growing duue to the incrrease in coal thermal
t
electtric power genneration centtered in Asia..
The export volume inn 2012 amounnted to 215 million
m
tons. While 70% of the coal iimported by Japan comess
from Austtralia, 20% coomes from Inndonesia.
As shownn in Figure 3-2,
3
there arre currently 11
1 main coall fields in Inndonesia. The breakdown
n of the coall
resource volume
v
and amount of deposits
d
are shown in Taable 3-1, illuustrating that South Sumaatra Provincee
accounts for approx. 44.8%
4
of the coal resourcees and approx
x. 45.2% of the
t reserves, making it thee region withh
r
in th
he country, with
w coal depoosits represen
nting a majorr
the largesst volume of coal resourcees and coal reserves
factor ecoonomically inn Indonesia.
B
Asam is
i one of the major coal companies
c
in South Sumaatra Province..
The state--run companyy called PT. Bukit
As shownn in Figure 3-3, it exports 40%
4
of its tottal production
n volume, witth 8% being eexported to Japan.
3-2
Figure 3-2 Map of Main Coal Fields in Indonesia
Source: Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources
Table 3-1 Coal Resources / Reserves in Each Coal Field Region (2012)
Province
Sumatra
Aceh
North Sumatra
Riau
West Sumatra
Jambi
Bengkulu
South Sumatra
Lampung
Java
Banten
Central Java
East Java
Kalimantan
West Kalimantan
Central Kalimantan
South Kalimantan
East Kalimantan
Sulawe si
South Sulawesi
Central Sulawesi
Papu a
West Papua
Total
Resources
Reserves
million tons
ratio
million tons
ratio
52 ,48 3
4 9.9 %
1 1,5 49
54 .7%
450
0.4%
0
0.0%
27
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,768
1.7%
1,940
9.2%
732
0.7%
37
0.2%
2,116
2.0%
9
0.0%
199
0.2%
21
0.1%
47 ,08 5
4 4.8 %
9,5 42
45 .2%
106
0.1%
0
0.0%
14
0.0 %
0
0 .0%
13
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
52 ,32 5
4 9.7 %
9,5 82
45 .3%
517
0.5%
0
0.0%
1,638
1.6%
74
0.4%
12,266
11.7%
3,604
17.1%
37,904
36.0%
5,904
27.9%
23 3
0.2 %
0
0 .0%
231
0.2%
0
0.0%
2
0.0%
0
0.0%
13 2
0.1 %
0
0 .0%
132
0.1%
0
0.0%
1 05 ,18 7
2 1,1 31
-
Source: Indonesia Coal Book 2012 – 2013
3-3
Figure 3-3 Breakdown of PT. Bukit Asam Coal Sales Destinations
Source: PT. Bukit Asam
(2) Biomass Energy Resources
There has been increasing attention in recent years on biomass energy resources that utilize large-scale
plantations in Indonesia. IEDC concept that is being promoted by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
of Japan, palm oil and rubber on the island of Sumatra are cited as important industries on par with coal.
Indonesia is known as the largest exporter in the world of palm oil, and the crude palm oil produced by oil
palms has received considerable attention as the raw material for diesel fuel. The production costs for bio-diesel
that is produced from this type of biomass resource are higher compared to regular diesel oil, but on the other
hand, this type of fuel reduces the volume of minute particles, highly polymerized compounds, SOx,
acetaldehyde and other such harmful components in the exhaust gas. In addition, the residue that is generated
during the palm oil production process can be utilized as the fuel to generate steam in boilers and for various
other applications.
The southern part of the island of Sumatra is suited to the shared use of coal and biomass resources generated
by agriculture (including oil palms) and the timber industry. The areas where these resources are produced are
adjacent to each other in this region, and the island of Java where there is large demand is close. Therefore,
Palembang City and other areas in South Sumatra Province have received attention as candidate sites for the
establishment of biomass / gasification plants.
3.2.2
Upgrading and Streamlining Energy Usage in Project Area
(1) Upgrading and Streamlining Energy Usage of energy resources in the Project Area
As shown in Figure 3-4, coal fields in South Sumatra Province are distributed over a very large area with a
radius of 200 km. A large percentage of this coal is transported to the many intermediate coal stockpile yards
located on the right bank of the Musi River in Palembang City, from where the coal is transshipped on coal
barges to Jakarta and other domestic destinations, and exported to overseas destinations such as China, Japan
and Malaysia. Therefore, coal from coal fields to the south of Palembang City is transported to Palembang by
train or truck, and coal from coal fields to the north of Palembang is transported by truck across the Musi River
to the intermediate coal stockpile yards.
3-4
In addition, companies in Japan and other countries are proceeding with plans to establish businesses with the
objective of upgrading the low-quality coal in South Sumatra Province to high-quality coal, and utilizing this
coal mainly for electric power generation and this is leading to plans for coal thermal power plants, geothermal
power plants, biomass / gasification plants and other such facilities. When these plants and other facilities are
constructed and placed in service, various materials and goods will be transported across the Musi River.
Since the southern part of South Sumatra Province is one of the main regions where palm oil is produced which
is a major resource in South Sumatra Province, palm oil is transported by truck across the Musi River to Boom
Baru Port, from which it is shipped to domestic and international destinations.
Due to the fact that transport with these trucks passes through downtown Palembang, the construction of a new
Musi River bridge and a ring road on the east side of the city will enable this traffic to be diverted, enhancing
transport efficiency and reducing transport time and cost, facilitating stable supply of energy resources.
Figure 3-4 Map of Coal Fields in South Sumatra Province
Palembang City
South Sumatra Province Coal Fields
Source: Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources
(2) Contribution to other projects to be implemented by Japan
Under the Japanese ODA loan (37 billion yen) project, “Java-Sumatra Interconnection Transmission Line
Project”, one of the projects being implemented this early stage of the MPA framework, new transmission lines
with AC/DC converter stations will be constructed between Java and Sumatra to sustain the stability and
reliability of both grids of Java and Sumatra. It will eventually bring favorable investment climate which will
foster economic development in both regions. Because of the long distance between Java and Sumatra and its
3-5
higher cost, DC submarine cable is planned to be applied, of which track records are still not many over the
world.
Specifically, as this project aims to generate electricity in South Sumatra Province and supply it to Java, South
Sumatra Province should become more important existence for Jakarta metropolitan area. In this sense,
development of transportation infrastructure in Palembang city will become more important as the location of
resources, where the stable and efficient transportation for resources will be highly required.
3.3 Items Requiring Review to Determine Project Contents
3.3.1 Topographic Features and Natural Conditions for Project
(1) Topography and Geology
The topography of Palembang City is flat from the east coast, and the topography on the south side of the Musi
River is particularly low in altitude and flat. The geology of the surface layers of soil in Palembang City
consists of alluvial soil and sandy loam. These layers are made up of peat, clay, sand, rock and other materials.
In the first study, boring surveys were conducted at two locations on the left bank and right bank of the Musi
River in the vicinity of the project site, and the survey results determined that the N value at a depth of 20m or
more is 30 or higher, illustrating that it can be the supporting soil. In the BINA MARGA BD, boring surveys
were conducted on both banks of the Musi River and in the river in the Project area (Refer to Appendix 3.1).
When the boring survey results from the first study and BINA MARGA BD were compared, it was found that N
values were similar. Therefore, the same design conditions as in the first study will be used (Refer to Table 3-2).
Table 3-2 Geological Conditions in Project Area (N Value)
Depth
N Value
up to20m
Up to-30
20m to50m
-30to-50
(2) Rivers
1) Overview of Rivers
The basin area of the Musi River that flows through Palembang City is 59,942km2, the river is 640 km long,
and there are 108 tributaries of the Musi River in Palembang City. The riverbed slope of the Musi River is flat
in Palembang City. In addition, the width of the river from the upstream to downstream portion of the river in
the city increases from approximately 250m (in vicinity of Musi II Bridge) to approximately 1,350m (in
vicinity of Kemaro Island), making it easy for sediment to accumulate. Therefore, the riverbed of the Musi
River is dredged from time to time to prevent the sediment from blocking the shipping channel.
3-6
2) Shipping Channels
The shipping channel in the Musi River in the vicinity of the project site is shown by the red line in Figure 3-5,
illustrating that the route passes the project site on the right bank side of the Musi River. The shipping channel
conditions required for ships to safely navigate the Musi River in order to enter and leave Boom Baru Port have
a large impact on the bridge plan. According to materials from the Ministry of Transportation (KEMHUB:
Kementerian Perhubungan) (Refer to Appendix 3.2), the shipping channels conditions are as outlined below.
a. Minimum height of bridge from maximum high water level of Musi River will be 50m.
b. Minimum bridge span will be 240m.
In the BINA MARGA BD, the shipping channel width is 400m, but confirmation of the first study indicated
that the required shipping channel width is 240m. BINA MARGA reviewed a proposal with a shipping height
of 70m after the BD. However, the last time that a ship requiring a shipping height of 50m navigated the Musi
River and stopped at Boom Baru Port was four years ago. Currently, the maximum height of ships that traverse
the river is about 30m, with about five ships making calls per week.
Therefore, it was determined that the 70m proposal did not need to be reviewed during this additional study
after discussion with related agencies. On the other hand, Indonesian Port Corporation (IPC) and BINA
MARGA of Palembang City wrote the memorandum that a shipping height of the Musi River is able to down to
40m. So, it is considered that the height bridge plan is one of alternative plan.
Figure 3-5 Musi River Shipping Channel in Vicinity of Project Site
Boom Baru Port
KemaroIsland
Legend
: Shipping Channel
Source: Prepared by Study Team Using Materials Provided by IPC
3-7
3.3.2 Transport Demand Forecast
In the BINA MARGA BD, a traffic volume study and traffic demand forecast have not been newly conducted, and
review was performed using the traffic demand forecast in the BINA MARGA FS.
Therefore, during this additional study, a review will be conducted based on the traffic volume that crosses the
Musi River when the Musi III Bridge is not built and at the respective toll settings when the bridge is built, as
calculated in the first study, taking into consideration the results of the BINA MARGA FS. The change in traffic
flow in the first study is shown in
Table 3-3 and Table 3-6.
Table 3-3Change in Traffic Flow with Musi III Bridge
Whether or Not
Case
Musi III Bridge
Toll Setting
Traffic Volume (pcu/d)
(Rp/Number·km)
Musi III
Ampera
Musi II
Built
Bridge Not Built
–
–
–
109,442
47,935
Bridge Built
Case 0
0
42,806
66,636
47,935
Case 1
300
40,795
68,647
47,935
Case 2
600
38,966
70,476
47,935
Case 3
900
35,675
73,767
47,935
3-8
Figure 3-6 Change in Traffic Flow with Musi III Bridge Route Plan
Without Musi III Bridge
110,000pcu/d
48,000pcu/d
With MusiIII Bridge
67,000pcu/d
43,000pcu/d
48,000pcu/d
Traffic Shift from Ampera Bridge
to Musi III Bridge
3-9
3.3.3 Route Plan
(1) Basic Policy for Route Plan
In the route plan in the BINA MARGA FS and BD, the bridge plan crosses the river at an angle of
approximately 50 degrees at a location on the Musi River with a width of approximately 1 km where there is a
shipping channel. In the first study, a total of three routes were reviewed, with the original BINA MARGA plan
designated as Alternative Plan 1, the planed location where the bridge goes across Kemaro Island and crosses
the Musi River at a right angle designated as Alternative Plan 2, and the location where the bridge crosses the
Musi River at a right angle on the upstream side of Kemaro Island designated as Alternative Plan 3. However,
the area around the approach on the right bank of the Musi River (south side) is a residential area that is densely
populated, bringing about problems related to land acquisition. Therefore, in this additional study, a proposal
will be added where the bridge can be free the residential areas as much as possible and crosses the Musi River
at a location downstream which is designated as Alternative Plan 4, as explained in the comparative review.
Figure 3-7 Route Plan
Legend
Alternative plan 1
Alternative plan 2
Alternative plan 3
Alternative plan 4
(2) Route Design Conditions
A similar cross-section configuration, geometric structure and other design conditions will be used as in the
BINA MARGA BD.
3-10
1) Cross-Section Configuration
The standard cross-section diagram for roads connecting to the Musi III Bridge used in the BINA MARGA BD
is shown in Figure 3-8. Since there will not be a change in the planned traffic volume, the standard
cross-section diagram shown in Figure 3-8 will be used in this study.
Figure 3-8 Standard Cross-Section Diagram for Roads Connecting to Musi III Bridge
Total length
50100
Sidewalk Access Road
1500
7000
Main Line
7000
Main Line
7000
Access Road
7000
Sidewalk
1500
Source: Detailed Design of Musi III Road and Highway Project, BINA MARGA
In addition, the BINA MARGA BD will be followed for the cross-section road width on the bridge as shown in
Figure 3-9. However, the results of the review conducted during this study will be reflected for the bridge type.
Figure 3-9 Standard Cross-Section Diagram for Musi III Bridge
Motorcycle Road
2600
Roadway
8000
Roadway
8000
Motorcycle Road
2600
3-11
2) Design Speed and Geometric Structure
Regarding the road design speed and geometric structure values, the BD conducted by BINA MARGA will be
followed as shown in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 Design Speed and Geometric Structure Values
Item
Number of Lanes
Design Speed
Unit
Standard
-
2×2
km/h
80
Design Load
Applicable Standard
Lane Width
m
3.50
Median Zone
m
3.00(Max.)
Motorcycle/Bicycle Lane Width
m
2×2.5
Total Bridge Width
m
Visual Distance
m
110
Minimum Curve Radius
m
250
m
1000
Minimum Radius of Vertical Curve (Convex)
m
4500
Minimum Radius of Vertical Curve (Concave)
m
2700
Cross Slope
%
3
Ship Size That Can Pass Underneath
ton
10,000
Shipping Height
m
50
Minimum Curve Radius for which Easement
Curve Can be Omitted
30(Main Bridge)
26(Approach Bridge)
2
Seismic Movement
m/s
0.18g
Design Service Life
Year
100
Maximum Water Depth
m
2.00
Minimum Water Depth
m
0.00
・Taking Live Load Into Consideration
m/s
25
・Only Considering Dead Load
m/s
35
Design Wind Speed (Bridge)
3-12
(3) Comparative Review
The results of comparison of the proposed routes are illustrated in Table 3-5, for clarification of the route layouts and evaluation items.
Table 3-5 Route Selection Comparison Table
Route
Overview
BINA MARGA FS Plan
Alternative plan 1
Alternative plan 2
Alternative plan 3
Alternative plan 4
Crosses Musi River at an angle from
Crosses Musi River at an angle from
Goes across Kemaro Island and crosses
Crosses Musi River at a right angle at
Crosses Musi River on east side of
Northeast to Southwest
Northeast to Southwest
the Musi River at a right angle
upstream side of Kemaro Island
Kemaro Island, connects with Banyuasin
City
Main Bridge Type Cable-Stayed Bridge
Cable-Stayed Bridge
Extradosed Bridge
Extradosed Bridge
Extradosed Bridge
Bridge Length
4,470m
3,380m
3,330m
3,350m
3,330m
Main
1,000m
680m
470m
1,550m
1,110m
North Approach
1,980m
1,380m
1,460m
400m
1,160m
South Approach
1,490m
1,320m
1,400m
1,400m
For shortest length of route form inner
city, and traffic usage volume will be
higher since it is closer to downtown
than other plans.
1,160m
Traffic Volume
Inferior to alternative plan 3 since route
Inferior to alternative plan 3since route is
is longer (equivalent to alternative plan
longer (equivalent to alternative plan 2).
2).
Inferior to alternative plan 3 since route
is longer (equivalent to BINA MARGA
FS plan).
Has the longest route, and is further from
downtown than other routes, resulting in
a lower traffic volume. However, the
volume of traffic that passes through
Palembang City will not change.
Land Usage
There is concern about impact on plants
in vicinity and temple on Kemaro Island.
The route is on tourism development
area on Kemaro Island by Palembang
City
Equivalent to other plans from
standpoint there are not large
development plans in the area.
There is concern about impact on plants
in vicinity and temple on Kemaro Island.
Inferior to other plans in terms of road
Equivalent to other plans from
structure and impact on natural
environment since a portion goes
through swamps.
through swamps.
on the south side (PT. Pertamina).
City
City
standpoint there are not large
development plans in the area.
the route avoid the petroleum plant area
through swamps.
Considerations
Passes through a small village on the
north side, but it is superior to alternative
plan 3.
Many residents will need to be resettled
plan 3.
(Details reviewed
since the bridge passes through a densely
populated area on the south side.
Social
in Chapter 4)
Bridge
39.6 billion yen (4.6 trillion Rp)
plan 3.
Bridge passes through built-up area on
south side, but this is true of all four
plans
Passes through large village on north
side, causing larger social impact than
other plans.
Although route will pass through small
villages on both south and north sides of
river, the social impact is minimal since
this route does not pass through
residential areas for the most part
compared to the other plans.
Construction Costs
Evaluation
Construction costs are the higher, and
Cost is lower than BINA MARGA BD,
Cost is the lowest, but has problem of
Construction costs are higher than
Construction costs are higher than other
social considerations has problem.
but has problem of social considerations
social considerations on equality with
alternative plan 1 and 2 and has problem
Study Team proposals, but are lower than
on an equality with BINA MARGA BD.
BINA MARGA BD.
of social considerations on equality with
BINA MARGA BD.
BINA MARGA BD.
This route has the lowest social impact,
and feasibility is the highest.
3-13
3.3.4 Review of Engineering Methods
(1) Bridge Plan
A review will be conducted for the items specified below for the bridge plan for this project, and a plan will be
formulated for economic bridge construction proposal.
1) Bridge Length
The following points must be considered when determining the bridge length.
(i)
Conformity with Palembang City Road Network Plan
This planned bridge location will be in accordance with the road alignment adopted in the Musi III FS of
2010 that was based on the east ring road.
(ii)
Grade/ Longitudinal slope of approach road
The national standard in Indonesia for the maximum longitudinal slope is 3.0% (Design speed: 100km/h).
(iii)
Planned Bridge Height over Navigation Channel
The navigation channel conditions consist of a shipping channel width of 240m and shipping channel height
of 50m. The right bank side (north side of Palembang City) where the river is deep will be the main shipping
channel for alternative plan 1 to alternative plan 3. For alternative plan 4 on the downstream side, the main
shipping channel will be in the center portion of the river.
(iv)
Other Conditions at Bridge Locations
It has been found that the embankment height needs to be kept low due to geological conditions on land. The
embankment height on the back side of the bridge abutment will be determined using 6.0m as a rough
indicator of the location of the bridge abutment.
3-14
2) Span
(i)
Determininng Span Lengtth Crossing Musi
M River
A
plan 1
Figgure 3-10 Briddge Type in Alternative
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
The maain bridge typpe is Cable-S
Stayed Bridge. Alternativee plan 1 requuires a main span length of
o 360.0m too
providee a shipping channel widtth of B=240.0m due to th
he angle of thhe bridge to the river. Tow
ward the leftt
bank off the river, ouutside of the channel, the economic spaan length is approximately
a
y 100m due to
t the cost off
cofferinng and pier work
w
required to place pierrs in the river..
2
A
Plan 2
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
The maain bridge typpe is Extradoosed Bridge. The
T main spaan length of 270.0m
2
proviides the requiired shippingg
channel width of B=
=240.0m for alternative plan 2. Towarrd the left bannk of the riveer, outside off the channel,,
l
is apprroximately 1000m due to th
he cost of cofffering and piier work requ
uired to placee
the ecoonomic span length
piers inn the river.
3-15
3
A
Plan 3
Source: Prepared
P
by Stu
udy Team
The maain bridge tyype is Extradoosed Bridge. A main span
n length of 270.0m
2
was ddesignated fo
or alternativee
plan 3 to
t provide booth the required shipping channel
c
width
h of B=240.00m for the Muusi River and
d a navigationn
channel for the nearrby Musi Riveer tributary, which
w
is also navigated byy ships.
[Alternnative plan 4]
A
Plan 4
The maain bridge tyype is Extradoosed Bridge. The shippin
ng channel iss in the centeer of the riveer where it iss
deepestt. Therefore, the
t main spann will be 270.0m which saatisfies the shhipping channnel width of B=240.0m.
B
(ii)
Determination of Approach Span
uous elevatedd structure wiith a span of 40m.
4
The briidge’s land appproach on booth banks willl be a continu
The poortion that crrosses the tribbutary in exiisting plan and
a alternativve plan 1 hass been design
ned to avoidd
impedinng ship naviggation.
3-16
3) Bridge Type
(i)
Musi River Bridge Type Selection
[Alternative Plan 1]
Shipping channel: A cable-stayed bridge was deemed appropriate to span the 360m over the channel. A
design including three continuous PC cable-stayed bridge spans was selected.
Left bank side: Both a steel box girder bridge and a PC box girder bridge were deemed appropriate for a
continuous girder bridge with spans of 100m. The more economical PC box girder
construction was selected.
Shipping channel: Cable-stayed or extradosed bridge construction was both deemed appropriate to span the
270m over the shipping channel. A design based on four continuous steel-concrete
composite extradosed bridge spans was selected as being the more economical solution.
Left bank side: Both a steel box girder bridge and a PC box girder bridge were deemed appropriate for a
continuous girder bridge with spans of 100m. The more economical PC box girder
construction was selected.
Shipping channel: Cable-stayed or extradosed bridge construction were both deemed appropriate to span the
270m over the shipping channel. A design based on seven continuous steel-concrete
Shipping channel: Cable-stayed or extradosed bridge construction were both deemed appropriate to span the
270m over the shipping channel. A design based on five continuous steel-concrete
Left Bank Side:
PC continuous T girders will be extended to construct the approach bridge, since the river
depth is shallow and construction work can be easily performed.
Right Bank Side: PC continuous T girders will be extended to construct the approach bridge, since the river
depth is shallow and construction work can be easily performed.
(ii)
Selection of Approach Bridge Type
PC continuous T girder and steel continuous I girder construction were both considered appropriate for the
approach section with a span of 40m. Here, the more economical PC continuous T girder type was selected.
(iii)
Type of Foundation
It was envisioned that the bearing soil strata at a level of GL-30m would be set as a strata for the structure of
the bridge foundation due to geological conditions at the site. Due to the fact that the cable-stayed bridge or
3-17
extradosed bridge which will cross the Musi River is in the river, and the size of the load on the upper
structure thereto is very large, a steel pipe sheet pile foundation was selected as the type of foundation.
A cast-in-place pile foundation was selected as the foundation for the continuous box girders in the river
because of their economic characteristics.
Since the approach is on land, a steel pile foundation, PHC pile foundation or cast-in-place pile foundation
were considered appropriate. Here, a cast-in-place pile foundation was selected as the most economical
alternative.
3-18
Figu
ure 3-14 Crosss-Section Diiagrams for Each
E
Bridge Type
T
Alternativ
ve Plan1
Alternativ
ve Plan2
Alternativ
ve Plan 3
Alternativ
ve Plan 4
Source:
S
Prepaared by Study
y Team
3--19
(2) Tunnel Plan
In the BINA MARGA BD, a request was made to conduct a review of a tunnel proposal as an alternative plan
along with the bridge proposal due to the fact that the construction costs were estimated very high and there
are limitations on the shipping channel conditions with a bridge.
A review will be conducted for two proposals using the original BINA MARGA proposal alternative plan 1:
An immersed tunnel + excavated tunnel proposal and a shield tunnel proposal.
1) Immersed Tunnel + Excavated Tunnel
(i) Plan Conditions
¾ Maintain current status of riverbed shape.
¾ Maximum longitudinal slope of 5% (Standard value in Japan)
¾ Depth at maximum depth of immersed tube crown: MSL-15m (Overburden: 2m)
¾ Minimum overburden on existing riverbed or ground for excavated tunnel will be 2m, and piles will not
be considered.
¾ Ventilation of the riverbed tunnel can be performed with jet fans, and ventilating towers will be provided
on the land as necessary.
(ii)
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Outline of Plan
Immersed Tunnel Portion: B25m×H10m×L100m/tube x 4 tubes = 400m
Excavated Tunnel Portion (North) 880m + (South) 300m = 1,180m
Approach Portion: (North) 250m + (South) 250m = 500m
Bridge Portion: (Crossing waterway): 410m
Total Length: 2,490m
Figure3-15 Longitudinal Profile Diagram for Immersed Tunnel + Excavated Tunnel
左岸（北側）
Left bank (north side)
右岸（南側）
Right bank (south side)
Total length = 2490m
総延長＝2490m
Open cut / Approach secyion 1130m
Immersedd section 400m
沈埋トンネル部 400m 開削・アプローチ部
550m
Open cut /
Approach section 1130m
開削・アプローチ部
1130m
2m
2m
Bridge
section 410m
橋梁部
410m
Figure3-16 Cross-Section Diagram for Immersed Tunnel + Excavated Tunnel
8000
1000
11000
1200
500
11000
1000
25000
3-20
7600
2500
10000
1200
2000
Earth covering
1000
(iii) Explanation of Construction Methods
¾ The 400m portion that is the main shipping channel on the right bank (south) side will be the immersed
tunnel section.
¾ It is expected that the tube production yard (dock) will be on the south bank side of Kemaro Island.
¾ Excavation of the area for the immersed tunnel tubes and immersion work will be performed while
maintaining a shipping channel with a width of about 200m on one side at all times.
¾ Both ends of the immersed tunnel will be connected on the excavated tunnel side.
¾ The north side excavated tunnel will be closed off with steel sheet piles, and launched from a temporary
bridge on one side.
¾ The south side excavated tunnel will be closed off with steel sheet piles, including along the right bank.
¾ Since the north side approach will come out on Kemaro Island, the island will be crossed with a box
girder bridge.
(iv) Features
¾ The current riverbed surface shape will be maintained, and no structural items will remain in the water
after construction is completed so that the current waterway cross section and water current are not
impacted.
¾ Regarding the excavated tunnel portion on land, it shall be possible to open it up after construction is
completed without occupying the ground.
¾ The impact on the surrounding area after completion of work shall be limited.
2) Shield Tunnel
(i) Plan Conditions
¾ Maintain current status of riverbed shape.
¾ Maximum longitudinal slope of 5% (Standard value in Japan)
¾ Minimum overburden thickness for shield tunnel: 1D = 12m (underneath riverbed too)
¾ Minimum overburden for excavated tunnel portion and existing riverbed or ground shall be 2m, and
piles will not be considered.
¾ Ventilation of the riverbed tunnel can be performed with jet fans, and ventilating towers will be
provided on the land as necessary.
(ii) Outline of Plan
¾ Shield tunnel portion (Outer diameter φ12m x 2): 2,050m
¾ Departure/arrival shaft: B35m x H13 x L50m x 1 location each on south/north sides = 100m
¾ Excavated tunnel portion (north)150m+(south)180m=330m
¾ Approach portion: (north)270m+(south)300m=570m
¾ Total length: 3,050m
3-21
Figure 3-17 Longitudinal Diagram of Shield Tunnel
左岸（北側）side)
Left bank (north
Right bank (south side)
右岸（南側）
Total length = 3050m
総延長＝3050m
Shieldシールドトンネル部
tunnel section 2050m
2050m
Open cut /
Approach section 420m
開削・アプローチ部
480m
50m
Arraival shaft section
到達立坑部
50m
12m
12m
Open cut / Approach section 420m
開削・アプローチ部 420m
50m
Departure shaft section
発進立坑部
50m Source: Prepared by Study Team
Figure3-18 Cross-Section Diagram of Shield Tunnel
0.5D～1D
500
Inside diameter
φ11000
500
2500
8000
500
(iii) Explanation of Construction Methods
¾ A departure tunnel shaft and work base will be established on the left bank (north) side where it is
comparatively easy to secure a work area.
