Additional Study on the Musi River Crossing Bridge Project in the

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

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

South Sumatra Province

Indonesia

Palembang City

Project Site

Banyuasn City

1

2

3

8

9

4

7

5

Photos

1-1 Ampera Bridge

1-2 Ampera Bridge

1-3 Fly Over of Southern Side of Ampera Bridge

(Under Construction)

2-1 Musi II Bridge

2-2 New Musi II Bridge

(Under Construction)

3-1 Palembang Western Ring Road

4 Swamp Area of Eastern Palembang City

5 Sei Lais Port of Eastern Palembang City

6 Approach Site of Alternative Plan 4

7 Residential Area around south approach between

alternative plan 1 to 3

8 Palembang Eastern Ring Road near Palembang Airport

(Already Land Preparation)

9 Ship on Musi River

Source: Photographed by Study Team

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

(Regional Body for Planning and Development)

BAPPENAS 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 (Financial Internal Rate of Return) FLARAP (Framework of Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan)

FS (Feasibility Study)

G

GDP (Gross Domestic Products)

G.L. (Ground Level)

H

I

List of Abbreviation

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 (Official Development Assistance) O&M (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 Study Methodologies

2.1 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 Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impact

4.1 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 Planned Project Schedule

6.1 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 Technical Advantages of Japanese Companies

8.1 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


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


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


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


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


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

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.

2

Table i Natural Conditions of Project Site

Overview

Geography /

Geological

Conditions

• The area around Palembang City is flat, and there are many lowland swamps.

• According to boring studiesof both the first study and BINA MATGA BD, there is tightly packed

ground at a depth of 20m or more (N value at depth of 20m or more is 30 or higher).

Musi River

Overview

• 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.

Shipping

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

Musi III Bridge

Built

Case Toll Setting

(Rp/Number·km)

Traffic Volume (pcu/d)

Musi III Ampera Musi II

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

Figure i Change in Traffic Flow Caused by Building of Musi III Bridge Route


Without Musi III bridge

With Musi III Bridge

110,000pcu/d

67,000pcu/d

43,000pcu/d

Traffic Shift from Ampera Bridge to Musi III Bridge

48,000pcu/d

48,000pcu/d

4

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


(2) Comparative Review

The evaluation results of the routes are shown in Table iii.

Legend Alternative plan 1

Alternative plan 2

Alternative plan 3

Alternative plan 4

5

Table iii Route Selection Comparison Route Alternative plan 1 Alternative plan 2 Alternative plan 3 Alternative plan 4

Main Bridge Type

Cable-Stayed Bridge Extradosed Bridge Extradosed Bridge Extradosed Bridge

Bridge Length

BINA MARGA BD: 4,470m 3,330m 3,350m 3,330m METI Plan:3,380m

Traffic Volume

Inferior to alternative plan 3 since route is longer (equivalent to alternative plan 2).

Inferior to alternative plan 3 since route is longer

For shortest length of route form inner city, and traffic usage volume will be higher since it is closer to downtown than other plans

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

Inferior to other plans in terms of road structure and impact on natural environment since a portion goes through swamps.

The route is on tourism development area on Kemaro Island by Palemban City

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 Palemban City

Equivalent to other plans from standpoint there are not large development plans in the area.



The route avoid the petroleum plant area on the south side (PT. Pertamina).

Inferior to other plans in terms of road structure and impact on natural environment since a portion goes through swamps.

Social 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 since the bridge passes through a densely populated area on the south side.

Passes through a small village on the north side, but it issuperior to alternative 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.

Many residents will need to be resettled since the bridge passes through a densely populated area on the south side.

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.

Bridge Construction Costs

BINA MARGA BD:39.6 billion yen (4.6 trillion Rp)

27.7 billion yen (3.1 trillion Rp)

34.8 billion yen(4.0 trillion Rp)

31.0 billion yen (3.5 trillion Rp)

METI Plan: 30.8 billion yen (3.5 trillion Rp)

Evaluation

BINA MARGA BD Construction costs are the higher, and social considerations has problem

Cost is the lowest, but has problem of social considerations on equality with BINA MARGA BD.

Construction costs are higher than alternative plan 1 and 2 andhas problem of social considerations on equality with BINA MARGA BD.

Construction costs are higher than other Study Team proposals, but are lower than BINA MARGA BD.

This route has the lowest social impact, and feasibility is the highest.

METI Plan Cost is lower than BINA MARGA BD, but has problem of social considerations on an equality with BINA MARGA BD


6

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.

[Alter

The ma

plan 3 t

channe

[Altern

The ma

deepest

(2) Tunn

In the BI

along wi

are limit

A comp

proposa

immers

times c

AlternativePlan 1

AlternativePlan 2

AlternativePlan 2

AlternativePlan 4

rnative plan 3

ain bridge ty

to provide bo

l for the near

native plan 4]

ain bridge ty

t. Therefore, t

nel Plan

INA MARGA

ith the bridge

tations on the

parison table

al calculated

sed tunnel +

compared to t

e

e

e

e

3]

ype is Extrado

oth the requir

rby Musi Rive

ype is Extrado

the main span

A BD, a requ

e proposal du

shipping cha

e for the cabl

d with the ab

excavated tu

the cable-stay

osed Bridge.

ed shipping c

er tributary, w

osed Bridge.

n will be 270

Figure iii G

Source: P

uest was made

ue to the fact

annel conditio

le-stayed brid

bove conditio

unnel proposa

yed bridge in

7

A main span

channel width

which is also

The shippin

.0m which sa

General Plan

Prepared by St

e to conduct

t that the con

ons with a bri

dge in alterna

ons is shown

al and shield

n the original

n length of 2

h of B=240.0

navigated by

ng channel is

atisfies the sh

for Bridge

tudy Team

a review of a

nstruction cos

idge.

ative plan 1 b

n in Table iv

tunnel propo

l BINA MAR

270.0m was d

0m for the Mu

y ships.

s in the cente

hipping chann

a tunnel propo

sts were estim

based on the

v.The approx

osal are appr

RGA proposa

designated fo

usi River and

er of the rive

nel width of B

osal as an alt

mated very hi

e original BIN

ximate costs

roximately as

al, and the w

or alternative

d a navigation

er where it is

B=240.0m.

ternative plan

igh and there

NA MARGA

for both the

s high as two

ork period is

e

n

s

n

e

A

e

o

s

8

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

(Original BINA MARGA

Proposal)

Immersed Tunnel +

Excavated Tunnel

Shield Tunnel

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.

Total Project Length 3,330m

River Crossing 1,010m

Bridge Approach 2,320m

General Bridge Design

F

F

Figure iv Cro

Source: P

Figure v Propo

Source: P

9

ss-Section Sh

Prepared by St

osed Bridge L

Prepared by St

hape of Bridg

tudy Team

Longitudinal

tudy Team

ge

Profile

3.2 Con

The planned

commence w

Construction

and clean-up

Pier（P3

Pier（P3

Pavement

Pier（P3

Abutment

Abutment

Superstruct

Construc

Substructur

North Ap

Pier（P1

Pier（P3

Pier（P3

Total Construc

Preparation

Finishing W

Main Bri

South Ap

Work Ite

nstruction Plan

d construction

with delivery

n of the main

p will be perf

YearMonth

31)

33)

t

34~P62)

t (A1)

t (A2)

ture Work

ction Yard

re Work

pproach Bridge

~P29)

30)

32)

ction Schedule

n Works

Work

dge (EXD)

pproach Bridge

ems 1

Figure

n

n period in th

y of the mater

n and approac

formed in seq

2 3 4 5 6 7

1

e vi Proposed

Source: P

e time for com

rials, and prep

ch bridges w

quence. The o

Tab

Source: P

10 11 12 138 9

10

d Bridge Cros

Prepared by St

mpletion for

paration of th

will be carried

overall plan is

ble v Overall P

Prepared by St

3 18 114 15 16 17

2

ss-Section Di

tudy Team

this project i

he constructio

d out concurre

s shown in Ta

Plan

tudy Team

9 20 21 22 23 24 2

iagram

s approximat

on yard, site o

ently. Bridge

able v.

26 27 28 295 30 3

3

tely 42 month

office and oth

e deck work,

1 32 33 34 35 36 3

hs. Work will

her facilities.

paving work

39 40 41 42

4

37 38

l

.

k

11

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 Construction

cost

(Million Rp)

Construction

cost

(Million Yen)

Remarks

Main Bridge

(Steel / PC compound

extradosed bridge)

Superstructure 995,300 8,700 Bridge Length 1,010m

Max Span 270m

Substructure 892,300 7,800

Subtotal 1,887,600 16,500

Approach bridge (PCT

Girders Bridge)


Span 29x40m

Bridge Length 1,160m

Span 29x40m


Subtotal 1,052,600 9,200

Construction of Temporary

Structures

22,900 200 Material yard,

Girder production yard etc.

Construction Cost (1) 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)

Total Construction Cost [(1)＋(2)＋(3)] 3,555,700 31,080 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..

3.5 Resu

3.5.1 Cost

(1) Land

The cost

influence

(2) Cons

The cons

the cost p

Master P

portion o

Bridge

Road

Total

Note: Calc

(3) Opera

An amou

and an am

periodic

Shipping Heig

Shipping Hei

Figure vii L

ult on Financ

ts

d Acquisition,

ts for land ac

ed by this pro

truction Cost

struction cost

per 1km for

Plan” of 37.34

of the ring roa

BINA MABD Pl

4,61

1,46

6,07

culated using

ation, Mainte

unt equal to 2

mount equal

repair costs w

ght 50m

ght 40m

Longitudinal D

cial and Econo

Resettlemen

cquisition, res

oject (bridge a

ts

ts (for bridge

the road sect

4 billion Rp w

ad.

ARGA an Alt

10(396)

64(128)

74(524)

1 Rp = 0.008

enance and O

2% of the co

to 5% of the

will incur eve

Diagrams of

Source: P

omic Evaluat

nt and Relocat

sident resettle

and road deve

e and road) a

tion, the stand

was referred

Table vii B

Unit: 1 bi

ternative Plan

3,522(30

1,464(12

5,986(43

8741 yen (For

Source: P

Other Costs

onstruction co

construction

ery ten years a

12

shipping heig

repared by St

tion

tion Cost

ement, reloca

elopment wor

are compiled

dard unit pric

to, and the le

ridge Constru

illion Rp(Un

n 1 Alterna

08) 3

28)

36) 4

reign Exchan

Prepared by S

osts/y is assum

n costs/y is en

after the brid

ght 50m and

tudy Team

ation of utilit

rk) are estima

in Table vii B

ce for toll ro

ength of bridg

uction Costs

it for figure

ative Plan 2

3,171(277)

1,464(128)

4,635(405)

nge Rate as of

Study Team

med for the d

nvisioned for

ge is placed i

40m in altern

ties and other

ated to be app

Bridge Const

ad constructi

ge was desig

s in parenth

Alternative P

3,979

1,464

5,442

f January 201

daily operatio

periodic repa

in service / op

native plan 4

r items in the

prox. 7,333 b

truction Cost

ion in the “Tr

gnated as 40k

heses is 100

Plan 3 Alte

9(348)

4(128)

2(475)

4)

onand manag

air costs. It is

peration.

e area that is

billion Rp.

ts. Regarding

rans Sumatra

km which is a

million yen)

ernative Plan

3,555(310

1,464(128

5,019(438

gement costs,

s thought that

s

g

a

a

)

4

0)

8)

8)

,

t

13

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.

Table viii Estimated Traffic Volume 2014 2020 2025

Northbound Southbound Total Northbound Southbound Total Northbound Southbound Total

a, BinaMargaFS (Vehicles/d) 9,932 9,992 19,924 11,992 11,738 23,730 17,054 16,129 33,184

b, pcu(a X1.5) 14,898 14,988 29,885 17,989 17,607 35,595 25,582 24,194 49,776 Trans Sumatra Traffic (Average pcu)

- - 4,500 - - 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.

14

Table ix Financial Internal Rate of Return

(Figures in parentheses are results of the First study) Toll per 1km (2010 Price)

BINA MARGA

BD Plan

Alternative Plan

1

Alternative Plan

2

Alternative Plan

3

Alternative Plan

4

300Rp/km 0.8%

(4.1%)

2.8%

（3.9%）

3.3%

（4.4%）

2.1%

（3.3%） 2.8％

600Rp/km 6.9%

(9.6%)

9.2%

(9.3%)

9.8%

(10.0%)

8.4%

(8.5%) 9.1％

900Rp/km 10.8%

(12.8%)

13.4%

(12.5%)

14.2%

(13.3%)

12.5%

(11.6%) 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.

15

Table x Economic Internal Rate of Return BINA MARGA

BD Alternative Plan

1 Alternative Plan

2 Alternative Plan

3 Alternative Plan

4 Free 13.0% 15.3% 15.9% 14.5% 15.2%

300 Rp./km 12.6% 14.8% 15.4% 14.0% 14.7% 600 Rp./km 12.2% 14.3% 15.0% 13.6% 14.3% 900 Rp./km 11.4% 13.5% 14.1% 12.8% 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

BD Alternative Plan

1 Alternative Plan

2 Alternative Plan

3 Alternative Plan

4 Free 15,517 16,874 17,194 16,456 16,843

300Rp/km 14,460 15,816 16,137 15,399 15,785600Rp/km 13,492 14,849 15,169 14,431 14,818900Rp/km 11,760 13,116 13,437 12,699 13,086

Note: Converted at Rp = ¥0.008519 Source: Prepared by Study Team

Table xii Cost-Benefit Ratio BINA MARGA BD Alternative

Plan 1 Alternative

Plan 2 Alternative

Plan 3 Alternative

Plan 4 Free 3.22 4.00 4.24 3.72 3.98

300Rp/km 3.07 3.81 4.04 3.55 3.79600Rp/km 2.93 3.64 3.86 3.39 3.62900Rp/km 2.68 3.33 3.53 3.10 3.31


3.5.5 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

16

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)

Traffic Volume (2020) Trans Sumatra Palembang City Total

KayuAgung – Palembang City 25 11,000 - 11,000 Palembang City 40 11,000 24,000 35,000 Palembang City – Betung 45 19,000 - 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) Source: Prepared by Study Team

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.

17

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%) Residential Area (60%) Residential Area (50%) Residential Area (30%)

Marsh, Farmland, Green

Space (40%)


Space (30%)


Space (40%)


Space (60%)

Recreation Area (Kemaro

Island) (5%)


Island) (5%)


Island) (5%) SeiLais Port2 (10%)

Water Area (10%) Water Area (5%) Water Area (5%) Water Area (5%)


(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, 1Based on analysis of Google Earth satellite image (dated April 10, 2013) 2Only about 20% of the SeiLais Port site is used by SeiLais Port, with other area consisting of marshland

18

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 Alternative Plan 1 Alternative Plan 2 Alternative Plan 3 Alternative Plan 4

Structure3 (No. of

Dwellings)

• North Side of River: Approx.100dwellings

• South Side of River: Approx. 270 dwellings

• North Side of River: Approx. 70 dwellings


• North Side of River: Approx. 100 dwelling




Total: Approx. 370 dwellings Total: 270 dwellings Total: 360 dwellings Total: 90 dwellings

No. of Residents Impacted4 1,517 persons 1,107 persons 1,476 persons 369 persons

Cultural Assets There is a pagoda below the location of the bridge.

There is a pagoda near the location of the bridge.

There is a pagoda near the location of the bridge. 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

3Based on analysis of Google Earth satellite image (dated April 10, 2013) 4Calculated 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)

19

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 Standard

+2 Significant positive impact is expected. +1 Minor positive impact is expected.

0 There will not be an impact, or the extent of the impact can be ignored. -1 Minor negative impact is expected. -2 Significant negative impact is expected, but it is not irreversible. -3 There is an irreversible impact.


Table xviii Comparison and Evaluation of Expected Impact5

Item Alternative Plan 1

Alternative Plan 2

Alternative Plan 3 Alternative Plan 4

Pollution Measures

Air

Impact on air quality due to further increase in volume of traffic [-2]



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]

Noise Vibration

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]

Natural Environment

Ecosystem

Impact due to loss of green area which accounts for approx. 40% of total route length [-2]




Hydrology Change in Musi River channel (topography) / change in flow conditions due to bridge pier construction work and presence of bridge piers in river [-1]

Social Environment

Land Loss of land due to land acquisition [-2]

Resettlement of Residents

Resettling Impact

Approx. 1,517 persons [-3]

Resettling Impact


Resettling Impact


Resettling Impact Approx. 369 persons

[-1]

Living/ Livelihood

Impact on living/ livelihood [-2]




Impact on fishing activities due to change in ecosystem brought about by changes in water areas [-1]

5The impact on living/livelihood was evaluated with the relative total score for loss of land + resident resettlement + ecosystem (loss of green areas including farmland).

20


Alternative Plan 2

Alternative Plan 3 Alternative Plan 4

Social Infrastructure

Creation of traffic jams during construction due to traffic restrictions [-1] Alleviation of traffic congestion due to dispersion of traffic volume after bridge is placed in service [+1]

Cultural Assets

Impact of noise/ vibration on area around pagoda [-3]



No cultural assets [0]

Landscape Change in landscape on recreation site and disturbance of harmony [-1]

Change in landscape on undeveloped land (marshes/farmland) and disturbance of harmony [-1]

Evaluation -20 +4

-16 +4

-17 +4

-15 +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.

(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.

21

Table xix Comparison of Environmental and Social Impacts of Each Type of Structure

Evaluation Item

Technology Proposal 1 Bridge Plan

Technology Proposal 2 Immersed Tunnel + Excavated

Tunnel

Technology Proposal 3 Shield Tunnel

Environmental and Social Impact

Uses imported steel. Brings about significant change in landscape Changes in areas shaded from sun Has impact on size of ships.

Uses domestic concrete. Construction is large in scale, requiring land for a large-scale temporary construction yard (Expected area: 200m x 200m). Environmental and social concerns during construction since work period is 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 is large in scale, requiring a temporary construction yard. Environmental and social concerns during construction since work period is long.

Construction Costs – Approx. twice the cost of

bridge plan Approx. twice the cost of bridge plan


Medium Large Medium


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

22

(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)

23

Table xx In case of Implemented as Public Project


24

Table xxi In case of Implemented as PPP Project


25

5 Project Location Map Figure viii Project Location Map

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

South Sumatra Province

Indonesia

Palembang City

Project Site

Banyuasin City

Chapter 1 Overview of Host Country and Sector

1-1

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.

There arecongestioon the easthe west Musi Rive

Source: Pr

(2) Deve

An overvascertaine

Location

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

e river watern on the roadst side and toside. Both roer. Each wate

repared by St

lopment Statu

view of the sed in the first

Table Project Nam

New Musi IBridge East Ring R

Flyover

Underpass

凡

A: AAL – AB: Sako – PC: Plaju – PD: Karya JaE: Airport –F: Pusri – PG: Keeten –H: Karya JaI: Ampera –J: Ampera –

r bus routes ds. There are o Sei Lais haroutes are opeer bus has a c

Figu

tudy Team ba

us of Roads /

tatus of progstudy is show

1-1Overviewme

II Currenprojec

Road Gradinbut it iFlyoveAmpeplans fUnderSched

凡例 Ampera PS Mall PS Mall aya – Jakabaring – AAL PS Mall – PS Mall aya – AAL – Sei Lais – Ketapati Sta.

AAL

PS Mall

that start attwo routes: Orbor on the w

erated while sapacity of 25

ure 1-1 Bus R

ased on docum

/ Bridges

gress concernwn in Table 1

w of Road / B

ntly under cct cost: 2.5 bilng has been cis still unpaveer under cons

era Bridge. Scfor constructir constructionduled for com

Source: P

Airport

K

1-2

t the AmperaOne goes to twest side. Thstopping at th

5 persons.

Route Map in

ment of BAPP

ning roads / -1, and a loca

ridge DeveloOver

construction, llion yen, schcompleted fored struction at incheduled for cion of flyover

n in northeastmpletion in 20Prepared by St

Keet

Jaka

Karya Jaya

Ketap

a Bridge witthe east to Ke other routehe main area

n the Palemba

PEDA(Badan

bridges that ation diagram

opment Statusrview

total lengthheduled for cor a portion on

ntersection oncompletion inrs at three othern portion o15. tudy Team

Ampera

Sako

ten

abaring

pati Sta.

Pusri

th the objectemaro Island connects Ke

as on the sou

ang City

n Perencana P

have been nm is shown in

s in Palemban

h 700m, Apompletion in n the north sid

n south side on 2015. Thereher locations.f Palembang

a

Sei Lais

Plaju

tive of allevd, past Dermaertapati railwuth and north

Pembangunan

newly developFigure 1-2.

ng City S

pprox. 2015

BIN

de, BIN

of e are .

BIN

City. BIN

viating trafficaga ferry portay station on

h sides of the

n Daerah）

ped that was

Source of Funds

NA MARGA

NA MARGA

NA MARGA

NA MARGA

c t n e

s

(3) Status

Boom Ba

South Sum

as well as

Baru Port

from loca

Domestic

main inter

value of e

on the inc

million to

increase in

As shown

has been

(i) New MConstr

Figure 1-

s of Transpor

aru Port whic

matra Provinc

s ships from v

t. Mitsui O.S

al vessels orig

traffic accou

rnational port

exports and d

crease since t

ons and dome

n the future.

n in Figure 1-

on the increa

Musi II Bridgruction (Persp

-2 Location D

rtation by Wa

ch is a river p

ce as a whole

various locati

.K. Lines and

ginating in Sin

unts for 60 p

t for the expo

domestic traff

then. In 2012

estic traffic am

-4, the numbe

ase since the

e under pective Draw

Diagram of R

Source: P

ater

port on the M

e. Passenger

ions overseas

d other Japan

ngapore to la

percent or mo

ort of coal, pa

ffic all decrea

2, import volu

mounted to 5

er of ships th

en, with 3,61

wing)

1-3

Road/Bridge D

Prepared by St

Musi River in

ships and car

s such as Sin

nese corporat

arge ships for

ore of the car

alm oil, rubbe

ased after the

ume amounte

5.109 million

hat use the po

0 ships callin

Development

tudy Team

n Palembang

rgo ships from

gapore and M

tions use the

transport of c

rgo handled b

er, lumber an

financial cri

ed to 747 tho

tons, and the

ort annually d

ng in 2012 c

(i

(

Status in Pal

g City is a m

m Jakarta and

Malaysia, mak

port, which

cargo to Japa

by Boom Ba

nd other resou

isis of 2009,

ousand tons,

ese figures ar

decreased bet

compared to 3

iv) Underpass

(ii) Grade

(iii) Flyover u

lembang City

major port for

d other ports

ke frequent c

is used for tr

an.

aru Port, but

urces. The ex

but the figur

export volum

re expected to

tween 2008 a

3,572 ships i

s under Const

d East Side R

under Constru

y

the city and

in Indonesia,

calls at Boom

ransshipment

it is also the

xport volume,

es have been

me was 1.818

o continue to

and 2010, but

in 2008. It is

truction

Ring Road

uction

d

,

m

t

e

,

n

8

o

t

s

1-4

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

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

Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on Materials Provided by PERINDO

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Import 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

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000 Cargo volume (ton

)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of ships 3,572 2,648 2,465 2,832 3,610

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Num

ber of ships

1-5

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

Source: Statistical Data on Palembang City

2003 2007 2010 2011 2012

Population 1,287,435 1,394,954 1,452,840 1,535,952 1,742,186

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

Popu

lation

(peo

ple)

1-6

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

1-7

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.

1-8

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.

1-9

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.

3) Trans

As shown

portions o

Palemban

and as sho

the PPP b

acquisitio

proposal t

Source:

TraplanBak

Tot

A Palecitiegovsix

s Sumatra Exp

n in Figure 1-

of Sumatra,

ng – Betung T

own in Figur

book list at B

on, environme

that passes th

South Suma

ans Sumatra nned on the ekauheni to Ban

al Length: 1,9

railway fromembang willes that pla

vernment operports.

pressway Pla

8, BINA MA

and a feasib

Toll Road Pro

re 1-9, a rout

BAPPENAS a

ental conside

hrough the eas

Figure

atra BAPPED

Pekanbaru – P

Corridors hast side of Sunda Aceh.

980km

m Bandar Lal connect eiay a centrarations, five a

an

ARGA has pla

bility study w

oject” which

te that passes

as a PPP base

erations and o

st side of Pale

e 1-8 Trans Su

A (RENCAN

Padang

have been umatra from

ampung to ight major

al role in airports and

1-10

anned an expr

was conducte

comprises a p

s through the

ed priority pr

other issues,

embang City.

umatra Expre

NA JALAN D

SELATAN)

PalembaBengku

ressway that

ed in 2010.

portion of the

west side of

roject. Howev

and BINA M

.

essway (Toll R

DAN JEMBAT

ang – ulu

will connect

The “South

e plan passes

f Palembang C

ver, there are

MARGA is c

Road) Plan

ATAN DI PRO

the southern

Sumatra Ka

through Pale

City has been

e problems re

considering a

OVINSI SUM

and northern

ayu Agung –

embang City,

n included in

elated to land

an alternative

MATERA

n

–

,

n

d

e

1-11

Figure 1-9 Palembang City Road Plan Diagram (2012 – 2032)

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).

The route included in the PPP

book list

1-12

Figure 1-10 Map of South Sumatra 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.

Palembang City

Lampung Province

Bengkulu Province

Jambi Province

Tanjung Api Api Port Bangka Island

Muntok Port

1-13

Figure 1-11 Locations of Japanese Corporations and Planned Project Sites in Project Area


(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 Kobe Steel is proceeding with a business plan for a fuel production plant in South Sumatra that transforms low quality coal (lignite) into high quality coal, to be utilized mainly for power applications. • When transporting coal to

Boom Baru Port in Palembang City, using the Musi III Bridge (new bridge) will reduce transport time and cost compared to using the Musi II Bridge.

