05

PART III PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
MASANG-2 HEPP
Final Report (Main) Chapter 16 Project Site Condition
CHAPTER 16 PROJECT SITE CONDITION
16.1 LOCATION
The Masang-2 Hydroelectric Power Project (hereinafter referred to as the project) is situated
approximately at 05 to 010 of the south latitude and 10011 to 10015 of the east longitude on
the upper course of the Masang River.
The project is administratively located in Agam Regency (Kabupaten), West Sumatra Province. The
project is located approximately 30 km northwest of Bukit Tinggi city, 100 km northwest of Padang
city, the capital city of west Sumatra. Main structures such as intake weir, waterway and powerhouse
are located in Palembayan Subdistrict (Kecamatan). Administrative map of Agam Regency is as
seen in Figure 16.1.1.
Source: Agam Regency
Figure 16.1.1 Administrative Map of Agam Regency
JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 16-1 August, 2010
Hydropower Development in Indonesia
16.2 TOPOGRAPHY
Physiographically the project site is located at the central Barisan system, which consists of a number
of NW-SE trending block mountains. The Masang River originates from Mt. Marapi (El. 2,891.3m)
and runs between these NW-SE trending block mountains. Around the project site the river flows to
northwest, subparallel to Great Sumatra Fault System.
The major tributaries flowing into the Masang river are Sianok, Guntung and Alahanpanjang rivers.
The project is sited between the confluence of Sianok and Guntung rivers, which is the most upstream
of the Masang river, and the confluence of Masang and Alahanpanjang rivers.
In this pre-feasibility study, topographic survey was conducted at the Masang-2 project area to obtain
topographic maps and cross sections of the following quantities.
Table16.2.1 Summary of Topographic Survey Conducted

Survey Item Quantity Remarks
1. Topographic mapping on 1:10,000 scale 30 km2 Project area
2. Topographic mapping on 1:2,000 scale 4.0 km2 Main project structure sites
3. River cross section survey 10 km
16.3 GEOLOGY
16.3.1 GENERAL
The project consists mainly of a weir, sand trap, intermediate pond, connection tunnel, headrace tunnel,
surge tank, penstock, and powerhouse. The geological investigations at the pre-feasibility stage were
conducted to evaluate project site geology and seismic geology.
The section summarizes the geological conditions of the project site while Volume IV Supporting
Report (2) details the results of the preliminary geological investigation and evaluations conducted at
the prefeasibility study.
16.3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The regional stratigraphy of the project site, as shown in Figure 16.3.1, begins with the Carboniferous
to Permian. These rocks and those of the Miocene intrusive rocks compose the bedrocks of the region.
The Quaternary rocks, consisting mainly of pumiceous tuff and andesite from the volcanic activity of
the Maninjau Volcano unconformably overlie extensively the older formations. The recent sediments,
represented by alluvium, are of limited occurrence.
The major geological structure is the Sumatran Fault Zone (SFZ), also called Great Sumatra Fault
System (GSF), one of the most seismically active zones in Indonesia. The SFZ, generally parallel to
the Sunda trench, results from the partitioning of oblique plate convergence into normal convergence
at the trench and represents right-lateral strike-slip faulting. According to Sieh and Natawidjaja (2000),
the SFZ, totally 1,900 km long, is highly segmented and can be subdivided into 19 major segments on
the basis of its geomorphic and topographical expressions. The major segment of the SFZ in the
proximity of the project site is the Sianok segment (0.7oS to 0.1oN), which, approximately 90 km long,
runs from the northeast shore of Lake Singkarak along the southwest flank of the volcano Marapi
around the project site.
Several local NE-SW and NW-SE fault systems are also distributed in the general area of the project
site. The NW-SE fault systems, which are parallel to the SFZ, may be subsidiary to the SFZ
Source: Modified from Geological Map of the Padang Quadrangle, Sumatra, 1:250,000
Qal Alluvial deposits of silt, sand and gravel

Qpt Pumiceous tuff and andesite of slightly consolidated glass, shards and pumice fragment
Qmaj Andesite of Danau Maninjau caldera
QTau Undifferentiated flows of lahars, fanglomerate and other colluvial deposits
Pl Permian limestone rocks with some thin intercalations of slate, phyllites and quartzite
Ps Permian metamorphic rocks of phyllite, slate and mica greywacke
Figure16.3.1 Regional Geological Map
16.3.3 SEISMICILITY
The project site is located close to the SFZ, one of the most seismically active zones in Indonesia.
Accordingly seismic consideration needs to be conducted for structural design of the project. Seismic
hazard assessment was conducted by using probalistic approach, local seismic design code and
through review of some similar projects within Sumatra.
The design seismic coefficients obtained are summarized in Table 16.3.1. The design seismic
coefficient through probabilistic analysis is consistent with that from Indonesia Seismic Map. They are
both parallel to those of existing similar projects within Sumatra.
Accordingly in view of the type of structures under consideration, construction cost and the safety and
environmental consequences of failure the design seismic coefficient for the prefeasibility study is
recommended conservatively to be 0.15 for design of the weir and intermediate pond dike.
Table16.3.1 Summary of Obtained Design Seismic Acceleration

Approach Design seismic coefficient Remarks
1. Existing similar projects 0.12 0.15
2. Probabilistic method 0.10 0.14 Cornell formula
0.12 0.13 Rock foundation
3. Indonesia seismic map
0.16 0.18 Highly weathered tuff foundation
16.3.4 GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS

The geological investigation for the pre-feasibility study consisted of geological mapping, seismic
refraction survey, core drillings, in-situ and laboratory tests. The quantity of geological investigation
conducted is summarized in Table 16.3.2. The location of geological investigation is given in Figure
16.3.2.
Table16.3.2 Summary of Geological Investigation Conducted

Survey Item Quantity Remarks
1. Geological mapping on 1:10,000 scale 25 km2 Project area
2. Seismic refraction survey 6,920 m Main project structure sites
3. Core drilling 460 m 12 boreholes
4. Field permeability test 92 sections
5. Standard penetration test 55 times
6. Laboratory test for foundation rocks 10 samples
7. Laboratory tests for construction material 10 samples
Source: JICA Study Team
(1) Geological Mapping
Geological mapping, as shown in Figure 16.3.3, indicates that three geological units are distributed in
the project site; they are in the order of geological time from old to young 1) Limestone with some
interbedded slate, 2) Greenstone and 3) Pumiceous tuff with some andesitic rock association.
The limestone is exposed chiefly along the Masang River valley and at the southern part of the project
site. The rock, locally intercalated with slate and sandstone, generally strikes N120E and dips 45
degrees toward northwest. The limestone at outcrops is generally gray to dark gray, hard, highly
fractured and highly jointed. The weir for Plan B, the intermediate pond dike and the powerhouse
would be founded on the rocks.
The greenstone (serpentinite) is of limited occurrence, mainly in the southern part of the project site.
The rock at outcrops is generally green to greenish grey, soft to extremely weak, highly fractured and
sheared.
Pumiceous tuff with some andesitic rock association is extensively distributed over the hill slopes
within the project site. The pumiceous tuff can be subdivided into two rock types, fine-grained tuff and
tuff breccia. The fine-grained tuff, generally yellowish brown to brown and slightly consolidated,
consists of silt to sand and contains glass and pumice. On the other hand, the tuff breccia, which
underlies the fine-grained tuff is brown to greenish gray, semi-consolidated and includes lots of
andesitic and basaltic fragments.
In addition, the recent alluvial and colluvial deposits are locally distributed in the project site. The
alluvial materials contain a large quantity of subangular to rounded gravel and boulder of andesite.
(2) Seismic Refraction Survey
The interpreted seismic data indicate that four velocity layers underlie the project site. The inferred
geological classification is summarized in Table 16.3.3 below.
Table16.3.3 Geological Classification of Seismic Units

Seismic velocity (m/sec) Interpreted geological classification Layer thickness (m)
Weir site B, ML-1 and ML-2
1. 300 450 Surficial deposits (talus, alluvial, etc.) 0.6 3.7
2. 820 1,400 Highly weathered/fractured limestone 0.6 14.8
3. 1,800 2,800 Moderately weathered/fractured limestone 10.0 90.0
4. >4,300 Slightly weathered/fractured limestone -
Weir site C, ML-3 and ML-4
2. 820 1,100 Highly weathered fine-grained tuff 1.9 21.8
3. 1,600 2,100 Moderately weathered tuff breccia 10.3 66.8
4. 2,200 3,600 Slightly weathered rocks -
Inlet area of waterway route (Plan B/C), ML-5 and ML-6
3. 1,700 2,200 Moderately weathered tuff breccia 15.0 36.0
4. 3,800 4,600 Slightly weathered rocks -
Intermediate pond dike site (Plan B/C), ML-7 to ML-11, L-5 and L-6
2. 700 1,100 Highly weathered/fractured limestone 1.0 11.9
3. 1,100 2,500 Moderate weathered/fractured limestone 3.6 53.0
4. 3,700 3,800 Slightly weathered/fractured limestone -
Surge tank and powerhouse (Plan A/B/C), ML-12 to ML-14 and L-3 to L-4
3. 1,700 2,500 Moderately weathered limestone/ tuff breccia 5.6 76.0
4. >4,600 Slightly weathered limestone -
Connection tunnel (Plan B/C), L-1 and L-2
2. 1,000 1,200 Weathered fine-grained tuff 0.9 6.2
3. 1,700 2,700 Highly fractured limestone/weathered tuff breccia 3.6 73.4
4. >3,300 Slightly weathered limestone -
(3) Boring Investigation and Field Tests
The boring investigation together with field permeability test was conducted to explore and evaluate
the subsurface conditions of the project site. The results of boring investigation are summarized in
Table 16.3.4. The results of field permeability tests are given in Table 16.3.5 below. The permeability
in the foundation rocks is generally in the range of 1.010-5cm/se to 1.010-3 cm/sec; thereby
indicating moderately permeable foundation rocks.
Table16.3.4 Summary of Boring Investigation Results

Area Bore Location Geology Weathering/Fracturing Rock class
0-11.2m alluvial/colluvial 0-11.2m Completely 0-11.2m D
MW-1 Right bank
11.2- 50.0m tuff breccia 11.2-50.0m Highly 11.2-50.0m D/CL
Weir site A MW-2 Riverbed
4.8-20.0m tuff breccia 4.8-20.0m Highly 4.8-20.0m D/CL
MW-3 Left bank
9.8-40.0m tuff breccia 9.8-40.0m Highly 9.8-40.0m D/CL
0-7.4m Completely 0-7.4m D
0-7.4m alluvial/colluvial 7.4-17.0m Completely 7.4-17.0m D/CL
MW-4 Right bank
7.4-30.0m limestone 17.0-23.0m Moderately 17.0-23.0m CM
Weir site B
23.0-30.0m Completely 23.0-30.0m D/CL
MW-5 Left bank
10.0-30.0m limestone 10.0-30.0m Highly 10.0-30.0m D/CL
0-4.0m alluvial/colluvial
Weir site C MW-6 Left bank 4.0-19.8m tuff
4.0-30.0m Highly 4.0-30.0m D/CL
19.8-30.0m tuff breccia
MW-7 Right bank 4.0-7.8m Highly 4.0-7.8m D/CL
4.0-30.0m limestone
7.8-30.0m Moderately 7.8-30m CM/CH
Intermediate 0-6.0m alluvial/colluvial 0-6.0m Completely 0-6.0m D
MW-8 Riverbed
pond site 6.0-20.0m limestone 6.0-20.0m Moderately 6.0-20m CM/CH
MW-9 Left bank 3.0-19.7m Moderately 3.0-19.7m CM/CH
3.0-40.0m slate
19.7-40.0m Highly 19.7-40.0m D/CL
Headrace 10.0-19.7m tuff 0-10.0m Completely 0-10.0m D
MH-1 Plan A
route 19.7-69.0m tuff breccia 10.0-100.0m Moderately 10.0-100m CL/CH
69.0-100.0m andesite
Surge tank 0.5-28.5m tuff
MS-1 Plan A/B/C 0.5-41.0m Highly 0.5-41.0m D/CL
site 28.5-41.0m tuff breccia
41.0-50.0m Moderately 41.0-50.0m CM/CH
41.0-50.0m andesite
Powerhouse 0-3.0m alluvial/colluvial
MP-1 Plan A/B/C 3.0-11.0m Highly 3.0-11.0m D/CL
site 3.0-20.0m limestone
11.0-20.0m Moderately 11.0-20m CM/CH
Table16.3.5 Summary of Permeability Test Results

Area Geology Permeability (cm/se) Groundwater (depth-m)
Alluvial and colluvial deposits 3.6310-4 - 4.9410-3 MW-1: 3.0m
Weir site A
Weathered tuff breccia 5.2210-5 - 3.5110-3 MW-3: 15.5m
Alluvial and colluvial deposits 3.7610-4 - 1.5110-3 MW-4: 5.0m
Weir site B
Fractured limestone 2.2810-4 - 2.0710-3 MW-5: 14.5m
Alluvial and colluvial deposits 5.0010-3 MW-6: No water
Weir site C Weathered tuff 2.9910-3 - 1.3710-2
Weathered tuff breccia 7.5510-4 - 2.0110-3
Intermediate Alluvial and colluvial deposits 1.0010-4 - 1.5610-3 MW-7: No water
pond site Fractured limestone 2.9510-5 - 4.5910-3 MW-9: No water
Alluvial and colluvial deposits 1.4510-6 - 2.8510-6 MH-1: No water
Weathered tuff 1.5310-5 - 3.7310-5
Headrace route
Weathered tuff breccia 2.1610-6 - 2.4210-4
Weathered andesite 2.8510-6 - 2.3610-3
16.3.5 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT

SITE
(1) Intake Weir Site
Weir site A The site is located approximately 300 m downstream of the confluence between the
Cuntung river and the Sianok river. The Masang River at the weir site shows U-shaped valley with a
riverbed width of about 30 m. The geology of the weir site A, as shown in Figure 16.3.4, is composed
of tuff breccia with alluvial and colluvial cover of about 10 m thick. The tuff breccia, especially its
upper part was highly weathered into a poor quality of D class rock mass in Japanese Rock
Classification Standard. Accordingly the weir foundation at the site will require deep excavation up to
over 10 m deep to remove the overlying loose deposits and highly weathered tuff breccia or a
combination of pile foundation to improve the bearing capacity of foundation rocks.
Weir site B The site lies about 600 m downstream of the weir site A at the straight course of the river.
The Masang River at the weir site shows wide V-shaped valley with a riverbed width of about 35 m.
Figure 16.3.5 shows the geological conditions of the weir site B. The thickness of the surficial deposits
is in the order of 1 to 7 m. The underlying limestone is exposed in the riverbed and at the right
abutment. From field reconnaissance and core observation the limestone is generally very hard and
strong, moderately to highly fractured and can be classified into D to CL class rocks from Japanese
Rock Classification Standard. In addition, the permeability of the fractured limestone is in the range of
2.2810-4cm/sec to 2.0510-3 cm/sec and the limestone is thus considered to be moderately permeable
rocks. Accordingly the foundation conditions at the weir are considered favorable with the weir
structure founded in the limestone, however foundation treatment would be required to improve the
permeability of the foundation rock.
Weir site C the site is located further 500 m downstream of the weir site B. The Masang River at the
weir site shows wide V-shaped valley with a riverbed width of about 30 m. The geology of the site,
as shown in Figure 16.3.6, consists mainly of tuff, tuff breccia and limestone. The thickness of the
highly weathered tuff and tuff breccia is over 30 m at the abutments. The underlying limestone crops
out solely in the riverbed and is expected to be encountered at a depth of 35 to 40 m at the abutments.
Because of poor quality of the weathered tuff and tuff breccia at the abutments, deep excavation or
foundation treatment for the weir foundation would be required at the abutments.
(2) Intermediate Pond Site
The intermediate pond site is located at the lower course of a small stream, a tributary of the Masang
River close to Kototinggi village. The width of the streambed at the pond site is about 5 m. The left
abutment is a thin ridge and the right abutment is a mountainous hillslope.
The geology of the intermediate pond site consists mainly of limestone and contains intercalated thin
shale beds, as shown in Figure 16.3.7. Alluvial and colluvial deposits as well as tuff locally overlie the
limestone mainly along the stream valley. The thickness of these superficial layers is in the range of 1
to 4 m at the abutments and in the range of 1 to 6 m in the streambed.
The limestone is generally hard, moderately fractured and jointed and can be classified as CM to CH
class rock in Japanese Rock Classification Standard. On the other hand, the interbedded slate is
moderately to highly fractured and sheared and can be classified as D to CM class rock.
The limestone and interbedded slate at the intermediate pond site has moderate to low permeability
with a permeability of 2.9510-5cm/se to 4.5910-3 cm/sec. In addition, no groundwater was observed
during borehole drilling around the abutments, indicating that groundwater level around the abutments
was very low.
Accordingly, the intermediate pond dike will be expected to be founded on the limestone, which is
considered favorable in terms of bearing capacity. Leakage, however, would be likely to be
encountered around the abutments and foundation rocks, especially from the right abutment of thin
ridge.
(3) Connection and Headrace Tunnels (Plan B)
In Plan B it is planned to construct 1,060 m long connection culvert, 1,630 m long connection tunnel
and 4,550 m long headrace tunnel along the left side of the Masang River. The connection and
headrace tunnels will be located mostly in limestone interbedded with slate and locally in tuff and tuff
breccia. No detailed geological data are available from the rock masses along the most part of the
tunnel alignment at surface and at the tunneling depth. The geological conditions considered are based
mainly on surface geological mapping and boring information obtained in the vicinity of the tunnel
alignments, as shown in Figure 16.3.8.
As seen from Figure 16.3.8, the foundation of the connection and headrace tunnels is expected to
mostly be CM to CH class sandstone and tuff as well as tuff breccia, and locally D to CL class rocks
over several tens meters relating to the interbedded slate and highly fractured limestone. Consequently
the general rock mass conditions are considered favorable from the viewpoint of tunneling and no
major geological problems are to be expected during heading of the tunnels.
(4) Surge Tank and Penstock Sites
The surge tank and penstock areas are located at the left side of the Masng River immediately
downstream of the confluence between the Masang River and the Alahan Panjang River. Here slope
stability and foundation conditions are the major topics of the geological investigations. The boring
investigation of MS-1 revealed that the tuff and tuff breccia, about 40-m thick, is highly weathered
with a rock quality of D to CL class in Japanese Rock Classification Standard and the underlying
moderately weathered andesite is moderately weathered with a rock quality of CM to CH class. The
surge tank will be expected to be founded on moderately weathered andesite.
Similarly, the penstock will be located on the hillslope underlain by highly weathered tuff and tuff
breccia. The rocks are expected to be D to CL class rock mass in Japanese Rock Classification
Standard. For the foundation of fix points of the penstock the foundation tuff might be very poor with
a rock quality of D class. If such foundation condition would be encountered foundation treatment
such as mortared rockbolts should be implemented to guarantee stable foundations.
(5) Powerhouse Site
The powerhouse is planned at the left bank of the Masang River. From field reconnaissance and
boring investigation (MP-1), the overburden is about 1 to 3 m thick and the underlying limestone is
very hard, highly to moderately fractured with a rock quality of D to CH class in Japanese Rock
Classification Standard. The limestone, although highly fractured, is considered to have a sufficient
bearing capacity for foundation support of the planned powerhouse.
Accordingly, because the foundation limestone is hard and strong and the overburden is thin, no major
foundation problems will be expected. The limestone in the foundation area is suitable for the
founding of the powerhouse.
16.3.6 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

The construction materials required for the construction of the project structures were fine and coarse
aggregates, rock fill and impervious materials.
At the prefeasibility study stage the field reconnaissance (geological mapping) together with limited
laboratory tests was carried out to examine the possible source, quantity and quality of construction
materials.
(1) Sand
Sand materials were needed for the fine aggregates of concrete, grout and mortar. Riverbed deposits
around the Dukuh (SS-1 to SS-3), around the weir site (SS-4) and close to the powerhouse site (SS-5)
were inspected. The Dukuh sites are in operation by local people.
The alluvial deposits are predominately coarse sand with some gravel. The content of fines is zero to
2 % only. Table 16.3.6 summarizes laboratory test results of the samples. Especially the absorption
values of the alluvial sands are high and should be verified in a later survey stage if the materials are to
be used in concrete.
Table16.3.6 Summary of Laboratory Tests for Fine Aggregate Material

Test Criterion SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SS-8
1. Specific gravity >2.5% 2.71 2.67 2.49 2.48 2.33
2. Absorption <3.0% 6.86 13.15 13.15 14.05 11.58
3. Soundness
Na2SO4 12.0% 18.79 4.60 2.40 4.95 13.6
Mg2SO4 15.0%
4. Soft particle <1.0%
(2) Rock Quarry
Several potential limestone quarries (RS-1 through RS-5) around the project site were observed
mainly as concreter coarse aggregate for the construction of project. Table 16.3.7 gives the results of
laboratory tests. As seen from Table 16.3.7, the index properties are satisfactory for concrete
aggregates except for compressive strength. The low strength values of the limestone quarries were
presumably due to weathering because these samples were taken from surface outcrops. The strength
property should be confirmed at next investigation stage.
Table 16.3.7 Summary of Laboratory Tests for Coarse Aggregate Material

