EFFECTIVENESS OF INSTALLING BARRIER KNOCK DOWN WEIR MODEL ARRANGEMENTS FOR KISTDAM

(1)

1. Introduction 1.1 Background

Weir or overflow building is a building made of river stone, gabion or concrete located across a river. It can also be used for other purposes, apart from irrigation, such as for public water, power generation and tidal control (Parwanti et al. 2021)(Mondal et al. 2017)(Ali et al. 2019). Irrigation arrangements can also be used for other purposes, such as for public water, power generation, and tidal control(Muhlasin et al. 2020)(Adi and Wahyudi 2018). Emergency dams are dams that are often functioned during floods and tidal waves. In general, weir construction has waterproof properties(Marfai et al. 2008). Barrier Knock Down weir as an alternative technology for

International Journal of Engineering Advanced Research eISSN: 2710-7167 | Vol. 4 No. 3 [September 2022]

Journal website: http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijear

EFFECTIVENESS OF INSTALLING BARRIER KNOCK DOWN WEIR MODEL ARRANGEMENTS FOR KISTDAM

Asnun Parwanti^{1 2*}, Slamet Imam Wahyudi² and Moh Faiqun Ni’am³

1 Engineering Faculty, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Semarang, INDONESIA

1 2 3 Engineering Faculty, Universitas Darul Ulum, Jombang, INDONESIA

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Article Information:

Article history:

Received date : 17 May 2022 Revised date : 26 July 2022 Accepted date : 25 August 2022 Published date : 9 September 2022 To cite this document:

Parwanti, A., Wahyudi, S. I., & Ni’am, M. F. (2022). EFFECTIVENESS OF INSTALLING BARRIER KNOCK DOWN WEIR MODEL ARRANGEMENTS FOR

KISTDAM. International Journal of Engineering Advanced Research, 4(3), 47-60.

Abstract: Kistdam is a weir built temporarily to hold the flow of water directly on the excavation for development needs. The Barrier Knock Down weir is a temporary weir to restrain the flow rate, inhibit sedimentation, and function as a Kistdam. Barrier Knock Down weir is made from thick plastic, strong, not easily torn and resistant to weather. This study simulates two arrangements toward weir models analyzed to determine safety stability, selected appropriate and efficient. The method used is qualitative descriptive. The results obtained show that the pedestal of the hard rock has the shear stability value = 1.86; pebble has shear stability = 1.24 and rolling stability = 4.33 so that the efficient Kistdam weir model is simulation no 2 with the arrangement and series of 12 units of the knock down model.

Keywords: Kistdam, Stability, Barrier Knock Down.

(2)

48

irrigation(Roehman, Imam Wahyudi, and Faiqun Niam 2019) and as a flow regulator and functions as a kistdam(Parwanti, Wahyudi, and Ni’Am 2022). The kistdam process or weir is also called an artificial dam - the type of kistdam often used is the sandbag, a pile of sacks filled with sand.

However, the current sand-filled kistdam can be replaced by a Barrier Knock Down weir, more solid, not easily torn and weather-resistant and can be dismantled and reassembled(Ikhwanudin, Wahyudi, and Soedarsono 2020). Kistdam is a water structure or weir made and used for a while.

The goal is to prevent water from flowing into the development excavation and watershed areas.

Kistdam is a temporary barrier between water and the construction site. Kistdam can be applied in every segment considered needed(Sudirwan, Imam Wahyudi, and Lekkerkerk 2020).

1.2 Research Purposes

This study focuses on the selection of a Barrier Knock Down weir arrangement model that is effective, efficient and not wasteful for the application of Kistdam at the construction site but still pays attention to the stability of the weir. This research uses a qualitative descriptive method. This study expects that the Barrier Knock Down weir can be chosen for the installation of the Kistdam arrangement in determining and applying it at the project site. This study simulates two forms of the Barrier Knock Down weir model structured by analyzing the required safety points for rolling and shear stability(Parwanti et al. 2022).

