Study On A Flood Mitigation System Plan For The Banjir Kanal Barat

RIVER AND DEVELOPMENT 2007, Bali
Study on a Flood Mitigation System Plan for The Banjir Kanal Barat
L. Budi Triadi
Senior Researcher, Research Centre for Water Resources
Jalan Ir. H. Juanda No 193 Bandung -40135, Phone : 022-2500507, Fax : 022-2500163
E-mail: bdytriadi@bdg.centrin.net.id
Abstract
The Banjir Kanal Barat (BKB- West Flood Canal) normalization plan is one of the proposed solutions to
the flood problem in DKI-Jakarta. The objective of study covers the determination of BKB wet season
flood mitigation pattern conforming to required water elevation. This study is conducted constructively
by EXTICOM mathematical model simulation, an unsteady flow approach for two different conditions,
i.e. before and after normalization with 25-year return period flood discharge (refer to JICA study
results,1996). Pursuant to analysis, normalization of the canal is inevitable and besides implementation
of such the reconstruction of some bridges and roads is also essential because actual fact is that canal
structure would not be able to carry the 25-year return period flood discharge. This being the case, as
related to enlargement of existing canal structure, initial actions should consider the land acquisition of
areas in vicinity of the canal and downstream canal slope which is limited by sea elevation. From the
three alternatives proposed, Alternative II is yielding a more effective water level decrease and is
therefore best to be implemented.
Key words : flood, mitigation, model mathematic, normalization
Introduction
Background
The Banjir Kanal Barat (BKB), one of the proposed solutions of controlling floods in the Jakarta area
and which is constructed intersecting the Ciliwung River starts at the Manggarai outlet gate, and
extending to the northwest ends at the estuary of Kali Angke.The structure is also crossing some
smaller streams and adding to the BKB flow discharge. Considering the canal length and the severe
condition of its drainage system, aggravated by upstream debris, sedimentation, garbage disposal, and
illegal settlers on flood plains, improvement measures have to be applied to its development system. By
reconstructing the drainage system, a better and healthier environment can be established and a large
community shall be benefited from such condition.
Problematic Issue
The problem of illegal settlers on the BKB flood plain cannot be resolved by law enforcement or by
setting-up a structure only. This condition is also influenced by the situation outside the flood dikes
which is related to community needs that have no other choice in sustaining life. Such was concluded
from the feed-back data obtained from various canal normalization works implemented since the 1970th
up to present date. Therefore, the alternative solution suggested in this study considered the previous
results.
Additional to that, development in upstream Ciliwung area is continously increasing and adding to the
increase of river discharge in downstream Ciliwung River ( Banjir Kanal Barat ). The participation and
L. BUDI TRIADI
awareness of all concerned with Ciliwung problematic issues should be intensified. By relying only on
the government with its limited financial sources, not much can be achieved.
Objective and Aim

The objective of study covers the determination of BKB wet season flood mitigation pattern
conforming to required water elevation. The aim of this study is to design a flood mitigation system plan
with emphasis on an integrated drainage system employing available facilities ( channels and hydraulic
structure ) in order to support the Jakarta macro- water management system
Study Location
The study focused on the canal system of BKB in DKI Jaya area ( see Figure 1 )
LEGEND :
: DKI Jakarta Border

: Location of Study
Scale
Fig. 1 Location Map
L. BUDI TRIADI
Hypothesis
Flood mitigation efforts should consider following factors:
- Water resource , such as upstream discharge flow, rainfall, and tidal waves
- Cause of flood, such as inadequate drainage system performance, trash and sedimentation, lack
of drainage facilities, and unsuitable flood plains
- Mitigation alternative probabilities, such as river normalization, flood plain extension, dike
construction, and the construction of new drainage system facilities ( floodways and reservoir ).
Through application of this study, above conditions should be approved and solutions probably
applicable to existing problems should be found
Hydraulic Mathematical Model

Introduction
The BKB pre-design for restoring the drainage system by river normalization is based on the criteria
for canal flood control. Determination was made by application of a mathematical model as supporting
instrument for its analysis, evaluation and modification. A one dimensional mathematical model for
unsteady flow with EXTICOM software able for simulation of steady and unsteady flow had been used.
Significance and Basic Formulation