JCG

The development of low cost fuel that utilizes low-quality coal in South Sumatra Province has been planned for thermal power generation in Japan and various countries in Asia. Initially, plans called for production to be started from 2015, but progress on the plan has been delayed.

Mitsubishi Heavy

Industries

Technology to enable the efficient combustion of low quality coal is being developed in South Sumatra Province.

* 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.


Palembang City

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines

Pharmaceutical Plant (Kirin, Mitsubishi Corp.)

Rubber Factory (ABP: Itochu)

Paper Pulp Plant(Tel: Marubeni, JBIC, Nippon Paper)

Geothermal Power Plant Planned Site (Marubeni)

SNG Plant Planned Site(Mitsubishi Heavy

Industries)

Coal Improvement Plant Planned Site

(Kobe Steel)

Coal Fired Thermal Power Plant Planned Site

1-14

(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


Tel Corporation (PT. Tanjungenim Lestari Pulp and Paper) (Paper pulp company)

• The Tel Corporation is a paper pump company that was established with a 90% investment by Marubeni, 7% by JBIC and 3% by Nippon Paper.

• Currently, 450 thousand tons of pulp is being produced, and this is expected to increase to 550 thousand tons in 2 – 3 years. There is a plan to increase production volume to 1.5 million tons in 2018.

• When pulp is transported to Boom Baru Port, using the Musi III Bridge will reduce the transport time and cost compared to using the Musi II Bridge.


Table 1-4 Japanese Corporations in Palembang City Where Beneficial Effects Are Expected


PT Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Indonesia (Mitsui O.S.K. Lines)

• The South Sumatra Branch of Mitsui O.S.K. Lines is located here, and uses Boom Baru Port.

• However, due to the fact that the Musi River is not deep enough, large ships owned by Mitsui O.S.K. cannot berth, and container ships / barges are rented from local companies to call at Boom Baru Port. When cargo is transported to Japan, it is transported to Singapore or another seaport in the area by a local ship, where it is 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 logistics center with the Ring Road – Musi III Bridge – the production site for transport in the southern area of Palembang City will reduce transport time and cost.

Kirin Pharmaceutical Plant

• A facility that was being operated as a plant by the Takeda Pharmaceutical Company was purchased by Kirin, with an investment made by Mitsubishi Corp., and is not being operated as a Kirin pharmaceutical plant.

• Directly connecting the plant with the Ring Road – Musi III Bridge – the production site in the southern area of Palembang City will reduce material delivery and product shipment costs.

ABP (Rubber Factory)

• Based on an investment by Itochu, a rubber factory is being operated, which is one of the main local industries.

• Due to the fact that the resin from rubber trees (latex) which is the material used to make rubber is mainly produced to the south of the Musi River, when the raw material is transported to the factory, it passes over the Musi River.

• Directly connecting the plant with the Ring Road – Musi III Bridge – the Rubber production site in the southern area of Palembang City will reduce transport time and cost.


1-15

(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 Outline

Geothermal Power Plant Project (Marubeni)

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.

Coal-fired Boilers Facilities Construction Project (Kawasaki Heavy Industries)

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.

SNG Plant Project (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries & Mitsubishi Corporation)

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.

Coal Fired Thermal Power Plant Project

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.


1-16

(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

Chapter 2 Study Methodologies

2-1

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.

2-2

(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

2-3

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

Haruki AKIYAMA Project Manager/

Road and Bridge Planner Chodai

Masaharu FUJISHIMA Project Implementation Planner / Environmental and Social Analyst

MCC

Yuji IKEDA Road Engineer IDI

Masahiro KOHNO Urban Planner MCC

Minoru SUGIMOTO 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


2-4

2.3 Study Schedule 2.3.1 Study Schedule

The study schedule is shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2 Study Schedule

2013 2014

November 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

BINA MARGA

Mr. Harris Batubara Director of Planning

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）

Mr. Yoshihiro Nakao JICA Expert

Ministry of Transportation Mr. Hideo Sasaki JICA Expert

2-5

Organization Name Position Palembang City

BAPPEDA

Ms. Hj. Anaheryana Head of Data Collection, Monitoring,

Evaluation and Reporting

Mr. Muh. Nur. Hendratna Subhead of Field Spatial

Ms. Tuti Alawiyah Sanitation Section

South Sumatra Province 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

Jakarta Office

Mr. Toshiyuki Shimizu Chief Representative

Mr. Hiroshige Seki Senior Advisor of

Environment Infrastructure Dept.

Itochu Corporation

Jakarta

Mr. Masashi Kanai Chief Representative

Mr. Takeshi Sone Asst. Representative For Project Investment

Manager, Plant Project Department No.1

Sumitomo Mitsui Construction

Co.,Ltd.

Mr. Tsuyoshi Kan General Manager

Mr. Masaki Ogasawara General Superintendent

Kajima Corporation Indonesia

Representative Office

Mr. Shinya Hamada Representative of Indonesia Representative

Office

Taisei Corporation Jakarta Office Mr. Tsutomu Yamazaki Chief Representative

Shimizu Corporation

Jakarta Office

Mr. Tetsuo Oishi Chief Representative & General Manager

Mr. Takao Yamazaki Senior Manager

PT Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Indonesia Mr. Osamu Kawada President Director

Mr. Toru Kimura Marketing Manager

Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal

Southeast Asia PTE.Ltd.

Mr. Isao Furuta Chief Representative

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Mr. Hiroto Ishigaki General Manager, Sales & Marketing


Chapter 3 Justification, Objective and Technical

Feasibility of the Project

3-1

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.

3.2 Upg3.2.1 Curre

(1) Coal

Indonesia

2012, and

year, with

largest pr

Indonesia

with the e

The expo

from Aust

As shown

resource v

accounts

the larges

factor eco

The state-

As shown

grading aent Status of E

a is the sevent

d reserves am

h the volume

roducer of co

an economy. I

export volum

rt volume in

tralia, 20% co

n in Figure 3

volume and

for approx. 4

st volume of

onomically in

-run company

n in Figure 3-

Figure 3

and StreaEnergy Resou

th largest pro

mounting to 2

of productio

oal in Asia a

In addition, I

me growing du

n 2012 amoun

omes from In

3-2, there ar

amount of d

44.8% of the

coal resource

n Indonesia.

y called PT. B

3, it exports 4

Am

Mus

3-1 Palemban

Source:

amlining urces in Proje

oducer of coal

21.1 billion to

on increasing

fter China an

Indonesia is t

ue to the incr

nted to 215 m

ndonesia.

re currently 1

deposits are

coal resource

es and coal r

Bukit Asam i

40% of its tot

mpera Bridge

si II Bridge

3-2

ng City Proje

Prepared by

Energy Uect Area

l in the world

ons. Coal pro

approximate

nd India, and

the second la

rease in coal t

million tons.

11 main coal

shown in Ta

es and approx

reserves in th

is one of the

tal production

ect Site Locati

Study Team

Usage

d, with coal re

oduction in In

ely four times

d coal is one

argest exporte

thermal elect

While 70%

l fields in In

able 3-1, illu

x. 45.2% of t

he country, w

major coal c

n volume, wit

New BrCandidLocatio

ion Map

esources reac

ndonesia has

s over the pa

of the main

er of coal in

tric power gen

of the coal i

ndonesia. Th

ustrating that

the reserves,

with coal depo

companies in

th 8% being e

ridge date on

ching 105.2 b

tended to in

ast 10 years. I

n export resou

the world aft

neration cent

imported by

e breakdown

South Suma

making it the

osits represen

South Suma

exported to J

billion tons in

ncrease every

It is the third

urces for the

fter Australia,

tered in Asia.

Japan comes

n of the coal

atra Province

e region with

nting a major

atra Province.

apan.

n

y

d

e

,

.

s

l

e

h

r

.

3-3

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)

Source: Indonesia Coal Book 2012 – 2013

million tons ratio million tons ratio52 ,483 49.9% 11,549 54.7%

Aceh 450 0.4% 0 0.0%North Sumatra 27 0.0% 0 0.0%Riau 1,768 1.7% 1,940 9.2%West Sumatra 732 0.7% 37 0.2%Jambi 2,116 2.0% 9 0.0%Bengkulu 199 0.2% 21 0.1%South Sumatra 47 ,085 44.8% 9,542 45.2%Lampung 106 0.1% 0 0.0%

14 0.0% 0 0.0%Banten 13 0.0% 0 0.0%Central Java 1 0.0% 0 0.0%East Java 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

52,325 49.7% 9,582 45.3%West Kalimantan 517 0.5% 0 0.0%Central Kalimantan 1,638 1.6% 74 0.4%South Kalimantan 12,266 11.7% 3,604 17.1%East Kalimantan 37,904 36.0% 5,904 27.9%

233 0.2% 0 0.0%South Sulawesi 231 0.2% 0 0.0%Central Sulawesi 2 0.0% 0 0.0%

132 0.1% 0 0.0%West Papua 132 0.1% 0 0.0%

105,187 - 21,131 -

Resources Reserves

Sumatra

Java

Kalimantan

Papua

Total

Province

Sulawesi

3-4

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.

3-5

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

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

South Sumatra Province Coal Fields

Palembang City

3-6

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.

3-7

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

Source: Prepared by Study Team Using Materials Provided by IPC

Boom Baru Port

KemaroIsland Legend

: Shipping Channel

3-8

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

Musi III Bridge

Built

Case Toll Setting

(Rp/Number·km)

Traffic Volume (pcu/d)

Musi III Ampera Musi II

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


3-9

Figure 3-6 Change in Traffic Flow with Musi III Bridge Route Plan


Without Musi III Bridge

With MusiIII Bridge

110,000pcu/d

67,000pcu/d

43,000pcu/d

48,000pcu/d

48,000pcu/d

Traffic Shift from Ampera Bridge to Musi III Bridge

3-10

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


(2) Route Design Conditions

A similar cross-section configuration, geometric structure and other design conditions will be used as in the

BINA MARGA BD.


Alternative plan 2

Alternative plan 3

Alternative plan 4

3-11

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

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


Sidewalk 1500

Sidewalk1500

Access Road 7000

Access Road 7000

Main Line7000

Main Line7000

Motorcycle Road 2600

Roadway8000

Motorcycle Road 2600

Roadway8000

Total length50100

3-12

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 Unit Standard

Number of Lanes - 2×2

Design Speed 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 30(Main Bridge)

26(Approach Bridge)

Visual Distance m 110

Minimum Curve Radius m 250

Minimum Curve Radius for which Easement

Curve Can be Omitted 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

Seismic Movement m/s2 0.18g

Design Service Life Year 100

Maximum Water Depth m 2.00

Minimum Water Depth m 0.00

Design Wind Speed (Bridge)

・Taking Live Load Into Consideration

・Only Considering Dead Load

m/s

m/s

25

35


3-13

(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 BINA MARGA FS Plan Alternative plan 1 Alternative plan 2 Alternative plan 3 Alternative plan 4

Overview

Crosses Musi River at an angle from

Northeast to Southwest

Crosses Musi River at an angle from

Northeast to Southwest

Goes across Kemaro Island and crosses

the Musi River at a right angle

Crosses Musi River at a right angle at

upstream side of Kemaro Island

Crosses Musi River on east side of

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

North Approach

South Approach

1,000m

1,980m

1,490m

680m

1,380m

1,320m

470m

1,460m

1,400m

1,550m

400m

1,400m

1,110m

1,160m

1,160m

Traffic Volume

Inferior to alternative plan 3 since route

is longer (equivalent to alternative plan

2).

Inferior to alternative plan 3since route is

longer (equivalent to alternative plan 2).

Inferior to alternative plan 3 since route is longer (equivalent to BINA MARGA FS plan).

For shortest length of route form inner city, and traffic usage volume will be higher since it is closer to downtown than other plans.

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

Inferior to other plans in terms of road

structure and impact on natural

environment since a portion goes

through swamps.

The route is on tourism development

area on Kemaro Island by Palembang

City




through swamps.

The route is on tourism development

area on Kemaro Island by Palembang

City


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.

the route avoid the petroleum plant area

on the south side (PT. Pertamina).




through swamps.

Social

Considerations

(Details reviewed

in Chapter 4)


Many residents will need to be resettled

since the bridge passes through a densely

populated area on the south side.






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.

Bridge

Construction Costs

39.6 billion yen (4.6 trillion Rp) 30.8 billion yen (3.5 trillion Rp) 27.7 billion yen (3.1 trillion Rp) 34.8 billion yen (4.0 trillion Rp) 31.0 billion yen (3.5 trillion Rp)

Evaluation

Construction costs are the higher, and

social considerations has problem.

Cost is lower than BINA MARGA BD,

but has problem of social considerations

on an equality with BINA MARGA BD.

Cost is the lowest, but has problem of

social considerations on equality with

BINA MARGA BD.

Construction costs are higher than

alternative plan 1 and 2 and has problem

of social considerations on equality with

BINA MARGA BD.

Construction costs are higher than other

Study Team proposals, but are lower than

BINA MARGA BD.

This route has the lowest social impact,

and feasibility is the highest.


3-14

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.

2) Span

(i)

[Alter

The ma

provide

bank of

cofferin

[Alter

The ma

channe

the eco

piers in

Determinin

rnative plan 1

ain bridge typ

e a shipping

f the river, ou

ng and pier w

rnative plan 2

ain bridge typ

l width of B=

onomic span l

n the river.

ng Span Lengt

]

Fig

pe is Cable-S

channel widt

utside of the

work required

2]

Fig

pe is Extrado

=240.0m for

length is appr

th Crossing M

gure 3-10 Brid

Source: P

Stayed Bridg

th of B=240.

channel, the

to place pier

gure 3-11 Brid

Source: P

osed Bridge. T

alternative p

roximately 10

3-15

Musi River

dge Type in A

Prepared by St

e. Alternative

0m due to th

economic spa

rs in the river.

dge Type in A

Prepared by St

The main spa

lan 2. Towar

00m due to th

Alternative pl

tudy Team

e plan 1 requ

he angle of th

an length is a

.

Alternative Pl

tudy Team

an length of 2

rd the left ban

he cost of cof

an 1

uires a main

he bridge to

approximately

an 2

270.0m provi

nk of the rive

ffering and pi

span length o

the river. Tow

y 100m due t

ides the requi

er, outside of

ier work requ

of 360.0m to

ward the left

to the cost of

ired shipping

f the channel,

uired to place

o

t

f

g

,

e

[Alter

The ma

plan 3 t

channe

[Altern

The ma

deepest

(ii)

The bri

The po

impedin

rnative plan 3

ain bridge ty

to provide bo

l for the near

native plan 4]

ain bridge ty

t. Therefore, t

Determinat

idge’s land ap

ortion that cr

ng ship navig

3]

Fig

ype is Extrado

oth the requir

rby Musi Rive

Fig

ype is Extrado

the main span

ion of Appro

pproach on bo

rosses the trib

gation.

gure 3-12 Brid

Source: P

osed Bridge.

ed shipping c

er tributary, w

gure 3-13 Brid

osed Bridge.

n will be 270

ach Span

oth banks wil

butary in exi

3-16

dge Type in A

Prepared by Stu

A main span

channel width

which is also

dge Type in A

The shippin

.0m which sa

ll be a continu

isting plan a

Alternative Pl

udy Team

n length of 2

h of B=240.0

navigated by

Alternative Pl

ng channel is

atisfies the sh

uous elevated

and alternativ

an 3

270.0m was d

0m for the Mu

y ships.

an 4

s in the cente

hipping chann

d structure wi

ve plan 1 has

designated fo

usi River and

er of the rive

nel width of B

ith a span of 4

s been design

or alternative

d a navigation

er where it is

B=240.0m.

40m.

ned to avoid

e

n

s

d

3-17

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

3-18

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.

Alternativ

Alternativ

Alternativ

Alternativ

ve Plan1

ve Plan2

ve Plan 3

ve Plan 4

Figuure 3-14 Cros

S

3-

ss-Section Di

Source: Prepa

-19

iagrams for E

ared by Study

Each Bridge T

y Team

Type

3-20

(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 Maintain current status of riverbed shape. Maximum longitudinal slope of 5% (Standard value in Japan) Depth at maximum depth of immersed tube crown: MSL-15m (Overburden: 2m) Minimum overburden on existing riverbed or ground for excavated tunnel will be 2m, and piles will not be considered.

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 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


Figure3-16 Cross-Section Diagram for Immersed Tunnel + Excavated Tunnel


2m

2m

橋梁部 410m 開削・アプローチ部 1130m 沈埋トンネル部 400m

総延長＝2490m

開削・アプローチ部 550m

左岸（北側）右岸（南側）Left bank (north side)

Bridge section 410m

Right bank (south side)Total length = 2490m

Open cut / Approach section 1130m Immersedd section 400m Open cut / Approach secyion 1130m

1000 11000

1000

11000 1000

1200

7600

1200

25000

10000

2000

Earth covering

2500

500

8000

3-21

(iii) Explanation of Construction Methods The 400m portion that is the main shipping channel on the right bank (south) side will be the immersed tunnel section. It is expected that the tube production yard (dock) will be on the south bank side of Kemaro Island. 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. Both ends of the immersed tunnel will be connected on the excavated tunnel side. The north side excavated tunnel will be closed off with steel sheet piles, and launched from a temporary bridge on one side. The south side excavated tunnel will be closed off with steel sheet piles, including along the right bank. Since the north side approach will come out on Kemaro Island, the island will be crossed with a box girder bridge.

(iv) Features 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. Regarding the excavated tunnel portion on land, it shall be possible to open it up after construction is completed without occupying the ground. The impact on the surrounding area after completion of work shall be limited.

2) Shield Tunnel (i) Plan Conditions

Maintain current status of riverbed shape. Maximum longitudinal slope of 5% (Standard value in Japan) Minimum overburden thickness for shield tunnel: 1D = 12m (underneath riverbed too) Minimum overburden for excavated tunnel portion and existing riverbed or ground shall be 2m, and piles will not be considered. 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 Shield tunnel portion (Outer diameter φ12m x 2): 2,050m Departure/arrival shaft: B35m x H13 x L50m x 1 location each on south/north sides = 100m Excavated tunnel portion (north)150m+(south)180m=330m Approach portion: (north)270m+(south)300m=570m Total length: 3,050m

3-22

Figure 3-17 Longitudinal Diagram of Shield Tunnel


Figure3-18 Cross-Section Diagram of Shield Tunnel


(iii) Explanation of Construction Methods

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.

A slurry type shield machine will be used for shield work, and it will be assembled / launched from the

departure tunnel shaft.

Two machines will be used for shield tunneling, and they will tunnel from each respective side.

The road floor slab will be built in the shield tunnels after excavation of the two shield tunnels is

completed.

The excavated tunnel portions on land on both sides will be closed off with a permanent retaining wall.

(iv) Features

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.

Regarding the excavated tunnel portion on land, it shall be possible to open it up after construction is

completed without occupying the ground.

The impact on the surrounding area after completion of work shall be limited.

There shall not be a physical impact on the existing river throughout construction work or after work is

completed.

12m12m

右岸（南側）

開削・アプローチ部 420m 開削・アプローチ部 480m

50m到達立坑部

50m

シールドトンネル部 2050m

総延長＝3050m

発進立坑部

左岸（北側）

Open cut / Approach section 420m

Left bank (north side) Right bank (south side)Total length = 3050m

Shield tunnel section 2050m

Departure shaft section50m

Arraival shaft section50m

Open cut / Approach section 420m

φ11000500 500

0.5D～1D

Inside diameter2500

500

8000

3-23

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

(Original BINA

MARGA Proposal)

Immersed Tunnel +

Excavated Tunnel

Shield Tunnel

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.

Total Project Length 3,330m

River Crossing 1,010m

Bridge Approach 2,320m

Bridg

3.4.2 Conc

(1) River

1) Desig

Desi

Supp

Supp

Work

Navi

Rive

Struc

Total

Width

Load

Grad

ge Width

ept Design

r Crossing

gn Conditions

gn Ground L

port Ground L

port Ground P

k Yards: Mat

igation Chann

er (conditions

cture Type: S

Sub

Bri

l Span Length

h: 26.4m

d: As per Indo

ient: Longitu

Cross sl

s

Level: Musi R

Musi Ri

Musi Ri

Level:

Physical Prop

terial yards, e

nel Condition

to be determ

Superstructure

bstructure: M

(S

idge Pier Fou

h and Configu

onesian Natio

udinal slope

lope

Figure 3-19

Source: P

River right ban

iver left bank

iver Ground L

perties:

etc. to be secu

ns: Width of

mined at the ti

e: Steel/PC co

Main tower fou

Steel pipe diam

undation: Cas

uration: 1,110

onal Standard

3.0%

2.0%

3-24

9 Bridge Wid

Prepared by St

nk (south side

k (north side)

Level

ured on right

f 240m and h

me of constru

ompound extr

undation: Ste

meter: 1,200m

t-in-place pil

0m (100+3x2

s

dth Configura

tudy Team

e) G.L.+

G.L.+

G.L. -4

G.L. -

Sandy

bank and left

height of 50m

uction)

radosed bridg

eel pipe sheet

mm)

e foundation

270+100)

ation

3.0m

1.0m

4.0m to -14.0

30.0m

y soil

t bank of Mus

m to be provi

ge consisting

pile foundati

(Pile diamete

0m

si River

ided on left

of five contin

ion

er: 1,500mm)

side of Musi

nuous spans

)

i

2) Conc

Girde

The girder

center of

structure w

Diago

Single-pla

Main

The heigh

bridges fo

Foun

A steel pip

eptual Design

er Height

r height for th

each span, u

was used for t

onal Member

ane cable will

n Towers

ht of the main

r reference pu

ndation Work

pe pier found

Fi

n

he extradosed

using the dim

the girder cro

r

l be adopted a

n towers was

urposes.

dation that als

igure 3-20 Cr

Source: P

d bridge was

mensions of e

oss-section fo

and the allow

s set as 30.0m

o serves as a

3-25

ross-Section S

Prepared by St

set at 7.0m a

xisting bridg

or the northbo

wable value fo

m from the g

cofferdam w

Shape of Brid

tudy Team

at the interme

ges for refere

ound and sout

or the cable cr

irder top surf

was adopted.

dge

diate support

ence purposes

thbound direc

ross-section w

face, using th

t points and a

s. In addition

ctions.

was set to sati

he dimension

at 4.0m in the

n, an integral

isfy 0.6σu.

ns of existing

e

l

g

(2) Appro

1) Desig

Desi

Supp

Supp

Work

Struc

Span

Width

Load

Grad

2) Conc

Girde

A girder h

used for ea

Bridg

Standar

Foun

oach Bridge

gn Conditions

gn Ground L

port Ground L

port Ground P

k Yards: Mat

cture Type: S

S

Configuratio

h:12.2m x

d: Indonesian

ient: Longitu

Cross sl

eptual Design

er Height

height of 2.4

ach direction

ge Piers

rd box-frame

ndation Work

s

Level : Musi R

Musi Ri

Level:

Physical Prop

terial yards, e

Superstructure

ubstructure

on: Left ban

Right ba

2(Separate

National Stan

udinal slope

lope

Figure3

n

m was select

of traffic due

bridge piers w

River right ba

iver left bank

perties:

etc. to be secu

e PC multi-

Bridge piers

Foundation:

nk side:24x40

ank side: 24x

structure for

ndard

3.0%

2.0%

3-21 Cross-S

Source: P

ted, based on

e to the width

were selected

3-26

ank (south sid

k (north side)

ured on right

-span continu

s: Box frame

: Cast-in-plac

0

x40

each directio

ection Shape

repared by St

n the dimens

h of the bridg

d.

de) G.L.+

G.L.+

E.L. -3

Sandy

bank and left

uous T girder

bridge piers

ce pile founda

ons of traffic)

e of Approach

tudy Team

sions of exist

ge.

3.0m

1.0m

30.0m

y soil

t bank of Mus

bridge

ation (Pile dia

h Bridge

ting bridges.

si River

ameter: 1,200

A separate s

0mm)

structure wass

An eco

3) Resul

The result

the Musi I

nomical cast-

lt of Conceptu

ts of the conc

III Bridge in

-in-place pile

ual Design

cept design th

Figure3-22 a

Fig

e foundation w

hat was perfo

and Figure3-2

gure3-22 Prop

Source: P

3-27

was adopted.

ormed with th

23.

posed Bridge

Prepared by S

he design con

e Longitudina

Study Team

nditions is sh

al Profile

hown as a gen

neral plan forr

3.4.3 Const

(1) Const

1) Overa

The plann

commenc

facilities.

paving w

below.

Pier（P31

Pier（P33

Pavement

Pier（P34

Abutment

Abutment

Superstructu

Construct

Substructure

North App

Pier（P1~

Pier（P30

Pier（P32

Total Construct

Preparation

Finishing Wo

Main Brid

South App

Work Item

truction Plan

truction Plan

all Process

ned construc

ce with deliv

Construction

ork and clea

YearMonth

)

)

~P62)

(A1)

(A2)

re Work

ion Yard

Work

roach Bridge

P29)

)

)

ion Schedule

Works

rk

ge (EXD)

roach Bridge

ms 1

Figure

and Calculat

tion period t

very of the m

n of the main

an-up will be

2 3 4 5 6 7

1

3-23 Propose

Source: P

tion of Estima

the time for

materials, an

n and approac

performed i

Tabl

Source: P

10 11 12 138 9

3-28

ed Bridge Cro

Prepared by St

ated Construc

completion

nd preparation

ch bridges w

in sequence a

e 3-7 Overall

Prepared by St

3 18 114 15 16 17

2

oss-Section D

tudy Team

ction Costs

for this proj

n of the con

will be carried

after this. Th

l Plan

tudy Team

9 20 21 22 23 24 2

Diagram

ect is approx

nstruction ya

d out concurr

he overall pla

26 27 28 2925 30

3

x. 42 months

ard, site offic

rently. Bridge

an is shown

31 32 33 34 35 36

s. Work will

ce and other

e deck work,

in Table 3-7

39 40 41 42

4

37 38

l

r

,

7

3-29

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.