Test Criterion RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 RS-5
1. Specific gravity >2.5% 2.76 2.71 2.58 2.71 2.71
2. Absorption <3.0% 1.00 0.89 2.89 0.59 0.32
3. Soundness
Na2SO4 12.0%
Mg2SO4 15.0%
4. Abrasion <40.0% 25.1 32.3
5. UCS >500kg/cm2 182 141 163 255 372
Notes: 1) UCS = Unconfined compressive strength, 2) 1 kgf/cm2 = 98.1kN/m2 (kPa).
16.3.7 GEOLOGUCAL SUMMARY

The preliminary geological and geotechnical investigations conducted at the pre-feasibility study stage
indicate that the topographical and geological conditions of the project site are suitable for the
development of the project.
The mainly investigation results are summarized as follows:
- The basement rocks of the project site are Permian limestone rocks with some thin intercalations
of slate. The limestone rock is extensively covered by Quaternary tuff and tuff breccia from the
volcanic activity of the Maninjau Volcano.
- In comparison with the weir sites A and C the weir site B is more suitable for founding of the
weir construction because at the site the overburden is shallow and the foundation rock of
limestone is hard and strong enough to support the planned weir foundation.
- The intermediate pond site was favorable in terms of bearing capacity; however the permeability
and leakage of the foundation rocks should be considered especially leakage from the right
abutment of thin ridge.
- The planned connection and headrace tunnels would be expected to be founded mostly on CM to
CH class rock masses. No major geological problems are to be expected at tunneling.
- Limestone quarry sites around the project site appeared available in quality and quantity as
potential construction material sources but the strength characteristics should be confirmed at
next survey stage.
- The project site is located in a region of high seismic activity close to the active Great Sumatra
Fault, which is the major seismic source around the project site. The design seismic coefficient
for the per-feasibility study of the Masang-2 project is recommended conservatively to be 0.15 for
design of the weir and intermediate pond dike.
Figure16.3.2 Location of Geological Investigations
Figure16.3.3 Geological Map with Location of Sampling for Construction Materials
Figure16.3.4 Geological Section of the Weir Axis Alternative A
Figure16.3.5 Geological Section of the Weir Axis Alternative B
Figure16.3.6 Geological Section of the Weir Axis Alternative C
Figure16.3.7 Geological Section of the Intermediate Pond Axis
Figure16.3.8 Geological Section along the Connection and Headrace Tunnel Alignment Alternative B
16.4 METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOGY

Meteorological Records and Hydrological Records are collected from Meteorological Climatological
and Geophysical Agency (Badan Meteorologi Klimatologi dan Geofisika: BMKG), Research Institute
for Water Resources Development under Ministry of Public Works (Pusat Penelitian dan
Pengembangan Sumber Daya Air: PUSAIR, formerly DPMA), and engineering reports on various
hydropower development projects. The location map of the stations is shown in Figure 16.4.1. The
availability of data is summarized in Figure 16.4.2 and Figure 16.4.3. The catchment area of Masang-2
HEPP intake weir site is shown in Figure 16.4.4.
16.4.1 METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Climatic data such as air temperature, relative humidity, wind velocity, sunshine duration have been
observed at the Tabing-Padang station, which is collected from BMKG. Pan-evaporation has been
observed at the Lubuk Sikaping and the Tanjung Pati stations. Pan-evaporation data is collected from
Masang-3 HEPP report.
(1) Air Temperature
The average monthly mean air temperature at the Tabing-Padang station in the period of 1971 to 2002
is summarized below.
Unit:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean
26.3 26.2 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.3 25.9 25.7 25.7 25.8 25.7 26.0 26.1
As seen, the mean annual air temperature at the Tabing-Padang station is 26.1C on an average. There
is a slight seasonal change ranging 25.7C in August or September to 26.6C in May.
(2) Relative Humidity
The average monthly relative humidity at the Tabing-Padang station in the period of 1971 to 2002 is
summarized below.
Unit: %
81.1 81.3 82.4 83.0 82.6 81.4 81.6 82.2 82.2 83.9 84.6 83.1 82.5
As well as the monthly pattern of mean air temperature, there is no significant change of relative
humidity throughout the year. The annual mean relative humidity in the period of 1971-2002 at the
Tabing-Padang station is 82.5 % and there is a slight seasonal change ranging from 81.1% in January
to 84.6 % in November.
(3) Sunshine Duration
The average monthly mean sunshine duration at the Tabing-Padang station in the period of 1971 to
2002 is summarized below.
Unit: %
53.1 57.4 53.3 55.3 59.5 61.7 60.9 55.4 42.9 41.7 40.4 50.7 52.7
As seen, the mean annual sunshine duration at the Tabing-Padang station is 52.7 % on an average. The
maximum duration of 61.7 % and the minimum one of 40.4 % occur in June and November,
respectively. Sunshine duration generally decreases with an increase of rainfall. The highest sunshine
duration therefore occurs in June in the dry season.
(4) Wind Velocity
The average monthly mean wind velocity at the Tabing-Padang station in the period of 1971 to 2002 is
summarized below.
Unit: m/sec
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Mean annual wind velocity at the Tabing-Padang station is 1.1 m/sec ranging from 0.9m/sec in June
and 1.3 m/sec in January, February or March. The wind velocity records collected from Masang-3
HEPP reports in the period of 1971 to 1989 are around 1 m/sec, but the others collected from BMKG
in the period of 1990 to 2002 are around 0.1 m/sec.
(5) Evaporation
Pan evaporation records are available at the Lubuk Sikaping station and the Tanjung Pati station. The
average monthly mean pan evaporation at the Lubuk Sikaping and the Tanjung Pati stations is
summarized below.
Station Name: Lubuk Sukaping (1979-1985) Unit: mm/day

4.8 4.4 4.3 3.9 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.2 3.6 3.6 3.9 4.1 4.1
Station Name: Tanjung Pati (1975-1985) Unit: mm/day

3.3 4.1 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.6 4.1 3.1 3.5 3.6
The ruling factors of pan evaporation may be air temperature and relative humidity, namely
evaporation rate varies season to season following to mainly the variation of humidity. As seen in the
above table, the seasonal variation of pan evaporation is generally small throughout the year, because
there is no great seasonal variation of relative humidity.
16.4.2 RAINFALL DATA

There are 13 rainfall gauging stations in and around the Masang River basin. The location map of
these stations is shown in Figure 16.4.1. Also the data availability at these stations is shown in Figure
16.4.2.
The rainfall gauging stations are operated and maintained under BMKG. Monthly rainfall records are
collected in Masang-3 HEPP and HPPS2, besides daily rainfall records are collected from BMKG in
this study.
PLN formerly had own hydrological observation network (PLN-LMK Observation Network).
Currently most of these stations have broken down, after regional office of PLN took responsibility for
maintenance which the central office of PLN had taken.
(1) Monthly Rainfall Data
The monthly distributions of mean annual rainfall are illustrated below.
M an in jau : 3 , 1 9 9 m m (1 9 6 9 - 1 9 9 3 )
600
500
Rainfall(mm)
400
300
200
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Ko t o T in ggi: 2 , 6 3 8 m m (1 9 6 9 - 1 9 9 3 )
600
500
Rainfall(mm)
400
300
200
100
0
Su liki: 2 , 4 4 0 m m (1 9 6 9 - 2 0 0 7 )
600
500
Rainfall(mm)
400
300
200
100
0
Jam bak: 3 , 7 9 7 m m (1 9 6 9 - 1 9 9 3 )
600
500
Rainfall(mm)
400
300
200
100
0
As seen above, the annual mean rainfall at these stations ranges from 2,000 mm to 4,600 mm per year.
It might be said that there exists little seasonality in the Masang River basin receiving rainfalls
throughout the year.
(2) Hourly Rainfall Records
Hourly rainfall records are available at the Gunung Melintang, Maninjau, Sungai Talang Barat, Solok
Bio-Bio, Muara Paiti, Patir, Puar Datar and Halaban Dua rainfall gauging stations.
Hourly rainfall records are collected to determine the rainfall pattern for the flood analysis. Hourly
rainfall records of more than 50 mm were selected for estimating the characteristics of relatively heavy
rainfall.
16.4.3 RUNOFF RECORDS

(1) Water Level Gauging Station (AWLR Station)
Only one water level gauging station has been installed in the Masang River basin. The station name is
the Sipisang AWLR station located in the north of Palembayan town. The catchment area of the
station is described as 458 km2 in the records from 1975 to 1992, and as 436.4 km2 in the records from
1993to 2008. On this study, the catchment area of the station is measured as 475km2 based on
1:50,000 scale map. Besides, the catchment area of Masang-2 HEPP intake weir site is measured as
443km2.
The Sipisang AWLR station is operated by the regional office of the River Bureau under the Ministry
of Public Works (Balai Pengendalian Sumber Daya Air: BPSDA).
(2) Runoff Records
The daily runoff records are collected from PUSAIR in Bandung and the daily water level records are
collected from BPSDA in Bukit Tinggi. The daily runoff records are available from 1975 to 2008
except in 1988, 1989, 1994, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
The average monthly mean runoff in the period of 1975-2008 is summarized below.
Station Name: Sipisang (1975-2008) Unit: m3/s

22.4 20.0 21.6 23.8 22.5 18.7 16.8 18.1 20.6 21.4 27.7 29.2 21.9
As seen, the annual mean runoff at the Sipisang AWLR station is 21.9m3/s or 1,455mm in terms of the
annual runoff depth, which is computed by dividing the annual accumulated runoff volume by the
catchment area of the gauging station.
16.4.4 LOWFLOW ANALYSIS

(1) General Approach
The continuous long-term runoff data for a time period of more than 20 years at the proposed intake
weir site is normally required for evaluating an optimum development scale of the project through
power output computation. Further, it is highly expected that the runoff data should be of high
accuracy because measurement on economic viability of project is highly dependent on the reliability
of available runoff records.
On the Masang-2 HEPP, daily runoff records are required because the type of hydropower
development scheme is runoff type.
As described in the previous chapter, the daily runoff records are available from 1975 to 2008 except
in 1988, 1989, 1994, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Furthermore, the remaining observation years still include
data-missing periods. Therefore, it is necessary to supplement the runoff records at the Sipisang station
by infilling of missing data.
On the other hand, the monthly basin mean rainfall at the Sipisang station can be estimated for the
period between 1973 and 1993. Thus the runoff data at the Sipisang station can be supplemented and
expanded for the period of 1973 to 1993 by constructing a rainfall-runoff simulation model.
Along this line, the Tank Model Method is applied in this study as a rainfall-runoff model, the model
parameters of which are calibrated by using rainfall and runoff records available in the period of 1982
to 1986.
Firstly, the reliability of the available runoff records at the Sipisang station for using calibration is
evaluated by means of runoff coefficient and annual rainfall loss. Then lowflow analysis by the Tank
Model Method is carried out to simulate 21-year long-term monthly runoff data at the Sipisang station.
Finally the daily runoff data at the Masang-2 intake weir site is estimated with 14-year simulated
monthly data and 7-year observed daily data.
The outline of lowflow analysis is described below.
Test of Consintency of
Monthly Runoff Records at Sipisang
Rainfall Records
Estimation of Scrutiny of Runoff Records :

Monthly Basin Mean Rainfall ( Reliability Check )
- Runoff Coefficient
- Annual Rainfall Loss
- Consistency of Records
( 1982 - 1986 )
Establishment of
Rainfall - Runoff Simulation Model
( Tank Model Method )
Calibration of Model Parameters
( 1982 - 1986 )
Supplementation & Expansion of

Monthly Runoff Records by Tank Model
( 1973 - 1993 )
Estimation of Long-Term Daily Runoff

Daily Runoff Records
at Masang-2 Intake Weir Site
( 1976, 1982 - 1986, 1991 )
( 1973 - 1993 )
(2) Estimation of Missing Data
The observed rainfall records at all of the selected stations include several data interruptions. For the
purpose of supplementing the missing rainfall records, the simple regression analysis on the monthly
basis are carried out among the selected stations. Missing data at a station is supplemented by another
station with linear regression equation which has the highest correlation coefficient.
(3) Test of Consistency of Rainfall Records
The method of testing rainfall records for consistency is the double-mass curve technique.
Double-mass analysis tests the consistency of the record at a station by comparing its accumulated
annual or seasonal precipitation with the concurrent accumulated values of mean precipitation for a
group of surrounding stations.
The corrected rainfall is determined by the following equation.
PCX = PX ( M C / M a )
where, PCX : Corrected rainfall at any time period at station x (mm)

PX : Original recorded rainfall at any time period at station x (mm)
MC : Corrected slope of the double-mass curve
Ma : Original slope of the double-mass curve
The monthly rainfall records at the following stations are adjusted for the following periods.
Maninjau Station: 1979 to 1993
Suliki Station: 1988 to 1993
(4) Estimation of Basin Mean Rainfall at the Sipisang AWLR Station
The basin mean rainfall at the Sipisang AWLR station is estimated by applying the Thiessen Method
using the corrected data. The records of selected rainfall gauging stations are divided in two periods
considering data availability.
Case1 (1973 to 1986): Maninjau, Koto Tinggi, Suliki
Case2 (1987 to 1993): Koto Tinggi, Suliki, Jambak
The tables below show the computed Thiessen coefficients for estimating basin mean rainfall at the the
Sipisang AWLR station.
Case1 (1973-1986)
Maninjau Koto Tinggi Suliki
0.67 0.23 0.10
Case2 (1987 to 1993)

Koto Tinggi Suliki Jambak
0.74 0.21 0.05
The estimated annual basin mean rainfall is 2,507mm.
(5) Evaluation of Runoff Records at the Sipisang AWLR Station
The Sipisang AWLR station is selected as a key stream gauge station for predicting the long-term
runoff at the proposed Masang-2 intake weir site, because it is the only gauge located in the Masang
River. The evaluated period of runoff records is determined to be 5 years from 1982 to 1986, because
both rainfall and runoff records are available in this period for calibration of Tank Model parameters.
1) Relationship between Annual Basin Mean Rainfall and Annual Runoff Depth at the Sipisang
AWLR Station
The annual basin mean rainfall at the Sipisang AWLR station is estimated for the period of 1982
to 1986. On the other hand, the annual runoff depth of Masang River at the Sipisang station is
computed by dividing the annual runoff volume by its drainage area of 475 km2 for the same
period as above.
The established relationship between annual basin mean rainfall and annual runoff depth at the
Sipisang station is as follows.
Annual Rainfall Annual Runoff Annual Rainfall Runoff

Year (mm) Depth Loss Coefficient
1976 2,207 1,375 832 0.62
1982 2,430 1,253 1,176 0.52
1983 2,314 1,233 1,081 0.53
1984 3,339 1,318 2,022 0.39
1985 2,615 1,449 1,165 0.55
1986 3,029 1,450 1,579 0.48
1991 3,030 1,326 1,704 0.44
1993 3,027 2,101 925 0.69
Average 2,749 1,438 1,311 0.53
The difference between the annual basin mean rainfall and annual runoff depth is the so-called
evapotranspiration loss or annual rainfall loss.
The annual rainfall loss is analyzed for major rivers in Sumatra in HPPS2 as presented in Table
16.4.1. It is therefore found that the annual rainfall loss normally falls in a range of 700 to 1,500
mm a year which varies according to altitude, natural vegetation, seasonal distribution of rainfall,
etc.
As seen above, the rainfall loss at the Sipisang station varies from 800mm to 2,000mm. From the
hydrological point of view, the rainfall loss usually varies in a small range. Therefore it is
estimated that rainfall data or runoff data has some errors. The basin mean rainfall is adjusted
based on the following consideration.
z The annual runoff depth is likely to be constant rather than the basin mean rainfall, with
small variations of 1,200 to 1,500 mm. The observed record in 1993 is eliminated
because it might contain errors due to malfunctioning of water level recorder.
z Maninjau, Koto Tinggi, Suliki, Jambak rainfall gauging stations which are used for
estimating basin mean rainfall are located outside the Masang River basin. This fact
implies that the estimated basin mean rainfall might inevitably contain some error to
some extent.
The estimated annual basin mean rainfall in 1976, 1984 and 1991 are thus adjusted such that the
annual rainfall loss becomes 1,251mm, which corresponds to the mean annual rainfall loss in
1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986.
The adjusted relationship between annual basin mean rainfall and annual runoff depth at the
Sipisang station is given below.
Annual Rainfall Annual Runoff Annual Rainfall Runoff

Year (mm) Depth Loss Coefficient
1976 2,626 1,375 1,251 0.52
1982 2,430 1,253 1,176 0.52
1983 2,314 1,233 1,081 0.53
1984 2,568 1,318 1,251 0.51
1985 2,615 1,449 1,165 0.55
1986 3,029 1,450 1,579 0.48
1991 2,577 1,326 1,251 0.51
1993 - - - -
Average 2,594 1,343 1,251 0.52
2) Double Mass Curve Analysis
Based on the adjusted annual basin mean rainfall and annual runoff depth at the Sipisang station,
the double mass curve is constructed as given below.
Accumulated Runoff Depth (mm)
10,000
1991
1986
1985
5,000
1984
1983
1982
1976
-
- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Accumulated Basin Mean Rainfall (mm)
As shown above, the annual basin mean rainfall and annual runoff depth are plotted on a straight
line, satisfactorily showing the hydrological consistency ready for Tank model analysis to be
discussed in the next section.
(6) Tank Model
1) Concept of Tank Model Method
The Tank Model simulation method is widely applied for estimating river runoff from rainfall
data. The Tank Model Method has been successfully applied for low-flow analysis in various
water resources development projects in Indonesia.
Basic concept of Tank Model
The basic idea of Tank Model is very simple. Consider a tank having a hole at the bottom and
another hole at the side as illustrated below.
When the tank is filled with water, the water will be released from the holes as shown in the
above. In the tank model simulation, it is considered that the water released from the side hole
corresponds to runoff from a stream, and the water from the bottom hole goes into the ground
water zone.
The depth of water released from a hole is given by the following tank equation.
Q = H
where, Q : Runoff depth of released water (mm)

: Coefficient of hole
H : Water depth above the hole (mm)
Applied Tank Model
For the purpose of natural runoff simulation, four by four (44) tanks combined in series are
used.
The top tank receives the rainfall as inflow to the tank, while the tanks below get the supply from
the bottom holes of the tank directory above. The aggregated outflow from all the side holes of
the tanks constitutes the inflow in the river course.
To effectively trace dry conditions in the basin, several modifications are made on the basic
model. The model is firstly facilitated with a structure to simulate the moisture content in the top
tank. This sub-model is composed of two moisture-bearing zones, which contain moisture up to
the capacities of saturation. Between the two zones, the water transfers as expressed below.
T 2 = TC ( XP / PS XS / SS )
where, T2 : Transfer of moisture between primary and secondary zones

(if positive, transfer occurs from primary to secondary, and vice versa)
TC : Constant
XP : Primary soil moisture depth
PS : Primary soil moisture capacity

XS : Secondary soil moisture depth
SS : Secondary soil moisture capacity
When the primary soil moisture is not saturated and there is free water in lower tanks, the water
goes up by capillary action so as to fill the primary soil moisture with the transfer speed T1 as
given below.
T 1 =TB (1 XP / PS )
where, T1 : Transfer of the water from lower tank with capillary action
TB : Constant
There are many tank model parameters such as hole coefficients of each tank, and height of side
holes of each tank. These parameters cannot be determined mathematically. Therefore, these
parameters are subject to determination through trial-and-error calculations comparing the
calculated runoff with the actually observed runoff.
2) Input Data for Calibration Model
The applied model and simulation condition for calibration are given below. The period for
calibration set from 1982 to 1986 because there are continuously rainfall records and runoff
records.
Number of Tanks 44
Calculation Time Interval 1 month
Calculation Period 1982 to 1986
Observed Runoff at Sipisang Station 1982 to 1986
Basin Mean Rainfall at Sipisang Station 1982 to 1986
Monthly Average Evaporation at Lubuk Sikaping 1979 to 1985
The pan evaporation record at the Lubuk Sikaping station is applied. The pan coefficient of 0.7 is
applied for estimating evapotranspiration in the basin. The average monthly pan evaporation is
given below.
Station Name: Lubuk Sukaping (1979-1985) Unit: mm/day

4.8 4.4 4.3 3.9 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.2 3.6 3.6 3.9 4.1 4.1
3) Calibration Results
Through several trial-and-error calculations, the best coincidence between the simulated and
observed runoff at the Sipisang station is obtained under the tank parameters as follows.
Hole Coefficient Height of Hole (mm)

1 2 H1 H2
Tank-1 0.300 0.350 0.350 15.0 30.0
Tank-2 0.050 0.070 0.000 5.0 0.0
Tank-3 0.010 0.030 0.000 2.0 0.0
Tank-4 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.0 0.0
The rainfall-runoff relationship of the simulated runoff is examined compared with the observed
runoff as summarized below.
Annual Annual Runoff Depth Annual Rainfall Loss