Mathematical models are determined based on the St. Venant Full Equation :
∂h ∂Q
Continuity : b. + =q
∂t ∂x
∂Q ∂ ⎛ Q 2 ⎞ ∂h g Q Q
Momentum : + ⎜ ⎟ + g.A − =0
∂t ∂x ⎜⎝ A ⎟
⎠ ∂x C 2 A 2 R
with :
b = channel width at surface ( m )
h = water elevation ( m )
Q = flow discharge ( m3/sec )
t = time ( second )
x = longitudinal axis ( m )
q = secondary flow as related to seepage,evaporation or intake ( m2/sec )
A = wetted cross section area ( m2 )
g = gravity acceleration ( m/sec )
C = Chezy coefficient ( m1/2/sec )
R = hydraulic radius ( m )
Linearization of both differential equations shall produce a numeric solution.
Linearization of Equation
Linearization of continuity and momentum equations are determined by the numeric method. The
generally used numeric method is the Finite Difference method where differential equation is replaced
by difference quotients giving :
∂h ∆h
≈
∂x ∆x
Using of a Central Finite Difference approach, gives the following :
L. BUDI TRIADI
⎛ ∆h ⎞ ⎛ ∆x ⎞
h⎜x + ⎟−h⎜x − ⎟
∂h
≈ ⎝
2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
∂x ∆x
Solutions for other quotients are given in the same manner, where channel course is devided in
segments known as branches and flanking points as nodes. Water elevation is computed at nodes
whereas velocity and discharge at branches. The leap-frog method on EXTICOM computer program
refers to an explicit method with an operation scheme as on following Figure 2.
t 1 2 3
∆t
x ∆x
Fig. 2 Leap-Frog Method Scheme
Remarks :
∆x = length of branch ( m )
∆t = time interval ( seconds )
●─● = branch, for computation of discharge and velocity
● = points / nodes, for computation of water elevation
Schematization and Model Diagram

As mentioned previously, the finite difference method possesses a space discretization so that
numeric computation needs a schematization for river system, channels and hydraulic structures in a
network illustrated as nodes and branches as shown on Figure 3.
Channel Roughness Coefficient

The roughness coefficient is estimated from field observation and determined by Chezy equation
computation, Q = AC RI . In the computer program EXTICOM, C value is being converted into the
values k and n.
12 R
C = 18 log ( White-Colebrook )
k
or,
R1 / 6
C=
n
L. BUDI TRIADI
Model Boundaries
Boundary condition in the EXTICOM program are related to waterlevel fluctuation, discharge or
salinity. In this model, downstream boundary condition is the water elevation at river mouth influenced
by tidal waves, whereas upstream boundary condition is the river discharge.
Fig. 3 Schematization of Banjir Kanal Barat
L. BUDI TRIADI
Model Simulation
General Data
All water level and cross-sectional data for respective river and channel and hydraulic structures (
water gates ) are related to one benchmark ( BM ), namely the one connected to the Priuk Peil. The
model is based on input data collected from primary and secondary data.
Principally, the model is set-up for two conditions. i.e.
- Conditions before normalization ( actual/existing condition )
- Conditions during normalization
At the initial stage of simulation ( condition before normalization ), data from the Karet Weir are given
as follows :
- Number of gates = 4 ( four )
- Width of gate = 5.5 meters
- Height of gate = 4.5 meters
The two water gates at Manggarai have a respective width of 6 ( six ) meters. During flood simulation,
all water gates either at Manggarai and Karet Weir are kept fully open and entire canal cross-section is
representing actual conditions in conformity with field measurements done by JICA ( Japan International
Corporation Agency ).
Furthermore, during normalization process a number of tests / modification with several probabilities
were conducted, namely :
- Widening of channel cross-section to various width
- Straightening of canal bed slope
- Application of a square and trapezium shaped cross-sections. Both shapes are made in double /
combined section ( see explanation below )
- Extension of water gate
- Extension of weir
- Test according to different Manning roughness coefficients ( 0.027 and 0.033 )
- Test according to various design flood rates
Finally, a normalization criteria considering possible implementation of several field factors can be
made according to the test results, that is :
- Extension of Karet Weir by installing 6 ( six ) water gates @ 5,5 m = 33 m
- Extension of Manggarai Gate by installing 3 ( three ) water gates @ 6.0 m = 18 m
Likewise, cross-section of the BKB or the canal cross section beneath bridges that are found along the
BKB and which are assumed to obstruct flow, is to be extended. The extension process should conform
to the segments of respective extension type explained as : cross-section of BKB design divided into 7 (
seven segments ) is related to two extension types as illustrated in Figure 4.
All cross-sections of the BKB normalization process referring to both types above have a double
section for storage of low flow and high flow ( flood ). At all simulations done, cross-section for low flow
is indicating typical shape, ( trapezium ). Dimensions for lower cross-section ( trapezium ) conveying
low flow should be :
- upper width = 22 m
- lower width ( bed ) = 18 m
- channel height = 2m
- channel side sloping = 1:1
Meanwhile, main canal cross-section destined to store flood discharge may be trapezium shaped with
dikes on both sides or square shaped with bulkhead replacing dike. The application of both cross-
sections should conform to following segments :
- Trapezium shaped cross- section with dike : Manggarai Gate up to Karet Weir
- Trapezium shaped cross-section with bulkhead : Karet Weir up to estuary / sea
L. BUDI TRIADI
The application of these two cross-sections is due to the limited space available on side of canal, a
bulkhead needs only small space.
90 m 115 m
74 m 2 Bridges Mandara Permai = 74 m 100 m

