CHAPTER 2 FLOOD ANALYSIS 2.1 Rainfall Analysis 2uLaL Representative Rainfall Station and Basin Mean Rainfall There are two meteorotogicat (rainfall) stations in Ambon Island, namely Gunung Nona and Pattimura Ambon. Since Pattimura Ambon has both daily and hourly rainfall data for a long, petiod and Gunung Nona has many missing data, Pattimura Ambon has been used as the tepreseniative rainfall station for daily rainfall, hourly rainfall and rainfall intensity analysis, Table-5,2.4 Meteorological (Rainfall) Stations in Ambon Available Period: __of Exist Data Daily [Howl Rainfall Rainfall ‘Type of Gauge Station Name | Blevation Lm) Organization [ar wn Badan Meteorologi dan Gi + Others: ‘Temperature, Relative Hu + A: Automatic Rainfall Gauge ° n cofisika (Departinen Pechbunigan) Sunshine Hours, Wind Speed, et inary Rainfall Gauge ‘The rainfall data to be used in the discharge analysis needs to be set with attention paid to the basin characteristics of each target river. In Ambon area, because the representative rainfall station of Pattinura Ambon is on the coast at & low altitude of EL. 10 m, care needs to be taken when applying its data to the upstream mountainous part of the target river basins However, considering 1) the five target river basins have small catchment areas (6 - 16 ke’), and 2) the highest altitude of the river basins is lower than EL. 500 m, itis decided to use the raiifall data at Pattinnura Ambon as the basin mean rainfall for the Ambon area since the difference is not considered significant 24.2 Rainfall Probability Analysis (1) Daily and Hourly Probable Rainfall ‘Table-1,2.2 and Figure-1.2.1 show the daily and houdly probable rainfall based on the annual maximum data of daily and hourly rainfall in representative rainfall station, namely Pattimura ‘Ambon, Catculation was carried out using the Least Square Method, Montent Method, [wai's Method and Gumbet's Method, Of these, the result from the Moment Method is adopted for probable rainfall in the study area because the result best fits the aveilable data ‘Table-1.2.2_Daily and Hourly Probable Rainfall }Patlinnwa Ambon] __ s [10 [ 20 [ 30 259.5 | 321.9 | 384.6 Return Period Gear) _ (eum Probable Howdy Rainfall (mmu}| 45.1 Note: - Calculated by Moment Method ~ Annual Maximum Daily Rainfall Data of 32 years from 1959 to 1995 = Annual Maximum Hovdly Rainfall Data of 14 years from 1959 to 1995, 1-28Probable Daily Rainfatt SEA ES= iy Beata (a) Probable Hourly Rainfall igure-.2.1 Plotting Positions of Daity and Hourly Probable Rainfall Q) Rainfall Intensity Curve The rainfall intensity curves/formala are set by the Talbot Forntula using the probable daily rainfall and probable hourly rainfall of Pattimura Ambon. ‘The calculation results are shown in ‘Table-L.2.3. Retin Peviod Note Talbot Formula: 7, = —— ator Forma: Fs = 77 Ty: Rainfall Intensity (oum/he) ¢ = Rainfall Duration (hour) a,b : Constants 19244.3, Flood Rainfall ‘The flood rainfall in the Study Areas are shown in Table-.2.4. ‘The maximum daily rainfall was recorded at 455 mmvday dn August 28, 1988. Many of the flood rainfall have no hourly data, notably only two data out of the top 10 daily flood rainfalls. OF these Nood rainfalls, hyetographis of the maximum floods with hourly rainfall data are shown in Figure-1.2.2. As cean be seen from the figure, the hyctograph of this raintell do not form smooth, mountain shaped curves, but show many intermittent or sudden increases and decreases. ‘his indicates that rainfall comes sporadically and locally in Ambon area, ___ Pabte-1.2.4 Flood Rainfall in Ambon (Pattimura Ambon] Date Daily Rainfall | Maximum of Rank im) Tay [2A hows | Hourly Raintall EEE onmiday) gunvéayy | Quinvtoury 19887087 4 : ~ | isa ee 1998709713 Pipes 707719 9 111315 17192129 1 9.5 7 9 111318 17192123 13 5 7 Time (rou) Fignre-1.2.2. Hyetograph of Main Flood Rainfall in Ambon 1302.2 Flood Runoff Analysis 2 Design Rainfall (1) Flood Hyetograph ‘The top five flood rainfalls with daily and hourly data were selected as candidates for design rainfall, namely 1986/06/18, 1988/07/19, 1990/06/06, 1990/08/19 and 1996/08/22 flood However, of these rainfall events, the big rainfalls that caused severe flood damage on 1984/06/22 and 1989/06/21, and another flood on 1988/08/28 are not included because there ate no hourly rainfall data available. The hyetographs of the design rainfall candidates are presented in Figure-1.2.3. (2) Probable Rainfall Depth and jarging Ratio ‘A period of one day is employed as the duration of design rainfall based on the following reasons = According to'the hyetograph of the main rainfalls, the period of dominant rainfall Teading to peak discharge is judged to be within I day. = The basin catchment areas of tive target rivers are relatively small with variation from 5 km? to 17 kn? and freshet and depletion of flood water seem to be fast ‘After the amount and duration of design rainfalls are given, the remaining two factors of tine and actial distributions shall be determined to form the design rainfall. In this report the time distributions are formed by enfarging or contracting several rainfall patterns, as they are, which occurred in the past, and such time distributions are adopted. Aerial distribution is not taken into account since the basin areas are stall and only one location rainfall data is available. Enlarging ratios to design rainfall dopth for the selected five rainfall are calculated by cach rainfall and are shown in Table-1.2.5. jostioers [osannie | 1990/06/06 res0/08/t9 | 180 | 2332 1° 330.3. 3] 18. 280 1996708722 | Note! Actual Rainfall: = Upper Column Roinfall (manvday) “Lower Column: Actual Maximum Howsly Rainfall (ninvhove) Tew : =Ratio —: Enlarging Ratio to Design Rainfalt Deptt SMHR: Maximum Hourly Rainfall Depth after Enlarging, 1350 % En 30 30 (om) eS8e8se 30 En 10, mois 7 Time (hr) Flood Rainfall 199089). 16 18 20 ‘Time du) fall 1996/82: Is 20 22.0 2 4 6 8 WL ‘Time (ht) Figure-1.2.3 Actual Hyetograph of Sctected Five Rainfalls 1322.2.2 Flood Runoff Modeling (1) Flood Runoff Model Used in the Study In the Study Storage Funetion Method is employed for food runof analysis and the validity of the results river discharges ~ are checked by Rational Formula. Storage Function Method In order to express the nonlinear characteristic of run-off phenomena, the storage function method can give the process of transformation from rainfall to run-off on the assumption that there is a one-to-one functional relation between the volume of storage and run-off. Caleulations of the run-off from rainfall are carried out by using the volume of storage as mediunt function. By this method, a relationship can be established between the volunie of storage (S) of a basin or river course and the discharge (Q) from it, This relationship is ‘expressed as St=k-Ql (k, ps Constants) ‘This equation is used then as a substitution for the sofution of equation of motion, It indicates that run-offis proportional to the exponent of the volume of storage. ‘This is equivalent to the ‘consideration that the phenomena of rainfall and run-off are similar to the run-off from a notch in a container filled up with water. Run-off calculations are performed by combining this equation of motion with the following equation of continuity dst 1 pn A-Ol eT where, f — : Inflow cocficient Toe + Average rainfall in a watershed (nunhr) A Area of basin (km’) QU) = OCF © 1h: Volume of run-off from the basin under the consideration of lag time (exchiding base