Upload
dasapta-erwin-irawan
View
228
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
1/45
ForP
eerReview
Only
The Hydrogeology of Ciliwung River Streams, SegmentBogor Jakarta, Indonesia
Journal: Hydrological Sciences Journal
Manuscript ID: HSJ-2011-0004
Manuscript Type: Original Article
Date Submitted by theAuthor:
06-Jan-2011
Complete List of Authors: Irawan, Dasapta; Institut Teknologi Bandung, Fac. of EarthSciences & Technology. Geological Eng.; Institut TeknologiBandung, Satuan Penjaminan MutuPuradimaja, Deny; Institut Teknologi Bandung, Applied GeologyBrahmantyo, Budi; Institut Teknologi Bandung, Applied Geology
Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
2/45
For
PeerRevie
wOnl
The Hydrogeology of Ciliwung River Streams, Segment Bogor 1
Jakarta, Indonesia2
Irawan, D.E.1, Puradimaja, D.J.
1, Brahmantyo, B.
1, Silaen, H.
1, Lubis, R.F.
23
1
Applied Geology Research Group, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Technology4Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia - Jl. Ganesa 10, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia, Tel/Fax: +62 22 2515
4990 - [email protected]
2Geotechnology, Indonesia Foundation of Science7
ABSTRACT8River water quality has degraded along its flow from upstream to downstream, as well as9
groundwater from recharge to discharge area. However the general and local10
hydrogeological system between the two water bodies at the Ciliwung stream have not11
been clearly defined. The purpose of this research is to unravel the relationship between12
river water groundwater in river bank, in terms of hydrodynamic and quality.13
Isopotentiometric mapping from Bogor-Jakarta has found three hydrodynamic14
relationships between river and groundwater at Ciliwung river stream. Each segment15
shows local variation of river and groundwater interaction. The three segments are:16
Segment 1: Bogor-Katulampa (Effluent stream), Segment II: Katulampa-Pasar Minggu,17
IIa: Katulampa-Depok (Combination stream), IIb: Depok-Pasar Minggu (Perched stream).18
Page 2 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
3/45
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
4/45
ForPeer
Revie
wOnl
processes associated with the surface water bodies themselves, such as seasonally high49
surface-water levels and evaporation and transpiration of groundwater from around the50
perimeter of surface water bodies, are a major cause of the complex and seasonally51
dynamic groundwater flow fields associated with surface water. (Winter, 1999)52
At many locations on big cities, rivers have become disposal areas for municipalities or53
industries located at river banks. One of the rivers in Indonesia suffering to this problem is54
Ciliwung. The Ciliwung River stream is part of Ciliwung-Cisadane Catchment Area as55
noted by Department of Public Works (Public Works, 2007). It is a 140 km river which56
flows northward, passes Bogor and Jakarta (Figure 1), two vast expanding metropolises in57
Indonesia (LIPI, 1988). Such condition leads to the degradation of water quantity and58
quality. On the other side, river water and groundwater qualities are connected based on59
the hydrodynamic relationship between the two water bodies.60
1.2 Objective61
Documenting groundwater/surface-water interaction associated with rivers or lakes is62
critical to understanding shallow hydrogeological systems. Rivers vary in their relationship63
to local groundwater. The purpose of this paper is to unravel the hydrodynamic64
relationship between river water and groundwater. Specifically, the authors want to65
provide an overview of the effect of local groundwater table configuration and geologic66
characteristics of river beds. Sufficient knowledge on this matter will contribute to67
Page 4 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
5/45
ForPeer
ReviewOnl
analysis (see also Figure 9). Observations were conducted in May to August 2006 from74
Bogor to Jakarta (Figure 9), with 10 main observation spots:75
5 spots at Bogor area: 3 spots at Bogor city, 1 spot at Katulampa area, and 1 spot at76
Cibubur area.77
2 spots at Depok area: 1 spot at Depok city and 1 spot at Universitas Indonesia78
campus area.79
3 spots at Jakarta area: 1 spot at Matraman, 1 spot at Mangga Besar, and 1 spot at80
Sunter Ancol.81
2.1 Groundwater Flow net Analysis82
A flow net is a graphical representation of two-dimensional steady-state groundwater flow83
through aquifers. The method consists of filling the flow area with stream line, which84
perpendicularly to the equipotential lines. The construction of a flow net only provides an85
approximate solution to the flow problem.86
Flow nets provide a general knowledge of the regional groundwater flow patterns that the87
hydrogeologist can use to determine such information as areas of recharge and discharge.88
Fetter have stated that flow nets are an important concept of hydrology. The proper89
construction of flow nets is one of the most powerful analytical tools used by the90
hydrologist to analyze groundwater flow (Fetter, 1988).91
The surface of the water table is referred to as potentiometric surface represents the92
Page 5 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
6/45
ForPeer
