See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/376886095

RISK AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF WONOGIRI DAM SPILLWAY

Conference Paper · October 2023

CITATIONS READS

0 73

10 authors, including:

Eka Nugroho David Mickaelson Samosir

Bandung Institute of Technology Delft University of Technology
87 PUBLICATIONS 49 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gi Yanto
Bandung Institute of Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eka Nugroho on 28 December 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

“Pengembangan Material, Teknologi, dan Infrastruktur Berkelanjutan dalam Upaya Mitigasi Bencana”
Surakarta, 27 Juni 2023

RISK AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF WONOGIRI DAM SPILLWAY

Eka Oktariyanto Nugroho1*, David Mickaelson Samosir2,3, Asep Yusuf 4, Giyanto4,

Adyastari Katresna Santika4, Yadi Suryadi1, Muhammad Farid1, Arno Adi Kuntoro1, Edi
Riawan 5, and Rani Gayatri Kusumawardhani Pradoto6

1*
Water Resources Engineering Research Group, Civil Engineering Study Program, Faculty of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB)
Email: [email protected] (Corresponding author), [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
2
Study Program of Water Resources Engineering and Management, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), Labtek
1B, Let. Jen. Purn. Dr. (HC). Mashudi st. No.1, West Java
3
Badan Pengusahaan Batam (BP Batam), Ibnu Sutowo st. No. 1 Batam
Email: [email protected]
4
Magister Study Program of Water Resources Management, Civil Engineering Study Program, Faculty of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB)
Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
5
Atmospheric Science Research Group, Faculty of Earth Science and Technology, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB)
Email: [email protected]
6
Management and Construction Engineering Research Group, Civil Engineering Study Program, Faculty of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB)
Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Wonogiri Dam is a multifunction dam as a flood controller, irrigation, Hydro Electric Power Plant
(PLTA), and tourist destination. The dam is located in the south of Wonogiri Regency of Central Java
Province. The Wonogiri Dam was built in 1976 and began operations in 1982. As time goes by, the upstream
land cover has changed which caused an increase in the coefficient value (c). This value impacting of inflow
discharge entering the Wonogiri Dam, while the existing spillway capacity was designed based on the capacity
initial design. Spillway capacity reliability analysis is needed to determine the level of reliability and risk of
failure by the quantitative and semi-quantitative methods. The quantitative method is analyzed by Safety
Factor (level-1) and First-Order Second Moment (level-2), whether as semi-quantitative is analyzed by
multiplying the three main parameters of likelihood, Exposure and Consequence. The result shows that the
risk based on the 2011 land cover for several return period is lower than based on the RTRW. The semi-
quantitative method of two land cover conditions for the return period of 2 to 1000 shows Very Low Level and
Moderate Levels for PMF discharge. Based on its analysis, the spillway capacity is still reliable and capable of
flowing return period discharge from Q2 to Q1000.
Keywords: failure risk, first order second moment, reliability, safety factor, spillway, Wonogiri dam.

170
 Proceeding & Symposium
Civil Engineering, Environmental, and Disaster Risk Management

A. INTRODUCTION
The geographical location of the Wonogiri dam is at 7°50'- 8°S and 110°50'-110°58'E and is
included in the administrative area of Wuryorejo village, Wonogiri Regency, Bengawan Solo River
Region. The Wonogiri Dam is a rock-fill type dam with a soil core which is a multifunctional dam
including flood control, irrigation water supply, hydroelectric power generation, and tourist
attractions. The Wonogiri Dam was built in 1976 and began operating in 1982 (Ariansyah,
Sobriyah, & Wahyudi, 2013). The operation of the Wonogiri Multipurpose Dam refers to the
Decree of the Minister of Public Works No. 229/KPTS/1986 concerning Guidelines for
Exploitation and Maintenance of the Wonogiri Multipurpose Dam which was later revised by the
Bengawan Solo River Basin Development Master Project in July 1994 with CWL at +135.30 m
(Haryanto, Jayadi, & Istiarto, 2022). There have been several changes in land use in the upstream
area of the Bengawan Solo River (Adidarma, 2010). Those conditions potentially increase the
discharge into the Wonogiri Dam. In the recent years, many researchers have been doing the risk
analysis for the spillway (Akbari, G., 2013, Maghrebi, M., ghezelsofloo, A., & alimirzaei, H. 2018,
Pambudi et. al 2023, Renaningsih, Saraswati. 2018).
All themes of the research above are on the analysis of the effect of water flow characteristic
after or before the spillway or dam failure. The spesific analysis on the water flowing in the spillway
itself not yet been discused in the assesment of risk based on the spillway capacity. This paper aims
to analyze the risk of the spillway capacity in the Wonogiri Dam due to the changes of discharge
caused by changes in land cover. This study also use the quantitative and semi-quantitative methods
to be more realistic due to the probability of occurences.