¾ A slurry type shield machine will be used for shield work, and it will be assembled / launched from the
departure tunnel shaft.
¾ Two machines will be used for shield tunneling, and they will tunnel from each respective side.
¾ The road floor slab will be built in the shield tunnels after excavation of the two shield tunnels is
completed.
¾ The excavated tunnel portions on land on both sides will be closed off with a permanent retaining wall.
(iv) Features
¾ The current riverbed surface shape will be maintained, and no structural items will remain in the water
after construction is completed so that the current waterway cross section and water current are not
impacted.
¾ Regarding the excavated tunnel portion on land, it shall be possible to open it up after construction is
completed without occupying the ground.
¾ The impact on the surrounding area after completion of work shall be limited.
¾ There shall not be a physical impact on the existing river throughout construction work or after work is
completed.
3-22
3) Construction Costs and Work Period
A comparison table for the cable-stayed bridge in alternative plan 1 based on the original BINA MARGA
proposal calculated with the above conditions is shown in Table 3-6. The approximate costs for both the
immersed tunnel + excavated tunnel proposal and shield tunnel proposal are approximately as high as two
times compared to the cable-stayed bridge in the original BINA MARGA proposal, and the work period is
1.3 to 1.4 times longer than the bridge.
Furthermore, since this is an approximate estimate that was calculated with limited information and
conditions for both tunnel proposals, a more detailed review is necessary in order to specify outline of each
plan.
Table 3-6 Comparison of Construction Cost Indices and Work Period Indices for Bridge Plan and Tunnel Plans
Cable-Stayed Bridge
Immersed Tunnel +
(Original BINA
Excavated Tunnel
Shield Tunnel
MARGA Proposal)
Construction Cost Index
1.0
1.9 – 2.3
1.8 – 2.2
Work Period Index
1.0
1.3 – 1.4
1.3 – 1.4
(3) Comparative Review of Bridge Plan and Tunnel Plans
Based on the above information, the bridge plan is more realistic since the construction costs and work
period would both increase substantially with the tunnel plans, although they most likely would have less
excessive impact on the environment compared to the bridge plan (Refer to Chapter 4 for details).
3.4 Project Plan Overview
3.4.1 Basic Policy for Determining Project Content
This project consists of constructing a bridge with a total length of approximately 3.3 km at a location
approximately 5km downstream from the road bridge across the Musi River that flow through the center of
Palembang City which has aged significantly (Ampera Bridge) plan of which conforms with the plan to cross the
Musi River in the ring road plan on the east side of Palembang City. The “3.3.3 Route Plan” and “3.3.4 Review of
Engineering Methods” resulted in the submission of a proposal for an extradosed bridge with the route in
alternative plan 4. An overview of the proposed plan is described below.
¾
Total Project Length
3,330m
River Crossing
1,010m
Bridge Approach
2,320m
3-23
¾
Bridgge Width
Figure 3-199 Bridge Wid
dth Configuraation
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
3.4.2 Concept Design
(1)
Riverr Crossing
1) Desiggn Conditionss
¾
Design Ground Level:
L
Musi River
R
right bannk (south sidee)
G.L.+3.0m
Musi Riiver left bankk (north side)
G.L.+1.0m
Musi Riiver Ground Level
L
G.L. -44.0m to -14.00m
¾
Suppport Ground Level:
L
G.L. -30.0m
¾
Suppport Ground Physical
P
Propperties:
Sandyy soil
¾
Workk Yards: Matterial yards, etc.
e to be secuured on right bank and leftt bank of Mussi River
¾
Naviigation Channnel Conditionns: Width off 240m and height
h
of 50m
m to be proviided on left side of Musii
Riveer (conditions to be determ
mined at the time of constru
uction)
¾
Struccture Type: Superstructure
S
e: Steel/PC coompound extrradosed bridgge consisting of five contin
nuous spans
Subbstructure: Main
M tower fouundation: Steeel pipe sheet pile foundatiion
(S
Steel pipe diam
meter: 1,200m
mm)
Briidge Pier Fouundation: Cast-in-place pile foundation (Pile diameteer: 1,500mm))
¾
Totall Span Lengthh and Configuuration: 1,1100m (100+3x2
270+100)
¾
Widthh: 26.4m
¾
Loadd: As per Indoonesian Natioonal Standards
¾
Gradient: Longituudinal slope
Cross sllope
3.0%
2.0%
3-24
Fiigure 3-20 Crross-Section Shape
S
of Briddge
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
2) Conceptual Designn
¾
Girdeer Height
The girderr height for thhe extradosedd bridge was set at 7.0m at
a the intermediate supportt points and at
a 4.0m in thee
center of each span, using
u
the dim
mensions of existing bridg
ges for refereence purposess. In addition
n, an integrall
w used for the
t girder crooss-section foor the northbo
ound and soutthbound direcctions.
structure was
¾
Diagoonal Memberr
Single-plaane cable willl be adopted and
a the allow
wable value fo
or the cable crross-section w
was set to satiisfy 0.6σu.
¾
Mainn Towers
The heighht of the mainn towers wass set as 30.0m
m from the girder top surfface, using thhe dimension
ns of existingg
bridges for reference puurposes.
¾
Founndation Work
A steel pippe pier founddation that also serves as a cofferdam was
w adopted.
3-25
(2) Approoach Bridge
1) Desiggn Conditionss
¾
Design Ground Level
L
: Musi River
R
right baank (south sid
de)
Musi Riiver left bankk (north side)
G.L.+3.0m
G.L.+1.0m
¾
L
Suppport Ground Level:
E.L. -330.0m
¾
Suppport Ground Physical
P
Propperties:
Sandyy soil
¾
Workk Yards: Matterial yards, etc.
e to be secuured on right bank and leftt bank of Mussi River
¾
Struccture Type: Superstructure
S
e
Substructure
PC multi--span continu
uous T girder bridge
Bridge pierss: Box frame bridge piers
Foundation:: Cast-in-placce pile foundaation (Pile diaameter: 1,200
0mm)
¾
Span Configuratioon:
Left bannk side:24x400
Right baank side: 24xx40
¾
Widthh:12.2m x
¾
Loadd: Indonesian National Stanndard
¾
Gradient: Longituudinal slope
2(Separate structure for each directio
ons of traffic)
Cross sllope
3.0%
2.0%
Figure33-21 Cross-Section Shapee of Approachh Bridge
Source: Prepared by Sttudy Team
2) Conceptual Designn
¾
Girdeer Height
A girder height
h
of 2.4m was selectted, based onn the dimenssions of existting bridges. A separate structure
s
wass
used for eaach direction of traffic duee to the widthh of the bridg
ge.
¾
Bridgge Piers
Standarrd box-frame bridge piers were
w selectedd.
¾
Founndation Work
3-26
An economical cast--in-place pilee foundation was
w adopted.
3) Resullt of Conceptuual Design
The resultts of the conccept design thhat was perfoormed with th
he design connditions is shhown as a gen
neral plan forr
the Musi III
I Bridge in Figure3-22 and
a Figure3-223.
Figgure3-22 Propposed Bridgee Longitudinaal Profile
Source: Prepared
P
by Study
S
Team
3-27
Figure3-23 Proposeed Bridge Cro
oss-Section Diagram
D
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
3.4.3 Consttruction Plan and Calculattion of Estimaated Construcction Costs
(1) Consttruction Plan
1) Overaall Process
The plannned construction period the
t time for completion for this project is approxx. 42 monthss. Work willl
commencce with delivvery of the materials,
m
annd preparation
n of the connstruction yaard, site officce and otherr
facilities. Constructionn of the mainn and approacch bridges will
w be carriedd out concurrrently. Bridgee deck work,,
i sequence after
a
this. Thhe overall plaan is shown in Table 3-77
paving work and cleaan-up will be performed in
below.
Table 3-7 Overalll Plan
Work Itemms
Year
Month 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
7
8
9
3
4
10 11 12 133 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25
2 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Total Construct ion Schedule
Preparation Works
Construct ion Yard
Substructure Work
Abutment (A1)
Pier（P1~ P29)
Pier（P30 )
Pier（P31 )
Pier（P32 )
Pier（P33 )
Pier（P34 ~P62)
Abutment (A2)
Superstructu re Work
North App roach Bridge
Main Brid ge (EXD)
South App roach Bridge
Pavement
Finishing Wo rk
Source: Prepared
P
by Sttudy Team
3-28
2) Construction of Temporary Works
The project will include construction of temporary structures required to perform work, including site
management offices, concrete plant, PC girder production yard, rebar/formwork fabrication yard, material yard,
equipment repair shop, etc.
3) Substructure / Foundation Work
The work will be divided into three separate sites: Musi River north side, Musi River south side and the Musi
River crossing.
Foundation work for the bridge abutment and approach bridge piers will consist of cast-in-place pile
foundations for the overland portions. Four excavators each will be used on the south and north side of the Musi
River.
For bridge piers that have a height exceeding 20m, climbing forms will be used. For bridge piers 20m or less in
height, plans call for work to be performed using total scaffolding. Steel brackets will be used to perform
support work for the transverse beams on the bridge piers.
Work on steel pipe sheet and pile piling for foundation for the river will be performed from barges and/or
temporary platforms.
Climbing formwork will be used for work on the bridge piers for crossing of the Musi River.
Scaffolding will be placed for expedience and other considerations will be made for tension and as required for
other work on the main towers.
4) Superstructure
The PCT girder approach bridge uses the girder erection method since work can be performed on land, for
which a crane is generally used for erection, but in consideration of the fact that the erection location is high
above the ground, plans call for use of the erection girder method.
Girders fabricated in the precast yard will be transported by trailer to the work site, and the erection girder will
be used to place the precast girder in the prescribed location. Cross beam and cast-in-place concrete work will
be performed following this.
Cast-in-place outrigger construction using form travelers will be used for the extradosed bridge on the river
crossing portion of the bridge. A capital will first be constructed to allow placement of the form travelers. After
this, the girder and bridge pier will be tentatively secured, with cable-stay erection and overhang erection
sequentially repeated. After the side span is connected, lifting jacks will be used to erect the center span steel
beam in one process.
3-29
(2) Calculation of Approximate Project Cost
1) Construction Cost
The volume of works of main and approach part of construction described in this section were figured out, and
these figures were used to estimate the construction costs by multiplying the quantities by applicable
construction unit prices that were set based on actual figures for bridge and road construction work that has in
fact been performed in this area.
¾
Superstructure: Girder fabrication, girder erection, bridge deck work (bridge railing, pavement, etc.), main
tower work, cable work, etc.
¾
Substructure: Bridge pier work, bridge abutment work, foundation work, etc.
¾
Temporary facility construction: Material yard, girder fabrication yard, temporary piers, etc.
2) Consultant Fee
Consultant work for this project will mainly consist of detailed design, bidding assistance and supervision of
works. The detailed design includes bridge design (superstructure, substructure, and foundation work), road
design, facilities planning, estimates and bid documents, each of which will be performed by the respective
responsible parties. After this, design reports, design drawings, project cost estimation materials and bid
documents will be prepared. After the detailed design is completed, bid preparations, pre-qualification of
bidders (P/Q), technical review and construction cost review will be performed, and technical support will be
provided until the construction company is selected.
Consultant supervisory work following the start of construction will include a review of the implementation
process submitted by the constructor, approval of temporary facility plans, construction plans and materials as
well as other items, and recommendations concerning safety management of the works. The supervision system
(team) will consist of a resident supervisor who supervises the whole of project works, professional engineers
and assistants with bridge / road design and construction knowledge and experience, as well as civil engineers,
clerical workers, drivers and other local staff.
An amount equal to 10% of the construction costs will be allocated for consultant fee for performance of the
works described above.
3) Contingency
An amount equal to 10% of the total of the construction costs and consultant fee will be allocated as
contingency. The approximate construction costs are shown in Table 3-8.
3-30
Table 3-8 Estimated Construction Costs
Item
Main Bridge
(Steel / PC compound
Construction
cost
cost
(Million Rp)
(Million Yen)
Remarks
Superstructure
995,300
8,700
Substructure
892,300
7,800
Max Span 270m
Subtotal
1,887,600
16,500
Superstructure
411,900
3,600
Substructure
640,700
5,600
Span 29x40m
1,052,600
9,200
extradosed bridge)
Approach bridge (PCT
Construction
Girders Bridge)
Subtotal
Span 29x40m
Construction of Temporary
22,900
200
Structures
Construction Cost (1)
Material yard,
Girder production yard etc.
Total
2,963,100
25,900
Consultant Cost (2)
296,300
2,590
10% of (1)
Contingency (3)
296,300
2,590
10% of (1)
3,555,700
31,080 Approx. 31.0 billion yen
Total Construction Cost [(1)＋(2)＋(3)]
1Rp= ¥0.008741 (Foreign exchange rate as of January 20, 2014)
3.4.4 Issues with Proposed Technology and Solutions
(1) Assuming shipping height as 40m
As mentioned above, according to the memorandum between Indonesian Port Corporation (IPC) and BINA
MARGA of Palembang City, a shipping height of the Musi River has become reducible from 50m to 40m.
Should it is going to be the case, length of the approach bridge of alternative plan 4, which the study team
recommends, can be shortened by 640m and construction cost will be reduced by 3.5 billion yen from 31 billion
yen to 27.5 billion yen. It is therefore recommendable to apply 40m shipping height as this will make the more
feasible and realistic.
3-31
Figure3-24Longitudinal Diagrams of shipping height 50m and 40m in alternative plan 4
Shipping Height 50m
Shipping Height 40m
(2) Issues with Proposed Technology and Solution
The proposal designates a steel / PC compound extradosed bridge consisting of three continuous spans and a
PC five continuous box girder bridge as the technology for the main river crossing.
PC multi-span
continuous T girder construction has been adopted as the technology for the approach bridge on land.
The longest span individual length of a steel / PC compound extradosed bridge consisting of three continuous
spans in Japan is 275m. The maximum span length for the PC cable-stayed bridge proposed for this bridge is
270m and no significant technological issues are anticipated.
The PC multi-span continuous T girder bridge design is the general bridge type used in Indonesia, and there
are not expected to be many technological issues.
However, since only a preliminary outline bridge design was made during this study, further details must be
determined during the detailed design process. The issues with the proposed technology and solutions at this
point are described in the following table.
3-32
Table 3-9 Issues with Proposed Technology and Solutions
Issue with Proposed Technology
Solution
The supporting soil location has been designated
An adequate understanding of the
using the results of only two geological surveys in
peculiarities of the ground at the bridge site
this study, and the ground constant has been
can be obtained by performing a detailed
estimated.
geological survey at the time of the detailed
design, and reflected in an appropriate design.
Due to the fact there are many cast-in-place piles,
The adoption of steel pipe piles (rotating
there is a high level of construction risk in terms of
piles) will enable construction to be
construction management and the work period.
completed in a shorter period in a reliable
manner.
There is potential concern about stability and wind
Wind effects will be confirmed by means of
resistance during construction and upon completion
wind tunnel tests.
of extradosed bridge.
Adequate experience and regular inspection at
The utilization of a construction Health
elevated locations are required for a long bridge.
Monitoring System (HMS) will enable
sustainable maintenance and management to
be safely and correctly performed.
3-33
Chapter 4
Evaluation of Environmental and Social
Impact
4.1 Analysis of Current Situation (Environmental/Social)
4.1.1 Environmental Administration
The Ministry of Environment (KLH: Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup) in Indonesia has jurisdiction over
environmental management and regulations. KLH prescribes environmental protection and management laws
based on Law No. 32 of 2009 that is the basis for environment related laws. The law stipulates that organizations
are obligated to perform an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (AMDAL: Analisis Mengenai Dampak
Lingkungan Hidup) and a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (KLHS: Kajian Lingkungan Hidup
Strategis) for project activities that may have a significant environmental impact.
4.1.2 Project Candidate Site
(1) Land Use Current Situation of the Project Site
The results of a comparison of the current status using a satellite image1, land usage map in Palembang City and
site reconnaissance for the land usage status (Figure 4-1) with the bridge route proposal under this project are
shown in Table 4-1.
There is farmland (including fruit, timber, rubber and other plantations), green areas (including unused land,
wasteland and other land) in the northern part around the Musi River through which all four route pass.
Alternative plan 1, alternative plan 2 and alternative plan 3 all pass through densely populated residential areas
along the banks of the Musi River. In contrast, alternative plan 4 bypasses these densely populated residential
areas, but it goes through marshy areas and farmland.
1
4-1
Figure 4-1 Land Usage Status in Vicinity of Bridge Route Proposals
Marshy Area
Farmland
SeiLais Port
R. A.
Pagoda (Chinese Temple)
R. A.
R. A.
Petroleum Plant
(Pertamina)
Legend
Alternative plan 1
Alternative plan 2
Alternative plan 3
Alternative plan 4
R.A.: Residential Area
Table 4-1 Comparison of Current Status of Land Usage
Alternative Plan 1
Alternative Plan 2
Alternative Plan 3
Alternative Plan 4
Marsh, Farmland,
Space (40%)
Space (30%)
Space (40%)
Green Space (60%)
Island) (5%)
Island) (5%)
Island) (5%)
Water Area (5%)
Water Area (5%)
Water Area (5%)
Sei Lais Port2 (10%)
Water Area (10%)
(2) Pollution (Air Quality, Water Quality, Noise, Vibration)
According to environmental monitoring data from the Palembang City Environmental Management Agency
(BLH Kota Palembang) in 2011, air quality along the main roads in Palembang City satisfies the environmental
standards of Indonesia. Organic compounds (Chemical Oxygen Demand: COD) and inorganic compounds (iron,
copper, manganese, zinc, etc.) in the Musi River water both exceed environmental standards, which is caused
by water drainage from the Palembang urban area and untreated sewage water. Noise along the roads in the
2
Only about 20% of the Sei Lais Port site is used by Sei Lais Port, with other area consisting of marshland
4-2
center of Palembang City slightly exceeds the environmental standards of Indonesia. In contrast, vibration was
not observed.
(3) Natural Environment
There are no areas in the vicinity of any of the routes that have been proposed for this project that have been
designated as reserves by Indonesian laws, international treaty or otherwise. Furthermore, according to the
results of interviews with the Palembang City Environmental Management Agency (BLH Kota Palembang),
there are not any habitats for important species that require protection, but the access road passes through
marshland. It can be assumed that this area is the habitat for a diverse range of animals and plants. Accordingly,
during project implementation, an adequate review of the impact on this marshland and the ecosystem that it
hosts needs to be performed.
(4) Social Environment
An overview of the social environment in the target area for this project is shown in Table 4-2. The residents
that will be impacted as projected from analysis of satellite images is the smallest with alternative plan 4. Based
on the results of interviews with the Palembang City Environmental Management Agency, there are not any
ethnic minorities or indigenous people in the vicinity of the target area for this project. However, it has been
confirmed that there are squatters along the banks of the Musi River, so it can be projected there are a number
of poor people in the area.
In addition, the plantations represent the livelihood for the residents and a number of short-term workers from
the island of Java work on them.
There are no historical or cultural assets that have been designated for protection by law in the target area for
this project, but due to the fact that there is a pagoda on the west end of Kemaro Island where the bridge route is
located with alternative plan 1, 2 and 3, a review needs to be conducted to determine that there will not be an
impact on this pagoda. In addition, since Palembang City has plans for the development of a resort on Kemaro
Island that will include building of a restaurant and cottages, progress on this plan needs to be taken into
consideration.
4-3
Table 4-2 Comparison of Current Status of Social Environment
Item
Alternative Plan 1
Alternative Plan 2
Alternative Plan 3
Alternative Plan 4
• North Side of River: • North Side of River:
• North Side of River: • North Side of River:
Approx.100dwellings Approx. 70 dwellings
Approx. 100 dwelling Approx. 5 dwellings
• South Side of River: • South Side of River:
• South Side of River: • South Side of River:
Structure3
Approx. 270
Approx. 200
(No. of
dwellings
dwellings
Dwellings)
Total:
Approx. 370
Total: 90 dwellings
dwellings
No. of
1,517 persons
1,107 persons
1,476 persons
369 persons
Residents
Impacted4
There is a pagoda
There is a pagoda near There is a pagoda near
Cultural Assets below the location of the location of the
the location of the
N/A
the bridge.
bridge.
bridge.
4.2 Impact of Project Implementation upon Environmental and Social
Aspects
4.2.1 Envisioned Environmental and Social Impacts
(1) Pollution control measures
The population in Palembang City is continuing to increase along with the growth of urban development and
industrial park development. In particular, the capacity of two bridges that cross the Musi River and roads
around the bridge has become inadequate, and this has resulted in heavy road congestion. Therefore, the
construction of a new alternate route will mitigate traffic jams in the center of the city, suppress exhaust gas
emissions which are caused by road traffic, reduce the volume of fuel consumed, thus leading to the
establishment of a low carbon environment, and making a contribution to an improvement in the environment.
(2) Natural Environmental Aspects
There are not any reserves in the target area for this project. In addition, according to interviews with the
Palembang City Environmental Management Agency, there are not any important animal or plant species.
However, there is extensive marshland along the banks of the Musi River due to the amount of rainfall, river
flow rate, river gradient, shape of the river banks and other natural conditions, and river banks normally serve
as a buffer zone for the ecosystem on the water’s edge and on land that support a diverse range of living things.
Therefore, the current status needs to be confirmed with an EIA, and suitable measures taken as necessary.
(3) Social Environmental Aspects
Preparation of a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP) will be required for the routes with
all four alternative plans for this project since the number of residents that will need to be resettled exceeds
200 people. When this project is implemented, explanatory meetings for the residents and consultative
3
Calculated based on average of 4.1 persons per household in South Sumatra Province in which structures
identified by image analysis were assumed to be dwellings where there is one household(Value after decimal point
discarded)
4
4-4
meetings need to be held about the time the population census is taken in order to explain an overview of the
project, survey overview, environmental impact scoping results (positive and negative impacts brought about
by project) and resettlement policy.
4.2.2 Comparative Review of Envisioned Environmental and Social Impacts
Due to the above results, a score was assigned to items for which there may be an impact on pollution, natural
environment and social environment based on the standard in Table 4-3, and the results of a comprehensive
evaluation are shown in the comparison table shown in Table 4-4. A judgment was made concerning pollution
from standpoint of the possible impact on the health of the residents. Due to the fact that the current values
cannot be used for the proposed route for the air quality, an assumption was made for the current values based
on the traffic volume that was confirmed by means of field reconnaissance, and whether or not there will be an
impact due to implementation of this project and the scale of impact were reviewed.
Table 4-3 Comparative Evaluation Standard for Expected Impact
Score
+2
+1
0
-1
-2
-3
Standard
Significant positive impact is expected.
Minor positive impact is expected.
There will not be an impact, or the extent of the impact can be ignored.
Minor negative impact is expected.
Significant negative impact is expected, but it is not irreversible.
There is an irreversible impact.
Table 4-4 Comparison and Evaluation of Expected Impact5
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
1
2
3
Item
Air
Pollution
Measures
Noise
Vibration
Natural
Environment
Ecosystem
Hydrology
Alternative Plan
4
It is expected that
the current
Impact on air
Impact on air
Impact on air
values are very
quality due to
quality due to
quality due to
low, and that the
further increase
further increase
further increase
impact due to the
in volume of
in volume of
in volume of
new increase in
traffic [-2]
traffic [-2]
traffic [-2]
traffic will be
minor [-1]
Exhaust gas discharge volume reduction effect due to dispersion of traffic
volume and alleviation of traffic congestion [+1]
Impact on living environment for residents in the vicinity brought about by
the noise / vibration generated during construction and after bridge is placed
in service [-2]
Lessening of noise generated by cars due to dispersion of traffic volume and
alleviation of traffic congestion [+2]
Impact due to
Impact due to
Impact due to
Impact due to
loss of green area loss of green area loss of green area loss of green area
which accounts
which accounts
which accounts
which accounts
for approx. 40%
for approx. 30%
for approx. 40%
for approx. 60%
of total route
of total route
of total route
of total route
length [-2]
length [-1]
length [-2]
length [-3]
Change in Musi River channel (topography) / change in flow conditions due to
bridge pier construction work and presence of bridge piers in river [-1]
5
The impact on living/livelihood was evaluated with the relative total score for loss of land + resident resettlement
+ ecosystem (loss of green areas including farmland).
4-5
Alternative Plan
1
Item
Land
Resettlement
of Residents
Living/
Livelihood
Social
Environment
Alternative Plan
2
Alternative Plan
3
Alternative Plan
4
Loss of land due to land acquisition [-2]
Resettling Impact Resettling Impact Resettling Impact Resettling Impact
Approx. 1,517
Approx. 1,107
Approx. 1,476
Approx. 369
persons [-3]
persons [-2]
persons [-3]
persons [-1]
Impact on living/ Impact on living/ Impact on living/ Impact on living/
livelihood [-2]
livelihood [-1]
livelihood [-3]
livelihood [-2]
Impact on fishing activities due to change in ecosystem brought about by
changes in water areas [-1]
Creation of traffic jams during construction due to traffic restrictions [-1]
Social
Infrastructure Alleviation of traffic congestion due to dispersion of traffic volume after
bridge is placed in service [+1]
Impact of noise/
Impact of noise/
Impact of noise/
Cultural
vibration on area vibration on area vibration on area No cultural assets
Assets
around pagoda
around pagoda
around pagoda
[0]
[-3]
[-2]
[-1]
Change in landscape on undeveloped
Change in landscape on recreation
Landscape
land (marshes/farmland) and
site and disturbance of harmony [-1]
disturbance of harmony [-1]
-20
-16
-17
-15
Evaluation
+4
+4
+4
+4
Based on the above results, the judgment was made that alternative plan 4 is the leading proposal since it has the
lowest negative impact on the environment and society, although the alternative plan 4 has negative impact to loss
in the green area,
4.2.3 Comparative Review of Alternative Technologies
During this study, in addition to conducting a review of the bridge plan, a review was also conducted for
alternative proposals that use immersed tunnel + excavated tunnel and shield tunnel structural technology, and a
comparison of the environmental and social impacts is shown in Table 4-5.
4-6
Table 4-5 Comparison of Environmental and Social Impacts of Each Type of Structure
Evaluation
Immersed Tunnel + Excavated
Item
Bridge Plan
Shield Tunnel
Tunnel
Uses domestic concrete.
Construction is large in
Environmental Uses imported steel.
Brings about significant
Construction is large in scale,
scale, requiring a
and Social
change
in
landscape
requiring
land
for
a
large-scale
temporary construction
Impact
Changes in areas shaded
temporary construction yard
yard.
from sun
(Expected area: 200m x 200m). Environmental and social
Has impact on size of ships. Environmental and social
concerns during
concerns during construction
since work period are long.
period are long.
Portion of river needs to be
shut off during construction,
placing limits on use of river
by ships, etc.
Impact on riverbed due to
sediment, scouring, traction,
etc.
Dredging required, with impact
on water quality.
Construction
Approximately twice the cost Approximately twice the
–
of bridge plan
cost of bridge plan
Costs
Environmental
Medium
Large
Medium
and Social
Impact
4.3 Overview of Environmental and Social Related Laws in Host Country
4.3.1 Palembang City Plan
In the newly revised “Spatial Plan of City of Palembang (2012 – 2032)”, sustainable social welfare and
environmental policy were strengthened. According to the land usage plan diagram (Figure 4-2) formulated by
this master plan, the left bank (north side) of the Musi River has been allocated to protected marsh areas, farmland
and green areas with the objective of protecting natural environmental functions, natural resources and the living
environment. A Retention Pond Construction Plan has been provided on the Musi River and its tributaries as part
of a Watershed Resources Network System (Figure 4-3). These retention ponds are designated as important areas
for flood countermeasures6.