flaw) (m"/sec) Si: Apparent volume of storage in basin (m'/sec-hr) TT: Lag time (hour) ‘The equation of continuity for the section of river courses given by dS, ys th OO os where, Inflow from a basin, tributary or the upstream end of a river course to the river course being considered (m'/sec) 4 Inflow coefficient ONY = Olt + TY : Discharge at the downstream end of basin under the consideration of lag tinte (m*/sec) Si: Apparent volume of storage of river course (m'/sec- hr) 17: Lag time (how) Rational Kormuta Maximum flood discharge is given by the following rational formula: 1 Bee fRd Q, = 56fWhere, Qp . : Maxinuim flood discharge (mv’/sec) imension-ess runoff coefficient R Intensity of rainfall within the time of flood concentration (mnvhr) 1, : Time of flood concentration A Catchment area (kin?) 2) River Basin Division Each of the target river basins is divided into two or four sub-basins, taking into account the locations of staff gauges and main confluence. River basins division is drawn in Pigute-1.2.4 (3) | Establishment of Runoff Model Based on the basin division, basia models for the five target rivers were established as shown in Figure-I2.5, Since Nood discharge data of the five target rivers are not obtained, the overall storage function for river basin and river course is applied for the coeflicient analysis. The coefficients of Storage Function is determined following empirical formula established in Japan and the results of the analysis are described in Table-1.2.6. Enipivical Formula Inctusting Reserve Coefficient for River Basin K = 434-C- 11 8 Pails Tl = 0.0470: 12-056 (LE > LL 9Kor) 71=09 (11s 11.9km) Where, C= Reserve Constant (Natural Basin : C=0.12, Urban Basin : C-0.012) K,P : Coeficients of Storage Function Li: Length of main water course H: Slope of main water course Th: Lag time (hour) 12: Length of water course fiom the farthest point in a catchment to the point Empirical Formula (Tone River Runoff Analysis) for River Course SI 167-Ks-019% ~ 71-01 K © 167+ Ks = 0185. 11-094 11-98 nF Tl = 0.00165-£1-11-°% Where, SI : Basin storage volume Ol: Runoff volume b -: Mean river width (m) n vfanning’s roughness Ks: Coeflicient Tl: Lag Time (hour) ret)River Ruiw Baa Merah emma pj Lower i Bain [Ai pper Basia | Gajah [2] Lower Basin __ Total | Bain | [i] Upper Ba: ung| 2] Lower Bas {3} Upper Ba ale” Lag ine was dslgarded cause of vey nal vale, ‘Table-1,2.7 shows the primary nm-off rate, saturated run-off rate and saturation rainfall proposed by Kimura for all the rivers in Japan, Although these values are considerably scattered with flood even in the same basin, the values could be ulitized in simplified runoft 8 calculations for mountainous basins, 7 fisf am rs in Japan way Runoff | Saturated runoff Category — Basin with nox Quaternary Rate f_ ‘with Quaternary volcanic rocks As the geology of the target five 1 voleanic rocks, the primary run-off rate, saturated runoff rate and saturation rainfall are adopted as follows + Primary RunofRate : 0.9 ~ Saturated RunofRate > 1.0 ~ Saturation Rainfall 400 mm. 1s@ PPO UISeA SZ y-esnsLy Peers esineg on eee song << a avaxene puesey sonny Sunueg meg ava Noany rwu99-vo. ee Jeary yefeo meg J9Any nwoR, Jonny nyMy YS NOBHY avenoany Ava Nogny tune nevo | Kwon iam @ em esieva. zwsorvo russe rwsseev G stnegyes | zaneveevo 3 8 ges A A atnep se \ J eunesevo / tn \ sererevo / tu \ ausecev9 Lo & \ saezevs / : ° rests 9 MSD g G9: 1372.2.3 Flood Discharge (1) Runoff Catcutation Using the runoff model established in the former section, ftood discharge for each return period was catculated for five floods, namely, the Moods of 1984/06/18, 1988/07/18, 1990/06/06, 1990/08/19 and 1996/08/22. Table-1.2.9 shows the calculated peak discharges. Figure-[2.6 shows the different types of food hydrograph for Ruhu River with a 30-year return period Q) Peak Flood Discharge and Flood Hydrograph Peak flood discharge for each return period is determined as shown in Table-1.2.8, employing 1990/06/06 flood with a “Cover Factor” of 80 %. The cover factor is defined as the degree how far the peak discharge of a selected hyetograph satisfies those of the hydrograph group. ‘Thie following items have been taken in to consideration: = The 1988/07/19 flood shows the maximum peak discharge. However the maximum hourly rainfalls after enlarging actual rainfall data is 1.4 to 1.9 times larger than probable hourly rainfalls. Then the 1988/07/19 flood hyetograph after enlarging is concluded to be too large as estimation of runoff = The peak discharges of 1984/06/18, 1990/08/19 and 1996/08/22 floods are nearly the sante but smaller than the other. = The second largest peak discharges is calculated with the 1990/06/06 flood. The maximum hourly rainfalls after enlarging actual rainfall data is within 0.8-1.1 times of probable hourly rainfalls of various return period. The hydrograph of cach river at river mouth with $, 10, 30, 50-year return period is presented in Figure-t.2.7 ‘Table-t.2.8 Design Peak Discharge (Design Mo River | Reference | cA. | tem Design Peak Discharge (n'/sec) by Design Scale (ker?) 2| s| 10 30| 50] 70} 100] 200 “Rohe 145] Q 9 00 et] 319 | 34s |"373] 429 SpecifieQ|_ 5.5 | 19.4 238] 25.7| 29.6 Tesi -Q 50 3H 82 7 ccf 53. 186 28.6 Baw 2 127 Merah 8 ° a 2.0 Ton 28 17.0. i 13 Baia ‘33 s Gajah Specitieg| 6.7 | 18.7 Q 2 tii Specitiog| 7.1 188 Bate Q az iit IGantung| | specifies] 9.1 188 Rie] 687] 0} 130} ___Mouthl | specie] 2.3 6| 189] 208| 23.3} 250 Note: Q: Discharge (a/se<) Spocifie-Q : Specific Discharge (w?/soo/kwn') 138| Flood [rem y98ei6/i8 | SRA RMouh T9SRFAD| S-RU-T 1990/66 | S-RE-1 H RMouth, Towaiari9 | S-8 Mouth | 759672 | S-RIEL | RMout To90/6I6 198R/I 1990/8719] Ganteng| Toinu | 1984/6/18] S-1M-1 7 |__| RMouts} 26 saws] SIM | 40 eee south Tiare Baw [Tse Gajah | 19877718 | 199016%6 | 1s90°8/19| S-GT-1 1988718 1990766 1990789 196/822, joRHons Mouth |__| R.Mouth | 96 195608722] S-GT-1 23 | |RMowth | 26] 86] 9s) - 133] Nolo SRU-U Stat Gauge at Rhu River Stafi Gauge at Batu Merah River S-1M-1: Staff Gange ot Toma River + Staff Gauge at Batu Gajah River Sct ‘Staff Gauge at Batu Gantuing River R Mouth, 139 River Mouth,400 ub Ber AGBAlOe/te) 5 9 r an eream' ll 59 300 220 Y ek 08 200 |= 200% 8 jee ee § 150 apf 2508 ek Le . 400 6 10 14:18 22 2 6 1014 18 Time (hour) Ruhu River (1990/05/06) 400 “0 Bao 300 3.00 Bos0 feo 200 200 gre 180 © 100 100 £0 %0 ° ‘ : 200 4 8 12162004 8 10 14 18 22 2 6 10 14 1822 Time (how) Time (hou) a 1996/08/22) 350 ) 8 3K (ni Rainfall (mm) g Ciseharg s 100 50 ° 23.3 711151923 3 71115 7115 1923-37 111519 “Time (hour) “Time (hou) Fignee-1.2.6 Flood Hydrograph of Ratu River (Return Period 30 year) 140 50 100 ‘50 200 20 300% 3508 400 450 550400 350 300 7 eatu Merah River | Seas 250 j £ 200 f & 180 rs 100 £ ; & a 2 é 0 aM SONNE o4 8 1M O04 2 04 8 1216200 4 8 Time hour) Time (hour) 2 9 4:8 12 16200 4 8 200 4 8 Tirso (hour) Figuve-1.2.7 Design Flood Hydrograph (1990/06/06 rn 2162 0 4 8 Time (hour) Flood Type) 8t 2,3. Flood Damage Analysis 2.3.1 Discharge Capacity of River Channels Longitudinal and cross sectional river surveys for the five target rivers were eattied out during this Study. The results of these surveys were used to assess the current discharge capacity of the rivers. This cross section data was compiled and the non-uniform flow calculation method ‘was tised to obtain stage discharge (I1/ Q) curves for every cross section over a range of flows up to a maximum of 250 m/sec (400 m/sec for Rubu river). Manning's Roughness was assunied