ReviewOnl
Winter (1999) used numerical models of steady state, two-dimensional vertical sections to99
further build on the concepts developed regarding the interactions of groundwater and lake100
water. The study was designed to evaluate the interaction of groundwater and surface water101
that resulted from different: geometry of the groundwater system, anisotropy, hydraulic102
conductivity contrasts within the groundwater system, water-table configuration, and depth103
of the surface-water body. By analyzing two-dimensional vertical sections, the results have104
application only to long linear surface-water bodies (streams, lakes, or wetlands) aligned105
perpendicular to groundwater flow paths. (Winter, 1999)106
In this research there were six (6) points of water level measurements, observed at dug107
wells and river stream. The measurements were referenced to mean sea level in order to108
analyze the water flow movement. The flow net analysis was also applied by Lubis and109
Puradimaja (2006) in their research on Cikapundung stream. (Lubis and Puradimaja, 2006)110
2.2 Geoelectrical Measurements111
Various articles and text books have summarized the technique and importance of112
geoelectrical measurements in hydrogeological mapping. The purpose of a geoelectrical113
survey is to determine the subsurface resistivity distribution, which can then be related to114
physical conditions of interest such as lithology, porosity, the degree of water saturation,115
and the presence or absence of voids in the rock. The basic parameter of a geoelectrical116
measurement is resistivity. Resistance (R), measured in ohms, is the result of an electrical117
Page 6 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
7/45
ForPeer
ReviewOnl
Equation 2 pa = RA/L124
Resistivity measurements are made by injecting electric current through two current125
electrodes and measuring the resulting voltage difference at other two potential electrodes.126
Apparent resistivity (a) values are calculated from the current (I) and voltage (V) values.127
Setup of generic four-electrodes configuration is displayed in Figure 4.128
Equation 3 pa = kV/I129
The k value is the geometric factor which depends on the arrangement of the four130
electrodes. It can be calculated for any configuration according to following formula, with131
the subscripted "r" values are distances as defined in the adjacent sketch.132
Equation 4 k = 2[1/ (1/r1 - 1/r2 - 1/r3 + 1/r4)]133
The popular resistivity measurement technique was introduced by Schlumberger.134
According to this technique, the center point of the electrode array remains permanent, but135
the electrodes spacing is increased to gather more information about layers of the136
subsurface (Figure 5).137
The calculated resistivity value is not the true resistivity of the subsurface, but an138
apparent value which is the resistivity of a homogeneous ground which will give the139
same resistance value for the same electrode arrangement. The measured values of140
apparent resistivity need to be converted to true resistivity for actual conditions in 2D141
profile with the RES2DINV (Loke, 2000).142
Page 7 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
8/45
ForPeer
ReviewOnl
factors such as the porosity, the degree of water saturation and the concentration of148
dissolved salts.149
There were four (4) points of geoelectrical measurement with 50 m length configuration:150
two (2) points at left river bank and two (2) points at right river bank (Figure 6). This151
configuration was determined to give more depth to each measurement, maximizing the152
limited space in urban areas of Bogor and Jakarta. The points were also objected to provide153
geological information beneath the river bed.154
2.3 Hydrochemistry155
The hydrochemistry is controlled by several factors, including climate, soil properties,156
lithology, and human activities on the ground. Aside from those factors, the interaction157
between the river water and the adjacent groundwater may also play important roles in158
determining the quality of the groundwater.159
The determination of chemical and physico-chemical parameters was carried out in order160
to characterize the relationship between rocks and leaching water. The physico-chemical161
parameterstemperature, pH, and electrical conductivity (EC)were determined directly162
on the field. Temperature, pH, and EC were measured with portable Hanna equipments.163
All instruments were calibrated daily on the field. All duplet water samples from dug wells164
and river stream were collected by hand in 2 L of low-density polyethylene (LDPE)165
sampling bottles.166
Page 8 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
9/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnl
from formation/connate water and sea water. Or it also can be brought by industrial and173
domestic pollution in case in the study area.174
The measurements of major elements also can show us the groundwater behaviour in terms175
of groundwater interaction with the aquifer and its interaction with surface water.176
Moderate to high concentration of calcium, sodium, and magnesium can be the result from177
aquifer enrichment. On the other side, chloride or sulphate enrichment can also be the178