Currently, due to the fact that alternative plan 4 passes through the marshy areas on the left bank (north side) of
the Musi River, the regulations for protected marshy areas need to be confirmed. In addition, one location in the
Retention Pond Construction Plan needs to be taken into consideration since it is close to the planned road route
for this project. The policy calls for the route to be fixed after discussions with South Sumatra Province and
Palembang City concerning these considerations, with measures taken as necessary.
6
Serve function of retaining flood waters from river in the event of a flood
4-7
Figure 4-2 Land Usage Plan Diagram in Vicinity of Project Site
Legend
: Green area
: Protected marsh area
: Farmland
: Plants (Owned by Port Corporation)
: Tourism areas
: Residential areas
Source: Prepared by Study Team Using Materials Provided by Palembang City BAPPEDA
(Excerpt from “Palembang City Land Usage Plan Diagram 2012 – 2032”)
Figure 4-3 Retention Pond Construction Plan
KEC. SUKARAMI
KEC. SAKO
KEC. ALANG‐ALANG LEBAR
KEC. SEMATANG BORANG
KEC. KEMUNING
KEC. KALIDONI
KEC. ILIR BARAT I
KEC. ILIR TIMUR I
KEC. ILIR TIMUR II
KEC. BUKIT KECIL
KEC. ILIR BARAT II
KEC. PLAJU
KEC. SEBERANG ULU II
Legend
●: Existing Retention Pond
KEC. GANDUS
KEC. SEBERANG ULU I
●: Planned Retention Pond
KEC. KERTAPATI
Source: Prepared by Study Team Using Materials Provided by Palembang City BAPPEDA
(Excerpt from “Palembang City Land Usage Plan Diagram 2012 – 2032”)
4-8
4.3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment System
According to the Indonesian Environment Protection and Management Law (Law No. 32 of 2009), conduct of
EIA (commonly called AMDAL) and SEA (commonly called KLHS) is mandatory for projects that may have a
serious impact on the environment.
According to government regulation No. 27 of 2012 concerning environmental impact assessment (revision of
regulation No. 51 of 1993), document (1) is prepared in the first step for projects that require environmental
impact assessment, and documents (2) to (4) are prepared in the next step, and approval must be obtained from the
government agency with jurisdiction.
(1) Environmental Assessment Scoping Document (commonly called “KA-ANDAL: Kerangka Acuan
–Analisis Dampak Lingkungan Hidup”)
(2) Environmental Impact Statement (commonly called “ANDAL: Analisis Dampak Lingkungan
Hidup”)
(3) Environment Management Plan (commonly called “RKL: Pencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup”)
(4) Environment Monitoring Plan (commonly called “RPL: Pencana Pemantauan Lingkungan Hidup”)
For projects for which environmental impact assessment is not required, there are cases in which rules on the type
and scale of projects determined by government authorities in each region require the preparation and submission
of 1) Environment Management Plan (commonly called “UKL”, a simplified version of “RKL” above) and 2)
Environment Monitoring Plan (commonly called “UPL”, a simplified version of “RPL” above). In addition,
regarding projects for which the submission of a UKL and UPL are not required, the submission of an
Environment Management / Monitoring Letter of Commitment (commonly called “SPPL”: a further simplified
version of RKL/RPL and UKL/UPL).
According to government ordinance No. 27 of 2012 (revision of government ordinance No. 51 of 1993)
concerning environmental impact assessments, discussions must be conducted with the related agencies in
Palembang City before the environmental impact assessment (AMDAL) is submitted. After this, the
environmental impact assessment of the Ministry of Environment is submitted by the business operator. At this
time, the approval of the South Sumatra Province BLH (Badan Lingkungan Hidup) and governor which are in
charge of this area is required.
4.3.3 Land Acquisition / Resettlement System
Legal system in Indonesia concerning land acquisition for public projects was newly established by government
ordinance No. 71 of 2012.Based on the legal system, it is necessary to decide selection and intented determination
of project site within 2 years. For such, it can extend maximum 1year. In addition, it is necessary to finish the
process of land acquisition within 583 days.
The project implementation agency prepares a Framework of Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan
(FLARAP) at the project preparation stage, verifies the scale of the impact (location, range, structures that require
4-9
movement and quantity) that will be caused by implemented projects by conducting a field study, interviews with
the residents / landowners to make the relevant assessment of the project. When the number of residents for which
involuntary resettlement exceeds 200, the preparation of a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan
(LARAP) become necessary, and when the number of residents for which involuntary resettlement is less than 200,
the preparation of a Simple Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan (SLARAP) become an essential
course of action.
As stated above, when the number of residents to be subject to involuntary resettlement exceeds 200, the LARAP
is formulated to specify the basic policy, procedure, schedule and cost for land acquisition and resettlement that is
determined from the results of the field study, and the content of the LARAP must be reflected in the detailed
design as necessary.
The project implementation agency must submit a “Project Implementation Plan” that describes the objective of
the project, target location, scale and environmental impact assessment to the governor at least one year before the
project is to be started, and request the governor to make a decision on the project implementation location. If
implementation at the proposed location is approved, the project implementation agency shall publish the “Project
Implementation Plan” and form a land acquisition committee. The land acquisition committee performs the
following duties.
¾
Study of target area
¾
Study of legal status of target area
¾
Setting of compensation amounts
¾
Explanation to and consultation with area land owners impacted by implementation of the
development plan
¾
Implementation of deliberation with land owners regarding form and amount of compensation, and
government agencies that need to be involved for said site
¾
Witnessing of compensation payment
¾
Preparation of relevant documents and other items related to land acquisition
The form of compensation can be (1) Money, (2) Alternative land or (3) Rebuilding of residence, with the
details of the combination of these items to be determined through negotiations between the National Land
Agency and the land owner. There are also cases in which compensation may take another form with the
agreement of the involved parties. Calculation of the compensation shall be performed using the Taxation
Reference Standard (NJOP) or a value that uses the recent NJOP as reference in accordance with an appraisal of
a Measure Appraisal Agency team designated by the committee. The land appraisal agency shall review and
appraise the price of land, buildings, trees and other structures, and propose the amount and form of
compensation.
4-10
4.4 Items
under
the
implementation
responsibility
agencies
and
of
Host
related
Country
(including
organizations)
for
Implementation of Project
(1) Implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment
According to ordinance No. 11 of the Minister in charge of the environment of 2006, due to the fact that this
project involves the construction of a bridge and requires the acquisition of land in excess of 5km to build the
road, an Environmental Impact Assessment (AMDAL) needs to be conducted.
The business operator will conduct public consulting several times from the planning stage until approval is
granted, and explain the project plan to the residents. An environmental Assessment Scoping
Document(KA-ANDAL), an Environmental Impact Statement (ANDAL), Environment Monitoring Plan (RPL)
and Environment Management Plan (RKL) need to be prepared, and approval obtained from the AMDAL
committee that is comprised of persons from the South Sumatra Province Environmental Management Agency
(BLH Provinsi) and other agencies.
(2) Implementation of Resident Resettlement Plan
Due to the fact that the number of persons that need to be resettled exceeds 200 for all four routes, a Land
Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP) need to be prepared. When the project is implemented,
resident explanatory meetings and consultative meetings need to be held about the time the population census is
taken in order to explain an overview of the project, survey overview, environmental impact scoping results
(positive and negative impacts brought about by project) and resettlement policy.
(3) Review of Alternative Plan
The environmental impact and number of residents that need to be resettled will vary depending upon the line
form of the bridge section and access route, structure type and standards. Therefore, the project implementation
agency will review these alternative plans in view of environmental and social impact at the stage of
full-fledged FS that is supposed to be performed in the nearest future.
(4) Others / Monitoring
BINA MARGA which is the implementation agency for this project needs to conduct monitoring of the
respective environmental items from the time before construction is started until after the bridge is placed in
service.
4-11
Chapter 5
Financial and Economic Evaluation
In the preliminary financial / economic analysis conducted in the first study, the main work that was performed
consisted of a study / analysis concerning the financial and economic feasibility, referring to the BINA MARGA
FS.
The following points become clear as the result of this second study.
z The “South Sumatra Kayu Agung – Palembang – Betung Toll Road Project” which has a close
relationship to this project was listed in the 2013 edition of the PPP book1. There is an integral
relationship between the toll road project and this project, and there are cases in which the alternative
route for the said project includes a section in this project.
z In relation to this, a request was received from BINA MARGA to conduct a review concerning the
feasibility in the event the project becomes a portion of the Trans Sumatra Expressway.
z A request was received from BINA MARGA to conduct a review of the tunnel plans.
In light of the above, the information for financial and economic evaluation is updated with the latest data, and a
review was conducted again.
[Information for Financial Evaluation]
z Updating the construction cost on additional alternative plan from the first study.
z Reviewing the costs of Operation and Management (O&M), and the year the structure is to be placed in
service was changed from 2019 in the first study report to the year 2020.
z Assuming a portion of the traffic on the Trans Sumatra Expressway would flow into the section covered
by this project.
z The road section is defined 50km as the ring road (portion) that is approx. 25km long in the first study.
z The values for the BINA MARGA FS in the first study are referred to for the road portion costs, but the
results of the Establishment of a Master Plan for the Arterial Road Network in Sumatra Island were
referred to this time (hereinafter called “Trans Sumatra Master Plan”), but a standard was established of
complying with the Expressway Plan in this master plan.
z Regarding the structure used to cross the river, it is decided that in addition to the bridge plan, the tunnel
plans (immersed tube tunnel and shield tunnel) would also be reviewed, and the latest status of review
by BINA MARGA was reflected for the bridge plan.
z The “Trans Sumatra Master Plan” is referred to, and the traffic volume related to the Trans Sumatra
Expressway was added.
[Information for Financial Evaluation]
z It is updated the construction cost on additional alternative plan from the first study.
z The O&M costs are reviewed, and the year the structure is to be placed in service was changed from
2019 in the first study report to the year 2020.
1
Public Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects Plan in Indonesia 2013 pp. 30 – 32, Minister of National
Development Planning, jointly conducted in 2009 by the Ministry of Public Works of Indonesia and the Korea
International Cooperation Agency (KOICA)
5-1
Furthermore, in the event this project becomes a portion of the Trans Sumatra Expressway (or in the event this
project section is included as an alternative route plan for the “South Sumatra Kayu Agung – Palembang – Betung
Toll Road Project”), a brief review will be conducted during the study.
5.1 Estimation of the Project Costs
5.1.1 Costs for Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Relocation
The costs for land acquisition, resettlement, relocation of utilities and other costs in the area impacted by this
project (bridge and road development work) are estimated to be approx. 7,333 billion Rp (approx. 6.3 billion yen,
1Rp = 0.0086 yen). These results will be adhered to in the additional study for land acquisition, resettlement and
relocation.
5.1.2 Construction Costs
The construction costs in the FS for the Musi III Bridge that was prepared by BINA MARGA were estimated to be
a total of 3.4329 trillion Rp, of which the costs for the bridge construction were estimated to be 2.8779 trillion Rp,
as shown in Table 5-1. The costs for construction of the bridge and the road development for a length of approx.
25.6km are included in the construction costs.
Table 5-1 Construction Costs in FS Implemented by BINA MARGA
Item
Amount (Rp)
1
General management expenses
63,720,820,000
2
Drainage
80,942,910,774
3
Earthwork
206,986,653,023
4
Widening of road/shoulder
26,378,360,730
5
Roadbed
88,945,784,413
6
Surface layer
33,726,706,477
7
Structure (bridge)
8
Restoration/minor work
2,877,865,968,592
54,343,804,974
Total
3,432,911,008,983
Source: Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalan dan Jembatan Musi III Palembang
Table 5-2 shows estimates of the structure construction costs prepared by the Study Team. BINA MARGA
performed basic design concerning the bridge portion. According to this work, the bridge construction costs were
estimated to be 4.61 trillion Rp, representing an increase of nearly 1.5 times compared to the bridge construction
costs estimated during the FS.
Regarding the tunnel plans, due to the fact that the costs are expected to be two to three times the cost of the
bridge plans, and the construction period would be about 1.5 times the bridge plan, the tunnel plans were excluded
from the review since they are at a significant disadvantage from a financial and economic standpoint.
5-2
Table 5-2 Construction Costs for Structure
Cost
1 bil.Rp.
100 mil. yen
Bridge Plans
Cable-Stayed Bridge
Extradosed
(BINA MARGA
Bridge
Basic Design (BD))
4,610
3,522
396
Tunnel Plans
Immersed Tunnel +
Excavated Tunnel
Shield Tunnel
8,837 – 10,698
8,372 – 10,233
760 – 920
720 – 880
308
Note: Calculated using 1 Rp = 0.008741 yen (Foreign Exchange Rate as of January 2014)
Table 5-3 shows the costs for the bridge updated with the latest data that was obtained during this additional study.
Due to the fact that the BINA MARGA plan (basic design) crosses the Musi River at an alignment of 45º with a
cable-stayed bridge, the bridge is long at 4,470m, and the construction costs are high at 4.61 trillion Rp. The
construction costs for alternative plan 1 when the same type of cable-stayed bridge is built as in the BINA
MARGA FS plan are 3,522 trillion Rp. The construction costs for the extradosed bridge (portion T girder bridge,
box girder bridge) in alternative plan 2 are 3,171 trillion Rp., the construction costs for the T girder bridge in
alternative plan 3 are 3.979trillion Rp. and the construction costs for the T girder bridge in alternative plan 4 are
3,555 trillion Rp.
Table 5-3 Bridge Construction Costs
BINA MARGA
BD Plan
Cable-Stayed
Bridge
4,470m
Alternative
Plan 1
Cable-Stayed
Bridge
3,380m
Alternative
Plan 2
Extradosed
Bridge
3,330m
Alternative
Plan 3
Extradosed
Bridge
3,350m
Alternative
Plan4
Extradosed
Bridge
3,330m
Main Bridge
1,000m
680m
470m
1,550m
1,110m
North Side Approach
1,980m
1,380m
1,460m
400m
1,160m
South Side Approach
1,490m
1,320m
1,400m
1,400m
Clearance
51m
50m
50m
50m
1 bil. Rp.
4,610
3,522
3,171
3,979
Cost
100 mil. yen
396
308
277
348
1,160m
50m
3,555
310
Bridge Type
Total Bridge Length
The construction costs (for bridge and road) are compiled in Table 5-4. Regarding the cost per 1km for the road
section, the standard unit price for toll road construction in the “Trans Sumatra Master Plan” of 37.34 billion Rp.2
(2009 prices) were referred to, and the length of bridge was designated as 40km which is a portion of the ring
road.
The total construction costs with the BINA MARGA BD plan are 6,074 trillion Rp (approx. 52.4 billion yen), the
total construction costs with alternative plan 1 are 5,986 trillion Rp (approx.43.6 billion yen), the total
construction costs with alternative plan 2 are 4,635 trillion Rp (approx. 40.5 billion yen), the total construction
2
The Establishment of a Master Plan for the Arterial Road Network on Sumatra Island
Road Construction Costs per km
5-3
P. 9-16 Table 9.6 Toll
costs with alternative plan 3 are 5,442 trillion Rp (approx. 47.5 billion yen) and the total construction costs with
alternative plan 3 are 5,019 trillion Rp (approx. 43.8 billion yen)
Table 5-4 Bridge Construction Costs
Unit: 1 billion Rp (Unit for figures in parentheses is 100 million yen)
BINA MARGA
BD Plan
Alternative Plan
Bridge
4,610(396)
Road
Total
Alternative Plan
2
Alternative Plan
3
Alternative Plan
4
3,522(308)
3,171(277)
3,979(348)
3,555(310)
1,464(128)
1,464(128)
1,464(128)
1,464(128)
1,464(128)
6,074(524)
5,986(436)
4,635(405)
5,442(475)
5,019(438)
1
5.1.3 Operation, Management and Other Costs
An amount equal to 2% of the construction costs/y is assumed for the daily operation and management costs, and
an amount equal to 5% of the construction costs/y is envisioned for periodic repair costs. It is thought that periodic
repair costs will incur every ten years after the bridge is placed in service / operation.
5.2 Results of Preliminary Financial and Economic Analysis
5.2.1 Method Used for Preliminary Financial/Economic Evaluation
The potential effects and feasibility of this project was examined in the preliminary financial/economic analysis
with the objective of evaluating the financial/economic suitability of project implementation. FIRR, EIRR, Net
Present Value (NPV) and Benefit-Cost ratio (B/C) were calculated as indicators. The discounted cash flow method,
which is a standard technique, was used for evaluation. Economic B/C was compared in order to perform a
cost-benefit analysis3. The techniques used for financial and economic analysis hereof are described below.
(1) Financial Analysis
It was assumed that the said project would be a toll road, and the net profit, which consists of the toll income
minus the maintenance & management expenses and taxes, was compared with the project expenses in order
to calculate the FIRR as a means of performing evaluation.
a) EIRR: the ratio at which the present value of the total revenue and of the total cost are equal and the
magnitude of that ratio were used to evaluate the financial efficiency of the project.
3
Since the subject period for economic evaluation is a long-term period, a certain discount ratio needs to be used
to adjust the present value of the future benefit brought about and expenses incurred by the project.
When compound interest is used to calculate the value (F) of the present value (P) after n years, it is expressed as
F = P(1 + i)n (iis interest rate). When the formula is replaced in order to convert the value (F) into the present
value after n years, it becomes P = F/(1 + i)n(Here, it is called the discount rate). In addition, the discount rate at
which the present value of the total benefit and present value of the total cost is equal is called the “internal rate
of return”, at which point the NPV is zero, which means that the B/C is 1.
5-4
Revenue was calculated by using the results of a traffic demand forecast in the event the bridge is developed
as a public project (when toll is envisioned to be zero), using a factor to adjust the traffic volume that takes toll
pressure (resistance) into consideration, and multiplying this by the toll.
Construction costs, operation and maintenance costs, and 10% of the toll revenue which would be collected as
an added value tax were included in the expenses. On the other hand, it was supposed that the land acquisition,
resettlement and utility relocation costs would be covered by the government, and therefore were not included
in the costs.
(2) Economic Analysis
An economic analysis was performed by comparing the economic benefit of “With Project” (when project
implemented) and “Without Project” (when project not implemented) based on the results of a traffic demand
forecast. The economic benefit achieved by the implementation of the project was calculated using the
difference in road user cost (vehicle operating cost and travel time cost) between “With Project” and “Without
Project”, development benefit and other externalities, and the cost consists of the land acquisition, resettlement
and utility relocation costs, construction costs, and operation & maintenance costs. The indicators used for
evaluation are described below.
a) EIRR: The ratio at which the present value of the total benefit and present value of the total cost is equal
and the magnitude of that ratio were used to evaluate the economic efficiency of the project.
b) NPV: Difference between present value of total benefit and present value of total cost. The magnitude of
that amount is used to evaluate efficiency of the project.
c) B/C: Ratio of present value of total benefit divided by present value of total cost. The magnitude of that
ratio is used to evaluate economic efficiency of the project.
Economic analysis is performed for both when the project is implemented as a public project (when toll is
envisioned to be zero), and when implemented as a toll road (when there is toll pressure), respectively.
5.2.2 Target Period for Preliminary Financial/Economic Analysis
A target period of the thirty years from 2020 when the bridge is placed in service until 2049 was used to analyze
revenue and benefits. With regards to the costs, land acquisition / resettlement / relocation costs are assumed to be
incurred in 2015 and 2016, Phase 1 construction costs are assumed to be incurred in 2017 and 2018, and the Phase
2 construction costs are assumed to be incurred in 2019.Regarding the target period, the decision was made to
delay the respective items by 1 year compared to the first study in consideration of the current status of review
work.
2015 – 2016
Land acquisition / resettlement / relocation
2017 – 2019
Construction work
2020 – 2049
Placed in service / operation
5-5
5.2.3 Results of Preliminary Financial Analysis
(1) Traffic Volume and Toll Resistance (Reluctance)
1) Traffic Volume
Traffic volume estimated in the BINA MARGA FS is shown in Table 5-5. In this FS, the FS project target
section of 25.6km is divided into five sub-sections, and traffic volume in 2014, 2020 and 2025 is estimated.
When each of the project sections are averaged, the total traffic volume that is estimated to travel in the
northbound and southbound directions is 19,924 vehicles in 2014, 23,730 vehicles in 2020, and 31,184 vehicles
in 2025. In addition, since the unit in the table is vehicles, when it is multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to convert the
value to passenger car unit (pcu), the traffic volume in 2014 is 29,885 pcu, 35,595 pcu in 2020, and 49,776 pcu
in 2025.
In this additional study, the project section was changed from 25.6km to 40km.It was assumed that the traffic
volume in the extended section of 14.4km would be the same as the average traffic volume in the 25.6km
section. Furthermore, in this additional study, it was assumed that there would be long-distance traffic of 4,500
pcu/d (3,000 vehicles/d) using the Trans Sumatra Expressway on top of the above traffic.
Additionally, traffic volume is expected to grow after 2025 at a yearly rate of 6.5%, reaching saturation status of
approx. 100,000 pcu, and remaining constant after this, which is the same as in the first study.
Table 5-5 Estimated Traffic Volume
Unit: Vehicles/d
2014
Length
Sub-section 1
Sub-section 2
Sub-section 3
Sub-section 4
(Musi III)
Sub-section 5
Weighted
Average
pcu
(AVG×1.5)
Trans
Sumatra
Traffic
(Average
pcu)
2020
5.2
4.0
5.4
Northbound
11,694
9,051
9,136
Southbound
10,361
9,951
9,513
5.3
9,911
5.7
2025
22,055
19,002
18,649
Northbound
14,099
10,014
10,576
Southbound
12,267
10,905
10,140
26,366
20,919
20,716
Northbound
14,776
14,725
13,833
Southbound
13,514
13,073
14,657
28,290
27,798
28,490
10,812
20,723
13,486
13,163
26,649
20,971
19,788
40,759
9,716
9,374
19,090
11,412
12,028
23,440
20,178
18,653
38,831
-
9,932
9,992
19,924
11,992
11,738
23,730
17,054
16,129
33,184
-
14,898
14,988
29,885
17,989
17,607
35,595
25,582
24,194
49,776
-
-
-
4,500
-
-
8,996
-
-
12,326
Total
Total
Total
Source: Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalan dan Jembatan Musi III Palembang,
Average/PCU (×1.5) Prepared by Study Team
2) Toll Resistance
Traffic volume decreases when a toll is charged for driving on a road. A comparison of the traffic volume is
shown in Table 5-6 when a toll of 300 Rp, 600 Rp and 900 Rp is charged per kilometer, with the traffic volume
when no toll is charged set as 100%.
5-6
Table 5-6 Traffic Volume When No Toll Charged Compared with Different Toll Rates
Traffic Volume when No Toll Charged
300Rp/km
95.3%
600Rp/km
91.0%
900Rp/km
83.3%
(2)
Financial Feasibility
Furthermore, due to the fact that the various materials used as the source for calculation of the costs were
prepared in different years4, adjustments need to be made, taking into consideration the rate of price increase
(inflation rate) from the period when the study was performed to the period when the costs will be incurred. The
inflation rate (actual figures until 2012, estimates for 2013 and after) used to adjust the price level in each year
is shown in Table 5-7.On the alternative plan4, when a toll of 600 Rp is charged per kilometer, the cash flow for
finance analysis is shown in Table 5-8.
Table 5-7 Inflation Rate
Inflation Rate
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
8.3%
8.2%
8.1%
4.5%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Source: Figures for 2009 – 2012 from Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific (ADB), Prices in 2013 and After
Prepared by Study Team
4
Based on the 2010 study (2010 prices), land acquisition costs will be incurred in 2015–2016, and based on the 2014 study (2014
prices), bridge costs will be incurred in 2017–2018, and based on the 2009 study (2009 prices) road costs will be incurred in 2019.
5-7
Table 5-8 Cash Flow for Financial Analysis
〇Ci ty Tra f f i c V ol ume
(Kend/day)
2014
UP
DOWN
TOTAL
UP
10,361
22,055
14,099
SEC1
11,694
9,951
19,002
10,014
SEC2
9,051
9,513
18,649
10,576
SEC3
9,136
10,812
20,723
13,486
SEC4
9,911
AVG
9,948
10,159
20,107
12,044
14,922
15,239
30,161
18,066
PCU(AVGx1.5)
Souce　BINA　MARGA　FS ③　Figure　4.19-21 except AVG and PCU
〇Tra ns Sma tra Tra f f i c V ol ume
2009
AADT
3,000
PCU(AADTx1.5)
4,500
2020
5,997
8,996
〇 Ca s h F l ow a nd F i na nci a l R eturn
Trafic
Period
Year
Volume
(PCU/day)
Land Acquisition
2015
Land Acquisition
2016
Construction (Bridge)
2017
2018
Construction (Road)
2019
1
2020
43,680
2
2021
44,286
3
2022
44,892
4
2023
45,498
5
2024
46,104
6
2025
46,710
7
2026
49,746
8
2027
52,980
9
2028
56,423
10
2029
60,091
11
2030
63,997
12
2031
68,157
13
2032
72,587
14
2033
77,305
15
2034
82,330
16
2035
87,681
17
2036
93,380
18
2037
100,000
19
2038
100,000
20
2039
100,000
21
2040
100,000
22
2041
100,000
23
2042
100,000
24
2043
100,000
25
2044
100,000
26
2045
100,000
27
2046
100,000
28
2047
100,000
29
2048
100,000
30
2049
100,000
2020
DOWN
12,267
10,905
10,140
13,163
11,619
17,428
TOTAL
26,366
20,919
20,716
26,649
23,663
35,494
UP
14,776
14,725
13,833
20,971
16,076
24,114
2025
DOWN
13,514
13,073
14,657
19,788
15,258
22,887
TOTAL
26,366
20,919
20,716
26,649
23,663
35,494
2025
8,217
12,326
Cost (Rp. Million)
Const.
O&M
1,805,187
1,990,217
2,649,524
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
487,302
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
487,302
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
487,302
total
0
0
1,805,187
1,990,217
2,649,524
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
487,302
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
487,302
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
139,229
487,302
Revenue
(Rp.
Million)
658,088
667,217
676,346
685,475
694,604
703,734
749,476
798,192
850,075
905,330
964,176
1,026,847
1,093,593
1,164,676
1,240,380
1,321,005
1,406,870
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
1,506,602
VAT10%
65,809
66,722
67,635
68,548
69,460
70,373
74,948
79,819
85,007
90,533
96,418
102,685
109,359
116,468
124,038
132,100
140,687
150,660
150,660
150,660
150,660
150,660
150,660
150,660
150,660
150,660
150,660
150,660
150,660
150,660
FIRR
Cash Flow
(Rp. Million)
0
0
-1,805,187
-1,990,217
-2,649,524
453,050
461,266
469,482
477,699
485,915
494,131
535,300
579,144
625,838
327,495
728,529
784,934
845,004
908,979
977,113
1,049,675
1,126,954
1,216,712
1,216,712
868,640
1,216,712
1,216,712
1,216,712
1,216,712
1,216,712
1,216,712
1,216,712
1,216,712
1,216,712
868,640
9.1%
Table 5-9 shows the calculation results for the Financial Internal Rate of Return for the BINA MARGA BD
plan, alternative plan 1, alternative plan 2, alternative plan 3and alternative plan 4 with the price level converted
to 2020 when the bridge will be placed in service at the assumed toll charges of 300 Rp, 600 Rp and 900 Rp per
1km in 2010, taking into consideration the inflation rate from 2010 until the bridge is placed in service.