Tol Airport = 100 m 2 Bridges
Teluk Gong = 5 m
50 m 66 m
Angke 3 Bridges Tubagus Angke = 50 m 3 Bridges
Latumeten = 66 m
Railway = 40 m Angke
40 m Kyai Tapa = 54 m 55 m
5 Bridges Tomang = 55 m 5 Bridges
KS. Tubun = 45 m
PA. Karet = 33 m
34 m 3 Bridges
Mas Mansyur = 34 m 50 m
Krukut Thamrin = 50 m 3 Bridges
Latuharhari = 34 m Krukut
31 m Halimun = 33 m 33 m
Cideng 2 Bridges Guntur = 31 m 2 Bridges
Cideng
18 m P.A. Manggarai = 18 m
18 m
P.A. Manggarai = 18 m
Type 1 Type 2
Fig. 4 Sketch of Banjir Kanal Barat Canal Segments
The simulation done on the model has to consider the fluctuation of tidal waves at the estuary of Kali
Angke as related to an hourly data measurement conducted by the Research Centre for Water
Resources from 5 – 20 May, 2000 ( 16 days sequence ). Likewise, for downstream boundary condition
data were related to springtide measurements taken from 5 – 9 May, 2000 with highest recorded
elevation +1.60 m ( PP ). Discharge used in the simulation are the results of a hidrologies study that
approaches the JICA report in 1996 on a 25-years discharge.
Design Alternative
Three design alternatives are presented as solution of the 25-years flood problem at the BKB. All
three alternatives are suggested to have a maximum dike as well as bulkhead elevation of 3.0 m, above
land surface on both sides of canal and with a permissible design maximum water elevation at cross-
section of 0.8 m below crest of dike or bulkhead. Maximum elevation of water surface should at the
utmost be 1.2 m below the highway bridge girder. Respective design alternatives are presented in the
following.
Alternative I
Alternative I is the analysis on the BKB normalization by straightening canal bed to a certain sloping.
Width of upper section canal follows Type 1 ( Figure 4 ). Canal sloping applied are :
- Manggarai Gate - Karet Weir = 0.00060
- Karet Weir - Kali Angke = 0.00035
- Kali Angke - Estuary = 0.00028
The sloping is made according to reference / initial point at canal bed exactly downstream the
Manggarai Gate at + 2.453 m. The given Manning roughness coefficient is 0.033. The design flood
discharge used is related to JICA study results and as such :
- Manggarai Gate - Karet Weir = 350 m3/sec
- Karet Weir - Kali Angke = 470 m3/sec
- Kali Angke - Estuary = 500 m3/sec
L. BUDI TRIADI
Alternative II
Alternative II covers an analysis on the normalization of BKB by straightening canal bed to a certain
sloping as well. Width of upper section canal follows Type 2 ( Figure 4 ). Alternative II uses bed
sloping, Manning roughness coefficient and design flood discharge similar to Alternative I. Difference is
shown by the upper width of canal cross section.
Alternative III
Alternative III suggests like previous alternatives, normalization of the canal by straightening canal
bed to a certain sloping. Upper width of canal cross section is related to Type 1 ( Figure 4 ). Sloping
rates to be used are :
- Karet Weir - Kali Angke = 0.00035
- Kali Angke - Estuary = 0.00028
The difference to alternative I and II is the Manning roughness coefficient i.e
- Karet Weir - Estuary = 0.027
The design flood discharge used in this model differs also from alternative I and II and is given as
follows :
- Manggarai Gate - Karet Weir = 360 m3/sec
- Karet Weir - Kali Angke = 470 m3/sec
- Kali Angke - Estuary = 500 m3/sec
In addition to sloping rate, roughness coefficient, and design flood discharge , a difference occurs also
in the number of water gates used in alternative III. Four gates are designed for Karet Weir @ 5.5 m
covering 22 m, and three gates at Manggarai Gate @ 6.0 m covering 18 m.
Simulation and Discussion