3-30

(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.

Superstructure: Girder fabrication, girder erection, bridge deck work (bridge railing, pavement, etc.), main

tower work, cable work, etc.

Substructure: Bridge pier work, bridge abutment work, foundation work, etc.

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.

3-31

Table 3-8 Estimated Construction Costs

Item Construction

cost

(Million Rp)

Construction

cost

(Million Yen)

Remarks

Main Bridge

(Steel / PC compound

extradosed bridge)


Max Span 270m


Subtotal 1,887,600 16,500

Approach bridge (PCT

Girders Bridge)


Span 29x40m

Bridge Length 1,160m

Span 29x40m


Subtotal 1,052,600 9,200

Construction of Temporary

Structures

22,900 200 Material yard,

Girder production yard etc.

Construction Cost (1) 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)

Total Construction Cost [(1)＋(2)＋(3)] 3,555,700 31,080 Approx. 31.0 billion yen 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.

3-32

Figure3-24Longitudinal Diagrams of shipping height 50m and 40m in alternative plan 4


(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.

Shipping Height 50m

Shipping Height 40m

3-33

Table 3-9 Issues with Proposed Technology and Solutions

Issue with Proposed Technology Solution

The supporting soil location has been designated

using the results of only two geological surveys in

this study, and the ground constant has been

estimated.

An adequate understanding of the

peculiarities of the ground at the bridge site

can be obtained by performing a detailed

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,

there is a high level of construction risk in terms of

construction management and the work period.

The adoption of steel pipe piles (rotating

piles) will enable construction to be

completed in a shorter period in a reliable

manner.

There is potential concern about stability and wind

resistance during construction and upon completion

of extradosed bridge.

Wind effects will be confirmed by means of

wind tunnel tests.

Adequate experience and regular inspection at

elevated locations are required for a long bridge.

The utilization of a construction Health

Monitoring System (HMS) will enable

sustainable maintenance and management to

be safely and correctly performed.


Chapter 4 Evaluation of Environmental and Social

Impact

4-1

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.

1Based on analysis of Google Earth satellite image (dated April 10, 2013)

4-2

Figure 4-1 Land Usage Status in Vicinity of Bridge Route Proposals

Source: Prepared by Study Team 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

Residential Area (50%) Residential Area (60%) Residential Area (50%) Residential Area (30%)


Space (40%)


Space (30%)


Space (40%)

Marsh, Farmland,

Green Space (60%)


Island) (5%)


Island) (5%)


Island) (5%) Sei Lais Port2 (10%)

Water Area (10%) Water Area (5%) Water Area (5%) Water Area (5%)


(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

2Only about 20% of the Sei Lais Port site is used by Sei Lais Port, with other area consisting of marshland

R. A.

Marshy Area

Farmland

SeiLais Port R. A.

Petroleum Plant

(Pertamina)

Pagoda (Chinese Temple) R. A.


Alternative plan 2

Alternative plan 3

Alternative plan 4

4-3

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.

4-4

Table 4-2 Comparison of Current Status of Social Environment

Item Alternative Plan 1 Alternative Plan 2 Alternative Plan 3 Alternative Plan 4

Structure3 (No. of

Dwellings)

• North Side of River: Approx.100dwellings




• North Side of River: Approx. 100 dwelling




Total: Approx. 370 dwellings

Total: 270 dwellings Total: 360 dwellings Total: 90 dwellings

No. of Residents Impacted4

1,517 persons 1,107 persons 1,476 persons 369 persons

Cultural Assets There is a pagoda below the location of the bridge.



N/A


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

3Based on analysis of Google Earth satellite image (dated April 10, 2013) 4Calculated 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)

4-5

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 Standard

+2 Significant positive impact is expected. +1 Minor positive impact is expected.

0 There will not be an impact, or the extent of the impact can be ignored. -1 Minor negative impact is expected. -2 Significant negative impact is expected, but it is not irreversible. -3 There is an irreversible impact.


Table 4-4 Comparison and Evaluation of Expected Impact5


Alternative Plan 2

Alternative Plan 3

Alternative Plan 4

Pollution Measures

Air




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]

Noise Vibration

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]

Natural Environment

Ecosystem





Hydrology Change in Musi River channel (topography) / change in flow conditions due to bridge pier construction work and presence of bridge piers in river [-1]

5The impact on living/livelihood was evaluated with the relative total score for loss of land + resident resettlement + ecosystem (loss of green areas including farmland).

4-6


Alternative Plan 2

Alternative Plan 3

Alternative Plan 4

Social Environment

Land Loss of land due to land acquisition [-2]

Resettlement of Residents

Resettling ImpactApprox. 1,517

persons [-3]

Resettling ImpactApprox. 1,107

persons [-2]

Resettling Impact Approx. 1,476

persons [-3]

Resettling ImpactApprox. 369 persons [-1]

Living/ Livelihood





Impact on fishing activities due to change in ecosystem brought about by changes in water areas [-1]

Social Infrastructure

Creation of traffic jams during construction due to traffic restrictions [-1] Alleviation of traffic congestion due to dispersion of traffic volume after bridge is placed in service [+1]

Cultural Assets




No cultural assets [0]

Landscape Change in landscape on recreation site and disturbance of harmony [-1]

Change in landscape on undeveloped land (marshes/farmland) and disturbance of harmony [-1]

Evaluation -20 +4

-16 +4

-17 +4

-15 +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.

4-7

Table 4-5 Comparison of Environmental and Social Impacts of Each Type of Structure

Evaluation Item

Technology Proposal 1 Bridge Plan

Technology Proposal 2 Immersed Tunnel + Excavated

Tunnel

Technology Proposal 3 Shield Tunnel


Uses imported steel. Brings about significant change in landscape Changes in areas shaded from sun Has impact on size of ships.

Uses domestic concrete. Construction is large in scale, requiring land for a large-scale temporary construction yard (Expected area: 200m x 200m). Environmental and social concerns during construction since work 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 is large in scale, requiring a temporary construction yard. Environmental and social concerns during construction since work period are long.

Construction Costs – Approximately twice the cost

of bridge plan Approximately twice the cost of bridge plan


Medium Large Medium


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

4-8

Figure 4-2 Land Usage Plan Diagram in Vicinity of Project Site

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

Source: Prepared by Study Team Using Materials Provided by Palembang City BAPPEDA

(Excerpt from “Palembang City Land Usage Plan Diagram 2012 – 2032”)

KEC. ALANG‐ALANG LEBAR

KEC. SUKARAMI

KEC. ILIR TIMUR I

KEC. SAKO

KEC. SEMATANG BORANG

KEC. KALIDONI

KEC. ILIR TIMUR II

KEC. BUKIT KECIL

KEC. PLAJUKEC. SEBERANG ULU II

KEC. ILIR BARAT II

KEC. SEBERANG ULU I

KEC. GANDUS

KEC. ILIR BARAT I

KEC. KERTAPATI

KEC. KEMUNING

: Green area

: Protected marsh area

: Farmland

: Plants (Owned by Port Corporation)

: Tourism areas

: Residential areas

Legend

●: Existing Retention Pond

●: Planned Retention Pond

Legend

4-9

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

4-10

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.

Study of target area

Study of legal status of target area

Setting of compensation amounts

Explanation to and consultation with area land owners impacted by implementation of the

development plan

Implementation of deliberation with land owners regarding form and amount of compensation, and

government agencies that need to be involved for said site

Witnessing of compensation payment

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.

4-11

4.4 Items under the responsibility of 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) 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.


5-1

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.

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. 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. 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]

Updating the construction cost on additional alternative plan from the first study. 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. Assuming a portion of the traffic on the Trans Sumatra Expressway would flow into the section covered by this project. The road section is defined 50km as the ring road (portion) that is approx. 25km long in the first study. 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. 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. The “Trans Sumatra Master Plan” is referred to, and the traffic volume related to the Trans Sumatra Expressway was added.

[Information for Financial Evaluation]

It is updated the construction cost on additional alternative plan from the first study. 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.

1Public 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)

5-2

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) 2,877,865,968,592

8 Restoration/minor work 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.

5-3

Table 5-2 Construction Costs for Structure

Bridge Plans Tunnel Plans Cable-Stayed Bridge

(BINA MARGA Basic Design (BD))

Extradosed Bridge

Immersed Tunnel + Excavated Tunnel Shield Tunnel

Cost

1 bil.Rp. 4,610 3,522 8,837 – 10,698 8,372 – 10,233

100 mil. yen 396 308 760 – 920 720 – 880

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

Alternative Plan 1

Alternative Plan 2

Alternative Plan 3

Alternative Plan4

Bridge Type Cable-Stayed Bridge

Cable-Stayed Bridge

Extradosed Bridge

Extradosed Bridge

Extradosed Bridge

Total Bridge Length 4,470m 3,380m 3,330m 3,350m 3,330m

Main Bridge

North Side Approach

South Side Approach

1,000m

1,980m

1,490m

680m

1,380m

1,320m

470m

1,460m

1,400m

1,550m

400m

1,400m

1,110m

1,160m

1,160mClearance 51m 50m 50m 50m 50m

Cost 1 bil. Rp. 4,610 3,522 3,171 3,979 3,555100 mil. yen 396 308 277 348 310



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 P. 9-16 Table 9.6 Toll Road Construction Costs per km

5-4

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

1 Alternative Plan

2 Alternative Plan

3 Alternative Plan

4

Bridge 4,610(396) 3,522(308) 3,171(277) 3,979(348) 3,555(310)

Road 1,464(128) 1,464(128) 1,464(128) 1,464(128) 1,464(128)

Total 6,074(524) 5,986(436) 4,635(405) 5,442(475) 5,019(438)



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.

3Since 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.

5-5

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

5-6

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

Length

2014 2020 2025

North- bound

South- bound Total North-

boundSouth-bound Total North-

bound South- bound Total

Sub-section 1 5.2 11,694 10,361 22,055 14,099 12,267 26,366 14,776 13,514 28,290 Sub-section 2 4.0 9,051 9,951 19,002 10,014 10,905 20,919 14,725 13,073 27,798 Sub-section 3 5.4 9,136 9,513 18,649 10,576 10,140 20,716 13,833 14,657 28,490 Sub-section 4

(Musi III) 5.3 9,911 10,812 20,723 13,486 13,163 26,649 20,971 19,788 40,759

Sub-section 5 5.7 9,716 9,374 19,090 11,412 12,028 23,440 20,178 18,653 38,831 Weighted Average - 9,932 9,992 19,924 11,992 11,738 23,730 17,054 16,129 33,184

pcu (AVG×1.5) - 14,898 14,988 29,885 17,989 17,607 35,595 25,582 24,194 49,776

Trans Sumatra Traffic

(Average pcu)

- - - 4,500 - - 8,996 - - 12,326

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%.

5-7

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

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Inflation Rate 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

4Based 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.

5-8

Table 5-8 Cash Flow for Financial Analysis


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.

(Kend/day)

UP DOWN TOTAL UP DOWN TOTAL UP DOWN TOTALSEC1 11,694 10,361 22,055 14,099 12,267 26,366 14,776 13,514 26,366SEC2 9,051 9,951 19,002 10,014 10,905 20,919 14,725 13,073 20,919SEC3 9,136 9,513 18,649 10,576 10,140 20,716 13,833 14,657 20,716SEC4 9,911 10,812 20,723 13,486 13,163 26,649 20,971 19,788 26,649AVG 9,948 10,159 20,107 12,044 11,619 23,663 16,076 15,258 23,663PCU(AVGx1.5) 14,922 15,239 30,161 18,066 17,428 35,494 24,114 22,887 35,494Souce　BINA　MARGA　FS ③　Figure　4.19-21 except AVG and PCU

〇Trans Smatra Traf f i c Volume

2009 2020 2025

AADT 3,000 5,997 8,217

PCU(AADTx1.5) 4,500 8,996 12,326

〇 Cash F low and F inancia l Return

Const. O&M total

Land Acquisition 2015 0 0Land Acquisition 2016 0 0Construction (Bridge) 2017 1,805,187 1,805,187 -1,805,187Construction (Bridge) 2018 1,990,217 1,990,217 -1,990,217Construction (Road) 2019 2,649,524 2,649,524 -2,649,524

1 2020 43,680 139,229 139,229 658,088 65,809 453,0502 2021 44,286 139,229 139,229 667,217 66,722 461,2663 2022 44,892 139,229 139,229 676,346 67,635 469,4824 2023 45,498 139,229 139,229 685,475 68,548 477,6995 2024 46,104 139,229 139,229 694,604 69,460 485,9156 2025 46,710 139,229 139,229 703,734 70,373 494,1317 2026 49,746 139,229 139,229 749,476 74,948 535,3008 2027 52,980 139,229 139,229 798,192 79,819 579,1449 2028 56,423 139,229 139,229 850,075 85,007 625,838

10 2029 60,091 487,302 487,302 905,330 90,533 327,49511 2030 63,997 139,229 139,229 964,176 96,418 728,52912 2031 68,157 139,229 139,229 1,026,847 102,685 784,93413 2032 72,587 139,229 139,229 1,093,593 109,359 845,00414 2033 77,305 139,229 139,229 1,164,676 116,468 908,97915 2034 82,330 139,229 139,229 1,240,380 124,038 977,11316 2035 87,681 139,229 139,229 1,321,005 132,100 1,049,67517 2036 93,380 139,229 139,229 1,406,870 140,687 1,126,95418 2037 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71219 2038 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71220 2039 100,000 487,302 487,302 1,506,602 150,660 868,64021 2040 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71222 2041 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71223 2042 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71224 2043 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71225 2044 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71226 2045 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71227 2046 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71228 2047 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71229 2048 100,000 139,229 139,229 1,506,602 150,660 1,216,71230 2049 100,000 487,302 487,302 1,506,602 150,660 868,640

FIRR 9.1%

YearTrafic

Volume

(PCU/day)

Cost (Rp. Million) Revenue(Rp.

Million)

VAT10%Cash Flow

(Rp. Million)

〇Ci ty Traf f i c Volume

2014 2020 2025

Period

5-9

Table 5-9 Financial Internal Rate of Return

(Figures in parentheses are results of the First study) Toll per 1km (2010 Price)

BINA MARGA

BD Plan

Alternative Plan

1

Alternative Plan

2

Alternative Plan

3

Alternative Plan

4

300Rp/km 0.8%

(4.1%)

2.8%

（3.9%）

3.3%

（4.4%）

2.1%

（3.3%） 2.8％

600Rp/km 6.9%

(9.6%)

9.2%

(9.3%)

9.8%

(10.0%)

8.4%

(8.5%) 9.1％

900Rp/km 10.8%

(12.8%)

13.4%

(12.5%)

14.2%

(13.3%)

12.5%

(11.6%) 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.

5-10

Table 5-10 Vehicle Operating Costs for Each Travel Speed (2005)

(Unit: Rp/ Vehicle km) Speed

(km/hr) Fuel Engine

Oil Tires Maintenance

Cost Depreciation Capital

Interest Insurance Total

20 166.1 48.0 3.3 116.4 485.7 374.0 646.0 1,839.5

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

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) Sedan Truck Bus

20 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)

5-11

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 Sedan Truck Bus

○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○6. JIUTR northern extension(PCI) 1989 - 7,067 14,670 3,659

7.Surabaya-Mojokerto(JICA) 1991 - 8,880 7,960 7,9808. Master Plan for the Arterial Road Network in Sumatra Island (KOICA)5

2010 (2008)

- (7,519) - (2,730)

9. Republic of Indonesia: Regional Roads Development Project (ADB)

2010 3,609 15,038 29,525 2,730

10. Pre-feasibility Study in Urban Transport Project Palembang, Indonesia (ADB/CDIA)6

2011 (2,032）

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).

5-12

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

Rp. Million@ 2020Price

Land 733,355 1,261,272 *2010　Price (Source: Pekerjaan Studi Lelayakan Jaran dan Jembatan Musi III p8-1)

Bridge 3,274,713 4,388,429 *2014 Price

Road 555,045 954,602 *2010　Price (Source: Pekerjaan Studi Lelayakan Jaran dan Jembatan Musi III p8-1)

Total 3,829,758 5,343,031

〇toll Resistance

Toll Resistance 91.0%

〇 Cash Flow and Financial Return

Const. O&M totalVOC

SaivingTTC

SavingExternalit

yVOC

SaivingTTC

SavingExternalit

yTotal

Benefit

Land Acquisition 2015 385,011 0 -385,011

Land Acquisition 2016 404,262 0 -404,262

Construction (Bridge) 2017 1,805,187 1,805,187 0 -1,805,187

Construction (Bridge) 2018 1,990,217 1,990,217 0 -1,990,217

Construction (Road) 2019 909,145 909,145 0 -909,145

1 2020 60,519 60,519 538,539 124,568 63,156 490,070 113,357 57,472 660,899 600,380

2 2021 60,519 60,519 573,765 132,740 59,845 522,126 120,793 54,459 697,379 636,860

3 2022 60,519 60,519 617,373 142,819 64,393 561,809 129,965 58,597 750,372 689,853

4 2023 60,519 60,519 664,263 153,657 69,283 604,479 139,828 63,047 807,354 746,835

5 2024 121,038 121,038 707,702 163,697 64,622 644,009 148,964 58,806 851,779 730,741

6 2025 60,519 60,519 608,994 140,866 55,608 554,184 128,188 50,604 732,976 672,457

7 2026 60,519 60,519 655,179 151,551 59,826 596,213 137,911 54,441 788,565 728,047

8 2027 60,519 60,519 697,937 161,442 54,656 635,123 146,912 49,737 831,772 771,253

9 2028 60,519 60,519 750,958 173,707 58,809 683,372 158,073 53,516 894,961 834,442

10 2029 121,038 121,038 807,918 186,883 63,269 735,206 170,064 57,575 962,845 841,807

11 2030 60,519 60,519 1,072,040 247,977 83,953 975,556 225,659 76,397 1,277,613 1,217,094

12 2031 60,519 60,519 1,142,031 264,166 89,434 1,039,249 240,391 81,385 1,361,025 1,300,506

13 2032 60,519 60,519 1,216,549 281,402 95,270 1,107,059 256,076 86,695 1,449,831 1,389,312

14 2033 60,519 60,519 1,295,998 299,778 101,491 1,179,358 272,798 92,357 1,544,514 1,483,995

15 2034 121,038 121,038 1,380,631 319,353 108,119 1,256,375 290,612 98,388 1,645,374 1,524,337

16 2035 60,519 60,519 1,473,200 340,765 115,368 1,340,612 310,096 104,985 1,755,693 1,695,175

17 2036 60,519 60,519 1,574,939 364,296 123,335 1,433,195 331,510 112,235 1,876,940 1,816,421

18 2037 60,519 60,519 1,683,564 389,422 131,842 1,532,043 354,374 119,976 2,006,393 1,945,874

19 2038 60,519 60,519 1,799,754 416,298 140,941 1,637,776 378,831 128,256 2,144,863 2,084,344

20 2039 121,038 121,038 1,923,885 445,011 150,662 1,750,735 404,960 137,102 2,292,797 2,171,759

21 2040 60,519 60,519 2,059,134 476,298 161,253 1,873,812 433,431 146,741 2,453,984 2,393,465

22 2041 60,519 60,519 2,193,680 507,423 171,790 1,996,249 461,755 156,329 2,614,333 2,553,814

23 2042 60,519 60,519 2,336,860 540,545 183,003 2,126,543 491,896 166,533 2,784,972 2,724,453

24 2043 60,519 60,519 2,489,519 575,862 194,958 2,265,462 524,034 177,412 2,966,908 2,906,389

25 2044 121,038 121,038 2,652,006 613,452 207,683 2,413,325 558,241 188,992 3,160,558 3,039,521

26 2045 60,519 60,519 2,826,705 653,868 221,364 2,572,302 595,019 201,442 3,368,763 3,308,244

27 2046 60,519 60,519 3,011,246 696,561 235,816 2,740,234 633,870 214,593 3,588,697 3,528,178

28 2047 60,519 60,519 3,207,946 742,061 251,220 2,919,231 675,276 228,611 3,823,118 3,762,599

29 2048 60,519 60,519 3,417,391 790,510 267,623 3,109,826 719,364 243,537 4,072,727 4,012,208

30 2049 121,038 121,038 3,640,527 842,126 285,098 3,312,880 766,335 259,439 4,338,654 4,217,617

EIRR= 14.3%

Cost( ) B-C

Benefit( )

Benefit Toll Resistance Considered( )Year

5-13

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.

Table 5-14 Economic Internal Rate of Return BINA MARGA

BD Alternative Plan

1 Alternative Plan

2 Alternative Plan

3 Alternative Plan

4 Free 13.0% 15.3% 15.9% 14.5% 15.2%

300 Rp./km 12.6% 14.8% 15.4% 14.0% 14.7% 600 Rp./km 12.2% 14.3% 15.0% 13.6% 14.3% 900 Rp./km 11.4% 13.5% 14.1% 12.8% 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

BD Alternative Plan

1 Alternative Plan

2 Alternative Plan

3 Alternative Plan

4 Free 15,517 16,874 17,194 16,456 16,843

300Rp/km 14,460 15,816 16,137 15,399 15,785600Rp/km 13,492 14,849 15,169 14,431 14,818900Rp/km 11,760 13,116 13,437 12,699 13,086

Note: Converted at Rp = ¥0.008519 Source: Prepared by Study Team

7The discount ratio is subtracted 5% of inflation rate from Interest rate of Government bonds in 30 years that is 9.5%

5-14

Table 5-16 Cost-Benefit Ratio BINA MARGA BD Alternative

Plan 1 Alternative

Plan 2 Alternative

Plan 3 Alternative

Plan 4 Free 3.22 4.00 4.24 3.72 3.98

300Rp/km 3.07 3.81 4.04 3.55 3.79600Rp/km 2.93 3.64 3.86 3.39 3.62900Rp/km 2.68 3.33 3.53 3.10 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


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

Operation Format Project System Arrangement of Financing

* Scheme separately Reviewed * Combination to be separately Reviewed

Free Road

Toll Road

Public Project(Conventional)

Project UtilizigPrivate Sector

Government Funds, ODA

Government Funds, ODA,Private Sector Funds

5-15

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

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)

Example:Case 1: BOT for Toll Road CommonlyCase 2: Akses Tanjung PriokCase 3: PPP Solo – Kertosono Toll Road

• Link : 20 Link• Length : 736.62 km• Investment :

U$. 7,074.31 M


U$. 262.71 M

• Link: 2 Link• Length : 179.00

km• Investment :

U$. 902.83 M

BUSINESS SCHEME OF TOLL ROAD(Article 43 (2) Law 38/2004 Concerning Road and Article 19‐23 Government Regulation 15/2005 Concerning Toll Road)

ba

EIRR TOLL ROAD (+)c

Feasible to be built if EIRR value is positive 1) BOT : FIRR (+)

a+b+c : Private Company

2) DBO/DBL : FIRR (-)a+b : Government

c : Private Company

3) PPP : FIRR (Marginal)a+b : Governmentb+c : Private Company

On Going

a : Land Acquisitionb : Constructionc : Operation and Maintenance


U$. 7,074.31 M


U$. 262.71 M

• Link: 2 Link• Length : 179.00

km• Investment :

U$. 902.83 M


ba

EIRR TOLL ROAD (+)c




c : Private Company


On Going



ba

EIRR TOLL ROAD (+)c




c : Private Company


On Going


5-16

Figure 5-3 Comparison of Road Project Format and Division of Roles among Government and Private Sector

Public Project PPP Project (Sample) BOT Project


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

Government Funds

Site

Civil Engineering Bridge Elevated

Free

Government

Arrangement of

Financing

O＆M

Format

Government Funds

Government Funds

Government Funds

Private Sector

Toll (All revenue to be received by private sector)

Arrangement of

Financing

O＆M

Format


Private-Sector Funds



Government Funds

Site

2

Arrangement of

Financing

O＆M

Format Toll (All revenue to be received by private sector)

Government Funds

Site

Private Sector




Government Funds

5-17

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)

Traffic Volume (2020) Trans Sumatra Palembang City Total

Kayu Agung – Palembang City 25 11,000 - 11,000 Palembang City 40 11,000 24,000 35,000 Palembang City – Betung 45 19,000 - 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

5-18

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) Source: Prepared by Study Team

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.

5-19

Table 5-19 Cash Flow Used for Financial Analysis (When Project is Part of Trans Sumatra Expressway)


〇Construction Cost

Rp. Million

@ eachyear price

Rp. Million

@ 2020Price

Bridge 3,274,713 4,388,429 *2014 Price

Road 4,106,300 7,648,451 *2009 Price, Rp. 37.33 billion /km (Source: MARS Chapter 9 p16) ×110km

Total 12,036,879

〇O&M Cos t

Rp. million

Daily 240,738 2% of construction Cost in every yearPeriodic 601,844 5% of Periodec Cost in 10 years

〇Traf f i c i ncrease and Decrease

YearlyTraffic Increase 6.5%Toll Resistance 91.0%

(Kend/day)

UP DOWN TOTAL UP DOWN TOTAL UP DOWN TOTAL

SEC1 11,000 15,071

SEC2 35,000 47,953

SEC3 19,000 26,032AVG 23,000 31,512

PCU(AVGx1.5) 34,500 47,268

Souce　BINA　MARGA　FS 　and Trans Smatra master Plan except AVG and PCU

〇Tol lRp.