5-8
Table 5-9 Financial Internal Rate of Return
(Figures in parentheses are results of the First study)
Toll per 1km
(2010 Price)
300Rp/km
600Rp/km
900Rp/km
BINA MARGA
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
BD Plan
1
2
3
4
0.8%
2.8%
3.3%
2.1%
(4.1%)
（3.9%）
（4.4%）
（3.3%）
6.9%
9.2%
9.8%
8.4%
(9.6%)
(9.3%)
(10.0%)
(8.5%)
10.8%
13.4%
14.2%
12.5%
(12.8%)
(12.5%)
(13.3%)
(11.6%)
2.8％
9.1％
13.4％
The results of the calculated values in the additional study did not show significant changes for the most part
from the first study (However, regarding the BINA MARGA BD plan, the fact that the costs have increased
dramatically has been reflected, worsening the conditions).
When a toll of 300 Rp or 600 Rp is charged per kilometer in 2010,the FIRR for the BD plan or any of the
alternative plans does not reach the rate of return of 11 – 12% that is generally expected in Indonesia at any of
the toll charge levels, signifying that this project cannot be implemented with the Build, Operate and Transfer
(BOT) method as a pure private sector toll road project. In other words, it cannot be financially viable even
with the government participation covering the costs for land acquisition, resettlement and relocation. That is,
in order to achieve this project, in addition to the government covering the costs for land acquisition,
resettlement and relocation, financial support for the project by means of various subsidies, preferential tax
measures, low interest loans or other measures as required, which constitutes the same conclusion as reached in
the first study.
5.2.4 Results of Preliminary Economic Analysis
(1) Traffic Volume and Benefits
1) Vehicle Operating Cost Reduction Benefits
The cost for travel speed for each of the items that comprise vehicle travel cost according to the Bandung
Institute of Technology (LAPI ITB) referenced in the BINA MARGA FS is shown in Table 5-10.
5-9
Table 5-10 Vehicle Operating Costs for Each Travel Speed (2005)
Speed
(km/hr)
20
Fuel
Tires
Depreciation
3.3
Maintenance
Cost
116.4
(Unit: Rp/ Vehicle km)
Capital Insurance
Total
Interest
374.0
646.0
1,839.5
166.1
Engine
Oil
48.0
30
136.3
45.0
5.5
127.3
425.0
374.0
430.7
1,543.8
40
116.8
42.0
7.7
138.2
377.8
374.0
323.0
1,379.5
50
107.6
40.5
9.9
149.0
340.0
374.0
258.4
1,279.5
60
108.7
40.5
12.1
159.9
309.1
374.0
215.3
1,219.7
70
120.1
43.5
14.4
170.8
283.3
374.0
184.6
1,190.6
80
141.7
46.5
16.6
181.7
261.5
374.0
161.5
1,183.5
90
173.6
49.5
18.8
192.6
242.9
374.0
143.6
1,194.9
100
215.8
52.5
21.0
203.4
226.7
374.0
129.2
1,222.6
485.7
Source: Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalan dan Jembatan Musi III Palembang (LAPI ITB, 2005)
Based on the above figures, the vehicle travel cost for each vehicle type and travel speed in 2010 is shown in
Table 5-11, calculated using an inflation rate of 6%/y.
Table 5-11 Vehicle Operating Costs for Each Vehicle Type and Travel Speed (2010)
(Unit: Rp/Vehicle km)
speed
(km/hr)
20
Sedan
Truck
Bus
2,557
8,469
6,472
30
2,195
7,268
5,554
40
1,906
6,619
4,906
50
1,693
6,160
4,428
60
1,554
5,918
4,134
70
1,490
5,921
4,033
80
1,501
6,200
4,133
90
1,587
6,774
4,441
100
1,747
7,665
4,967
Source: Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalan dan Jembatan Musi III Palembang (Hasil Olahan Konsultan, 2010)
5-10
2) Travel Time Costs Saving Benefits
A list of the time reduction benefits per vehicle for each vehicle type in Indonesia is shown in Table 5-12. Item
1 - 7 in the table were referred to the BINA MARGA FS, and out of these, the values from the study in 1996 by
PT Jasa Marga and the values in the 1989 study by Pacific Consultants International were adjusted using the
inflation rate to calculate the travel time reduction benefit per vehicle in 2010. Item 8 - 10 in the table are the
travel time reduction benefits per vehicle for studies conducted recently.
When the results of these studies are compiled, the travel time reduction value per vehicle per hour is between
15,000Rp. /vehicle and 30,000Rp /vehicle hour (2010) and the BINA MARGA FS refers to the higher values
than average.
Table 5-12 Travel Time Saving Benefits
(Unit: Rp/ Vehicle / Hour (Values in parentheses indicate Rp/ Person / Hour))
Year of
survey
Motorcycle
○1. PT Jasa Marga
1996
-
12,287
18,534
13,768
2. Padalarang-Cieunyi
1996
-
3,385-5,425
3,827-3.834
5,716
3. Semarang
1996
-
3,411-6,221
14,541
1,506
4. IHCM
1995
-
3,281
18,212
4,971
5. PCI(original)
1979
-
1,341
3,827
3,152
1989
-
7,067
14,670
3,659
1991
-
8,880
7,960
7,980
○6. JIUTR northern
extension(PCI)
7.Surabaya-Mojokerto(JICA)
Sedan
Truck
Bus
8. Master Plan for the
2010
Arterial Road Network in
(7,519)
(2,730)
5
(2008)
Sumatra Island (KOICA)
9. Republic of Indonesia:
Regional Roads
2010
3,609
15,038
29,525
2,730
Development Project (ADB)
10. Pre-feasibility Study in
Urban Transport Project
2011
(2,032）
Palembang, Indonesia
(ADB/CDIA)6
Source: Item 1–7 are from Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalan dan Jembatan Musi III Palembang, Sources for
Item 8–10 is shown in the below notes.
3) Other Benefits
In the BINA MARGA FS, in addition to the benefits generated from vehicle operating cost reduction and travel
time saving, a scenario that took into consideration such benefits as increase in land price in the area (of bridge
5Excerpt
from Final Report, The Study on Arterial Road Network Development Plan For Sulawesi Island and
Feasibility Study on Priority Arterial Roads in South Sulawesi Province(2008)
6The GRDP per capita in Palembang City in 2009 (excluding petroleum and gas) was Rp. 25,918,220, the yearly
number of hours was 8,760 hours (365 x 24), and the GDP growth rate until 2011 was 7% (two years until 2011).
It was assumed that 20% of trips were for work with a time value of 100%, 80% of trips were for other than work
with a time value of 50%, resulting in calculation of a travel time reduction benefit in 2011 of Rp 2,032.45
(original source).
5-11
and road) being developed as external effects (externality), expansion of downtown area and stimulation of
economic activity was prepared (as well as a scenario that took none of these factors into consideration). The
below economic feasibility evaluation is based on the scenario taking these externalities into consideration.
(2) Economic Feasibility
Table 5-13 is a cash flow table of the alternative plan 2 (extradosed bridge) when a toll per 1 km of 600
Rp(2010 price).
Table 5-13 Cash Flow for Economic Analysis
〇Construction Cost
Rp. Million
@ each year
price
Land
733,355
Bridge
3,274,713
555,045
Road
Total
3,829,758
〇toll Resistance
Toll Resistance
Rp. Million
@ 2020
Price
1,261,272 *2010　Price (Source: Pekerjaan Studi Lelayakan Jaran dan Jembatan Musi III p8-1)
4,388,429 *2014 Price
954,602 *2010　Price (Source: Pekerjaan Studi Lelayakan Jaran dan Jembatan Musi III p8-1)
5,343,031
91.0%
〇 Cash Flow and Financial Return
Cost
Year
Land Acquisition
Land Acquisition
Construction (Road)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
(
Const.
2015
2016
2017 1,805,187
2018 1,990,217
2019 909,145
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
)
O&M
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
total
385,011
404,262
1,805,187
1,990,217
909,145
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
60,519
60,519
60,519
60,519
121,038
Benefit
VOC ( TTC ) Externalit
Saiving
Saving
y
538,539
573,765
617,373
664,263
707,702
608,994
655,179
697,937
750,958
807,918
1,072,040
1,142,031
1,216,549
1,295,998
1,380,631
1,473,200
1,574,939
1,683,564
1,799,754
1,923,885
2,059,134
2,193,680
2,336,860
2,489,519
2,652,006
2,826,705
3,011,246
3,207,946
3,417,391
3,640,527
124,568
132,740
142,819
153,657
163,697
140,866
151,551
161,442
173,707
186,883
247,977
264,166
281,402
299,778
319,353
340,765
364,296
389,422
416,298
445,011
476,298
507,423
540,545
575,862
613,452
653,868
696,561
742,061
790,510
842,126
63,156
59,845
64,393
69,283
64,622
55,608
59,826
54,656
58,809
63,269
83,953
89,434
95,270
101,491
108,119
115,368
123,335
131,842
140,941
150,662
161,253
171,790
183,003
194,958
207,683
221,364
235,816
251,220
267,623
285,098
Benefit Toll Resistance Considered
(
)
TTC
Externalit
Total
VOC
Saiving
490,070
522,126
561,809
604,479
644,009
554,184
596,213
635,123
683,372
735,206
975,556
1,039,249
1,107,059
1,179,358
1,256,375
1,340,612
1,433,195
1,532,043
1,637,776
1,750,735
1,873,812
1,996,249
2,126,543
2,265,462
2,413,325
2,572,302
2,740,234
2,919,231
3,109,826
3,312,880
5-12
Saving
113,357
120,793
129,965
139,828
148,964
128,188
137,911
146,912
158,073
170,064
225,659
240,391
256,076
272,798
290,612
310,096
331,510
354,374
378,831
404,960
433,431
461,755
491,896
524,034
558,241
595,019
633,870
675,276
719,364
766,335
y
57,472
54,459
58,597
63,047
58,806
50,604
54,441
49,737
53,516
57,575
76,397
81,385
86,695
92,357
98,388
104,985
112,235
119,976
128,256
137,102
146,741
156,329
166,533
177,412
188,992
201,442
214,593
228,611
243,537
259,439
B-C
Benefit
0
0
0
0
0
660,899
697,379
750,372
807,354
851,779
732,976
788,565
831,772
894,961
962,845
1,277,613
1,361,025
1,449,831
1,544,514
1,645,374
1,755,693
1,876,940
2,006,393
2,144,863
2,292,797
2,453,984
2,614,333
2,784,972
2,966,908
3,160,558
3,368,763
3,588,697
3,823,118
4,072,727
4,338,654
EIRR=
-385,011
-404,262
-1,805,187
-1,990,217
-909,145
600,380
636,860
689,853
746,835
730,741
672,457
728,047
771,253
834,442
841,807
1,217,094
1,300,506
1,389,312
1,483,995
1,524,337
1,695,175
1,816,421
1,945,874
2,084,344
2,171,759
2,393,465
2,553,814
2,724,453
2,906,389
3,039,521
3,308,244
3,528,178
3,762,599
4,012,208
4,217,617
14.3%
Table 5-14 shows the EIRR for the scenario that the said project is implemented as a free road or a toll road
(with toll charges of 300Rp/km, 600Rp/km and 900Rp/km) for t BINA MARGA FS, alternative plan 1, 2, 3 and
4.
The evaluation is based on rear terms. AS the BINA MARGA FS is based on the year 2010 price, the other
alternatives are also evaluated based on the 2010 price.
The EIRR of all alternative plans exceeds the opportunity cost of capital in Indonesia (about 13 – 15%).In all
alternative plans, the alternative plan 2 only covers the yen loan standard that exceeds the hurdle rate of around
15%. However, the project is construction of freeway included new bridge, Therefore, each alternative plan is
economically feasible because the EIRR is the more than capital opportunity cost for necessary to low
calculated value. However, for the economic analysis on BINA MARGA FS, the traffic demand did not include
traffic volume of Trans Sumatra Expressway and based on the traffic volume before the year 2010.
Free
300 Rp./km
600 Rp./km
900 Rp./km
BINA MARGA
BD
13.0%
12.6%
12.2%
11.4%
Table 5-14 Economic Internal Rate of Return
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
1
2
3
15.3%
15.9%
14.5%
14.8%
15.4%
14.0%
14.3%
15.0%
13.6%
13.5%
14.1%
12.8%
Alternative Plan
4
15.2%
14.7%
14.3%
13.4%
The net present value in which scenario the discount ratio is 4.5%7 is shown in Table 5-15, and the cost benefit
ratio discounted is shown in Table-5-16.
Table 5-15 Net Present Value
(Unit: billion Rp, Values in parentheses are 100 million yen)
BINA MARGA
Alternative Plan
Alternative Plan
BD
1
2
Free
15,517
16,874
17,194
300Rp/km
14,460
15,816
16,137
600Rp/km
13,492
14,849
15,169
900Rp/km
11,760
13,116
13,437
Note: Converted at Rp = ¥0.008519
7
Alternative Plan
3
16,456
15,399
14,431
12,699
Alternative Plan
4
16,843
15,785
14,818
13,086
The discount ratio is subtracted 5% of inflation rate from Interest rate of Government bonds in 30 years that is
9.5%
5-13
BINA MARGA BD
Free
300Rp/km
600Rp/km
900Rp/km
3.22
3.07
2.93
2.68
Table 5-16 Cost-Benefit Ratio
Alternative
Alternative
Plan 1
Plan 2
4.00
4.24
3.81
4.04
3.64
3.86
3.33
3.53
Alternative
Plan 3
3.72
3.55
3.39
3.10
Alternative
Plan 4
3.98
3.79
3.62
3.31
5.2.5 Considerations
(1) Outline
The results of a preliminary financial and economic analysis indicate that this project could be developed as a
toll road requiring participation by private sector in addition to the possibility of development as a free public
project. (It has not been determined whether or not a toll will be charged for the bridge/road developed under
this project), but in the BINA MARGA FS, as well recommended that the project be developed as a toll road
since the costs of project is huge.
When the road is free from charge, the government will arrange the financing to cover cost of such venture
(government funds, ODA), developing the road and performing operation and maintenance in a conventional
manner. When the road is developed as a toll road, the utilization of private sector funds and operation and
maintenance knowhow will reduce the financial burden on the government, and enable operation and
maintenance with a high level quality performance. A number of toll road projects utilizing the private sector
are currently in progress in Indonesia. While a number of challenges have been identified, development of the
legal system related to utilization of the private sector has made progress in recent years, and actions are taken
for a number of potential projects that utilize the private sector to develop toll roads.
Figure 5-1 Operation Format for Toll Road Development Projects, Project System and Arrangement of Financing
Operation Format
Project System
Arrangement of Financing
Free Road
Public Project
(Conventional)
Government Funds, ODA
Toll Road
Project Utilizig
Private Sector
Government Funds, ODA,
Private Sector Funds
* Scheme separately Reviewed * Combination to be separately Reviewed
The legal system and guidelines established by the Indonesian government for the method used for the
development of roads utilizing the private sector are shown in Figure 5-2.
Three project schemes are prescribed as the “Project Schemes for Toll Roads”: BOT, DBO/DBL and PPP. These
5-14
project schemes are decided by combination of EIRR with FIRR. With these project schemes, the project target
is divided into site acquisition, construction and operation and maintenance, classified by the differences in the
combination of roll division among the government and private sector companies, with the appropriate scheme
selected in consideration of the financial characteristics of the target project
Figure 5-2Projects Utilizing Private Sector in Indonesia
BUSINESS SCHEME OF TOLL ROAD
(Article 43 (2) Law 38/2004 Concerning Road and Article 19‐23 Government Regulation 15/2005 Concerning Toll Road)
On Going
Feasible to be built if EIRR value is
positive
1) BOT : FIRR (+)
a+b+c : Private Company
• Link : 20 Link
• Length : 736.62 km
• Investment :
U$. 7,074.31 M
EIRR TOLL ROAD (+)
c
b
a
a
b
c
: Land Acquisition
: Construction
: Operation and Maintenance
2) DBO/DBL : FIRR (-)
a+b
: Government
c
: Private Company
3) PPP : FIRR (Marginal)
a+b
: Government
b+c
: Private Company
• Link : 1 Link
• Length : 9.48 km
• Investment :
U$. 262.71 M
• Link: 2 Link
• Length : 179.00
km
• Investment :
U$. 902.83 M
Example:
Case 1: BOT for Toll Road Commonly
Case 2: Akses Tanjung Priok
Case 3: PPP Solo – Kertosono Toll Road
Source: TOLL ROAD INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN INDONESIA, BPJT, MPW
When this scheme is applied to this project, a judgment can be made that concludes development using PPP
will become viable since the EIRR for this project is at an adequate level, and the FIRR is on the borderline. In
case this project is developed as a PPP project, the government will be responsible for site acquisition whereas
private companies will have a primary responsibility for O&M. Roles will be divided among the government
and private companies for construction, based on cooperation among the parties. (Refer to Figure 5-3)
5-15
Figure 5-3 Comparison of Road Project Format and Division of Roles among Government and Private Sector
Public Project
Free
Format
Format
Government
O＆M
Civil Engineering
Arrangem
ent of Financing
PPP Project (Sample)
Government
Funds
Bridge
Government
Funds
BOT Project
Toll (All revenue to be received by private sector)
O＆M
Elevated
Government
Funds
Private Sector
Civil Engineering
Bridge
Private-Sector Private-Sector
Funds
Arrangem
Funds
ent of Financing
Site
Government Funds
Site
Government Funds
Format
Toll (All revenue to be received by private sector)
O＆M
Private Sector
Civil Engineering
Private-Sector
Funds
Arrangem
ent of Financing
Bridge
Government
Funds
Elevated
Private-Sector
Funds
Elevated
Private-Sector
Funds
Site
Government Funds
2
Although there are fewer cases in which road projects have been developed using PPP compared to cases in
which development has been performed using BOT, in addition to many project candidates on the PPP project
list such as the Palembang –Indralaya Toll Road which is adjacent to this project, there are cases in which
project work has been started on such as the Solo –Kertosono Toll Road. This project scan be developed as PPP
project based on the assumption that supports of the government can be rendered as appropriate.
(2) Review in Event This Project Becomes Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
1) Kayu Agung– Palembang – Betung Toll Road
The Kayu Agung– Palembang – Betung Toll Road is being planned as a part of the Sumatra Island Toll Road
Plan, and will become part of the Trans Sumatra Eastern Expressway. According to the fiscal 2013 PPP Book,
the project cost for the total length of 111.69km that includes the Musi River and eight bridges, 17 flyovers and
10 interchanges is 836.15 million U.S. dollars. According to a social cost-benefit analysis of this project, the
economic internal rate of return is 28.96%, but the financial internal rate of return has not been announced.
It is expected that the project structure will consist of PPP proposed by the private sector firm PT. Sriwijaya
Markmore Persada, with the time schedule shown below. Due to the fact that the PPP law in Indonesia prohibits
financial support by the government for PPP projects proposed by private sector firms, the only support that can
be obtained from the government will be in the form of government guarantees and land acquisition.
Figure 5-4KayuAgung– Palembang – Betung Toll Road Schedule
Source: PPP Book 2013
5-16
2) Alignment and Traffic Volume when This Project is Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
A review was conducted, using the dotted blue line in Fig. 5-2 as the alignment when this project is a part of the
Trans Sumatra Expressway. The solid red line in the diagram is the alignment for the Kayu Agung – Palembang
– Betung Toll Road (main plan), and the dotted red line is the ring road 40km section reviewed in section 5.3.1
– 5.3.2. The solid blue line in the diagram is the alternative plan for the Kayu Agung – Palembang – Betung
Toll Road, the solid purple line is the ring road that complements this road, and the enclosed circular portion
that is colored yellow is the point where the Musi River is crossed (Musi III Bridge).
In addition, Table 5-17 shows the rough expectations for traffic volume when this project is developed as part
of the Trans Sumatra Expressway. The traffic volume on the Trans Sumatra Expressway was calculated based
on the traffic volume study conducted in 2009 in order to prepare the “Trans Sumatra Master Plan”, with the
yearly increase in traffic volume assumed to be 6.5% until 2020. The target section is approximately 110km
long, going north from Kayu Agung to Palembang City, going through Palembang City on the north side, and
ending in Betung (section from Palembang City to Betung is not shown in the diagram).
Table 5-17 Expected Traffic Volume When This Project is Implemented as Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
Length
(km)
Kayu Agung – Palembang City
Palembang City
Palembang City – Betung
25
40
45
Traffic Volume (2020)
Trans Sumatra
Palembang City
11,000
11,000
24,000
19,000
-
Total
11,000
35,000
19,000
Figure 5-5 Alignment of Trans Sumatra Expressway
Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on Current Progress on High Grade Highway Eastern Corridor of Sumatra
2013 Bina Marga
5-17
3) Cost and Financial Soundness When This Project is Implemented as Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
Table 5-18 shows an evaluation of the costs at 2014 prices when this project is implemented as part of the
Trans Sumatra Expressway. Out of the total cost of 9.262 trillion Rp., the cost of the bridge is 3.555trillion Rp.,
and the cost of the road is 5.707 trillion Rp. The Study Team moved the point where the Musi III Bridge
crosses the river to the east and recalculated the figures (Refer to Figure 5-2). For the road costs, the toll road
standard referred to in the “Trans Sumatra Master Plan” was used, but the construction costs for small
structures etc. other than interchanges and the Musi III Bridge are not included.
Table 5-18 Costs When This Project is Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway
Unit: 1 billion Rp (Unit for figures in parentheses is 100 million yen)
Cost (2014 Prices)
Bridge (Extradosed Bridge)
3,555 (310)
Road
5,707 (499)
Total
9,262 (809)
Notes: 1Rp = 0.008741 yen (Foreign exchange rate as of January 20, 2014)
Table 5-19 shows the cash flow when this project is a part of the Trans Sumatra Expressway, with a toll charge
per 1km of 600Rp./km at 2010 prices (1,032 Rp./km at 2020 prices). The total section length is 110km, it was
assumed that the yearly rate of increase in traffic volume will be 6.5%, and that each section would reach
saturation at 100,000 pcu as shown in Table 5-17.
The financial internal rate of return when this project is part of the Trans Sumatra Expressway is approximately
11.9%, meaning that the project lacks financial soundness as a BOT project without government support.
Therefore, BOT scheme has low possibility of implementation for the project.
5-18
Table 5-19 Cash Flow Used for Financial Analysis (When Project is Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway)
〇Cons tructi on Cos t
Rp. Million
@ each
year price
Bridge
3,274,713
Road
4,106,300
Total
Rp. Million
@ 2020
Price
4,388,429 *2014 Price
7,648,451 *2009 Price, Rp. 37.33 billion /km (Source: MARS Chapter 9 p16) ×110km
12,036,879
〇O&M Cos t
Rp. million
240,738 2% of construction Cost in every year
601,844 5% of Periodec Cost in 10 years
Daily
Periodic
〇Tra f f i c i ncrea s e a nd Decrea s e
YearlyTraffic Increase
6.5%
Toll Resistance
91.0%
〇Ci ty Tra f f i c V ol ume
(Kend/day)
2014
DOWN
2020
DOWN
UP
TOTAL
UP
SEC1
SEC2
SEC3
AVG
PCU(AVGx1.5)
Souce　BINA　MARGA　FS and Trans Smatra master Plan except AVG and PCU
TOTAL
11,000
35,000
19,000
23,000
34,500
UP
2025
DOWN
TOTAL
15,071
47,953
26,032
31,512
47,268
〇Tol l
Toll/110km@2020price
Toll/km @2010 price
Toll/km @2020 price
Rp.
113,511
600
1032
〇 Ca s h F l ow a nd F i na nci a l R eturn
Period
Land Acquisition
Land Acquisition
Construction (Road)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
SEC1
SEC2
SEC3
Trafic
Volume
Const.
Cost (Rp. Million)
O&M
total
3,610,371
1,990,217
7,284,239
10,010
10,751
11,492
12,233
12,974
13,715
14,606
15,555
16,567
17,643
18,790
20,012
21,312
22,698
24,173
25,744
27,417
29,200
31,098
33,119
35,272
37,564
40,006
42,606
45,376
48,325
51,466
54,812
58,374
62,169
31,850
34,207
36,565
38,922
41,280
43,637
46,474
49,494
52,712
56,138
59,787
63,673
67,812
72,219
76,914
81,913
87,237
92,908
98,947
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
17,290
18,570
19,850
21,129
22,409
23,689
25,229
26,868
28,615
30,475
32,456
34,565
36,812
39,205
41,753
44,467
47,357
50,436
53,714
57,205
60,924
64,884
69,101
73,593
78,376
83,471
88,897
94,675
100,000
100,000
31,395
33,719
36,043
38,366
40,690
43,014
45,810
48,787
51,959
55,336
58,933
62,763
66,843
71,188
75,815
80,743
85,991
91,581
97,533
100,939
103,955
107,167
110,587
114,230
118,109
122,241
126,641
131,327
135,809
137,103
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
842,582
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
842,582
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
842,582
FIRR
5-19
0
0
3,610,371
1,990,217
7,284,239
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
842,582
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
842,582
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
240,738
842,582
11.9%
Revenue
Cash Flow
VAT10%
(Rp. Million)
(Rp.
0
0
-3,610,371
-1,990,217
-7,284,239
1,300,743 130,074
929,931
1,397,021 139,702
1,016,581
1,493,298 149,330
1,103,231
1,589,576 158,958
1,189,881
1,685,854 168,585
1,276,531
1,782,131 178,213
1,363,180
1,897,970 189,797
1,467,435
2,021,338 202,134
1,578,466
2,152,725 215,272
1,696,715
2,292,652 229,265
1,220,805
2,441,674 244,167
1,956,769
2,600,383 260,038
2,099,607
2,769,408 276,941
2,251,729
2,949,419 294,942
2,413,740
3,141,132 314,113
2,586,281
3,345,305 334,531
2,770,037
3,562,750 356,275
2,965,737
3,794,329 379,433
3,174,158
4,040,960 404,096
3,396,127
4,182,074 418,207
2,921,285
4,307,015 430,701
3,635,576
4,440,077 444,008
3,755,332
4,581,789 458,179
3,882,872
4,732,711 473,271
4,018,703
4,893,444 489,344
4,163,362
5,064,624 506,462
4,317,424
5,246,931 524,693
4,481,500
5,441,088 544,109
4,656,241
5,626,797 562,680
4,823,380
5,680,390 568,039
4,269,769
Chapter 6
Planned Project Schedule
6.1 Planned Project Schedule
The projected implementation schedule for this project, at this point in time, is set out as follows. There are two
possible scenarios of implementation under consideration. The first is an implementation as a public work project
and the second is a PPP structured project.
Should the project be implemented as a PPP project, a more detailed and precise PPP feasibility study in addition
to the BINA MARGA FS will be necessary. (Refer to Table 6-1 and Table 6-2)
Table 6-1 Implementation as a Public Work Project
6-1
Table 6-2 Implementation as a PPP Project
6-2
Chapter 7
Capabilities of Implementation
Organizations in Host Country
7.1 Overview of the Project Implementation Organization
It is envisioned that yen loans will be utilized in the national road construction plan for this project, and that BINA
MARGAin the central government will be the implementation organization. BINA MARGA implemented FS and
BD with Indonesian funds. In accordance with the results of that FS, the project has been listedon the “Blue Book
2011 – 2014” by BAPPENAS, classified as a loan priority project requiring overseas support.