influence of water pollution from industrial of domestic waste.179
Seven (7) major elements concentration were determined in the laboratory byStandard180
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA et al., 1992), consist of:181
calcium (Ca2+
), sodium (Na+), magnesium (Mg
2+), potassium (K
+), chloride (Cl
-),182
bicarbonate (HCO3-) and sulphate (SO4
2-). Chemical test results then was validated using183
ion balance equation (see Equation 5), before further analyses with 20% of maximum error184
balance. Samples with error balance higher than 20% will be re-tested, while samples have185
lower than 20% error balance will be included in interpretation.186
Equation 5 [( cations - anions) / ( cations + anions)] x 100%187
Field measurements were taken at each spot, consists of one (1) groundwater sample from188
dug well at left river bank, one (1) river water sample, and one (1) sample from dug well at189
right river bank (Figure 7).190
Page 9 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
P 10 f 45 H d l i l S i J l
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
10/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
3.1 General Model196
The methodology used in this research is based on schematic drawing of river-groundwater197
relationship by Lee (1980) op.cit (Lubis and Puradimaja, 2006). There are four models,198
effluent flow (groundwater seeps to river), influent flow (river water seeps to aquifer),199
perched (river water seeps to aquifer through vadose zone), and isolated (no flow between200
river and groundwater) (Figure 9). Woessner (2000) also proposed five (5) types of201
interactions in fluvial plain environment, consists of: gaining stream (a); losing stream (b202
and c); parallel-flow (d); flow-through (e) (Figure 10). (Woessner, 2000)203
Winter (1999), as additional overview, has observed the interaction between lake water and204
groundwater. There is groundwater flow in the upper part of the groundwater system205
toward the lake for all conditions (Figure 11A) and outward seepage through deeper parts206
of the lake for some conditions (Figure 11B). The key to understanding these differences in207
seepage conditions is the continuity of the boundary of the local groundwater flow system208
that underlies the lake. If the boundary is continuous, as shown in Figure 11A, all hydraulic209
heads within the local flow system are greater than the head represented by lake level,210
which prevents water from seeping from the lake. On the other hand, if the flow-system211
boundary is not continuous, lake water can seep into the ground water system. The212
presence of a stagnation point, which is the point of least head along the flow-system213
boundary, indicates that the flow-system boundary is continuous.214
Page 10 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
P 11 f 45H d l i l S i J l
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
11/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
regional flow system that is recharged at the highest topographic point on the right side of220
the diagram and that passes at depth beneath the local flow system associated with the lake.221
3.2Typical Model of Indonesia222Cikapundung river stream as observed by Lubis and Puradimaja (2006), is divided in to223
three (3) zones (Figure 12), consists of Zone 1 as Isolated flow (Curug Dago to upstream224
segment); Zone 2 as Effluent flow (Curug Dago to Viaduct segment); and Zone 3 as225
Influent flow (Viaduct to downstream segment). Another lesson learned from Cisadane226
river stream by Yeni (2008) in period of 2006-2007, which divides the river in to there (3)227
zones: Zone 1 as Effluent flow (Kranggan Batu Ceper segment); Zone 2 as Perched flow228
(Batu Ceper Kali Baru segment); and Zone 3 as Influent flow (Kali Baru Tanjung229
Burung segment)230
4. THE RESULT: CILIWUNG RIVER MODEL231
4.1 Regional Geological Setting232
The location of this study is part of Ciliwung catchment area, which has area of + 435233
Km2. It lies from Gunung Pangrango (3019 m dpl) to Jakarta bay (0 m dpl). Citarum and234
Cileungsir River flows at the east part of Ciliwung catchment, while Cisadane flows at the235
west part. The study area has a high annual rainfall (1500 - 3200 mm/year). Maximum236
rainfall occurs during the month of November to March, while minimum rainfall in May to237
September (see Figure 13).238
Page 11 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 12 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
12/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
The stratigraphy of the area can be divided into four (4) units. The oldest unit is Tertiary244
Sediments. This unit is grouped into 1 unit because considered to be basement with low245
hydraulic conductivity. The 2nd
unit is Volcanic Deposits, which generally have high246
hydraulic conductivity. The 3rd
unit is the intercalation of Fluvio-Marine sediments which247
overlaid by Bogor Volcanic Fans. The 4th
unit is Young Marine Sediments at coastal area248
of Jakarta (Effendi, 1974 and Turkandi, 1992). (Effendi, 1974) (Turkandi, 1992)249
4.2 Regional Recharge-Discharge System250