B. METHODOLOGY
The design flood discharges are calculated from the surface runoff. Surface runoff is obtained
from hydrological analysis results. The design rainfall is calculated by the regional rain height in the
catchment area. Regional rain is then subjected to frequency and double mass curve analysis
(Fauziyah, Sobriyah, & Susilowati, 2013).

171
“Pengembangan Material, Teknologi, dan Infrastruktur Berkelanjutan dalam Upaya Mitigasi Bencana”
Surakarta, 27 Juni 2023

Figure 1. Research flowchart

This method uses a comparison of the cumulative annual rainfall in the study area with the annual
cumulative rainfall of the corresponding station. The data suitability test is in the form of a straight line
and if there is a deviation, the deviating data is validated for the amount of deviation that occurs. The
threshold method is needed to find out the maximum and minimum values of the existing data to be said
to be feasible or not feasible (Harto, Analisis Hidrologi, 1993). The distribution methods used in this
study include Normal, Log Normal, Gumbel, Pearson type III, and Log Pearson type III. The outputs of
distribution methods were tested using the Chi-Square and Smirnov Kolmogorov methods. Effective
rainfall is obtained by analyzing the distribution of hourly rainfall for each return period. Calculation of
flood discharge is carried out using a Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (Damayanti, Limantara, & Haribowo,
2022). A hydrograph is a graph that describes the relationship between flow elements (height and
discharge) to time (Harto, Teori, Masalah, Penyelesaian, 2000). The amount of discharge that occurs from
regional rainfall is calculated using the Snyder, SCS, Nakayasu, Gama-I, ITB-1, and ITB-2 Synthetic Unit
Hydrographs.

172
 Proceeding & Symposium
Civil Engineering, Environmental, and Disaster Risk Management

Quantitative risk analysis

Reliability is the performance opportunity of a component according to the desired function without
failure under certain conditions for a certain period (Yang, 2007). The quantitative methods were found in
several researchers (Sowinski (2005), Silva et. al (2008), Altarejos-García et. al (2012), Escuder-Bueno
et. al (2012, 2013), Foulhy and Rios Bayona (2014), Amosri et. al (2015), Ferdiansyah et. al (2022). The
reliability calculation is carried out on the spillway structure (resistance) in carrying out the maximum
flood discharge with a certain return period. Runoff discharge in this study is defined as a load. Runoff
discharge over the spillway is calculated using the formula in equation 1 (The Bureau of Reclamation of
United States Department of the Interior, 1977).
Q  C.L.H 3/2 ...................................................................................................................... (1)
where Q = Discharge (m3/det), C = spillway coefficient , L = spillway width (m), and H = water
height above spillway (m).

Safety factor (level 1) and First-Order Second Moment (level 2)

Safety factor (SF) or known as risk analysis level-1 is the ratio of the average resistance (R) and
average load (L) parameters which are known as nominal resistance (Rn) or nominal load (Ln).
Rn
 SF
Ln ............................................................................................................................ (2)
Rn  R  R1R  , with R=5% - 10%
Ln  L  L11 L , and L=25% - 50%
With: R= standard deviation of resistance, L= standard deviation of load,
The concept of First-Order Second Moment or known as risk analysis level-2 is to make load
and resistance as well as the parameters that produce load and resistance, in the form of normal
distribution or distribution forecast. If the distribution can be estimated by or transformed into a
normal frequency function, the failure probability of the structure can also be determined from the
normal distribution.
 