A number of model simulation was conducted in this study with the aim to determine a canal model
supposed to be able carrying the design flood discharge. Simulation intended are shown below.
Simulation of Actual / Existing Condition

First stage of simulation is done to initial canal condition ( before normalization ) by applying
previously explained specifications. Results are shown on Figure 5 where floods had inundated an
area nearly as long as BKB. From such condition can be concluded that existing condition shall not be
able to store a 25-years return period discharge.
Simulation of Alternative I
Another simulation was done on a normalized canal applying conditions as suggested before in
Design Alternative I. Results indicated that the BKB is not entirely capable of conveying a 25-years
discharge. More details are shown on Figure 6 with a number of submerged bridges suggesting
heightening / reconstruction of structures. However, the canal cross-section itself is considered as still
being able to carry the 25-years design discharge.
The number of submerged bridges and girders with respective situated below design high water level (
HWL ) and depth of water above the girders are presented as follows :
- Manggarai Gate ( highway bridge ) : 52.5 cm
- Guntur bridge : 1.8 cm
- Mas Mansyur bridge : 82.4 cm
- Karet gate ( railway bridge ) : 65.8 cm
- Kyai Tapa bridge : 152.1 cm
- Railway bridge : 62.7 cm
L. BUDI TRIADI
- Dr. Latumeten : 94.8 cm
Reconstruction is to be done because structures are too low. Some bridge girders situated above
HWL but with minimum freeboard less than 0.8 m are :
- Halimun bridge : 53.3 cm
- Teluk Gong Raya bridge : 52.1 cm
Simulation of alternative II
Simulation results of Design Alternative II show a similar condition to Alternative I, where capacity of
BKB is able to convey the 25-years return period discharge, but increase of structure height or
reconstruction is required for bridge structures with submerged girders. For a better illustration see
Figure 7.
Following submerged bridges with a girder structure below HWL :
- Dr. Latumeten bridge : 39.0 cm
Three more bridges with girders above HWL but with a minimum freeboard less than 0.8 cm were
observed at :
Alternative II showed better results than alternative I with a lesser number of submerged bridges and
lower HWL because alternative II uses a larger Type II cross-section if compared to Type I in Design
Alternative I.
Simulation of Alternative III