Rainfall (mm) (mm) Runoff Coefficient
Year (mm) Observed Simulated Observed Simulated Observed Simulated
1982 2,430 1,254 1,203 1,177 1,227 0.52 0.50
1983 2,314 1,233 1,143 1,081 1,171 0.53 0.49
1984 2,635 1,314 1,241 1,321 1,395 0.50 0.47
1985 2,615 1,449 1,400 1,166 1,215 0.55 0.54
1986 3,029 1,450 1,697 1,579 1,332 0.48 0.56
Average 2,605 1,340 1,337 1,265 1,268 0.52 0.51
As seen above, the average runoff coefficient and rainfall loss of the simulated runoff are derived
to be 0.51 and 1,268 mm, respectively. On the other hand, hydrological indices of the observed
runoff at the Sipisang station are 0.52 and 1,265 mm. These derived hydrological indices are
judged to be in the hydrologically reasonable range.
(6) Prediction of the Long-Term Runoff at the Sipisang AWLR Station
The tank model with the calibrated parameters in the above is applied to generate the monthly
runoff at the Sipisang station dating back to the period of 1973 to 1993 by use of the estimated
monthly basin mean rainfall.
The rainfall-runoff relationship of simulated runoff is summarized below.
Annual Annual Runoff Depth Annual Rainfall Loss

Runoff Coefficient
Year Rainfall (mm) (mm)
(mm) Observed Simulated Observed Simulated Observed Simulated
1973 2,213 - 1,188 - 1,025 - 0.54
1974 2,622 - 1,255 - 1,367 - 0.48
1975 1,882 - 990 - 893 - 0.53
1976 2,208 1,371 848 836 1,360 0.62 0.38
1977 2,215 - 1,010 - 1,205 - 0.46
1978 2,203 - 1,071 - 1,132 - 0.49
1979 2,061 - 866 - 1,195 - 0.42
1980 2,252 - 919 - 1,333 - 0.41
1981 2,797 - 1,403 - 1,395 - 0.50
1982 2,430 1,254 1,377 1,177 1,053 0.52 0.57
1983 2,314 1,233 1,159 1,081 1,155 0.53 0.50
1984 2,635 1,314 1,245 1,321 1,390 0.50 0.47
1985 2,615 1,449 1,401 1,166 1,214 0.55 0.54
1986 3,029 1,450 1,697 1,579 1,332 0.48 0.56
1987 2,674 - 1,410 - 1,264 - 0.53
1988 2,231 - 1,292 - 939 - 0.58
1989 2,122 - 963 - 1,159 - 0.45
1990 2,516 - 1,184 - 1,333 - 0.47
1991 3,030 1,326 1,538 1,704 1,492 0.44 0.51
1992 2,874 - 1,821 - 1,053 - 0.63
1993 3,027 - 1,646 - 1,381 - 0.54
Average 2,474 - 1,251 - 1,222 - 0.50
As seen in the table, the average runoff coefficient and rainfall loss of the simulated runoff are
derived to be 0.50 and 1,222 mm, respectively. These hydrological indices are judged to be within
the hydrological reasonable range.
(7) Daily Flow Duration Curve
For Masang-2 HEPP, daily runoff data is required for power output computation because the type of
scheme is runoff type. Nevertheless, it is difficult to collect long-term daily rainfall and runoff data in
Masang River basin and the monthly runoff records are supplemented and extended with Tank Model
method. So the combination of daily observed runoff and simulated monthly runoff is used for setting
the daily flow duration curve. The value of simulated monthly runoff data is regarded as simulated
daily runoff in same amount.
The condition of data is summarized below.
Time Interval Daily

Observed Daily Runoff 1976, 1982 to 1986, 1991
Simulated Monthly Runoff 1973 to 1975, 1977 to 1981, 1987 to 1990, 1992, 1993
(8) Long-Term Runoff at the Masang-2 Intake Weir Site
The long-term daily runoff at Masang-2 intake weir site for 21 years in the period of 1973 to 1993 is
estimated from the predicted long-term daily runoff at the Sipisang station by using the following
equation. The flow duration curve as shown in Figure 16.4.5, is drawn by arranging the discharges in
descending order and assigning probabilities to each discharge.
QD = QW ( AD / AW )
where, QD : Runoff at Masang-2 intake weir site (m3/sec)

QW : Runoff at Sipisang AWLR station (m3/sec)
AD : Catchment area at Masang-2 intake weir site (=443km2)
AW : Catchment area at Sipisang AWLR station (=475km2)
(9) Water Level Observation and Discharge Measurement
The field investigation of 3 month water level observation and 30 times discharge measurement was
carried out from 2010 October 6th to 2011 January 7th by the sub-contractor. Location of the
observation is at the Masang-2 intake weir site (St.1) and the Sipisang AWLR station (St.2). H-Q
rating curve is established on the basis of observed water level and discharge, and hydrograph is
established on the basis of observed water level and H-Q rating curve. Hydrograph is illustrated in
Figure 16.4.6.
Consequently, the average water level is 0.75m and the average runoff is 23.85 m3/s calculated with
H-Q rating curve. The Equation of H-Q rating curve is given below.
Q = 36.55 ( H + 0.06) 2
where, Q : Runoff (m3/sec)

H : Water level (m)
The observed average runoff is about 15% of probability on the duration curve shown in Figure
16.4.5.
16.4.5 FLOOD ANALYSIS

(1) General Approach
Flood analysis is carried out to estimate the probable floods with various return periods as well as the
probable maximum flood (PMF) at the Masang-2 intake weir site which are basically required for
design of spillway and diversion facilities, and determination of dam height.
For estimating the probable floods, the unit hydrograph method is applied, which synthesizes the
various probable runoff hydrographs from the probable basin mean rainfalls based on the relationship
between unit of basin mean rainfall and its runoff, that is the so-called unit hydrograph. It is generally
agreed that the unit hydrograph method is applied for catchment areas less than 3,000 km2.
In this study, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) unit hydrograph, which is empirically developed in
USA Department of the Interior is used, because no hourly flood hydrograph is available at the
Sipisang AWLR station to construct the unit hydrograph.
The general approach of flood analysis is outlined below.
(2) Rainfall Analysis
1) Depth-Area-Duration (DAD) Analysis
DAD analysis is carried out to examine the following relationships.
z Relationship between rainfall depth and duration (DD Analysis)
z Relationship between rainfall depth and area (DA Analysis)
a) Depth-Duration (DD) Analysis
Generally, heavy rainfall occurs intensively in a short duration and sporadically in a limited
area. Hourly rainfall records exceeding 50 mm within 12 hours were selected for estimating
the hourly rainfall hyetograph of heavy storm rainfall which might cause flood.
The rainfall duration of selected 63-storm rainfall is arranged. Among the storm rainfalls
bigger than 50mm, 6-hour of rainfall duration covers 63% of all. Besides, 6-hour of rainfall
duration covers 80% of all among the storm rainfalls bigger than 100mm. So, the design
rainfall duration time is estimated as 6-hour, which represents the characteristics of the storm
rainfalls in Masang River basin.
40 of selected 63-storm rainfall have smaller duration time than 6-hours. The average of the
40 storm rainfalls is estimated as the design rainfall pattern..
The design distribution of hourly rainfall is shown below.
Time (hour) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cumulative Rainfall Depth 0% 47% 78% 87% 95% 99% 100%
Incremental Rainfall Depth 0% 47% 31% 9% 8% 4% 1%
b) Depth-Area (DA) Analysis
Generally, heavy rainfall occurs intensively in a short duration and sporadically in a limited
area. Therefore the average depth of storm rainfall (basin mean rainfall) is likely to be
smaller than the point depth of storm rainfall.
In general, relation between point rainfall depth and average area is expressed by an
exponential equation given by the following equation.
Pb = P0 exp[kA n ]
where, Pb : Average rainfall depth over an area A (mm)

P0 : Maximum point rainfall at the storm center (mm)
A : Area in question (km2)
k, n : Constants for a given area
The above equation is the so-called Hortons Equation. Constants k and n usually vary
according to the given rainfall duration such as 1 hour, 6 hours, 12 hours, 1 day, etc. These
constants are to be obtained through rainfall analysis based on the isohyetal maps of various
major rain storms occurred in the river basin in question. However, the exact determination
of P0 is practically impossible, because it is very unlikely that the rain storm center
coincides with a rainfall gauging station.
To estimate the basin mean rainfall from the point rainfall, the area reduction factor showing
the ratio of basin mean rainfall to point rainfall is introduced as expressed below.
Pb = f a P0
where, Pb : Basin mean rainfall (mm)

P0 : Point rainfall (mm)
fa : Area reduction factor
If the Hortons equation is applied, the area reduction factor under the given rainfall duration
is given by the following equation.
f a = exp[ kA n ]
However the available rain storm records in the Masang River basin are insufficient for
reliable determination of the area reduction factor. The preliminary estimation of the design
area reduction factor is carried out based on the following three approaches.
Firstly, the area reduction factor is estimated as 0.63 under the catchment area of 443 km2 for
the Masang-2 intake weir site by applying the Hortons equation assuming that constants of
k and n are 0.1 and 0.25, respectively. These constants have been widely and empirically
applied in tropical rain forest area.
A 443 (km2)
k 0.1
n 0.25
fa 0.63
Secondly, the estimated design area reduction factors are examined in several other projects.
The following design area reduction factors are based on the rainfall analysis using the
observed rain storm records.
Catchment Area Area Reduction

Project Name
(km2) Factor
Besai HEPP (D/D in 1990) 415 0.50
Malea HEPP (F/S in 1984) 1,463 0.45
Tampur-1 HEPP (F/S in 1984) 2,000 0.40
Musi HEPP (F/S in 1984) 586 0.50
Cibuni-3 (F/S in 1984) 1,000 0.41
Masang-3 HEPP (Pre F/S in 1999) 993 0.50
Thirdly, the relation between the daily point rainfall and the daily basin mean rainfall around
the Masang River basin is analyzed to estimate the area reduction factor of the river basin.
The selected rainfall stations are the Payakumbuh and Maninjau stations. A basin mean
rainfall derives from an arithmetic average of an annual maximum daily rainfall of a target
station and daily rainfall of another station at the same day. The average of ratios between
basin mean rainfalls and annual maximum daily rainfalls of target stations is estimated as the
area reduction factor.
Usually, it is considered that the rainfall intensity in hyetal areas increases with the depth of
point rainfall. However, the area reduction factor showing the ratio of area rainfall to the
maximum point rainfall varies from 0.5 to 0.8 for the area rainfall amount. Further, the area
reduction factor does not always increase with the enlargement of the point rainfall. On the
other hand, the design area reduction factors examined in several hydropower projects varies
from 0.4 to 0.5.
In due consideration above, the design area reduction factor is conservatively determined to
be 0.50.
2) Probable Point Rainfall
Out of the available rainfall records around the Masang River basin, the annual maximum 1-day
rainfall records are available at the Payakumbuh rainfall gauging station.The rainfall records at
the Payakumbuh station have recording periods between 1951 and 1993 with some interruptions
in recording.
The probable point rainfalls at the station with several return periods are estimated through
frequency analysis using the Gumbel and Log Normal distributions as summarized below..
Return Period Probable Point Rainfall (mm)

Average
(years) Gumbel LN
400 263 319 291
200 242 281 261
150 233 266 249
100 220 245 233
80 213 235 224
50 199 213 206
30 183 190 186
20 170 173 171
10 148 145 146
5 125 119 122
3 106 100 103
2 90 85 87
The probable point rainfall is estimated as the average of the probable rainfalls by the Gumbel
and Log Normal distributions, because the estimated frequency curves by the Gumbel and Log
Normal distributions have similar shapes.
3) Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)
Generally three (3) approaches are used for estimating the probable maximum precipitation
(PMP) as follows.
Meteorological (theoretical) approach in consideration of the upper physical limit

of moisture source
Statistical approach which is empirically developed by Dr. Hershfield from the

rainfall records in the United States of America
Historical approach by examining the historical maximum one over occurred in the
area of interest
The available basic climatological data such as dew point, humidity, wind velocity in Masang-2
catchment area for the first meteorological approach are insufficient for the time being. Further,
no historical rain storm records are also so far available.
Therefore, PMP is estimated by the simple statistical Hershfield method using a series of the
annual maximum daily rainfall records. This method is widely applied in the basin where rainfall
records are available but other basic climatological records are hardly obtainable.
The Hershfields equation is expressed as follows.
X m = X n + Km Sn
where, Xm : Extreme value of 24-hour rainfall (PMP) (mm)

Xn : Adjusted mean annual maximum rainfall (mm)
Km : Statistical coefficient
Sn : Adjusted standard deviation of a series of annual maximum rainfall
As seen in the above equation, PMP in question is assumed to be given as the adjusted mean
annual maximum rainfall in question plus the Km times the standard deviation of a series of
annual maximum rainfall in question.
The PMP is estimated by applying a series of annual maximum rainfall in the Masang river basin.
The calculation process is as follows.
Computation of Statistical Parameters
The mean annual maximum rainfall (Xn) and its standard deviation (Sn) are calculated to be 96.1
mm and 47.1 mm, respectively.
Concurrently with the above, Xn-m and Sn-m are estimated at 91.6 mm and 38.2 mm, which are
computed after excluding the maximum rainfall in the series of rainfall data. These statistical
parameters are used for several adjustment necessary computing Xn and Sn.
Adjustment of Xn and Sn for Maximum Observed Event
The adjustment factors of Xn (fx1) and Sn (fs1) for the maximum observed rainfall shall be obtained
from the Hershfields adjustment curves.
Applying the values of Xn, Xn-m, Sn and Sn-m, adjustment factors are obtained 97 % for fx1 and 89 %
for fs1, respectively.
Adjustment of Xn and Sn for Sample Size
The adjustment factors of Xn (fx2) and Sn (fs2) for the length of record shall be obtained from the
adjustment curves.
The obtained factors of fx2 and fs2 are 100.5 % and 101.6 %, respectively.
Statistical Coefficient Km
The statistical coefficient Km shall be obtained from the empirical Km curves. Applying the mean
annual maximum rainfall at the Payakumbuh station (Xn) is 96.1 mm, the Km value is obtained to
be 15.5.
Adjustment for Fixed Observational Time Intervals
Rainfall observation has been carried out on the daily basis at the Payakumbuh station. Since the
recorded daily rainfall is computed based on the single fixed observation time interval (say 8 a.m
to 8 p.m), the PMP value yielded by the statistical procedure should be increased multiplying by
the adjustment factor (fo).
Applying that the number of observation units is equal to 1, the fo value is obtained to be 113 %.
Computation of PMP at the Payakumbuh Station
The adjustment mean annual maximum rainfall (Xn) is finally given as follows.
X n = f X1 f X 2 X n
In addition, the adjusted standard deviation of a series of annual maximum rainfall (Sn) is given as
follows.
S n = f S1 f S 2 S n
The unadjusted point PMP (Xm) is computed as follows.
X m = X n + K m Sn
Finally, the point PMP is adjusted using the adjustment factor fo as follows.
PMP = f O X m
As seen, the point PMP at the Payakumbuh station is estimated to be 852 mm.
4) Basin Mean Rainfall
Applying the design area reduction factor of 0.5, the probable basin mean 1-day rainfalls with
various return periods as well as PMP at the Masang-2 intake weir site are estimated as follows.
Return Period Probable Rainfall

(years) (mm)
PMP 426
400 146
200 131
150 125
100 117
80 112
50 103
30 93
20 86
10 73
5 61
3 52
2 44
(3) Hydrograph Analysis
1) Unit hydrograph
Since no flood hydrographs are available for the present flood analysis, the unit hydrograph is
developed by means of the SCS (Soil Conservation Service) synthetic hydrograph method. The
SCS method was developed by analyzing a large number of basins with varying geographic
locations. Unit hydrographs were evaluated for a large number of actual watersheds and then
made dimensionless by dividing all discharge ordinates by the peak discharge and the time
ordinates by the time to peak. An average of these dimensionless unit hydrographs was computed.
a) SCS Unit Hydrograph
The SCS unit hydrograph is derived from the flood concentration time and unit basin rainfall.
The unit hydrograph is constructed for a unit rainfall of 1 mm.
The peak discharge of the unit hydrograph is calculated as follows.
q p = 0.208 AQ / t p
where, qp : Peak discharge (m3/sec)

A : Basin area (km2)
Q : Total volume of the unit hydrograph (=1mm)
tp : Time to peak (hours)
SCS has determined that the time to peak ( t p ) and rainfall duration ( D ) are related to time
of concentration ( t c ) as follows.
t p = 2 tc / 3
D = 0.133t c
b) Flood Concentration Time
The flood concentration time is defined as the time of travel from the most remote point in
the catchment to the forecast point. The flood concentration time can be estimated by the
formula of Kirpich as follows.
t c = 3.97 L0.77 S 0.385
where, tc : Flood concentration time (min)

L : Maximum length of travel of water (km)
S : Average slope (=H/L, where H is the difference in elevation
between the remotest point in the basin and the outlet)
c) SCS Unit Hydrograph Calculation

With a maximum length of travel ( L ) of 49km, the concentration time ( t c ) was found to be
about 6.2 hours. With a catchment area ( A ) of 443 km2, the peak flow ( q p ) is found to be
22.3 m3/sec/mm.
A 443 km2
Q 1 mm
L 49.156 km
tc 6.2 hours
qp 22.3 m3/s/mm
tp 4.1 hours
2) Probable Flood Hydrograph at Masang-2 Intake Weir Site
The probable flood hydrographs including PMF at the Masang-2 intake weir site are derived by
convolution of the probable basin mean rainfall, PMP with the design rainfall hyetograph and the
unit hydrograph.
The base flow is determined to be 14 (m3/s) from the average rainy-season discharge records at
the Sipisang AWLR station, and the rainfall loss is assumed to be 47 %.
The computed probable flood hydrographs as well as PMF are shown in Figure 16.4.7.
The probable design flood discharges with various return periods together with PMF are collected
from various hydropower projects in Sumatra as presented in Table 16.4.2.
3) Creagers Coefficient for Probable Floods at Masang-2 Intake Weir Site
Creagers coefficient for probable flood is computed by the following equations.
Q p = (46 0.02832) C (0.3861 A) a
a = 0.894(0.3861 A) 0.048
where, Qp : Peak discharge of probable flood (m3/sec)

C : Creagers coefficient
A : Catchment area (km2)
The Creagers coefficients corresponding to the various return periods and PMF for the
Masang-2 HEPP are enumerated in the table below.
T Q C
(year) (m3/s)
PMF 4344 92
400 1493 32
200 1341 28
150 1280 27
100 1198 25
80 1152 24
50 1061 22
30 959 20
20 883 19
10 756 16
5 634 13
3 537 11
2 456 10
Figure 16.4.8 and Figure 16.4.9 shows the relationship between probable flood peak discharges
with return periods of 2, 20, 100, 200 years as well as PMF and catchment area for the Masang-2
HEPP and other water resources development projects in the whole Sumatra. The Creagers
curves are illustrated using the Creagers coefficients of the Masang-2 intake weir site calculated
in above. The probable floods at the Masang-2 HEPP are well plotted in reasonable range of
design floods in Sumatra.
4) Probable Floods at the Masang-2 Regulating Pond Site

The time of concentration ( t c ) at the Masang-2 Regulating Pond is calculated as 0.17 hour with
the same method as the Masang-2 intake weir site. Probable floods at the Masang-2 Regulating
Pond are estimated with the Creagers coefficients of the Masang-2 intake weir site, because
short time interval rainfall records like 10-minutes do not exist in Masang River basin.
A 1 km2
L 1.3 km
tc 0.17 hours
The results of flood analysis are estimated as follows.
Intake Pond
T Q C Q
(year) (m3/s) (m3/s)
PMF 4344 92 49.1
400 1493 32 16.9
200 1341 28 15.2
150 1280 27 14.5
100 1198 25 13.5
80 1152 24 13.0
50 1061 22 12.0
30 959 20 10.8
20 883 19 10.0
10 756 16 8.6
5 634 13 7.2
3 537 11 6.1
2 456 10 5.2
5) Probable Floods at the Masang-2 Power House Site
The Alahanpanjang River and the Masang River join together at the upstream of the Masang-2
Power House site. At the power house site, probable floods seem to be controlled by floods from
the Masang River, because the catchment area of the Alahanpanjang River basin is smaller than
the Masang River basin. So, Probable floods at the Masang-2 power house site are estimated with
the Creagers coefficients of the Masang-2 intake weir site as same as the regulating pond. The
catchment area of the power house site is 919.5km2.
The results of flood analysis are estimated as follows.
Intake PH
T Q C Q
(year) (m3/s) (m3/s)
PMF 4344 92 6281.3
400 1493 32 2158.8
200 1341 28 1939.1
150 1280 27 1850.9
100 1198 25 1732.3
80 1152 24 1665.8
50 1061 22 1534.2
30 959 20 1386.7
20 883 19 1276.8
10 756 16 1093.2
5 634 13 916.8
3 537 11 776.5
2 456 10 659.4
(4) Water Level Observation and Discharge Measurement
As mentioned in the chapter of lowflow analysis, the field investigation of 3 month water level
observation and 30 times discharge measurement was carried out from 2010 October 6th to 2011
January 7th by the sub-contractor.
Consequently, the maximum water level is 2.01m and the maximum runoff is 156.61 m3/s calculated
with H-Q rating curve in extrapolation. The Equation of H-Q rating curve is given below.
Q = 36.55 ( H + 0.06) 2
where, Q : Runoff (m3/sec)