 RL   RL 
P     
  2  2
 R L



  R R  R L   ..................................................................
2 2 

(3)

Where R and L mean the value of resistances and loads; and  is the standard deviation;  is
the coefficient of difference; and  (x) shows the cumulative standard of the normal distribution
evaluated by x.
Semi-quantitative risk analysis
Risk assessment is an assessment by comparing the level or risk criteria that have been set. Risk
assessment can be carried out in three ways: qualitative, quantitative and semi-quantitative. Risk
assessment using a semi-quantitative method is calculated using three main parameters (equation 4),
namely probability, exposure, and consequence, where the multiplication of these three parameters
shows the magnitude of the risk value (Fine, 1971). Risk assessment is carried out using a semi-
quantitative method calculated by declaring each parameter into a certain value. These values are
defined according to certain criteria and levels presented in Tables 1 to 4.

173
“Pengembangan Material, Teknologi, dan Infrastruktur Berkelanjutan dalam Upaya Mitigasi Bencana”
Surakarta, 27 Juni 2023

Table 1. Criteria of probability

Rate Score Description
Very high 5 The failure rate is 81% - 100%
High 4 The failure rate is 61% - 80%
Medium 3 The failure rate is 41% - 60%
Low 2 The failure rate is 21% - 40%
Very low 1 The failure rate is 0% - 20%

Table 2. Criteria of exposure

Rate Score Description
Very Long 5 The duration of the peak flood is 6.1 - 8 hours
Long 4 The duration of the peak flood is 4.51 - 6 hours
Medium 3 The duration of the peak flood is 3.1 – 4.5
hours
Short 2 The duration of the peak flood is 1.51 – 3.1
hours
Very short 1 The duration of the peak flood is 0 – 1.50 hours

Table 3. Criteria of consequences

Consequences
Rate Score
Water Level Damage
Very high 5 Exceeding the maximum allowable height Fatal damage to the body of the weir
above the spillway (>8 m)
High 4 The water level is 6.1 – 8 m above the Severe damage requiring lots of repairs
spillway
Medium 3 The water level is 4.1 – 6 m above the Severe damage requiring moderate
spillway repairs
Low 2 The water level is 2.1 – 4 m above the Minor damage
spillway
Very low 1 The water level is 0 – 2 m above the spillway Undamaged

Table 4. Level of risk

Rate Score
Extreme/catastrophic 75
High 64 - 74
Medium 27 - 63
Low 8 - 26
Very low 0-7

The risk calculation in equation 4 is often used for situations where work is to be done without
proper safety precautions. Usually such work is done without any mathematical measurement of
hazards. Using the equation (4), the risk is actually calculated and thus, more meaningfully
quàntified. The quantification is achieved by considering the potentíal consequences of an accident,
the exposure factor and the probability factor. The equation is:
R  C  E  P ....................................................................................................................... (4)
Where: R represents the risk score
C represents the consequences
E represents the exposure factor
P represents the probability factor

174
 Proceeding & Symposium
Civil Engineering, Environmental, and Disaster Risk Management

C. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Hydrology analysis
Based on topographical data, the catchment area of the Wonogiri dam is 1294.9 km2 as shown
in Figure 2. The rain data used in the hydrological analysis were obtained from seven rain stations.
The rain stations include Parangjoho, Jatisrono, Giriwoyo, Songputri, Baturetno, Nawangan
Reservoir, and Pracimantoro. The length of rainfall data at each rain station is for 21 years starting
from 1996 to 2016. The influence of data for each station is calculated using the Thiessen polygon
method which is then converted to regional rainfall. Regional rainfall obtained is used as input data
to obtain rainfall distribution using the Normal, Log Normal, Gumbel, Pearson type-III, and
Pearson Log type-III distributions as written in the Table 5. The results of the design rainfall
calculation for each method are depicted in Figure 3. The selection of the regional rainfall
distribution method results was carried out by a suitability test using the criterion of distribution
parameters method in Table 6 which Gumbel Type I is then selected.
Determination of the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) value was obtained using the
Hersfield method. The result of a PMP height is 520.83 mm and lying in the interval of PMP isohyet
map issued by the Balai Dam in 2016. Pambudi et. al 2023 also has similar result on the PMP value
with 580 mm. Figure 3 shows the isohyet of Balai Dam 2016 and the location of Wonogiri dam
watershed. The PMP calculation results using the Hersfield method have a value in the range of 400-
600 mm by PMP isohyet belonging to the Dam Office.