to be 0.025, The discharge capacity at each section was then estimated by comparing the lef and right bank heights to the calculated stage'discharge curves. In addition, the discharge capacity was also calculated for the case when freeboard is considered a value of 0.6 m was used in accordance with the “Manual for River Works i Japan” for design ftood discharge of less than 200 m/sec. The calculation was repeated using ‘the uniform Row method for both the ‘No Freeboard’ and ‘0.6m Frecboard’ cases to provide ‘a comparison and to identify any potential bottlenecks which might restrict river discharge capacity, Based on this analysis, the discharge capacity of each iver calculated by both methods is summarized in Table-12.10. The summary table gives the average and extreme values of rninimum discharge capacity. Figure-1.2.8. shows the variation calculated discharge capacity at each cross section of the five target rivers in Ambon, in case of 'Non-uniform Flow’ and “0.6m Freeboard” and pacity Capacity (a /seo) “No Frecbaard Uni NoFrbeboard | 0.6m Frecboard River Name | Average [ Extremo | Average Bxtieme Ruhw River «| @- 80 | 50 50 | cr [Batu Merah River [30-40 [28 WT FTomu River 40-50 | 22 [atu Gajah River | 30-50 | 23 SaRR E83 Discharge Capacity (maisec) 400 600-800 1000 Distance (m) 1200 1400 1600 Figure-1.2.8(1) Discharge Capacity 1923 Discharge Capacity (m2isee) 68.8 °o 8 0 200. 400. «600.800.1000 1200: 1400 1600 Distance (n) Discharge Capacity (maisec) os 88888 0 800 1000-4600 200028003000 Cistance (mm) cpp ys =a te Bolu Gajah River | 450 Discharge Capacity Discharge Capacity 600 © 800 1000 1200 1400 Distance ¢m) Rigure-1:2,8(2) Discharge Capacity 32.3.2. Estimation of Flood Damage (1) Methodology It is necessary to estimate future flood damages in the “without project” case, in order to quantify the benefits of the “with project” case. There are two approaches, a combination of hich is also possibte for this analysis: 1) Examine the damage caused by past major floods, such as those which occurred in 1984, 1989, 1996 and annual flood, approximate theit monetary value and estimate fixture damages. 2) Specify a potential flood area and its flood water level by exar capacity and contours and apply a standard damage rate. ng the river discharge Both approaches have theif own drawbacks. In the case of 1), most of the daniage data for past floods have been fost and thus it is difficult to approximate the monetary value of the floods, With regard to 2), the flood pattern does not always coincide with fand contours and there is no standard damage rate available in Indonesia. Since these two approaches can supplement each other, a combination of the two approaches was used for this study. In this study, the flood damage analysis was carried out in the following manner: 1) Areas flooded and water levels for the past three major floods and annual floods were established through interviews and contour analysis 2) Damages from the above floods were estimated, 3) A“‘flood discharge - damage value” curve was drawn based on the results of above 2); 4) Yearly average of damage alleviation (yearly benefits of the project) was derived from probabilities of several water amount cases, (2) Damage to General Assets (houses/buitdings, household goods and industry inventories) ‘Several records on the tolal amount of damage to houses and buildings and the location of the inundated areas were found for the floods of 1984 and 1989. ‘The damage was estimated by PU staff, who visited damaged houses and estimated the damage based on standard construction / material cost data collected by PU itself. However, since the breakdown of the data was lost, the accuracy of the data could not be confirmed, The damage to houses and buildings had to be re-estimated through interviews with residents and owners of businesses. “The exact damage to houses and buildings was, however, difficult to estimate, since peoples’ memories of the floods had already faded, and in any case, flood damage to the structure of houses does not show immediately. After comparing the damage situation as ascertained from interviews with the standard damage rate used in Japan, the study team judged that it would bbe reasonable to apply the Japanese damage rate which is based on past experience in Japan. ‘Table-1.2.11 shows the standard asset damage rate applicable in Japan, at_Table-I.2.41 Standard Asset Damage Rate in Japan vn 100 em ‘more to tan | Remarks 99cm _| 299. | 300 cm 57.2% 69.0% ea 36.2% ‘Source: Mana for iver Works in Tap, Suny Note: Floor height in Indonesia is usually very low and is set as 0 emt in this Study. + Houses are grouped into A, Band C on the basis of ground gradient. Group C is categorized into the gradient of 1/500 and over, ‘The study team estimated the value of each type of general asset in all the flooded areas through a ficld investigation and made a zoning map based on this information. In addition, the data on the height of flood water. was obtained through the interviews for the flood damage survey with around 200 residents in the study area. Table-1.2.42 Value of Geneval Assets _ Value Uouschold Goods “(Gp milion) $O 225) ata of Deprecabt] 7 Stock Assets (RD nillion) | Code Land Use Category Residential Area (Grade B) Residential Area (Grade C) Large Industry Area [Modivm Industry Atea (Grade A)| ro B) Damage (o Infrastructure Very limited data on the damage to infrastructure were obtained fiom orgenizations responsible for the construction and maintenance of inftastructure. Significant damage to roads and bridges was recorded outside the Central City, but damage within the Central City svas not visible because the construction standard of roads and bridges is muich higher there than outside the Central City. To estimate the damage Co infrastructure that does not always appear immediately, the study team applied the Japanese standard damage rate, When the damage to assets is 100, the damage to roads and bridges can be estimated at 28.2, at 3.1 for telecommunications and at 2.3 for the electricity, totaling 33.4 hs£ (4) Damage from Disruption of Bu It takes several days until normal commercial activities can resume after the occurrence of foods because 1) people whose houses were damaged cannot go to work immediately since they have to repair and/or ctean them, and/or 2) offices cannot function until they are cleaned/repaired, With regard to 1), interviews with residents showed how many days it took them to cleatvrepair their houses. On average, 1.5 days were needed when the water level was less than S0cm, 2.Sdays when it was 50 to 99cm, and 3.Sdays when it was 100cm to 199cm, 4 Sdays when 200 (0 299em, and 5.Sdays when more than 300em, ‘The study team estimated the loss of GDP from 1) using the regional per capita GDP of Ainbon City, Rp 3.0 million per year at 1996 prices, The loss of GDP for 2) may be estimated from sates data, but since there are:no reliable sales data available in Ambon City, the study team applied the same proportion of GDP loss and damage to office buitdings as that obtained in 1). (5) _ Estimation of Past Flood Damage ‘The damage from the three past major floods and the annual flood are estimated and are shown in Table-L.2.13 ‘Table-1.2.13_ Estimation of Past Flood Da item Rohy | Raw | Temw Bate F Total | Gantuug | LC No. of Houses “Total General Assets. 1989/06/22 | “General Assets Damage | infrasteucture Damage _| | Disruption of Bu | “aut General Assis eneral Asis Damage. 