H : Water level (m)
16.4.6 SEDIMENT ANALYSIS

(1) General
Sedimentation analysis is preliminarily carried out to estimate the denudation rate in the Masang River
basin. The sedimentation load is herein predicted based on the estimated runoff and the sediment
discharge rating curve at the intake weir site. The rating curve is established based on the in-situ
sampling records obtained through the field investigation conducted in the course of the study. The
field investigation was carried out at the Masang-2 intake weir site and Sipisang AWLR station.
The sediment transport in the Masang River is judged to be higher than other rivers in the Sumatra.
The denudation rate showing the expected average annual erosion rate in a river basin is generally
influenced by the topography (soil condition, river gradient), deforestation of the land in the basin,
rainfall intensity, etc.
In addition, the design denudation rates adopted in other water resources or hydropower development
projects in Sumatra are collected for comparison purposes.
(2) Suspended Load Sampling
A total of thirty (30) suspended load samplings were carried out at the intake weir site where discharge
measurements were taken. The samples were taken to a laboratory for further analysis. The sieve
analysis results of samples are shown in Figure 16.4.10.
(3) Suspended Load Rating Curve
The laboratory analysis results of the samples show the total suspended sediment concentration which
is the combination of both dissolved and undissolved sediment. The total suspended load is found
from the following formula.
QS = 0.0864 C QW
where, QS : Suspended load (ton/day)

C : Total suspended sediment concentration (mg/L)
QW : Flow discharge (m3/s)
Several results are considered unreliable because they show very low concentration or very high
concentration. Therefore these unreliable results will not be used in the determination of the suspended
load rating curve. The values of Qs are plotted against their respective Qw values to determine the
suspended load rating curve. On the basis of the estimated sediment discharge at the intake weir site,
the suspended load rating curve is established as shown in Figure 16.4.11. The rating curve equation is
given below.
QS = 5.4615 QW
1.7812
If the flow discharge Qw is known, the suspended load sediment Qs can be estimated.
(4) Total Sediment Load
The annual suspended load sediment yield is simulated by applying the above rating curve to the
simulated daily runoff at the intake weir site. The catchment area of the Masang-2 intake weir site is
443km2.
Substituting runoff data, the average annual suspended load sediment at the intake weir site is
estimated at 369,749 ton.
The density of sediment in appearance can be calculated by the following equation.
= (1 V )
where, : Density of sediment (ton/m3)

V : Void ratio of sediment
: Unit weight of sediment (=2.65ton/m3)
Assuming a void ratio of 60 % in sedimentation, the density of sediment is found to be 1.06 ton/m3.
Hence, the annual suspended load sediment is estimated at 348,820 m3.
The sediment load transport into an intake weir generally consists of suspended load and bed load. It is
generally accepted that it might be difficult to accurately measure the bed load in a natural river.
Usually, the rate of bed load transport is empirically estimated at 10 to 30 % of the total suspended
load. The rate of bed load transport is estimated as 10% of the total suspended load, because 10% is
usually applied in Indonesia.
Consequently, the mean annual sediment inflow volume into the Masang-2 intake weir is estimated to
be 383,702 m3, which is equivalent to a denudation rate of 0.87 mm per year.
For comparison purpose, design denudation rates of various schemes around the project site are
presented in the following table.
Project Name Project Stage Province Catchment Area Denudation Rate

(km2) (mm/year)
Masang-3 Pre-F/S W. Sumatra 993 0.50
Bt. Tonggar W. Sumatra 320 0.45
Bt. Bayang-1 Pre-F/S W. Sumatra 84 0.70
Bt. Bayang-2 Pre-F/S W. Sumatra 36 0.70
Kotapanjang D/D Riau 3,337 0.50
Kampar River Basin F/S Jambi - 0.50
Upper Indragiri River Basin Jambi - 0.59
Middle Indragiri River Basin Jambi - 0.53
Merangin-2 D/D Jambi 1,309 0.34
Merangin-5 Pre-F/S Jambi 2,597 0.70
Lake Kerinci Jambi 1,053 0.72
Source: Masang-3 HEPP, 1999.
As seen in the above table, the design denudation rates vary from 0.34 to 0.72 mm/year. The assumed
denudation rate of 0.87 mm/year at the Masang-2 intake weir site might not be in the appropriate
range.
Referring to the geology report in this study, there is place of gravel pit in the upstream of Masang
River, and gravel extraction is seems to be carried out frequently. The samples of suspended load
might be influenced by the gravel extraction. The gravel extraction might not be continuously carried
out, so the design denudation rate of the Masang-2 intake weir should be estimated without influence
of the gravel extraction in upstream. Nevertheless, it is difficult to estimate the volume of sediment
yield from the gravel pit.
The grain size distributions of the samples are consists of mainly fine size grain smaller than 0.1mm,
of which falling velocity is slow. It is estimated that the fine size grain has small influence to the
sedimentation in the intake weir.
Consequently, the design denudation rate of the Masang-2 intake weir is estimated as 0.5mm/year
which is the middle of design denudation rates in other projects. The design annual sediment inflow
volume into the Masang-2 intake weir is estimated to be 221,500m3/year.
16.4.7 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS

Water quality is important because it is linked to the availability of water for various uses. Specifically,
for the Masang-2 HEPP it is important for the well being of hydraulic machinery, other equipment and
hydraulic structures used in the project.
The laboratory test for water quality was carried out through the field investigation under the current
study to identify the content of various chemical elements contained in the water in the Masang River.
Water sampling is carried out three (3) times in total at the Masang-2 intake weir site. The samples
were taken to a laboratory for further analysis.
The laboratory test results are presented in Table 16.4.3. The table shows that the pH of the water in
the Masang River is around 8. It is therefore judged that the water in the Masang River will have no
adverse effect on turbine and metal for hydropower use, because adverse effect is expected to occur
under the pH value smaller than 4.5.
No. Station River Gauge ID Catchment Basin Annual Annual Annual Runoff Observation
Final Report (Main)
Name Basin Area Mean Mean Runoff Rainfall Coeff. Period

Rainfall Runoff Depth Loss
(km2) (mm) (m3/sec) (mm) (mm)
Table 16.4.1
1 Lhok Nibong Kr. Jambu Aye 01-027-01-02 4,583 2,685 175.7 1,209 1,476 0.45 1972-1993

2 Stabat S. Wampu 01-040-01-01 3,870 3,099 206.8 1,685 1,414 0.54 1974-1993
JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of

3 Lb. Sipelanduk Bt. Pane 01-055-03-02 828 2,250 28.4 1,082 1,168 0.48 1973-1993
4 Lb. Bendahara S. Rokan 01-058-02-01 3,325 2,589 141.5 1,342 1,247 0.52 1974-1993
5 Tj. Ampalu Bt. Kuantan 01-066-04-01 2,215 2,211 77.6 1,105 1,106 0.50 1975-1993
6 Sungai Dareh Bt. Hari 01-071-01-01 4,452 3,239 310.2 2,197 1,042 0.68 1975-1993
7 Muara Inum Bt. Hari 01-071-02-01 1,455 3,346 107.6 2,332 1,014 0.70 1973-1987
8 Martapura A. Musi 01-074-01-01 4,260 2,821 225.0 1,666 1,155 0.59 1960-1984
9 Banjarmasin W. Tl. Bawang 01-077-02-07 604 3,125 36.8 1,921 1,204 0.61 1972-1993
10 Kunyir W. Sekampung 01-080-01-04 438 2,740 23.1 1,663 1,077 0.61 1968-1993
16-46
11 Kp. Darang Kr. Aceh 01-001-01-01 1,081 2,012 33.1 966 1,046 0.48 1977-1993
12 Tui Kareng Kr. Teunom 01-205-01-01 2,403 3,437 183.9 2,413 1,024 0.70 1982-1993
13 Hp. Baru Bt. Toru 01-178-01-01 2,773 2,843 128.9 1,466 1,377 0.52 1972-1993
14 Air Batu Bt. Indrapura 01-141-01-01 468 2,887 31.3 2,109 778 0.73 1973-1993
15 Air Gadang Bt. Pasaman 01-165-01-01 1,339 3,600 121.3 2,857 743 0.79 1973-1993
Chapter 16
16 Despetah A. Musi 01-074-01-02 627 3,100 45.2 2,273 827 0.73 1974-1991
Annual Rainfall Loss of Various River Basins in Sumatra
Source : Sectoral Report Vol. 2 : Hydrology, Hydro Inventory Study, July 1997
August, 2010
Project Site Condition
Table 16.4.2 Probable Floods under Various Schemes in Sumatra
Catchment Probable Peak Discharge (m3/sec)

No Scheme River Province Area Return Period (year)
PMF
(km2) 2 20 100 200 1,000 10,000
1 Tampur-1 Kr. Tampur D.I. Aceh 2,025 2,870 3,590 7,470
2 Teunom-1 Kr. Teunom D.I. Aceh 900 2,300 3,120 8,390
3 Aceh-2 Kr. Aceh D.I. Aceh 323 1,030 1,470 3,510
4 Lawe Alas-4 Lawe Alas D.I. Aceh 5,705 2,500 4,250 12,500
5 Peusangan-4 Kr. Peusangan D.I. Aceh 945 1,600
6 Lake Laut Tawar Kr. Peusangan D.I. Aceh 195 500 810 940 1,670
7 Residual Basin-1 Kr. Peusangan D.I. Aceh 106 360 530 600 1,020
8 Jambu Aye Kr. Jambu Aye D.I. Aceh 3,890 1,939 2,331 3,800 4,850
9 Rubek Kr. Jambu Aye D.I. Aceh 93 142
10 Residual Basin-2 Kr. Peusangan D.I. Aceh 128 320 480 550 940
11 Lalang S. Belawan N. Sumatera 254 250 410 610
12 Tembakau S. Percut N. Sumatera 171 140 230 340
13 Lausimeme S. Percut N. Sumatera 106 180 280 300
14 Helvetia S. Deli N. Sumatera 341 280 530 690
15 Namobatang S. Deli N. Sumatera 93 250 270
16 Baru S. Serdang N. Sumatera 671 470 750 940
17 Pulau Tagor S. Ular N. Sumatera 1,013 430 820 1,070
18 Karai S. Ular N. Sumatera 500 500 560
19 Brohol S. Padang N. Sumatera 759 390 720 940
20 Rampah S. Belutu N. Sumatera 423 180 290 370
21 Renun A. Renun N. Sumatera 139 580 740 820 960 1,900
22 Wampu S. Wampu N. Sumatera 1,570 2,970
23 Limang S. Wampu N. Sumatera 959 300 940
24 Sipan Sihaporas Sipan Sihaporas N. Sumatera 196 269 1,800
25 Batang Bayang-1 Bt. Bayang W. Sumatera 84 590
26 Batang Bayang-2 Bt. Bayang W. Sumatera 36 340
27 Muko-Muko Bt. Antokan W. Sumatera 248 44 74 93 120
28 Masang-3 Bt. Masang W. Sumatera 993 1,136 2,204 2,878 3,168 3,851 4,854 10,419
29 Merangin-5 Bt. Merangin Jambi 2,597 1,970 2,460 5,300
30 Lake Kerinci Siulak Jambi 916 590 1,538 2,177 2,464 3,102 4,092 13,347
31 Batang Hari Bt. Hari Jambi 4,452 1,937 4,192 5,603 6,205 7,601
32 Batang Hari (Alt.) Bt. Hari Jambi 3,825 1,664 3,602 4,814 5,331 6,531
33 Kiri-1 Bt. Kampar Riau 1,187 2,537 7,274
34 Kiri-2 Bt. Kampar Riau 552 1,446
35 Kapoernan Bt. Kampar Riau 699 2,181
36 Kotapanjang Bt. Kampar Riau 3,337 1,183 1,624 8,000 11,400
37 Upper Sinamar Bt. Indragiri Riau 3,180 3,180 8,383
38 Sukam Bt. Indragiri Riau 360 1,755
39 Lower Kuantan Bt. Indragiri Riau 7,453 10,047
40 Ombilin Bt. Ombilin Riau 1,078 118 175 211 263
41 Musi (Intake Dam) A. Musi S. Sumatera 587 240 530 720 780 1,010 1,310
42 Musi (Regulation Dam) A. Musi S. Sumatera 30 79 138 175 190 226 277
43 Martapura Way Komering S. Sumatera 4,260 1,300 1,900 2,200 2,300 2,700 6,300
44 Lematang-4 A. Lematang S. Sumatera 1,321 1,870 2,430 5,500
45 Mine Mouth Steam Plant A. Lematang S. Sumatera 3,667 6,636
46 Ketaun-1 A. Ketaun Bengkulu 449 500 800 980 1,070 7,140
Masang-2 Bt. Masang W. Sumatera 443 456 883 1,198 1,341 4,344
Source: Hydro Inventory Study, Sectral Report Vol.2 Hydrology, July 1997.
Masang-3 HEPP, 1999.
Table 16.4.3 Water Quality Analysis of Masang River
No Water Quality Parameter Unit Sample-1 Sample-2 Sample-3

Date 2010/10/25 2010/11/25 2010/12/25
Weather Clear Cloud Cloud
1 pH 8.09 8.11 8.11
2 Temperature 25.4 24.9 24.9
3 Total Hardness mg/l 123.7 131 126
4 Temporary Hardness mg/l 52.58 93 97
5 Suspended Matter mg/lit 136 299 295
6 Total Solid mg/lit 261 327 343
7 Ignition Residue mg/lit 0.08 0.07 0.07
8 Permanganate Value as O2 mg/lit 9.69 7.24 3.55
9 Carbonates as CaCO3 mg/lit 0 10.74 8.06
10 Bicarbonates as CaCO3 mg/lit 135.52 115 141
11 Calcium (Ca) mg/lit 37.48 41.64 39.89
12 Magnesium (Mg) mg/lit 7.34 6.57 6.37
13 Sodium (Na) mg/lit 8.36 11.52 9.9
14 Potassium (K) mg/lit 1.96 2.77 2.8
15 Iron (Fe) mg/lit 1.579 0.72 1.28
16 Manganese (Mn) mg/lit <0.02 0.69 0.07
17 Copper (Cu) mg/lit <0.001 0.008 0.008
18 Turbidity NTU 41 37 52
19 Color Pt-Co-Unit 20 10 kol 10 kol
20 Electric Conductivity /Cm 254 313 303
21 Aluminum (Al) mg/lit 1.35 1 1.42
22 Silica (SiO2) mg/lit 46.52 17.7 22
23 Lead (Pb) mg/lit 0.008 0.42 0.42
24 Arsenic (As) mg/lit 0.0024 0.002 0.0025
25 Ammonium (NH4) mg/lit 0.784 <0.02 <0.02
26 Albuminoid mg/lit <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
27 Nitrites (NO2) mg/lit 0.002 0.003 0.007
28 Nitrates (NO3) mg/lit 0.516 0.432 0.666
29 Sulfities (SO3) mg/lit 0.155 0.072 <0.02
30 Sulfates (SO4) mg/lit 17.65 21.03 21.9
31 Chlorides (Cl) mg/lit 7.77 8.09 7.87
32 Phosphates (PO4) mg/lit 0.049 <0.002 <0.002
33 Oxygen (O2) mg/lit 7.31 6.79 7.17
34 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) mg/lit 1.73 - -
35 P-value as CaCO3 mg/lit 0.052 <0.02 < 0.002
36 M-Value as CaCO3 mg/lit 25 24.8 24.8
Figure 16.4.1 Location Map of Meteo-Hydrological Stations
Daily Rainfall Records

Year
BMG HPPS2
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
No. Station Name ID ID Remarks
1 Maninjau 52B 22-0052-02
2 Limau Purut 52C 22-0052-03
3 Padang Panjang 53 22-0053-00
4 Bukit Tinggi 54 22-0054-00 1961-
5 Baso 54A 22-0054-01
6 Padang Mangatas 54C 22-0054-03 1965-
7 Payakumbuh 56 22-0056-00 1920-
8 Koto Tinggi 56A 22-0056-01
9 Suliki 56B 22-0056-02 1923-
10 Kota Baharu 57 22-0057-00
11 Bonjol 58C 22-0058-03
12 Jambak 58F 22-0058-06
13 Lubuk Sikaping 59 22-0059-00

Source: BMKG
Monthly Rainfall Records

Year
BMG HPPS2
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
No. Station Name ID ID Remarks
1 Maninjau 52B 22-0052-02
2 Limau Purut 52C 22-0052-03
3 Padang Panjang 53 22-0053-00
4 Bukit Tinggi 54 22-0054-00 1961-
5 Baso 54A 22-0054-01
6 Padang Mangatas 54C 22-0054-03 1965-
7 Payakumbuh 56 22-0056-00 1920-
8 Koto Tinggi 56A 22-0056-01
9 Suliki 56B 22-0056-02 1923-
10 Kota Baharu 57 22-0057-00
11 Bonjol 58C 22-0058-03
12 Jambak 58F 22-0058-06
13 Lubuk Sikaping 59 22-0059-00

Source: HPPS2 Report, 1999. Masang-3 HEPP Report, 1999. BMKG
Figure 16.4.2 Availability of Climatic Records (1/2)
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Source: BMKG
Source: BMKG
Source: BMKG
Source: BMKG
Wind Velocity
- Sipisang
- Sipisang
- Sipisang
1 Bt. Masang
1 Bt. Masang
1 Bt. Masang
2 Tanjung Pati
Pan Evapolation
Air Temperature
Relative Humidity
1 Lubuk Sikaping
1 Tabing-Padang
1 Tabing-Padang
1 Tabing-Padang
1 Tabing-Padang
Sunshine Duration
Station Name
Station Name
Station Name
Station Name
Station Name
Station Name
Station Name
Station Name
: Complite Data
Daily Runoff Records
: Incomplite Data
Source: Pusair Bandung
Monthly Runoff Records

Source: BPSDA Bukit Tinggi
Daily Water Level Records
Final Report (Main)
01-164
01-164
01-164
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
-00-01
-00-01
-00-01
BMG
BMG
BMG
BMG
BMG
Body
P3SA
03106
03106
03106
03106
DPMA
DPMA
DPMA
Management
Source: Masang-3 HEPP Report, 1999

ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
HPPS2
HPPS2
HPPS2
HPPS2
HPPS2
HPPS2
HPPS2
163-01-01
163-01-01
163-01-01
22-0043-01
22-0043-01
22-0043-01
22-0043-01
1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969

1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970
1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971

1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972
1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973
Figure 16.4.3
1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974
1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975
1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976
1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 Source: HPPS2 Report, 1999. Masang-3 HEPP Report, 1999. Pusair Bandung.
1977 1977 1977
1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978
1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979
1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980
1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981
1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982
1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983
1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984
1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985
1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986
1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987
1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988
1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989
16-51
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990

1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991
1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992
1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993
1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994
1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995
1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996
1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997
1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998
1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999
Availability of Climatic Records (2/2)

2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
Chapter 16
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001

2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003
2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005
2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006
2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007
2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008
2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
28years
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
August, 2010
B. A. Alahanpanjang
Power House Site
B. Masang
Sipisang AWLR station
B. Masang
Masang-2 Basin
443km2
S. Guntung
Masang-2
Intake Weir Site
B. Sianok
Figure 16.4.4 Catchment Area of

Masang-2 Intake Weir based on
1:50,000 map
Final Report (Main)
Probability Estimated Runoff

(%) (m3/s) Masang-2 Intake Weir Site
0% 78.99
5% 31.32 50
10% 26.31

45

15% 22.51
20% 21.43
40
25% 20.29
30% 18.91 35
35% 18.05
40% 17.35 30
45% 16.73
25
50% 16.19
Site
55% 15.57 20
Runoff (m3/s)
60% 15.29
65% 14.55 15
16-53
70% 13.81 10
75% 13.06
80% 12.31 5
85% 11.48
0
90% 10.99
95% 10.03 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
100% 6.32 Probability of Exceedence
Chapter 16
Average 17.67
Figure 16.4.5 Flow Duration Curve of Estimated Daily Runoff at Masang-2 Intake Weir
August, 2010
2.0 Maximum Water Level

2.01m 2010/11/26 6:00
1.5
Water Level (m)
1.0 Average Water Level

0.75m
0.5
Minimum Water Level
0.55m 2010/12/23
0.0
2010/10/1 2010/10/16 2010/10/31 2010/11/15 2010/11/30 2010/12/15 2010/12/30
180
Maximum Runoff
156.61 m3/s 2010/11/26 6:00
160
140
120 Estimated Runoff with