The simulation is used with the height of the Kistdam h = 1.5 m and the length b = 2.1 m. From simulation number 1, the arrangement of the weir model and circuit consists of 15 units, and from simulation number 2, the arrangement of the weir model consists of 12 units. The structure of the Barrier Knock Down weir is entirely filled with sand + water.

1.3 The Shape of the Knock-Down Weir Structure

• Simulation 1 installation of the barrier knock-down weir model arrangement for Kistdams with 15 units, the dimension of 1 unit is x x y x z = 70 cm x 50 cm x 70 cm. The arrangement form can be seen in figure 1.

Figure 1: Simulation 1

(3)

• Simulation 2 installation of the barrier knock-down weir model arrangement for the kist dam with 12 units, the dimension of 1 unit is x x y x z = 70 cm x 50 cm x 70 cm.

The arrangement form can be seen in figure 2.

Figure 2: Simulation 2

The appearance of a knock-down barrier dam installed vertically can be seen in figure 3, while for a horizontal installation it can be seen in figure 4.

Figure 3: Schematic of Vertical Barrier Installation

Figure 4: Horizontal Barrier Installation Scheme

(4)

50

2. Literature Riview

2.1 Vertical Force Due to Weight of the Weir it Self

For it to be the building to be safe against overturning, the resultant of all forces acting on the part of the building above the horizontal plane, including the lifting force, must intersect this plane on the terrace. There should be no pulling on any plane of the wedge. The amount of stress in buildings and foundations must be maintained at the maximum recommended values(Yousif 2018).

Formula:

G = V x ɣ (1)

Where V: Volume (cm³), ɣ: Material Density (g/cm³)

2.2 Horizontal Force Which is the Hydrostatic Force

Hydrostatic force is a horizontal force due to water upstream and downstream of the weir.

Hydrostatic pressure is a function of the depth below the water surface and acts perpendicular to the building face. The magnitude of the moment due to hydrostatic pressure is(Yousif 2018). The thrust force of water on the weir can be seen in figure 5.

Figure 5: Water Pressure On Upright Walls Source: ( kp-06. building parameters, 1986 )

Formula :

Pαair = 0,5. H² .γw. (2)

H P= 0,5. γw.H²

H/3

(5)

2.3 Stability Against Overturning

The active soil force (Pα) causes both the occurrence of a moment and a thrust so that the wall will shift. If the retaining wall is stable, the forces acting on it will be in balance (∑F = 0 and M = 0).

The resistance to this thrust occurs in the contact area between the subsoil of the retaining wall and the subgrade foundation(Yousif 2018). The estimated value of coefficient of friction can be seen in table 1, safety factor for shear stability can be seen in table 2, for the values of n, e, w, d and b (original soil in the field) can be seen in table 3.

Formula:

𝑆𝑆 = ^{𝑓.∑ 𝑉}_{∑ 𝐻} > 1,2 ... (3)

Where SF: safety factor, ∑Mt: number of holding moment (ton meter), ∑Mg: number of overturning moment (ton meter).

Table 1: Price – Estimated Price For Coefficient of Friction

Material F

Pair of stones on masonry 0,60 – 0,75

Good quality hard stone 0,75

Gravel 0,50

Sand 0,40

Clay 0,30

(Hongjian, Hangzhou, and Zongyuan 2020)(Sari and Dananjaya 2020) Table 2: General Safety Factor (SF) Types of

Failure

Types of Foundation SF

Shearing Earth work, weir work, backfilling work etc. 1,2-1,6 Shearing Construction of retaining wall 1,5-2,0

Shearing Retaining wall, 1,2-1,6

1,2-1,5 Shearing Coffer dam, temporary supported excavations 2-3

1,7-2,5 1,7-2,5

Permeation Foot plate foundation 3-5

(Wahyudi et al. 2019)(Dewi 2007)

Table 3: Values of n,e,w and ɤd for Original Land of Field

Types of soil n (%) e w (%) ɤ d (g/cm³) ɤb (g/cm³)

Uniform sand, not solid 46 0,85 32 1,43 1,89

Uniform sand, solid 34 0,51 19 1,75 2,09

Mixed grained sand, not solid 40 0,67 25 1,59 1,99 Mixed grained sand, solid 30 0,43 16 1,86 2,16 Soft clay, slightly organic 66 1,90 70 - 1,58

Soft clay, very organic 75 3,0 110 - 1,43

(Wahyudi et al. 2019)(Dewi 2007)

(6)

52

3. Research method

The research method is quantitative descriptive, by analyzing the composition of the barrier knock- down weir model for Kistdam, the resulting safety value for each model will refer to the use and writing of project locations quickly and accurately, based on standardized stability. The research flow chart can be seen in figure 6.