Toll/110km@2020price 113,511

Toll/km @2010 price 600

Toll/km @2020 price 1032

〇 Cash F l ow and F inancia l Return

Const. O&M totalLand Acquisition 2015 0 0

Land Acquisition 2016 0 0

Construction (Bridge) 2017 3,610,371 3,610,371 -3,610,371

Construction (Bridge) 2018 1,990,217 1,990,217 -1,990,217Construction (Road) 2019 7,284,239 7,284,239 -7,284,239

1 2020 10,010 31,850 17,290 31,395 240,738 240,738 1,300,743 130,074 929,931

2 2021 10,751 34,207 18,570 33,719 240,738 240,738 1,397,021 139,702 1,016,581

3 2022 11,492 36,565 19,850 36,043 240,738 240,738 1,493,298 149,330 1,103,2314 2023 12,233 38,922 21,129 38,366 240,738 240,738 1,589,576 158,958 1,189,881

5 2024 12,974 41,280 22,409 40,690 240,738 240,738 1,685,854 168,585 1,276,531

6 2025 13,715 43,637 23,689 43,014 240,738 240,738 1,782,131 178,213 1,363,180

7 2026 14,606 46,474 25,229 45,810 240,738 240,738 1,897,970 189,797 1,467,4358 2027 15,555 49,494 26,868 48,787 240,738 240,738 2,021,338 202,134 1,578,466

9 2028 16,567 52,712 28,615 51,959 240,738 240,738 2,152,725 215,272 1,696,715

10 2029 17,643 56,138 30,475 55,336 842,582 842,582 2,292,652 229,265 1,220,805

11 2030 18,790 59,787 32,456 58,933 240,738 240,738 2,441,674 244,167 1,956,769

12 2031 20,012 63,673 34,565 62,763 240,738 240,738 2,600,383 260,038 2,099,60713 2032 21,312 67,812 36,812 66,843 240,738 240,738 2,769,408 276,941 2,251,729

14 2033 22,698 72,219 39,205 71,188 240,738 240,738 2,949,419 294,942 2,413,740

15 2034 24,173 76,914 41,753 75,815 240,738 240,738 3,141,132 314,113 2,586,281

16 2035 25,744 81,913 44,467 80,743 240,738 240,738 3,345,305 334,531 2,770,03717 2036 27,417 87,237 47,357 85,991 240,738 240,738 3,562,750 356,275 2,965,737

18 2037 29,200 92,908 50,436 91,581 240,738 240,738 3,794,329 379,433 3,174,158

19 2038 31,098 98,947 53,714 97,533 240,738 240,738 4,040,960 404,096 3,396,127

20 2039 33,119 100,000 57,205 100,939 842,582 842,582 4,182,074 418,207 2,921,28521 2040 35,272 100,000 60,924 103,955 240,738 240,738 4,307,015 430,701 3,635,576

22 2041 37,564 100,000 64,884 107,167 240,738 240,738 4,440,077 444,008 3,755,332

23 2042 40,006 100,000 69,101 110,587 240,738 240,738 4,581,789 458,179 3,882,872

24 2043 42,606 100,000 73,593 114,230 240,738 240,738 4,732,711 473,271 4,018,70325 2044 45,376 100,000 78,376 118,109 240,738 240,738 4,893,444 489,344 4,163,362

26 2045 48,325 100,000 83,471 122,241 240,738 240,738 5,064,624 506,462 4,317,424

27 2046 51,466 100,000 88,897 126,641 240,738 240,738 5,246,931 524,693 4,481,500

28 2047 54,812 100,000 94,675 131,327 240,738 240,738 5,441,088 544,109 4,656,24129 2048 58,374 100,000 100,000 135,809 240,738 240,738 5,626,797 562,680 4,823,380

30 2049 62,169 100,000 100,000 137,103 842,582 842,582 5,680,390 568,039 4,269,769

FIRR 11.9%

Cash Flow

(Rp.

〇Ci ty Traf f i c Volume2014 2020 2025

Period YearTrafic

VolumeSEC1 SEC2 SEC3

Cost (Rp. Million) Revenue

(Rp. Million)VAT10%


6-1

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


6-2

Table 6-2 Implementation as a PPP Project


Chapter 7 Capabilities of Implementation

Organizations in Host Country

7-1

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.

7-2

Figure 7-1 BINA MARGA Organization Chart

Source: BINA MARGA

Sub-directorateof System

Development &PerformanceEvaluation

Sub-directorateof Freeways &

Urban RoadTechnical

Affairs

Sub-directorateof Region I C

Sub-directorateof Region II C

Sub-directorateof Region III C

Sub-directorateof Information

&Communication

Sub-directorateof Land

Acquisition

Sub-directorateof Region I D

Sub-directorateof Region II D

Sub-directorateof Region III D

Sub-directorateof Programmingand Budgeting

Sub-directorateof BridgeTechnical

Affairs

Sub-directorateof Region I A

Sub-directorateof Region II A

Sub-directorateof Region III A

Sub-directorateof Financingand ForeignCooperation

Sub-directorateof Environment& Road Safety

TechnicalAffairs

Sub-directorateof Region I B

Sub-directorateof Region II B

Sub-directorateof Region III B

Directorate ofImplementation

for Region II

Directorate ofImplementationfor Region III

Sub-directorateof Policy and

Strategy

Sub-directorateof Road

TechnicalAffairs

Sub-directorateof Controlling

System ofRegion I


System ofRegion II


System ofRegion III

Ministry ofPublic Works

DirectorateGeneral ofHighways

Secretary ofDirectorate

General

Directorate ofProgram

Directorate ofTechnical

Affairs

Directorate ofImplementation

for Region I

7-3

Figure 7-2 South Sumatra BAPPEDA Organization Chart

Source: South Sumatra Province BAPPEDA

Sub Division ofWelfare and

Culture

Sub-division ofWater and Human

Settlements

Sub-division ofDevelopment

Evaluation

Sub-division ofData And

Information

Spatial UPTB

Head of Economic

Division of FieldFacilities andInfrastructure

Division of FieldDevelopment and

Evaluation

Division of FieldProgram Data

and InformationDivision of Social

and Culture

Sub-division ofSME &

Agribusiness

Sub-division ofHuman Resources

Sub-division ofTransportation and

Highways

Sub-division ofDevelopment

Control

Sub-division ofProgram

Head of BAPPEDA

Secretary

Sub Head ofGeneral

Sub Head ofOfficer

Sub Head ofField Program

and Information

Division ofEconomic

Sub-division ofIndustrial and

SDA

7-4

Figure 7-3Palembang City BAPPEDA Organization Chart

Source: Palembang CityBAPPEDA

Sub-head ofDevelopmentCooperation

Sub-head ofResearch

Sub-head ofArea

Monitering,Evaluation

andReporting

Sub-head ofField DataCollection

Sub-head ofArea

PlanningProgram

Sub-head ofArea

PlanningBudget

Sub-head ofField Spatial

Sub-head ofStrategicPlanning

Area

Head OFBAPPEDA

Secretary

Sub Head ofGeneral

Sub Head ofFinancialSubpart

Sub Head ofHuman

Resources

Head of DataCollection,Monitering,Evaluation

and Reporting

Head ofPlanning ,

Program andBudget

Head ofStrategic

Planning andSpatial

Head ofReserch andDevelopmentCooperation

Chapter 8 Technical Advantages of Japanese

Companies

8-1

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.

These techn

8.1.3 Japan

(1) Extra

When it i

route wid

technolog

To date (2

of experie

record of

1) Featu

It

It

Th

It

2) Track

To

of

Ta

Th

Ca

ologies provi

nese Technolo

adosed Bridge

is applied Ex

dth is more n

gies.

2010), 44 Ext

ence in techno

Hybrid Extra

ure of Extrado

is more econ

is possible to

he stress fluct

create a beau

k Record for E

o date, 150 E

f experience

able 8-1).

he Japan P

able-Stayed /

ide Japanese

ogy

e

xstradosed Br

narrow than t

tradosed brid

ology, materi

adosed bridge

osed Bridge

nomical than a

o construct sp

tuation of the

utiful scenic

Extradosed B

xtradosed Br

in technolog

Prestressed C

Extradosed B

corporations

ridge such as

the existing p

ges have bee

ials, construct

e does exist o

a cable stayed

pan longer tha

e cables is sm

Figure 8-1 Ph

Source: Mac

Bridges

ridges have b

gy, materials,

Concrete In

Bridges” in 2

8-2

with extreme

alternative p

plan, it becom

n constructed

tion machine

only in Japan.

d bridge when

an a girder br

maller than tha

hoto of Extra

ctan II Bridge

een construct

construction

nstitute publ

2009.

ely high oppo

plan 2 or 3if

me to be mo

d in Japan, de

ery and constr

n the span is

idge

at of a cable s

adosed Bridge

e, Philippines

ted in Japan,

n machining

ished “Desi

ortunity of pa

the project r

ore suitable t

emonstrating

ruction proce

200m or less

stayed bridge

e

s

giving it an

and construc

ign/Construct

rticipating to

route is chan

to advantageo

extremely ad

sses know ho

.

extremely ad

ction process

tion Standar

the project.

ged and ship

ous Japanese

dvanced level

ow. The track

dvanced level

ses (Refer to

rds for PC

p

e

l

k

l

o

C

8-3

Table 8-1 Track Record for Major Extradosed Bridges

Bridge Name Max. Span Completed Location Bridge Name Max. Span Completed Location

Kiso River Bridge

275m 2001 Mie

Prefecture Japan Palau Friendship

Bridge* 247 2001 Palau

Ibi River Bridge

271m 2001 Mie

Prefecture MactanII Bridge 185 1999 Philippines

Tokunoyama Hattoku Bridge

220m 2006 Gifu

Prefecture Hadase Bridge* 145 20088 Ethiopia

Sannobe Bokyo Bridge

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>

High bearing capacity

Available also for temporary cofferdam

Custom fit for structure

Large depth, soft ground

Convenient joint with super structure

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.

8-4

Figure8-3 Image of ALiCC

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

Item Cost

(Thousand Yen)

Material Expenses 1 PC steel 781,000

Shoes 291,000

Expansion joint 150,000

Rebar 591,000

Cement 406,000

Sub-total 2,219,000

Material Expenses 2 Cable 1,320,000

Steel pipe 2,920,000

Sub-total 4,240,000

Total 6,459,000


Soft Ground Banking

Banking Layer

Cement Column

8-5

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

Item Cost (Thousand Yen)

Remarks

Japanese

Technology

Cost

Material cost1 2,219,000 Total of material expenses ① in Table 8-3

Cable installation cost 2,200,000 Cable-stay cable for main bridge (including material cost)

Steel pipe sheet pile foundation cost

4,880,000 Steel pipe sheet pile foundation for main bridge (including material cost)

Engineering cost2 2,590,000 Assumed to be 10% of construction costs (7% for general administration + 3% for site management)

Total (①) 11,889,000

Construction costs (②) 25,900,000

Japanese technology cost ratio 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.

8-6

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.

<APPENDIX>

Appendix 3.1 Boring Survey Data by BINA MARGA BD

Figure 1 Boring Survey Points by BINA MARGA BD

Source: Prepared by Study Team based on BINA MARGA BD

DR23

DR24

DR25

DR30

DR31DR31A

DR29A DR28A

DR27A DR26A

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

02.3

02.4

02.5

02.6

02.7

0U

DS 1

2.8

02.5

5-3

.00

2.9

03.0

0-

--

>2

3.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.5

03.6

03.7

0

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

05.3

05.4

05.5

05.6

05.7

0U

DS 2

5.8

05.5

0-6

.00

5.9

06.0

0-

--

>2

6.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.5

06.6

06.7

06.8

06.9

07.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

08.3

08.4

08.5

08.6

08.7

0U

DS 3

8.8

08.5

0-9

.00

8.9

09.0

0-

--

>2

9.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.5

09.6

09.7

09.8

09.9

010.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

011.3

011.4

011.5

011.6

011.7

0U

DS 4

11.8

011.5

0-1

2.0

011.9

012.0

01/1

51/1

51/1

52

12.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.5

012.6

012.7

012.8

012.9

013.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

014.3

014.4

014.5

014.6

014.7

0U

DS 5

14.8

014.5

0-1

5.0

014.9

015.0

0

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lanau P

asi

ran,

Abu-a

bu K

eco

kla

tan,

Sangat

Lem

bek

Lanau P

asi

ran,

Cokla

t Tua,

Sangat

Lem

bek

Lanau P

asi

ran,

Abu-a

bu K

ehit

am

an,

Sangat

Lem

bek

Pasi

r La

nauan,

Abu-a

bu K

ehit

am

an,

Sangat

Lem

bek

Pasi

r La

nauan S

edik

it L

em

pung,

Cokla

t Tua,

Lem

bek

GRAPHIC LOG

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

60 -

>60

N1

N3

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

N2

GEOLOGICAL TERM

40 -

50

10 -

20

N - Value

50 -

60

0 -

10

DATE/DEPTH

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

Gs

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

48

14

42

.55

35

:H

OLE

FIN

ISH

ED

96

71

21

0.2

08

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

Depth (m)

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

FIEL

D

TES

T

30 -

40

SAMPLES

N -

VA

LUE

WEATHERING

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

20 -

30

AD

IM

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

PA

GE

...

OF

...

2 D

esem

ber

20

11

4 D

esem

ber

20

11

PR

OJE

CT

LOC

AT

ION

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

DR

-23

º

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

TY

PE

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

eo (t

/m³)

DR

ILLE

R

AD

IM

1 O

F 3

YB

M (

Y5

0-1

)

LOG

BO

RE

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

-1.5

0

Ver

tica

l

2 Desember 2011

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.5

01/1

51/1

52/1

53

15.1

015.2

015.3

015.4

015.5

015.6

015.7

015.8

015.9

016.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

017.3

017.4

017.5

017.6

017.7

0U

DS 6

17.8

017.5

0-1

8.0

017.9

018.0

01/1

52/1

52/1

54

18.1

018.2

018.3

018.4

018.5

018.6

018.7

018.8

018.9

019.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

020.3

020.4

020.5

020.6

020.7

0D

S 1

20.8

020.5

0-2

1.0

020.9

021.0

06/1

59/1

512/1

521

21.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.5

021.6

021.7

021.8

021.9

022.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

022.6

022.7

022.8

022.9

023.0

023.1

023.2

023.3

023.4

023.5

023.6

023.7

0D

S 2

23.8

023.5

0-2

4.0

023.9

024.0

06/1

58/1

511/1

519

24.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.5

024.6

024.7

024.8

024.9

025.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

025.6

025.7

025.8

025.9

026.0

026.1

026.2

026.3

026.4

026.5

026.6

026.7

0D

S 3

26.8

026.5

0-2

7.0

026.9

027.0

010/1

513/1

516/1

529

27.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.5

027.6

027.7

027.8

027.9

028.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

028.6

028.7

028.8

028.9

029.0

029.1

029.2

029.3

029.4

029.5

029.6

029.7

0D

S 4

29.8

029.5

0-3

0.0

029.9

030.0

0

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

DR

-23

Lem

pung P

asi

ran,

Abu-a

bu,

Agak P

adat

:2

OF

3

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-1

.50

YB

M (

Y5

0-1

)

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RA

DIM

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

PA

GE

...

OF

...

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

81

44

2.5

53

5H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D2

Des

emb

er 2

01

1LO

GG

ED

BY

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

AD

IM

96

71

21

0.2

08

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D4

Des

emb

er 2

01

1C

HE

CK

ED

BY

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

FIEL

D

TES

T

(t/m

³)G

seo

30 -

40

º

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

Pasi

r La

nauan S

edik

it L

em

pung, Cokla

t Tua, Le

mbek

Pasi

r Le

pas

Halu

s, A

bu-a

bu K

ehitam

an

Pasi

r Le

pas

Halu

s, H

itam

3 Desember 2011

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

0-3

0.5

014/1

522/1

524/1

546

30.1

030.2

030.3

030.4

030.5

030.6

030.7

030.8

030.9

031.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

032.3

032.4

032.5

032.6

032.7

0D

S 5

32.8

032.5

0-3

3.0

032.9

033.0

015/1

520/1

519/1

539

33.1

0

0.1

00.2

034.4

534.5

534.6

534.7

534.8

535.0

035.1

035.2

035.3

035.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

036.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

0D

S 6

35.8

035.5

0-3

6.0

035.9

036.0

017/1

523/1

525/1

548

36.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.4

536.5

536.6

536.7

536.8

537.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

038.3

038.4

038.5

538.6

538.7

5D

S 7

38.8

538.5

0-3

9.0

038.9

539.0

019/1

524/1

527/1

551

39.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.4

539.5

539.6

539.7

539.8

540.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

041.3

041.4

041.5

041.6

041.7

041.8

041.9

042.0

042.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

542.6

542.7

542.8

542.9

543.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

543.6

543.7

543.8

543.9

544.0

044.1

044.2

044.3

044.4

044.5

544.6

544.7

544.8

544.9

545.0

0

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung, Abu-a

bu, Padat

dan K

era

s

EN

D B

OR

ING

LOG

BO

RE

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

-1.5

0

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

-23

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

3

PR

OJE

CT

M

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EY

BM

(Y

50

-1)

DR

ILLE

RA

DIM

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

81

44

2.5

54

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

2 D

esem

ber

20

11

LOG

GE

D B

YA

DIM

96

71

21

0.2

08

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D4

Des

emb

er 2

01

1C

HE

CK

ED

BY

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

WEATHERING

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

eo (t

/m³)

Gs

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º0 -

10

10 -

20

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

20 -

30

30 -

40

DATE/DEPTH 3 Desember 2011 3 Desember 2011

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

02.3

02.4

02.5

02.6

02.7

02.8

0U

DS 1

2.9

02.5

0-3

.00

3.0

01/1

51/1

51/1

52

3.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.4

53.5

53.6

5

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

05.3

05.4

05.5

05.6

05.7

0U

DS 2

5.8

05.5

0-6

.00

5.9

06.0

01/1

51/1

51/1

52

6.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.4

56.5

56.6

56.7

56.8

57.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

08.3

08.4

08.5

08.6

08.7

0U

DS 3

8.8

08.5

0-9

.00

8.9

09.0

01/1

51/1

51/1

52

9.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.4

59.5

59.6

59.7

59.8

510.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

011.3

011.4

011.5

011.6

011.7

0U

DS 4

11.8

011.5

0-1

2.0

011.9

012.0

03/1

55/1

59/1

514

12.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.4

512.5

512.6

512.7

512.8

513.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

014.3

014.4

014.5

014.6

014.7

014.8

0D

S 1

14.9

014.5

0-1

5.0

015.0

017

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Pasi

r La

nauan,

Cokla

t Tua,

Sangat

lem

bek

Pasi

r halu

s La

nauan,

Cokla

t Abu-a

bu,

Sangat

Lem

bek

Pasi

r halu

s La

nauan,

Cokla

t Tua,

Sangat

lem

bek

28 Nopember 2011 29 Nopember 2011

Pasi

r H

alu

s Le

mpungan,

Cokla

t Tua,

Agak P

adat

Pasi

r H

alu

s Le

mpungan,

Hit

am

Abu-a

bu,

Agak P

adat

Lem

pung L

anauan T

erd

apat

Pasi

r M

engandung H

um

us

dan

Terd

apat

Akar

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

N2

GEOLOGICAL TERM

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

50 -

60

30 -

40

60 -

>60

N1

40 -

50

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

0 -

10

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

N3

LOG

BO

RE

PA

GE

...

OF

...

PR

OJE

CT

LOC

AT

ION

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

DR

- 2

4D

RIL

L H

OLE

NO

.

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

1 O

F 4

KO

KE

N

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

Ad

im

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

Ad

im

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y2

8 N

ove

mb

er 2

01

1

3 D

esem

ber

20

11

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D R

L G

RO

UN

D

:

Depth (m)

N - Value

10 -

20

20 -

30

:

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

GRAPHIC LOG

96

70

71

8.5

72

48

10

14

.23

18

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

SAMPLES

-0.8

5 m

eter

Ver

tica

lD

RIL

LER

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

FIEL

D

TES

T

TY

PE

N -

VA

LUE

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

(t/m

³)W

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

TG

seo

º

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.4

53/1

58/1

59/1

517

15.1

015.2

015.3

015.4

015.4

515.5

515.6

515.7

515.8

516.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

017.3

017.4

017.5

017.6

017.7

0D

S 2

17.8

017.5

0-1

8.0

017.9

018.0

05/1

59/1

510/1

519

18.1

018.2

018.3

018.4

018.4

518.5

518.6

518.7

518.8

519.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

020.3

020.4

020.5

020.6

020.7

0D

S 3

20.8

020.5

0-2

1.0

020.9

021.0

09/1

512/1

513/1

525

21.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.4

521.5

521.6

521.7

521.8

522.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

022.6

022.7

022.8

022.9

023.0

023.1

023.2

023.3

023.4

023.5

023.6

023.7

0D

S 4

23.8

023.5

0-2

4.0

023.9

024.0

07/1

59/1

513/1

522

24.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.4

524.5

524.6

524.7

524.8

525.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

025.6

025.7

025.8

025.9

026.0

026.1

026.2

026.3

026.4

026.5

026.6

026.7

0D

S 5

26.8

026.5

0-2

7.0

026.9

027.0

011/1

514/1

516/1

530

27.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.4

527.5

527.6

527.7

527.8

528.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

028.6

028.7

028.8

028.9

029.0

029.1

029.2

029.3

029.4

029.5

029.6

029.7

0D

S 6

29.8

029.5

0-3

0.0

029.9

030.0

035

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

29 Nopember 2011 30 Nopember 2011

DR

- 2

4

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:2

OF

4

-0.8

5 m

eter

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

KO

KE

N

GRAPHIC LOG

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

LOG

BO

RE

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RA

dim

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

81

01

4.2

31

8H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D2

8 N

ove

mb

er 2

01

1LO

GG

ED

BY

96

70

71

8.5

72

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D3

Des

emb

er 2

01

1C

HE

CK

ED

BY

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

WEATHERING

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

Ad

im

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

FIEL

D

TES

T

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

DATE/DEPTH

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

Pasi

r Le

mpungan H

alu

s, H

itam

Abu-a

bu,

Agak P

adat

Pasi

r, H

itam

Halu

s, A

gak P

adat

Pasi

r,

Hit

am

, Padat

Pasi

r Terd

apat

Batu

Kara

ng,

Hit

am

, Padat

o0o0o0oooo0oo0o0o0o0o0o0oooo0oo0o0o0

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

014/1

516/1

519/1

535

30.1

030.2

030.3

030.4

030.4

530.5

530.6

530.7

530.8

531.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

032.3

032.4

032.5

032.6

032.7

0D

S 7

32.8

032.5

0-3

3.0

032.9

033.0

015/1

520/1

521/1

541

33.1

033.2

033.3

033.4

033.4

533.5

5

OOOO

33.6

5

00OO

33.7

5

0000

33.8

5

0000

34.0

0

0000

34.1

034.2

034.3

034.4

034.5

034.6

034.7

034.8

034.9

035.0

035.1

035.2

035.3

035.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

0D

S 8

35.8

035.5

0-3

6.0

035.9

036.0

017/1

522/1

523/1

545

36.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.5

036.6

036.7

036.8

036.9

037.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

038.3

038.4

038.5

038.6

038.7

0D

S 9

38.8

038.5

0-3

9.0

038.9

039.0

026/1

528/1

532/1

0>

60

39.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.4

039.5

039.6

039.7

039.8

040.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

041.3

041.4

041.5

041.6

041.7

0D

S 1

041.8

041.5

0-4

2.0

041.9

042.0

014/1

517/1

521/1

538

42.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

042.6

042.7

042.8

042.9

043.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

043.6

043.7

043.8

043.9

044.0

044.1

044.2

044.3

044.4

044.5

044.6

044.7

0D

S 1

144.8

044.5

0-4

5.0

044.9

045.0

050

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung,

Abu-a

bu,

Sangat

Kaku

Lem

pung P

asi

ran C

am

pur

Kulit

Kera

ng,

Abu-a

bu P

uti

h,

Kera

s

30 Nopember 2011 1 Desember 2011 2 Desember 2012

o0o0o0000ooo0o00o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0

Pasi

r H

alu

s Terd

apat

Fosi

l Kera

ng,

Hit

am

, Padat

Pasi

r H

alu

s Le

mpung,

Hit

am

, Abu-a

bu P

adat

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

DR

- 2

4

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

4

KO

KE

N

Ad

im

Ad

im

LOG

GE

D B

Y

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-0

.85

met

erM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

E

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D3

Des

emb

er 2

01

1C

HE

CK

ED

BY

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

R

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

81

01

4.2

32

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

28

No

vem

ber

20

11

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

96

70

71

8.5

72

Depth (m)