1989/06/22 Annual | Infrastructure Damage _ Disruption of Businesses | . “Total Damage Source : HIGA Study Team 116(© Estimation of Assumed Flood Damage Flood damage at probable discharge with 30-year and 100-year return period were estimated In this case, assuming that all the food discharge Nows inside the river course, the river water level, namely flood water level, is catculated by using non-uniform flow calculation Referring to the estimated ood water level, local topography of flooded area, the past flooded area and water dopth, the Rooded area and water depth with 30-year and (00-year return periods were studied. The flooded area and depth with 109-return period is presented in Figure-1.2.10. y Fed Water Level River Cours Pa Figure-1.2.9 Assumption of Calculation of Flood Water Level “Pabiiy | “Lscaon | id Saige River Mouth | TB Tigo | stat Guge | wit | year and 100-year return period were estimated and are shown in Table-1.2.15, 2.45. Estimation of Flood Damage with 30-year and {00-year Return Period Unit: Rp. milo Baw | | Gantung, Flood with 30-year Retusn Period Disruption of Bu “Total Damage Flood with 100.year 302,483 | fetaen SR | Pevied | fasta 32896 | Ditpin of er igan Total Dawage | 150 a6 | 47,680 | Sone HEA Sis Team “an4 Figure-1.2.10 Estimated Flooded Depth and Avea with 100-year Return Period 14s2.3.3. Hood Discharge - Damage Curve (1) Probability Estimation of the Past Flood Discharge The flood discharges of 1984/06/22, 1989/06/22 and 1996/08/22 floods were approximately estimated at the most upstream of the flooded area. The estimation method s similar to that of the assumed flood damage and is described as follows: 1) Based on the interviews of Rood damage survey, the flooded water depth is obtained at the upstream cross section of the flooded area 2) Assuming that all of flood discharge flows inside of the river course, flood discharge is catoulated by using non-uniform flow calculation based on iver water level, namely flood water fevel. The estimated discharges and probability of the past floods are shown in Table-1.2.16, which includes the estimation of flood occurrence probability based on the rainfall data, The flood ‘occurrence probability should be the same for all river basins because the Study Area is smrall and the river basins are close to each other. Based on the estiniation of flood discharges, flood ‘occurrence probability of each flood is estimated below: Flood Probability 1984/06/22 about 1/10 1989/06/22 about 1/10 1996/08/22 about 1/3 In this Study, therefore, the probable discharges with above probability are adopted as the estimated flood discharge of each flood and are shown in ‘Table-1.2.17. __ Table-1.2. inary Estimation of Past Flood Discharges _ 7 Ttem Rivers 1984/06/22 FI 9/06/22 Flood 1996/08/22 Flood Probability] Figure | Probabitiy} Figure | Protabiig| | Daily Rainfall uma [307s | 3330 | 330. i Hourly Rainfall nave) : (65.1) Discharge | Rukia at (ov'scey [Batu Merah ‘Tomu at SG [Batu Gajah at RM. Batu Gantung at RAG sé. Notes RM. : River Mouth, S.G.: Stait Gauge ___Table-4.2.17_Fstimation of Return Period and Discharge of Past Floods Item Rivers Location | 1981/06/22 Food | 1989106/22 Ftood | 1996/08/22 Flocd iod (eat) Bee ‘Rut [staf Gauge Discharge | [ River Mouth (an'sce) [Batu Merah | Staff Gouge ‘Toma Batu Gaya | Staft Gauge | ett [ River Monthy Batu Gantang | Staif Gauge River Moulh My@) Flood ischarge - Damage Value Curve Based on the above flood damage study, relationship between flood discharge and flood damage valuc is estimated, taking into account of the following : “The flood discharge with no damage is assumed as the discharge capacity of each river. Damaged fload occurred 2-3 times a year in all five tivers. “The Mood of 1996/08/22 was estimated to be 3-year return period. ‘The floods of 1984/06/22 and 1989/06/22 were estimated to be nearly the same scale and equivalent to the 10-year return period, Flood damage of 30-year and 100-year return period were estimated by the Study eam Therefore the Study Team employed the estimation method shown in Table-12.18 to the flood discharge - damage curves Return Period Discharge ca Anal od dst The relationship between flood discharge and damage value is shown od damage on 1996 Target salve of ‘Actual hood di n Table-1.2.19 and Figure-1.2.11 for each river. Table-12.19_Relationship between Flood Discharge and Damage Vali Rauhw River Bata Metal River Tonm River ears bisa] Feiona_ | Dischargs | Damage | Relea] Digchongs | Banage i Qy (u'dsce) (Rp, Mik) F Period “| (mPisce). | (Rp. Mil)" Petiod | Corisee) _[(Rp, Mil), 20 | [30 “io3er [0] “30-year Source : ICA Say Team 0160,000 140,000 120, -g120,000 3 100,000 & 60,000 8 0,000 é 8 40,000 20,000 Discharge at River Mouth (n3¢s) Figuve-.2.1f Flood Discharge / Flood Scale - Damage Yatue Curve 14,000 i 3 3 ‘Damage (Rp. Mition) 2 3 » 3 38,000 20,000 | 3 8 3 3 Damage (Re. Millon) 10,000 12,000 10,000 8,000, 3 Damage (Rp. Mition) woo bl 2,000 @ 100 200 900 400 500 Gischarge at River Mouth (m131s) ok ; . 0 $9 100 150200 Dischaige at River Muth (m/s) 0 59 «100 t60 200 Discharge at River Mouth (an3Vs)CHAPTER 3 © FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN 3.1 Basie Policy of Flood Control Plan 3.1.1 Principal Plan Conditions (1) Targets of Flood Control Master Plan ‘The central area of Ambon city has suffered from river flooding 2 or 3 times a year, causing an inundation area of 36 ha and duration of 1-3 hours on average due to the flooding from the five target rivers, Also, large scale Noods frequently attack tite area, In recent years, big floods occurred in 1984, 1989 and 1996, and resulted in a wide inundation area of about 100 ha lasting 4-7 hours in the central part of the city. ‘Therefore, urgent implementation of drastic measures are necessary to overcome this flood prone condition, To cope with this situation, the targets of this flood control plan are 1) to mitigate flood damage by structural and non-structural food control measures, 2) to: improve river environment condition through the implementation of flood control measures and 3) to propose a plan of water resources development for domestic use in Anibon city by designing multipurpose dams and reservoirs, (2) Protected Area and ‘Target Rivers ‘The protected area covered by this plan is the central part of Ambon city. This area, the possible flood prone area, includes the downstream parts of the basins for the five target tiveis Ruhu, Batu Merah, Tomu, Batu Gajsh and Batu Gantung. Each siver flows down through V-shaped valleys to the flood plain (central part of Ambon cily or this protected area). The most upstream part of this flood prone area is the outtet of each river valley. The protected area includes the most important parts of the city and forms the ceater of city functions such as commerce, culture, administration, ete. (3) Project Target Year The target year for planning is set at 2015. This target year is utilized to determine water demand aind supply in the future, However water demand and supply in the next 15 years, ie. until the year 2030, is also taken into account for the long term plan. (4) Design Seate The a design scale of 30 years is adopted for the ood control plan for Ambon central area as a result of the following consideration: “Flood Control Manual Volume I” provides a summary of seturn period criteria which have ‘been used in the design of various flood contro! projects in Indonesia. In an atea of Urban / Industeiat Development like Ambon central city, the design flood return period varies 10 to. 25 years in the short term, and 25 to SO years in the long term. Also in this manual, recommended minimum design flood standard are presented in ‘Table-13.1. For new projects like this project in Ambon, minimum design flood return periods of more than 10 years in the initial phase and more than 25 years in the final phase are recommended, Asa comparison, the recently experienced severe floods in 1984 and 1989 are estimated to have a return 492 eeperiod of approximately 10 years, Project Typotfer River Flood Con‘tol Project) Conveyance Systema __2nd Tetal Pop River System ____|_ Updating Project for uibun with P > 2,000,000 Rural Primary Drainage System. | Urban P = $00,000 i ‘Catchment aoa > 500 ha) [ “Ursin 360,000