Local governments of South Sumatra Provinceand Palembang City in the project area has designated the
construction of a bridge crossing the Musi River, including a ring road on the east side of Palembang City, as a
priority project indispensable for growth in the region. Work is in progress on land use plans and urban
development plans with the assumption that this project be implemented.
7.2 Organization Structure for Project Implementation
At BINA MARGA, which is the implementation organization for this project, the Directorate of Program (BINA
PROGRAM) and Directorate of Technical Affairs (BINA TEKNIKA) are in charge of study, design and other
matters until construction is started, and the BINA MARGA Directorate of Implementation South Sumatra
Province sub-directorate (Region ID) is in charge of construction management. An organization chart of BINA
MARGA is shown in Figure 7-1. Under the coordinated responsibilities by BINA MARGA, land acquisition /
resident resettlement in the target area will be coordinated and implemented by South Sumatra BAPPEDA and
Palembang City BAPPEDA (Refer to Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3). Furthermore, the utilization of private sector
financing through conversion into a toll road and other measures are being considered in addition to yen loans in
order to reduce the financial burden on the Indonesian government. Besides, several directors and sub directors of
each department of BINA MARGA changed in 2013.
7-1
Figure 7-1 BINA MARGA Organization Chart
Ministry of
Public Works
Directorate
General of
Highways
Secretary of
Directorate
General
Directorate of
Program
Directorate of
Technical
Affairs
Directorate of
Implementation
for Region I
Directorate of
Implementation
for Region II
Directorate of
Implementation
for Region III
Sub-directorate
of Policy and
Strategy
Sub-directorate
of Road
Technical
Affairs
Sub-directorate
of Controlling
System of
Region I
Sub-directorate
of Controlling
System of
Region II
Sub-directorate
of Controlling
System of
Region III
Sub-directorate
of Programming
and Budgeting
Sub-directorate
of Bridge
Technical
Affairs
Sub-directorate
of Region I A
Sub-directorate
of Region II A
Sub-directorate
of Region III A
Sub-directorate
of Financing
and Foreign
Cooperation
Sub-directorate
of Environment
& Road Safety
Technical
Affairs
Sub-directorate
of Region I B
Sub-directorate
of Region II B
Sub-directorate
of Region III B
Sub-directorate
of System
Development &
Performance
Evaluation
Sub-directorate
of Freeways &
Urban Road
Technical
Affairs
Sub-directorate
of Region I C
Sub-directorate
of Region II C
Sub-directorate
of Region III C
Sub-directorate
of Information
&
Communication
Sub-directorate
of Land
Acquisition
Sub-directorate
of Region I D
Sub-directorate
of Region II D
Sub-directorate
of Region III D
Source: BINA MARGA
7-2
Figure 7-2 South Sumatra BAPPEDA Organization Chart
Head of BAPPEDA
Secretary
Head of Economic
Sub Head of
General
Sub Head of
Officer
Sub Head of
Field Program
and Information
Division of Field
Program Data
and Information
Division of
Economic
Division of Social
and Culture
Division of Field
Facilities and
Infrastructure
Division of Field
Development and
Evaluation
Sub-division of
SME &
Agribusiness
Sub-division of
Human Resources
Sub-division of
Transportation and
Highways
Sub-division of
Development
Control
Sub-division of
Program
Sub-division of
Industrial and
SDA
Sub Division of
Welfare and
Culture
Sub-division of
Water and Human
Settlements
Sub-division of
Development
Evaluation
Sub-division of
Data And
Information
Spatial UPTB
Source: South Sumatra Province BAPPEDA
7-3
Figure 7-3Palembang City BAPPEDA Organization Chart
Head OF
BAPPEDA
Secretary
Sub Head of
General
Head of Data
Collection,
Monitering,
Evaluation
and Reporting
Sub-head of
Area
Monitering,
Evaluation
and
Reporting
Sub-head of
Field Data
Collection
Head of
Planning ,
Program and
Budget
Sub-head of
Area
Planning
Program
Sub-head of
Area
Planning
Budget
Sub Head of
Financial
Subpart
Head of
Strategic
Planning and
Spatial
Sub-head of
Field Spatial
Sub-head of
Strategic
Planning
Area
Source: Palembang CityBAPPEDA
7-4
Sub Head of
Human
Resources
Head of
Reserch and
Development
Cooperation
Sub-head of
Development
Cooperation
Sub-head of
Research
Chapter 8
Technical Advantages of Japanese
Companies
8.1 International Competitiveness of Japanese Companies for the Project
and Possibility of Securing Orders
8.1.1 Project Features
The location for this project is approx. 5km downstream from the Ampera Bridge over the Musi River that flows
through the center of Palembang City. Currently, there are only two bridges that cross the Musi River, the Ampera
Bridge and Musi II Bridge, aging has taken place on both bridges, and there is a high volume of traffic. Therefore,
a new bridge to cross the Musi River needs to be constructed as soon as possible. Since this project is located at
Boom Baru Port which is a main navigation channel, the span length of the main bridge which satisfies the
prescribed regulations (channel width, and height) for the bridge is 270m.
A steel / PC compound extradosed bridge was adopted as the bridge type for the main bridge due to the fact that it
satisfies the above conditions and is superior in terms of economy and ease of maintenance and management. This
steel / PC compound extradosed bridge consists of five continuous spans, with the longest span measuring 270m,
making it the same scale of bridge as the largest scale steel / PC compound extradosed bridges in Japan.
A steel sheet pipe pile foundation was selected as the type of foundation due to the fact the main tower
foundations for the extradosed bridge will be in the river, the load will be large in scale, and because of the
superior performance in terms of ease of construction and economy. The foundation for the bridge piers at both
ends of the extradosed bridge will be in the river, but a pile foundation was selected as the most preferable type
since the load is small in scale, and its greater advantage in pile driving economy at site.
Due to the fact that all construction work for the approach bridge will be performed on land, a T girder bridge with
continuous spans of 40m was selected for its superior economic efficiency and workability in construction. A
cast-in-place pile foundation was selected for the foundation work since all work will be performed on land and
the scale of bridge is smaller compared to the main bridge. Simultaneous construction work at multiple locations
will be required for the approach bridge since there are many foundations for the multiple spans. It must be noted
that the contractor for this project needs to have construction capabilities related to quality of work, processes and
safety, as well as logistic expertise including material procurement capabilities for large-scale construction work.
8.1.2 Potential for Japanese Companies / Contractors to Participate in International Bidding
As explained above, during the design and construction process for the steel / PC compound extradosed bridge
consisting of five continuous spans which is planned for this project, an extremely advanced level of technology,
materials, construction equipment and construction experience will be required.
Many extradosed bridges have been constructed in Japan, and Japan can be considered a world leader in design
and construction in this field.
Furthermore, the steel sheet pile pipe foundation construction method, ALiCC (Arch-action Low Improvement
ratio Cement Column) method used for soil stabilization of soft ground and other such construction methods are
unique to Japan.
8-1
These technologies proviide Japanese corporations with extremeely high oppoortunity of participating to the project.
8.1.3 Japannese Technoloogy
(1) Extraadosed Bridgee
When it is
i applied Exxstradosed Brridge such as alternative plan
p
2 or 3if the project rroute is changed and shipp
route widdth is more narrow
n
than the
t existing plan,
p
it becom
me to be moore suitable tto advantageo
ous Japanesee
technologgies.
d in Japan, deemonstrating extremely ad
dvanced levell
To date (22010), 44 Exttradosed bridges have been constructed
of experieence in technoology, materiials, constructtion machineery and constrruction processes know ho
ow. The trackk
record of Hybrid Extraadosed bridgee does exist only
o
in Japan.
1) Featuure of Extradoosed Bridge
x
It is more econnomical than a cable stayedd bridge when
n the span is 200m or less.
x
It is possible too construct sppan longer thaan a girder bridge
x
maller than thaat of a cable stayed
s
bridge
Thhe stress flucttuation of thee cables is sm
x
It create a beauutiful scenic
Figure 8-1 Phhoto of Extraadosed Bridgee
Source: Macctan II Bridgee, Philippiness
2) Trackk Record for Extradosed
E
B
Bridges
x
Too date, 150 Extradosed Brridges have been constructted in Japan, giving it an extremely ad
dvanced levell
off experience in technologgy, materials, construction
n machining and construcction processses (Refer too
Taable 8-1).
x
Thhe Japan Prestressed
P
C
Concrete
Innstitute published “Desiign/Constructtion Standarrds for PC
C
Caable-Stayed / Extradosed Bridges”
B
in 2009.
2
8-2
Table 8-1 Track Record for Major Extradosed Bridges
Bridge Name
Kiso River
Bridge
Ibi River
Bridge
Tokunoyama
Hattoku
Bridge
Sannobe
Bokyo Bridge
Max. Span
Completed
Location
Bridge Name
Max. Span
Completed
Location
275m
2001
Mie
Prefecture
Mie
Prefecture
Japan Palau Friendship
Bridge*
247
2001
Palau
271m
2001
MactanII Bridge
185
1999
Philippines
220m
2006
Gifu
Prefecture
Hadase Bridge*
145
20088
Ethiopia
200m
2005
Aomori
Prefecture
Rades – La Goulette
Bridge
120
2009
Tunisia
(2) Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Well Foundation
Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Well Foundation that doubles as temporary cofferdam is excellent Japanese Technical
Advantage. It is high competitive construction technique of soft foundation and in the river channel such as the
project site. The technique has a great deal of overseas construction experiences such as Philippines and Viet
Nam in addition to Japanese domestic experiences. (Refer to Figure 8-2)
Figure 8-2 Structure of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Well Foundation
<Feature of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Well Foundation>
¾
High bearing capacity
¾
Available also for temporary cofferdam
¾
Custom fit for structure
¾
Large depth, soft ground
¾
Convenient joint with super structure
¾
High earthquake resistance
Source: Japanese Association for Steel Pipe Piles
(3) ALiCC Method
When roads are built in Japan, high embankments are often constructed on ground which contains very deep
soft soil layers. Serious subsidence is likely to occur to those roads and affect the surrounding houses or farm
land. As a solution, deep-mixing soil stabilization, a technique to inject cement into the ground and agitate it to
form cement piles and build the foundation for the embankment above the ground, is often used to improve the
soil. But the conventional procedure, which constructs cement piles mainly on the slope of the embankment,
requires a wide area or a greater volume for improvement, and therefore is very costly. Considering these
circumstances, the team developed ALICC, a new soil improvement method that features the use of the arch
effect to realize a reduction in area or volume for improvement. Incorporation of the arch effect into the design
allows for improvement of the ground entirely under the embankment at an equal interval. Reduction in cost
and construction period is thus realized by reducing the area or volume for improvement.
8-3
Figure8-3 Image of ALiCC
Soft Ground
Banking
Cement
Column
Banking Layer
Source: Pubic works research institute of Japan
8.2 Contents and Values of Major Materials and Equipment Expected to
be Procured from Japan
8.2.1 Content of Materials/Equipment Procured from Japan
In consideration of durability, resistance to corrosion and other quality factors, an assumption is made that the
steel pipe and other steel materials used for the PC steel and steel pipe sheet pile foundation will be procured from
Japan. In addition, it is expected that the cable used for the cable-stayed bridge as well as Japanese relevant to the
cable hereof will be used for the construction processes (Refer to Table 8-2).
Table 8-2 List of Materials/Equipment Procured from Japan
Cost
Item
(Thousand Yen)
Material Expenses 1
Material Expenses 2
PC steel
781,000
Shoes
291,000
Expansion joint
150,000
Rebar
591,000
Cement
406,000
Sub-total
2,219,000
Cable
1,320,000
Steel pipe
2,920,000
Sub-total
4,240,000
Total
6,459,000
8-4
8.2.2 Calculation of Japanese Technology Costs
In addition to the costs for the procurement of materials, equipment and services from Japan, it is expected that
The fees required for engineering and construction of the cables for the main bridge section (planning of
temporary materials, design, management by Japanese engineers, etc.) constitutes an integral part of adoption of
Japanese technology. These technology Costs and fees are estimated to amount to 40% of the construction costs as
shown in the table below (Refer to Table 8-3).
Table 8-3 Cost of Materials, Equipment and Services Procured from Japan
Cost
(Thousand Yen)
Item
Material cost1
2,219,000
Total of material expenses ① in Table 8-3
Cable installation cost
2,200,000
Steel pipe sheet pile
foundation cost
4,880,000
Engineering cost2
2,590,000
Cable-stay cable for main bridge (including
material cost)
Steel pipe sheet pile foundation for main bridge
(including material cost)
Assumed to be 10% of construction costs (7% for
general administration + 3% for site management)
Japanese
Technology
Cost
Remarks
Total (①)
Construction costs (②)
Japanese technology cost ratio
11,889,000
25,900,000
40%
>30% ①／②
8.3 Measures to Assist Japanese Corporations to Win Contract
Japanese technologies that can be expected to be utilized in this project consist of the advanced design,
construction technology and other expertise based on the experience gained in the design& construction of steel /
PC compound extradosed bridges and in the construction of large-scale foundations on soft ground. Other
technology that can be expected to be used consists of the expertise to design, produce and construct steel pipe
sheet pile foundations. Furthermore, as detailed studies and planning proceed in the future, the ALiCC
construction method that is used on soft ground is a Japanese technology that can be expected to be adopted. In
addition, due to the fact that the main bridge which will be a steel / PC compound extradosed bridge has diagonal
cables and main towers, it has a very attractive appearance, and it can be expected to function as a new landmark
in Palembang City.
This project involves the construction of a third bridge to cross the Musi River that divides Palembang City in a
north-south direction. Due to the fact that this project will alleviate traffic congestion, create smooth distribution
of the distribution of goods, accelerate implementing the rehabilitation work on existing bridges and other work, it
has a high level of importance. In addition, the bridge is expected to carry a large number of heavy vehicles.
Therefore, required quality of the whole structure thereof and requisite performance for the long term stability of
1
Material costs in above table do not include cost of cable-stay cable. These are included in the respective
construction costs.
2
engineering costs include the allocation of 7% of the construction costs for general administration and 3% of the
construction costs for the salaries for Japanese engineers and other workers for site management.
8-5
the shoes on the main bridge, expansion joints and other such portions, as well as the foundation shall be of high
standard. Moreover, since the steel / PC compound extradosed bridge with the span of 270m planned for the main
bridge is one of the longest in the world for the same type of bridge, an advanced quality standard for materials,
design technology, construction technology and management expertise are all essential elements.
Participation by Japanese companies that have the licensing, material supply, construction technology and other
capabilities due to the fact this type of structure and technology has evolved in Japan will become inevitable
indispensable, and this will build crystal clear merit and advantage enabling Japanese corporations for
participating to this project with greater chances of serving to the project.
So as to ensure good award of contract, efforts must be made by appealing advantages and necessity of employing
those proven technologies in structural design and engineering to the implementing organizations.
8-6
<APPENDIX>
Appendix 3.1
Boring Survey Data by BINA MARGA BD
Figure 1
Boring Survey Points by BINA MARGA BD
DR23
DR24
DR25
DR27A
DR29A
DR26A
DR28A
DR30
DR31
DR31A
Source: Prepared by Study Team based on BINA MARGA BD
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.50
5.60
5.70
5.80
5.90
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.50
8.60
8.70
8.80
8.90
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
9.80
9.90
10.00
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
11.50
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.50
14.60
14.70
14.80
14.90
15.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9671210.208
: 481442.5535
NOTE :
Pasir Lanauan Sedikit Lempung, Coklat Tua, Lembek
Pasir Lanauan, Abu-abu Kehitaman, Sangat Lembek
Lanau Pasiran, Abu-abu Kehitaman, Sangat Lembek
Lanau Pasiran, Coklat Tua, Sangat Lembek
Lanau Pasiran, Abu-abu Kecoklatan, Sangat Lembek
ROCK AND SOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Y
X
Palembang
Depth (m)
:
1/15
-
-
-
N1
1/15
-
-
-
N2
1/15
-
-
-
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
GRAPHIC LOG
:
N - Value
2
>2
>2
>2
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
GEOLOGICAL TERM
DEPTH RL
TYPE
= Internal friction angle, deg
ĳº
eo =
Gs =
= Cohesion intercept, kg/cm²
=
=
=
=
40
= Unconfined compression strength, kg/cm²
20
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Plastic lndex (PI), %
Liquid Limit (LL), %
Plastic Limit (PL), %
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
c
= Consolidation Undrained
= Consolidated Drained
ADIM
ADIM
WATER CONTENT
ɶ
= Unconsolidated Undrained
CD
ĳº
qu
SPT = Standard Penetration test (blows / ft)
UU
UDS 5
14.50-15.00
UDS 4
11.50-12.00
UDS 3
8.50-9.00
UDS 2
5.50-6.00
UDS 1
2.55-3.00
(kg/cm²)
C
:
:
:
DR-23
1 OF 3
YBM (Y50-1)
LABORATORY TESTING
STRENGTH TEST
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
4 Desember 2011
FIELD
TEST
DRILLER
2 Desember 2011
:
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
PAGE ... OF ...
Vertical
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DRILLING AND TESTING
:
ORIENTATION
SAMPLES
LOCATION
WEATHERING
CO-ORDINATES
DATE/DEPTH
2 Desember 2011
-1.50
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
:
CO-ORDINATES
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.50
17.60
17.70
17.80
17.90
18.00
18.10
18.20
18.30
18.40
18.50
18.60
18.70
18.80
18.90
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.50
20.60
20.70
20.80
20.90
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.50
21.60
21.70
21.80
21.90
22.00
22.10
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.50
22.60
22.70
22.80
22.90
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.50
23.60
23.70
23.80
23.90
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.50
24.60
24.70
24.80
24.90
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.50
25.60
25.70
25.80
25.90
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.50
26.60
26.70
26.80
26.90
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.50
27.60
27.70
27.80
27.90
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
28.40
28.50
28.60
28.70
28.80
28.90
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.50
29.60
29.70
29.80
29.90
30.00
NOTE :
:
:
LOCATION
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9671210.208
: 481442.5535
Palembang
Jembatan Musi III Palembang
Lempung Pasiran, Abu-abu, Agak Padat
Pasir Lepas Halus, Hitam
Pasir Lepas Halus, Abu-abu Kehitaman
Pasir Lanauan Sedikit Lempung, Coklat Tua, Lembek
:
PROJECT
Depth (m)
LOG BORE
DEPTH RL
-15.50
N2
8/15
9/15
2/15
1/15
N3
11/15
12/15
2/15
2/15
10/15 13/15 16/15
6/15
6/15
1/15
1/15
N1
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
GRAPHIC LOG
GROUND WATER LEVEL
N - Value
29
19
21
4
3
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
FIELD
TEST
qu
ĳº
c
TYPE
DS 4
29.50-30.00
DS 3
26.50-27.00
DS 2
23.50-24.00
DS 1
20.50-21.00
UDS 6
17.50-18.00
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
:
:
(kg/cm²) 0
qu
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ADIM
ADIM
WATER CONTENT
20
DR-23
2 OF 3
YBM (Y50-1)
LABORATORY TESTING
STRENGTH TEST
CHECKED BY
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
:
MACHINE TYPE
4 Desember 2011
:
PAGE ... OF ...
2 Desember 2011
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
Vertical
-1.50
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
ORIENTATION
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
DATE/DEPTH
3 Desember 2011
SAMPLES
:
WEATHERING
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
0.10
0.20
34.45
34.55
34.65
34.75
34.85
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.45
36.55
36.65
36.75
36.85
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.55
38.65
38.75
38.85
38.95
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.45
39.55
39.65
39.75
39.85
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.55
42.65
42.75
42.85
42.95
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.55
43.65
43.75
43.85
43.95
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.55
44.65
44.75
44.85
44.95
45.00
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.50
30.60
30.70
30.80
30.90
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
NOTE :
:
CO-ORDINATES
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9671210.208
: 481442.554
Palembang
END BORING
Lempung, Abu-abu, Padat dan Keras
:
Depth (m)
DEPTH RL
-30.50
N2
48
51
17/15 23/15 25/15
19/15 24/15 27/15
39
15/15 20/15 19/15
N3
46
22/15
N - Value
24/15
14/15
N1
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
2 Desember 2011
4 Desember 2011
GEOLOGICAL TERM
=
ĳº
=
=
=
Gs =
eo =
ɶ
40
20
ATERBERG
LIMITS
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ADIM
ADIM
WATER CONTENT
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
qu
c
CD
(kg/cm²)
ĳº
STRENGTH TEST
C
:
DR-23
3 OF 3
YBM (Y50-1)
LABORATORY TESTING
UU
DS 7
38.50-39.00
DS 6
35.50-36.00
DS 5
32.50-33.00
TYPE
:
DRILLER
Vertical
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
FIELD
TEST
:
MACHINE TYPE
:
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
SAMPLES
LOCATION
GRAPHIC LOG
DRILL HOLE NO.
WEATHERING
-1.50
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
:
DATE/DEPTH
3 Desember 2011
3 Desember 2011
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.50
5.60
5.70
5.80
5.90
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.45
6.55
6.65
6.75
6.85
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.50
8.60
8.70
8.80
8.90
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.45
9.55
9.65
9.75
9.85
10.00
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
11.50
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.45
12.55
12.65
12.75
12.85
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.50
14.60
14.70
14.80
14.90
15.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.45
3.55
3.65
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670718.572
: 481014.2318
Palembang
NOTE :
Pasir Halus Lempungan, Hitam Abu-abu, Agak Padat
Pasir Halus Lempungan, Coklat Tua, Agak Padat
Pasir halus Lanauan, Coklat Tua, Sangat lembek
Pasir halus Lanauan, Coklat Abu-abu, Sangat Lembek
Pasir Lanauan, Coklat Tua, Sangat lembek
Lempung Lanauan Terdapat Pasir Mengandung Humus dan
Terdapat Akar
:
PROJECT
Depth (m)
LOG BORE
3/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
N1
5/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
N2
9/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
GRAPHIC LOG
GROUND WATER LEVEL
N - Value
17
14
2
2
2
0
:
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
qu
ĳº
c
TYPE
CHECKED BY
3 Desember 2011
DS 1
14.50-15.00
UDS 4
11.50-12.00
UDS 3
8.50-9.00
UDS 2
5.50-6.00
UDS 1
2.50-3.00
FIELD
TEST
LOGGED BY
28 November 2011
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
20
1 OF 4
DR - 24
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Adim
Adim
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
:
DRILLER
Vertical
PAGE ... OF ...
:
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
-0.85 meter
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
HOLE STARTED
:
ORIENTATION
HOLE FINISHED
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
DATE/DEPTH
28 Nopember 2011
29 Nopember 2011
SAMPLES
:
WEATHERING
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
DEPTH RL
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.45
15.55
15.65
15.75
15.85
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.50
17.60
17.70
17.80
17.90
18.00
18.10
18.20
18.30
18.40
18.45
18.55
18.65
18.75
18.85
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.50
20.60
20.70
20.80
20.90
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.45
21.55
21.65
21.75
21.85
22.00
22.10
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.50
22.60
22.70
22.80
22.90
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.50
23.60
23.70
23.80
23.90
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.45
24.55
24.65
24.75
24.85
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.50
25.60
25.70
25.80
25.90
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.50
26.60
26.70
26.80
26.90
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.45
27.55
27.65
27.75
27.85
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
28.40
28.50
28.60
28.70
28.80
28.90
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.50
29.60
29.70
29.80
29.90
30.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670718.572
: 481014.2318
Palembang
NOTE :
Pasir Terdapat Batu Karang, Hitam, Padat
Pasir, Hitam, Padat
Pasir, Hitam Halus, Agak Padat
Pasir Lempungan Halus, Hitam Abu-abu, Agak Padat
:
CO-ORDINATES
Depth (m)
:
DEPTH RL
-15.45
o0o0o0oooo0oo0o0o0
9/15
12/15 13/15
9/15
5/15
9/15
7/15
30
11/15 14/15 16/15
35
22
25
19
17
13/15
10/15
9/15
N2
8/15
N1
3/15
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
GEOLOGICAL TERM
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
TYPE
ATERBERG
LIMITS
ĳº
eo =
Gs =
=
=
=
=
40
qu
20
2 OF 4
DR - 24
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Adim
WATER CONTENT
c
(kg/cm²) 0
qu
ɶ
UU
(kg/cm²)
ĳº
STRENGTH TEST
C
:
Adim
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
CU
DS 6
29.50-30.00
DS 5
26.50-27.00
DS 4
23.50-24.00
DS 3
20.50-21.00
DS 2
17.50-18.00
FIELD
TEST
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
28 November 2011
3 Desember 2011
:
:
DRILLER
Vertical
CD
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
PAGE ... OF ...
:
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
SAMPLES
-0.85 meter
WEATHERING
:
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
LOCATION
GRAPHIC LOG
o0o0o0oooo0oo0o0o0
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.45
30.55
30.65
30.75
30.85
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
33.20
33.30
33.40
33.45
33.55
33.65
33.75
33.85
34.00
34.10
34.20
34.30
34.40
34.50
34.60
34.70
34.80
34.90
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.50
36.60
36.70
36.80
36.90
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.50
38.60
38.70
38.80
38.90
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.40
39.50
39.60
39.70
39.80
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.50
42.60
42.70
42.80
42.90
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.50
43.60
43.70
43.80
43.90
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.50
44.60
44.70
44.80
44.90
45.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670718.572
: 481014.232
Palembang
NOTE :
Lempung Pasiran Campur Kulit Kerang, Abu-abu Putih, Keras
Lempung, Abu-abu, Sangat Kaku
Lempung Terdapat Fosil Karang, Abu-abu, Padat/Sangat Kaku
Pasir Halus Lempung, Hitam, Abu-abu Padat
Pasir Halus Terdapat Fosil Kerang, Hitam, Padat
:
PROJECT
Depth (m)
LOG BORE
0000oooo0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0oo0o0o00o0o0o0
GROUND WATER LEVEL
DATE/DEPTH
29 Nopember 2011
30 Nopember 2011
14/15 17/15 21/15
26/15 28/15 32/10
17/15 22/15 23/15
50
38
>60
45
41
15/15 20/15 21/15
N3
35
N2
N - Value
14/15 16/15 19/15
N1
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
GRAPHIC LOG
o0o0o0000ooo0o00o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0
0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 O O
0 0 0 O O
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
DS 11
44.50-45.00
DS 10
41.50-42.00
DS 9
38.50-39.00
DS 8
35.50-36.00
DS 7
32.50-33.00
FIELD
TEST
qu
ĳº
c
TYPE
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
28 November 2011
3 Desember 2011
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
20
3 OF 4
DR - 24
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Adim
Adim
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
:
DRILLER
Vertical
PAGE ... OF ...