Discharge Measurement H-Q Rating Curve
Runoff (m3/s)
100
80
Average Runoff
60
25.68 m3/s Minimum Runoff
13.60 m3/s 2010/12/23
40
20
0
2010/10/1 2010/10/16 2010/10/31 2010/11/15 2010/11/30 2010/12/15 2010/12/30
Figure 16.4.6 Result of Water Level Observation and Hydrograph Calculated with H-Q
Rating Curve
PMF
400
200
150
100
80
50
30
20
10
5
3
2
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
Time (hour)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
0
500
Discharge (m3/s)
Figure 16.4.7 Probable Flood Hydrographs at Masang-2 Intake Weir Site
Probable Maximum Flood

100,000
Flood Peak Discharge (m3/s)
10,000
1,000
PMF
C=92
Masang-2 PMF
100
10
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Catchment Area (km2)
Return Period = 200 year

100,000
10,000
1,000
200
C=28
Masagn-2 200
100
10
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Figure 16.4.8 Relationship between Probable Peak Discharge and Catchment Area in
Sumatra (1/2)

10,000
1,000
100
C=25
100
Masagn-2 100
10
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

10,000
1,000
2
C=10
100
Masagn-2 2
10
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Figure 16.4.9 Relationship between Probable Peak Discharge and Catchment Area in
Sumatra (2/2)
Final Report (Main)
Intake06-Okt-10
100% Intake06-Okt-10
Intake06-Okt-10
90% Intake09-Okt-10
Intake09-Okt-10
Intake09-Okt-10
80% Intake22-Okt-10

Intake22-Okt-10

70% Intake22-Okt-10
Intake25-Okt-10
Intake25-Okt-10
60% Intake25-Okt-10
Intake05-Nop-10
Intake05-Nop-10
%
50%
Intake05-Nop-10
Intake21-Nop-10
40%
Intake21-Nop-10
Intake21-Nop-10
30% Intake25-Nop-10
Intake25-Nop-10
16-58
20% Intake25-Nop-10
Intake05-Des-10
Intake05-Des-10
10% Intake05-Des-10
Sipisang21-Des-10
0% Sipisang21-Des-10
Figure 16.4.10 Sieve Analysis of Suspended Load

Sipisang21-Des-10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Chapter 16
Sipisang25-Des-10
Grain Size (mm) Sipisang25-Des-10
Sipisang25-Des-10
August, 2010
Adopted Not Adopted
100,000
10,000
Suspended Load, Qs (ton/day)
1,000
y = 5.4615x 1.7812
100
10
1
1 10 100
Runoff, Qw (m3/s)
Figure 16.4.11 Suspended Load Rating Curve
16.5 POWER SYSTEM CONDITION

Figure 16.5.1 presents data for the power system in the vicinity of potential sites as of 2011, 2019, and
2027, using the estimated indicators for power demand formulated in Chapter 3. In this figure, the
figures in the circular symbols indicate the peak power (upper row) and base power (lower row, in
parentheses) at each substation (bulk supply point).
The potential site located on the northern shore of Lake Maninjau is situated outside the 150kV loop
system encircling Padang, another big consumption center. The nearest major demand center is
Bukit Tinggi. However, Bukit Tinggi is connected to the aforementioned 150kV system, and the
loop system is scheduled to be connected to the 275kV system at Payakumbuh and Kiliranjao in 2012.
Connection to this system will presumably also resolve the problem of voltage drop at Payakumbuh
and Padang Luar.
For this area, the forecast envisions base power of 121 MW as compared to peak power of 201 MW
1in 2019, and corresponding figures of 218 and 363 MW in 2027.
The power sources in this area able to make a direct contribution to base power are PLTA Maninjau (4
x 17 MW), which is connected to GI Maninjau, and PLTA Batang Agam (3 x 3.5 MW), which is
connected to GI Payakumbuh. Considering the capacity factors2 of each source, the available power
inclusive of this potential would be about 71 MW. This would make it difficult to secure the power
for this system shown in the figure in its entirety.
Assuming improvement of the power supply and quality at Payakumbuh and Padang by connection to
the 275kV system, and limiting the system scope of the base power secured by this hydropower source
to the GI Simpang Empat - GI Maninjau section, the available power inclusive of this potential would
be about 65 MW, and make it possible to secure most of the system base power required in 2027.
GI Simpang Empat is a bulk supply point on the northern end supporting the power demand in the far
northern part of West Sumatra Province. It may be anticipated to become a source that is also
required for eliminating the prospective problem of voltage drop in the distribution system connected
to it.
1
The diversity factor was excluded from consideration.
2
Hydropower :60% is applied.
Year 2011
SimpangEmpat
21.9
Masang2
Maninjau
11.1 32.0 27.7
417 MW 33.5 MW
PadangLuar
KeKotaPadang
Year 2019
SimpangEmpat
45.3
(27.2)
Masang2
Maninjau
23.5 66.2 66.0

(14.1) (39.7) (39.6)
417 MW 33.5 MW
PadangLuar
KeKotaPadang
Year 2027
SimpangEmpat
81.6
(49.0)
Masang2
Maninjau
42.0 119 120

(25.2) (71.6) (72.0)
417 MW 33.5 MW
PadangLuar
KeKotaPadang
Source: JICA Study Team by reference to RUPTL2010-2019
Figure 16.5.1 Power system condition around potential site (Masang-2)
Final Report (Main) Chapter 17 Plan Formulation
CHAPTER 17 PLAN FORMULATION
17.1 BASIC CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR

OPTRIMIZARTION STUDY
(1) Original Scheme
The Masang-2 project site is located about 15 km north of Lake Maninjau and 90 km north of Padang
city in West Sumatra Province. The Masang-2 scheme was originally formulated as a run-of-river type
hydropower development project capable of daily peak generation. In the original plan, the peaking
generation was considered possible by effect of a storage reservoir created by diversion weir on main
stream of the Masang river. The original layout is as shown in Figure 17.1.1.
Source: HPPS-2 (1999) Sectoral Report Vol. 11
Figure 17.1.1 Original Layout of Masang-2 Scheme
Main features of the original scheme are as follows:

Average annual runoff: 25.5 m3/s
Reservoir Full Supply Level (FSL): El. 361.9 m
Reservoir Minimum Operation Level (MOL): El. 354.9 m
JICA Project for the Master Plan Study of 17- 1 August, 2011
Active storage volume of reservoir: 0.6 mil. m3

Headrace tunnel (diameter x length): D3.9 m x 6,700 m
Penstock (diameter x length): D3.1 m x 500 m
Powerhouse, tail water level: El. 200.0 m
Power and energy generation, Max. plant discharge: 33.2 m3/s
Average net head: 144.3 m
Installed capacity: 39.6 MW
Annual energy production: 256.1 GWh
(2) Alternative Powerhouse Site
Using the original layout as a basis for the current optimization study, site reconnaissance in the
Masang-2 project site was conducted. During the preliminary review of the layout, it was revealed that
the river bed elevation at powerhouse site on the 1/50,000 map available at that time is several 10
meters higher than the originally estimated tail water elevation. Also by the provisional rough
measurement by a hand GPS device at the site reconnaissance, the river bed elevation seemed about
20 m higher than the tail water level indicated in the original design. Such higher river bed level at the
powerhouse site unfavorably results in reduction of power output by more than 15%.
It is understood that the original Masang-2 powerhouse site was selected in initial phase of HPPS-2 on
the basis of a temporary plan of the downstream Masang-3 scheme of which the reservoir FSL was set
at El. 200 m. In the later phase of the HPPS-2, Pre F/S was conducted for theMasang-3 scheme and its
reservoir FSL was lowered to El. 167 m to avoid submergence of vast farm land and populated town
on the upstream tributary (Alahanpanjan river). The Masan-3 scheme is a hydropower project with 90
m high dam. However, its dam site is located within the natural reserve range. Implementation of
the Masang-3 project seems unrealistic. In view of this situation, it is decided to shift the powerhouse
site 2.3 km downstream in the current study. The planned new site is just below the junction of the
Masang river with the Alahanpanjan river. By this shifting, the available water head for power
generation increases by more than 50 m. Therefore, the idea of locating powerhouse on the original
site is abandoned in the current study.
(3) Alternative Options for Intake Site
The original intake site (named Plan A) is located 500 m downstream from the junction of two rivers,
i.e. Masang and Guntung rivers. Topographic survey works and geological investigations by the JICA
team were started at the original intake site. However, it was revealed during the initial exploratory
drilling that the original intake site is covered with weak volcanic sediment layer of more than 20 m
thick at the river bed. Such thick and weak layer causes difficulty of intake weir construction and
increase of construction cost.
To find more favorable intake sites, further reconnaissance was conducted along the downstream river
course. In the reconnaissance, rock outcrop was found on river bed at a sharp bend of river in a range
of 0.5 to 1.0 km downstream from the original intake site. The rock outcrop was considered to have
sufficient strength for supporting intake weir. This river stretch was selected as alternative intake sites
(named Plans B and C).
(4) Flow Regulation Pond for Daily Peak Generation
In the original HPPS-2 plan, it was proposed to create a storage reservoir (0.6 mil. m3) on the main
stream by a 20 m high diversion weir in order to regulate river flow for daily peak generation.
However, the upper Masang and Guntung river basins are covered with volcanic materials. River slope
upstream of the intake site is steep and the Guntung river bed is filled with big boulders and
sand/gravel. The river water contains considerable amount of volcanic silt and sand due to ground
surface erosion. It is foreseen that, even if a daily regulation reservoir is created on the main stream, it
will soon be filled with sediments. For flushing of deposited sediments to recover the original storage
capacity, the reservoir water level has to be lowered periodically down to reservoir bottom and much
of inflow water has to be discharged downstream without utilizing it for generation. This means that
generation operation has to be interrupted frequently for the sediment flushing operations. In addition,
it is foreseen that if river bed boulders in the upstream reaches are washed out by flood flows into the
reservoir, flushing-out of accumulated boulders from the reservoir is extremely difficult. Therefore,
the idea of creating a reservoir (or pond) on the main stream is abandoned in the current study.
Instead of creating main stream reservoir, it is planned to build an intermediate regulation pond on the
route of waterway utilizing natural creek or relatively flat land existing between the intake and the
powerhouse. However, as the natural creek depression is not enough to create a large pond sufficient
for daily flow regulation, it is necessary to excavate the hill ground around the creek.
(5) Restriction of Peak Generation Duration
The duration of peaking generation depends on daily load curve in the regional power system. The
future daily peak load duration in Sumatra is estimated to be 4 to 7 hours a day. The power plant for
longer peak duration and higher generation output requires larger water storage capacity of regulation
pond.
In case of the Masang-2, land topography along and around the route of waterway is relatively steep
and does not suite to build large storage pond. Closing of a small natural creek on the waterway route
by embankment cannot make a pond having sufficient storage capacity because of steep terrain slope.
In addition to the creek closing embankment, large scale excavation is required for creating a
sufficient capacity pond. However, due to relatively steep terrain slope, scale of excavation becomes
excessively large in comparison with the pond storage volume. In consideration of such topographic
restriction, the peak duration time is fixed to be 4 hours a day for all alternatives. This duration is
considered to be the minimum limit for the practical system operation.
(6) Penstock Line
Surface slope of the hill between surge tank and the powerhouse is not so steep. Construction of
surface type penstock is relatively easy though anticipated base rock surface is deep. Most of forest
cover is production forest. Environmental impact caused by penstock line construction seems less
serious.
(7) Topographic Data
In the initial phase of the current study, only a map with scale of 1/50,000 was available for layout
study. In the later phase, the following new maps prepared by local survey subcontractor of the JICA
team were made available for optimization study.
One 1/10,000 map covering whole project area (intake to powerhouse), made by
photogrammetric mapping utilizing available satellite images.
Four 1/2,000 maps respectively covering a 1.5 km stretch around the original intake site, a
downstream alternative intake site area, intermediate pond area and a powerhouse area, which
were all made by field survey works.
It is recognized that there are large elevation differences between the old 1/50 000 map and newly
surveyed map. The elevation information indicated in the new maps is used for the optimization study.
Therefore, elevation figures shown in the designs of HPPS-2 are revised on the basis of the new maps.
(8) River Runoff
Stream flow series of the Msang river is analyzed on daily basis in the foregoing Chapter 16. Long
term average runoff (inflow) at the original intake site is estimated at 17.67 m3/s. Firm runoff (95%
dependable inflow) estimated is 10.03 m3/s.
(9) River Maintenance Flow
If river water is fully diverted at intake weir to power waterway, the river just downstream of the
intake weir becomes dry. To preserve natural environment of the downstream reaches, inflow at the
intake weir needs to be partly released downstream. Rate of the required minimum downstream flow is
decided to be 0.2 m3/s per 100 km2 of catchment area above the intake weir. This rate is applied to
other hydropower projects constructed or being constructed in Sumatra. Since the catchment area of
Masang-2 intake site is approximately 445 km2, the required minimum flow is decided to be 0.89 m3/s
(>0.2 x 445/100).
Two large tributaries join the main stream within about 1 km stretch downstream of the intake site B.
One of them is a right tributary Belukar river covering catchment area of 7 km2, which joins the main
stream at immediate downstream of the intake site B. The other is a left tributary Banban river
covering catchment area of 15 km2, joining at 1 km downstream from the intake site B. It is estimated
that those tributaries drain water of 0.16 m3/s and 0.34 m3/s, respectively to the main stream on the
95% dependability. At least 0.50 m3/s comes from the tributaries in the 1 km stretch. This effect of
inflow is reflected on the requirement of minimum flow release from the intake weir.
17.2 SELECTION OF OPTIMAL DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT
(1) Alternative Layout Plans
Three alternative layout plans are taken up for optimization study. Layouts of them are shown in
Figure 17.2.1.
PLAN A
PLAN C
PLAN B
Masang-2 HEPP
Alternative Layouts
Figure 17.2.1 Alternative Layout Plans of Masang-2 Scheme
Main features of each alternative plan are described in the following table:
Alternatives Main Features
Plan A The intake site is identical to that in the original HPPS-2 layout.
Full Supply Level (FSL) at intake is El. 358 m. Tail Water Level (TWL) at powerhouse
is El. 142 m.
Gross head between the intake and the powerhouse is 216 m.
Adverse geology is encountered in the intake site. Depth of soft overburden is more
than 20 m at river bed. Concrete pile foundation is required in the intake weir and
intake structures.
Total length of headrace waterway (intake to surge tank, except pond) is 7.40 km.
Daily peak generation is made possible by a regulation pond created on small natural
creek by excavation. Pond storage capacity is limited.
Plan B Intake site is shifted downstream by 0.5 km from the Plan A site. Geology at the
foundation is relatively good. Lime stone rock is exposed in river bed.
FSL at intake is El. 344 m. TWL at powerhouse is El. 142 m.
Total length of headrace waterway (intake to surge tank, except pond) is 7.24 km. An
upstream 1 km long waterway is cut-and-cover culvert. Underground tunnel works are
reduced.
creek by excavation. Pond storage capacity is limited.
Plan C Intake site is shifted further downstream by 1 km from Plan A site. Geology at the
foundation is marginally good. Rock is exposed in the river bed.
FSL at intake is El. 333 m. TWL at powerhouse is El. 142 m.
Total length of headrace waterway (intake to surge tank, except pond) is 6.90 km. An
upstream 0.5 km long waterway is cut-and-cover culvert. Length of waterway is 340 m
shorter than Plan B.
creek by excavation. Pond capacity is limited.
(2) Maximum Plant Discharge and Required Pond Capacity
In the development scale optimization study in the succeeding Section 17.3, the discharge of 32.0 m3/s
is selected as the optimal maximum plant discharge. This plant discharge is also applied herein for all
alternative layouts. It is noted that this maximum plant discharge is decided taking into account the
restriction by the pond storage capacity. This means that the firm runoff is not fully used for peak
generation and part of the firm runoff is used for off-peak generation even in drought time.
The required active storage capacity in the daily regulation pond is calculated by:
(
V = 3600 T Q max Q f )
Where, V = Required active storage volume in pond (m3)
T= Peaking time (hours/day)
Qmax = Maximum plant discharge for generation (m3/s)
Qf = Firm discharge for generation = 95 % dependable discharge (m3/s)
(3) Design Input Data
Basic input data for designing each Plan are listed in the following table:
Design Input Data

Description Unit Plan A Plan B Plan C
1. Catchment area above intake weir km2 443 444 450
3
2. Average river runoff m /s 17.67 17.71 17.95
3
Firm runoff (95% dependable) (q) m /s 10.03 10.05 10.19
3
3. Min. downstream flow release from intake (qr) m /s 0.39 0.39 0.55
3
Inflow from tributaries in 1 km stretch m /s 0.50 0.50 0.34
3
Total min. river flow at 1 km downstream m /s 0.89 0.89 0.89
3
4. Firm discharge for generation (Qf) = q - qr m /s 9.64 9.66 9.64
5. Daily peaking time (T) hours 4 4 4
3
6. Max. plant discharge (Qp) m /s 32.0 32.0 32.0
3
7. Intermediate pond, active storage reqd (V) m 322,000 322,000 322,000
8. Intermediate pond, water surface area ha 4.0 4.0 4.0
(4) Designed Features
Designed features of principal facilities in each plan are presented in the following table:
Designed Features of Principal Facilities

1. Intake Weir (Un-gated concrete weir)
Height (below overflow crest) 10 10 10
FSL El. m 358 344 333
2. Connection Culvert (free-flow flume with
box shape) None
Internal section size (W x H) m = 3.75 x 4.15 3.75 x 4.15
Length km = 1.06 0.72
3. Connection Tunnel (free-flow tunnel with
horse-shoe section)
Diameter m 3.75 3.75 3.75
Length km 2.85 1.63 1.63
4. Intermediate Pond
FSL El. m 353.2 339.9 329.2
MOL El. m 343.2 329.9 319.2
Drawdown m 10.0 10.0 10.0
5. Headrace Tunnel (pressure flow tunnel
with circular section)
Diameter 3.75 3.75 3.75
Length km 4.55 4.55 4.55
6. Penstock (underground inclined shaft type)
Pipe diameter m 3.1 3.1 3.1
Length m 696 692 688
7. Powerhouse
Type Surface type Surface type Surface type
Tail water level El. m 142.0 142.0 142.0

8. Generating Equipment
Installed capacity (total of 2 units) MW 55 52 48
Max. plant discharge m3/s 32.0 32.0 32.0
Rated net head m 191.7 178.8 168.1
(5) Construction Cost
Construction cost of each Plan is estimated by applying the estimation basis described in Chapter 19.
The estimated costs excluding contingencies are as follows:
Construction Costs Estimated for Each Plan

Unit: US$ million
Description Plan A Plan B Plan C
1. Civil Works
Intake facilities 20.18 6.91 7.42
Water way 42.02 41.34 39.28
Intermediate pond 15.48 15.05 12.85
Penstock and powerhouse 6.37 6.25 5.41
Sub-total 84.05 69.55 64.97
2. Mechanical & Electrical Works 47.63 45.50 43.19
3. Preparatory and Environmental Works 20.53 18.72 17.99
4. Engineering and Land Costs 31.08 27.39 25.87
TOTAL 183.29 161.16 152.02
(6) Power Generation Calculation

60
Masang-2: Plans A, B and C
For each Plan, power generation
50
calculation is carried out applying the
Natural River Flow
flow duration curves derived from the
40 Inflow to Intake
Discharge (m3/s)
21-year low flow analysis

(1973-1993) in Section 16.4. Daily 30
average discharge duration curve

20
applied is shown in Figure 17.2.2.
Because there is no significant
10
difference of the catchment areas of
the three Plans (443-450 km2), the 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
same river flow duration curve is
Probability of exceedence (%)
applied for all three Plans.
Source JICA Study Team
Figure 17.2.2 Daily Average Discharge Duration Curve
All three plans are capable of peaking generation for 4 hours a day by the effect of intermediate pond
having the storage capacity of 322,000 m3. However, due to difference of working water head, the
Plan A is highest in generation output and the Plan C is lowest. The results of generation calculation
are as follows:
Results of Power Generation Calculation

a. Maximum power output MW 55 52 48

b. 95% dependable power output (4-hour peak) MW 55 52 48
c. Annual average energy production GWh 255 240 225
d. Plant factor (*) % 53 53 53
Remarks (*) : PF= (c/8.76)/a
(7) Economic Comparison
All three Plans are operated by mixed generation mode, i.e., 4-hour peak and 20-hour off-peak
generations. Benefits of the peak time power and energy are evaluated applying generation cost of
gas-turbine power plant suitable for peaking generation. Benefits of the off-peak time power and
energy are evaluated applying generation cost of coal-fired thermal power plant suitable for base load
operation. Those thermal generation costs are explained in Chapter 14 and are summarized below.
Gas turbine generation cost for peak time benefit: Power: 96.23 US$/kW
Energy: 0.080 US$/kWh
Coal-fired plant generation cost for off-peak time benefit: Power: 223.67 US$/kW
Energy: 0.0417 US$/kWh
Total outputs obtained by the generation calculations are separated to peak time output and off-peak
time output. The equations for separation, which are explained in Chapter 14, are as follows:
Output Power (kW) Energy (kWh/year)
Peak time output 24 P E / 365 T (24 P E / 365)