Groundwater spring points are commonly located at 300-600 masl. The lithology at spring251
sites are generally composed of breccias, lahar, and lava of young volcanic deposits252
(Figure 14). Based on spring observation, geology observation and O18
isotope, Asseggaf253
and Puradimaja (1998) proposed the recharge-discharge system as presented in Figure 15 .254
The groundwater system in the area was recharged from more elevation higher than 1000255
masl and then discharged at elevation of 300-600 m. Isopotentiometric lines of the area256
shows radial flow pattern of groundwater. (Asseggaf and Puradimaja, 1998)257
These facts lead to interpretation that recharge area of upstream Ciliwung were local258
system. On the other hand, facts that the same system flow to Jakarta were not found. The259
implication was although interpreted to be in the same Quaternary Deposits, Bogors260
groundwater system differs from Jakartas, because of The Depok High.261Lubis et.al (2008) have delineated the recharge discharge system of Jakarta Basin, based262
Page 12 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 13 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
13/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
4.4 Groundwater Flownet268
Stream water and groundwater samples were collected at each region of interest between in269
dry season in 2006. For this study, more than 50 points of observation and water samples270
were collected in 2006, as summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. Stream271
flows were measured with custom made portable equipment. Groundwater levels were272
measured with portable custom made water level meter. The samples were immediately273
filtered through 0.45 mm membranes. Samples for cation analysis were acidified to pH less274
than 2 with nitric acid. Unstable parameters such as pH, temperature and electrical275
conductivity (EC) were measured in situ using portable meters.276
4.5 Hydrochemistry277
In the absence of adequate monitoring of surface water levels and groundwater elevations,278
hydrochemical criteria may be used to establish water behaviour. While it is acknowledged279
that this will only provide qualitative data, it is a very useful technique in regions where it280
is otherwise not possible to establish the relationship of surface water to the groundwater281
systems. Water quality at Segment 1 shows no significant difference between river water282
and groundwater. The values of the measured parameters (temperature, TDS, EC, pH) are283
relatively flat. Slight increase of TDS and EC at Sr.1.18 are caused by local garbage284
disposal site which is located at river bank. The effluent stream interaction has not shown285
any particular pattern in water quality. Groundwater quality is interpreted to be in286
Page 13 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 14 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
14/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
water. This condition is indicated the effluent stream model is more dominant at Segment293
2a than influent model.294
On the other hand, Segment 2b shows decreasing pattern of TDS and EC in groundwater295
samples is still continued. The same values in river water are showing similar increasing296
pattern. The 2 water samples are not showing any relationship. This condition is due to297
perched stream model, where river water does not in contact with groundwater. It still have298
enough time and distance to infiltrate to the aquifer below Ciliwung river stream.299
At Segment 3a, TDS and EC values in groundwater increases at Sr.IV.3-Sr.IV.11. The300
same pattern is also shown by values in river water, with slightly lower concentration.301
Segment 3b shows erratic data behaviour in groundwater as well as in river water (Figure302
19 and Figure 20). The 2 conditions can be explained as the impact of influent stream303
model, where the low quality river water influences the groundwater at river bank.304
4.6 Groundwater River Water Interaction305
General interaction between groundwater and river water on a river stream consist of306
effluent stream, influent stream, isolated stream, and perched stream, or combination307
between the four types, controlled by topography and aquifer depth (Puradimaja, 2006).308
Based on groundwater flow net analysis, The Ciliwung Model has three (3) hydrodynamic309
relationships, as follows (from Bogor to Jakarta).310
Segment 1: Katulampa-Cibubur-Bogor (Effluent stream)311
Page 14 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 15 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
15/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
o Sub segment IIIb: Salemba-Mangga Besar-Muara Beres Area (Influent317
stream)318
Effluent type was found at Katulampa-Cibubur-Bogor (Segment I). This hydrodynamic319
type dominated the upstream of Ciliwung River. The geological condition consisted of320
mainly volcanic breccias of Pangrango volcanic deposit. Hydraulic gradient was measured321
3.5% from west and east river bank with convergent pattern. This segment had low322
potential of water contamination (Figure 16).323
Bogor-Depok-Universitas Indonesia (Segment II) was observed to have combination and324