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ESA

TER

BER

G

LIM

ITS

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

(t/m

³)G

seo

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

SAMPLES

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

Lem

pung T

erd

apat

Fosi

l Kara

ng,

Abu-a

bu,

Padat/

Sangat

Kaku

º

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

50 -

60

N - Value

0000oooo0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0oo0o0o00o0o0o0

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

45.0

0-4

5.5

019/1

524/1

526/1

550

45.1

045.2

045.3

045.4

045.5

045.6

045.7

045.8

045.9

046.0

046.1

046.2

046.3

046.4

046.5

046.6

046.7

046.8

046.9

047.0

047.1

047.2

047.3

047.4

047.5

047.6

047.7

0D

S 1

247.8

047.5

0-4

8.0

047.9

048.0

019/1

526/1

530/1

556

48.1

048.2

048.3

048.4

048.5

048.6

048.7

048.8

048.9

049.0

049.1

049.2

049.3

049.4

049.5

049.6

049.7

049.8

049.9

050.0

050.1

050.2

050.3

050.4

050.5

050.6

050.7

0D

S 1

350.8

050.5

0-5

1.0

050.9

051.0

021/1

533/1

527/1

0>

60

51.1

051.2

051.3

051.4

051.5

051.6

051.7

051.8

051.9

052.0

052.1

052.2

052.3

052.4

052.5

052.6

052.7

052.8

052.9

053.0

053.1

053.2

053.3

053.4

053.5

053.6

053.7

0D

S 1

453.8

053.5

0-5

4.0

053.9

054.0

023/1

537/1

523/8

>60

54.1

054.2

054.3

054.4

054.5

054.6

054.7

054.8

054.9

055.0

055.1

055.2

055.3

055.4

055.5

055.6

055.7

055.8

055.9

056.0

056.1

056.2

056.3

056.4

056.5

056.6

056.7

0D

S 1

556.8

056.5

0-5

7.0

056.9

057.0

024/1

536/1

524/1

5>

60

57.1

057.2

057.3

057.4

057.5

057.6

057.7

057.8

057.9

058.0

058.1

058.2

058.3

058.4

058.5

058.6

058.7

058.8

058.9

059.0

059.1

059.2

059.3

059.4

059.5

059.6

059.7

0D

S 1

659.8

059.5

0-6

0.0

059.9

060.0

0

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

2 Desember 2011 3 Desember 2011 4 Desember 2011

LOG

BO

RE

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

81

01

4.2

32

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

- 2

4

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:4

OF

4

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-0

.85

met

erM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RA

dim

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

28

No

vem

ber

20

11

LOG

GE

D B

YA

dim

96

70

71

8.5

72

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D3

Des

emb

er 2

01

1C

HE

CK

ED

BY

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Lem

pung P

asi

ran C

am

pur

Kulit

Kera

ng,

Abu-a

bu P

uti

h,

Kera

s

Lem

pung P

asi

ran, Abu-a

bu, Padat

dan K

era

s

Lem

pung S

edik

it P

asi

ran, Abu-a

bu A

gak K

unin

g, Padat

dan K

era

s

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

0D

S 1

2.3

02.0

0-2

.55

2.4

02.5

51/1

51/1

51/1

52

2.6

52.7

52.8

52.9

53.0

03.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.4

53.5

53.6

5

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

0U

DS 1

5.3

05.0

0-5

.55

5.4

05.5

50/1

51/1

51/1

52

5.6

55.7

55.8

55.9

56.0

06.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.5

06.6

06.7

06.8

06.9

07.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

0D

S 2

8.3

08.0

0-8

.55

8.4

08.5

54/1

56/1

59/1

515

8.6

58.7

58.8

58.9

59.0

09.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.5

09.6

09.7

09.8

09.9

010.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

0D

S 3

11.3

011.0

0-1

1.5

511.4

011.5

58/1

59/1

512/1

521

11.6

511.7

511.8

511.9

512.0

012.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.5

012.6

012.7

012.8

012.9

013.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

0D

S 4

14.3

014.0

0-1

4.5

514.4

014.5

51/1

51/1

52/1

53

14.6

514.7

514.8

514.9

515.0

03.3

3

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

GRAPHIC LOG

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ESS

TAN

DA

RD

PEN

ETR

ATI

ON

TES

T 60 -

>60

N - Value

40 -

50

10 -

20

º20 -

30

96

70

56

5.7

87

N1

N3

Depth (m)

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

FIEL

D

TES

T

LOC

AT

ION

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

48

08

84

.26

05

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

N2

GEOLOGICAL TERM

0 -

10

-0.7

0 m

Ver

tica

l

Ian

Ru

dia

na

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

30 -

40

SAMPLES

DATE/DEPTH

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

WEATHERING

PR

OJE

CT

50 -

60

:

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

2 D

esem

ber

20

11

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

N -

VA

LUE

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D

eoW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

LOG

BO

RE

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y

DR

-25

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O. LA

BO

RA

TOR

Y T

ESTI

NG

Ian

Ru

dia

na

PA

GE

...

OF

...

7 D

esem

ber

20

11

1 O

F 4

KO

KE

N

DR

ILLE

R

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

2 Desember 2011

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

TY

PE

Gs

Pasi

r H

alu

s sa

mpai dengan S

edang K

unin

g K

eco

kla

tan L

epas

Lanau C

am

pur

Pasi

r Abu-a

bu C

okla

t Sangat

Lunak

Pasi

r H

alu

s Sam

pai dengan S

edik

it L

anauan A

bu-a

bu G

ela

p

Agak K

era

s

Pasi

r H

alu

s Sam

pai dengan S

edik

it L

anauan A

bu-a

bu C

okla

t Agak L

epas

Lem

pung L

anauan P

asi

ran A

bu-a

bu C

okla

t Sangat

Lunak

Pasi

r H

alu

s sa

mpai dengan s

edang A

bu-a

bu G

ela

p L

epas

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.5

03.3

315.1

015.2

015.3

015.4

015.5

015.6

015.7

015.8

015.9

016.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

0D

S 5

17.3

017.0

0-1

7.5

517.4

017.5

51/1

52/1

53/1

55

17.6

517.7

517.8

517.9

518.0

018.1

0

0.1

00.2

018.5

518.6

518.7

518.8

518.9

519.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

0D

S 6

20.3

020.0

0-2

0.5

520.4

020.5

52/1

53/1

53/1

56

20.6

520.7

520.8

520.9

521.0

021.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.5

521.6

521.7

521.8

521.9

522.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

522.6

522.7

522.8

522.9

523.0

023.1

023.2

0D

S 7

23.3

023.0

0-2

3.5

523.4

023.5

52/1

53/1

55/1

58

23.6

523.7

523.8

523.9

524.0

024.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.2

524.3

524.4

524.5

524.6

525.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

525.6

525.7

525.8

525.9

526.0

026.1

026.2

0D

S 8

26.3

026.0

0-2

6.5

026.4

026.5

54/1

56/1

59/1

515

26.6

526.7

526.8

526.9

527.0

027.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.5

527.6

527.7

527.8

527.9

528.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

528.6

528.7

528.8

528.9

529.0

029.1

029.2

0D

S 9

29.3

029.0

0-2

9.5

529.4

029.5

56/1

57/1

59/1

516

29.6

529.7

529.8

529.9

530.0

016.5

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

DR

-25

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:2

OF

4

KO

KE

N

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

R

-0.7

0 m

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

70

56

5.7

87

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D7

Des

emb

er 2

01

1C

HE

CK

ED

BY

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

Ian

Ru

dia

na

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

88

4.2

60

5H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D2

Des

emb

er 2

01

1LO

GG

ED

BY

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

FIEL

D

TES

T

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

50 -

60

60 -

>60

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

N1

N2

(t/m

³)G

seo

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

N3

Pasi

r H

alu

s Sam

pai D

engan S

edang C

am

pur

Lanau A

bu-a

bu

Cokla

t Lu

nak

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

Pasi

r H

alu

s Sam

pai D

engan S

edang L

anauan d

an H

um

us

Abu-

abu K

eco

kla

tan L

unak

Lem

pung P

adat

Lanauan S

edik

it P

asi

ran A

bu-a

bu C

okla

t agak K

era

s

Lem

pung L

anauan S

edik

it P

asi

ran A

bu-a

bu A

gak C

okla

t Kera

s

3 Desember 2011

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

0-3

0.4

016.5

30.1

030.2

030.3

030.4

030.4

030.5

030.6

030.7

030.8

031.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

0D

S 1

032.3

032.0

0-3

2.5

532.4

032.5

58/1

58/1

511/1

519

32.6

532.7

532.8

532.9

533.0

033.1

0

0.1

00.2

033.5

033.6

033.7

033.8

033.9

034.0

034.1

034.2

034.3

034.4

034.5

034.6

034.7

034.8

034.9

035.0

035.1

035.2

0D

S 1

135.3

035.0

0-3

5.5

035.4

035.5

010/1

515/1

518/1

533

35.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

036.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.5

536.6

536.7

536.8

536.9

537.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

0D

S 1

238.3

038.0

0-3

8.5

538.4

038.5

515/1

518/1

522/1

540

38.6

538.7

538.8

538.9

539.0

039.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.5

039.6

039.7

039.8

039.9

040.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

0D

S 1

341.3

041.0

0-4

1.5

041.4

041.5

015/1

519/1

524/1

543

41.6

041.7

041.8

041.9

042.0

042.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

542.6

542.7

542.8

542.9

543.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

543.6

543.7

543.8

543.9

544.0

044.1

044.2

0D

S 1

444.3

044.0

0-4

4.5

044.4

044.5

518/1

525/1

528/1

553

44.6

544.7

544.8

544.9

545.0

054

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-25

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

4

KO

KE

N

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

70

56

5.7

87

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D7

Des

emb

er 2

01

1C

HE

CK

ED

BY

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

-0.7

0 m

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

88

4.2

60

5H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D2

Des

emb

er 2

01

1LO

GG

ED

BY

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

0 -

10

10 -

20

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

SAMPLES

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

eo (t

/m³)

Gs

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

FIEL

D

TES

T

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Lem

pung L

anauan S

edik

it P

asi

ran A

bu-a

bu A

gak K

era

s

Lem

pung P

adat

Abu-a

bu A

gak K

era

s

Lem

pung P

adat

Abu-a

bu M

uda K

era

s

4 Desember 2011 5 Desember 2011

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

45.0

0-4

5.4

054

45.1

045.2

045.3

045.4

045.4

045.5

045.6

045.7

045.8

046.0

046.1

046.2

046.3

046.4

046.5

046.6

046.7

046.8

046.9

047.0

047.1

047.2

0D

S 1

547.3

047.0

0-4

7.5

547.4

047.5

521/1

528/1

531/1

559

47.6

547.7

547.8

547.9

548.0

048.1

0

0.1

00.2

048.5

048.6

048.7

048.8

048.9

049.0

049.1

049.2

049.3

049.4

049.5

049.6

049.7

049.8

049.9

050.0

050.1

050.2

0D

S 1

650.3

050.0

0-5

0.5

050.4

050.5

023/1

530/1

530/1

0>

60

50.6

050.7

050.8

050.9

051.0

051.1

051.2

051.3

051.4

051.5

551.6

551.7

551.8

551.9

552.0

052.1

052.2

052.3

052.4

052.5

052.6

052.7

052.8

052.9

053.0

053.1

053.2

0D

S 1

753.3

053.0

0-5

3.5

053.4

053.5

525/1

532/1

528/9

>60

53.6

553.7

553.8

553.9

554.0

054.1

054.2

054.3

054.4

054.5

054.6

054.7

054.8

054.9

055.0

055.1

055.2

055.3

055.4

055.5

055.6

055.7

055.8

055.9

056.0

056.1

056.2

0D

S 1

856.3

056.0

0-5

6.5

056.4

056.5

024/1

535/1

525/7

>60

56.6

056.7

056.8

056.9

057.0

057.1

057.2

057.3

057.4

057.5

557.6

557.7

557.8

557.9

558.0

058.1

058.2

058.3

058.4

058.5

558.6

558.7

558.8

558.9

559.0

059.1

059.2

0D

S 1

959.3

059.0

0-5

9.5

059.4

059.5

527/1

538/1

522/5

>60

59.6

559.7

559.8

559.9

560.0

0

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-25

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:4

OF

4

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-0

.70

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

70

56

5.7

87

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D7

Des

emb

er 2

01

1C

HE

CK

ED

BY

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

88

4.2

60

5H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D2

Des

emb

er 2

01

1LO

GG

ED

BY

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

(t/m

³)G

seo

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Lem

pung P

adat

Sedik

it P

asi

ran d

an K

ulit

Kera

ng a

bu-a

bu P

uti

h

Sangat

Kera

s

Lem

pung P

adat

Pasi

ran A

bu-a

bu S

angat

Kera

s

EN

D O

F B

OR

ING

Lem

pung P

adat

Sedik

it P

asi

ran A

bu-a

bu S

angat

Kera

s

Lem

pung P

adat

Abu-a

bu M

uda S

angat

Kera

s

5 Desember 2011 6 Desember 2011 7 Desember 2011

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

02.3

02.4

02.5

02.6

02.7

02.8

02.9

03.0

013

3.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.5

03.6

03.7

0

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

05.3

05.4

05.5

05.6

05.7

05.8

05.9

06.0

016

6.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.5

06.6

06.7

06.8

06.9

07.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

08.3

08.4

08.5

08.6

08.7

08.8

08.9

09.0

019

9.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.5

09.6

09.7

09.8

09.9

010.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

011.3

011.4

011.5

011.6

011.7

011.8

011.9

012.0

017

12.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.5

012.6

012.7

012.8

012.9

013.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

014.3

014.4

014.5

014.6

014.7

014.8

014.9

015.0

017

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Pasi

r halu

s hin

gga s

edang a

gak b

erl

anau,

abu-a

bu k

eco

kla

tan

hin

gga c

okla

t keabu-a

buan,

kepadata

n lepas

hin

gga s

edang.

Lanau k

epasi

ran,

abu-a

bu k

eco

kla

tan,

kepadata

n s

edang.

Pasi

r halu

s hin

gga k

asa

r, a

gak b

erl

anau,

abu-a

bu t

era

ng

kehijauan,

kepadata

n s

edang.

GRAPHIC LOG

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

60 -

>60

N1

N3

40 -

50

10 -

20

N - Value

50 -

60

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

N2

GEOLOGICAL TERM

0 -

10

20 -

30

º

DATE/DEPTH

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

Gs

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

48

04

89

.99

60

:H

OLE

FIN

ISH

ED

96

70

11

3.5

07

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

Depth (m)

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

FIEL

D

TES

T

30 -

40

SAMPLES

N -

VA

LUE

WEATHERING

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

AD

IM

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

PA

GE

...

OF

...

- -

PR

OJE

CT

LOC

AT

ION

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

DR

-25

A

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

TY

PE

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

DR

ILLE

R

AD

IM

1 O

F 3

YB

M (

Y5

0-1

)

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

eo (t

/m³)

LOG

BO

RE

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

-6.3

0

Ver

tica

l

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.5

017

15.1

015.2

015.3

015.4

015.5

015.6

015.7

015.8

015.9

016.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

017.3

017.4

017.5

017.6

017.7

017.8

017.9

018.0

025

18.1

018.2

018.3

018.4

018.5

018.6

018.7

018.8

018.9

019.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

020.3

020.4

020.5

020.6

020.7

020.8

020.9

021.0

021

21.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.5

021.6

021.7

021.8

021.9

022.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

022.6

022.7

022.8

022.9

023.0

023.1

023.2

023.3

023.4

023.5

023.6

023.7

023.8

023.9

024.0

023

24.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.5

024.6

024.7

024.8

024.9

025.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

025.6

025.7

025.8

025.9

026.0

026.1

026.2

026.3

026.4

026.5

026.6

026.7

026.8

026.9

027.0

022

27.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.5

027.6

027.7

027.8

027.9

028.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

028.6

028.7

028.8

028.9

029.0

029.1

029.2

029.3

029.4

029.5

029.6

029.7

029.8

029.9

030.0

042

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Pasi

r halu

s hin

gga k

asa

r, b

ebera

pa t

erc

am

pur

dengan k

ela

nauan, kerikil,

abu-

abu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p. Kepadata

n s

edang. M

aksi

mum

dia

mete

r butira

n Ø

=

1 c

m, bula

t.

Pasi

r halu

s hin

gga s

edang, bebera

pa t

erc

am

pur

dengan k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu,

kepadata

n s

edang. Kadang-k

adang m

engandung lanau o

rganik

dan k

ulit

kera

ng.

Lem

pung b

ebera

pa k

ela

nauan,

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu

kehijauan,

kera

s. B

ebera

pa t

erd

iri dari

kulit

kera

ng d

an

sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah.

Buti

ran a

gak g

eta

s dan

rem

ahan.

DR

-25

A

:2

OF

3

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

g-6

.30

YB

M (

Y5

0-1

)

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RA

DIM

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

PA

GE

...

OF

...

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

48

9.9

96

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

Y

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

AD

IM

96

70

11

3.5

07

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T R

L G

RO

UN

D

:

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

eo30 -

40

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

10 -

20

20 -

30

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

FIEL

D

TES

T

(t/m

³)G

sº

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

0 -

10

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

0-3

0.5

042

30.1

030.2

030.3

030.4

030.5

030.6

030.7

030.8

030.9

031.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

032.3

032.4

032.5

032.6

032.7

032.8

032.9

033.0

043

33.1

0

0.1

00.2

034.4

534.5

534.6

534.7

534.8

535.0

035.1

035.2

035.3

035.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

036.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

050

36.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.4

536.5

536.6

536.7

536.8

537.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

038.3

038.4

038.5

538.6

538.7

538.8

538.9

539.0

0>

50

39.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.4

539.5

539.6

539.7

539.8

540.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

041.3

041.4

041.5

041.6

041.7

041.8

041.9

042.0

042.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

542.6

542.7

542.8

542.9

543.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

543.6

543.7

543.8

543.9

544.0

044.1

044.2

044.3

044.4

044.5

544.6

544.7

544.8

544.9

545.0

0

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung b

ebera

pa k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, kera

s.

Bebera

pa t

erd

iri dari k

ulit

kera

ng d

an s

ebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah. Butira

n

agak g

eta

s dan r

em

ahan.

EN

D B

OR

ING

LOG

BO

RE

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

-6.3

0

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

-25

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

3

PR

OJE

CT

M

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EY

BM

(Y

50

-1)

DR

ILLE

RA

DIM

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

48

9.9

96

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

-LO

GG

ED

BY

AD

IM

96

70

11

3.5

07

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T R

L G

RO

UN

D

:

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

WEATHERING

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

eo (t

/m³)

Gs

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º0 -

10

10 -

20

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

20 -

30

30 -

40

DATE/DEPTH

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

02.3

02.4

02.5

02.6

02.7

02.8

02.9

03.0

08

3.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.5

03.6

03.7

0

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

05.3

05.4

05.5

55.6

55.7

55.8

55.9

56.0

012

6.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.5

06.6

06.7

06.8

06.9

07.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

08.3

08.4

08.5

58.6

58.7

58.8

58.9

59.0

012

9.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.5

09.6

09.7

09.8

09.9

010.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

011.3

011.4

011.5

011.6

011.7

011.8

011.9

012.0

015

12.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.5

012.6

012.7

012.8

012.9

013.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

014.3

014.4

014.5

514.6

514.7

514.8

514.9

515.0

026

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O. LA

BO

RA

TOR

Y T

ESTI

NG

Ian

Ru

dia

na

PA

GE

...

OF

...

-

eoW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

TY

PE

Gs

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

1 O

F 7

KO

KE

N

DR

ILLE

R

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

LOG

BO

RE

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y

DR

-26

A

º

-5.5

0 m

Ver

tica

l

Ian

Ru

dia

na

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

PR

OJE

CT

50 -

60

:

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

-

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

N -

VA

LUE

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

LOC

AT

ION

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

30 -

40

96

69

90

5.8

42

N1

N3

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

48

03

09

.72

60

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

N2

GEOLOGICAL TERM

0 -

10

Depth (m)

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

N - Value

40 -

50

10 -

20

20 -

30

Pasi

r (b

uti

ran h

alu

s hin

gga s

edang)

bebera

pa k

ela

nauan,

abu-

abu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

eco

kla

tan.

Kepadata

n lepas

hin

gga

sedang.

Kadang-k

adang m

engandung lanau o

rganik

dan

fragm

enta

si k

ulit

kera

ng d

ala

m u

kura

n b

uti

ran p

asi

r.SAMPLES

DATE/DEPTH

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

WEATHERING

Lem

pung d

an lanau,

abu-a

bu,

pla

stis

itas

tinggi, k

aku h

ingga

sangat

kaku,

dengan lapis

an t

ipis

inte

rkore

lasi

buit

ran p

asi

r halu

s hin

gga s

edang,

bebera

pa k

ela

nauan,

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-

abu k

ehijauan,

kepadata

n s

edang.

GRAPHIC LOG

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ESS

TAN

DA

RD

PEN

ETR

ATI

ON

TES

T 60 -

>60

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.5

026

15.1

00

15.2

015.3

015.4

015.5

015.6

015.7

015.8

015.9

016.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

017.3

017.4

017.5

517.6

517.7

517.8

517.9

518.0

038

18.1

0

0.1

00.2

018.5

518.6

518.7

518.8

518.9

519.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

020.3

020.4

020.5

520.6

520.7

520.8

520.9

521.0

043

21.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.5

521.6

521.7

521.8

521.9

522.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

522.6

522.7

522.8

522.9

523.0

023.1

023.2

023.3

023.4

023.5

523.6

523.7

523.8

523.9

524.0

047

24.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.2

524.3

524.4

524.5

524.6

525.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

525.6

525.7

525.8

525.9

526.0

026.1

026.2

026.3

026.4

026.5

526.6

526.7

526.8

526.9

527.0

042

27.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.5

527.6

527.7

527.8

527.9

528.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

528.6

528.7

528.8

528.9

529.0

029.1

029.2

029.3

029.4

029.5

529.6

529.7

529.8

529.9

530.0

044

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

FIEL

D

TES

T

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

(t/m

³)G

seo

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

30

9.7

26

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

Y

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

DR

-26

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:2

OF

7

KO

KE

N

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

R

-5.5

0 m

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

90

5.8

42

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

Ian

Ru

dia

na

Lem

pung d

an lanau,

abu-a

bu,

pla

stis

itas

tinggi, k

aku h

ingga

sangat

kaku,

dengan lapis

an t

ipis

inte

rkore

lasi

buit

ran p

asi

r halu

s hin

gga s

edang,

bebera

pa k

ela

nauan,

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-

abu k

ehijauan,

kepadata

n s

edang.

Pasi

r (b

uti

ran h

alu

s hin

gga s

edang)

bebera

pa k

ela

nauan,

abu-

abu.

Kepadata

n p

adat.

Kadang-k

adang m

engandung

fragm

enta

si k

ulit

kera

ng d

ala

m u

kura

n b

uti

ran p

asi

r.

Lem

pung b

ebera

pa k

ela

nauan,

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p,

kera

s se

kali,

kadang-k

adang m

engandung g

am

but

dan lanau

org

anik

. Kadang-k

adang m

engandung k

ulit

kera

ng d

engan

ukura

n b

uit

ran p

asi

r dengan lapis

an t

ipis

inte

rkore

lasi

pasi

r halu

s, b

ebera

pa lanau,

keri

kil,

berw

arn

a a

bu-a

bu,

padat.

U

kura

n b

uit

ran d

iam

ete

r, Ø

= 1

cm

berb

entu

k b

ula

t lici

n.

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

50 -

60

60 -

>60

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

N1

N2

N3

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

0-3

0.5

044

30.1

00

30.2

030.3

030.4

030.5

030.6

030.7

030.8

030.9

031.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

032.3

032.4

032.5

032.6

032.7

032.8

032.9

033.0

044

33.1

033.2

033.3

033.4

033.5

033.6

033.7

033.8

033.9

034.0

034.1

034.2

034.3

034.4

034.5

034.6

034.7

034.8

034.9

035.0

035.1

035.2

035.3

035.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

043

36.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.5

036.6

036.7

036.8

036.9

037.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

038.3

038.4

038.5

038.6

038.7

038.8

038.9

039.0

043

39.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.5

039.6

039.7

039.8

039.9

040.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

041.3

041.4

041.5

041.6

041.7

041.8

041.9

042.0

045

42.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

042.6

042.7

042.8

042.9

043.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

043.6

043.7

043.8

043.9

044.0

044.1

044.2

044.3

044.4

044.5

044.6

044.7

044.8

044.9

045.0

043

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung b

ebera

pa k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, kera

s se

kali.

Kadang-k

adang m

engandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

ulit

kera

ng

terf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n

ters

em

enta

si lem

ah d

an a

gak r

apuh. Berc

am

pur

dengan lem

pung k

epasi

ran

hin

gga p

asi

r kele

mpungan (

ukura

n b

utira

n h

alu

s hin

gga k

asa

r) m

engandung

juga b

atu

an k

ora

l dan k

ulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil,

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, berc

ak-b

erc

ak p

utih,

ters

em

enta

si lem

ah, m

udah r

apuh.

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

eo

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

SAMPLES

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

(t/m

³)G

sW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

FIEL

D

TES

T

TY

PE

º

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

20 -

30

30 -

40

0 -

10

10 -

20

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

Ian

Ru

dia

na

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

96

69

90

5.8

42

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

-5.5

0 m

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

30

9.7

26

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

Y

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-26

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

7

KO

KE

N

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

45.0

0-4

5.5

043

45.1

00

45.2

045.3

045.4

045.5

045.6

045.7

045.8

045.9

046.0

046.1

046.2

046.3

046.4

046.5

046.6

046.7

046.8

046.9

047.0

047.1

047.2

047.3

047.4

047.5

047.6

047.7

047.8

047.9

048.0

047

48.1

048.2

048.3

048.4

048.5

048.6

048.7

048.8

048.9

049.0

049.1

049.2

049.3

049.4

049.5

049.6

049.7

049.8

049.9

050.0

050.1

050.2

050.3

050.4

050.5

050.6

050.7

050.8

050.9

051.0

044

51.1

051.2

051.3

051.4

051.5

051.6

051.7

051.8

051.9

052.0

052.1

052.2

052.3

052.4

052.5

052.6

052.7

052.8

052.9

053.0

053.1

053.2

053.3

053.4

053.5

053.6

053.7

053.8

053.9

054.0

0>

50

54.1

054.2

054.3

054.4

054.5

054.6

054.7

054.8

054.9

055.0

055.1

055.2

055.3

055.4

055.5

055.6

055.7

055.8

055.9

056.0

056.1

056.2

056.3

056.4

056.5

056.6

056.7

056.8

056.9

057.0

045

57.1

057.2

057.3

057.4

057.5

057.6

057.7

057.8

057.9

058.0

058.1

058.2

058.3

058.4

058.5

058.6

058.7

058.8

058.9

059.0

059.1

059.2

059.3

059.4

059.5

059.6

059.7

059.8

059.9

060.0

046

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

(t/m

³)G

seo

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

90

5.8

42

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

TC

O-O

RD

INA

TE

S:

48

03

09

.72

60

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

-LO

GG

ED

BY

DR

-26

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:4

OF

7

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

KO

KE

N

Lem

pung b

ebera

pa k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, kera

s se

kali.