= = x365
24 T 24 T
Off-peak time output TP + E / 365 24(TP + E / 365)

= = x365
24 T 24 T
Remarks: P = Peak output (dependable), kW

E = Annual energy production, kWh
T = Peaking hour (hours/ day)
Power and energy outputs of each Plan and their benefits are calculated in the following table.
Construction cost of each Plan is annualized by applying the capital recovery factor (=0.1009) based
on discount rate of 10% and project life of 50 years.
Economic Comparison of Alternative Layouts

1. Power and energy outputs separated

Peak time: Power kW 31,100 29,500 26,800
6 6
Energy kWh/y 45.4x10 43.1x10 39.1x106
Off-peak time: Power kW 23,900 22.500 21,200
6 6
Energy kWh/y 209.6x10 196.9x10 185.9x106
2. Annual generation benefit

Peak time: Power M US$ 2.99 2.84 2,58
Energy M US$ 3.63 3.45 3,12
Off-peak time: Power M US$ 5.35 5.03 4.75
Energy M US$ 8.74 8.21 7.75
Total annual benefit (B) M US$ 20.71 19.53 18.20
3. Annual cost
Annualized construction cost M US$ 18.49 16.26 15.34
(Total cost x 0.1009)
Annual O&M cost (0.5% of total cost) M US$ 0.92 0.81 0.76
Total annual cost (C) M US$ 19.41 17.07 16.10
4. Net annual benefit (B-C) M US$ 1.30 2.46 2.11
The layout Plan B is most economical among the three Plans as the net benefit is highest. The second
economical layout is Plan C of which the net benefit is about 86% of Plan B. The net benefit of Plan A
is much less than those of Plans B and C.
(8) Engineering Assessment
The Plans A, B and C are further assessed from the engineering point of view as presented in the table
below.
At the later phase of the current study, it was revealed that an IPP small hydro project (Guntung
project) is in progress around the Masang-2 intake area. Its intake facility proposed is on the Guntung
river located 1.2 km upstream of the Plan A intake site. Its proposed powerhouse site is located near to
the Plan B intake site. The Guntung project having generation capacity less than 10 MW is under
planning stage at present. Impact of this IPP project to the Masang-2 project is also evaluated in the
same table.
Engineering Assessment of Each Plan

O: Superior to the other Plans : Relatively superior X: Inferior
Alterna- Assess Engineering Assessment Judgment
tive Point
Plan A Technical Access to the intake site from the existing road is about 0.3 km X
long. It is shorter than other Plans
Adverse geology is encountered at intake site. Thick volcanic soft
overburden covers the river bed at intake site. Base rock surface is
as deep as 20 m. Costly concrete pile foundation is necessary for
intake weir and sand trap.
Due to the adverse geology, temporary river diversion for intake
construction is difficult. Large scale excavation of right bank is
necessary for constriction of temporary by-pass channel.
If the Guntung project is realized, most of water of the Guntung
river will by-pass the Plan A intake. Inflow to the Plan A intake
probably decreases to 2/3 or less of the present estimate. This
results in unrecoverable reduction of project economy.
Environ- It is necessary to procure partly the existing paddy fields on both X
mental banks for construction of intake facilities.
River length where water flow diminishes due to water diversion at
intake to power tunnel is about 8.5 km up to the junction with
Alahan Panjang river. While the river water is not used by riparian
people for farming and living, water release from intake to
downstream river is required to preserve environment.
Waterway from intake to surge tank is underground structure.
Environmental impact to animals is minimized.
All structures including intake facilities, waterway and powerhouse
are located outside protection forest.
Because of peaking generation, river water level downstream of
powerhouse largely fluctuates, particularly in drought month.
Warning system (siren, etc.) for riparian people will be required.
Plan B Technical For access to the intake site, a new road from the existing road is O
necessary on the right bank. But, its length is only about 1.2 km.
At the intake site, lime stone rock is exposed in river bed. This
facilitates construction of temporary diversion facilities.
Consequently, construction cost and time for intake facilities is
reduced.
The IPP Guntung powerhouse tailrace will be located between Plan
A and Plan B intake weir sites. Even if the Guntung project is
realized, there is no reduction of water flow to the Plan B intake.
Connection culvert downstream of sand trap is open-air structure.
By this, underground tunnel work on critical path is reduced. .
Environ- Large farm land is not in the intake weir site. Procurement of farm
mental land is little.
River length where water flow diminishes due to water diversion at
intake to power tunnel is about 8.0 km up to the junction with
Alterna- Assess Engineering Assessment Judgment

tive Point
Waterway from intake to surge tank, except connection culvert, is
underground structure. Environmental impact to animals is
minimized.
Plan C Technical For access to the intake site, a new road from the existing road is
necessary on the right bank. But, its length is only about 1.2 km.
At the intake site, weathered rock is exposed in river bed. This
facilitates construction of temporary diversion facilities.
Consequently, construction cost and time for intake facilities is
reduced.
The IPP Guntung powerhouse tailrace will be located between Plan
A and Plan B intake weir sites. Even if the Guntung project is
realized, there is no reduction of water flow to the Plan C intake.
Connection culvert downstream of sand trap is open-air structure.
By this, underground tunnel work on critical path is reduced. .
Environ- River length where water flow diminishes due to water diversion at
mental intake to power tunnel is about 7.5 km up to the junction with
Waterway from intake to surge tank, except connection culvert, is
underground structure. Environmental impact to animals is
minimized.
Plan A is environmentally inferior because the existing paddy filed is partly occupied by the intake
facilities. The Plans B and C are environmentally more superior than the Plan A. From the
environmental point of view, there is no significant difference between the Plans B and C.
Plan B is technically most superior because relatively sound base rock is exposed in the intake site and
construction of the intake facilities is easy. Intake site for the Plan A is inferior since the foundation
geology is bad. Rock exposed in the Plan C intake site seems to be in deeply weathered condition. The
Plan C is therefore second superior among three Plans.
(9) Selection of Optimal Development Layout
Based on the foregoing economical comparison and engineering assessment, the Plan B is selected as
the most optimal development layout for the Masang-2 HEPP.
17.3 SELECTION OF OPTIMAL DEVELOPMENT SCALE
(1) Selected Layout Plan
In the above Section 17.2, the Plan B was selected as the optimal development layout. The overall
layout of the Plan B is detailed in Drawing M-010 and presented in Figure 17.3.1.

Figure 17.3.1 Selected Layout of Masang-2 HEPP
(2) River Runoff
As applied for generation calculations in Section 17.2, the catchment area at the intake weir of the
Plan B is 444 km2 and the river runoff is 17.71 m3/s on average (Year 1973-1993). The river runoff in
terms of 95% dependable runoff is 10.05 m3/s. For the river maintenance purpose, discharge of at least
0.39 m3/s is released from the intake weir to the downstream reaches. Net discharge of 9.66 m3/s is
usable as the 95% dependable discharge for generation.
In a 1.2 km stretch downstream from the intake weir, the minimum river flow increases to 0.89 m3/s
owing to inflow of 0.50 m3/s from relatively large tributaries. This minimum flow satisfies the widely
applied requirement of 0.2 m3/s per 100 km2 of catchment area.
(3) Development Scale Alternatives
As mentioned in Section 17.2 (4) and (5), the daily peaking time is limited to 4 hours since there is
topographic restriction in building large capacity regulation pond on the waterway route. Therefore,
the Masang-2 scheme is designed for semi-peak generation even at the time of the firm discharge
(95% dependable). If the pond capacity is large enough, peak generation output is increased and
generation operation is limited to peak time only, i.e. no off-peak time generation at the time of firm
runoff.
To seek the optimal generation capacity, four alternatives of maximum plant discharge are taken up
taking into account the different water utilization factors (F). The F is calculated by Qave / Qmax
where Qave is long term average flow for generation (=17.71 m3/s) and Qmax is maximum plant
discharge. Those alternatives are as follows:
Alternative Factor F Qmax (m3/s)

1 0.45 39.4
2 0.50 35.4
3 0.55 32.0
4 0.60 29.5
(4) Economic Diameter of Tunnel and Penstock
Regarding the power waterway, smaller diameter tunnel (or penstock) is lower in construction cost but
the generation output contrarily decreases due to increased head loss in waterway. Optimal
(economical) diameter of tunnel (or penstock) is selected hereunder. By this selection, annualized
construction cost and reduced annual generation benefit are combined for each tunnel diameter and a
certain diameter at which the combined cost becomes lowest is selected to be the economical diameter
of the tunnel.
Loss of head in the tunnel (or penstocks) is calculated for several different diameters combined with
various maximum plant discharges. Reductions of generation output (kW and kWh) corresponding to
such loss head is calculated. The reduced generation outputs are converted to reduced benefits by
applying the same method as described in Section 17.2 (7). As to each different diameter tunnel, the
annualized construction cost and the reduced benefit are combined to make a total of annual cost and
annual loss of benefit. On the other hand, the construction cost of tunnel (or penstock) is estimated for
each different diameter.
For the connection culvert extended along the river bank from the intake sand trap to the connection
tunnel inlet, box shape concrete flume is applied. The culvert is constructed by cut-and-cover method.
For the connection tunnel between the connection culvert end and the intermediate pond, standard
horse-shoe section is applied since such tunnel type is economical because the flow in tunnel is free
flow and internal water pressure is low. For the headrace tunnel between the intermediate pond and the
surge tank, circular section is applied since flow in the tunnel is pressure flow and its internal pressure
is relatively high. For the penstock line between the surge tank and powerhouse, surface type penstock
is selected since the ground surface slope is not so steep and surface penstock is more economical than
the under ground penstock. The penstock pipe is laid in open trench excavated.
Calculated results of economic diameters are illustrated in Figure 17.3.2. Selected diameters of tunnels
and penstock and size of culvert are listed below.
Max. Plant Discharge (m3/s)

Waterway 39.4 35.4 32 29.5
1. Connection culvert (L = 1.06 km)
Selected section size (w x h) 3.9 x 4.3 3.8 x 4.2 3.75 x 4.1 3.65 x 4.0
2. Connection tunnel (L = 1.63 km)
Selected economical diameter 3.9 3.8 3.75 3.65

3. Headrace tunnel (L = 4.55 km)
4. Penstock pipe (L = 695 m)
5.0
Culvert, Connection Tunnel & Headrace Tunnel
4.5 Penstock Pipe

Economic diameter (m)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
20 30 40 50 60
Plant max. discharge (m3/s)
Figure 17.3.2 Economic Diameters of Tunnels and penstock
Required thickness of tunnel concrete lining is estimated to be 10% of the tunnel internal diameter.
Penstock pipe just downstream of the surge tank is laid in horizontal tunnel of which excavation
diameter is decided so as to make a 0.6 m wide gap between pipe surface and excavated tunnel surface.
The gap is completely backfilled with concrete after installation of the penstock pipe.
(5) Design of Other Facilities
The intake weir is a concrete weir with height of about 10 m above the deepest foundation in the river
bed. The weir has a 40 m wide ungated overflow type spillway of which crest elevation is equal to the
Full Supply Level (FSL) of 344.0 m asl. A sand flushing sluice is provided on left bank side of the
spillway near intake for flushing sediment deposited in front of intake entrance.
Intake structure is located on lest bank side of the weir. Trash rack with rake is provide at the intake
entrance of which size is decided so that the flow velocity at the entrance is 1 m/s at the maximum.
Incoming water at the intake is led to the sand trap facility located just downstream of the intake. The
sand trap is a settling basin with rectangular cross section. The basin size is decided so that the flow
velocity in the basin becomes 0.3 m/s at the maximum so as to settle sand particles larger than 0.5 mm.
The basin is separated to double lanes by a center wall so that flushing of deposited sediment is
conducted one by one without stopping water flow in either one of the lanes. At the downstream bay
of the sand trap, a river outlet facility is provided for releasing the river maintenance flow of 0.39 m3/s.
The downstream end of the sand trap is joined to the connection culvert.
A small natural creek crossing the waterway route is closed by a dike to create the intermediate pond.
The water diverted from the intake is stored in the pond for daily peak generation at the powerhouse.
However, the creek valley is narrow and insufficient for storing the required volume of water.
Therefore, it is necessary to excavate the ground around the creek to ensure the required storage
capacity. Required active storage volume of the pond varies with the peaking time and calculated by
the following equation.
V = 3600T (Qmax Q f )
where, V= Required active storage volume of pond (m3)
T= Peaking time (hours)
Qmax = Maximum plant discharge (m3/s)
Qf = Diverted firm discharge (m3/s)
In order to always keep free flow state in the connection culvert and tunnel, the pond water level has to
be lower than the sand trap water level by the head loss. The required water level difference depends
on the head loss in connection culvert and tunnel. The head loss varies with the discharge in the
culvert and tunnel. The full supply level (FSL) of the pond is decided taking into account the head loss
at the maximum tunnel discharge being equal to the maximum plant discharge.
Storage Volume and Water Levels of Pond

Description Unit Max. Plant Discharge (m3/s)
39.4 35.4 32.0 29.5
1. Required active storage volume MCM 0.429 0.371 0.322 0.286
2. FSL at Intake Weir El. m 344.0 344.0 344.0 344.0
3. Waterway head loss between
intake and pond m 4.9 4.5 4.1 4.0
4. Water Level of Pond
FSL El. m 339.1 339.5 339.9 340.0
MOL El. m 329.1 329.5 329.9 330.0
5. Drawdown m 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
The dike to close the creek is rockfill embankment

4
with clay core. Storage volume ensured by closure
Excavation Volume (MCM)
3
of the creek with the embankment dike is about 0.14
MCM only. The required storage volume in excess 2
of 0.14 MCM has to be ensured by excavation of

1
the ground around the creek. Relation between
0
excavation volume and resulted storage volume is
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
shown in Figure 17.3.3. As seen in this Figure, huge Pond Storage Volume Ensured by Excavation (MCM)
excavation is required for ensuring the required

storage capacity.
Figure 17.3.3 Excavation Volume vs
Resulted Storage Capacity
A surge tank of vertical shaft type with a bottom orifice port is provided at the downstream end of the
headrace tunnel before connecting to the penstock. Size of the surge tank is decided by up-surging and
down-surging oscillation analysis. They are listed below:
Surge Tank Diameters and Water Levels

39.4 35.4 32.0 29.5
1. Diameter of surge tank m 9.2 8.8 8.5 7.8
2. Highest up-surging WL El. m 361 361 361 361
Lowest down-surging WL El. m 315 316 316 316
Top of the tank is decided to be 3 m higher than the up-surging water level. Invert level of the
headrace tunnel beneath the surge tank is decided to be 10 m lower than the down-surge water level.
Powerhouse is above-ground type concrete construction. A tailrace is a short open channel extended
from the powerhouse to the river bank edge. Size of powerhouse is estimated on the basis of data of
the other similar powerhouse projects. Capacity of generating equipment for each Alternative is
calculated as follows:
Generating Equipment
39.4 35.4 32.0 29.5
1. Max. head loss after pond m 15.7 15.1 14.1 13.9
2. Rated net head m 176.4 177.4 178.8 179.1
3. Installed capacity (total of 2 units) MW 63 57 52 48
(7) Construction Cost
Construction cost of each alternative is calculated on the basis of work quantities calculated for each
alternative and unit prices referred to in Chapter 19. The results are in the following table:
Construction Costs Estimated for Each Alternative

Unit: US$ million
Items Max. Plant Discharge (m3/s)
39.4 35.4 32.0 29.5
Installed capacity (MW) 63 57 52 48
1. Civil Works
Intake facilities 8.02 7.40 6.91 6.83
Waterway 46.41 43.52 41.34 39.58
Intermediate pond 23.75 18.85 15.05 12.65
Penstock and Powerhouse 7.70 6.95 6.25 5.70
Sub-total 85.88 76.72 69.55 64.47
2. Mechanical & Electrical Works 52.73 48.72 45.50 43.03
3. Preparatory and Environmental Works 21.30 19.95 18.72 17.98
4. Engineering and Land Costs 32.22 29.71 27.39 25.81
TOTAL 192.13 175.10 161.16 151.29
(8) Power Generation Calculation
Similarly to paragraph (6) of the forgoing Section 17.2, power generation calculation is carried out for
each Alternative applying the same flow duration curve for the Plan B. Daily average turbine
discharge duration curves of all alternatives are illustrated in Figure 17.3.4.
60
63 MW
River flow at intake 57 MW
50
52 MW
Daily average turbine 48 MW
40
Discharge (m3/s)
discharge Natural river flow
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Probability of exceedence (%)

Figure 17.3.4 Duration Curves of Daily Discharges
The results of the generation calculations are as follows:
Results of Power Generation Calculation

39.4 35.4 32.0 29.5
1. Max. power output MW 63 57 52 48
2. 95% dependable output (4 hours) MW 63 57 52 48
3. Annual energy production GWh 242 241 240 238
4. Plant factor % 44 48 53 57
(9) Economic Comparison
All alternatives are operated by mixed generation mode, i.e., peaking generation for 4 hours and
off-peak generation for 20 hours. Benefits of peak time generation and off-peak time generation are
evaluated separately as explained in paragraph (7) of the foregoing Section 17.2. Total generation
output of each alternative is separated to peak time output and off-peak time output as explained in the
said paragraph.
Power outputs and energy productions of each alternative and their benefits are calculated in the
following table. Construction cost of each alternative is annualized by applying the capital recovery
factor of 0.1009.
Economic Comparison of Alternative Development Scales

39.4 35.4 32.0 29.5
1. Installed capacity MW 63 57 52 48
2. Power and energy outputs
Peak time: Power kW 42,400 35,400 29,500 25,000
Energy kWh/y 62.0x106 51.7x106 43.1x106 36.5x106
Off-peak time: Power kW 20,600 21,600 22,500 23,000
Energy kWh/y 180.0x106 189.3x106 196.9x106 201.5x106
3. Annual generation benefit
Peak time: Power M US$ 4.08 3.41 2.84 2.41
Energy M US$ 4.96 4.13 3.45 2.92
Off-peak time: Power M US$ 4.50 4.83 5.03 5.14
Energy M US$ 7.51 7.90 8.21 8.40
Total annual benefit (B) M US$ 21.15 20.27 19.53 18.87
4. Annual cost
Annualized construction cost M US$ 19.39 17.66 16.26 15.65
(Total cost x 0.1009)
O&M cost (0.5% of total cost) M US$ 0.96 0.88 0.81 0.78
Total annual cost (C) M US$ 20.35 18.54 17.07 16.43
5. Net annual benefit (B-C) M US$ 0.80 1.72 2.46 2.45
Variation of the net annual benefit with the installed capacity is graphically shown in Figure 17.3.5.
5
52 MW (4-hour peak)
Benefit - Cost (M US$)
0
45 50 55 60 65
Installed Capacity (MW)

Figure 17.3.5 Development Scale Optimization Result
(10) Selection of Optimal Development Scale
As seen in the above Figure 17.3.5, the annual net benefit (B-C) increases with increase of plant
capacity. However, the benefit reaches the maximum at around the plant capacity of 52 MW (4-hour
peaking mode). Further increase of the plant capacity results in reduction of the net benefit. Therefore,
the 52 MW plant capacity by the maximum plant discharge of 32 m3/s is selected as the optimal
development scale. A 52 MW peak generation for at least 4 hours is possible even in the drought year
with 95% dependability.
Final Report (Main) Chapter 18 Preliminary Design
CHAPTER 18 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
18.1 DESIGN CONDITIONS
18.1.1 HYDROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

Long term low flow analysis for the Masang-2 project is conducted in the Section 16.4. The
hydrological conditions related to the preliminary design are listed below:
Description Unit Intake Intermt Power-

Weir Pond house
2
Catchment area km 444 0.9 920
3
Average river runoff m /s 17.71 = =
3
95% dependable runoff m /s 10.05 = =
3
Design flood (200-yr flood) m /s 1,341 15.2 1,939
3
Construction flood (2-yr flood) m /s 456 5.2 659
3
Sediment inflow m /yr 222,000 450 =
18.1.2 MINIMUM DOWNSTREAM FLOW (RIVER MAINTENANCE FLOW)

At the intake weir, river water except in flood time is fully diverted to the power tunnel. However, to
maintain minimum flow condition in the river reaches downstream of the weir, the water of 0.39 m3/s
at the maximum is released from the intake weir to the downstream river. This rate is decided so as to
meet the criteria of 0.2 m3/s per 100 km2 of catchment area at the point about 1 km downstream of the
weir site (444km2/100km2 x 0.2m3/s = 0.89m3/s). This criteria is already applied to the some other
on-going or completed hydropower projects in Sumatra. In the 1 km downstream stretch from the weir
site, relatively large tributaries having total catchment area of 22 km2 join the main Masang river. The
required minimum river flow at that point is 0.89 m3/s. A natural flow coming from the tributaries is
0.50 m3/s with 95% dependability and this flow is combined with the flow (0.39 m3/s) released from
the intake weir.
18.1.3 PLANT DISCHARGE