perched type. The volcanic fan deposit and alluvium deposit dominates this segment.325
Groundwater discharged to river stream from east bank then the river water infiltrated the326
aquifer to the west bank. Both water directions moved with 0.5% of hydraulic gradient.327
More detailed subsurface mapping is needed to uncover the geometry of old river deposit.328
This segment had low potential of water contamination (Figure 17 and Figure 18).329
Universitas Indonesia-Salemba-Mangga Besar-Muara Beres (Segment III) had influent330
type hydrodynamic relationship. Alluvium deposit dominates this segment. This segment331
characterized by the infiltration of river water to the aquifer in divergent pattern with less332
than 0.1% of hydraulic gradient. Based on physical and chemical measurement, this333
segment had a high potential of contamination (Figure 19 and Figure 20).334
Variation of hydrodynamic relationship was also reflected in the water quality (Figure 21).335
gy g
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 16 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
16/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
groundwater chemistry in emergent springs and seeps along the Ciliwung stream is highly342
variable and complex at localised scales. At larger scale, contrasts in geological343
environment can explain the stream chemistry differences in dry season. However, at344
smaller scales, differences in flow path depths, reaction kinetics and water residence times345
are probably interacting to explain local variability.346
Isopotentiometric mapping from Bogor-Jakarta has found three (3) hydrodynamic347
relationships between river and groundwater at Ciliwung river stream. Each segment348
shows local variation of river and groundwater interaction.349
Variation of hydrodynamic relationship was also reflected in the water quality. The total350
dissolved solids (TDS) were low at Segment I and II. Low conductivity indicates low351
contamination at Segment I and II. Nevertheless, the complete tests of the water samples352
have to be taken to determine its usability as drinking water. More detail research on heavy353
metals concentration in the water is needed to understand the interference of water quality.354
On the other hand, TDS values raises as the water comes to downstream segment. Segment355
III, in this case, shows fluctuated values in high ranges. This condition indicates the higher356
water pollution of river water, as well as groundwater.357
This research illustrates the degradation of river water and groundwater quality in one358
particular river stream. The degradation is much higher with the growth of settlements and359
industries along river bank. This research also point out that when it comes to water360
g y g
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 17 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
17/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
management. Similar study should also be done at many rivers which flow through big367
cities in Indonesia, such as Surabaya, Medan, Makassar, etc. (LIPI, 1988)368
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT369
The initiation of this work was financially supported by Directorate General of Higher370
Education (DIKTI) with Competitive Grant Scheme Program 2006-2007. The authors also371
would like to thank our undergraduate and graduate students, who have given their time372
and energy in the field work. Highest appreciation is also awarded to Prof. Sudarto373
Notosiswoyo and Dr. Lilik Eko Widodo from Faculty of Mining and Petroleum374
Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung for their lesson learned regarding groundwater375
flow and hydrochemistry analysis, and Dr. Prihadi Sumintadireja from Faculty of Earth376
Sciences and Technology Institut Teknologi Bandung for his inputs on geoelectrical377
measurement. All the opinions and discussion have enriched the manuscript.378
379
REFERENCES380
APHA, AWWA and WEF, 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and381
Wastewater APHA Publisher, Washington.382
Asseggaf, A. and Puradimaja, D.J., 1998. Identifikasi Kawasan G. Salak- G.Gede- G.383
Pangrango sebagai Zone resapan dan Luahan daerah Ciawi-Bogor, Kabupaten384
Bogor-Jawa Barat, Prosiding Pertemuan Ilmiah Tahunan XXVII. IAGI,385
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 18 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
18/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
LIPI, 1988. Proyek Studi Potensi Sumberdaya Alam Indonesia: Potensi dan Kualitas391
Sumberdaya Air di Hulu Ciliwung, LIPI, Jakarta.392
Loke, M.H., 2000. Electrical Imaging Surveys for Environmental and Engineering Studies:393
A Practical Guide to 2-D and 3-D Surveys. Heritage Geophysics.394
Lubis, R., Sakura, Y. and Delinom, R., 2008. Groundwater recharge and discharge395
processes in the Jakarta groundwater basin, Indonesia. Hydrogeology Journal,396
16(5): 927-938.397
Lubis, R.F. and Puradimaja, D.J., 2006. The Hydrodynamics of River Water and398
Groundwater at Cikapundung River, Bandung, Indonesia, Proceedings of399
International Association of Engineering Geologist. International Association400
of Engineering Geologists, Nottingham, UK.401