Kadang-k

adang m

engandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

ulit

kera

ng

terf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n

ters

em

enta

si lem

ah d

an a

gak r

apuh. Berc

am

pur

dengan lem

pung k

epasi

ran

hin

gga p

asi

r kele

mpungan (

ukura

n b

utira

n h

alu

s hin

gga k

asa

r) m

engandung

juga b

atu

an k

ora

l dan k

ulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil,

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, berc

ak-b

erc

ak p

utih,

ters

em

enta

si lem

ah, m

udah r

apuh.

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-5

.50

m

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

60.0

0-6

0.5

046

60.1

00

60.2

060.3

060.4

060.5

060.6

060.7

060.8

060.9

061.0

061.1

061.2

061.3

061.4

061.5

061.6

061.7

061.8

061.9

062.0

062.1

062.2

062.3

062.4

062.5

062.6

062.7

062.8

062.9

063.0

050

63.1

063.2

063.3

063.4

063.5

063.6

063.7

063.8

063.9

064.0

064.1

064.2

064.3

064.4

064.5

064.6

064.7

064.8

064.9

065.0

065.1

065.2

065.3

065.4

065.5

065.6

065.7

065.8

065.9

066.0

048

66.1

066.2

066.3

066.4

066.5

066.6

066.7

066.8

066.9

067.0

067.1

067.2

067.3

067.4

067.5

067.6

067.7

067.8

067.9

068.0

068.1

068.2

068.3

068.4

068.5

068.6

068.7

068.8

068.9

069.0

050

69.1

069.2

069.3

069.4

069.5

069.6

069.7

069.8

069.9

070.0

070.1

070.2

070.3

070.4

070.5

070.6

070.7

070.8

070.9

071.0

071.1

071.2

071.3

071.4

071.5

071.6

071.7

071.8

071.9

072.0

049

72.1

072.2

072.3

072.4

072.5

072.6

072.7

072.8

072.9

073.0

073.1

073.2

073.3

073.4

073.5

073.6

073.7

073.8

073.9

074.0

074.1

074.2

074.3

074.4

074.5

074.6

074.7

074.8

074.9

075.0

050

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-26

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:5

OF

7

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-5

.50

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

90

5.8

42

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

TC

O-O

RD

INA

TE

S:

48

03

09

.72

60

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

-LO

GG

ED

BY

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

(t/m

³)G

seo

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Lem

pung b

ebera

pa k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, kera

s se

kali.

Kadang-k

adang m

engandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

ulit

kera

ng

terf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n

ters

em

enta

si lem

ah d

an a

gak r

apuh. Berc

am

pur

dengan lem

pung k

epasi

ran

hin

gga p

asi

r kele

mpungan (

ukura

n b

utira

n h

alu

s hin

gga k

asa

r) m

engandung

juga b

atu

an k

ora

l dan k

ulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil,

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, berc

ak-b

erc

ak p

utih,

ters

em

enta

si lem

ah, m

udah r

apuh.

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

75.0

0-7

5.5

050

75.1

00

75.2

075.3

075.4

075.5

075.6

075.7

075.8

075.9

076.0

076.1

076.2

076.3

076.4

076.5

076.6

076.7

076.8

076.9

077.0

077.1

077.2

077.3

077.4

077.5

077.6

077.7

077.8

077.9

078.0

0>

50

78.1

078.2

078.3

078.4

078.5

078.6

078.7

078.8

078.9

079.0

079.1

079.2

079.3

079.4

079.5

079.6

079.7

079.8

079.9

080.0

080.1

080.2

080.3

080.4

080.5

080.6

080.7

080.8

080.9

081.0

0>

50

81.1

081.2

081.3

081.4

081.5

081.6

081.7

081.8

081.9

082.0

082.1

082.2

082.3

082.4

082.5

082.6

082.7

082.8

082.9

083.0

083.1

083.2

083.3

083.4

083.5

083.6

083.7

083.8

083.9

084.0

0>

50

84.1

084.2

084.3

084.4

084.5

084.6

084.7

084.8

084.9

085.0

085.1

085.2

085.3

085.4

085.5

085.6

085.7

085.8

085.9

086.0

086.1

086.2

086.3

086.4

086.5

086.6

086.7

086.8

086.9

087.0

0>

50

87.1

087.2

087.3

087.4

087.5

087.6

087.7

087.8

087.9

088.0

088.1

088.2

088.3

088.4

088.5

088.6

088.7

088.8

088.9

089.0

089.1

089.2

089.3

089.4

089.5

089.6

089.7

089.8

089.9

090.0

060

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-26

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:6

OF

7

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-5

.50

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

90

5.8

42

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

TC

O-O

RD

INA

TE

S:

48

03

09

.72

60

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

-LO

GG

ED

BY

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

(t/m

³)G

seo

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Lem

pung b

ebera

pa k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, kera

s se

kali.

Kadang-k

adang m

engandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

ulit

kera

ng

terf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n

ters

em

enta

si lem

ah d

an a

gak r

apuh. Berc

am

pur

dengan lem

pung k

epasi

ran

hin

gga p

asi

r kele

mpungan (

ukura

n b

utira

n h

alu

s hin

gga k

asa

r) m

engandung

juga b

atu

an k

ora

l dan k

ulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil,

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, berc

ak-b

erc

ak p

utih,

ters

em

enta

si lem

ah, m

udah r

apuh.

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

90.0

0-9

0.5

0>

50

90.1

00

90.2

090.3

090.4

090.5

090.6

090.7

090.8

090.9

091.0

091.1

091.2

091.3

091.4

091.5

091.6

091.7

091.8

091.9

092.0

092.1

092.2

092.3

092.4

092.5

092.6

092.7

092.8

092.9

093.0

050

93.1

093.2

093.3

093.4

093.5

093.6

093.7

093.8

093.9

094.0

094.1

094.2

094.3

094.4

094.5

094.6

094.7

094.8

094.9

095.0

095.1

095.2

095.3

095.4

095.5

095.6

095.7

095.8

095.9

096.0

0>

50

96.1

096.2

096.3

096.4

096.5

096.6

096.7

096.8

096.9

097.0

097.1

097.2

097.3

097.4

097.5

097.6

097.7

097.8

097.9

098.0

0>

50

98.1

098.2

098.3

098.4

098.5

098.6

098.7

098.8

098.9

099.0

099.1

099.2

099.3

099.4

099.5

0>

50

99.6

099.7

099.8

099.9

0100.0

0100.1

0100.2

0100.3

0100.4

0100.5

0100.6

0100.7

0100.8

0100.9

0101.0

0101.1

0101.2

0101.3

0101.4

0101.5

0101.6

0101.7

0101.8

0101.9

0102.0

0102.1

0102.2

0102.3

0102.4

0102.5

0102.6

0102.7

0102.8

0102.9

0103.0

0103.1

0103.2

0103.3

0103.4

0103.5

0103.6

0103.7

0103.8

0103.9

0104.0

0104.1

0104.2

0104.3

0104.4

0104.5

0104.6

0104.7

0104.8

0104.9

0105.0

0

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

DR

-26

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:7

OF

7

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-5

.50

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

30

9.7

26

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

Y

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

90

5.8

42

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

(t/m

³)G

seo

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

TY

PE

º

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

Lem

pung b

ebera

pa k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, kera

s se

kali.

Kadang-k

adang m

engandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

ulit

kera

ng

terf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n

ters

em

enta

si lem

ah d

an a

gak r

apuh.

EN

D O

F B

OR

ING

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

02.3

02.4

02.5

02.6

02.7

02.8

02.9

03.0

013

3.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.5

03.6

03.7

0

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

05.3

05.4

05.5

55.6

55.7

55.8

55.9

56.0

015

6.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.5

06.6

06.7

06.8

06.9

07.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

08.3

08.4

08.5

58.6

58.7

58.8

58.9

59.0

015

9.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.5

09.6

09.7

09.8

09.9

010.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

011.3

011.4

011.5

011.6

011.7

011.8

011.9

012.0

017

12.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.5

012.6

012.7

012.8

012.9

013.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

014.3

014.4

014.5

514.6

514.7

514.8

514.9

515.0

019

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

48

01

45

.77

80

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

N2

GEOLOGICAL TERM

0 -

10

Depth (m)

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

FIEL

D

TES

T

GRAPHIC LOG

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ESS

TAN

DA

RD

PEN

ETR

ATI

ON

TES

T 60 -

>60

PR

OJE

CT

50 -

60

:

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

-

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

N -

VA

LUE

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

LOC

AT

ION

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

30 -

40

96

69

71

7.2

21

N1

N3

-4.5

0 m

Ver

tica

l

Ian

Ru

dia

na

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

N - Value

40 -

50

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

(t/m

³)

Pasi

r (h

alu

s hin

gga s

edang)

agak b

erl

anau,

cokla

t te

rang,

kepadata

n lepas

hin

gga s

edang.

Bebera

pa t

em

pat

mengandung

lanau o

rganik

dan k

ulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n

pasi

r.

Pasi

r (h

alu

s hin

gga s

edang)

agak b

erl

anau,

abu-a

bu h

ingga

abu-a

bu k

eco

kla

tan,

kepadata

n s

edang.

Bebera

pa t

em

pat

mengandung k

ulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n p

asi

r.

10 -

20

º20 -

30

SAMPLES

DATE/DEPTH

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

WEATHERING

1 O

F 7

KO

KE

N

DR

ILLE

R

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

TY

PE

Gs

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

LOG

BO

RE

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y

DR

-27

AD

RIL

L H

OLE

NO

. LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Ian

Ru

dia

na

PA

GE

...

OF

...

-

eo0

2040

6080

100

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.5

019

15.1

00

15.2

015.3

015.4

015.5

015.6

015.7

015.8

015.9

016.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

017.3

017.4

017.5

517.6

517.7

517.8

517.9

518.0

023

18.1

0

0.1

00.2

018.5

518.6

518.7

518.8

518.9

519.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

020.3

020.4

020.5

520.6

520.7

520.8

520.9

521.0

022

21.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.5

521.6

521.7

521.8

521.9

522.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

522.6

522.7

522.8

522.9

523.0

023.1

023.2

023.3

023.4

023.5

523.6

523.7

523.8

523.9

524.0

023

24.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.2

524.3

524.4

524.5

524.6

525.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

525.6

525.7

525.8

525.9

526.0

026.1

026.2

026.3

026.4

026.5

526.6

526.7

526.8

526.9

527.0

028

27.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.5

527.6

527.7

527.8

527.9

528.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

528.6

528.7

528.8

528.9

529.0

029.1

029.2

029.3

029.4

029.5

529.6

529.7

529.8

529.9

530.0

030

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Ian

Ru

dia

na

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

71

7.2

21

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

-4.5

0 m

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O. LA

BO

RA

TOR

Y T

ESTI

NG

Depth (m)

DR

-27

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:2

OF

7

KO

KE

N

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

Ver

tica

lD

RIL

LER

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

N1

N2

N3

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

14

5.7

78

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

Y

50 -

60

60 -

>60

WEATHERING

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

(t/m

³)

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

FIEL

D

TES

T

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º

DATE/DEPTH

Pasi

r (h

alu

s hin

gga s

edang)

agak b

erl

anau,

abu-a

bu h

ingga

abu-a

bu k

eco

kla

tan,

kepadata

n s

edang.

Bebera

pa t

em

pat

mengandung k

ulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n p

asi

r.

Pasi

r kela

nauan (

halu

s hin

gga k

asa

r),

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu

kehijauan,

kepadata

n s

edang.

Berc

am

pur

dengan k

ulit

kera

ng

dala

m u

kura

n b

uti

ran p

asi

r.

Lem

pung a

gak k

ela

nauan,

abu-a

bu,

sangat

kera

s hin

gga k

era

s se

kali.

Kadang-k

adang b

erc

am

pur

kulit

kera

ng d

ala

m f

ragm

en-

fragm

en u

kura

n b

uti

ran p

asi

r. S

ebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah.

Rapuh h

ingga m

udah g

eta

s.

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

0-3

0.5

030

30.1

00

30.2

030.3

030.4

030.5

030.6

030.7

030.8

030.9

031.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

032.3

032.4

032.5

032.6

032.7

032.8

032.9

033.0

044

33.1

033.2

033.3

033.4

033.5

033.6

033.7

033.8

033.9

034.0

034.1

034.2

034.3

034.4

034.5

034.6

034.7

034.8

034.9

035.0

035.1

035.2

035.3

035.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

045

36.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.5

036.6

036.7

036.8

036.9

037.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

038.3

038.4

038.5

038.6

038.7

038.8

038.9

039.0

044

39.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.5

039.6

039.7

039.8

039.9

040.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

041.3

041.4

041.5

041.6

041.7

041.8

041.9

042.0

045

42.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

042.6

042.7

042.8

042.9

043.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

043.6

043.7

043.8

043.9

044.0

044.1

044.2

044.3

044.4

044.5

044.6

044.7

044.8

044.9

045.0

046

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-27

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

7

-4.5

0 m

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

KO

KE

N

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

14

5.7

78

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

71

7.2

21

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

SAMPLES

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

0 -

10

10 -

20

Gs

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

FIEL

D

TES

T

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

eo (t

/m³)

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Lem

pung k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p, kera

s se

kali.

Kadang-

kadang b

erc

am

pur

batu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

ulit

kera

ng d

ala

m fra

gm

en-f

ragm

en

ukura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah. Rapuh

hin

gga m

udah g

eta

s. I

nte

rkore

lasi

dengan lem

pung k

epasi

ran h

ingga p

asi

r kele

mpungan (

halu

s hin

gga k

asa

r), te

rdiri ata

s ca

mpura

n b

atu

an k

ora

l dan

kulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil,

warn

a

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, bin

tik-b

intik p

utih. Ters

em

enta

si lem

ah,

cepat

rapuh.

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

45.0

0-4

5.5

046

45.1

00

45.2

045.3

045.4

045.5

045.6

045.7

045.8

045.9

046.0

046.1

046.2

046.3

046.4

046.5

046.6

046.7

046.8

046.9

047.0

047.1

047.2

047.3

047.4

047.5

047.6

047.7

047.8

047.9

048.0

047

48.1

048.2

048.3

048.4

048.5

048.6

048.7

048.8

048.9

049.0

049.1

049.2

049.3

049.4

049.5

049.6

049.7

049.8

049.9

050.0

050.1

050.2

050.3

050.4

050.5

050.6

050.7

050.8

050.9

051.0

047

51.1

051.2

051.3

051.4

051.5

051.6

051.7

051.8

051.9

052.0

052.1

052.2

052.3

052.4

052.5

052.6

052.7

052.8

052.9

053.0

053.1

053.2

053.3

053.4

053.5

053.6

053.7

053.8

053.9

054.0

048

54.1

054.2

054.3

054.4

054.5

054.6

054.7

054.8

054.9

055.0

055.1

055.2

055.3

055.4

055.5

055.6

055.7

055.8

055.9

056.0

056.1

056.2

056.3

056.4

056.5

056.6

056.7

056.8

056.9

057.0

046

57.1

057.2

057.3

057.4

057.5

057.6

057.7

057.8

057.9

058.0

058.1

058.2

058.3

058.4

058.5

058.6

058.7

058.8

058.9

059.0

059.1

059.2

059.3

059.4

059.5

059.6

059.7

059.8

059.9

060.0

047

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-4

.50

m

DR

-27

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:4

OF

7

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

KO

KE

N

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

71

7.2

21

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

14

5.7

78

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

Y

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

Lem

pung k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p, kera

s se

kali.

Kadang-

kadang b

erc

am

pur

batu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

ulit

kera

ng d

ala

m fra

gm

en-f

ragm

en

ukura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah. Rapuh

hin

gga m

udah g

eta

s. I

nte

rkore

lasi

dengan lem

pung k

epasi

ran h

ingga p

asi

r kele

mpungan (

halu

s hin

gga k

asa

r), te

rdiri ata

s ca

mpura

n b

atu

an k

ora

l dan

kulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil,

warn

a

abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, bin

tik-b

intik p

utih. Ters

em

enta

si lem

ah,

cepat

rapuh.

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

(t/m

³)0

2040

6080

100

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

60.0

0-6

0.5

047

60.1

00

60.2

060.3

060.4

060.5

060.6

060.7

060.8

060.9

061.0

061.1

061.2

061.3

061.4

061.5

061.6

061.7

061.8

061.9

062.0

062.1

062.2

062.3

062.4

062.5

062.6

062.7

062.8

062.9

063.0

048

63.1

063.2

063.3

063.4

063.5

063.6

063.7

063.8

063.9

064.0

064.1

064.2

064.3

064.4

064.5

064.6

064.7

064.8

064.9

065.0

065.1

065.2

065.3

065.4

065.5

065.6

065.7

065.8

065.9

066.0

048

66.1

066.2

066.3

066.4

066.5

066.6

066.7

066.8

066.9

067.0

067.1

067.2

067.3

067.4

067.5

067.6

067.7

067.8

067.9

068.0

068.1

068.2

068.3

068.4

068.5

068.6

068.7

068.8

068.9

069.0

049

69.1

069.2

069.3

069.4

069.5

069.6

069.7

069.8

069.9

070.0

070.1

070.2

070.3

070.4

070.5

070.6

070.7

070.8

070.9

071.0

071.1

071.2

071.3

071.4

071.5

071.6

071.7

071.8

071.9

072.0

049

72.1

072.2

072.3

072.4

072.5

072.6

072.7

072.8

072.9

073.0

073.1

073.2

073.3

073.4

073.5

073.6

073.7

073.8

073.9

074.0

074.1

074.2

074.3

074.4

074.5

074.6

074.7

074.8

074.9

075.0

048

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung s

edik

it k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p. Bebera

pa

berc

am

pur

dengan b

atu

an k

ora

l dan k

ulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m

ukura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah. Rapuh

hin

gga m

udah g

eta

s. I

nte

rkore

lasi

lem

pung p

asi

ran h

ingga p

asi

r kele

mpungan

(halu

s hin

gga k

asa

r), berc

am

pur

dengan b

atu

an k

ora

l dan k

ulit

kera

ng

terf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Warn

a a

bu-a

bu

hin

gga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, berb

intik p

utih. Ters

em

enta

si lem

ah d

an m

udah

rapuh.

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

14

5.7

78

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

71

7.2

21

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-27

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:5

OF

7

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-4

.50

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

75.0

0-7

5.5

048

75.1

00

75.2

075.3

075.4

075.5

075.6

075.7

075.8

075.9

076.0

076.1

076.2

076.3

076.4

076.5

076.6

076.7

076.8

076.9

077.0

077.1

077.2

077.3

077.4

077.5

077.6

077.7

077.8

077.9

078.0

050

78.1

078.2

078.3

078.4

078.5

078.6

078.7

078.8

078.9

079.0

079.1

079.2

079.3

079.4

079.5

079.6

079.7

079.8

079.9

080.0

080.1

080.2

080.3

080.4

080.5

080.6

080.7

080.8

080.9

081.0

049

81.1

081.2

081.3

081.4

081.5

081.6

081.7

081.8

081.9

082.0

082.1

082.2

082.3

082.4

082.5

082.6

082.7

082.8

082.9

083.0

083.1

083.2

083.3

083.4

083.5

083.6

083.7

083.8

083.9

084.0

050

84.1

084.2

084.3

084.4

084.5

084.6

084.7

084.8

084.9

085.0

085.1

085.2

085.3

085.4

085.5

085.6

085.7

085.8

085.9

086.0

086.1

086.2

086.3

086.4

086.5

086.6

086.7

086.8

086.9

087.0

050

87.1

087.2

087.3

087.4

087.5

087.6

087.7

087.8

087.9

088.0

088.1

088.2

088.3

088.4

088.5

088.6

088.7

088.8

088.9

089.0

089.1

089.2

089.3

089.4

089.5

089.6

089.7

089.8

089.9

090.0

060

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung s

edik

it k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p. Bebera

pa

berc

am

pur

dengan b

atu

an k

ora

l dan k

ulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m

ukura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah. Rapuh

hin

gga m

udah g

eta

s. I

nte

rkore

lasi

lem

pung p

asi

ran h

ingga p

asi

r kele

mpungan

(halu

s hin

gga k

asa

r), berc

am

pur

dengan b

atu

an k

ora

l dan k

ulit

kera

ng

terf

ragm

enta

si d

ala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Warn

a a

bu-a

bu

hin

gga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, berb

intik p

utih. Ters

em

enta

si lem

ah d

an m

udah

rapuh.

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

14

5.7

78

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

71

7.2

21

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-27

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:6

OF

7

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-4

.50

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

90.0

0-9

0.5

0>

50

90.1

00

90.2

090.3

090.4

090.5

090.6

090.7

090.8

090.9

091.0

091.1

091.2

091.3

091.4

091.5

091.6

091.7

091.8

091.9

092.0

092.1

092.2

092.3

092.4

092.5

092.6

092.7

092.8

092.9

093.0

0>

50

93.1

093.2

093.3

093.4

093.5

093.6

093.7

093.8

093.9

094.0

094.1

094.2

094.3

094.4

094.5

094.6

094.7

094.8

094.9

095.0

095.1

095.2

095.3

095.4

095.5

095.6

095.7

095.8

095.9

096.0

0>

50

96.1

096.2

096.3

096.4

096.5

096.6

096.7

096.8

096.9

097.0

097.1

097.2

097.3

097.4

097.5

097.6

097.7

097.8

097.9

098.0

098.1

098.2

098.3

098.4

098.5

098.6

098.7

098.8

098.9

099.0

0>

50

99.1

099.2

099.3

099.4

099.5

099.6

099.7

099.8

099.9

0100.0

0100.1

0100.2

0100.3

0100.4

0100.5

0100.6

0100.7

0100.8

0100.9

0101.0

0101.1

0101.2

0101.3

0101.4

0101.5

0101.6

0101.7

0101.8

0101.9

0102.0

0102.1

0102.2

0102.3

0102.4

0102.5

0102.6

0102.7

0102.8

0102.9

0103.0

0103.1

0103.2

0103.3

0103.4

0103.5

0103.6

0103.7

0103.8

0103.9

0104.0

0104.1

0104.2

0104.3

0104.4

0104.5

0104.6

0104.7

0104.8

0104.9

0105.0

050

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung s

edik

it k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p, kera

s se

kali.

Bebera

pa b

erc

am

pur

dengan b

atu

an k

ora

l dan k

ulit

kera

ng t

erf

ragm

enta

si

dala

m u

kura

n b

utira

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah.

Rapuh h

ingga m

udah g

eta

s.

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

-LO

GG

ED

BY

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

71

7.2

21

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

EN

D O

F B

OR

ING

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-27

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:7

OF

7

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-4

.50

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

80

14

5.7

78

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

0U

DS 1

2.3

02.0

0-2

.50

2.4

02.5

02.6

02.7

02.8

02.9

03.0

01

3.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.5

03.6

03.7

0

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

0U

DS 2

5.3

05.0

0-5

.50

5.4

05.5

55.6

55.7

55.8

55.9

56.0

02

6.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.5

06.6

06.7

06.8

06.9

07.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

0U

DS 3

8.3

08.0

0-8

.50

8.4

08.5

58.6

58.7

58.8

58.9

59.0

04

9.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.5

09.6

09.7

09.8

09.9

010.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

0U

DS 4

11.3

011.0

0-1

1.5

011.4

011.5

011.6

011.7

011.8

011.9

012.0

05

12.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.5

012.6

012.7

012.8

012.9

013.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

014.3

014.4

014.5

514.6

514.7

514.8

514.9

515.0

020

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lanau s

edik

it k

ele

mpungan,

mengandung g

am

but

dan s

isa-s

isa

tum

buhan,

abu-a

bu k

eco

kla

tan h

ingga c

okla

t keabu-a

buan

berc

ora

k k

ehit

am

an,

pla

stis

itas

tinggi, s

angat

lunak.