2,090,000 Notes 1) Higher design flood standard should be opp if en economic analysis Aooding is signiicert risk to haan Hite 2) B= Total Ubon Population 3) Emergency Projects are developed without preliminary enginecring and économie feasibility shaies at sites where flooding is excessive and flooding problems present significant risk to human fio. 4) New Project include flood contol projects where no previous Mood projects have been developed or whece Emergency Projects have been developed 8) Updating Projects include rchabilitation projets and improvements to exiting projet. Most River Basin Developirent Projects ore considered to bo updating projects, © nilial Phoseis recommended for inurodiato uso. 7) Vioal Phase is resanumceadd for use in upgrading existing facility when the necessary fs bocome availabe 3.1.2 Policy of Flood Control Measures Based on the basin characteristics and the river conditions, the basic policy for flood control measures is set as follows: 1) Structural Measures aud Non-stractuyal Measures : To fully achieve the main target of the plan (mitigation of flood damage), the Master Plan shall include structural measures and non-structural measures for flood control and sediment contcol 2) Water Development aud River Environment Conservation : In preparation of the Master Plan, plans for river environment conservation and water develapment for future domestic use through nualtipuspose dams are proposed. 3) Structural Measures {River Improvement, Dams 1nd Diversions] : Structural flood contro! measures enabte the design flood to flow safely into the sca without flooding, directly controlling flood flow in or along the river course, Structural measures inchide 1) river improvement work to increase flow capacity of the river course and 2) dams and diversion channels (0 decrease the flood peak discharge into the river course. 4) Non-structaral Mea: ‘s [Flood Mi n] : Non-strictural flood control measures are measures other than structural flood contral measures to mitigate flood disasters and inchide various* methods for flood nmoff suppression, for Mlood proofing and for facititation of flood control activities. 5) Alternative Plans and Optimum Measures : To identify the optimum structural measures’ pla for flood control, alternative plans are examined including river improvement work (large scale) with no other measures and river improvement work (sinall seate) in combination with other measures (dams or diversion channels). 1533.2 Structural Flood Control Measures 3.2.1 Study of Flood Control Measures In this section, 1) River Improvement, 2) Flood Control Dams, 3) Diversion Channels and 4) Check Dams will be studied, For each work, following measures were adopted as flood control measures for these works. River Improvement to Increase Flow Capacity. In view of the densely concentrated houses around the rivers and the resulting difficulty in purchasing land, the widening of river width should be carefully planned considering a large impact to the society. As a result, sectional expansion through excavation of river bed and heightening of flood walls, and concrete channel work must be the prioritized selection of river improvement works. Dams and Diversion Channels to Decrease Flood Peak Discharge The methods of decreasing flood peak discharge applied to the target area are to be flood control dams and diversion channels. Sites for retarding basin are not easy to find since there is no space in the city area and no suitable plain location in the mountain area, Flood control «dams anid diversion channels are planned in combination with river improvement works Check Dams for Sediment Control Check dams should be taken into account where necessary in order to mitigate flooding caused by sedimentation in the river courses, and to minimize the reduction in the effective storage capacity of dams caused by the accumulation of sediment, (1) River Improvement (a) Plan and Design Conditions ‘The proposed measures for civer improvement are 1) River-bed Formation, 2) River-bed Excavation, 3) Flood Wall Heightening, 4) Concrete Channel Works, 5) River Widening, The outline of these measures is shown in Table-1.3.2. ‘The priority for adopting a measure is, sel according to the conditions of each river, taking into account social impact, economic hliciency, city drainage system and technical validity. Additional to these improvement measures, river bridge improvement is afso employed to necessary sections, Bridges with piers in the river might be improved. Planning conditions of the river improvement works are set as follows: 1) River improvement plaa for the design flood (30 year return period) is examined and other scale plans (5 year and 10 year return period) for combination plan with dam or diversion channel are also studied, 2) Uniform flow catculation (Manning's Formula) is applied to each section which the improvement range is divided into so as to have nearly the same river width, according to the current river width. Manning's coefficient (n) is-set at n=0.025 for current condition, n=0,020 for river after river-bed formation or excavation and 0,015 for concrete channel 3) As for the planning flood wall freeboard, 0.6 m (Jess than 200 m/sec) and 0.80 m {more than 200 m’/sec and less than 500 m’/sec) is employed, according to the design discharge. 4) The cross section is assumed to be rectangular after siver-bed formation or excavation, 5) Excavation is assumed to be carried out with a tiver width of each divided section SsMeasures ah a Riverbed Feenation ‘Standard Cross Section = Accetting t0 the com ‘hod gradient, river bod excavation 1s carried out uatil the level set based ca] the deepest river-hed. When excavating sediment (including rubbish and shodge) that has accumulated oo} thy rivercbod, the erose-scetonal area of the river is increased and the roughiess rece, + ln all the rivers, rver-bed formation has fo be done at Bist + Flood woll reinforcing is not nevessany: ey Riverbed Excavation eo Flood wall Heightening @ Concrete Chanel a River Wisening ‘Aller riverbod formation, siverbed is exeatated| Jespor and the «ross sovtional area of the siver is fncteazed, += This measuie makes ood water fevel Tower so that Tandside water conld be casy to flow inte the siver. However when excavating feo deep, Hestuarytreatneat becomes necessary and the cost becomes high, 2) river Uilization by residents become diffizalt «Tae masiesn excavation depth is assumed to be less than about 1.0%. + Fist, partial flood wall heightening is employed inne {With riversbod exeatstion If flooding still cannot be contiltad after canrying out riverbed excavation, the] necessary cross-sectional area of the river is secured by| food