As previously conducted, this simulation model was applied in a normalized channel conforming to
before mentioned explanation. Different to Design Alternative I and II, simulation III shows that flood
elevation has been even higher than was observed in other Design Alternatives. For a better illustration
see Figure 8.
The following represents submerged bridges with HWL situated above bridge girder :
- Dr. Latumeten bridge : 104.9 cm
Other bridges with girders above HWL, but with a minimum freeboard of less than 0.8 m are :
- Latuharhari bridge : 20.1 cm
- M.H. Thamrin bridge : 30.9 cm
- Tubagus Angke bridge : 57.4 cm
- Teluk Gong Raya bridge : 71.8 cm
Beside reconstruction of the bridges, this simulation shows the incapability of conveying the 25-years
flood discharge at branch 221. Above analysis results show also that the difference of channel bed
L. BUDI TRIADI
sloping, Manning roughness coefficient, design flood discharge and the number of water gates in
Design Alternative III, produces a higher water elevation than previous Alternatives.
The sloping gradient of 0.00040 in downstream area or estuary, increase of 10 m3/sec discharge in
upstream area, and reducing the amount with two watergates at Karet Weir shall increase water
elevation along the entire canal line. Although channel roughness coefficient at downstream area is
made smaller ( n = 0.0027 ), this may not cause any possitive effect if compared to the effect generated
by the three previously mentioned factors.
Analysis and the alternative solution to problematic issues have not only considered the difficulty and
high cost in extension for channel and bridges , but took into account the land acquisition due to re-
allocation of illegal settlers on flood plain.
Another aspect to be considered is that the enlargement of Manggarai Gate and Karet Weir will bring
about separate impact. Therefore, solution is not only to be found for flood problems but should include
also social and economic problems likely to occur. The solution alternatives suggested by this study
are based on as many as possible information and data collected from various resources and have
anticipated the conditions above.
Conclusion
1. The enlargement of the Karet Weir and Manggarai Gate has to be followed by the widening of
highway bridges along the BKB because these structures may form a bottle neck potential to
obstruct the flow to downstream direction up to the Kali Angke estuary. Normalization efforts
when not accompanied by the widening of bottle neck shall be unsuccessful.
2. The 25-years return period flood discharge can be stored by Design Alternative I and II, but
bridges are to be reconstructed.
3. Design Alternative II with a wider cross-section than Alternative I showed a smaller number of
submerged bridges as well as a lower inundation level.
4. Alternative III is showing most unacceptable condition because of the smaller sloping gradient at
the estuary,increase of discharge in upstream area and reduce of the number of gates in Karet
Weir.
5. Considerating that after normalization efforts the BKB is showing a 25-years discharge, it is
determined that the BKB shall not be able to convey a discharge larger than the 25-years return
period ( Q50 or Q100-years ) if other countermeasures are not taken.
Recommendation
1. The change of channel bed sloping gradient can sufficiently determined the water elevation, but
the magnitude has to consider sea bed elevation at river mouth.
2. Simulation results depend greatly on provided data, therefore accurary of most recent data has to
be the consideration of all related institutions.
3. Considering that the BKB vicinity area is densely populated, the proposed channel widening has
to pay serious attention to the implementation of land acquisition. Including extension of water
gates and weirs in river stream.
4. Likewise, heighting bridge girders at some channel segments have to consider the probabilities
for on site implementation.
Bibliography
1. Direktorat Penyelidikan Masalah Air, Computer Programme for One Dimensional Unsteady Flow
and ( Mixed ) Salt Intrusion, Part I : Theoritical Background, Jakarta
2. Direktorat Penyelidikan Masalah Air, Computer Programme for One Dimensional Unsteady Flow
and ( Mixed ) Salt Intrusion, Part II : User’s Manual, Jakarta
L. BUDI TRIADI
3. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Air, 2003, Laporan Akhir Pekerjaan Banjir di
Wilayah Aliran Barat DKI Jaya, Bandung,
Biography of Writer
L. Budi Triadi is a senior researcher at the Research Centre for Water Resources, Agency for
Research and Development, Ministry of Public Works , and a specialist lecturer at the Faculty of Civil
Engineering at the Catholic Parahyangan University ( UNPAR ) and National Institute of Technology (
ITENAS ), both known universities in Bandung, West Java- Indonesia.
L. BUDI TRIADI
ELEVASI (m, PP)
ELEVATION (m)
L. BUDI TRIADI
6
8
-2
16
-4
14
10
12
-6
0
1
2
MANDARA PERMAI
TOL AIRPORT CENGKARENG