3.1 Methodology Flow / Research Flow

Figure 6: Research Flow

Conclusion and suggestion Finish

Start Literature Review

Collecting of Primary and Secondary data

Simulation test 1 Simulation test 2

Analysis result 1 -Rolling stability - Shear stability

Analysis result 2 -Rolling stability - Shear stability

(7)

4. Research Results Simulation 1

The force scheme of the simulation form 1 filled with sand + water can be seen in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Force Sketch of Simulation 1

• Rolling Stability Analysis of Simulation 1

The calculation of the value of the holding moment in simulation 1 can be seen in table 4. After getting the value of the holding moment, the calculation can continue to find the value of overturning stability which can be seen in table 5.

Table 4: Force Due to Self-Weight Simulation 1

-

So, the sum of the holding moment is 2.68.

Table 5: Hydrostatic Force of Simulation 1 h

(m)

width (m²)

γw

(t/m³)

Horizontal force (t)

Distance (m)

Hoding Moment (t.m)

Rolling Moment (t.m)

SF Rolling 0,10 0,01 1 0,005 0,03 2,68 0,0002 16089,15 0,20 0,02 1 0,020 0,07 2,68 0,0013 2011,14 0,30 0,05 1 0,045 0,10 2,68 0,0045 595,89 0,40 0,08 1 0,080 0,13 2,68 0,0107 251,39 0,50 0,13 1 0,125 0,17 2,68 0,0208 128,71 0,60 0,18 1 0,180 0,20 2,68 0,0360 74,49

0,70 0,25 1 0,245 0,23 2,68 0,0572 46,91

0,80 0,32 1 0,320 0,27 2,68 0,0853 31,42

0,90 0,41 1 0,405 0,30 2,68 0,1215 22,07

1,00 0,50 1 0,500 0,33 2,68 0,1667 16,09

1,10 0,61 1 0,605 0,37 2,68 0,2218 12,09

Force width (m²)

γw

(t/m³)

Vertical Force (t)

Holding Moment (t.m)

G1 1,05 1,99 2,09 1,05 2,19

G2 0,7 1,99 1,39 0,35 0,49

(8)

54

h (m)

width (m²)

γw

(t/m³)

Hoding Moment (t.m)

SF Rolling 1,20 0,72 1 0,720 0,40 2,68 0,2880 9,31 1,30 0,85 1 0,845 0,43 2,68 0,3662 7,32 1,40 0,98 1 0,980 0,47 2,68 0,4573 5,86 1,50 1,13 1 1,125 0,50 2,68 0,5625 4,77

• Analysis of Shear Stability Of Simulation 1 on Wall Roughness Based on Soil Type Roughness

The total horizontal force working on the variation is as follow:

∑ 𝐻 = ¹

2. 𝛾_𝑤. 𝑦² (4)

The total vertical force working is as follow:

∑ 𝑣 = 𝑥₁. 𝑦₁. 𝛾_𝑏+ 𝑥₂. 𝑦₂. 𝛾_𝑏 (5)

𝑆𝑆 = (𝑓. ∑ 𝑣)

∑ ℎ =𝑓. (𝑥₁. 𝑦₁. 𝛾_𝑏+ 𝑥₂. 𝑦₂. 𝛾_𝑏) 1

2 𝛾^𝑤. ℎ²

= 2. 𝑓

ℎ² (𝑥₁. 𝑦₁. 𝛾_𝑏+ 𝑥₂. 𝑦₂. 𝛾_𝑏)

Example of shear stability calculation model L filled with sand + water, with h=(m) : 𝑆𝑆 =2.0,75

1,5² (0,70 . 1,5 . 1,99 + 0,70 . 1,00 . 1,99) = 2,32

The safety value of the shear stability in simulation 1 can be seen in table 6. The graph of rolling and shear stability can be seen in figure 8.