:
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
-0.85 meter
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
DATE/DEPTH
30 Nopember 2011
1 Desember 2011
2 Desember 2012
SAMPLES
:
WEATHERING
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
DEPTH RL
45.00
45.10
45.20
45.30
45.40
45.50
45.60
45.70
45.80
45.90
46.00
46.10
46.20
46.30
46.40
46.50
46.60
46.70
46.80
46.90
47.00
47.10
47.20
47.30
47.40
47.50
47.60
47.70
47.80
47.90
48.00
48.10
48.20
48.30
48.40
48.50
48.60
48.70
48.80
48.90
49.00
49.10
49.20
49.30
49.40
49.50
49.60
49.70
49.80
49.90
50.00
50.10
50.20
50.30
50.40
50.50
50.60
50.70
50.80
50.90
51.00
51.10
51.20
51.30
51.40
51.50
51.60
51.70
51.80
51.90
52.00
52.10
52.20
52.30
52.40
52.50
52.60
52.70
52.80
52.90
53.00
53.10
53.20
53.30
53.40
53.50
53.60
53.70
53.80
53.90
54.00
54.10
54.20
54.30
54.40
54.50
54.60
54.70
54.80
54.90
55.00
55.10
55.20
55.30
55.40
55.50
55.60
55.70
55.80
55.90
56.00
56.10
56.20
56.30
56.40
56.50
56.60
56.70
56.80
56.90
57.00
57.10
57.20
57.30
57.40
57.50
57.60
57.70
57.80
57.90
58.00
58.10
58.20
58.30
58.40
58.50
58.60
58.70
58.80
58.90
59.00
59.10
59.20
59.30
59.40
59.50
59.60
59.70
59.80
59.90
60.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670718.572
: 481014.232
Palembang
NOTE :
Lempung Sedikit Pasiran, Abu-abu Agak Kuning, Padat dan Keras
Lempung Pasiran, Abu-abu, Padat dan Keras
Lempung Pasiran Campur Kulit Kerang, Abu-abu Putih, Keras
:
:
CO-ORDINATES
Depth (m)
LOCATION
DEPTH RL
-45.50
N2
N3
24/15 36/15 24/15
>60
>60
23/15 37/15
23/8
>60
56
50
N - Value
21/15 33/15 27/10
19/15 26/15 30/15
19/15 24/15 26/15
N1
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
GRAPHIC LOG
GEOLOGICAL TERM
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
TYPE
CHECKED BY
3 Desember 2011
ĳº
=
=
Gs =
eo =
ɶ
=
=
40
20
(kg/cm²) 0
ATERBERG
LIMITS
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
qu
CD
ĳº
qu
c
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
4 OF 4
DR - 24
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Adim
Adim
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
UU
DS 16
59.50-60.00
DS 15
56.50-57.00
DS 14
53.50-54.00
DS 13
50.50-51.00
DS 12
47.50-48.00
FIELD
TEST
LOGGED BY
28 November 2011
:
:
DRILLER
Vertical
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
PAGE ... OF ...
:
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
SAMPLES
-0.85 meter
WEATHERING
:
11.65
11.75
11.85
11.95
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.55
14.65
14.75
14.85
14.95
15.00
11.55
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
10.00
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.55
5.65
5.75
5.85
5.95
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.55
8.65
8.75
8.85
8.95
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
9.80
9.90
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.55
2.65
2.75
2.85
2.95
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.45
3.55
3.65
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670565.787
NOTE :
Pasir Halus Sampai dengan Sedikit Lanauan Abu-abu Coklat
Agak Lepas
Pasir Halus Sampai dengan Sedikit Lanauan Abu-abu Gelap
Agak Keras
Lanau Campur Pasir Abu-abu Coklat Sangat Lunak
Lempung Lanauan Pasiran Abu-abu Coklat Sangat Lunak
Pasir Halus sampai dengan sedang Abu-abu Gelap Lepas
Pasir Halus sampai dengan Sedang Kuning Kecoklatan Lepas
Y
: 480884.2605
Palembang
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
X
:
PROJECT
Depth (m)
LOG BORE
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
DATE/DEPTH
2 Desember 2011
3 Desember 2011
4 Desember 2011
N2
N3
1/15
8/15
4/15
0/15
9/15
1/15
1/15
2/15
9/15 12/15
6/15
1/15
1/15 1/15 1/15
N1
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
3.33
3
21
15
2
2
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
qu
ĳº
c
TYPE
DS 4
14.00-14.55
DS 3
11.00-11.55
DS 2
8.00-8.55
UDS 1
5.00-5.55
DS 1
2.00-2.55
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
:
:
:
(kg/cm²) 0
qu
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
20
DR-25
1 OF 4
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
STRENGTH TEST
CHECKED BY
7 Desember 2011
FIELD
TEST
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
Vertical
:
PAGE ... OF ...
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
2 Desember 2011
-0.70 m
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
DATE/DEPTH
2 Desember 2011
SAMPLES
:
WEATHERING
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
DEPTH RL
0.10
0.20
18.55
18.65
18.75
18.85
18.95
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.55
20.65
20.75
20.85
20.95
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.55
21.65
21.75
21.85
21.95
22.00
22.10
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.55
22.65
22.75
22.85
22.95
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.55
23.65
23.75
23.85
23.95
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.25
24.35
24.45
24.55
24.65
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.55
25.65
25.75
25.85
25.95
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.55
26.65
26.75
26.85
26.95
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.55
27.65
27.75
27.85
27.95
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
28.40
28.55
28.65
28.75
28.85
28.95
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.55
29.65
29.75
29.85
29.95
30.00
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.55
17.65
17.75
17.85
17.95
18.00
18.10
NOTE :
Lempung Lanauan Sedikit Pasiran Abu-abu Agak Coklat Keras
Lempung Padat Lanauan Sedikit Pasiran Abu-abu Coklat agak Keras
Pasir Halus Sampai Dengan Sedang Lanauan dan Humus Abuabu Kecoklatan Lunak
Pasir Halus Sampai Dengan Sedang Campur Lanau Abu-abu
Coklat Lunak
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670565.787
: 480884.2605
Palembang
Y
X
:
Depth (m)
:
DEPTH RL
-15.50
6/15
7/15
6/15
3/15
2/15
4/15
3/15
2/15
N2
2/15
1/15
N1
9/15
9/15
5/15
3/15
3/15
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
16.5
16
15
8
6
5
3.33
0 - 10
:
HOLE FINISHED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
FIELD
TEST
TYPE
Ȗ (t/m³)
ĳº
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
=
Gs =
eo =
ɶ
80 100
60
=
=
40
CD
20
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
ATERBERG
LIMITS
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
0.10
0.20
33.50
33.60
33.70
33.80
33.90
34.00
34.10
34.20
34.30
34.40
34.50
34.60
34.70
34.80
34.90
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.55
36.65
36.75
36.85
36.95
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.55
38.65
38.75
38.85
38.95
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.50
39.60
39.70
39.80
39.90
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.55
42.65
42.75
42.85
42.95
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.55
43.65
43.75
43.85
43.95
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.55
44.65
44.75
44.85
44.95
45.00
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.40
30.50
30.60
30.70
30.80
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.55
32.65
32.75
32.85
32.95
33.00
33.10
NOTE :
Lempung Padat Abu-abu Muda Keras
Lempung Padat Abu-abu Agak Keras
Lempung Lanauan Sedikit Pasiran Abu-abu Agak Keras
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670565.787
: 480884.2605
Palembang
Y
X
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
Ian Rudiana
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
c
ĳº
qu
UU
DS 9
29.00-29.55
DS 8
26.00-26.50
DS 7
23.00-23.55
DS 6
20.00-20.55
DS 5
17.00-17.55
(kg/cm²)
C
:
:
LABORATORY TESTING
STRENGTH TEST
CHECKED BY
7 Desember 2011
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
2 Desember 2011
:
PROJECT
DR-25
2 OF 4
:
KOKEN
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
Vertical
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
:
ORIENTATION
HOLE STARTED
SAMPLES
LOCATION
DATE/DEPTH
3 Desember 2011
-0.70 m
WEATHERING
:
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
CO-ORDINATES
N - Value
LOG BORE
Depth (m)
GROUND WATER LEVEL
DEPTH RL
-30.40
N3
8/15 11/15
N2
18/15 25/15 28/15
15/15 19/15 24/15
15/15 18/15 22/15
10/15 15/15 18/15
8/15
N1
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
54
53
43
40
33
19
16.5
:
0 - 10
:
HOLE FINISHED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
FIELD
TEST
qu
ĳº
c
TYPE
DS 14
44.00-44.50
DS 13
41.00-41.50
DS 12
38.00-38.55
DS 11
35.00-35.50
DS 10
32.00-32.55
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
:
:
(kg/cm²) 0
qu
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
WATER CONTENT
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
Ian Rudiana
LABORATORY TESTING
STRENGTH TEST
CHECKED BY
7 Desember 2011
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
2 Desember 2011
DR-25
3 OF 4
:
KOKEN
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
Vertical
-0.70 m
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
HOLE STARTED
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
DATE/DEPTH
4 Desember 2011
5 Desember 2011
SAMPLES
:
WEATHERING
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
:
CO-ORDINATES
0.10
0.20
48.50
48.60
48.70
48.80
48.90
49.00
49.10
49.20
49.30
49.40
49.50
49.60
49.70
49.80
49.90
50.00
50.10
50.20
50.30
50.40
50.50
50.60
50.70
50.80
50.90
51.00
51.10
51.20
51.30
51.40
51.55
51.65
51.75
51.85
51.95
52.00
52.10
52.20
52.30
52.40
52.50
52.60
52.70
52.80
52.90
53.00
53.10
53.20
53.30
53.40
53.55
53.65
53.75
53.85
53.95
54.00
54.10
54.20
54.30
54.40
54.50
54.60
54.70
54.80
54.90
55.00
55.10
55.20
55.30
55.40
55.50
55.60
55.70
55.80
55.90
56.00
56.10
56.20
56.30
56.40
56.50
56.60
56.70
56.80
56.90
57.00
57.10
57.20
57.30
57.40
57.55
57.65
57.75
57.85
57.95
58.00
58.10
58.20
58.30
58.40
58.55
58.65
58.75
58.85
58.95
59.00
59.10
59.20
59.30
59.40
59.55
59.65
59.75
59.85
59.95
60.00
45.00
45.10
45.20
45.30
45.40
45.40
45.50
45.60
45.70
45.80
46.00
46.10
46.20
46.30
46.40
46.50
46.60
46.70
46.80
46.90
47.00
47.10
47.20
47.30
47.40
47.55
47.65
47.75
47.85
47.95
48.00
48.10
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670565.787
: 480884.2605
Palembang
NOTE :
END OF BORING
Lempung Padat Abu-abu Muda Sangat Keras
Lempung Padat Sedikit Pasiran Abu-abu Sangat Keras
Lempung Padat Pasiran Abu-abu Sangat Keras
Lempung Padat Sedikit Pasiran dan Kulit Kerang abu-abu Putih
Sangat Keras
:
Depth (m)
DEPTH RL
-45.40
N2
N3
>60
>60
24/15 35/15 25/7
27/15 38/15 22/5
>60
>60
59
54
N - Value
25/15 32/15 28/9
23/15 30/15 30/10
21/15 28/15 31/15
N1
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
2 Desember 2011
7 Desember 2011
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
Ȗ (t/m³)
ĳº
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
80 100
60
=
=
40
20
CD
ATERBERG
LIMITS
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
qu
c
(kg/cm²)
ĳº
STRENGTH TEST
C
:
DR-25
4 OF 4
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
UU
DS 19
59.00-59.50
DS 18
56.00-56.50
DS 17
53.00-53.50
DS 16
50.00-50.50
DS 15
47.00-47.55
TYPE
DRILLER
Vertical
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
0 - 10
:
MACHINE TYPE
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
:
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
SAMPLES
LOCATION
DATE/DEPTH
5 Desember 2011
6 Desember 2011
7 Desember 2011
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.50
5.60
5.70
5.80
5.90
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.50
8.60
8.70
8.80
8.90
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
9.80
9.90
10.00
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
11.50
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.50
14.60
14.70
14.80
14.90
15.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670113.507
: 480489.9960
Palembang
NOTE :
Pasir halus hingga kasar, agak berlanau, abu-abu terang
kehijauan, kepadatan sedang.
Lanau kepasiran, abu-abu kecoklatan, kepadatan sedang.
Pasir halus hingga sedang agak berlanau, abu-abu kecoklatan
hingga coklat keabu-abuan, kepadatan lepas hingga sedang.
:
PROJECT
Depth (m)
-0.70 m
WEATHERING
:
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
17
17
19
16
13
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-6.30
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
GRAPHIC LOG
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
DEPTH RL
TYPE
:
ADIM
:
:
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
qu
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ADIM
STRENGTH TEST
1 OF 3
DR-25A
YBM (Y50-1)
:
DRILLER
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
PAGE ... OF ...
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670113.507
: 480489.9960
NOTE :
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
Pasir halus hingga kasar, beberapa tercampur dengan kelanauan, kerikil, abu16.20
abu hingga abu-abu gelap. Kepadatan sedang. Maksimum diameter butiran Ø
16.30
= 1 cm, bulat.
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.50
17.60
17.70
17.80
17.90
18.00
18.10
18.20
18.30
18.40
18.50
18.60
18.70
18.80
18.90
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.50
20.60
20.70
20.80
20.90
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.50
21.60
21.70
21.80
21.90
22.00
22.10
22.20 Pasir halus hingga sedang, beberapa tercampur dengan kelanauan, abu-abu,
kepadatan sedang. Kadang-kadang mengandung lanau organik dan kulit
22.30
kerang.
22.40
22.50
22.60
22.70
22.80
22.90
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.50
23.60
23.70
23.80
23.90
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.50
24.60
24.70
24.80
24.90
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.50
25.60
25.70
25.80
25.90
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.50
26.60
26.70
26.80
26.90
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.50
27.60
27.70
27.80
27.90
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
Lempung beberapa kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abu-abu
28.40
kehijauan, keras. Beberapa terdiri dari kulit kerang dan
28.50
28.60
sebagian tersementasi lemah. Butiran agak getas dan
28.70
remahan.
28.80
28.90
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.50
29.60
29.70
29.80
29.90
30.00
DEPTH RL
-15.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
42
22
23
21
25
17
:
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
GEOLOGICAL TERM
:
CHECKED BY
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
eo =
ĳº
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
=
60
=
=
40
Gs =
20
(kg/cm²) 0
ATERBERG
LIMITS
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ADIM
ADIM
WATER CONTENT
ĳº
qu
qu
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
c
TYPE
:
LOGGED BY
ɶ
CD
FIELD
TEST
:
DRILLER
2 OF 3
DR-25A
YBM (Y50-1)
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
MACHINE TYPE
:
PAGE ... OF ...
DRILL HOLE NO.
UU
-
-
Vertical
SAMPLES
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
:
ORIENTATION
WEATHERING
Palembang
:
CO-ORDINATES
Depth (m)
:
GRAPHIC LOG
LOCATION
DATE/DEPTH
-6.30
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
0.10
0.20
34.45
34.55
34.65
34.75
34.85
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.45
36.55
36.65
36.75
36.85
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.55
38.65
38.75
38.85
38.95
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.45
39.55
39.65
39.75
39.85
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.55
42.65
42.75
42.85
42.95
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.55
43.65
43.75
43.85
43.95
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.55
44.65
44.75
44.85
44.95
45.00
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.50
30.60
30.70
30.80
30.90
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9670113.507
: 480489.996
Palembang
NOTE :
END BORING
Lempung beberapa kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abu-abu kehijauan, keras.
Beberapa terdiri dari kulit kerang dan sebagian tersementasi lemah. Butiran
agak getas dan remahan.
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-30.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
>50
50
43
42
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-6.30
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
Depth (m)
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
GRAPHIC LOG
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
TYPE
:
:
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ADIM
ADIM
WATER CONTENT
20
3 OF 3
DR-25A
YBM (Y50-1)
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
:
CO-ORDINATES
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.55
14.65
14.75
14.85
14.95
15.00
11.50
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
10.00
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.55
5.65
5.75
5.85
5.95
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.55
8.65
8.75
8.85
8.95
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
9.80
9.90
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669905.842
: 480309.7260
NOTE :
Lempung dan lanau, abu-abu, plastisitas tinggi, kaku hingga
sangat kaku, dengan lapisan tipis interkorelasi buitran pasir
halus hingga sedang, beberapa kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abuabu kehijauan, kepadatan sedang.
Pasir (butiran halus hingga sedang) beberapa kelanauan, abuabu hingga abu-abu kecoklatan. Kepadatan lepas hingga
sedang. Kadang-kadang mengandung lanau organik dan
fragmentasi kulit kerang dalam ukuran butiran pasir.
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
26
15
12
12
8
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
DEPTH RL
eo =
=
=
=
=
40
ĳº
20
Gs =
(kg/cm²) 0
ATERBERG
LIMITS
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ɶ
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LABORATORY TESTING
qu
TYPE
Ian Rudiana
:
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
:
c
CD
FIELD
TEST
1 OF 7
DRILLER
DR-26A
KOKEN
:
PAGE ... OF ...
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
CU
SAMPLES
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-5.50 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
0.10
0.20
18.55
18.65
18.75
18.85
18.95
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.55
20.65
20.75
20.85
20.95
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.55
21.65
21.75
21.85
21.95
22.00
22.10
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.55
22.65
22.75
22.85
22.95
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.55
23.65
23.75
23.85
23.95
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.25
24.35
24.45
24.55
24.65
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.55
25.65
25.75
25.85
25.95
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.55
26.65
26.75
26.85
26.95
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.55
27.65
27.75
27.85
27.95
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
28.40
28.55
28.65
28.75
28.85
28.95
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.55
29.65
29.75
29.85
29.95
30.00
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.55
17.65
17.75
17.85
17.95
18.00
18.10
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669905.842
: 480309.7260
Palembang
NOTE :
Lempung beberapa kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abu-abu gelap,
keras sekali, kadang-kadang mengandung gambut dan lanau
organik. Kadang-kadang mengandung kulit kerang dengan
ukuran buitran pasir dengan lapisan tipis interkorelasi pasir
halus, beberapa lanau, kerikil, berwarna abu-abu, padat.
Ukuran buitran diameter, Ø = 1 cm berbentuk bulat licin.
Pasir (butiran halus hingga sedang) beberapa kelanauan, abuabu. Kepadatan padat. Kadang-kadang mengandung
fragmentasi kulit kerang dalam ukuran butiran pasir.
Lempung dan lanau, abu-abu, plastisitas tinggi, kaku hingga
sangat kaku, dengan lapisan tipis interkorelasi buitran pasir
halus hingga sedang, beberapa kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abuabu kehijauan, kepadatan sedang.
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-15.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
44
42
47
43
38
26
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-5.50 m
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
TYPE
2 OF 7
:
:
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
Ian Rudiana
DR-26A
:
KOKEN
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
X
: 480309.7260
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669905.842
NOTE :
Lempung beberapa kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abu-abu kehijauan, keras
sekali. Kadang-kadang mengandung batuan karang dan kulit kerang
terfragmentasi dalam ukuran butiran pasir hingga kerikil. Sebagian
tersementasi lemah dan agak rapuh. Bercampur dengan lempung kepasiran
hingga pasir kelempungan (ukuran butiran halus hingga kasar) mengandung
juga batuan koral dan kulit kerang terfragmentasi dalam ukuran butiran pasir
hingga kerikil, abu-abu hingga abu-abu kehijauan, bercak-bercak putih,
tersementasi lemah, mudah rapuh.
Y
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.50
30.60
30.70
30.80
30.90
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
33.20
33.30
33.40
33.50
33.60
33.70
33.80
33.90
34.00
34.10
34.20
34.30
34.40
34.50
34.60
34.70
34.80
34.90
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.50
36.60
36.70
36.80
36.90
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.50
38.60
38.70
38.80
38.90
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.50
39.60
39.70
39.80
39.90
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.50
42.60
42.70
42.80
42.90
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.50
43.60
43.70
43.80
43.90
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.50
44.60
44.70
44.80
44.90
45.00
:
CO-ORDINATES
DEPTH RL
-30.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
43
45
43
43
44
44
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
ATERBERG
LIMITS
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
eo =
=
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
=
=
40
ĳº
20
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
(kg/cm²) 0
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
ĳº
STRENGTH TEST
C
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
LABORATORY TESTING
:
CHECKED BY
CD
:
LOGGED BY
qu
TYPE
:
DRILLER
c
FIELD
TEST
3 OF 7
Ian Rudiana
DR-26A
:
KOKEN
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-5.50 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
45.00
45.10
45.20
45.30
45.40
45.50
45.60
45.70
45.80
45.90
46.00
46.10
46.20
46.30
46.40
46.50
46.60
46.70
46.80
46.90
47.00
47.10
47.20
47.30
47.40
47.50
47.60
47.70
47.80
47.90
48.00
48.10
48.20
48.30
48.40
48.50
48.60
48.70
48.80
48.90
49.00
49.10
49.20
49.30
49.40
49.50
49.60
49.70
49.80
49.90
50.00
50.10
50.20
50.30
50.40
50.50
50.60
50.70
50.80
50.90
51.00
51.10
51.20
51.30
51.40
51.50
51.60
51.70
51.80
51.90
52.00
52.10
52.20
52.30
52.40
52.50
52.60
52.70
52.80
52.90
53.00
53.10
53.20
53.30
53.40
53.50
53.60
53.70
53.80
53.90
54.00
54.10
54.20
54.30
54.40
54.50
54.60
54.70
54.80
54.90
55.00
55.10
55.20
55.30
55.40
55.50
55.60
55.70
55.80
55.90
56.00
56.10
56.20
56.30
56.40
56.50
56.60
56.70
56.80
56.90
57.00
57.10
57.20
57.30
57.40
57.50
57.60
57.70
57.80
57.90
58.00
58.10
58.20
58.30
58.40
58.50
58.60
58.70
58.80
58.90
59.00
59.10
59.20
59.30
59.40
59.50
59.60
59.70
59.80
59.90
60.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669905.842
: 480309.7260
Palembang
NOTE :
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-45.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
46
45
>50
44
47
43
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-5.50 m
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
TYPE
:
:
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
20
4 OF 7
DR-26A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
X
: 480309.7260
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669905.842
NOTE :
Y
60.00
60.10
60.20
60.30
60.40
60.50
60.60
60.70
60.80
60.90
61.00
61.10
61.20
61.30
61.40
61.50
61.60
61.70
61.80
61.90
62.00
62.10
62.20
62.30
62.40
62.50
62.60
62.70
62.80
62.90
63.00
63.10
63.20
63.30
63.40
63.50
63.60
63.70
63.80
63.90
64.00
64.10
64.20
64.30
64.40
64.50
64.60
64.70
64.80
64.90
65.00
65.10
65.20
65.30
65.40
65.50
65.60
65.70
65.80
65.90
66.00
66.10
66.20
66.30
66.40
66.50
66.60
66.70
66.80
66.90
67.00
67.10
67.20
67.30
67.40
67.50
67.60
67.70
67.80
67.90
68.00
68.10
68.20
68.30
68.40
68.50
68.60
68.70
68.80
68.90
69.00
69.10
69.20
69.30
69.40
69.50
69.60
69.70
69.80
69.90
70.00
70.10
70.20
70.30
70.40
70.50
70.60
70.70
70.80
70.90
71.00
71.10
71.20
71.30
71.40
71.50
71.60
71.70
71.80
71.90
72.00
72.10
72.20
72.30
72.40
72.50
72.60
72.70
72.80
72.90
73.00
73.10
73.20
73.30
73.40
73.50
73.60
73.70
73.80
73.90
74.00
74.10
74.20
74.30
74.40
74.50
74.60
74.70
74.80
74.90
75.00
:
CO-ORDINATES
DEPTH RL
-60.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
50
49
50
48
50
46
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
CHECKED BY
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
eo =
=
60
=
=
40
20
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
5 OF 7
DR-26A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
ĳº
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-5.50 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
75.00
75.10
75.20
75.30
75.40
75.50
75.60
75.70
75.80
75.90
76.00
76.10
76.20
76.30
76.40
76.50
76.60
76.70
76.80
76.90
77.00
77.10
77.20
77.30
77.40
77.50
77.60
77.70
77.80
77.90
78.00
78.10
78.20
78.30
78.40
78.50
78.60
78.70
78.80
78.90
79.00
79.10
79.20
79.30
79.40
79.50
79.60
79.70
79.80
79.90
80.00
80.10
80.20
80.30
80.40
80.50
80.60
80.70
80.80
80.90
81.00
81.10
81.20
81.30
81.40
81.50
81.60
81.70
81.80
81.90
82.00
82.10
82.20
82.30
82.40
82.50
82.60
82.70
82.80
82.90
83.00
83.10
83.20
83.30
83.40
83.50
83.60
83.70
83.80
83.90
84.00
84.10
84.20
84.30
84.40
84.50
84.60
84.70
84.80
84.90
85.00
85.10
85.20
85.30
85.40
85.50
85.60
85.70
85.80
85.90
86.00
86.10
86.20
86.30
86.40
86.50
86.60
86.70
86.80
86.90
87.00
87.10
87.20
87.30
87.40
87.50
87.60
87.70
87.80
87.90
88.00
88.10
88.20
88.30
88.40
88.50
88.60
88.70
88.80
88.90
89.00
89.10
89.20
89.30
89.40
89.50
89.60
89.70
89.80
89.90
90.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669905.842
: 480309.7260
Palembang
NOTE :
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-75.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
60
>50
>50
>50
>50
50
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-5.50 m
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
TYPE
:
:
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
20
6 OF 7
DR-26A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
:
CO-ORDINATES
90.00
90.10
90.20
90.30
90.40
90.50
90.60
90.70
90.80
90.90
91.00
91.10
91.20
91.30
91.40
91.50
91.60
91.70
91.80
91.90
92.00
92.10
92.20
92.30
92.40
92.50
92.60
92.70
92.80
92.90
93.00
93.10
93.20
93.30
93.40
93.50
93.60
93.70
93.80
93.90
94.00
94.10
94.20
94.30
94.40
94.50
94.60
94.70
94.80
94.90
95.00
95.10
95.20
95.30
95.40
95.50
95.60
95.70
95.80
95.90
96.00
96.10
96.20
96.30
96.40
96.50
96.60
96.70
96.80
96.90
97.00
97.10
97.20
97.30
97.40
97.50
97.60
97.70
97.80
97.90
98.00
98.10
98.20
98.30
98.40
98.50
98.60
98.70
98.80
98.90
99.00
99.10
99.20
99.30
99.40
99.50
99.60
99.70
99.80
99.90
100.00
100.10
100.20
100.30
100.40
100.50
100.60
100.70
100.80
100.90
101.00
101.10
101.20
101.30
101.40
101.50
101.60
101.70
101.80
101.90
102.00
102.10
102.20
102.30
102.40
102.50
102.60
102.70
102.80
102.90
103.00
103.10
103.20
103.30
103.40
103.50
103.60
103.70
103.80
103.90
104.00
104.10
104.20
104.30
104.40
104.50
104.60
104.70
104.80
104.90
105.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669905.842
: 480309.7260
Palembang
NOTE :
END OF BORING
tersementasi lemah dan agak rapuh.
:
Depth (m)
LOCATION
DEPTH RL
-90.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
>50
>50
>50
50
>50
0
:
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
CHECKED BY
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
eo =
=
60
=
=
40
20
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
7 OF 7
DR-26A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
ĳº
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
UU
-
-
Vertical
SAMPLES
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
:
ORIENTATION
DATE/DEPTH
-5.50 m
WEATHERING
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.55
14.65
14.75
14.85
14.95
15.00
11.50
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
10.00
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.55
5.65
5.75
5.85
5.95
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.55
8.65
8.75
8.85
8.95
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
9.80
9.90
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669717.221
: 480145.7780
Palembang
NOTE :
Pasir (halus hingga sedang) agak berlanau, abu-abu hingga
abu-abu kecoklatan, kepadatan sedang. Beberapa tempat
mengandung kulit kerang terfragmentasi dalam ukuran pasir.
Pasir (halus hingga sedang) agak berlanau, coklat terang,
kepadatan lepas hingga sedang. Beberapa tempat mengandung
lanau organik dan kulit kerang terfragmentasi dalam ukuran
pasir.
:
PROJECT
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
19
17
15
15
13
0
:
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-4.50 m
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
HOLE STARTED
:
ORIENTATION
HOLE FINISHED
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
DEPTH RL
TYPE
1 OF 7
Ian Rudiana
Ian Rudiana
:
:
:
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
DR-27A
:
KOKEN
:
PAGE ... OF ...