Lem

pung k

ela

nauan,

abu-a

bu k

eco

kla

tan h

ingga a

bu-a

bu

gela

p,

pla

stis

itas

tinggi, s

angat

lunak,

kandungan lokaln

ya

terd

apat

lanau o

rganik

Lem

pung k

ela

nauan,

abu-a

bu k

eco

kla

tan h

ingga a

bu-a

bu

gela

p,

pla

stis

itas

tinggi, lunak h

ingga s

edang,

kandungan

lokaln

ya t

erd

apat

sedik

it p

asi

r berb

uti

r halu

s dan lanau o

rganik

Pasi

r kela

nuan (

berb

uti

r halu

s) a

bu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p,

kepadata

n s

edang,

kandungan lokaln

ya lanau o

rganik

-1.3

0 m

Ver

tica

l

Ian

Ru

dia

na

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

47

98

17

.93

90

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

N2

GEOLOGICAL TERM

0 -

10

Depth (m)

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

FIEL

D

TES

T

PR

OJE

CT

50 -

60

:

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

-

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

N -

VA

LUE

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D

LOC

AT

ION

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

30 -

40

96

69

33

9.5

85

N1

N3

GRAPHIC LOG

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ESS

TAN

DA

RD

PEN

ETR

ATI

ON

TES

T 60 -

>60

N - Value

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

(t/m

³)40 -

50

10 -

20

º20 -

30

SAMPLES

DATE/DEPTH

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

WEATHERING

1 O

F 7

KO

KE

N

DR

ILLE

R

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

TY

PE

Gs

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

LOG

BO

RE

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y

DR

-28

AD

RIL

L H

OLE

NO

. LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Ian

Ru

dia

na

PA

GE

...

OF

...

-

eo0

2040

6080

100

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.5

020

15.1

00

15.2

015.3

015.4

015.5

015.6

015.7

015.8

015.9

016.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

0U

DS 5

17.3

017.0

0-1

7.5

017.4

017.5

517.6

517.7

517.8

517.9

518.0

023

18.1

0

0.1

00.2

018.5

518.6

518.7

518.8

518.9

519.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

0D

S 1

20.3

020.0

0-2

0.5

020.4

020.5

520.6

520.7

520.8

520.9

521.0

027

21.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.5

521.6

521.7

521.8

521.9

522.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

522.6

522.7

522.8

522.9

523.0

023.1

023.2

023.3

023.4

023.5

523.6

523.7

523.8

523.9

524.0

035

24.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.2

524.3

524.4

524.5

524.6

525.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

525.6

525.7

525.8

525.9

526.0

026.1

026.2

026.3

026.4

026.5

526.6

526.7

526.8

526.9

527.0

040

27.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.5

527.6

527.7

527.8

527.9

528.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

528.6

528.7

528.8

528.9

529.0

029.1

029.2

029.3

029.4

029.5

529.6

529.7

529.8

529.9

530.0

043

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lanau s

edik

it p

asi

ran,

abu-a

bu k

ehijauan,

kera

s

Pasi

r kela

nauan (

berb

uti

r halu

s sa

mpai se

dang)

abu-a

bu t

era

ng

hin

gga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p,

kepadata

n s

edang

Pasi

r berb

uti

r halu

s hin

gga k

asa

r, s

edik

it k

ela

nauan,

abu-a

bu

hin

gga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p,

sangat

padat

Lem

pung s

edik

it k

ela

nauan,

abu-a

bu,

kera

s se

kali.

Sedik

it

mengandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an c

angkang d

ari

ukura

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

eri

kil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah.

Sifat

tanah

mudah r

apuh h

ingga m

udah p

ata

h

-1.3

0 m

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

-

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

N1

N2

N3

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

WEATHERING

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O. LA

BO

RA

TOR

Y T

ESTI

NG

Depth (m)

DR

-28

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:2

OF

7

KO

KE

N

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Ian

Ru

dia

na

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

81

7.9

39

0LO

GG

ED

BY

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

33

9.5

85

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

Ver

tica

lD

RIL

LER

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

(t/m

³)W

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

FIEL

D

TES

T

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º

DATE/DEPTH

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

0-3

0.5

043

30.1

00

30.2

030.3

030.4

030.5

030.6

030.7

030.8

030.9

031.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

032.3

032.4

032.5

032.6

032.7

032.8

032.9

033.0

045

33.1

033.2

033.3

033.4

033.5

033.6

033.7

033.8

033.9

034.0

034.1

034.2

034.3

034.4

034.5

034.6

034.7

034.8

034.9

035.0

035.1

035.2

035.3

035.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

050

36.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.5

036.6

036.7

036.8

036.9

037.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

038.3

038.4

038.5

038.6

038.7

038.8

038.9

039.0

048

39.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.5

039.6

039.7

039.8

039.9

040.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

041.3

041.4

041.5

041.6

041.7

041.8

041.9

042.0

047

42.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

042.6

042.7

042.8

042.9

043.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

043.6

043.7

043.8

043.9

044.0

044.1

044.2

044.3

044.4

044.5

044.6

044.7

044.8

044.9

045.0

047

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-28

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

7

-1.3

0 m

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

KO

KE

N

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

81

7.9

39

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

33

9.5

85

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

SAMPLES

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

0 -

10

10 -

20

Gs

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

FIEL

D

TES

T

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

eo (t

/m³)

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Lem

pung s

edik

it k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p, kera

s se

kali.

Sedik

it m

engandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an c

angkang d

ari u

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga

kerikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah. Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh h

ingga m

udah

pata

h.

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

45.0

0-4

5.5

047

45.1

00

45.2

045.3

045.4

045.5

045.6

045.7

045.8

045.9

046.0

046.1

046.2

046.3

046.4

046.5

046.6

046.7

046.8

046.9

047.0

047.1

047.2

047.3

047.4

047.5

047.6

047.7

047.8

047.9

048.0

049

48.1

048.2

048.3

048.4

048.5

048.6

048.7

048.8

048.9

049.0

049.1

049.2

049.3

049.4

049.5

049.6

049.7

049.8

049.9

050.0

050.1

050.2

050.3

050.4

050.5

050.6

050.7

050.8

050.9

051.0

048

51.1

051.2

051.3

051.4

051.5

051.6

051.7

051.8

051.9

052.0

052.1

052.2

052.3

052.4

052.5

052.6

052.7

052.8

052.9

053.0

053.1

053.2

053.3

053.4

053.5

053.6

053.7

053.8

053.9

054.0

042

54.1

054.2

054.3

054.4

054.5

054.6

054.7

054.8

054.9

055.0

055.1

055.2

055.3

055.4

055.5

055.6

055.7

055.8

055.9

056.0

056.1

056.2

056.3

056.4

056.5

056.6

056.7

056.8

056.9

057.0

043

57.1

057.2

057.3

057.4

057.5

057.6

057.7

057.8

057.9

058.0

058.1

058.2

058.3

058.4

058.5

058.6

058.7

058.8

058.9

059.0

059.1

059.2

059.3

059.4

059.5

059.6

059.7

059.8

059.9

060.0

037

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-1

.30

m

DR

-28

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:4

OF

7

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

KO

KE

N

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

81

7.9

39

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

33

9.5

85

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

Lem

pung s

edik

it k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p, kera

s se

kali.

Sedik

it m

engandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an c

angkang d

ari u

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga

kerikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah. Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh h

ingga m

udah

pata

h.

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

(t/m

³)0

2040

6080

100

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

60.0

0-6

0.5

037

60.1

00

60.2

060.3

060.4

060.5

060.6

060.7

060.8

060.9

061.0

061.1

061.2

061.3

061.4

061.5

061.6

061.7

061.8

061.9

062.0

062.1

062.2

062.3

062.4

062.5

062.6

062.7

062.8

062.9

063.0

044

63.1

063.2

063.3

063.4

063.5

063.6

063.7

063.8

063.9

064.0

064.1

064.2

064.3

064.4

064.5

064.6

064.7

064.8

064.9

065.0

065.1

065.2

065.3

065.4

065.5

065.6

065.7

065.8

065.9

066.0

048

66.1

066.2

066.3

066.4

066.5

066.6

066.7

066.8

066.9

067.0

067.1

067.2

067.3

067.4

067.5

067.6

067.7

067.8

067.9

068.0

068.1

068.2

068.3

068.4

068.5

068.6

068.7

068.8

068.9

069.0

045

69.1

069.2

069.3

069.4

069.5

069.6

069.7

069.8

069.9

070.0

070.1

070.2

070.3

070.4

070.5

070.6

070.7

070.8

070.9

071.0

071.1

071.2

071.3

071.4

071.5

071.6

071.7

071.8

071.9

072.0

049

72.1

072.2

072.3

072.4

072.5

072.6

072.7

072.8

072.9

073.0

073.1

073.2

073.3

073.4

073.5

073.6

073.7

073.8

073.9

074.0

074.1

074.2

074.3

074.4

074.5

074.6

074.7

074.8

074.9

075.0

060

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung s

edik

it k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p, kera

s se

kali.

Sedik

it m

engandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an c

angkang d

ari u

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga

kerikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah. Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh h

ingga m

udah

pata

h. In

terk

ore

lasi

dengan lem

pung k

epasi

ran h

ingga p

asi

r kela

nauan

(ukura

n p

asi

r halu

s) d

engan c

am

pura

n p

eca

han c

angkang d

an b

atu

an k

ara

ng

dari u

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga u

kura

n k

erikil.

Warn

a a

bu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu

kehijauan, berb

intik-b

intik p

utih, m

ate

rial se

bagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si d

an a

gak

rapuh.

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

81

7.9

39

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

33

9.5

85

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-28

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:5

OF

7

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-1

.30

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

75.0

0-7

5.5

0>

50

75.1

00

75.2

075.3

075.4

075.5

075.6

075.7

075.8

075.9

076.0

076.1

076.2

076.3

076.4

076.5

076.6

076.7

076.8

076.9

077.0

077.1

077.2

077.3

077.4

077.5

077.6

077.7

077.8

077.9

078.0

050

78.1

078.2

078.3

078.4

078.5

078.6

078.7

078.8

078.9

079.0

079.1

079.2

079.3

079.4

079.5

079.6

079.7

079.8

079.9

080.0

080.1

080.2

080.3

080.4

080.5

080.6

080.7

080.8

080.9

081.0

049

81.1

081.2

081.3

081.4

081.5

081.6

081.7

081.8

081.9

082.0

082.1

082.2

082.3

082.4

082.5

082.6

082.7

082.8

082.9

083.0

083.1

083.2

083.3

083.4

083.5

083.6

083.7

083.8

083.9

084.0

048

84.1

084.2

084.3

084.4

084.5

084.6

084.7

084.8

084.9

085.0

085.1

085.2

085.3

085.4

085.5

085.6

085.7

085.8

085.9

086.0

086.1

086.2

086.3

086.4

086.5

086.6

086.7

086.8

086.9

087.0

049

87.1

087.2

087.3

087.4

087.5

087.6

087.7

087.8

087.9

088.0

088.1

088.2

088.3

088.4

088.5

088.6

088.7

088.8

088.9

089.0

089.1

089.2

089.3

089.4

089.5

089.6

089.7

089.8

089.9

090.0

049

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung s

edik

it k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p, kera

s se

kali.

Sedik

it m

engandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an c

angkang d

ari u

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga

kerikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah. Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh h

ingga m

udah

pata

h. In

terk

ore

lasi

dengan lem

pung k

epasi

ran h

ingga p

asi

r kela

nauan

(ukura

n p

asi

r halu

s) d

engan c

am

pura

n p

eca

han c

angkang d

an b

atu

an k

ara

ng

dari u

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga u

kura

n k

erikil.

Warn

a a

bu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu

kehijauan, berb

intik-b

intik p

utih, m

ate

rial se

bagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si d

an a

gak

rapuh.

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

81

7.9

39

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

33

9.5

85

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-28

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:6

OF

7

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-1

.30

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

90.0

0-9

0.5

049

90.1

00

90.2

090.3

090.4

090.5

090.6

090.7

090.8

090.9

091.0

091.1

091.2

091.3

091.4

091.5

091.6

091.7

091.8

091.9

092.0

092.1

092.2

092.3

092.4

092.5

092.6

092.7

092.8

092.9

093.0

050

93.1

093.2

093.3

093.4

093.5

093.6

093.7

093.8

093.9

094.0

094.1

094.2

094.3

094.4

094.5

094.6

094.7

094.8

094.9

095.0

095.1

095.2

095.3

095.4

095.5

095.6

095.7

095.8

095.9

096.0

050

96.1

096.2

096.3

096.4

096.5

096.6

096.7

096.8

096.9

097.0

097.1

097.2

097.3

097.4

097.5

097.6

097.7

097.8

097.9

098.0

098.1

098.2

098.3

098.4

098.5

098.6

098.7

098.8

098.9

099.0

050

99.1

099.2

099.3

099.4

099.5

099.6

099.7

099.8

099.9

0100.0

0100.1

0100.2

0100.3

0100.4

0100.5

0100.6

0100.7

0100.8

0100.9

0101.0

0101.1

0101.2

0101.3

0101.4

0101.5

0101.6

0101.7

0101.8

0101.9

0102.0

0102.1

0102.2

0102.3

0102.4

0102.5

0102.6

0102.7

0102.8

0102.9

0103.0

0103.1

0103.2

0103.3

0103.4

0103.5

0103.6

0103.7

0103.8

0103.9

0104.0

0104.1

0104.2

0104.3

0104.4

0104.5

0104.6

0104.7

0104.8

0104.9

0105.0

050

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung s

edik

it k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu g

ela

p, kera

s se

kali.

Sedik

it m

engandung b

atu

an k

ara

ng d

an c

angkang d

ari u

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga

kerikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si lem

ah. Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh h

ingga m

udah

pata

h.

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

-LO

GG

ED

BY

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

33

9.5

85

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

EN

D O

F B

OR

ING

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-28

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:7

OF

7

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-1

.30

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

81

7.9

39

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

0U

DS 1

2.3

02.0

0-2

.50

2.4

02.5

02.6

02.7

02.8

02.9

03.0

01

3.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.5

03.6

03.7

0

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

0U

DS 2

5.3

05.0

0-5

.50

5.4

05.5

55.6

55.7

55.8

55.9

56.0

01

6.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.5

06.6

06.7

06.8

06.9

07.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

08.3

08.4

08.5

58.6

58.7

58.8

58.9

59.0

05

9.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.5

09.6

09.7

09.8

09.9

010.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

011.3

011.4

011.5

011.6

011.7

011.8

011.9

012.0

04

12.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.5

012.6

012.7

012.8

012.9

013.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

014.3

014.4

014.5

514.6

514.7

514.8

514.9

515.0

011

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

WEATHERING

60 -

>60

- Ver

tica

l

Ian

Ru

dia

na

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

47

96

56

.13

60

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

N2

GEOLOGICAL TERM

0 -

10

Depth (m)

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

FIEL

D

TES

T

PR

OJE

CT

50 -

60

:

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

-

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

N -

VA

LUE

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D

LOC

AT

ION

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

30 -

40

96

69

14

9.0

97

N1

N3

GRAPHIC LOG

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ESS

TAN

DA

RD

PEN

ETR

ATI

ON

TES

T

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

(t/m

³)

Lanau a

gak k

ele

mpungan,

berc

am

pur

dengan a

kar-

akara

n d

an

gam

but,

cokla

t m

uda h

ingga c

okla

t kekunin

gan,

pla

stis

itas

tinggi, s

angat

lunak

Pasi

r halu

s agak b

erl

anau,

cokla

t keabu-a

buan,

berc

am

pur

dengan lanau o

rganik

, sa

ngat

lepas

Pasi

r halu

s agak b

erl

anau,

cokla

t tu

a,

berc

am

pur

dengan lanau

org

anik

, sa

ngat

lepas

hin

gga lepas

N - Value

40 -

50

10 -

20

º20 -

30

SAMPLES

DATE/DEPTH

Pasi

r halu

s agak b

erl

anau,

cokla

t keabu-a

buan h

ingga c

okla

t tu

a,

kepadata

n s

edang,

berc

am

pur

dengan lanau o

rganik

1 O

F 7

KO

KE

N

DR

ILLE

R

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

TY

PE

Gs

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

LOG

BO

RE

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y

DR

-29

AD

RIL

L H

OLE

NO

. LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Ian

Ru

dia

na

PA

GE

...

OF

...

-

eo0

2040

6080

100

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.5

011

15.1

00

15.2

015.3

015.4

015.5

015.6

015.7

015.8

015.9

016.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

017.3

017.4

017.5

517.6

517.7

517.8

517.9

518.0

011

18.1

0

0.1

00.2

018.5

518.6

518.7

518.8

518.9

519.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

020.3

020.4

020.5

520.6

520.7

520.8

520.9

521.0

017

21.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.5

521.6

521.7

521.8

521.9

522.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

522.6

522.7

522.8

522.9

523.0

023.1

023.2

023.3

023.4

023.5

523.6

523.7

523.8

523.9

524.0

026

24.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.2

524.3

524.4

524.5

524.6

525.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

525.6

525.7

525.8

525.9

526.0

026.1

026.2

026.3

026.4

026.5

526.6

526.7

526.8

526.9

527.0

046

27.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.5

527.6

527.7

527.8

527.9

528.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

528.6

528.7

528.8

528.9

529.0

029.1

029.2

029.3

029.4

029.5

529.6

529.7

529.8

529.9

530.0

045

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

-

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

-

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

N1

N2

N3

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

65

6.1

36

0

WEATHERING

Pasi

r halu

s agak b

erl

anau,

cokla

t keabu-a

buan h

ingga c

okla

t tu

a,

kepadata

n s

edang,

berc

am

pur

dengan lanau o

rganik

Lanau k

epasi

ran,

abu-a

bu k

ekunin

gan h

ingga a

bu-a

bu

kehijauan,

sedang h

ingga k

era

s

Pasi

r halu

s hin

gga k

asa

r, a

gak b

erl

anau,

abu-a

bu k

ekunin

gan,

kepadata

n s

edang,

berc

am

pur

batu

an k

ara

ng d

ari

ukura

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

eri

kil

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O. LA

BO

RA

TOR

Y T

ESTI

NG

Depth (m)

DR

-29

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:2

OF

7

KO

KE

N

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Ian

Ru

dia

na

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

g

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

14

9.0

97

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

Ver

tica

lD

RIL

LER

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

(t/m

³)W

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

FIEL

D

TES

T

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º

DATE/DEPTH

Pasi

r halu

s hin

gga s

edang,

agak b

erl

anau,

abu-a

bu k

eco

kla

tan,

kepadata

n s

edang

Pasi

r halu

s hin

gga k

asa

r, a

gak b

erl

anau,

abu-a

bu,

padat

Lem

pung a

gak b

erl

anau,

abu-a

bu,

kera

s se

kali,

kadang

berc

am

pur

batu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

era

ng,

dari

ukura

n p

asi

r hin

gga

keri

kil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si.

Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh

hin

gga m

udah p

ata

h

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

0-3

0.5

045

30.1

00

30.2

030.3

030.4

030.5

030.6

030.7

030.8

030.9

031.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

032.3

032.4

032.5

032.6

032.7

032.8

032.9

033.0

029

33.1

033.2

033.3

033.4

033.5

033.6

033.7

033.8

033.9

034.0

034.1

034.2

034.3

034.4

034.5

034.6

034.7

034.8

034.9

035.0

035.1

035.2

035.3

035.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

035

36.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.5

036.6

036.7

036.8

036.9

037.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

038.3

038.4

038.5

038.6

038.7

038.8

038.9

039.0

030

39.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.5

039.6

039.7

039.8

039.9

040.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

041.3

041.4

041.5

041.6

041.7

041.8

041.9

042.0

034

42.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

042.6

042.7

042.8

042.9

043.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

043.6

043.7

043.8

043.9

044.0

044.1

044.2

044.3

044.4

044.5

044.6

044.7

044.8

044.9

045.0

040

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-29

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

7

-M

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EK

OK

EN

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

65

6.1

36

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

14

9.0

97

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

SAMPLES

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

0 -

10

10 -

20

Gs

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

FIEL

D

TES

T

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

eo (t

/m³)

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Lem

pung a

gak b

erlanau, abu-a

bu, kera

s se

kali,

kadang b

erc

am

pur

batu

an

kara

ng d

an k

era

ng, dari u

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si.

Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh h

ingga m

udah p

ata

h

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

45.0

0-4

5.5

040

45.1

00

45.2

045.3

045.4

045.5

045.6

045.7

045.8

045.9

046.0

046.1

046.2

046.3

046.4

046.5

046.6

046.7

046.8

046.9

047.0

047.1

047.2

047.3

047.4

047.5

047.6

047.7

047.8

047.9

048.0

049

48.1

048.2

048.3

048.4

048.5

048.6

048.7

048.8

048.9

049.0

049.1

049.2

049.3

049.4

049.5

049.6

049.7

049.8

049.9

050.0

050.1

050.2

050.3

050.4

050.5

050.6

050.7

050.8

050.9

051.0

050

51.1

051.2

051.3

051.4

051.5

051.6

051.7

051.8

051.9

052.0

052.1

052.2

052.3

052.4

052.5

052.6

052.7

052.8

052.9

053.0

053.1

053.2

053.3

053.4

053.5

053.6

053.7

053.8

053.9

054.0

048

54.1

054.2

054.3

054.4

054.5

054.6

054.7

054.8

054.9

055.0

055.1

055.2

055.3

055.4

055.5

055.6

055.7

055.8

055.9

056.0

056.1

056.2

056.3

056.4

056.5

056.6

056.7

056.8

056.9

057.0

050

57.1

057.2

057.3

057.4

057.5

057.6

057.7

057.8

057.9

058.0

058.1

058.2

058.3

058.4

058.5

058.6

058.7

058.8

058.9

059.0

059.1

059.2

059.3

059.4

059.5

059.6

059.7

059.8

059.9

060.0

060

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-

DR

-29

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:4

OF

7

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

KO

KE

N

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

65

6.1

36

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

14

9.0

97

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

Lem

pung a

gak b

erlanau, abu-a

bu, kera

s se

kali,

kadang b

erc

am

pur

batu

an

kara

ng d

an k

era

ng, dari u

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Sebagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si.

Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh h

ingga m

udah p

ata

h

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

(t/m

³)0

2040

6080

100

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

60.0

0-6

0.5

0>

50

60.1

00

60.2

060.3

060.4

060.5

060.6

060.7

060.8

060.9

061.0

061.1

061.2

061.3

061.4

061.5

061.6

061.7

061.8

061.9

062.0

062.1

062.2

062.3

062.4

062.5

062.6

062.7

062.8

062.9

063.0

0>

50

63.1

063.2

063.3

063.4

063.5

063.6

063.7

063.8

063.9

064.0

064.1

064.2

064.3

064.4

064.5

064.6

064.7

064.8

064.9

065.0

065.1

065.2

065.3

065.4

065.5

065.6

065.7

065.8

065.9

066.0

0>

50

66.1

066.2

066.3

066.4

066.5

066.6

066.7

066.8

066.9

067.0

067.1

067.2

067.3

067.4

067.5

067.6

067.7

067.8

067.9

068.0

068.1

068.2

068.3

068.4

068.5

068.6

068.7

068.8

068.9

069.0

0>

50

69.1

069.2

069.3

069.4

069.5

069.6

069.7

069.8

069.9

070.0

070.1

070.2

070.3

070.4

070.5

070.6

070.7

070.8

070.9

071.0

071.1

071.2

071.3

071.4

071.5

071.6

071.7

071.8

071.9

072.0

0>

50

72.1

072.2

072.3

072.4

072.5

072.6

072.7

072.8

072.9

073.0

073.1

073.2

073.3

073.4

073.5

073.6

073.7

073.8

073.9

074.0

074.1

074.2

074.3

074.4

074.5

074.6

074.7

074.8

074.9

075.0

047

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung a

gak k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, kera

s se

kali.

Kadang b

erc

am

pur

batu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

era

ng, fr

agm

en ini beru

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Agak t

ers

em

enta

si s

ebagia

n. Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh h

ingga

mudah p

ata

h. In

terk

ore

lasi

dengan lem

pung k

epasi

ran (

pasi

r halu

s) d

engan

cam

pura

n p

eca

han k

era

ng d

an b

atu

an k

ara

ng. W

arn

a a

bu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-

abu k

ehijauan, berb

intik-b

intik p

utih, m

ate

rial se

bagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si d

an

agak r

apuh.

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

65

6.1

36

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

14

9.0

97

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-29

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:5

OF

7

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

KO

KE

N

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

75.0

0-7

5.5

047

75.1

00

75.2

075.3

075.4

075.5

075.6

075.7

075.8

075.9

076.0

076.1

076.2

076.3

076.4

076.5

076.6

076.7

076.8

076.9

077.0

077.1

077.2

077.3

077.4

077.5

077.6

077.7

077.8

077.9

078.0

047

78.1

078.2

078.3

078.4

078.5

078.6

078.7

078.8

078.9

079.0

079.1

079.2

079.3

079.4

079.5

079.6

079.7

079.8

079.9

080.0

080.1

080.2

080.3

080.4

080.5

080.6

080.7

080.8

080.9

081.0

048

81.1

081.2

081.3

081.4

081.5

081.6

081.7

081.8

081.9

082.0

082.1

082.2

082.3

082.4

082.5

082.6

082.7

082.8

082.9

083.0

083.1

083.2

083.3

083.4

083.5

083.6

083.7

083.8

083.9

084.0

0>

50

84.1

084.2

084.3

084.4

084.5

084.6

084.7

084.8

084.9

085.0

085.1

085.2

085.3

085.4

085.5

085.6

085.7

085.8

085.9

086.0

086.1

086.2

086.3

086.4

086.5

086.6

086.7

086.8

086.9

087.0

0>

50

87.1

087.2

087.3

087.4

087.5

087.6

087.7

087.8

087.9

088.0

088.1

088.2

088.3

088.4

088.5

088.6

088.7

088.8

088.9

089.0

089.1

089.2

089.3

089.4

089.5

089.6

089.7

089.8

089.9

090.0

0>

50

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung a

gak k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, kera

s se

kali.

Kadang b

erc

am

pur

batu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

era

ng, fr

agm

en ini beru

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Agak t

ers

em

enta

si s

ebagia

n. Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh h

ingga

mudah p

ata

h. In

terk

ore

lasi

dengan lem

pung k

epasi

ran (

pasi

r halu

s) d

engan

cam

pura

n p

eca

han k

era

ng d

an b

atu

an k

ara

ng. W

arn

a a

bu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-

abu k

ehijauan, berb

intik-b

intik p

utih, m

ate

rial se

bagia

n t

ers

em

enta

si d

an

agak r

apuh.