wall heightening, = This measure is cheap and effective and tana] acquisition isnot nocessary: However Mood water tevel becomes high so that landsile water could net be flow into the river when flooding, = Then the hefghts of flood walls is to be less thea} usrent aasionuin food wall height above ground level Besides maximum Nod wall height is to bs less than 4 mas a general mule, beceose of stroctuil Tims (i the wall is moze then 4 m, new eonstexstion of the wel is secomniended). Tih waterways whee the design discharge capacity sll] cannot bo flowed after execuiing the above 1), 2), 2) easues, conerete is fined en the siverbod ~ By executing this, improvertents in the eoeMMctent of} roughness and the tractive force of satin expected - However, river utilization would be tingle aks of narrow river seston is impvoxed inline vith the above measnres 1), 2), 3), 4), if the section is scoagh lobe ptially impsoved ss Narrow sectiis of sivers cannot help being widened ser the above measures 1), 2), 3), 4), in ordes to secure the necessary cross-sectional area = This measure is conditional upon first securing the ta] oquited forthe widening and work execution. += When widening rivers, the existing food walls ore ory ing the now Mood wal(b) Ruhti River Improvement < Current River Condition > ‘The iongitudinal section (deepest river-bed elevation, teft and right side original ground level, OGL) is shown in Figur summarized as follows ht flood wall level, teft and 3.1. Current river condition is = Catchment area at river mouth =; 16.84 km? ~ Current siver-bed gradient : 14550 = River width 12.0 10.45.0m, - Average river-bed elevation EL: -0.4 m to BL. -0.9 m at the river mouth EL. 2.8 mal the most upstream (1600) = Flood wail height 2 2.0-2,7 m ('000-1'000) 3.0-3.6 m (1'000-1'600) ~ Discharge capacity 2 110-150 m*/see (0'000-0350) 60 -100 m'Ysec. (0'400. 600) 40 - 50 m'/sec (0'650-0950) 50 -140 nv'/sec (1'000-1'350) 130-200 m’/sec (1'400-1'600) = River Bed” a LefOGl fw _ Right OGL 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00: 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 Elevation (ELm) 800 1000 Distance (n) Figure-L3.1 Longitudinal Section of Ruhu < Planning Condition > Planning condition is summarized as follows: Fi River improvement section 0'000-1'600 (1600 m) wear | “10-year “} “30year isis | Goat ana] od current siver width (before wi ~ Tet Bank 1 - Right Bank | ‘Curent Gradient F Longitudinal Sectic 1200 1400 1600 ‘01000-0'506 | 0'500.6°600 | 0'600. ‘07800-1000 | 14.0 0, [witht [2800 | Om | 190 156 River improvement plans with 5, 10 and 30 year retum period were studied and the ‘components of the plan ate described in Table-1.3.3 Ruhu River has a relatively wide river width of about 17 m, compared with the other rivers’ widths of less than 10 m Morcover river widening is inevitable so that concrete channel ork was not employed for the iver improvement of Ruhu River. River excavation depth is ‘employed at 1 m. As for the plan with S-year return period, partial river widening of 300 m length is necessary. Wider and more drastic widening is inevitable for the, plan with 10 and 30-year return period ‘Fable-13.3 "River Improvement Pian (Rulu River) __ Items Sear 103¢ar ~ [Design Discharge | Soction |" 0'000-1'600, ‘0'000-1'600 | Qin) 170) [330 32 Plan | Section |v 000-1600 | 0000-11600. | 000-1600 Item 17580 "1880 1530 |: Bownsiceavn Bievation | (EL) 250 | aso so Standard Section Section | “0600-1600, | 6000-1.600, 1000-11600. We (mi) 12,0-28.0 12.0-28.0 Wocay 0-280, 26,0-32.0, 7 Hi Gn 2,70-3.30 Bike Height “~ Hid (in) Es 30-410 PT River-bed Formation ‘Section |. 01000-1'600, Li) 1600 LV on) ¥ ) ooo Work | Riverbed Excavailon | “Section 006-1600 ‘000-1600 tem BG) 00 1.00 Loa) “1600 1660 Vou 43000, Concrete Channel Section La) 4 = PAG) i a | Section 570-1330 | 0400-1550 [Sad Ge 350-4.00 3,501.00 Tet] "AH da) 030 020-0.30 ___ t@y "300. 300 120 Right | AH (mm) 0,20-0.60 0.20-0.60 0.20-0.60 | ety | 330 250) 3500) | $000) Beer Widening ‘Section | ~~ 0'350-1'000 1530-11600 | __0°300-1°600, AW (mm) |"""3.0-5.08 50-1208 12.0-20.0R, Lan) | 300 ‘Aw i300 Bridge iniprovement | Location | 07059-1359 | . ‘Number |" B2,81,85 Cand Acquisition Areas | AQ) 1500, Rescitiement Houscholds | “| Number “4 Note fe Q: Discharge (eases): Elevation (ELem) |W Width Qn) Les Length (nm) D Depth ay Height (wm) Moll: Mean Height (in) SH: Mean Increase in Height on) ‘AW: Widening Width (m) A: Area x’) _V : Volume (xt) (0): Flood wall heightening length without river widening Fenglh 17(@) Batu Merah River Improvement < Curent River Condition > “The longitudinal section (deepest river-bed elevation, eft and right flood wall level, let and right side original ground level, OGL) is shown in Figure-13.2. Current river condition is summarized as follows: = Catchment area at river mouth = 7.03 ku? = Current river-bed gradient > 111320 = River width 1 6.010 20.0 m, = Average river-bed elevation + BL:-1.0 mat the river mouth 3.9 mat the most upstream (1'600) = Flood wail height 1.8-2.3 m on average (2.7 in in maximum) ~ Discharge capacity + more than 40 m/sec (0'000-0'250) 20 -40 in'/sec (0'300-0'500) 13 - 25 m/sec (0'S00-1'600) 7.00 ol Planted ‘River Bod] 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 -2.00 3.00 Elevation (EL.m) Longitudinal Section 4000 1200 1400 1600 Gistance (r) Merah River Figure-1.3.2 Longitudinal Section of Bat << Planning Condit Planning condition is summarized as follows: = River improvement section 07000-1600 (1600 m) = Design discharge 158< River Improvement Plan > River improvement plans with 5, 10 and 30 year return period were studied and the components of the plan are described in Table-£3.4. Batu Merah River has a slightly lower flood wall in height of 1.8-2.3 m, compared with the other rivers’ wall height of 2.3-3,0 m at most sections. It results in low discharge capacity Therefore, heightening of less than 1 m ( less than 0.5 m if possible) was allowed to be employed for the planning, River excavation depth is employed at 1 m. As for the plan with Seyear return period, only timited section of 70 1 is necessary to be widened. Wider and ‘more drastic widening is inevitable for the plan with 10 and 30-year return period. He ‘Table-1.3.4 River Improvement Pl C Htems Seer Design Discharge [Section Sean's | |. Section aiion (EGLin) Section, rent Rive We (nn) Planned River Width "| Wp (oo) + Water fight Hi (on, |: Dike Height Hid (i) 2.60-3.70 2.60-3.70 | 2.60-3.70 River-bed Format Section | 01000-1600 ‘000-1600 ‘000-1600, 1600. 1600. ‘6900 ‘000-1600 River-bed Excavation, 0.20-0.40 970, 0.10.0.70 800 (90). 400-1600. 153.58 950. 