Figure 2. Wonogiri dam location, watershed and its characteristic

175
“Pengembangan Material, Teknologi, dan Infrastruktur Berkelanjutan dalam Upaya Mitigasi Bencana”
Surakarta, 27 Juni 2023

Figure 3. The designed rainfall graph uses several distribution methods

Table 5. Frequency analysis for several return period and methods

LOG
LOG PEARSON
NO Tr GUMBEL NORMAL PEARSON
NORMAL TYPE III
TYPE III
1 2 63.50 67.70 63.06 65.60 64.12
2 5 86.08 89.20 87.85 88.33 88.19
3 10 101.03 100.45 104.50 101.48 103.24
4 20 115.37 109.74 120.59 113.01 117.05
5 25 119.92 112.44 125.73 116.49 121.31
6 50 133.93 120.19 141.68 126.75 134.13
7 100 147.84 127.15 157.75 136.37 146.47
8 200 161.70 133.52 174.04 145.49 158.44
9 500 179.99 141.25 196.06 156.98 173.84
10 1000 193.81 146.66 213.14 165.32 185.22

Table 6. The selection of the regional rainfall distribution method using the criterion of distribution parameters
No. Distribution Type Requirement Resukt Note
CS = 0 0.50 Not Satisfy
1 Normal
Ck = 3 -0.06 Not Satisfy
Cs = 3Cv 1.132 0.498 Not Satisfy
2 Log Normal
Cv = 0.6 0.600 0.38 Not Satisfy
Cs < 1.14 0.50 Satisfy
3 Gumbel
Ck < 5.4 -0.06 Satisfy
Cs ≠ 0 0.50 0.50 Satisfy
4 Person III
Cv = 0.3 0.3 0.38 Not Satisfy
Cs < 0 -0.255 -0.255 Satisfy
5 Log Person III
Cv = 0.3 0.3 0.38 Not Satisfy

176
 Proceeding & Symposium
Civil Engineering, Environmental, and Disaster Risk Management

Figure 3. The designed rainfall graph uses several distribution methods

Land cover analysis

Land cover analysis was carried out to determine the value of the runoff coefficient (C) where
this coefficient is used as one of the inputs in calculating hourly rainfall distribution. The land cover
analyzed corresponds to 2011 data (Table 5) and spatial planning (RTRW) for the Wonogiri district
until 2031 (Table 6). Based on the analysis results, the runoff coefficient (c) for land cover in 2011
and 2031 is 0.23 and 0.31. Changes in the value of the runoff coefficient in the next few years are
caused by changes in the cover of paddy fields and plantations in residential areas by 20%.
Calculation of the composite runoff coefficient values for 2011 and 2031.
Table 7. Run-off coefficient values for land cover in 2011
Land Cover Area (km2) c
Dryland farming mixed shrub 1,051.90 0.25
Secondary dryland forest 41.64 0.05
Rice field 27.83 0.15
Dryland farming 96.68 0.25
Industrial Plantation 66.41 0.05
Settlement 28.06 0.6
Waterbody 39.45 0.01
Total 1,351.96 0.23

Table 8. Run-off coefficient values for land cover in 2031

Land Cover Area (km2) c
Dryland farming mixed shrub 800 0.25
Secondary dryland forest 45.67 0.05
Rice field 22.31 0.15
Dryland farming 50.68 0.25

177
“Pengembangan Material, Teknologi, dan Infrastruktur Berkelanjutan dalam Upaya Mitigasi Bencana”
Surakarta, 27 Juni 2023