The generating plant is operated as a 4-hour peak and 20-hour off-peak generation mode depending of
available daily river flow. However, as mentioned in Section 17.3, the maximum plant discharge is
decided to be 32.0 m3/s taking into account the limited pond storage capacity. Any river flow up to this
rate is diverted to the power waterway at the intake. All waterway structures are designed for this
discharge.
18.2 MAIN CIVIL STRUCTURES
18.2.1 INTAKE WEIR

The intake weir is located 1 km downstream from the confluence of Masang river (Batang Sianok)
with Guntung river (Batang Guntung). This location is selected taking into account the following:
Relatively hard base rock is exposed in the river bed and both abutments. Since the rock
conditions are good, constriction of the intake weir and sand trap structures is easy and not
costly.
An IPP powerhouse of the on-going Guntung project will be located 150 m upstream of the
Masang-2 intake site. Shifting of the intake to upstream site interferes with the IPP project.
The intake weir is concrete weir with un-gated overflow spillway. The crest elevation of the spillway
is set at El. 344.0 m. This elevation is regarded as the Full Supply Level (FSL) for the power intake.
As the river bed elevation at the weir is around El. 337 m, the height of weir above river bed is 7 m.
This height is required to keep the water depth necessary at intake entrance.
The selected spillway overflow width is 40 m so as to suit the river channel topography. Overflow
depth of the design flood (1,341 m3/s) is preliminarily estimated at 6.0 m, in which effect of high
velocity approach flow in the upstream channel is taken into account. Design flood water level at the
upstream side of weir is thus estimated at El. 350.0 m. The estimated rating curves are shown in
Figure 18.2.1.
Masang-2 Intake Weir H-Q Curve

355
200-yr flood
= 1,341 m3/s
350
Intake Weir Spillway H-Q
Elevation (m asl)
345 Spillway crest El. 344.0 m
340
Intake Weir Tailwater H-Q
River bed El. 337 m

335
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Discharge (m3/s)

Figure 18.2.1 Estimated Discharge Rating Curve at Intake Weir
As it is foreseen that base rock surface is not deep, non-overflow section on both abutments is built
with concrete. For required free-board of the non-overflow section, an estimated wave run-up height
of 0.3 m, safety allowance for concrete dam of 0.5 m are taken into account. The top elevation (Z) of
the non-overflow section on both abutments is decided at El. 351.0 m by the following calculation:
Z = Flood WL + 0.3 + 0.5 = 350.0 + 0.8 = 350.8 m say 351.0 m
A 5.0 m wide sand flushing sluice is provided on left bank side of the weir. Sill elevation of the sluice
is set at El. 339.0 m at the weir axis in order to flush sand deposits accumulated in front of intake
entrance. A concrete channel with steep slope is extended upstream to facilitate sand flushing
operation. A service gate and a maintenance stoplog are provided in the sluice. Size of them is W5.0 m
x H4.0m. It is expected that the sluice is capable of discharging 120 m3/s when the gate is full open
under water level at FSL. Upstream river water level is lowered in short time and sediment flushing by
natural flow is performed smoothly.
The river outlet facility is provided at the sand tarp downstream end. This location is selected so as to
minimize abrasion damage on the outlet pipe and valves. It is foreseen that natural river water before
sand trapping contains much abrasive sand. When the intake is completely closed, whole river water is
discharged from the weir by overflow.
Design of the intake weir is shown in Drawing M-011.
18.2.2 INTAKE AND SAND TRAP

The intake is located on right bank side of the intake weir. Intake entrance structure is equipped with
trash rack and raking machine. Depth of incoming flow on trash rack sill is decided to be as shallow as
3.0 m to minimize entering of sediment load in the river. Trash rack size is decided so that velocity of
the incoming flow at the trash rack is 1.0 m/s at maximum. Since the maximum plant discharge is 32.0
m3/s, width of trash rack is 11.0 m in total of 2 entrance bays. Incoming flow is guided by double box
type free-flow channels to the intake gates and then to the sand tarp. The intake gate is W3.8 m x H4.3
m of which sill elevation is El. 340.2 m.
The sand trap is double lane settling basin with rectangular cross section. By use of the double basins,
it is able to drain sediment deposit in the basin one by one and to continue generation operation even
during sediment draining.
The design flow-through velocity in the basin is decided to be 0.3 m/s at the maximum plant discharge.
Particle size of sand to be removed is 0.5 mm or greater by applying usual practice. Dimensions of the
settling basins are decided by the following equation.
h
L > A u
v
Where, L = Required length of settling basin (m)
= Coefficient to compensate turbulent effect in the basin

h -= Depth of settling basin (m)
v= Vertical settling velocity of sand particle varying depending on size (m/s)
u= Flow-through velocity in the basin (=0.3 m/s)
The depth h is decided to be 5.6 m to avoid submergence of sediment drain outlets during draining.
The settling velocity v for sand particle size of 0.5 mm is 0.07 m/s. Coefficient A is estimated at 2.
Thus, the required basin length is 48 m. To restrict the flow-through velocity u to below 0.3 m/s, the
required flow area is 106.7 m (= 32.0/0.3). As the basin depth is 5.6 m, the required basin width is 19
m in total, i.e, two lanes of 9.5 m wide basin.
The incoming water flow in excess of the flow capacity of the downstream connection tunnel is
removed by spillage flowing over side walls of the basin. Top elevation of the walls is El. 344.0 m.
The downstream end of each basin is closed by stoplogs so that the sediment draining can be done
while continuing generation operation.
Sediment accumulated in the basins is periodically flushed through sediment flushing culverts (one for
each basin) extended from the bottom of basins downstream end to the river bank edge. Size of the
flushing gate is 1.5 m by 1.5m.
The river outlet facility consisting of 2 sets of pipe conduit and closure valve is provided in the wall on
the river side in the basins downstream bay. To discharge water of 0.39 m3/s by each set, diameter of
the pipe and valve is set at 0.3 m.
Total head loss in the intake and sand trap is estimated to be 0.2 m. Design of the intake and sand tarp
is shown in Drawing M-012.
18.2.3 CONNECTION CULVERT

The connection culvert is extended from the downstream end of the sand trap to the entrance of
connection tunnel. The culvert is box shape concrete flume with total length of 1.06 km. Flow in the
culvert is free flow state. Top cover slab is provided to avoid entering of eroded debris or tree leaves
into the flume. The culvert is constructed by cut-and-cover method. The size of internal section is
W3.75 m and H4.15 m. The longitudinal slope is 1/1,200 to allow the maximum discharge of 32.0
m3/s. The maximum water depth (uniform flow) in the culvert is estimated at 3.75 m. Air space of at
least 0.4 m is left between the flow surface and the culvert crown.
The culvert has to cross over the large creek (Aek Bamban) at the downstream end of the culvert. For
crossing the creek, the culvert is constructed as a box type bridge supported by four vertical concrete
piers spaced at 20 m. Just after crossing the creek, the culvert is jointed to the connection tunnel.
18.2.4 CONNECTION TUNNEL

The connection tunnel is extended from the downstream end of the connection culvert to the
intermediate pond. The tunnel length is 1.63 km. Flow in the tunnel is free flow state. The selected
tunnel section is standard horse-shoe shape since the internal water pressure is low. Its diameter is 3.75
m as selected as an economic diameter in the Section 17.3 (4). The required tunnel slope is 1/700 at
the maximum discharge of 32.0 m3/s. The maximum water depth (uniform flow) in the tunnel is
estimated at 3.38 m. Air space of at least 0.38 m is left between the flow surface and the tunnel crown.
Total of water level drop between the sand trap and the pond is estimated at 3.9 m including outlet loss.
At the outlet of the tunnel, an open channel with width of 12 m is extended down to El 329.4 m aiming
at protection of the pond slope against erosion by tunnel outflow.
It is foreseen that, as the tunnel passes through relatively firm rock, heavy rock support such as steel
ribs and thick shotcrete cover with wire mesh will be required only in short stretches for tunnel
construction.
Route and typical section of the tunnel are shown in Drawing M-010..
18.2.5 INTERMEDIATE POND

The required active storage volume of the pond is 322,000 m3 as mentioned in Section 17.3 (5). The
FSL of the pond is decided to be El. 339.9 m taking into account the water level drop in the intake,
sand trap and connection tunnel at the time of maximum discharge.
The pond is created on a small natural creek by closing it with rockfill embankment and by excavating
the ground around the creek. Location of the closure embankment is selected so as to maximize the
storage capacity. To satisfy the storage volume requirement, it is necessary to largely excavate the
ground around the creek. The water level drawdown in the pond is set at 10 m at the maximum in
drought time. The water surface area required in the excavated part of the pond is approximately 2 ha.
The curves of pond storage capacity area including excavated part is shown in Figure 18.2.2.
Wtaer Surface Area (ha)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
350
345
FSL = 339.9
340
Elevation (m)
335
Volume Area
MOL = 329.9
330
325
Active Storage 0.322
320
315
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Storgae Volume (MCM)

Figure 18.2.2 Storage Capacity and Area Curves of Intermediate Pond
The pond water level varies on the daily basis due to water use for daily peak generation. The
maximum drawdown will be 10.0 m, which will seldom occur in the drought year.
Sediment inflow for 100 years is estimated at 45,000 m3. The pond has a dead space sufficient in
volume for storing whole sediment inflow for 100 years.
The creek closure structure is rockfill type embankment with central clay core. The foundation of the
embankment is the weathered rock. Rock materials excavated for enlarging pond space are used for
the embankment.
Aiming at slope stabilization on pond perimeter, horizontal drain holes drilled into hill slope around
the pond are tentatively planned. Those drain holes will be effective to stabilize the slope at the time of
fast drawdown of water level. Detailed slope stability analysis will be required in the future study.
Design flood inflow from the pond catchment is 15.2 m3/s (200-year flood). The other inflow from the
connection tunnel is 32.0 m3/s at the maximum. An overflow type spillway is provided on the right
abutment of the closure embankment. The spillway has a 25 m long overflow weir of which crest
elevation is equal to the pond FSL (El 339.9 m). The spillway is capable of discharging 47.2 m3/s
(=15.2 + 32.0) under 1.0 m overflow depth. The design flood water level is thus El.340.9 m.
For required free-board of the closure embankment (pond dike), an estimated wave run-up height of
0.35 m, safety allowance for embankment dam of 1.5 m and clay core protection cover layer of 0.25 m
are taken into account. The top elevation (Z) of the pond dike is decided to be El. 343.0 m by the
following calculation:
Z = Flood WL + 0.35 + 1.5 + 0.25 = 340.9 + 2.1 = 343.0 m
For emergency withdrawal of pond water in the future, bottom outlet facility is provided in a
foundation culvert laid on the deepest foundation. The culvert having D-shape section (W2.2m x
H2.5m) can be used as a temporary diversion facility during construction. A 0.4 m diameter steel pipe
is laid in the culvert from concrete plug below clay core to downstream end of the culvert. A stop
valve is installed at the upstream end of pipe and a service valve is installed at the downstream end of
the pipe.
The pond structures are shown in Drawings M-013 and M-014.
18.2.6 HEADRACE TUNNEL

The headrace tunnel is extended from the intermediate pond to the surge tank. The tunnel length is
4.55 km. Flow in the tunnel is pressure flow state. The selected tunnel section is circular shape since
the internal water pressure is relatively high. Its diameter is 3.75 m as selected as an economic
diameter in the Section 17.3 (4).
At the upstream end of the tunnel in the pond, an intake tower is provided to accommodate a trash rack
with raking equipment and a tunnel closure gate. The size of tarshrack is decided to be W5.5 m x H5.9
m so that the flow velocity at the tarshrack is 1.0 m/s at the maximum. The tunnel invert elevation just
downstream of the intake tower is set at El. 322.0 m in order to provide sufficient intake submergence
below the pond MOL for avoiding air suction into the tunnel. The tunnel invert level at the surge tank
is set at El. 305.0 m to avoid air suction into the tunnel from surge tank during down-surging.
Total loss of head in the tunnel is estimated at 8.9 m at the maximum plant discharge. Losses due to
friction, intake trash rack and tunnel bends, etc. are included.
It is foreseen that most part of the tunnel passes through firm lime stone except some short stretches
passing weak rock. Heavy rock support such as steel ribs and thick shotcrete cover with wire mesh
will be required only for such weak rock area.
Route and typical section of the tunnel is shown in Drawing M-010.
18.2.7 SURGE TANK

A surge tank is provided between the headrace tunnel and the penstock to avoid excessive pressure
rise in the waterway system and to supplement or absorb water flow during transient operation of
turbines. Simple vertical surge tank with a bottom orifice is adopted.
The size of surge tank is decided by provisional surging wave analysis. Selected diameter of the surge
tank is 8.5 m. Estimated maximum up-surge level and the minimum down-surge level are El. 361.2 m
and El 316.3 m, respectively. Top of surge tank is set at El. 364 m and bottom of surge tank (headrace
tunnel) is set at El 305 m. Height of the tank is thus 59 m.
18.2.8 PENSTOCK
Surface type penstock is adopted taking into account site topography. A steel penstock pipe is laid in
horizontal tunnel downstream of surge tank and then in an open trench excavated on hill slope down to
powerhouse site. The pipe diameter is decided to be 3.1 m from the surge tank end to the downstream
Y-branch as selected in the Section 17.3 (4). The Y-branch is located nearby the powerhouse, i.e. 25 m
upstream from the powerhouse center. The two pipes after Y-branch to the turbine inlets have
diameter of 1.8 m. The upper 190 m long horizontal part is embedded in the tunnel extended from the
surge tank bottom and laid at El 304 m. Along the penstock pipe in the open trench, a stairway is
provided for penstock inspection.
Penstock line is shown in Drawings M-015.
18.2.9 POWERHOUSE
The powerhouse to accommodate two 26 MW generating equipment is above-ground type and located
on the left bank of the Masang river and at 300 m downstream from the confluence with the Alahan
Panjang river. Normal river water level estimated from the field topographic survey is El. 141 m and
river bank edge elevation is around El. 150 m.
The selected site is relatively flat and wide in topography and suitable for locating powerhouse and
switchyard. Hard rock (lime stone) is exposed on the river bank wall at the powerhouse site. The
foundation condition seems suitable for the powerhouse.
The powerhouse is a reinforced concrete building. Two units of main generating equipment and their
auxiliaries are accommodated in the building. Machine erection bay and control/office bay are also
included in the powerhouse. Tailrace is an excavated open channel extended from the powerhouse to
the river bank edge. During construction of powerhouse substructure, insitu rock on the tailrace
channel will be left unexcavated for the purpose of coffering. A 150 kV outdoor switchyard is located
on east side of the powerhouse premises.
The tail water level for the generating equipment is provisionally fixed to be El. 142.0 m. The turbine
setting level is set at El. 140.0 m. The water level of the design flood (200-year flood) at the
powerhouse site is assumed at El. 149 m. The ground formation elevation around the powerhouse is
set at El. 150 m. It is necessary to review the river water level in the future detailed study
The powerhouse design is shown in Drawing M-016.
18.2.10 PROJECT FEATURES

The principal features of the project are summarized in the following table.
Project Features in Preliminary Design of Masang-2 HEPP
Description Unit Principal Features

1 Location West Sumatra Province
2 Hydrology
Catchment area km2 444
Average annual runoff at intake m3/s 17.71
95% dependable runoff m3/s 10.05
3 Intake Weir
Type Ungated concrete weir
FSL=Weir crest elev. El. m 344.0
Height (overflow section) m 7
Active storage volume None
4 Intake & Sand Trap
Intake Type Horizontal inlet with screen
Sand trap type Double settling basins
Max. discharge diverted m3/s 32.0
5 Connection Culvert
Type Concrete flume with box section (free flow)
Internal section size x Length m W3.75 x H4.15 x L 1,060
6 Connection Tunnel
Type Horse-shoe section, free flow type
Connection tunnel, diameter x length m D3.75 x 1,630
7 Intermediate Pond
Type Creek excavated and closed by embankment
FSL El. m 339.9
MOL El. m 329.9
Water surface area ha 4.0
Gross storage volume MCM 0.50
Active storage volume MCM 0.322
Drawdown m 10.0
8 Headrace Tunnel
Type Circular section, presuure flow tunnel
Headrace tunnel, diameter x length m D3.75 x 4,550
9 Surge Tank
Type Vertical cylindrical shaft
Diameter x Height m D8.5 x 59
10 Penstock
Type Surface type
Steel pipe diameter x length m D3.1 x 677
Pipes after Y-branch D1.8 m x 17 m x 2 nos
11 Powerhouse
Type Above-ground type
Building structure Reinforced concrete
Tailrace Open Channel
Tail water level El. m 142.0
12 Generating Equipment
Installed capacity (total) MW 52
Number of units nos. 2
Gross head below pond m 197.9
Rated head m 178.8
Max. plant discharge m3/s 32.0
Peaking oeration time hr/day 4
Annual energy production GWh 240
18.3 HYDRO-MECHANICAL WORKS
The hydro-mechanical works comprise steel gates, stoplogs, trash racks, valves and penstock pipes.
Their operation devices, hoists, hydraulic systems, raking machine, etc. are also included in the works.
However, water turbines for generating equipment and their mechanical auxiliaries including turbine
inlet valves are not included in the hydro-mechanical works.
The hydro-mechanical works preliminarily designed are described below.
Size, WxH (m) Qty Acting water head (m)
(1) Intake Weir, Sand Flushing Gate

Type: Rope hoisted fixed wheel gate 5.0 x 4.0 1 11
(2) Intake Weir, Sand Flushing Stoplog

Type: Rope hoisted slide panels 5.0 x 4.0 1 11
(3) Intake, Trash Rack

With raking equipment 5.5 x 3.5 2 9
(4) Intake, Entrance Closure Gate

Type: Rope hoisted fixed wheel gate 3.8 x 4.3 2 9.8
(5) Intake, Entrance Stoplog

Type: Rope hoisted slide panels 3.8 x 4.3 1 9.8
(6) Sand Trap, Sediment Darin Gate

Type: Motor drive spindle gate 1.5 x 1.5 2 9
(7) Sand Trap, End Stoplog

Type: Rope hoisted slide panels 4.2 x 3.8 2 3.8
(8) Sand Trap, River Outlet Valve

Type: Cast steel spindle valve 0.3 2 5
(9) Connection Culvert, Inlet Gate

Type: Rope hoisted fixed wheel gate 3.75 x 4.15 1 5
(10) Connection Tunnel, Outlet Stoplog

Type: Rope hoisted slide panel 3.75 x 5.0 1 4.75
(11) Pond, Bottom Outlet Control Valve

Type: Steel hydraulic valve 0.4 1 40
(12) Pond, Bottom Outlet Maintenance Valve

Type: Steel hydraulic valve 0.4 1 40
(13) Pond, Bottom Outlet Conduit

Type: Steel pipe laid in culvert 0.5 1 40
(14) Penstock pipe

Type: Steel pipe laid on trench 3.1 1 Static 221
1.8 - 1.6 2 Static 221
(15) Powerhouse, Draft Tube Stoplog

Type: Rope hoisted slide panel 3.5 x 1.8 2 14
18.4 GENERATING EQUIPMENT
18.4.1 GENERAL
Masang-2 hydropower project is run of river type with intermediate pond and has capacity of 4 hours
peak operation and maximum output of 52MW, using net head of 178.8m and discharge of 32m3/s.
Vertical shaft type of Francis turbine (maximum output : 26MW), 3 phase synchronous generator
(maximum capacity : 28.1MVA), oil supply system, compressed air supply system, water supply
system, drainage system, switching device such as circuit breaker, control equipment, station service
transformer and traveling crane are to be installed in the powerhouse.
HDWiz (developed by J-Power, based on existing hydropower plant data around the world) has been
used for the designing of the electrical equipment.
18.4.2 UNIT CAPACITY AND NUMBER OF UNIT