4750 0386, Q: Discharge (m'sce)_E: Elevation (ELn) |W: Widih (mm). : Length (an) i: Depth (m) Mi: Height Qu) Mall : Mean fight (m) 4H: Mean Toctease in Height (nn) AW Widsning Width (x) A: Atca (ar). V : Volume (or) 0): Flood wall heightening length withoul river widening Tength 159,(@)Tomu River Improvement < Current River Condition > ‘The river width, the longitudinal section (deepest river-bed elevation, left and right flood wall level, left and tight side original ground level, OGL) and discharge capacity are as shown in Figure-1.3.3. Current river condition is summarized as follows: Catchment area at river mouth Curreat river-bed gradient River width Average tiver-bed elevation Flood wall height Discharge capacity 20.00 1.00 Elevation (EL.m) 3 6.00 5.64 km? (0k000-2'250 : /250, 2k250-2k700 :1/100 7.0 to 15.0 m, EL. -0.5 mat the river mouth EL. 12.2 mat the most upstream (2'700) 2.2-3.2 m on average (4.0 in in maximum) more than 70 m’/sec (0'000-0'750) 40 -60 m’/sec (0'800-1'200) 60 - 90 m’/sec (1'200-1'500) 20 - 30 m’fse¢ (1'550-2"700) more than 100 mv’/sec (2'750-2'900) © 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2260 2500 2750 3000 Distance (m) ignre-I.3.3 Longitudinal Section of Tomu River < Planning Condition > Planning condition is summarized as follows: River improvement stetion oo Design discharge [ Gonee | 0 ms oswace 100-2700 (2700 m) Distan dat6-1100 TISAI] TIOETTO| Wid Assunied iver width (before peal 1sdm_| 80m | 160River improvement plans with 5, 10 and 30 year return period were studied, and the components of the plan are described in Tablo-1.3.5. ‘Tomu River has relatively large discharge capacity compared with the other tivers' capacity. For the plan with S-year return period, river-bed formation work is enough to secure the necessary cross sectional area. As for the plan with 10-year retum period, river-bed excavation of 0.8 m in depth is employed. Conorete channel work was added in the plan with 30-year retain period. In the section from 2K100 to 2k700, the discharge capacity with 5 - 10 years return period is secured by carrying out river-bed formation work. River Improvement Plan (Tomu Rives Seycar Oars) Phan ‘Section | tem ent 17250, 1/100, Downstream Blevation 2.50 [Standard Section _ | 06002700 ~Lreise 70-150 70-150 70-180 “i.40-2.50 1603.30 1,60-2.70 fee 2,003.1 2.20-3.90 2203.3 ‘0000-2700 (9000-2700 9000-2100 oe 2300 2700, 26500 “36500 | 26800 Work 5 91000-27100 ‘7000-2100, tea : : 0.80 Concrete Chained i ¥800-2°700 Flood Wall Heightening. ; ~a10280 7)" 240.280 "240-280 Left 0.10030" 0,10-0.10 0.10.40, 7 Lowy [770 130 130 “Right 0.10-0.20, 0.10 0.10. 20 Lo) | et AG’) = Fieo.007 i, 7, bs, 8 Rowe Q: Discharge (ir/se8) = Elevalion (EL.ai) We: Widib ih (ap D:Depthmn) 2: Height (nm) Moll: Mean Height (m) AH: Mean increase in Height (m) AW: Widening Width (m) "A: Atea (i?) V Votame (av (0 : Flood wall heightening length without river widening lengtt 161(©) Batu Gajah River Improvement < Current River Condition > ‘The river width, the longitudinal section (deepest river-bed elevation, teft and right flood wall level, tefl and right side original gi und level, OGL) and discharge capacity are as shown in Figure-1.3.4. Current river condition is summarized as follows: = Catchmtent area at river mouth = Current tiver-bed gradient ~ River width Average river-bed elevation Flood wall height Discharge capacity, 5.97 km? (0000-0900 : 1/240, “0k900-2k200: 1/160 2k200-2k600 : 1/65 6.0 to 15.0.0, EL, -0.5 mat the river mouth EL, 20,2 mat the most upstream (2°60) 2.3-2.8mn (0'000-0750), 2.6-3.7m (0'800-1'350) 1.2:1.4 m (1'400-1'600) about 1.5 m (1'800-2°600) more than 65 m’/sec (0'000-0'200) 10 - 35 m/sec (0'200-0'750) 7 - 120 m'/see (0'800-1'200) 20 + 50 m/sec (1'250-2'600) Left Bank Bere oad - Longitudinal Section bub © 200 400 600. 800. 1000 4200 1400 4600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 Distance (mn) Higure-1.3.4 Longitudinal Section of Batu Gajah River Planning condition is summarized as follows: iver improventent section = Design dischar Rewira Period 0'000-2'600 (2600 m) TI mn 102 River improvement plans with 5, 10 and 30 year retum period were studied and the components of the plan are described in Table-1.3.6. River-bed excavation with 1.0 m depth from river mouth to 2100 and partial food wall heightening were employed as the plan with 5-year return period. Additional to this plan, conerete channel work trom 0200 to 0k900 is employed for the plan with 10-year return period. As for the plan with 30-year return period, drastic river widening is inevitable without long and high flood wall heightening. In the section from 2k100 to -2k600, the harge capacity with 30-year return period is secured by carrying out river-bed formation work because of steep river gradient of 1/65, at ‘Table-I.3.6 _ River Improvem (Batu Gajah River) Ttems losear je” | Secon | 009-3600 | “0000-2700. v'600-2600 quis) | 80760 | 100,80 130, Ho. Praw ‘Section | G000-2'600 (9900-21600 "91009-2'600 tent {/240, 1/150, 765. | 1/240,1/160, 1005 | 1/240, 1/160, 1/65 2.00 Standard Section ‘Current iver Wid 6:0:150 x ~8.0-15.9. Fv (m) "1.90.2 80, Ha (ony 2,503.40 River-bed Formation | Section ‘Work | River-bed Excavation’ ‘G000-2"100, Item 100 2100 19000 tt [Gonctcie Channel| : 200-2'100 ae 1900 : “18000 Flood Walt Heightening 200-1450 0200-2600, cs a '2.50-3.20 250-2.90, ea 020:0.10 0.40, B oO, 230. Rigi” [AH (ayy | 0120-0.40 020.0.10 Peay 50 River Widening Section 7 ‘AW (a) | Lan) a Row) ~ {Digs Tmpiareiacat | Location | 6780-1833 50-1835 a ‘Number |” "133,85,B6_ B3,B5,06 B3,B5,06 AC) 7 $500, ‘Nuunber - Sree Note Qi Discharge Gace) aE iy W: Wadi Gay Le Feng Ga) Di Depth (mn). H: Height (in) Mn: can Height (ru) AI: Mean Increase in Height (a) ‘AW: Widening Width (m) "A: Area(an') V2 Volunic (m) (0: Flood wall heightening length without river widening length 1.63( Batu Gantung River Improvement < Current River Cor > “the river width, the longitudinal section (deepest civer-bed elevation, left and tight flood wall lovel, left and right side original ground level, OGL) and discharge capacity are as shown in Figure-1.3.5. Current river condition is summarized as follows: + Catchment area at river mouth 687 km? = Current river-bed gradient 0k000.0'950 : 1/230, 0k950-1k450 ; 1/160 + River width + $$.010 15.0m, = Average tiver-bed elevation 2 BL, -0.7 mat the river mouth EL. 6,9 mat the most upstream (1'450) = Flood wall height 1 2.6-3.4 m (0'000-1'450) = Discharge capacity more than 40 nv’/sec (0'000-0'400) 20 - 40 m’/sec (0'400-0'700) 40 - 100 msec (0700-1150) 20 - 60 in’/sec (1'150-1'450) more than 140 m’/see (upstream of 1'500) Elevation (EL.m) 0 200 400-600-800 1000 4200 1400» 1600 Distance (m) Figure-1.3.5 Longitudinal Section of Batu Gantung River 1g Condition > Planning condition is summarized as follows: - River improvement section 01000-1450 (1400 m) = Design discharge. 3yea | ipa ea [Bo aviece | TO m'/sse | 150 in'Z50e | a0 nice 130 mee = Assumed river width (before widening) E50 | 0250S | OSTA [TIDES OHTTD| iow [tom | 105m] 80m [7.0m 6d River improvement plans with 5, 10 and 30 year fetum period were studied and. the components of the plan are described in Table-l 3.7. River-bed excavation with 1.0 m depth of all sections and concrete channel work from 0K250 to 04500 were employed as the plan with 5-year retuin petiod. For the plan with 10- |, concrete channel work from 0k500 to 1k1S0 was added but no ‘widening was planned for the both plans. As for the plan with 30-year retutn period, drastic river widening is inevitable without long and high flood wall heightening. Items: 30-year Design Discharge ‘0000-11450 7 cet 130, 130 Riverbed 01000-1450 ‘000-1450 Gradient 1230, 1/160, 12%, 1/60 Downsteeaii Bievation 220 2:20 [Sionard Section | Seat (000-1850. ‘Chncent River Wi Weday | "50-15. Planned River Width f $0-15.0 | 5 Water Height two) | 2.10-3.30 ©3.00-3.10, [bike fieight "| Hid @y | 2.70.4 90 260-370 verb Fratton] Section | 9000-1480" P9000. 36] 6 1430 7180, 3600 “| 0000-1450, 07000-1°450_ 100 sv 17700 Work Item _ [Anat Gai ‘ett [Ait ny Lon) tigi [All ay ise Cia) a He River Widening Section Peeeece : : AW (w) : 7 0533311) Le : : $50 Roy PS | 2750 [Bridge Traprave oe 400-0705 G00. 