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
:
CO-ORDINATES
0.10
0.20
18.55
18.65
18.75
18.85
18.95
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.55
20.65
20.75
20.85
20.95
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.55
21.65
21.75
21.85
21.95
22.00
22.10
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.55
22.65
22.75
22.85
22.95
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.55
23.65
23.75
23.85
23.95
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.25
24.35
24.45
24.55
24.65
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.55
25.65
25.75
25.85
25.95
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.55
26.65
26.75
26.85
26.95
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.55
27.65
27.75
27.85
27.95
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
28.40
28.55
28.65
28.75
28.85
28.95
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.55
29.65
29.75
29.85
29.95
30.00
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.55
17.65
17.75
17.85
17.95
18.00
18.10
Y
X
: 480145.7780
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669717.221
NOTE :
Lempung agak kelanauan, abu-abu, sangat keras hingga keras
sekali. Kadang-kadang bercampur kulit kerang dalam fragmenfragmen ukuran butiran pasir. Sebagian tersementasi lemah.
Rapuh hingga mudah getas.
Pasir kelanauan (halus hingga kasar), abu-abu hingga abu-abu
kehijauan, kepadatan sedang. Bercampur dengan kulit kerang
dalam ukuran butiran pasir.
Pasir (halus hingga sedang) agak berlanau, abu-abu hingga
abu-abu kecoklatan, kepadatan sedang. Beberapa tempat
mengandung kulit kerang terfragmentasi dalam ukuran pasir.
DEPTH RL
-15.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
30
28
23
22
23
19
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
ATERBERG
LIMITS
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
eo =
=
=
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
=
=
40
ĳº
20
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
(kg/cm²) 0
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
ĳº
STRENGTH TEST
C
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
LABORATORY TESTING
CHECKED BY
CU
:
:
LOGGED BY
qu
TYPE
:
DRILLER
c
FIELD
TEST
2 OF 7
Ian Rudiana
DR-27A
:
KOKEN
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
CD
SAMPLES
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-4.50 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.50
30.60
30.70
30.80
30.90
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
33.20
33.30
33.40
33.50
33.60
33.70
33.80
33.90
34.00
34.10
34.20
34.30
34.40
34.50
34.60
34.70
34.80
34.90
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.50
36.60
36.70
36.80
36.90
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.50
38.60
38.70
38.80
38.90
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.50
39.60
39.70
39.80
39.90
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.50
42.60
42.70
42.80
42.90
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.50
43.60
43.70
43.80
43.90
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.50
44.60
44.70
44.80
44.90
45.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669717.221
: 480145.7780
Palembang
NOTE :
Lempung kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abu-abu gelap, keras sekali. Kadangkadang bercampur batuan karang dan kulit kerang dalam fragmen-fragmen
ukuran butiran pasir hingga kerikil. Sebagian tersementasi lemah. Rapuh
hingga mudah getas. Interkorelasi dengan lempung kepasiran hingga pasir
kelempungan (halus hingga kasar), terdiri atas campuran batuan koral dan
kulit kerang terfragmentasi dalam ukuran butiran pasir hingga kerikil, warna
abu-abu hingga abu-abu kehijauan, bintik-bintik putih. Tersementasi lemah,
cepat rapuh.
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-30.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
46
45
44
45
44
30
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
20
eo =
=
=
=
=
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
(kg/cm²) 0
3 OF 7
DR-27A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
ĳº
ĳº
qu
Gs =
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
ɶ
CHECKED BY
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
UU
-
-
Vertical
-4.50 m
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
X
: 480145.7780
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669717.221
NOTE :
Lempung kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abu-abu gelap, keras sekali. Kadangkadang bercampur batuan karang dan kulit kerang dalam fragmen-fragmen
hingga mudah getas. Interkorelasi dengan lempung kepasiran hingga pasir
kelempungan (halus hingga kasar), terdiri atas campuran batuan koral dan
kulit kerang terfragmentasi dalam ukuran butiran pasir hingga kerikil, warna
abu-abu hingga abu-abu kehijauan, bintik-bintik putih. Tersementasi lemah,
cepat rapuh.
Y
45.00
45.10
45.20
45.30
45.40
45.50
45.60
45.70
45.80
45.90
46.00
46.10
46.20
46.30
46.40
46.50
46.60
46.70
46.80
46.90
47.00
47.10
47.20
47.30
47.40
47.50
47.60
47.70
47.80
47.90
48.00
48.10
48.20
48.30
48.40
48.50
48.60
48.70
48.80
48.90
49.00
49.10
49.20
49.30
49.40
49.50
49.60
49.70
49.80
49.90
50.00
50.10
50.20
50.30
50.40
50.50
50.60
50.70
50.80
50.90
51.00
51.10
51.20
51.30
51.40
51.50
51.60
51.70
51.80
51.90
52.00
52.10
52.20
52.30
52.40
52.50
52.60
52.70
52.80
52.90
53.00
53.10
53.20
53.30
53.40
53.50
53.60
53.70
53.80
53.90
54.00
54.10
54.20
54.30
54.40
54.50
54.60
54.70
54.80
54.90
55.00
55.10
55.20
55.30
55.40
55.50
55.60
55.70
55.80
55.90
56.00
56.10
56.20
56.30
56.40
56.50
56.60
56.70
56.80
56.90
57.00
57.10
57.20
57.30
57.40
57.50
57.60
57.70
57.80
57.90
58.00
58.10
58.20
58.30
58.40
58.50
58.60
58.70
58.80
58.90
59.00
59.10
59.20
59.30
59.40
59.50
59.60
59.70
59.80
59.90
60.00
:
CO-ORDINATES
DEPTH RL
-45.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
47
46
48
47
47
46
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
CHECKED BY
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
eo =
=
60
=
=
40
20
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
4 OF 7
DR-27A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
ĳº
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-4.50 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
60.00
60.10
60.20
60.30
60.40
60.50
60.60
60.70
60.80
60.90
61.00
61.10
61.20
61.30
61.40
61.50
61.60
61.70
61.80
61.90
62.00
62.10
62.20
62.30
62.40
62.50
62.60
62.70
62.80
62.90
63.00
63.10
63.20
63.30
63.40
63.50
63.60
63.70
63.80
63.90
64.00
64.10
64.20
64.30
64.40
64.50
64.60
64.70
64.80
64.90
65.00
65.10
65.20
65.30
65.40
65.50
65.60
65.70
65.80
65.90
66.00
66.10
66.20
66.30
66.40
66.50
66.60
66.70
66.80
66.90
67.00
67.10
67.20
67.30
67.40
67.50
67.60
67.70
67.80
67.90
68.00
68.10
68.20
68.30
68.40
68.50
68.60
68.70
68.80
68.90
69.00
69.10
69.20
69.30
69.40
69.50
69.60
69.70
69.80
69.90
70.00
70.10
70.20
70.30
70.40
70.50
70.60
70.70
70.80
70.90
71.00
71.10
71.20
71.30
71.40
71.50
71.60
71.70
71.80
71.90
72.00
72.10
72.20
72.30
72.40
72.50
72.60
72.70
72.80
72.90
73.00
73.10
73.20
73.30
73.40
73.50
73.60
73.70
73.80
73.90
74.00
74.10
74.20
74.30
74.40
74.50
74.60
74.70
74.80
74.90
75.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669717.221
: 480145.7780
Palembang
NOTE :
Lempung sedikit kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abu-abu gelap. Beberapa
bercampur dengan batuan koral dan kulit kerang terfragmentasi dalam
hingga mudah getas. Interkorelasi lempung pasiran hingga pasir kelempungan
(halus hingga kasar), bercampur dengan batuan koral dan kulit kerang
terfragmentasi dalam ukuran butiran pasir hingga kerikil. Warna abu-abu
hingga abu-abu kehijauan, berbintik putih. Tersementasi lemah dan mudah
rapuh.
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-60.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
48
49
49
48
48
47
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-4.50 m
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
TYPE
:
:
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
20
5 OF 7
DR-27A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
X
: 480145.7780
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669717.221
NOTE :
Lempung sedikit kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abu-abu gelap. Beberapa
bercampur dengan batuan koral dan kulit kerang terfragmentasi dalam
hingga mudah getas. Interkorelasi lempung pasiran hingga pasir kelempungan
(halus hingga kasar), bercampur dengan batuan koral dan kulit kerang
terfragmentasi dalam ukuran butiran pasir hingga kerikil. Warna abu-abu
hingga abu-abu kehijauan, berbintik putih. Tersementasi lemah dan mudah
rapuh.
Y
75.00
75.10
75.20
75.30
75.40
75.50
75.60
75.70
75.80
75.90
76.00
76.10
76.20
76.30
76.40
76.50
76.60
76.70
76.80
76.90
77.00
77.10
77.20
77.30
77.40
77.50
77.60
77.70
77.80
77.90
78.00
78.10
78.20
78.30
78.40
78.50
78.60
78.70
78.80
78.90
79.00
79.10
79.20
79.30
79.40
79.50
79.60
79.70
79.80
79.90
80.00
80.10
80.20
80.30
80.40
80.50
80.60
80.70
80.80
80.90
81.00
81.10
81.20
81.30
81.40
81.50
81.60
81.70
81.80
81.90
82.00
82.10
82.20
82.30
82.40
82.50
82.60
82.70
82.80
82.90
83.00
83.10
83.20
83.30
83.40
83.50
83.60
83.70
83.80
83.90
84.00
84.10
84.20
84.30
84.40
84.50
84.60
84.70
84.80
84.90
85.00
85.10
85.20
85.30
85.40
85.50
85.60
85.70
85.80
85.90
86.00
86.10
86.20
86.30
86.40
86.50
86.60
86.70
86.80
86.90
87.00
87.10
87.20
87.30
87.40
87.50
87.60
87.70
87.80
87.90
88.00
88.10
88.20
88.30
88.40
88.50
88.60
88.70
88.80
88.90
89.00
89.10
89.20
89.30
89.40
89.50
89.60
89.70
89.80
89.90
90.00
:
CO-ORDINATES
DEPTH RL
-75.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
60
50
50
49
50
48
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
CHECKED BY
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
eo =
=
60
=
=
40
20
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
6 OF 7
DR-27A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
ĳº
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-4.50 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
90.00
90.10
90.20
90.30
90.40
90.50
90.60
90.70
90.80
90.90
91.00
91.10
91.20
91.30
91.40
91.50
91.60
91.70
91.80
91.90
92.00
92.10
92.20
92.30
92.40
92.50
92.60
92.70
92.80
92.90
93.00
93.10
93.20
93.30
93.40
93.50
93.60
93.70
93.80
93.90
94.00
94.10
94.20
94.30
94.40
94.50
94.60
94.70
94.80
94.90
95.00
95.10
95.20
95.30
95.40
95.50
95.60
95.70
95.80
95.90
96.00
96.10
96.20
96.30
96.40
96.50
96.60
96.70
96.80
96.90
97.00
97.10
97.20
97.30
97.40
97.50
97.60
97.70
97.80
97.90
98.00
98.10
98.20
98.30
98.40
98.50
98.60
98.70
98.80
98.90
99.00
99.10
99.20
99.30
99.40
99.50
99.60
99.70
99.80
99.90
100.00
100.10
100.20
100.30
100.40
100.50
100.60
100.70
100.80
100.90
101.00
101.10
101.20
101.30
101.40
101.50
101.60
101.70
101.80
101.90
102.00
102.10
102.20
102.30
102.40
102.50
102.60
102.70
102.80
102.90
103.00
103.10
103.20
103.30
103.40
103.50
103.60
103.70
103.80
103.90
104.00
104.10
104.20
104.30
104.40
104.50
104.60
104.70
104.80
104.90
105.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669717.221
: 480145.7780
Palembang
NOTE :
END OF BORING
Lempung sedikit kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abu-abu gelap, keras sekali.
Beberapa bercampur dengan batuan koral dan kulit kerang terfragmentasi
dalam ukuran butiran pasir hingga kerikil. Sebagian tersementasi lemah.
Rapuh hingga mudah getas.
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-90.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
50
>50
>50
>50
>50
0
:
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-4.50 m
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
HOLE STARTED
:
ORIENTATION
HOLE FINISHED
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
TYPE
:
:
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
20
7 OF 7
DR-27A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
:
CO-ORDINATES
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.55
14.65
14.75
14.85
14.95
15.00
11.50
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
10.00
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.55
5.65
5.75
5.85
5.95
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.55
8.65
8.75
8.85
8.95
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
9.80
9.90
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669339.585
: 479817.9390
NOTE :
Pasir kelanuan (berbutir halus) abu-abu hingga abu-abu gelap,
kepadatan sedang, kandungan lokalnya lanau organik
Lempung kelanauan, abu-abu kecoklatan hingga abu-abu
gelap, plastisitas tinggi, lunak hingga sedang, kandungan
lokalnya terdapat sedikit pasir berbutir halus dan lanau organik
Lempung kelanauan, abu-abu kecoklatan hingga abu-abu
gelap, plastisitas tinggi, sangat lunak, kandungan lokalnya
terdapat lanau organik
Lanau sedikit kelempungan, mengandung gambut dan sisa-sisa
tumbuhan, abu-abu kecoklatan hingga coklat keabu-abuan
bercorak kehitaman, plastisitas tinggi, sangat lunak.
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
20
5
4
2
1
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
UDS 3
8.00-8.50
UDS 2
5.00-5.50
UDS 1
2.00-2.50
FIELD
TEST
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
DEPTH RL
eo =
=
=
=
=
40
ĳº
20
Gs =
(kg/cm²) 0
ATERBERG
LIMITS
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ɶ
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LABORATORY TESTING
qu
Ian Rudiana
:
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
:
c
TYPE
1 OF 7
DRILLER
DR-28A
KOKEN
:
PAGE ... OF ...
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
CD
UDS 4
11.00-11.50
CU
SAMPLES
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-1.30 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
0.10
0.20
18.55
18.65
18.75
18.85
18.95
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.55
20.65
20.75
20.85
20.95
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.55
21.65
21.75
21.85
21.95
22.00
22.10
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.55
22.65
22.75
22.85
22.95
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.55
23.65
23.75
23.85
23.95
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.25
24.35
24.45
24.55
24.65
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.55
25.65
25.75
25.85
25.95
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.55
26.65
26.75
26.85
26.95
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.55
27.65
27.75
27.85
27.95
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
28.40
28.55
28.65
28.75
28.85
28.95
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.55
29.65
29.75
29.85
29.95
30.00
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.55
17.65
17.75
17.85
17.95
18.00
18.10
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669339.585
: 479817.9390
Palembang
NOTE :
Lempung sedikit kelanauan, abu-abu, keras sekali. Sedikit
mengandung batuan karang dan cangkang dari ukuran pasir
hingga kerikil. Sebagian tersementasi lemah. Sifat tanah
mudah rapuh hingga mudah patah
Pasir berbutir halus hingga kasar, sedikit kelanauan, abu-abu
hingga abu-abu gelap, sangat padat
Pasir kelanauan (berbutir halus sampai sedang) abu-abu terang
hingga abu-abu gelap, kepadatan sedang
Lanau sedikit pasiran, abu-abu kehijauan, keras
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-15.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
43
40
35
27
23
20
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
FIELD
TEST
DS 1
20.00-20.50
UDS 5
17.00-17.50
-
-
Vertical
-1.30 m
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
TYPE
2 OF 7
:
:
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
Ian Rudiana
DR-28A
:
KOKEN
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILL HOLE NO.
X
: 479817.9390
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669339.585
NOTE :
Sedikit mengandung batuan karang dan cangkang dari ukuran pasir hingga
kerikil. Sebagian tersementasi lemah. Sifat tanah mudah rapuh hingga mudah
patah.
Y
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.50
30.60
30.70
30.80
30.90
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
33.20
33.30
33.40
33.50
33.60
33.70
33.80
33.90
34.00
34.10
34.20
34.30
34.40
34.50
34.60
34.70
34.80
34.90
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.50
36.60
36.70
36.80
36.90
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.50
38.60
38.70
38.80
38.90
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.50
39.60
39.70
39.80
39.90
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.50
42.60
42.70
42.80
42.90
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.50
43.60
43.70
43.80
43.90
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.50
44.60
44.70
44.80
44.90
45.00
:
CO-ORDINATES
DEPTH RL
-30.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
47
47
48
50
45
43
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
CHECKED BY
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
eo =
=
60
=
=
40
20
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
3 OF 7
DR-28A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
ĳº
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-1.30 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
45.00
45.10
45.20
45.30
45.40
45.50
45.60
45.70
45.80
45.90
46.00
46.10
46.20
46.30
46.40
46.50
46.60
46.70
46.80
46.90
47.00
47.10
47.20
47.30
47.40
47.50
47.60
47.70
47.80
47.90
48.00
48.10
48.20
48.30
48.40
48.50
48.60
48.70
48.80
48.90
49.00
49.10
49.20
49.30
49.40
49.50
49.60
49.70
49.80
49.90
50.00
50.10
50.20
50.30
50.40
50.50
50.60
50.70
50.80
50.90
51.00
51.10
51.20
51.30
51.40
51.50
51.60
51.70
51.80
51.90
52.00
52.10
52.20
52.30
52.40
52.50
52.60
52.70
52.80
52.90
53.00
53.10
53.20
53.30
53.40
53.50
53.60
53.70
53.80
53.90
54.00
54.10
54.20
54.30
54.40
54.50
54.60
54.70
54.80
54.90
55.00
55.10
55.20
55.30
55.40
55.50
55.60
55.70
55.80
55.90
56.00
56.10
56.20
56.30
56.40
56.50
56.60
56.70
56.80
56.90
57.00
57.10
57.20
57.30
57.40
57.50
57.60
57.70
57.80
57.90
58.00
58.10
58.20
58.30
58.40
58.50
58.60
58.70
58.80
58.90
59.00
59.10
59.20
59.30
59.40
59.50
59.60
59.70
59.80
59.90
60.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669339.585
: 479817.9390
Palembang
NOTE :
patah.
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-45.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
37
43
42
48
49
47
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-1.30 m
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
TYPE
:
:
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
20
4 OF 7
DR-28A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
X
: 479817.9390
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669339.585
NOTE :
patah. Interkorelasi dengan lempung kepasiran hingga pasir kelanauan
(ukuran pasir halus) dengan campuran pecahan cangkang dan batuan karang
dari ukuran pasir hingga ukuran kerikil. Warna abu-abu hingga abu-abu
kehijauan, berbintik-bintik putih, material sebagian tersementasi dan agak
rapuh.
Y
60.00
60.10
60.20
60.30
60.40
60.50
60.60
60.70
60.80
60.90
61.00
61.10
61.20
61.30
61.40
61.50
61.60
61.70
61.80
61.90
62.00
62.10
62.20
62.30
62.40
62.50
62.60
62.70
62.80
62.90
63.00
63.10
63.20
63.30
63.40
63.50
63.60
63.70
63.80
63.90
64.00
64.10
64.20
64.30
64.40
64.50
64.60
64.70
64.80
64.90
65.00
65.10
65.20
65.30
65.40
65.50
65.60
65.70
65.80
65.90
66.00
66.10
66.20
66.30
66.40
66.50
66.60
66.70
66.80
66.90
67.00
67.10
67.20
67.30
67.40
67.50
67.60
67.70
67.80
67.90
68.00
68.10
68.20
68.30
68.40
68.50
68.60
68.70
68.80
68.90
69.00
69.10
69.20
69.30
69.40
69.50
69.60
69.70
69.80
69.90
70.00
70.10
70.20
70.30
70.40
70.50
70.60
70.70
70.80
70.90
71.00
71.10
71.20
71.30
71.40
71.50
71.60
71.70
71.80
71.90
72.00
72.10
72.20
72.30
72.40
72.50
72.60
72.70
72.80
72.90
73.00
73.10
73.20
73.30
73.40
73.50
73.60
73.70
73.80
73.90
74.00
74.10
74.20
74.30
74.40
74.50
74.60
74.70
74.80
74.90
75.00
:
CO-ORDINATES
DEPTH RL
-60.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
60
49
45
48
44
37
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
CHECKED BY
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
eo =
=
60
=
=
40
20
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
5 OF 7
DR-28A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
ĳº
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-1.30 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
75.00
75.10
75.20
75.30
75.40
75.50
75.60
75.70
75.80
75.90
76.00
76.10
76.20
76.30
76.40
76.50
76.60
76.70
76.80
76.90
77.00
77.10
77.20
77.30
77.40
77.50
77.60
77.70
77.80
77.90
78.00
78.10
78.20
78.30
78.40
78.50
78.60
78.70
78.80
78.90
79.00
79.10
79.20
79.30
79.40
79.50
79.60
79.70
79.80
79.90
80.00
80.10
80.20
80.30
80.40
80.50
80.60
80.70
80.80
80.90
81.00
81.10
81.20
81.30
81.40
81.50
81.60
81.70
81.80
81.90
82.00
82.10
82.20
82.30
82.40
82.50
82.60
82.70
82.80
82.90
83.00
83.10
83.20
83.30
83.40
83.50
83.60
83.70
83.80
83.90
84.00
84.10
84.20
84.30
84.40
84.50
84.60
84.70
84.80
84.90
85.00
85.10
85.20
85.30
85.40
85.50
85.60
85.70
85.80
85.90
86.00
86.10
86.20
86.30
86.40
86.50
86.60
86.70
86.80
86.90
87.00
87.10
87.20
87.30
87.40
87.50
87.60
87.70
87.80
87.90
88.00
88.10
88.20
88.30
88.40
88.50
88.60
88.70
88.80
88.90
89.00
89.10
89.20
89.30
89.40
89.50
89.60
89.70
89.80
89.90
90.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669339.585
: 479817.9390
Palembang
NOTE :
patah. Interkorelasi dengan lempung kepasiran hingga pasir kelanauan
(ukuran pasir halus) dengan campuran pecahan cangkang dan batuan karang
dari ukuran pasir hingga ukuran kerikil. Warna abu-abu hingga abu-abu
kehijauan, berbintik-bintik putih, material sebagian tersementasi dan agak
rapuh.
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-75.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
49
49
48
49
50
>50
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-1.30 m
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
TYPE
:
:
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
20
6 OF 7
DR-28A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
:
CO-ORDINATES
90.00
90.10
90.20
90.30
90.40
90.50
90.60
90.70
90.80
90.90
91.00
91.10
91.20
91.30
91.40
91.50
91.60
91.70
91.80
91.90
92.00
92.10
92.20
92.30
92.40
92.50
92.60
92.70
92.80
92.90
93.00
93.10
93.20
93.30
93.40
93.50
93.60
93.70
93.80
93.90
94.00
94.10
94.20
94.30
94.40
94.50
94.60
94.70
94.80
94.90
95.00
95.10
95.20
95.30
95.40
95.50
95.60
95.70
95.80
95.90
96.00
96.10
96.20
96.30
96.40
96.50
96.60
96.70
96.80
96.90
97.00
97.10
97.20
97.30
97.40
97.50
97.60
97.70
97.80
97.90
98.00
98.10
98.20
98.30
98.40
98.50
98.60
98.70
98.80
98.90
99.00
99.10
99.20
99.30
99.40
99.50
99.60
99.70
99.80
99.90
100.00
100.10
100.20
100.30
100.40
100.50
100.60
100.70
100.80
100.90
101.00
101.10
101.20
101.30
101.40
101.50
101.60
101.70
101.80
101.90
102.00
102.10
102.20
102.30
102.40
102.50
102.60
102.70
102.80
102.90
103.00
103.10
103.20
103.30
103.40
103.50
103.60
103.70
103.80
103.90
104.00
104.10
104.20
104.30
104.40
104.50
104.60
104.70
104.80
104.90
105.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669339.585
: 479817.9390
Palembang
NOTE :
END OF BORING
patah.
:
Depth (m)
LOCATION
DEPTH RL
-90.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
50
50
50
50
49
0
:
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
CHECKED BY
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
eo =
=
60
=
=
40
20
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
7 OF 7
DR-28A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
ĳº
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
UU
-
-
Vertical
SAMPLES
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
:
ORIENTATION
DATE/DEPTH
-1.30 m
WEATHERING
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.55
14.65
14.75
14.85
14.95
15.00
11.50
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
10.00
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.55
5.65
5.75
5.85
5.95
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.55
8.65
8.75
8.85
8.95
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
9.80
9.90
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669149.097
: 479656.1360
Palembang
NOTE :
Pasir halus agak berlanau, coklat keabu-abuan hingga coklat
tua, kepadatan sedang, bercampur dengan lanau organik
Pasir halus agak berlanau, coklat tua, bercampur dengan lanau
organik, sangat lepas hingga lepas
Pasir halus agak berlanau, coklat keabu-abuan, bercampur
dengan lanau organik, sangat lepas
Lanau agak kelempungan, bercampur dengan akar-akaran dan
gambut, coklat muda hingga coklat kekuningan, plastisitas
tinggi, sangat lunak
:
PROJECT
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
11
4
5
1
1
0
:
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-
UDS 2
5.00-5.50
UDS 1
2.00-2.50
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
HOLE STARTED
:
ORIENTATION
HOLE FINISHED
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
DEPTH RL
TYPE
1 OF 7
Ian Rudiana
:
:
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
:
DRILLER
DR-29A
KOKEN
:
PAGE ... OF ...
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
:
CO-ORDINATES
0.10
0.20
18.55
18.65
18.75
18.85
18.95
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.55
20.65
20.75
20.85
20.95
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.55
21.65
21.75
21.85
21.95
22.00
22.10
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.55
22.65
22.75
22.85
22.95
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.55
23.65
23.75
23.85
23.95
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.25
24.35
24.45
24.55
24.65
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.55
25.65
25.75
25.85
25.95
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.55
26.65
26.75
26.85
26.95
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.55
27.65
27.75
27.85
27.95
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
28.40
28.55
28.65
28.75
28.85
28.95
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.55
29.65
29.75
29.85
29.95
30.00
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.55
17.65
17.75
17.85
17.95
18.00
18.10
Y
X
: 479656.1360
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669149.097
NOTE :
Lempung agak berlanau, abu-abu, keras sekali, kadang
bercampur batuan karang dan kerang, dari ukuran pasir hingga
kerikil. Sebagian tersementasi. Sifat tanah mudah rapuh
hingga mudah patah
Pasir halus hingga kasar, agak berlanau, abu-abu, padat
Pasir halus hingga sedang, agak berlanau, abu-abu kecoklatan,
kepadatan sedang
Pasir halus hingga kasar, agak berlanau, abu-abu kekuningan,
kepadatan sedang, bercampur batuan karang dari ukuran pasir
hingga kerikil
Lanau kepasiran, abu-abu kekuningan hingga abu-abu
kehijauan, sedang hingga keras
Pasir halus agak berlanau, coklat keabu-abuan hingga coklat
tua, kepadatan sedang, bercampur dengan lanau organik
DEPTH RL
-15.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
45
46
26
17
11
11
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
ĳº
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
eo =
=
=
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
=
=
40
Gs =
20
ɶ
(kg/cm²) 0
ĳº
ATERBERG
LIMITS
WATER CONTENT
CU
(kg/cm²)
qu
qu
TYPE
C
STRENGTH TEST
c
FIELD
TEST
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.50
30.60
30.70
30.80
30.90
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
33.20
33.30
33.40
33.50
33.60
33.70
33.80
33.90
34.00
34.10
34.20
34.30
34.40
34.50
34.60
34.70
34.80
34.90
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.50
36.60
36.70
36.80
36.90
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.50
38.60
38.70
38.80
38.90
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.50
39.60
39.70
39.80
39.90
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.50
42.60
42.70
42.80
42.90
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.50
43.60
43.70
43.80
43.90
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.50
44.60
44.70
44.80
44.90
45.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669149.097
: 479656.1360
Palembang
NOTE :
Lempung agak berlanau, abu-abu, keras sekali, kadang bercampur batuan
karang dan kerang, dari ukuran pasir hingga kerikil. Sebagian tersementasi.