Land Cover Area (km2) c

Industrial Plantation 76.41 0.05
Settlement 317.45 0.6
Waterbody 39.45 0.01
Total 1,351.96 0.31

Design flood hydrograph analysis

The design flood hydrograph analysis in this study is designed for return periods of 2, 5, 10, 20,
50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, and PMF. Based on several synthetic unit hydrograph (SUH) methods, the
Snyder method is used in this study because it has the highest discharge value which can represent
the greatest extreme event. The flood discharge hydrograph graphs of the design results from the
Snyder method are presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

Figure 4. Graph of flood discharge for various Figure 5. Graph of flood discharge for various
return periods of the SUH Snyder return periods of the SUH Snyder
with land cover conditions in 2011 with land cover conditions in 2031

Reservoir routing
Reservoir routing is intended to obtain outflow discharge values that flow through the spillway.
The input data in the reservoir routing process is the flood discharge hydrograph from the Snyder
method for various return periods. The following presents a reservoir routing chart with a flood plan
in Figures 6 and 7.

Figure 6. Graph of spillway outflow for various Figure 7. Graph of spillway outflow for various
return periods with land cover return periods with land cover
conditions in 2011 conditions in 2031

178
 Proceeding & Symposium
Civil Engineering, Environmental, and Disaster Risk Management

Risk analysis using quantitative method

The reliability analysis is done by looking at the resistance's ability to accept a load. The load
parameter in this study is the magnitude of the planned flood discharge for various return periods of
the reservoir routing results. The resistance parameter is the spillway capacity which is calculated by
equation (1). The detailed calculation of the spillway resistance of the Wonogiri dam is described in
Table 9.
Table 9. Calculation of spillway resistance
Parameter Design Bottom Top Mean ΩR2
L (meter) 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00
C 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
H (meter) 8.00 0.00 8.00 5.33 0.13
Q annual 1357.65 0.00 1357.65 905.10 0.13
Avg. Q annual 905.10 ΩQ=0.35 Standv. annual 320.00

The calculation of the safety factor (SF) in Table 10 shows that the flood discharge with a
return period of two years (Q2) to a flood discharge with a return period of 1000 years (Q1000) for
land cover in 2011 with a runoff coefficient value (c) of 0.23 has a safety factor value of above one
(SF > 1). Reliability and risk at discharge have a value of 99% with a failure risk level below 1%.
However, a different thing happened to the PMF flood discharge where the SF value was below one
(SF < 1) with a reliability of 34.3% and a risk of failure of 65.70%. This indicates that the spillway
capacity is still capable of carrying the number of outflow discharges that occur during the Q1000
flood discharge conditions. The calculation of the safety factor (SF) in Table 11 shows that the flood
discharge with a return period of two years (Q2) to a flood discharge with a return period of 500
years (Q500) for land cover according to the RTRW until 2031 with a runoff coefficient (c) value of
0.31 has a safety value. The factor is above one (SF > 1). Reliability and risk at discharge have a
value of 97% with a risk of failure below 2.5%. However, different things occur in the Q1000 and
PMF flood discharges where the SF value is below one (SF < 1). This indicates that the spillway
capacity is still capable of carrying several outflow discharges that occur in conditions up to the
Q500 flood discharge.
Table 10. Calculation of safety factor and risk of failure for year 2011 with the value of c = 0.23
Load Resistance
Return Average Load Ω Average Resistance Ω SF Pɣ Risk
Period Load Nominal Resistance Nominal
(Ln) (Rn)
2 22.19 27.49 0.35 13.78 99.71% 0.29%
5 29.90 37.03 0.35 10.23 99.69% 0.31%
10 35.00 43.35 0.35 8.74 99.67% 0.33%
20 39.90 49.41 0.35 7.66 99.65% 0.35%
25 41.46 51.34 0.35 7.38 99.65% 0.35%
50 46.24 57.26 0.35 905.1 378.74 0.35 6.61 99.63% 0.37%
100 51.00 63.15 0.35 6.00 99.61% 0.39%
200 55.73 69.01 0.35 5.49 99.60% 0.40%
500 77.20 97.21 0.38 3.90 99.50% 0.50%
1000 116.67 151.51 0.44 2.50 99.25% 0.75%
PMF 1133.45 1447.52 0.41 0.26 34.30% 65.70%