0767 Number Bib? “BLD? ip? Tand Acquisiton Areas [AGH para 7 2130 iestfement Households” [ Number Note am Q: Discharge (m'¥scc) |: Hicvation (Lan) W: Width (mm) Lz Length (mi) {Depth (an) HL: Height (mn) Mal: Mean Height (im) AH: Mean increase in Height (ru) AW: Widening Width (m) "A: Atea On") V: Volume (av?) ood wall heightening Fengih without river widening FengthQ) Dam and Reservoir (a) | Selection of Dam Site ‘The 13 locations of candidate dam sites were selected on the five rivers in hilly areas as shown in Figure-t.3.6, on the basis of topographical and geological considerations. From the economic and social view points, each dam site was evaluated as shown in Table-1.3.8, comparing such factors as dam volume, reservoir arca aud compensation items (houses and public facilities). The most appropriate dam site for each river is selected below, taking into account the following considerations. Ruby River ‘Tho dam volume of RAt-1 is less than half that of REI-2, but the reservoir area of RHI is 1.5 times larger than RIL-2, Since the catchment area is nearly same and no houses and inhabitants are found thete, the economically advantageous dam site RUL-1 is selected for Ruhu River Batu Merah River “The dam volumes of BM-2 and 3 are smaller, about half that of BM-1, but the reservoir area UELASA BALL Avecneowtlnd sehen ane slab thieSnigMasattien BME2 There acereoos ero Fall $0 houses in the submerged area of BM-1, and more than 150 houses for BM-2 and BM-3. Although there are many houses, BM-2 is selected for Batu Merah River because of ‘economical advantages. miu River The dam volume of TM-3 is smallest, followed by TM-1 and TM-2, although these are nearly the same. The rescrvoir areas of all the dam sites are also not so different from each other, Atthough the catchment area is smallest, 2.71 km’, dam site TM-L is selected for ‘Tomu River, since no houses are located in the submerged area Batu Gajah River The dam volume of GJ-2 and 3 are more than half of GJ-1, and the reservoir areas of GJ-2 and 3 are smaller than GJ-1. The dam sites of GJ2 and GJ-3 have neatly same condition of dawn volume and reservoir area. ‘Therefore, since GJ-2 has fewer houses in the submerged area, dam site GJ-2 is selected for Batu Gajah River. Batu Gantung Rive i ‘Tho dam vohinie of GY-1 is smaller than GT-2, but the reservoir arca of GT-1 is larger than GT-2. Since the social itnpacts of the dams is nearly the same as each other, the economically advantageous dam site GT-1 is selected for Batu Gantung River. 166,| Gan Note ecervoit Anca Dara Base Flevaiion ava Height Dain Voluune Reservoir Area as ___Table-1.3.8_Comparis River | Dam | Catetnent Dam Specification Social System | No. | Area ckm’)| (Storage Volume = 1,000,000n0) Condition Rone [REG 1445] Bam Base Elevation G9] 300} No heuses ud inhabitants © Dam Height (m} 343] an Velune (rovone)} 1720} ReservoicArca___(1000ne8)] 1963] i Rite Dom Base Etevation (Gal) 70] Noses at inkabiants Damn Height Gm] ats Dam Volume 1000 my} 3970] see nat ReseivoirArea_____(1000n#)| 1253 Eee Meaty PBS-T 346 | Dam Doss Elevation ind] 17.0) Meee tian’ $0 auses Tocated along} Day Height (o)] 2633] be vier, « church, « school and a ain Volume (1000)| 233.0] paved primary tend il fall under Reserve Area {i000 int] | 200.0) the water it ths depth ofthe ceservle M2 99] Bara Bose Blevation Da Hight a paved primey’ coad wil fll under Dam Volume ‘he water, if the depth ofthe dam is} 25:0, ‘Similar tothe cass OOM Dain Base Elevation Dain Height Damn Volume 543] Dam Bose Elevation Nis hoases and inhabitants Around 19 houses, @ church and a| Pent eee aya wees ae pags Ute [pceeaee st ae aa} aif es etn Wat TI Rete et rowemeneertaterens Dam Volume (1000 10°)] water, einen 0000) eee a ee Daal 9 Ham Volume (1009 in?) | |RescvoicArea_____ (1000 GI2 (en) @ Dom tight oy) fester Ro public flies ane found Dam Volane 1000 10°)] ‘in the reservoir erea. |__| __|Resonsieanca (100041182 Ee a ©] Dam Vase Elevation Gol] 220] wo ATeases (outa Re TOIoANS| Dein Hleight {o0)] 40.2 of the commons) wit Gall unr the Dam Volume (1000iu?)] 330.0} water. | Jrsseroie cen (loo n')|_ 2s Ee inna] OT 76| Daan Bose Hevaion ‘on)] 6SOTA pubic Raat cater and pvc oN Dam Hight ey} 38:4] primary toad whieh conncets the Damn Volume. (1000 nu?) 229.0] sitlage in the monntain and the Reservoir Area (2000 ra?) 112 S] dowsitown will have to be relocated 2 Bietaiton ww) Dam Height wy Dam Volos (2000 a) Reservoir Area (1090 m*) i the depth ofthe reservoir 25 No houses will fall under the wate except forthe public hea cent to be relcatod A. water trunk Tine installed by FDAM wil bave_ (0 telocaed. 1) The study is based on 1:5,000 topographical maps. 2)*: most promising dawn site for each tiver system 1671800m, | (eL Scale 125000 Figure-L3.6 Locations of Candidate Dam Sites €(b) Flood Regulation by Dam and Reservolr The design scale of flood control plan for all the rivers is set at 30-year retiirn period. The desiga flood hydrograph is the flood pattern of June 6, 1990. ‘he flood control dam for each river is planned based on the following conditions: 1) Case-I : river course is improved with S-year return period design scale, 2) Case-2 : river course is improved with 10-year return period design scate, ‘Then the design flood discharge before and after regulation at the river mouth and the dam is presented in Table-1.3.9, To regulate the discharge Qb to Qa at the river mouth, flood regulation calculation was catried out by changing the size of spillway size. 9 "Design Flood Discharge Before/After Regulation by Damn. Uni: Ys Tou [Bata Cajon] Baty Design Discharge Rem Gantuog 1M) BG Dinh) | 7 int before regulation (QB) =m 70 Re ence Pot alter epuation (3) ‘Note: Reference point is set at river miouth. Casor1 = iver conse is iniproved with 5-year ret period design scale Case-2 : river course is improved with 10-year toutn period design scale “The dam is designed as Fill-Type dam considering the geological condition at the dam site. “The design slopes of dam are 1:3.0 (for upstream slope) and 1:2.5 (for downstream stope). ‘The design freeboard and dam crest width are 4.0 m and 5.0 m respectively. ‘The reservoir capacity comprises the volume for flood control, for reservoir sedimentation and for development of river maiatenance flow. The flood control volume shall include 20 % contingency of the calculated necessary volume. ‘The reservoir sedimentation volume is capable of storing 100 years sediment discharge. The design specific sediment discharge i 400 km’/yeat/km?. To obtain the volume for developmient of river maintenance flow, it is assumed that maintenance discharge is 2 m'/sec/100km? based on the average drought discharge. The volume is calculated as follows: Volume = 2 m'/see/100km? x [Catchment Area) x 86400 sec x 10 days x 100 km?. ‘The desiga results are shown in Table-1.3.10. 169Table-1.3.10_ tems wit : edge tie is [mio | Te ~_ 1449, 437 273 io iced ek |B Gaga YP [Cun discharge (PTE) Surchorgs Wate "Top Elevation (1). |Freeboard (m) Daun Height Dasn Cool Lenn (ay Dam Foundation Leng ent Width in) Jenny hold eumber) Section of Dam am cet ah [ Fre Bast ost pe cates ret 1102,000 21002 (Hata Mera Waic | aes] oy to Tieraton | crt | ai Elevation (€L.m) 60 aug] Ti a g Dam ite GF-1 (Bate Gant Fats | Hae ls) | de) sc ai ef e alg : ef [a g 3s § | $ ~ 3 5 é j 32a 17 2 soa Figure-13.7 Water Height and Volume of Dam Reservoir Ln Accua, Voluxe (1, 00003) He¥ oueve (BM-2) ° 5,000 40, 000 Accum Voluré (1, 00023) APS | | : 9 1,000 2, 000 3, 000 4, 000 5, 000 6, ‘Accum. Volume (1, 00093) 8, 000 18,000 © 1,000 2,000 3,000, 4,000 5, 000 Accum. Volune (1, 00083) 00