Generally, for the turbine generator, a large unit capacity is said to be more economical merits of scale.
However, optimum unit capacity of the turbine generator is determined in consideration of influence
to the power system, development timing and transportation restriction.
Nevertheless, unit capacity and number of unit has been decided taking following items into
consideration.
a. Influence of the unit capacity to the power system

b. Transportation route and weight restriction
c. The level of current manufacturing technology
d. The reliability and flexibility of maintenance and operation
e. Discharge variation between wet season and dry season
As for the subject A of the influence of the unit capacity to the power system, neither 26MW2 units
nor 52MW1 unit will affect great influence to the power system in case of tripping of turbine
generator because power system capacity of Sumatra is more than 3,600MW.
Therefore, there is not any special consideration to the influence of the unit capacity to the power
system.
Regarding the subject b of transportation route and weight restriction, main transformer (1 unit option)
of 60t is estimated the heaviest electrical equipment for the project. There is already existing paved
national road in the suburbs of the project site and construction purpose road to be built to the project
site. Therefore, there is no any special problem for the transportation. Necessity of reinforcement or
replacement of bridge shall be examined in the next detailed design stage.
As per the subject c of the level of current manufacturing technology, both 1 unit and 2 units option
can be made by electrical equipment manufacturer around the world.
Regarding the subject d of the reliability and flexibility of maintenance and operation, 2 units option
has an advantage over because one of the unit can be operated in case of another unit is in stop
condition such as fault or maintenance.
Finally, as for the discharge variation between wet season and dry season, there is not any serious
problem during wet season. However, during dry season, turbine will be operated less than 30% rated
output and consequently it will cause serious problem to the turbine such as cavitation and vibration.
Therefore, 2 units option has a great advantage over the discharge variation.
According to result of the above comparison, 26MW2 units has been determined for the Masang-2
hydropower project taking especially the reliability and flexibility of maintenance and operation and
discharge variation between wet season and dry season into consideration.
18.4.3 TURBINE
(1) Turbine Output
Rated turbine output at rated effective head of 178.8m and rated discharge of 16m3/s per unit can be
calculated as follow;
Pt = 9.8 Hn Qt t
= 9.8 178.8 16.0 0.926
=. 26,000 kW
where
Pt : Rated turbine output per unit(kW)
Hn : Rated effective head(m)
Qt : Rated water discharge per unit(m3/s)
t :Turbine efficiency(%)
(2) Type of Turbine
Generally, type of turbine can be determined by close relation between effective head and turbine
output. Vertical shaft Francis type turbine can be selected taking Masang-2s effective head and
turbine output into consideration.
(3) Runner Material
Stainless steel anti-corrosion type such as 13 chrome high nickels stainless steel is recommended to be
applied for the runner material. Surface of runner and wear ring shall be coated (hard or soft) in case
of water quality. Detailed coating method shall be specified in the next detailed design stage.
(4) Turbine Center Elevation
Turbine center elevation can be determined based on the draft head (Hs), which in turn, also can be
decided by the cavitation coefficient of the turbine related to the optimum turbine specific speed (Ns).
Hs can be calculated as -2.38m by using the above relation. Therefore, the turbine center elevation is
140.00m.
(5) Effective Head
Effective head can be calculated by gross head (192.9m) friction loss of waterway. As a result of
calculation, loss of head is 14.1m, effective head is 192.9m-14.1m=178.8m.
(6) Size of Runner
Designing of turbine runner is to determine the principal dimensions of the turbine and weight of the
turbine. According to the study result, maximum diameter of runner is estimated 1.7m and weight of
turbine is 4tons. However, the actual size of runner shall be offered from the turbine manufacturer in
the next detailed design stage.
(7) Rated Revolving Speed
Specific speed (Ns) of Francis type turbine generally is between 70 to 300 m-kW. Ns 123 m-kW is
obtained by calculating the relation between the effective head and specific speed previously adopted
for similar projects. With this in mind, the revolving speed of the turbine is obtained as 500 min-1,
based on the specific speed of Ns 123m-kW.
(8) Turbine Aeration System
Aeration piping system for the runner and draft tube shall be studied in the next detailed design stage.
(9) Penstock and Inlet Valve
One (1) line penstock is bifurcated into two (2) pipes for 2 units and connected to inlet valves. The
Inlet Valve will be of the by plane Valve type with a diameter of approximately 1.6 m.
18.4.4 GENERATOR
A three phase alternating current synchronous generator with vertical shaft rated capacity of 28.1MVA
and power factor of 90% lag is selected.
(1) Type of Generator
Type of generator can be determined by revolving speed and generator capacity and normal type is
adopted for the Masang-2 project taking generator capacity and revolving speed into consideration.
(2) Rated Generator Capacitor
Rated generator capacity can be calculated from the rated turbine output, power factor and generator
efficiency as follows;
Pg = Pt g / p.f (kVA)
= 26,000 0.973 / 0.90
=. 28,100kVA
where
Pg : Rated generator capacity(kVA)
Pt : Rated turbine output per unit(kW)
g : Generator efficiency(%)
p.f : Power factor(%), lag
As the results of above calculation, the rated generator capacity is 28,100kVA.
(3) Insulation and Cooling Method
F class is adopted for insulation of the stator and rotor, and enclosed hood, air cooled type with water
heat exchanger system is applied to the cooling system.
(4) Generator Rating
Principal specifications of the generator are as follows;
Rotation direction Counter clockwise from view of generator top

Rated revolving speed 500min-1
Rated capacity 28.1MVA
Rated power factor 0.90
Rated voltage 11.0kV
Rated frequency 50Hz
Excitation method Brushless excitation
18.4.5 AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT

(1) Oil Supply System
Oil supply system for the inlet valve operation purpose and governor operation purpose are installed at
each unit. The oil supply system is composed of oil pressure pump( regular use, stand by use), oil
pressure tank, oil sump tank, oil leakage tank and control board.
(2) Compressed Air Supply System
Compressed air supply system (regular use, stand by use) for the generator brake, oil pressure tank and
general uses are installed at the powerhouse.
(3) Water Supply and Drainage System
Water supply system for the cooling of turbine, generator bearing, generator cooler and oil supply
system cooler are installed at the powerhouse. Water will be taken from drafty tube by water supply
pump, and then supply to the each equipment through strainer and sand separator..
Water drainage pit shall be prepared at bottom of powerhouse and leakage water shall be drained by
water drainage pump.
(4) Parallel in Circuit Breaker
There are two connection methods between generator and power system. One is low voltage
synchronous system (connection point is low voltage side of main transformer) and another is high
voltage synchronous system (connection point is high voltage side of main transformer). Regarding
connection method of the Masang-2, low voltage synchronous system is applied in consideration of
generator capacity, improvement circuit breaker and simplicity of station service power.
(5) Control System
Regarding control system, one-man control system is applied for control of turbine, generator, main
transformer, auxiliary equipment, transmission line and control board and it can be located at control
room in the powerhouse.
(6) Station Service Transformer
Station service transformer for the auxiliary equipment power source for the turbine, generator, main
transformer, lighting, ventilation shall be installed at lower side of main transformer and supply the
power to the each equipment.
(7) Traveling Crane
Maximum capacity of main hook is determined by the maximum weight of installed equipment and
generator rotor is the heaviest equipment generally.
Masang-2 hydropower project, the generator rotor of 47 tons is estimated the heaviest equipment.
18.5 OUTDOOR SWITCHYARD EQUIPMENT AND TRANSMISSION

LINE
18.5.1 OUTDOOR SWITCHYARD EQUIPMENT FOR MASANG-2

(1) Main Transformer
One (1) transformer per one (1) turbine generator is desirable from the point of view of the operation.
However, one (1) transformer per two (2) turbine generator shall be applied for the Masang-2
hydropower project taking into improvement of transformers reliability and reduction of construction
cost consideration.
Regarding location, the main transformer shall be located at outdoor switchyard which is adjacent
place of powerhouse. Three-phase transformer is recommended to be adopted and to be designed
taking into transportation restriction, efficiency and installation space consideration.
Maximum weight of transformer (including trailer) is expected to be 100 tons and it can be transported
to the project site.
Main specification of the main transformer is shown as follows;
Rated Voltage Primary 11.0 kV

Secondary 150 kV
Rated Capacity Primary 56.2MVA
Secondary 56.2MVA
Rated Frequency 50 Hz
Rated Frequency Outdoor type
Cooling method OFAF (Oil forced Air Forced )
(2) 150kV Outdoor Switchyard Equipment
150kV outdoor switchyard equipment shall be installed at adjacent of powerhouse same location as the
main transformer.
There are conventional type and Gas Insulated Switchgear type, the conventional type which is
economical advantage shall be adopted from the point of view of the installation space and
construction cost.
150kV outdoor switchyard equipment consists of 150kV bus, circuit breakers, disconnecting switches,
current transformer for protective relay/metering, voltage transformer for protective relay/metering,
supporting insulator, stringing and steel structure.
Whole single line diagram including generator, main transformer, bus and transmission line are shown
as follows.

Figure 18.5.1 Single Line Diagram for Masang-2
18.5.2 TRANSMISSION LINE
Source: JICA Study Team based on RUPTL

Figure 18.5.2 Reference between Location of Masang-2 and Transmission Development Plan
a) Voltage class applied
Judging from the rated capacity of the generator, it would be appropriate to have a voltage of at least
150 kV for system access.
b) System access point
In the study of system access, a selection was made of methods based on the existing and planned
transmission facilities indicated in RUPTL. The relative merits of each access method were assessed
from four perspectives, as follows. The Study Team made a relative assessment of distance and
topography, but made assessments with respect to environmental factors (forested tracts, natural
preserves, etc.) and system operation only when there were prohibitive factors.
T/L Construction Environmental issues

Aspects System
Natural Forest Resident
Candidates Length Topography Operation
conservation class imposition
Inc.(Maninjau Simpang Empat T/L)
1
(Along vicinity of Masang River) 34kms
GI Padang Luar
2
80kms
GI Simpang Empat
3
(Along vicinityof Masang River) 100kms

Inc.(Maninjau Simpang Empat T/L)
4-Add
(Detour-route against Nature

conservation(through protection 38kms
forest))
5-Add Inc..(Maninjau Simpang Empat T/L)

conservation(through non-regulated 54kms
area))
GI Simpang Empat
6-Add

120kms
conservation)
Evaluation : Good Not good
i) Transmission line construction
Considering construction of a transmission line extension to the three aforementioned candidates

(Candidate 1 - 3), extension along the Masang River would offer the shortest distance to the
150kV Maninjau-Simpang Empat for the route (entailing the shortest distance or the shortest
route for extension that can basically be confirmed by map). If the route distance for Candidate
1 is assigned the value 1.0, it is estimated that that for Candidate 2 (access to GI Padang Luar)
would be 2.2, and that for Candidate 3 (access to GI Simbang Empat), 3.0. In addition,
Candidate 1 would allow a more unified and simpler construction method than the other
candidates because the route would pass through on the village side.
As for the topographical factors related to transmission tower construction, in the case of access
to GI Padang Luar, there is a comparatively close road leading to Bukit Tinggi, and this would
hold advantages for hauling materials and assuring a patrol route. At the same time, however,
there is much undulation in the mountainous terrain, and this could make it difficult to take full
advantage of this road. In the case of Candidate 3 (access to GI Simpang Empat), there is no
straight-line route, and it was thought that the line would go down the Masang River, along the
mountain on its northern side, like the 150kV transmission line feeder connection between
Maninjau and Simpang Empat. This was given the highest rating.
ii) Environmental aspect
The prospective site of the power house is near the border between the regencies of Agam
(Kabupaten Agam) and Pasaman (Kabupaten Pasaman), on the Agam side. The Masang River
forms this border, but the river itself is in Pasaman. The shortest route would lie in extension of
the transmission line from the Masang-2 power station along the Masang river to the village side.
In this case, the line would cross the Batastinjaulau and Sinanggamaur mountains and the natural
preserve along the Masang River. In reality, transmission line construction over this route
would not be practicable.
Therefore, it was decided to add a route to the GI Simpang Empat that detours to avoid this
natural preserve to the list of study subjects as Candidate 6. The Study Team also decided to
add two other routes (one passing through the protection forest and another that does not pass
through the protection forest), consisting of feeder connection to the Maninjau-Simpang Empat
150kV transmission line, for the zone study subjects as Candidates 4 and 5.
iii) System operation
Of the route zones for connection to the Maninjau - Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line, the
table shows the increases in distance that would be entailed by the route through the protected
forest area (Candidate 4), the route through a district without any forest-related constraints
(Candidate 5), and the route for system access to GI Simpang Empat along the lines of Candidate
5 (Candidate 6). Once the line comes out on the village side in connection to the Maninjau -
Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line, however, the terrain would be basically flat, and the
transmission tower foundations and structures could be built virtually in line with the standard
design. For this reason, selection of a route to the Maninjau - Simpang Empat 150kV
transmission line free of any environmental constraints would presumably be preferable in the
cost aspect to system access to GI Padang Luar (because the cost advantage would outweigh the
extra line length). To make a comparison in respect of the supply-demand balance, it may be
noted that RUPTL foresees a peak demand of 45.3 MW at GI Simpang Empat in 2019. If a
feeder interconnection is made to the Maninjau - Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line with a
maximum generated output of about 40 MW, most of this output would be consumed by GI
Simpang Empat. Similarly, the 2019 peak power at GI Padang Luar is 66 MW, and most of the
demand could be absorbed by this potential site.
To draw a comparison in respect of power quality, connection of the potential site to GI Padang
Luar would merely decrease the power flow from GI Payakumbuh to GI Padang Luar. There is
also thought to be no problem as regards voltage, because GI Payakumbuh (a 275/150kV
substation) has a close electrical distance with GI Padang Luar. On the contrary,
interconnection of a hydropower station in close proximity to GI Simpang Empat, which would
form the terminal system, could be expected to improve the voltage at GI Simpang Empat. In
this respect, feeder connection to the Maninjau - Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line would
bring substantial benefits.
As for the type of transmission line and protection relay system, a parallel two-circuit line will be
constructed for system access with GI Padang Luar. Judging from the rated capacity of the
potential site, there would be no obstacles to the standard specifications (1 HAWK, 2 cct), and no
problems as regards the protection relay system (distance or ground orientation). In the case of
feeder connection to the Maninjau - Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line, the following three
systems are conceivable.
Four-circuit line, pi feeder connection
Two-circuit line, pi feeder connection
Feeder connection
Because the four-circuit pi feeder connection would require a physical increase in the number of
lines, it would entail a higher construction cost, but it would also enable construction without
modification of the current protection relay system on the Maninjau - Simpang Empat 150kV
transmission line. The two-circuit pi feeder connection would reduce the construction cost by
an amount commensurate with the two-circuit decrease, but could present difficulties in the
aspect of system operation. Specifically, failure and suspension of supply between the potential
site and the GI Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line would result in routing of the potential
site output through GI Maninjau. This would not only be inefficient but also lengthen the
electrical distance somewhat as regards the primary bus voltage (GI Maningua - GI Simpang
Empat - potential site). This situation could require compensation for reactive power. Such
problems are particularly liable to surface in the event of grid extension in the aforementioned
northern terminal direction beginning from GI Simpang Empat. Feeder connection would result
in three-terminal operation, and this would require a switch to a protection relay system that
could protect the other terminals. Because the potential site and GI Maninjau could become the
power source terminals, a carrier-type protection relay system would have to be installed, and
this would complicate the power system operation somewhat. Operation of other terminals is
not a part of system operation in Indonesia at present, and the installation must take account of
factors such as an increase in the work load of system operators.
Therefore, in extension of the grid toward the northern end of West Sumatra Province as noted above,
a single transmission tower would be built to specifications permitting the installation of four circuits.
Initially, it would be possible to operate with a two-circuit line pi feeder connection or to construct a
standard tower (with installation of two circuits per tower) and an additional transmission line in
anticipation of grid extension toward the northern end, for operation as a four-circuit pi feeder
connection. Naturally, if grid extension toward the northern end is not a consideration, there would
be no problem with a two-circuit pi feeder connection. As for the type of transmission line applied
for this feeder connection, it could be the same as the Maninjau - Simpang Empat line (1 HAWK, 2
cct).
Based on the above, an in-depth study was made of feeder connection to the Maninjau - Simpang
Empat 150kV transmission line (both through the forest reserve area and through the area without
environmental constraints) and GI Padang Luar system access, inclusive of the route zone1.
1
The objective of this study is not a rigorous search for a single answer but an examination of all the possible candidate sites,
unless a particular site offers overwhelming benefit and rationality.
GI Simpang Empat GI Simpang Empat GI Simpang Empat
Potentialsite Potentialsite Potentialsite
Masang2 Masang2 Masang2
GI Maninjau GI Maninjau GI Maninjau
Four-circuit line, Two-circuit line, Feeder connection

pi feeder connection pi feeder connection
Figure 18.5.3 Types of Connection

c) Route zone
The figure below shows the route zone between the potential site and GI Padang Luar, and for feeder
connection to the Maninjau-Simpang Empat 150-kV transmission line.
Figure 18.5.4 Route Zone (Masang-2)
i) Technical perspectives on transmission lines and transmission towers
There is an elevation difference of about 750 meters between the potential site and GI Padang
Luar. The straight-line route in the direction of Bukit Tinggi crosses the Ladangatas, Batasarik,
and Galanggang mountains.
The selection of route zone was made with consideration of the terrain at both points and the area
between them, the slopes on both banks along rivers (selection of fairly gentle grades of no more
than 30 percent), and the up and down grades (of no more than 35 percent every 200 m). It was
assumed that the northern or southern end of the route zone would be adopted as the practical
route.
The route from the potential site to the Maninjau - Simpang Empat 150kV transmission line goes
down to the village side, and the elevation difference is estimated to be about 100 meters.
However, the maximum elevation en route would reach 550 meters, that is, a route across
mountains for an elevation difference of just under 400 meters was selected. Here as well, the
selection took account of the slope grade angles and the up and down grade angles, as already
described. As far as possible, the shortest route was taken; after coming down from the
mountain, the line would pass through an area of rice paddies before connection with the
Simpang Empat - Maninjau line.
ii) Environmental and social concerns
Selection of the route zone avoided natural preserves and other factors fatally blocking
construction. Transmission line extension through a protected forest area would call for
curtailment of the development area to the minimum requisite in this area. Full surveys and
examination of the on-site topography would also be necessary. In addition, there is a
possibility of passage through a timber industry forest, and the prospect of compensation would
also have to be taken into account.
Although the zone apparently does not contain any plantations or other large-scale farming tracts,
it does contain several villages. As such, construction of transmission lines in the vicinity of
communities would require consideration of items such as land acquisition and blockage of
sunlight. The existence of residential areas in the vicinity would also hold the possibility of
consignment of transmission line maintenance to local monitors after the construction is finished.
For this reason, the distance from communities must also be studied. There are no problems
with detraction from scenery, because the zone in question does not contain any scenic districts.
In this pre-FS study, the Study Team considered a number of options for the route zone. In the future
process of detailed route selection, a selection could be made of a route befitting the times. The cost
calculation in this study adopted the Candidate 5 route, which avoids the natural reserve area (and
goes through an area without constraints).

05

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

05

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PART III PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR

CHAPTER 16 PROJECT SITE CONDITION

Source: Agam Regency

Figure 16.1.1 Administrative Map of Agam Regency

Table16.2.1 Summary of Topographic Survey Conducted

16.3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Qal Alluvial deposits of silt, sand and gravel

Figure16.3.1 Regional Geological Map

Table16.3.1 Summary of Obtained Design Seismic Acceleration

16.3.4 GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS

Table16.3.2 Summary of Geological Investigation Conducted

(1) Geological Mapping

(2) Seismic Refraction Survey

Table16.3.3 Geological Classification of Seismic Units

(3) Boring Investigation and Field Tests

Table16.3.4 Summary of Boring Investigation Results

Table16.3.5 Summary of Permeability Test Results

16.3.5 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT

(2) Intermediate Pond Site

(3) Connection and Headrace Tunnels (Plan B)

(4) Surge Tank and Penstock Sites

such as mortared rockbolts should be implemented to guarantee stable foundations.

(5) Powerhouse Site

16.3.6 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

Table16.3.6 Summary of Laboratory Tests for Fine Aggregate Material

(2) Rock Quarry

Table 16.3.7 Summary of Laboratory Tests for Coarse Aggregate Material

16.3.7 GEOLOGUCAL SUMMARY

The mainly investigation results are summarized as follows:

Figure16.3.2 Location of Geological Investigations

Figure16.3.3 Geological Map with Location of Sampling for Construction Materials

16.4 METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOGY

16.4.1 METEOROLOGICAL DATA

(1) Air Temperature

(2) Relative Humidity

(3) Sunshine Duration

(4) Wind Velocity

Station Name: Lubuk Sukaping (1979-1985) Unit: mm/day

Station Name: Tanjung Pati (1975-1985) Unit: mm/day

16.4.2 RAINFALL DATA

(1) Monthly Rainfall Data

The monthly distributions of mean annual rainfall are illustrated below.

(2) Hourly Rainfall Records

16.4.3 RUNOFF RECORDS

(2) Runoff Records

Station Name: Sipisang (1975-2008) Unit: m3/s

16.4.4 LOWFLOW ANALYSIS

The outline of lowflow analysis is described below.

Estimation of Scrutiny of Runoff Records :

Supplementation & Expansion of

Estimation of Long-Term Daily Runoff

(2) Estimation of Missing Data

(3) Test of Consistency of Rainfall Records

The corrected rainfall is determined by the following equation.

where, PCX : Corrected rainfall at any time period at station x (mm)

Maninjau Station: 1979 to 1993

Suliki Station: 1988 to 1993

(4) Estimation of Basin Mean Rainfall at the Sipisang AWLR Station

Case1 (1973 to 1986): Maninjau, Koto Tinggi, Suliki

Case2 (1987 to 1993): Koto Tinggi, Suliki, Jambak

Case2 (1987 to 1993)

The estimated annual basin mean rainfall is 2,507mm.

(5) Evaluation of Runoff Records at the Sipisang AWLR Station