179
“Pengembangan Material, Teknologi, dan Infrastruktur Berkelanjutan dalam Upaya Mitigasi Bencana”
Surakarta, 27 Juni 2023

Table 11. Calculation of safety factor and risk of failure for year 2031 with the value of c = 0.31
Load Resistance
Return Average Load Ω Average Resistance Ω SF Pɣ Risk
Period Load Nominal Resistance Nominal
(Ln) (Rn)
2 30.02 37.18 905.1 10.19 99.69% 0.31%
5 41.10 50.89 0.35 7.44 99.65% 0.35%
10 48.03 59.47 0.35 6.37 99.63% 0.37%
20 54.38 67.34 0.35 5.62 99.60% 0.40%
25 56.35 69.77 0.35 5.43 99.59% 0.41%
50 79.52 100.40 0.39 905.1 378.74 0.35 3.77 99.49% 0.51%
100 126.89 165.46 0.45 2.29 99.17% 0.83%
200 172.66 227.23 0.47 1.67 98.68% 1.32%
500 238.61 315.22 0.48 1.20 97.52% 2.48%
1000 289.65 382.64 0.48 0.99 96.13% 3.87%
PMF 1350.02 1690.01 0.37 0.22 22.81% 77.19%

Graphs of the relationship between the safety factor and the level of risk of failure on the
spillway are presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. As the return period increases, the safety factor
value decreases as well as the risk of failure increases. The graph of the relationship between the
flood load Q1000 and the resistance in Figure 10 shows the flood load Q1000 discharge which is still
able to withstand properly seen from the position of the combined graph which is on the right axis.
This is different from the QPMF flood load in Figure 11 where the load position exceeds the
resistance position, and the combined graph is on the left axis line which indicates a high level of
risk. The graph of the relationship between the Q1000 flood load and the resistance in Figure 12
shows the Q1000 flood load which is still able to withstand well, even though there is a risk of failure
of 3.87% seen from the position of the combined graph which is not completely on the right axis.
This is different from the QPMF flood load in Figure 13 where the load position exceeds the
resistance position, and the combined graph is on the left axis line which indicates a high level of
risk.

Figure 8. The graph of the relationship Figure 9. The graph of the relationship
between safety factor and risk level between safety factor and risk level
according to a land cover condition according to a land cover condition
in 2011 (c = 0.23) in 2031 (c = 0.31)

180
 Proceeding & Symposium
Civil Engineering, Environmental, and Disaster Risk Management

Figure 10. Graph of the relationship between load, Figure 11. Graph of the relationship between load,
resistance and a combination of both to resistance and a combination of both to
the Q1000 flood discharge for the land the QPMP flood discharge for the land
cover condition in 2011 (c = 0.23) cover condition in 2011 (c = 0.23)

Figure 12. Graph of the relationship between load, Figure 13. Graph of the relationship between load,
resistance and a combination of both to resistance and a combination of both to
the Q1000 flood discharge for the land the QPMP flood discharge for the land
cover condition in 2031 (c = 0.31) cover condition in 2031 (c = 0.31)

Risk analysis using semi-quantitative method

The parameters used consist of probability, exposure, and consequence parameters. Multiplying
these three parameters will get a value or score that shows the level of risk that occurs. The semi-
quantitative risk calculation results are presented in Tables 12 and 13.
Table 12. Spillway failure risk assessment uses semi-quantitative methods for 2011 land cover

Consequence Level of Risk

Return
Probability Exposure
Period Water Level Failure Mean Score Description

2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
5 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
10 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
20 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
25 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low

181
“Pengembangan Material, Teknologi, dan Infrastruktur Berkelanjutan dalam Upaya Mitigasi Bencana”
Surakarta, 27 Juni 2023

Consequence Level of Risk

Return
Probability Exposure
Period Water Level Failure Mean Score Description

50 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
100 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
200 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
500 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
1000 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
PMF 4 2 4 4 4 32 Medium