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

65

6.1

36

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

YIa

n R

ud

ian

a

96

69

14

9.0

97

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-29

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:6

OF

7

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

KO

KE

N

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

90.0

0-9

0.5

050

90.1

00

90.2

090.3

090.4

090.5

090.6

090.7

090.8

090.9

091.0

091.1

091.2

091.3

091.4

091.5

091.6

091.7

091.8

091.9

092.0

092.1

092.2

092.3

092.4

092.5

092.6

092.7

092.8

092.9

093.0

050

93.1

093.2

093.3

093.4

093.5

093.6

093.7

093.8

093.9

094.0

094.1

094.2

094.3

094.4

094.5

094.6

094.7

094.8

094.9

095.0

095.1

095.2

095.3

095.4

095.5

095.6

095.7

095.8

095.9

096.0

050

96.1

096.2

096.3

096.4

096.5

096.6

096.7

096.8

096.9

097.0

097.1

097.2

097.3

097.4

097.5

097.6

097.7

097.8

097.9

098.0

050

98.1

098.2

098.3

098.4

098.5

098.6

098.7

098.8

098.9

099.0

099.1

099.2

099.3

099.4

099.5

0>

50

99.6

099.7

099.8

099.9

0100.0

0100.1

0100.2

0100.3

0100.4

0100.5

0100.6

0100.7

0100.8

0100.9

0101.0

0101.1

0101.2

0101.3

0101.4

0101.5

0101.6

0101.7

0101.8

0101.9

0102.0

0102.1

0102.2

0102.3

0102.4

0102.5

0102.6

0102.7

0102.8

0102.9

0103.0

0103.1

0103.2

0103.3

0103.4

0103.5

0103.6

0103.7

0103.8

0103.9

0104.0

0104.1

0104.2

0104.3

0104.4

0104.5

0104.6

0104.7

0104.8

0104.9

0105.0

050

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung a

gak k

ela

nauan, abu-a

bu h

ingga a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan, kera

s se

kali.

Kadang b

erc

am

pur

batu

an k

ara

ng d

an k

era

ng, fr

agm

en ini beru

kura

n p

asi

r hin

gga k

erikil.

Agak t

ers

em

enta

si s

ebagia

n. Sifat

tanah m

udah r

apuh h

ingga

mudah p

ata

h.

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T (t

/m³)

Gs

eo0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

-LO

GG

ED

BY

Ian

Ru

dia

na

96

69

14

9.0

97

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

EN

D O

F B

OR

ING

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-29

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:7

OF

7

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

KO

KE

N

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RIa

n R

ud

ian

a

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

65

6.1

36

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

0U

DS 1

2.3

02.0

0-2

.50

2.4

02.5

02.6

02.7

02.8

02.9

03.0

03

3.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.5

03.6

03.7

0

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

0U

DS 2

5.3

05.0

0-5

.50

5.4

05.5

05.6

05.7

05.8

05.9

06.0

02

6.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.5

06.6

06.7

06.8

06.9

07.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

0U

DS 3

8.3

08.0

0-8

.50

8.4

08.5

08.6

08.7

08.8

08.9

09.0

02

9.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.5

09.6

09.7

09.8

09.9

010.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

0U

DS 4

11.3

011.0

0-1

1.5

011.4

011.5

011.6

011.7

011.8

011.9

012.0

01

12.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.5

012.6

012.7

012.8

012.9

013.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

0U

DS 5

14.3

014.0

0-1

4.5

014.4

014.5

014.6

014.7

014.8

014.9

015.0

03

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Endapan g

am

but

org

anik

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu d

an k

unin

g k

eco

kla

tan

Lem

pung c

okla

t dan a

bu-a

bu a

da k

ayu-k

ayu b

usu

k

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu t

ua k

ehit

am

an

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu k

ehit

am

an a

da k

ayu-k

ayu b

usu

k

Endapan b

atu

bara

sangat

lunak s

ekali w

arn

a h

itam

GRAPHIC LOG

DEPTH RL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

60 -

>60

N1

N3

40 -

50

10 -

20

N - Value

50 -

60

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

N2

GEOLOGICAL TERM

20 -

30

º

WEATHERING

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

DATE/DEPTH

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

Gs

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

0 -

10

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

Depth (m)

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

FIEL

D

TES

T

30 -

40

SAMPLES

N -

VA

LUE

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

47

95

42

.71

30

PR

OJE

CT

LOC

AT

ION

DR

ILLE

R

AD

IM

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

DR

-30

:H

OLE

FIN

ISH

ED

96

69

01

9.7

66

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

TY

PE

eo (t

/m³)

1 O

F 3

YB

M (

Y5

0-1

)

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

LOG

BO

RE

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y

AD

IM

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

PA

GE

...

OF

...

-

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

-0.5

0 m

Ver

tica

l

-

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu d

an k

unin

g

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.5

03

15.1

015.2

015.3

015.4

015.5

015.6

015.7

015.8

015.9

016.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

0U

DS 6

17.3

017.0

0-1

7.5

017.4

017.5

017.6

017.7

017.8

017.9

018.0

03

18.1

018.2

018.3

018.4

018.5

018.6

018.7

018.8

018.9

019.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

0U

DS 7

20.3

020.0

0-2

0.5

020.4

020.5

020.6

020.7

020.8

020.9

021.0

08

21.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.5

021.6

021.7

021.8

021.9

022.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

022.6

022.7

022.8

022.9

023.0

023.1

023.2

0U

DS 8

23.3

023.0

0-2

3.5

023.4

023.5

023.6

023.7

023.8

023.9

024.0

07

24.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.5

024.6

024.7

024.8

024.9

025.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

025.6

025.7

025.8

025.9

026.0

026.1

026.2

0U

DS 9

26.3

026.0

0-2

6.5

026.4

026.5

026.6

026.7

026.8

026.9

027.0

08

27.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.5

027.6

027.7

027.8

027.9

028.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

028.6

028.7

028.8

028.9

029.0

029.1

029.2

0U

DS 1

029.3

029.0

0-2

9.5

029.4

029.5

029.6

029.7

029.8

029.9

030.0

013

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

DR

-30

:2

OF

3

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

g-0

.50

mY

BM

(Y

50

-1)

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RA

DIM

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

PA

GE

...

OF

...

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

54

2.7

13

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

Y

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

AD

IM

96

69

01

9.7

66

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T R

L G

RO

UN

D

:

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

eo30 -

40

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

10 -

20

20 -

30

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

FIEL

D

TES

T

(t/m

³)G

sº

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

0 -

10

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu d

an k

unin

g

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu t

ua a

da s

isip

an t

anah o

rganik

warn

a h

itam

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu t

ua p

asi

ran

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu t

ua a

da s

isip

an t

anah o

rganik

warn

a h

itam

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

0-3

0.5

013

30.1

030.2

030.3

030.4

030.5

030.6

030.7

030.8

030.9

031.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

032.3

032.4

032.5

032.6

032.7

032.8

032.9

033.0

046

33.1

0

0.1

00.2

034.4

534.5

534.6

534.7

534.8

535.0

035.1

035.2

035.3

035.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

036.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

047

36.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.4

536.5

536.6

536.7

536.8

537.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

038.3

038.4

038.5

538.6

538.7

538.8

538.9

539.0

042

39.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.4

539.5

539.6

539.7

539.8

540.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

041.3

041.4

041.5

041.6

041.7

041.8

041.9

042.0

042.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

542.6

542.7

542.8

542.9

543.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

543.6

543.7

543.8

543.9

544.0

044.1

044.2

044.3

044.4

044.5

544.6

544.7

544.8

544.9

545.0

0

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

EN

D B

OR

ING

LOG

BO

RE

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

-0.5

0 m

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

-30

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

3

PR

OJE

CT

M

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EY

BM

(Y

50

-1)

DR

ILLE

RA

DIM

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

54

2.7

13

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

-LO

GG

ED

BY

AD

IM

96

69

01

9.7

66

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T R

L G

RO

UN

D

:

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ESS

TREN

GTH

TES

TA

TER

BER

G

LIM

ITS

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

eo (t

/m³)

Gs

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º0 -

10

10 -

20

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

WEATHERING

FIEL

D

TES

T

20 -

30

30 -

40

DATE/DEPTH

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu t

ua a

da p

eca

h-p

eca

h

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu s

angat

padat

dan lengket

N - Value

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

0U

DS 1

2.3

02.0

0-2

.50

2.4

02.5

02.6

02.7

02.8

02.9

03.0

03

3.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.5

03.6

03.7

0

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

0U

DS 2

5.3

05.0

0-5

.50

5.4

05.5

05.6

05.7

05.8

05.9

06.0

02

6.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.5

06.6

06.7

06.8

06.9

07.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

0U

DS 3

8.3

08.0

0-8

.50

8.4

08.5

08.6

08.7

08.8

08.9

09.0

06

9.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.5

09.6

09.7

09.8

09.9

010.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

0U

DS 4

11.3

011.0

0-1

1.5

011.4

011.5

011.6

011.7

011.8

011.9

012.0

08

12.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.5

012.6

012.7

012.8

012.9

013.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

0U

DS 5

14.3

014.0

0-1

4.5

014.4

014.5

014.6

014.7

014.8

014.9

015.0

09

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung w

arn

a m

era

h,

dan k

unin

g,

ada s

edik

it a

bu-a

bu

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu m

uda

Pasi

r halu

s le

mpungan w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu t

ua

Gam

but

org

anik

berw

arn

a h

ijau

Lem

pung k

unin

g k

eabu-a

buan

Tanah o

rganik

warn

a h

itam

GRAPHIC LOG

DEPTH RL

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

GEOLOGICAL TERM

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu

SP

T V

ALU

ES

60 -

>60

N1

N3

40 -

50

10 -

20

N - Value

50 -

60

N2

20 -

30

º

DATE/DEPTH

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

Gs

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

47

92

26

.16

60

:H

OLE

FIN

ISH

ED

96

68

56

5.8

80

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

WEATHERING

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

0 -

10

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

DR

-31

Depth (m)

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

FIEL

D

TES

T

30 -

40

SAMPLES

N -

VA

LUE

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

AD

IM

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

PA

GE

...

OF

...

- -

PR

OJE

CT

LOC

AT

ION

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

TY

PE

eo (t

/m³)

DR

ILLE

R

AD

IM

1 O

F 3

YB

M (

Y5

0-1

)

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

LOG

BO

RE

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

-0.1

0 m

Ver

tica

l

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.5

09

15.1

015.2

015.3

015.4

015.5

015.6

015.7

015.8

015.9

016.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

0U

DS 6

17.3

017.0

0-1

7.5

017.4

017.5

017.6

017.7

017.8

017.9

018.0

013

18.1

018.2

018.3

018.4

018.5

018.6

018.7

018.8

018.9

019.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

020.3

020.4

020.5

020.6

020.7

020.8

020.9

021.0

015

21.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.5

021.6

021.7

021.8

021.9

022.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

022.6

022.7

022.8

022.9

023.0

023.1

023.2

023.3

023.4

023.5

023.6

023.7

023.8

023.9

024.0

015

24.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.5

024.6

024.7

024.8

024.9

025.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

025.6

025.7

025.8

025.9

026.0

026.1

026.2

026.3

026.4

026.5

026.6

026.7

026.8

026.9

027.0

019

27.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.5

027.6

027.7

027.8

027.9

028.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

028.6

028.7

028.8

028.9

029.0

029.1

029.2

029.3

029.4

029.5

029.6

029.7

029.8

029.9

030.0

032

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Pasi

r berb

utir

sedang w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan

DR

-31

:2

OF

3

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

g

Pasi

r halu

s le

mpungan w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu t

ua

Pasi

r halu

s le

mpungan w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu a

gak k

unin

g

Pasi

r halu

s le

mpungan w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu

-0.1

0 m

YB

M (

Y5

0-1

)

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RA

DIM

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

PA

GE

...

OF

...

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

22

6.1

66

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

Y

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

AD

IM

96

68

56

5.8

80

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T R

L G

RO

UN

D

:

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

eo30 -

40

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

10 -

20

20 -

30

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

FIEL

D

TES

T

(t/m

³)G

sº

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

0 -

10

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

0-3

0.5

032

30.1

030.2

030.3

030.4

030.5

030.6

030.7

030.8

030.9

031.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

032.3

032.4

032.5

032.6

032.7

032.8

032.9

033.0

034

33.1

0

0.1

00.2

034.4

534.5

534.6

534.7

534.8

535.0

035.1

035.2

035.3

035.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

036.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

027

36.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.4

536.5

536.6

536.7

536.8

537.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

038.3

038.4

038.5

538.6

538.7

538.8

538.9

539.0

037

39.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.4

539.5

539.6

539.7

539.8

540.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

041.3

041.4

041.5

041.6

041.7

041.8

041.9

042.0

042.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

542.6

542.7

542.8

542.9

543.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

543.6

543.7

543.8

543.9

544.0

044.1

044.2

044.3

044.4

044.5

544.6

544.7

544.8

544.9

545.0

0

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

EN

D B

OR

ING

LOG

BO

RE

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

-0.1

0 m

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

R

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

DR

-31

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

3

PR

OJE

CT

M

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EY

BM

(Y

50

-1)

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

AD

IM

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

22

6.1

66

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

-LO

GG

ED

BY

AD

IM

96

68

56

5.8

80

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

eo (t

/m³)

Gs

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º0 -

10

10 -

20

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

WEATHERING

20 -

30

30 -

40

DATE/DEPTH

Pasi

r berb

utir

sedang w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu k

ehijauan

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu s

angat

lengket

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

0.0

00.1

00

0.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

01.1

01.2

01.3

01.4

01.5

01.6

01.7

01.8

01.9

02.0

02.1

02.2

0U

DS 1

2.3

02.0

0-2

.50

2.4

02.5

02.6

02.7

02.8

02.9

03.0

00

3.1

03.2

03.3

03.4

03.5

03.6

03.7

0

0.1

04.0

04.1

04.2

04.3

04.4

04.5

04.6

04.7

04.8

04.9

05.0

05.1

05.2

0U

DS 2

5.3

05.0

0-5

.50

5.4

05.5

05.6

05.7

05.8

05.9

06.0

02

6.1

06.2

06.3

06.4

06.5

06.6

06.7

06.8

06.9

07.0

07.1

07.2

07.3

07.4

07.5

07.6

07.7

07.8

07.9

08.0

08.1

08.2

0U

DS 3

8.3

08.0

0-8

.50

8.4

08.5

08.6

08.7

08.8

08.9

09.0

05

9.1

09.2

09.3

09.4

09.5

09.6

09.7

09.8

09.9

010.0

010.1

010.2

010.3

010.4

010.5

010.6

010.7

010.8

010.9

011.0

011.1

011.2

0U

DS 4

11.3

011.0

0-1

1.5

011.4

011.5

011.6

011.7

011.8

011.9

012.0

03

12.1

012.2

012.3

012.4

012.5

012.6

012.7

012.8

012.9

013.0

013.1

013.2

013.3

013.4

013.5

013.6

013.7

013.8

013.9

014.0

014.1

014.2

0U

DS 5

14.3

014.0

0-1

4.5

014.4

014.5

014.6

014.7

014.8

014.9

015.0

04

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu t

ua

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu d

an k

unin

g

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu

Pasi

r halu

s le

mpungan w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu

LOG

BO

RE

:

LOG

GE

D B

Y

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

-0.1

0 m

Ver

tica

lD

RIL

LER

AD

IM

1 O

F 4

YB

M (

Y5

0-1

)

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

eo (t

/m³)

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

IND

EK

PR

OP

ERTI

ES

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

S

TY

PE

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

AD

IM

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

PA

GE

...

OF

...

- -

PR

OJE

CT

LOC

AT

ION

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

DR

-31

A

Depth (m)

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

FIEL

D

TES

T

30 -

40

SAMPLES

N -

VA

LUE

WEATHERING

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

N

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

0 -

10

Gs

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

47

91

62

.16

00

:H

OLE

FIN

ISH

ED

96

68

37

7.7

61

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

SP

T V

ALU

ES

60 -

>60

N1

20 -

30

º

DATE/DEPTH

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

N3

40 -

50

10 -

20

N - Value

50 -

60

N2

GRAPHIC LOG

DEPTH RL

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

GEOLOGICAL TERM

Endapan G

am

but

Org

anik

Lem

pung a

bu-a

bu d

an k

unin

g

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

15.0

0-1

5.5

04

15.1

015.2

015.3

015.4

015.5

015.6

015.7

015.8

015.9

016.0

016.1

016.2

016.3

016.4

016.5

016.6

016.7

016.8

016.9

017.0

017.1

017.2

0U

DS 6

17.3

017.0

0-1

7.5

017.4

017.5

017.6

017.7

017.8

017.9

018.0

06

18.1

018.2

018.3

018.4

018.5

018.6

018.7

018.8

018.9

019.0

019.1

019.2

019.3

019.4

019.5

019.6

019.7

019.8

019.9

020.0

020.1

020.2

0U

DS 7

20.3

020.0

0-2

0.5

020.4

020.5

020.6

020.7

020.8

020.9

021.0

06

21.1

021.2

021.3

021.4

021.5

021.6

021.7

021.8

021.9

022.0

022.1

022.2

022.3

022.4

022.5

022.6

022.7

022.8

022.9

023.0

023.1

023.2

0U

DS 8

23.3

023.0

0-2

3.5

023.4

023.5

023.6

023.7

023.8

023.9

024.0

07

24.1

024.2

024.3

024.4

024.5

024.6

024.7

024.8

024.9

025.0

025.1

025.2

025.3

025.4

025.5

025.6

025.7

025.8

025.9

026.0

026.1

026.2

026.3

026.4

026.5

026.6

026.7

026.8

026.9

027.0

026

27.1

027.2

027.3

027.4

027.5

027.6

027.7

027.8

027.9

028.0

028.1

028.2

028.3

028.4

028.5

028.6

028.7

028.8

028.9

029.0

029.1

029.2

029.3

029.4

029.5

029.6

029.7

029.8

029.9

030.0

025

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu

Pasi

r halu

s le

mpungan w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu a

da s

isip

an p

ela

pukan s

epert

i batu

kara

ng, kapur

warn

a p

utih

º

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

FIEL

D

TES

T

(t/m

³)G

seo

30 -

40

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

AD

IM

96

68

37

7.7

61

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

T R

L G

RO

UN

D

:

MA

CH

INE

TY

PE

PA

GE

...

OF

...

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

16

2.1

60

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

Y

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RA

DIM

DR

-31

A

:2

OF

4

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

g

Pasi

r halu

s le

mpungan w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu t

ua

-0.1

0 m

YB

M (

Y5

0-1

)

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

30.0

0-3

0.5

025

30.1

030.2

030.3

030.4

030.5

030.6

030.7

030.8

030.9

031.0

031.1

031.2

031.3

031.4

031.5

031.6

031.7

031.8

031.9

032.0

032.1

032.2

032.3

032.4

032.5

032.6

032.7

032.8

032.9

033.0

027

33.1

0

0.1

00.2

034.4

534.5

534.6

534.7

534.8

535.0

035.1

035.2

035.3

035.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

036.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

035.5

035.6

035.7

035.8

035.9

036.0

032

36.1

036.2

036.3

036.4

036.4

536.5

536.6

536.7

536.8

537.0

037.1

037.2

037.3

037.4

037.5

037.6

037.7

037.8

037.9

038.0

038.1

038.2

038.3

038.4

038.5

538.6

538.7

538.8

538.9

539.0

030

39.1

039.2

039.3

039.4

039.4

539.5

539.6

539.7

539.8

540.0

040.1

040.2

040.3

040.4

040.5

040.6

040.7

040.8

040.9

041.0

041.1

041.2

041.3

041.4

041.5

041.6

041.7

041.8

041.9

042.0

050

42.1

042.2

042.3

042.4

042.5

542.6

542.7

542.8

542.9

543.0

043.1

043.2

043.3

043.4

043.5

543.6

543.7

543.8

543.9

544.0

044.1

044.2

044.3

044.4

044.5

544.6

544.7

544.8

544.9

545.0

046

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Pela

pukan p

asi

r w

arn

a p

utih a

gak b

erb

utir

kasa

r

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu s

angat

padat

dan k

era

s

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu a

da s

isip

an p

ela

pukan s

epert

i batu

kara

ng, kapur

warn

a p

utih

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

WEATHERING

20 -

30

30 -

40

DATE/DEPTH

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

º0 -

10

10 -

20

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

eo (t

/m³)

Gs

Ir.

Iska

nd

ar,.

MT

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

AD

IM

CO

-OR

DIN

AT

ES

:4

79

16

2.1

60

HO

LE S

TA

RT

ED

-LO

GG

ED

BY

AD

IM

96

68

37

7.7

61

DR

-31

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:3

OF

4

PR

OJE

CT

M

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EY

BM

(Y

50

-1)

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

R

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

LOG

BO

RE

Jem

bat

an M

usi

III

Pal

emb

ang

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

-0.1

0 m

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

:

::

:

::

:

X:

::

Y:

::

C

qu

(kg

/cm

²)(k

g/c

m²)

45.0

0-4

5.5

046

45.1

045.2

045.3

045.4

045.5

045.6

045.7

045.8

045.9

046.0

046.1

046.2

046.3

046.4

046.5

046.6

046.7

046.8

046.9

047.0

047.1

047.2

047.3

047.4

047.5

047.6

047.7

047.8

047.9

048.0

045

48.1

048.2

048.3

048.4

048.5

048.6

048.7

048.8

048.9

049.0

049.1

049.2

049.3

049.4

049.5

049.6

049.7

049.8

049.9

050.0

050.1

050.2

050.3

050.4

050.5

050

50.6

050.7

050.8

050.9

051.0

051.1

051.2

051.3

051.4

051.5

051.6

051.7

051.8

051.9

052.0

052.1

052.2

052.3

052.4

052.5

052.6

052.7

052.8

052.9

053.0

053.1

053.2

053.3

053.4

053.5

053.6

053.7

053.8

053.9

054.0

054.1

054.2

054.3

054.4

054.5

054.6

054.7

054.8

054.9

055.0

055.1

055.2

055.3

055.4

055.5

055.6

055.7

055.8

055.9

056.0

056.1

056.2

056.3

056.4

056.5

056.6

056.7

056.8

056.9

057.0

057.1

057.2

057.3

057.4

057.5

057.6

057.7

057.8

057.9

058.0

058.1

058.2

058.3

058.4

058.5

058.6

058.7

058.8

058.9

059.0

059.1

059.2

059.3

059.4

059.5

059.6

059.7

059.8

059.9

060.0

0

NO

TE :

UU

=

U

ncon

solid

ated

Und

rain

ed=

Plas

tic Li

mit (

PL), %

CU

=

C

onso

lidat

ion

Und

rain

ed=

Liquid

Limi

t (LL

), %C

D

=

Con

solid

ated

Dra

ined

=Pl

astic

lnde

x (P

I), %

SPT

=

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

test

(blo

ws /

ft)=

Bulk

dens

ity,t/m

³qu

=

U

ncon

fined

com

pres

sion

stre

ngth

, kg/

cm²

Gs

=Sp

ecific

grafi

tyc

= C

ohes

ion

inte

rcep

t, kg

/cm

²eo

=Vo

id Ra

tioº

=

Int

erna

l fric

tion

angl

e, d

eg

Lem

pung w

arn

a a

bu-a

bu s

angat

padat

dan k

era

s

EN

D O

F B

OR

ING

(t/m

³)G

seo

0 -

10

10 -

20

20 -

30

30 -

40

40 -

50

50 -

60

60 -

>60

STR

ENG

TH T

EST

ATE

RB

ERG

LI

MIT

SIN

DEK

P

RO

PER

TIES

N1

N2

N3

N -

VA

LUE

TY

PE

ºW

ATE

R C

ON

TEN

T

STA

ND

AR

D P

ENET

RA

TIO

N T

EST

DATE/DEPTH

WEATHERING

CORE LENGTH/SIZE

SAMPLES

FIEL

D

TES

T

CO

RE

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DR

ILLI

NG

AN

D T

ESTI

NG

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

TES

TIN

G

Depth (m)

RO

CK

AN

D S

OIL

MA

TER

IAL

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

DEPTH RL

GEOLOGICAL TERM

GRAPHIC LOG

SP

T V

ALU

ES

N - Value

AD

IM

96

68

37

7.7

61

RL

GR

OU

ND

:

HO

LE F

INIS

HE

D-

CH

EC

KE

D B

YIr

. Is

kan

dar

,.M

TC

O-O

RD

INA

TE

S:

47

91

62

.16

0H

OLE

ST

AR

TE

D-

LOG

GE

D B

Y

LOC

AT

ION

Pal

emb

ang

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NV

erti

cal

DR

ILLE

RA

DIM

PR

OJE

CT

Je

mb

atan

Mu

si I

II P

alem

ban

gG

RO

UN

D W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L-0

.10

mM

AC

HIN

E T

YP

EY

BM

(Y

50

-1)

LOG

BO

RE

DR

ILL

HO

LE N

O.

DR

-31

A

PA

GE

...

OF

...

:4

OF

4

020

4060

8010

0

UD

S/

DS

SPT

Appendix 3.2 Documentations for Ship Channel Condition of Musi

River

Fiqure 1 LLetter about sship channel ccondition for

1

r Musi III Bridge Project bby Ministry of Transportation (2010)

2

3

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)

Reproduction Prohibited

Documents

Additional Study on the Musi River Crossing Bridge Project in the