3
ANGKE DRAIN
Fig
4
River
Gambar
TELUK GONG RAYA
Elevasi
5
Basin
Tebing
TUBAGUS ANGKE
Level
Elevasi
5. Longitudinal
Level
Bad Dasar
7
Prof. DR. LATUMETEN
ElevasiHWL
RAILWAY
8
M.A. (HWL)
5. Penampang Memanjang
KYAI TAPA
Section of
9
RAWA KEPAK
Banjir
TOMANG
3
DISTANCE
DEBIT 37.2 m /det
Banjir
10
JARAK (KM)
Kanal
PONDOK BANDUNG
(KM)
Kanal
11
AIPDA KS. TUBUN

12
Barat Barat
B. KARET(JEMB. KA.)
KALI KRUKUT
13
KH MAS MANSYUR
SebelumBefore
WADUK MELATI
M. H. THAMRIN
14
Normalisasi
15
HALIMUN
WADUK SETIABUDI BARAT GUNTUR

16
Normalization
LATUHARHARI
KALI CIDENG
WADUK SETIABUDI TIMUR
SAL. MINANG KABAU
17
SAL. BALI MATRAWAN PA. MANGGARAI (JEMB. JALAN RAYA)

Legend
Existing
:
Bridge
18
Keadaan
Girder
KETERANGAN
Condition
:
19
Eksisting
Dasar Jembatan
P.A. MANGGARAI
20
20
18
PA. MANGGARAI (JEMB. JALAN RAYA)

16
WADUK MELATI
DEBIT37.2 m3/det
14
AIPDA KS. TUBUN
LATUHARHARI
TOMANG
12
M. H. THAMRIN
TOL AIRPORT CENGKARENG
P.A. MANGGARAI
B. KARET(JEMB. KA.)
KH MAS MANSYUR
HALIMUN
10
GUNTUR
TUBAGUS ANGKE
Minimum Freeboard
TELUK GONG RAYA
SAL. BALI MATRAWAN

8
MANDARA PERMAI
SAL. MINANG KABAU

(0.8 m)
WADUK SETIABUDI BARAT

KALI CIDENG
(m)
6
ELEVASI (m, PP)
ELEVATION
RAWA KEPAK
PONDOK BANDUNG
KALI KRUKUT
4
RAILWAY
KYAI TAPA
Prof. DR. LATUMETEN
HWL M.A. (HWL)
ANGKE DRAIN
2 Elevasi
Dike/ Bulkhead
Elevasi Level
Tanggul/Turap
0 ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE I I
I = 0.0006
25 yearsRencana
Q Banjir Flood Discharge
Periode ulang 25 Tahunan
-2 Estuary width= =9090Mm
Lebar Muara
KETERANGAN :
I = 0.00035
Normalization
Legend :
Dasar Jembatan
Elevasi Dasar Bed Level
Normalisasi
-4
Existing Bed Level
Elevasi Dasar Asli
Bridge Girder
I = 0.00028
-6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
DISTANCE
JARAK (KM)(KM)
FigGambar
6. Longitudinal Section of
6. Penampang Memanjang Banjir
Banjir KanalKanal BaratNormalisasi
Barat Setelah After Normalization
L. BUDI TRIADI
20
18

16
WADUK MELATI
DEBIT37.2 m /det
3
14
AIPDA KS. TUBUN
LATUHARHARI
TOMANG
12
M. H. THAMRIN
TOL AIRPORTCENGKARENG P.A. MANGGARAI
B. KARET(JEMB. KA.)
KH MASMANSYUR
HALIMUN
10
GUNTUR
TUBAGUSANGKE
SAL. BALI MATRAWAN

TELUK GONG RAYA
8
MANDARA PERMAI
SAL. MINANG KABAU

Minimum Freeboard
(0.8 m)
ELEVASI (m, PP(m)

KALI CIDENG
6
ELEVATION )
RAWA KEPAK
PONDOK BANDUNG
KALI KRUKUT
4
RAILWAY
KYAI TAPA
Prof. DR. LATUMETEN
ANGKEDRAIN
HWL(HWL)
Elevasi M.A.
EDike/
levasiBulkhead Level
Tanggul/Turap
0 ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE II I
I = 0.0006
25 yearsRFlood
Q Banjir encana Discharge
Periode ulang 25 Tahunan
-2 Estuary width = 90
Lebar Muara = 115 M
KETERANGAN :
m
I = 0.00035
Normalization
Elevasi DasarBed Level
Normalisasi
Legend :
Dasar Jem batan
-4
Existing
ElevasiBed LevelAsli
Dasar Bridge Girder
I = 0.00028
-6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
DISTANCE (KM) JARAK (KM)
FigGambar
7. Longitudinal Section of Banjir Kanal Barat After Normalization
7. Penampang Memanjang Banjir Kanal Barat Setelah Normalisasi
L. BUDI TRIADI
20
18