(9)

Table 6: Shear Stability of Simulation 1 h (m)

SF Shear Masonry

(f = 0,75)

Gravel (f = 0,50)

Sand (f = 0,40)

Clay (f = 0,30)

0,10 522,38 348,25 278,60 208,95

0,20 130,59 87,06 69,65 52,24

0,30 58,04 38,69 30,96 23,22

0,40 32,65 21,77 17,41 13,06

0,50 20,90 13,93 11,14 8,36

0,60 14,51 9,67 7,74 5,80

0,70 10,66 7,11 5,69 4,26

0,80 8,16 5,44 4,35 3,26

0,90 6,45 4,30 3,44 2,58

1,00 5,22 3,48 2,79 2,09

1,10 4,32 2,88 2,30 1,73

1,20 3,63 2,42 1,93 1,45

1,30 3,09 2,06 1,65 1,24

1,40 2,67 1,78 1,42 1,07

1,50 2,32 1,55 1,24 0,93

Figure 8: Rolling Stability and Shear Stability Graphs of Simulation 1 16.09

12.09

9.31

7.32

5.86

4.77 5.22

4.32

3.63

3.09 2.67

2.32 3.48

2.88

2.42 2.06 1.78 1.55

0 2 4 6 8 10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50

Shear Stability

Rolling Stability

Water Levrl (m)

SF Rolling Mansory Gravel

(10)

56

4.2 Simulation 2

The force scheme of the simulation form 2 filled with sand + water can be seen in figure 9.

Figure 9: Force Sketch of Simulation 2

• Rolling Stability Analysis of Simulation 2

The calculation of the value of the holding moment in simulation 2 can be seen in table 7. After getting the value of the holding moment, the calculation can continue to find the value of overturning stability which can be seen in table 8.

Table 7: Force Due to Self-Weight Simulation 2 Force width

(m²)

γw

(t/m³)

Vertical Force (t)

Tenacious Moment (t.m)

G1 1,05 1,99 2,09 1,05 2,19

G2 0,35 1,99 0,70 0,35 0,24

So, the sum of the holding moment is 2.44.

Table 8: Hydrostatic Force of Simulation 2 h

(m)

width (m²)

γw

(t/m³)

Holding Moment (t.m)

SF rolling 0,10 0,01 1 0,005 0,03 2,44 0,0002 14626,50 0,20 0,02 1 0,020 0,07 2,44 0,0013 1828,31 0,30 0,05 1 0,045 0,10 2,44 0,0045 541,72 0,40 0,08 1 0,080 0,13 2,44 0,0107 228,54 0,50 0,13 1 0,125 0,17 2,44 0,0208 117,01 0,60 0,18 1 0,180 0,20 2,44 0,0360 67,72

0,70 0,25 1 0,245 0,23 2,44 0,0572 42,64

0,80 0,32 1 0,320 0,27 2,44 0,0853 28,57

0,90 0,41 1 0,405 0,30 2,44 0,1215 20,06

1,00 0,50 1 0,500 0,33 2,44 0,1667 14,63

1,10 0,61 1 0,605 0,37 2,44 0,2218 10,99

1,20 0,72 1 0,720 0,40 2,44 0,2880 8,46 1,30 0,85 1 0,845 0,43 2,44 0,3662 6,66 1,40 0,98 1 0,980 0,47 2,44 0,4573 5,33 1,50 1,13 1 1,125 0,50 2,44 0,5625 4,33

(11)

• Analysis of Shear Stability Of Simulation 2 on Wall Roughness Based on Soil Type Roughness

The total horizontal force acting is as follow:

∑ 𝐻 = ¹₂. 𝛾_𝑤. 𝑦² (6)

The total vertical force working is as follow:

∑ 𝑣 = 𝑥₁. 𝑦₁. 𝛾_𝑏+ 𝑥₂. 𝑦₂. 𝛾_𝑏 (7)

𝑆𝑆 = (𝑓. ∑ 𝑣)

∑ ℎ =𝑓. (𝑥₁. 𝑦₁. 𝛾_𝑏+ 𝑥₂. 𝑦₂. 𝛾_𝑏) 1

2 𝛾^𝑤. ℎ²

= 2. 𝑓

ℎ² (𝑥₁. 𝑦₁. 𝛾_𝑏+ 𝑥₂. 𝑦₂. 𝛾_𝑏)

Example of calculating shear stability I sand + water content (h=1.5 m) :

𝑆𝑆 =2.0,75

1,5² (0,70 . 1,5 . 1,99 + 0,70 . 0,50 . 1,99) = 1,86

The safety value of the shear stability in simulation 2 can be seen in table 9. The graph of rolling and shear stability can be seen in figure 10.

Table 9: Shear Stability of Simulation 2 h (m)

SF Shear Masonry

(f = 0,75)

Gravel (f = 0,50) 0,10 417,90 278,60 0,20 104,48 69,65 0,30 46,43 30,96 0,40 26,12 17,41 0,50 16,72 11,14 0,60 11,61 7,74 0,70 8,53 5,69 0,80 6,53 4,35 0,90 5,16 3,44 1,00 4,18 2,79 1,10 3,45 2,30 1,20 2,90 1,93 1,30 2,47 1,65 1,40 2,13 1,42 1,50 1,86 1,24

(12)

58

Figure 10: Rolling Stability and Shear Stability Graphs of Simulation 2

5. Conclusion

Simulation 1 with 15 units of knock down model with h = 1.5 m on hard rock support with shear stability value = 2.32; on gravel support the value of shear stability = 1.55 and the value of rolling stability = 4.77.

Simulation 2 with 12 units of knock down model with h = 1.5 on hard rock support with shear stability value = 1.86; on gravel support shear stability = 1.24 and the value of rolling stability = 4.33.

So the conclusion for an effective Kistdam weir is simulation 2.

6. Suggestion

1. For the support made of clay in this study, you can choose the arrangement of the Knock Down Weir with the Simulation of model no 1 with h = 1.3 m.

2. Barrier Knock Down weir can also function as a Krib Current regulator.

14.63

10.99

8.46

6.66

5.33

4.33 4.18

3.45

2.90

2.47 2.13

1.86 2.79

2.30

1.93 1.65 1.42 1.24

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50

Shear Stability

Rolling Stability

Water Level (m)

SF Rolling Mansory Gravel

(13)

References

Abdullah Lala et al., “Performance of Building with Basements Under Seismic Excitation Considering Soil Structure Interaction,” Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 7–27, 2021, doi: 10.35940/ijitee.a9585.1111121.

A. Parwanti, S. I. Wahyudi, and M. F. Ni’Am, “Barrier knock-down weir as an alternative technology for irrigation,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2022, vol. 955, no. 1, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/955/1/012004.

N. Ikhsyan, C. Muryani, and P. Rintayati, “Analysis of Distribution, Impacts and Adaptation Societies Flood Rob in the Eastern District of Semarang and Semarang Gayamsari District,”

J. GeoEco, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 145–156, 2017.

Adi, Henny Pratiwi, and Slamet Imam Wahyudi. 2018. “Tidal Flood Handling through Community Participation in Drainage Management System (A Case Study of the First Water Board in Indonesia).” International Journal of Integrated Engineering 10(2):19–23. doi:

10.30880/ijie.2018.10.02.04.

Ali, Machrus, A. N. Afandi, Asnun Parwati, Ruslan Hidayat, and Cholil Hasyim. 2019. “DESIGN OF WATER LEVEL CONTROL SYSTEMS USING PID AND ANFIS BASED ON FIREFLY ALGORITHM.” JEEMECS (Journal of Electrical Engineering, Mechatronic and Computer Science) 2(1). doi: 10.26905/jeemecs.v2i1.2804.