Public Works, D., 2007. Official Web Site of Departemen Pekerjaan Umum.402
Puradimaja, D.J., 2006. The Hydrogeology of Volcanic and Karst Areas, Professorship403
Inauguration Speech. ITB, Bandung, pp. 63.404
Turkandi, T., 1992. Peta Geologi Lembar Jakarta dan Kepulauan Seribu, Jawa. Pusat405
Penelitian dan Pengembangan Geologi (P3G), Bandung.406
Winter, T.C., 1999. Relation of streams, lakes, and wetlands to groundwater flow systems.407
Hydrogeology Journal, 7(1): 28-45.408
Woessner, W.W., 2000. Stream and Fluvial Plain Ground Water Interactions: Rescaling409
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 19 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
19/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 20 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
20/45
ForPeerR
eviewOnly
1
Figure 1 Thee points rule to construct the groundwater flow lines. It is necessary to have a2
minimum of three observation points to calculate a flow direction.3
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
21/45
Page 22 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
22/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
Figure 1 Electrodes setup in DC resistivity method2
Electri current
source
Measured
current
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 23 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
23/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
Figure 1 Common arrays in resistivity surveys and their geometric factors.2
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 24 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
24/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 1 Schematic of geological measurement points in each region of interest7
Ciliwung stream
flow
Geoelectrical
pointCorrelation
section
Region of interest
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 25 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
25/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 1 Schematic of water sampling points in each region of interest10
Ciliwung stream
flow
Groundwaterlevel
measurement and
sampling point
Correlation
section
Region of interest
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 26 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
26/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Figure 1 Methodology of the research14
Field observation
River water levelmeasurement
Groundwater levelmeasurement
Physical
propertiesmeasurement
Watersampling
Flow net
analysis
T, TDS, EC,
pH chartConcentration of
ions: Ca, Na, Mg,
K, HCO3, Cl, SO
Hydrodynamic
relationshipWater quality
spatial analysis
Hydrodynamic-
water quality
relationshio
Topographical
mapGeological data
Water quality data
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 27 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
27/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
Figure 1 General model of hydrodynamic relationship between river and groundwater2
(Lee, 1980 op.cit Lubis and Puradimaja, 2006)3
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 28 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
28/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
Figure 1 Fluvial plain-ground water and stream channel interactions showing channel cross2
sections classified as: a) gaining stream; (b) and (c) losing stream; (d) parallel-flow; (e)3
flow-through (Woessner, 2000)4
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 29 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
29/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
2
Figure 1 A,B Numerical simulation of steady-state two-dimensional groundwater flow in a3
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 30 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
30/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
Figure 1 The hydrodynamic relationship between river-groundwater of Cikapundung,2
Bandung (Lubis and Puradimaja, 2006)3
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 31 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
31/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 32 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
32/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 33 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
33/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
Figure 1 Regional recharge-dischage system of Ciliwung catchment area (Asseggaf and2
Puradimaja, 1998)3
4
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 34 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
34/45
ForPeerR
e
viewO
nly
0,00
50,00
100,00
150,00
200,00
250,00
300,00
350,00
400,00
1.Katulampa
Area
1.Katulampa
Area
2.BogorCityArea
3.Cibubu
rArea
3.Cibubu
rArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
5.U
niversitasIndonesiaDepokArea
5.U
niversitasIndonesiaDepokArea
5.U
niversitasIndonesiaDepokArea
5.U
niversitasIndonesiaDepokArea
6.Matraman-ManggaraiArea
6.Matraman-ManggaraiArea
7.Balekambang-CondetArea
7.Balekambang-CondetArea
8.Kemir
iArea
9.MuaraBeres-SukaHar
iArea
9.MuaraBeres-SukaHar
iArea
GWL elevation (masl)
RWL elevation (masl)
(a) Comparison between water elevation: groundwater and river water