Sifat tanah mudah rapuh hingga mudah patah
:
CHECKED BY
CO-ORDINATES
:
:
LOGGED BY
:
LOCATION
Ian Rudiana
:
DRILLER
:
2 OF 7
PROJECT
DR-29A
:
KOKEN
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILL HOLE NO.
CD
SAMPLES
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
DEPTH RL
-30.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
40
34
30
35
29
45
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
20
eo =
=
=
=
=
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
(kg/cm²) 0
3 OF 7
DR-29A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
ĳº
ĳº
qu
Gs =
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
ɶ
CHECKED BY
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
UU
-
-
Vertical
-
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
X
: 479656.1360
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669149.097
NOTE :
Lempung agak berlanau, abu-abu, keras sekali, kadang bercampur batuan
karang dan kerang, dari ukuran pasir hingga kerikil. Sebagian tersementasi.
Sifat tanah mudah rapuh hingga mudah patah
Y
45.00
45.10
45.20
45.30
45.40
45.50
45.60
45.70
45.80
45.90
46.00
46.10
46.20
46.30
46.40
46.50
46.60
46.70
46.80
46.90
47.00
47.10
47.20
47.30
47.40
47.50
47.60
47.70
47.80
47.90
48.00
48.10
48.20
48.30
48.40
48.50
48.60
48.70
48.80
48.90
49.00
49.10
49.20
49.30
49.40
49.50
49.60
49.70
49.80
49.90
50.00
50.10
50.20
50.30
50.40
50.50
50.60
50.70
50.80
50.90
51.00
51.10
51.20
51.30
51.40
51.50
51.60
51.70
51.80
51.90
52.00
52.10
52.20
52.30
52.40
52.50
52.60
52.70
52.80
52.90
53.00
53.10
53.20
53.30
53.40
53.50
53.60
53.70
53.80
53.90
54.00
54.10
54.20
54.30
54.40
54.50
54.60
54.70
54.80
54.90
55.00
55.10
55.20
55.30
55.40
55.50
55.60
55.70
55.80
55.90
56.00
56.10
56.20
56.30
56.40
56.50
56.60
56.70
56.80
56.90
57.00
57.10
57.20
57.30
57.40
57.50
57.60
57.70
57.80
57.90
58.00
58.10
58.20
58.30
58.40
58.50
58.60
58.70
58.80
58.90
59.00
59.10
59.20
59.30
59.40
59.50
59.60
59.70
59.80
59.90
60.00
:
CO-ORDINATES
DEPTH RL
-45.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
60
50
48
50
49
40
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
CHECKED BY
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
eo =
=
60
=
=
40
20
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
4 OF 7
DR-29A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
ĳº
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
60.00
60.10
60.20
60.30
60.40
60.50
60.60
60.70
60.80
60.90
61.00
61.10
61.20
61.30
61.40
61.50
61.60
61.70
61.80
61.90
62.00
62.10
62.20
62.30
62.40
62.50
62.60
62.70
62.80
62.90
63.00
63.10
63.20
63.30
63.40
63.50
63.60
63.70
63.80
63.90
64.00
64.10
64.20
64.30
64.40
64.50
64.60
64.70
64.80
64.90
65.00
65.10
65.20
65.30
65.40
65.50
65.60
65.70
65.80
65.90
66.00
66.10
66.20
66.30
66.40
66.50
66.60
66.70
66.80
66.90
67.00
67.10
67.20
67.30
67.40
67.50
67.60
67.70
67.80
67.90
68.00
68.10
68.20
68.30
68.40
68.50
68.60
68.70
68.80
68.90
69.00
69.10
69.20
69.30
69.40
69.50
69.60
69.70
69.80
69.90
70.00
70.10
70.20
70.30
70.40
70.50
70.60
70.70
70.80
70.90
71.00
71.10
71.20
71.30
71.40
71.50
71.60
71.70
71.80
71.90
72.00
72.10
72.20
72.30
72.40
72.50
72.60
72.70
72.80
72.90
73.00
73.10
73.20
73.30
73.40
73.50
73.60
73.70
73.80
73.90
74.00
74.10
74.20
74.30
74.40
74.50
74.60
74.70
74.80
74.90
75.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669149.097
: 479656.1360
Palembang
NOTE :
Lempung agak kelanauan, abu-abu hingga abu-abu kehijauan, keras sekali.
Kadang bercampur batuan karang dan kerang, fragmen ini berukuran pasir
hingga kerikil. Agak tersementasi sebagian. Sifat tanah mudah rapuh hingga
mudah patah. Interkorelasi dengan lempung kepasiran (pasir halus) dengan
campuran pecahan kerang dan batuan karang. Warna abu-abu hingga abuabu kehijauan, berbintik-bintik putih, material sebagian tersementasi dan
agak rapuh.
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-60.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
47
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
0
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
TYPE
:
:
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
20
5 OF 7
DR-29A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
X
: 479656.1360
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669149.097
NOTE :
mudah patah. Interkorelasi dengan lempung kepasiran (pasir halus) dengan
campuran pecahan kerang dan batuan karang. Warna abu-abu hingga abuabu kehijauan, berbintik-bintik putih, material sebagian tersementasi dan
agak rapuh.
Y
75.00
75.10
75.20
75.30
75.40
75.50
75.60
75.70
75.80
75.90
76.00
76.10
76.20
76.30
76.40
76.50
76.60
76.70
76.80
76.90
77.00
77.10
77.20
77.30
77.40
77.50
77.60
77.70
77.80
77.90
78.00
78.10
78.20
78.30
78.40
78.50
78.60
78.70
78.80
78.90
79.00
79.10
79.20
79.30
79.40
79.50
79.60
79.70
79.80
79.90
80.00
80.10
80.20
80.30
80.40
80.50
80.60
80.70
80.80
80.90
81.00
81.10
81.20
81.30
81.40
81.50
81.60
81.70
81.80
81.90
82.00
82.10
82.20
82.30
82.40
82.50
82.60
82.70
82.80
82.90
83.00
83.10
83.20
83.30
83.40
83.50
83.60
83.70
83.80
83.90
84.00
84.10
84.20
84.30
84.40
84.50
84.60
84.70
84.80
84.90
85.00
85.10
85.20
85.30
85.40
85.50
85.60
85.70
85.80
85.90
86.00
86.10
86.20
86.30
86.40
86.50
86.60
86.70
86.80
86.90
87.00
87.10
87.20
87.30
87.40
87.50
87.60
87.70
87.80
87.90
88.00
88.10
88.20
88.30
88.40
88.50
88.60
88.70
88.80
88.90
89.00
89.10
89.20
89.30
89.40
89.50
89.60
89.70
89.80
89.90
90.00
:
CO-ORDINATES
DEPTH RL
-75.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
>50
>50
>50
48
47
47
0
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
CHECKED BY
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
eo =
=
60
=
=
40
20
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
ATERBERG
LIMITS
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
6 OF 7
DR-29A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
WATER CONTENT
Gs =
ĳº
qu
ɶ
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
:
LOGGED BY
CD
:
DRILLER
qu
TYPE
:
MACHINE TYPE
c
FIELD
TEST
:
PAGE ... OF ...
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
:
:
:
LOCATION
CO-ORDINATES
90.00
90.10
90.20
90.30
90.40
90.50
90.60
90.70
90.80
90.90
91.00
91.10
91.20
91.30
91.40
91.50
91.60
91.70
91.80
91.90
92.00
92.10
92.20
92.30
92.40
92.50
92.60
92.70
92.80
92.90
93.00
93.10
93.20
93.30
93.40
93.50
93.60
93.70
93.80
93.90
94.00
94.10
94.20
94.30
94.40
94.50
94.60
94.70
94.80
94.90
95.00
95.10
95.20
95.30
95.40
95.50
95.60
95.70
95.80
95.90
96.00
96.10
96.20
96.30
96.40
96.50
96.60
96.70
96.80
96.90
97.00
97.10
97.20
97.30
97.40
97.50
97.60
97.70
97.80
97.90
98.00
98.10
98.20
98.30
98.40
98.50
98.60
98.70
98.80
98.90
99.00
99.10
99.20
99.30
99.40
99.50
99.60
99.70
99.80
99.90
100.00
100.10
100.20
100.30
100.40
100.50
100.60
100.70
100.80
100.90
101.00
101.10
101.20
101.30
101.40
101.50
101.60
101.70
101.80
101.90
102.00
102.10
102.20
102.30
102.40
102.50
102.60
102.70
102.80
102.90
103.00
103.10
103.20
103.30
103.40
103.50
103.60
103.70
103.80
103.90
104.00
104.10
104.20
104.30
104.40
104.50
104.60
104.70
104.80
104.90
105.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669149.097
: 479656.1360
Palembang
NOTE :
END OF BORING
mudah patah.
:
PROJECT
DEPTH RL
-90.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
50
>50
50
50
50
50
0
:
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
HOLE STARTED
:
ORIENTATION
HOLE FINISHED
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
Depth (m)
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
GRAPHIC LOG
TYPE
:
:
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
MACHINE TYPE
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
ATERBERG
LIMITS
=
=
=
=
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
40
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
Ian Rudiana
WATER CONTENT
20
7 OF 7
DR-29A
Ian Rudiana
KOKEN
LABORATORY TESTING
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.50
5.60
5.70
5.80
5.90
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.50
8.60
8.70
8.80
8.90
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
9.80
9.90
10.00
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
11.50
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.50
14.60
14.70
14.80
14.90
15.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669019.766
: 479542.7130
NOTE :
Lempung warna abu-abu dan kuning
Endapan batubara sangat lunak sekali warna hitam
Lempung abu-abu kehitaman ada kayu-kayu busuk
Lempung abu-abu tua kehitaman
Lempung coklat dan abu-abu ada kayu-kayu busuk
Lempung abu-abu dan kuning kecoklatan
Endapan gambut organik
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
3
1
2
2
3
0
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
UDS 3
8.00-8.50
UDS 2
5.00-5.50
UDS 1
2.00-2.50
FIELD
TEST
GEOLOGICAL TERM
DEPTH RL
ĳº
=
eo =
Gs =
=
=
=
40
ɶ
20
(kg/cm²) 0
ĳº
ATERBERG
LIMITS
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
CD
(kg/cm²)
qu
qu
TYPE
C
STRENGTH TEST
LABORATORY TESTING
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.50
17.60
17.70
17.80
17.90
18.00
18.10
18.20
18.30
18.40
18.50
18.60
18.70
18.80
18.90
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.50
20.60
20.70
20.80
20.90
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.50
21.60
21.70
21.80
21.90
22.00
22.10
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.50
22.60
22.70
22.80
22.90
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.50
23.60
23.70
23.80
23.90
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.50
24.60
24.70
24.80
24.90
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.50
25.60
25.70
25.80
25.90
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.50
26.60
26.70
26.80
26.90
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.50
27.60
27.70
27.80
27.90
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
28.40
28.50
28.60
28.70
28.80
28.90
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.50
29.60
29.70
29.80
29.90
30.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669019.766
: 479542.7130
Palembang
NOTE :
Lempung abu-abu tua ada sisipan tanah organik warna hitam
Lempung abu-abu tua pasiran
Lempung abu-abu tua ada sisipan tanah organik warna hitam
:
:
CO-ORDINATES
:
LOCATION
:
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ADIM
ADIM
:
LOGGED BY
:
PROJECT
CHECKED BY
DRILLER
DR-30
1 OF 3
YBM (Y50-1)
:
PAGE ... OF ...
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
c
UDS 5
14.00-14.50
UDS 4
11.00-11.50
UU
-
-
Vertical
SAMPLES
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
:
HOLE STARTED
ORIENTATION
HOLE FINISHED
WEATHERING
Palembang
:
:
Depth (m)
CO-ORDINATES
GRAPHIC LOG
LOCATION
DATE/DEPTH
-0.50 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
:
DEPTH RL
-15.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
13
8
7
8
3
3
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
FIELD
TEST
UDS 10
29.00-29.50
UDS 9
26.00-26.50
UDS 8
23.00-23.50
UDS 7
20.00-20.50
UDS 6
17.00-17.50
-
-
Vertical
-0.50 m
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
ORIENTATION
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
Depth (m)
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
GRAPHIC LOG
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
TYPE
:
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ADIM
ADIM
:
MACHINE TYPE
DR-30
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
2 OF 3
YBM (Y50-1)
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
0.10
0.20
34.45
34.55
34.65
34.75
34.85
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.45
36.55
36.65
36.75
36.85
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.55
38.65
38.75
38.85
38.95
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.45
39.55
39.65
39.75
39.85
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.55
42.65
42.75
42.85
42.95
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.55
43.65
43.75
43.85
43.95
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.55
44.65
44.75
44.85
44.95
45.00
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.50
30.60
30.70
30.80
30.90
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
NOTE :
END BORING
Lempung abu-abu sangat padat dan lengket
Lempung abu-abu tua ada pecah-pecah
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9669019.766
: 479542.713
Palembang
Y
X
:
:
LOCATION
Depth (m)
DEPTH RL
-30.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
42
47
46
13
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
GEOLOGICAL TERM
ĳº
eo =
=
=
=
=
40
Gs =
20
ɶ
(kg/cm²) 0
ĳº
ATERBERG
LIMITS
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
(kg/cm²)
qu
qu
CD
TYPE
C
STRENGTH TEST
c
FIELD
TEST
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.50
5.60
5.70
5.80
5.90
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.50
8.60
8.70
8.80
8.90
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
9.80
9.90
10.00
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
11.50
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.50
14.60
14.70
14.80
14.90
15.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
: 479226.1660
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9668565.880
NOTE :
Pasir halus lempungan warna abu-abu tua
Lempung abu-abu muda
Lempung warna merah, dan kuning, ada sedikit abu-abu
Lempung abu-abu
Tanah organik warna hitam
Lempung kuning keabu-abuan
Gambut organik berwarna hijau
Y
X
Palembang
:
:
LOCATION
:
CO-ORDINATES
:
CHECKED BY
ADIM
ADIM
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
:
PROJECT
MACHINE TYPE
DR-30
:
PAGE ... OF ...
3 OF 3
YBM (Y50-1)
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
WEATHERING
Vertical
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
-0.50 m
Depth (m)
CO-ORDINATES
GRAPHIC LOG
:
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
9
8
6
2
3
0
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
UDS 3
8.00-8.50
UDS 2
5.00-5.50
UDS 1
2.00-2.50
FIELD
TEST
UDS 5
14.00-14.50
UDS 4
11.00-11.50
-
-
Vertical
-0.10 m
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
HOLE STARTED
:
:
LOG BORE
HOLE FINISHED
ORIENTATION
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
GRAPHIC LOG
DATE/DEPTH
:
WEATHERING
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
DEPTH RL
TYPE
:
ADIM
ADIM
:
:
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
(kg/cm²) 0
qu
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
:
LOGGED BY
STRENGTH TEST
DR-31
1 OF 3
YBM (Y50-1)
CHECKED BY
DRILLER
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
PAGE ... OF ...
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.50
17.60
17.70
17.80
17.90
18.00
18.10
18.20
18.30
18.40
18.50
18.60
18.70
18.80
18.90
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.50
20.60
20.70
20.80
20.90
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.50
21.60
21.70
21.80
21.90
22.00
22.10
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.50
22.60
22.70
22.80
22.90
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.50
23.60
23.70
23.80
23.90
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.50
24.60
24.70
24.80
24.90
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.50
25.60
25.70
25.80
25.90
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.50
26.60
26.70
26.80
26.90
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.50
27.60
27.70
27.80
27.90
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
28.40
28.50
28.60
28.70
28.80
28.90
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.50
29.60
29.70
29.80
29.90
30.00
NOTE :
Pasir berbutir sedang warna abu-abu kehijauan
Pasir halus lempungan warna abu-abu
Pasir halus lempungan warna abu-abu agak kuning
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9668565.880
: 479226.1660
Palembang
Y
X
:
:
Depth (m)
LOCATION
DEPTH RL
-15.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
GRAPHIC LOG
CO-ORDINATES
N - Value
32
19
15
15
13
9
:
0 - 10
:
HOLE FINISHED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
FIELD
TEST
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
eo =
ĳº
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
=
=
60
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
=
=
40
Gs =
20
(kg/cm²) 0
ATERBERG
LIMITS
WATER CONTENT
ĳº
qu
qu
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
0.10
0.20
34.45
34.55
34.65
34.75
34.85
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.45
36.55
36.65
36.75
36.85
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.55
38.65
38.75
38.85
38.95
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.45
39.55
39.65
39.75
39.85
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.55
42.65
42.75
42.85
42.95
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.55
43.65
43.75
43.85
43.95
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.55
44.65
44.75
44.85
44.95
45.00
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.50
30.60
30.70
30.80
30.90
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
NOTE :
:
c
:
CHECKED BY
ɶ
TYPE
CO-ORDINATES
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9668565.880
: 479226.166
Palembang
END BORING
Lempung abu-abu sangat lengket
Pasir berbutir sedang warna abu-abu kehijauan
:
:
LOCATION
ADIM
:
:
MACHINE TYPE
ADIM
:
PROJECT
DR-31
2 OF 3
YBM (Y50-1)
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
PAGE ... OF ...
UDS 6
17.00-17.50
CD
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
HOLE STARTED
DATE/DEPTH
-0.10 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
:
GEOLOGICAL TERM
DEPTH RL
-30.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
37
27
34
32
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-0.10 m
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
:
HOLE STARTED
ORIENTATION
HOLE FINISHED
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
Depth (m)
GROUND WATER LEVEL
GRAPHIC LOG
DATE/DEPTH
:
WEATHERING
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
TYPE
:
:
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ADIM
ADIM
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
MACHINE TYPE
DR-31
:
PAGE ... OF ...
3 OF 3
YBM (Y50-1)
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
0.10
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.50
5.60
5.70
5.80
5.90
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
7.20
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.50
8.60
8.70
8.80
8.90
9.00
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
9.80
9.90
10.00
10.10
10.20
10.30
10.40
10.50
10.60
10.70
10.80
10.90
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
11.50
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
13.00
13.10
13.20
13.30
13.40
13.50
13.60
13.70
13.80
13.90
14.00
14.10
14.20
14.30
14.40
14.50
14.60
14.70
14.80
14.90
15.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
NOTE :
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9668377.761
: 479162.1600
Lempung warna abu-abu
Lempung warna abu-abu tua
Lempung abu-abu dan kuning
Endapan Gambut Organik
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
4
3
5
2
0
0
:
0 - 10
:
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
UDS 3
8.00-8.50
UDS 2
5.00-5.50
UDS 1
2.00-2.50
FIELD
TEST
GEOLOGICAL TERM
DEPTH RL
ĳº
eo =
=
=
=
=
40
Gs =
20
ɶ
(kg/cm²) 0
ATERBERG
LIMITS
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
CD
:
LABORATORY TESTING
qu
TYPE
:
CO-ORDINATES
ADIM
:
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
15.00
15.10
15.20
15.30
15.40
15.50
15.60
15.70
15.80
15.90
16.00
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.50
17.60
17.70
17.80
17.90
18.00
18.10
18.20
18.30
18.40
18.50
18.60
18.70
18.80
18.90
19.00
19.10
19.20
19.30
19.40
19.50
19.60
19.70
19.80
19.90
20.00
20.10
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.50
20.60
20.70
20.80
20.90
21.00
21.10
21.20
21.30
21.40
21.50
21.60
21.70
21.80
21.90
22.00
22.10
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.50
22.60
22.70
22.80
22.90
23.00
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
23.50
23.60
23.70
23.80
23.90
24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.50
24.60
24.70
24.80
24.90
25.00
25.10
25.20
25.30
25.40
25.50
25.60
25.70
25.80
25.90
26.00
26.10
26.20
26.30
26.40
26.50
26.60
26.70
26.80
26.90
27.00
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.40
27.50
27.60
27.70
27.80
27.90
28.00
28.10
28.20
28.30
28.40
28.50
28.60
28.70
28.80
28.90
29.00
29.10
29.20
29.30
29.40
29.50
29.60
29.70
29.80
29.90
30.00
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9668377.761
: 479162.1600
Palembang
NOTE :
Lempung warna abu-abu ada sisipan pelapukan seperti batu karang, kapur
warna putih
:
LOCATION
ADIM
:
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
:
PROJECT
1 OF 4
DR-31A
YBM (Y50-1)
DRILLER
:
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
PAGE ... OF ...
c
UDS 5
14.00-14.50
UDS 4
11.00-11.50
UU
-
-
Vertical
SAMPLES
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
:
ORIENTATION
WEATHERING
Palembang
:
CO-ORDINATES
Depth (m)
:
GRAPHIC LOG
LOCATION
DATE/DEPTH
-0.10 m
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
:
DEPTH RL
-15.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
25
26
7
6
6
4
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
FIELD
TEST
UDS 8
23.00-23.50
UDS 7
20.00-20.50
UDS 6
17.00-17.50
-
-
Vertical
-0.10 m
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
Depth (m)
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
GRAPHIC LOG
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
TYPE
DR-31A
2 OF 4
:
:
:
:
MACHINE TYPE
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ADIM
ADIM
YBM (Y50-1)
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
PAGE ... OF ...
:
CO-ORDINATES
0.10
0.20
34.45
34.55
34.65
34.75
34.85
35.00
35.10
35.20
35.30
35.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
35.50
35.60
35.70
35.80
35.90
36.00
36.10
36.20
36.30
36.40
36.45
36.55
36.65
36.75
36.85
37.00
37.10
37.20
37.30
37.40
37.50
37.60
37.70
37.80
37.90
38.00
38.10
38.20
38.30
38.40
38.55
38.65
38.75
38.85
38.95
39.00
39.10
39.20
39.30
39.40
39.45
39.55
39.65
39.75
39.85
40.00
40.10
40.20
40.30
40.40
40.50
40.60
40.70
40.80
40.90
41.00
41.10
41.20
41.30
41.40
41.50
41.60
41.70
41.80
41.90
42.00
42.10
42.20
42.30
42.40
42.55
42.65
42.75
42.85
42.95
43.00
43.10
43.20
43.30
43.40
43.55
43.65
43.75
43.85
43.95
44.00
44.10
44.20
44.30
44.40
44.55
44.65
44.75
44.85
44.95
45.00
30.00
30.10
30.20
30.30
30.40
30.50
30.60
30.70
30.80
30.90
31.00
31.10
31.20
31.30
31.40
31.50
31.60
31.70
31.80
31.90
32.00
32.10
32.20
32.30
32.40
32.50
32.60
32.70
32.80
32.90
33.00
33.10
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9668377.761
: 479162.160
NOTE :
Lempung warna abu-abu sangat padat dan keras
Pelapukan pasir warna putih agak berbutir kasar
Lempung warna abu-abu ada sisipan pelapukan seperti batu karang, kapur
warna putih
DEPTH RL
-30.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
46
50
30
32
27
25
:
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
HOLE STARTED
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
:
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
GEOLOGICAL TERM
ĳº
eo =
=
=
=
=
40
Gs =
20
(kg/cm²) 0
ATERBERG
LIMITS
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ĳº
qu
qu
(kg/cm²)
C
STRENGTH TEST
3 OF 4
DR-31A
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
LABORATORY TESTING
c
TYPE
ADIM
:
MACHINE TYPE
ɶ
FIELD
TEST
ADIM
:
PAGE ... OF ...
YBM (Y50-1)
:
:
DRILL HOLE NO.
CD
SAMPLES
UU
-
-
Vertical
WEATHERING
CU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
ORIENTATION
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
Palembang
:
Depth (m)
-0.10 m
:
CO-ORDINATES
45.00
45.10
45.20
45.30
45.40
45.50
45.60
45.70
45.80
45.90
46.00
46.10
46.20
46.30
46.40
46.50
46.60
46.70
46.80
46.90
47.00
47.10
47.20
47.30
47.40
47.50
47.60
47.70
47.80
47.90
48.00
48.10
48.20
48.30
48.40
48.50
48.60
48.70
48.80
48.90
49.00
49.10
49.20
49.30
49.40
49.50
49.60
49.70
49.80
49.90
50.00
50.10
50.20
50.30
50.40
50.50
50.60
50.70
50.80
50.90
51.00
51.10
51.20
51.30
51.40
51.50
51.60
51.70
51.80
51.90
52.00
52.10
52.20
52.30
52.40
52.50
52.60
52.70
52.80
52.90
53.00
53.10
53.20
53.30
53.40
53.50
53.60
53.70
53.80
53.90
54.00
54.10
54.20
54.30
54.40
54.50
54.60
54.70
54.80
54.90
55.00
55.10
55.20
55.30
55.40
55.50
55.60
55.70
55.80
55.90
56.00
56.10
56.20
56.30
56.40
56.50
56.60
56.70
56.80
56.90
57.00
57.10
57.20
57.30
57.40
57.50
57.60
57.70
57.80
57.90
58.00
58.10
58.20
58.30
58.40
58.50
58.60
58.70
58.80
58.90
59.00
59.10
59.20
59.30
59.40
59.50
59.60
59.70
59.80
59.90
60.00
NOTE :
:
LOCATION
Y
X
CORE DESCRIPTION
: 9668377.761
: 479162.160
Palembang
END OF BORING
Lempung warna abu-abu sangat padat dan keras
:
PROJECT
Depth (m)
LOCATION
GRAPHIC LOG
:
DEPTH RL
-45.50
N1
N2
N3
SPT VALUES
RL GROUND :
N - Value
50
45
46
:
:
HOLE STARTED
HOLE FINISHED
0 - 10
:
ORIENTATION
20 - 30
SPT
UDS / DS
10 - 20
30 - 40
N - VALUE
40 - 50
-
-
Vertical
-0.10 m
FIELD
TEST
ĳº
c
qu
CD
CU
UU
50 - 60 60 - >60
:
LOG BORE
GROUND WATER LEVEL
SAMPLES
LOG BORE
DATE/DEPTH
GROUND WATER LEVEL
WEATHERING
GRAPHIC LOG
:
DATE/DEPTH
PROJECT
CORE LENGTH/SIZE
GEOLOGICAL TERM
TYPE
DR-31A
4 OF 4
:
:
:
:
DRILLER
LOGGED BY
CHECKED BY
(kg/cm²)
C
ĳº
qu
(kg/cm²) 0
STRENGTH TEST
=
=
=
=
40
eo =
Gs =
ɶ
20
80 100
Ȗ (t/m³)
Void Ratio
Specific grafity
Bulk density,t/m³
Gs
eo
INDEK
PROPERTIES
60
WATER CONTENT
ATERBERG
LIMITS
LABORATORY TESTING
Ir. Iskandar,.MT
ADIM
ADIM
YBM (Y50-1)
:
:
PAGE ... OF ...
DRILL HOLE NO.
MACHINE TYPE
Appendix 3.2
Documentations for Ship Channel Condition of Musi
River
Fiqure 1 Letter about ship channel condition forr Musi III Bridge Project by Ministry of Transportation (2010)
1
2
Figure 2 Memorandum for ship channel condition for Musi III bridge Project between PELINDO
(Indonesian Port Authority) and South Sumatra Region of Ministry of Public Works (2014)
3
Reproduction Prohibited

Additional Study on the Musi River Crossing Bridge Project in the

Transcription

Similar documents

00Page_Front cover_RU_Q - MIDAS Engineering Software

Double Tied Arch Double Tied Arch bridge