Dewi, Anggraini. 2007. “Community-Based Analysis of Coping with Urban Flooding: A Case Study in Semarang, Indonesia.” International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation Enschede, the Netherlands 79.

Harris, A. L., Lang, M., Yates, D., & Kruck, S. E. (2008). Incorporating Ethics and Social Responsibility in IS Education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 22(3), 183-189.

Harun, R., Hock, L. K., & Othman, F. (2011). Environmental Knowledge and Attitude among Students in Sabah. World Applied Sciences Journal, 14, 83-87

Hongjian, Liao, Li Hangzhou, and Ma Zongyuan. 2020. Soil Mechanics.

Ikhwanudin, S. I. Wahyudi, and Soedarsono. 2020. “Methods for Handling Rob Floods in the Banger River Basin in Semarang City.” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Vol. 1625.

Marfai, Muh Aris, Lorenz King, Junun Sartohadi, Sudrajat Sudrajat, Sri Rahayu Budiani, and Fajar Yulianto. 2008. “The Impact of Tidal Flooding on a Coastal Community in Semarang, Indonesia.” Environmentalist 28(3):237–48. doi: 10.1007/s10669-007-9134-4.

Mondal, Bikas, Sourav Rakshit, Rajan Sarkar, and Nirupama Mandal. 2017. “Study of PID and FLC Based Water Level Control Using Ultrasonic Level Detector.” in 2016 International Conference on Computer, Electrical and Communication Engineering, ICCECE 2016.

Muhlasin, Budiman, Machrus Ali, Asnun Parwanti, Aji Akbar Firdaus, and Iswinarti. 2020.

“Optimization of Water Level Control Systems Using ANFIS and Fuzzy-PID Model.” Pp. 1–

5 in 2020 Third International Conference on Vocational Education and Electrical Engineering (ICVEE). IEEE.

Parwanti, A., S. I. Wahyudi, and M. F. Ni’Am. 2022. “Barrier Knock-down Weir as an Alternative Technology for Irrigation.” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Vol.

955.

(14)

60

Parwanti, Asnun, Slamet Imam Wahyudi, Moh Faiqun Ni’Am, Machrus Ali, Iswinarti, and Muhammad Agil Haikal. 2021. “Modified Firefly Algorithm for Optimization of the Water Level in the Tank.” Pp. 113–16 in 2021 3rd International Conference on Research and Academic Community Services (ICRACOS). IEEE.

Roehman, Fatchur, Slamet Imam Wahyudi, and M. Faiqun Niam. 2019. “Analysis of Physical Model Rubber Weir Contain Water as Motion Weir for Flood and Rob Handling.”

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 10(4):219–27.

Sari, Undayani Cita, and Raden Harya Dananjaya. 2020. “Analysis of Flood Vulnerability Assessment in Urban Area (Case Study: North Semarang District).” Journal of Advanced Civil and Environmental Engineering 3(1):36. doi: 10.30659/jacee.3.1.36-43.

Sudirwan, Iwan, S. Imam Wahyudi, and Jonathan Lekkerkerk. 2020. “Automatic ‘diver’

Observation and Pumping Simulation of Polder Drainage System, Case Study on Terboyo, Semarang, Indonesia.” International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology 11(1):108–14. doi: 10.30880/ijscet.2020.11.01.011.

Wahyudi, Slamet Imam, Henny Pratiwi Adi, Jonathan Lekerkerk, Lucas Bakker, Matties Van de Ven, Daan Vermeer, and Mohd Shalahuddin Adnan. 2019. “Assessment of Polder System Drainage Experimentation Performance Related to Tidal Floods in Mulyorejo, Pekalongan, Indonesia.” International Journal of Integrated Engineering 11(9 Special Issue):73–82. doi:

10.30880/ijie.2019.11.09.008.

Yousif, Mahmoud E. 2018. “The Hydrostatic Force (F_H) of Gravity (The Atmospheric Force of Gravity).” IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP) 10(4):45–53. doi: 10.9790/4861- 1004024552.