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2526
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3435
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Page 35 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
35/45
ForPeerR
e
viewO
nly
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.KatulampaArea
1.KatulampaArea
2.BogorCit
yArea
3.Cibubu
rArea
3.Cibubu
rArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
6.Matraman-Manggara
iArea
6.Matraman-Manggara
iArea
7.Balekambang-Conde
tArea
7.Balekambang-Conde
tArea
8.Kemi
riArea
9.MuaraBeres-SukaHariArea
9.MuaraBeres-SukaHariArea
GW pH
RW pH
(b) Comparison between pH: groundwater and river water
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2526
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3435
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Page 36 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
36/45
ForPeerR
e
viewO
nly
0,00
100,00
200,00
300,00
400,00
500,00
600,00
700,00
800,00
1.KatulampaArea
1.KatulampaArea
2.BogorCit
yArea
3.Cibubu
rArea
3.Cibubu
rArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
6.Matraman-Manggara
iArea
6.Matraman-Manggara
iArea
7.Balekambang-Conde
tArea
7.Balekambang-Conde
tArea
8.KemiriArea
9.MuaraBeres-SukaHariArea
9.MuaraBeres-SukaHariArea
GW TDS (ppm)
RW TDS (ppm)
Comparison between Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): groundwater and river water
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2526
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3435
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Page 37 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
37/45
ForPeerR
e
viewO
nly
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1.KatulampaArea
1.KatulampaArea
2.BogorCit
yArea
3.Cibubu
rArea
3.Cibubu
rArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
4.DepokCit
yArea
5.U
niversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.U
niversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.U
niversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.U
niversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
6.Matraman-Manggara
iArea
6.Matraman-Manggara
iArea
7.Balekambang-Conde
tArea
7.Balekambang-Conde
tArea
8.KemiriArea
9.MuaraBeres-SukaHariArea
9.MuaraBeres-SukaHariArea
GW EC (S/cm)
RW EC (S/cm)
(d) Comparison between electro-conductivity (EC): groundwater and river water
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2526
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3435
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Page 38 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
38/45
ForPeerR
e
viewO
nly
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
1.KatulampaArea
1.KatulampaArea
2.BogorCit
yArea
3.Cibubu
rArea
3.Cibubu
rArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
4.DepokCityArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
5.UniversitasIndonesiaDepo
kArea
6.Matraman-Manggara
iArea
6.Matraman-Manggara
iArea
7.Balekambang-Conde
tArea
7.Balekambang-Conde
tArea
8.Kemi
riArea
9.MuaraBeres-SukaHariArea
9.MuaraBeres-SukaHariArea
GWTemp (0C)
RWTemp (0C)
Air Temp (0C)
(e) Comparison between temperature (air, groundwater, and river water)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2526
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Page 39 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
39/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
C A T I O N S A N I O N S%meq/l
Na+K HCO +CO3 3 Cl
Mg SO4
Ca
Calcium (Ca) Chloride (Cl)
S
ulfa
te(
SO4)
+C
hlorid
e(C
l)
Calcium(Ca)+Magnesium(Mg
)
Carbo
nate
(C
O3)
+B
icarbona
te(
HCO
3)Sodium
(Na)+Potassium(K)
Sulfate(SO4)
Mag
nesiu
m(M
g)
80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
80
60
40
20
80
60
40
20
MA-1MA-2MA-3MA-4BK01BK02BK03BK06KM01KM02MB-01MB-02
MB-04MB-05S-01S-02S-03S-04CL01
CL02CL03CL04
2
Figure 1 Hydrochemistry of the study area in Piper plot.3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 40 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
40/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
Figure 1 Hydrodynamic model of Segment 1 (Bogor-Katulampa)2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4243
44
45
46
47
Page 41 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
41/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
2
Figure 1 Hydrodynamic model of Segment 2a (Katulampa-Depok)3
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 42 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
42/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
Figure 1 Hydrodynamic model of Segment 2b (Depok-Pasar Minggu)2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 43 of 45Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
43/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
2
3
Figure 1 Hydrodynamic model of Segment 3a (Pasar Minggu-Matraman-Salemba)4
5
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 44 of 45 Hydrological Sciences Journal
1
2
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
44/45
ForPeerR
eviewOn
ly
1
Figure 1 Hydrodynamic model of Segment 3b (Salemba-Mangga Besar)2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
8/6/2019 PDF 2011 Erwin Ciliwung Hydroscijour
45/45