16
WADUK MELATI
DEBIT37.2 m /det
3
14
AIPDA KS. TUBUN
LATUHARHARI
TOMANG
12
M. H. THAMRIN
TOL AIRPORTCENGKARENG
P.A. MANGGARAI
B. KARET(JEMB. KA.)
KH MAS MANSYUR
HALIMUN
10
GUNTUR
TUBAGUS ANGKE
Minim um Freeboard
TELUK GONG RAYA
SAL. BALI MATRAWAN

8
MANDARA PERMAI
SAL. MINANG KABAU

(0.8 m)

KALI CIDENG
ELEVATION (m)
6
ELEVASI (m, PP)
RAWA KEPAK
PONDOK BANDUNG
KALI KRUKUT
4
RAILWAY (FUTURE)
KYAI TAPA
Prof. DR. LATUMETEN
ANGKE DRAIN
2 ElevasiHWL
M.A. (HWL)
Elevasi Tanggul/T
Dike/ Bulkhead urap
Level
0 I = 0.0004 ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE III I
25Qyears
Banjir Flood Discharge
Renc ana Periode ulang 25 Tahunan
-2
Estuary width == 90
Lebar Muara 90 m
M
KETERANGAN :
I = 0.00035
Normalization Bed Level
Legend :
Dasar Jembatan
Elevasi Dasar Normalisasi
-4 Bridge Girder
Existing
ElevasiBed Level
Dasar Asli
I = 0.00028
-6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
JARAK (KM)
FigGambar
8. Longitudinal
8. PenampangSection of Banjir
Memanjang BanjirKanal
Kanal Barat
Barat SetelahAfter Normalization
Normalisasi
L. BUDI TRIADI

Study On A Flood Mitigation System Plan For The Banjir Kanal Barat

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study On A Flood Mitigation System Plan For The Banjir Kanal Barat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIVER AND DEVELOPMENT 2007, Bali

Key words : flood, mitigation, model mathematic, normalization

Objective and Aim

: DKI Jakarta Border

Fig. 1 Location Map

Hydraulic Mathematical Model

Significance and Basic Formulation

Linearization of both differential equations shall produce a numeric solution.

Using of a Central Finite Difference approach, gives the following :

Schematization and Model Diagram

Channel Roughness Coefficient

Fig. 3 Schematization of Banjir Kanal Barat

74 m 2 Bridges Mandara Permai = 74 m 100 m

Fig. 4 Sketch of Banjir Kanal Barat Canal Segments

Simulation and Discussion

Simulation of Actual / Existing Condition

- Dr. Latumeten : 94.8 cm

Simulation of Alternative III

TOL AIRPORT CENGKARENG

AIPDA KS. TUBUN

WADUK SETIABUDI BARAT GUNTUR

SAL. BALI MATRAWAN PA. MANGGARAI (JEMB. JALAN RAYA)

PA. MANGGARAI (JEMB. JALAN RAYA)

AIPDA KS. TUBUN

TELUK GONG RAYA

SAL. BALI MATRAWAN

SAL. MINANG KABAU

WADUK SETIABUDI BARAT

WADUK SETIABUDI TIMUR

PA. MANGGARAI (JEMB. JALAN RAYA)

AIPDA KS. TUBUN

SAL. BALI MATRAWAN

SAL. MINANG KABAU

WADUK SETIABUDI BARAT

WADUK SETIABUDI TIMUR

DISTANCE (KM) JARAK (KM)

PA. MANGGARAI (JEMB. JALAN RAYA)

AIPDA KS. TUBUN

TELUK GONG RAYA

SAL. BALI MATRAWAN

SAL. MINANG KABAU

WADUK SETIABUDI BARAT

WADUK SETIABUDI TIMUR

You might also like