Table 13. Spillway failure risk assessment uses quantitative methods for 2031 land cover

Consequence Level of Risk

Return
Probability Exposure
Period Water Level Failure Mean Score Description

2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
5 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
10 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
20 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
25 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
50 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
100 1 2 1 1 1 2 Very low
200 1 2 2 2 2 4 Very low
500 1 2 2 2 2 4 Very low
1000 1 2 2 2 2 4 Very low
PMF 4 2 4 4 4 32 Medium

D. CONCLUSION
Changes in land cover conditions in 2011 and RTRW until 2031 did not have a major effect on
changes in the value of the runoff coefficient (c). however, it can be seen that differences in land
cover directly provide different levels of risk. Calculation of the risk and reliability of the spillway
using the quantitative method results that the spillway is still able to work well (SF> 1) up to a flood
discharge of Q1000 with land cover conditions in 2011. Based on the RTRW until 2031 it was found
that several green areas had changed into residential areas which increased the value linear flow
with an increase in discharge in 2031. This condition resulted in the spillway only being able to work
properly until the Q500 flood discharge event. The results of the risk analysis using the semi-
quantitative method provide the same risk values for land cover conditions in 2011 with the RTRW
until 2031. The risk that occurs is at a very low level for floods up to Q1000 and is at a moderate
level for QPMF floods.

182
 Proceeding & Symposium
Civil Engineering, Environmental, and Disaster Risk Management

REFERENCES

Adidarma, W.K. (2010). “Perubahan Banjir Sungai Bengawan Solo Akibat Perubahan Tata Guna
Lahan dan Perubahan Iklim serta Teknik untuk Menekan Peningkatan banjir”. Jurnal Teknik
Hidraulik, 1(2), 167-180. doi: https://doi.org/10.32679/jth.v1i2.238
Akbari, G. (2013). "Dam Instability Risk Analysis of Damaged Spillway". Eng. J., vol. 17, no. 4, pp.
1-8, doi: https://doi.org/10.4186/ej.2013.17.4.1
Altarejos-García, L., Escuder-Bueno, I., Serrano-Lombillo, A., & de Membrillera-Ortuño, M.
(2012). "Methodology for Estimating the Probability of Failure by Sliding in Concrete
Gravity Dams in the Context of Risk Analysis" Structural Safety 36-37, 1-13
Amsori, P. S., Riandini, F., & Kuntoro, A. A. (2015). "Kajian Risiko Overtopping pada Revetment
Akibat Run-up Gelombang Laut: Studi Kasus Pantai Tembok, Kabupaten Buleleng,
Provinsi Bali". Jurnal Teknik Sumber Daya Air, 1(1).
Ariansyah, G.B., Sobriyah, & Wahyudi, A.H. (2013). "Analisis Tinggi Muka Air Waduk Wonogiri
Berdasarkan Data Hujan Jam-Jaman". Matriks Teknik Sipil, 1(4), 446-453,
doi:https://doi.org/10.20961/mateksi.v1i4.37499
Damayanti, A. C., Limantara, L. M., & Haribowo, R. (2022). "Analisis Debit Banjir Rancangan
dengan Metode HSS Nakayasu, HSS ITB-1, HSS Limantara pada DAS Manikin di
Kabupaten Kupang". Jurnal Teknologi dan Rekayasa Sumber Daya Air, 300-313, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jtresda.2022.002.02.25
Escuder-Bueno, I., Castillo-Rodríguez, J. T., Zechner, S., Jöbstl, C., Perales-Momparler, S., and
Petaccia, G. (2012) "A quantitative flood risk analysis methodology for urban areas with
integration of social research data", Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 2843–2863,
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2843-2012
Escuder-Bueno , I., Altarejos-García, L., & Serrano-Lombillo, A. (2013). Quantitative risk analysis for
dams – a case study in Sweden. Sweden: Elforsk rapport 13:07.
https://energiforsk.se/en/programmes/dam-safety/reports/dam-safety-quantitative-risk-
analysis-for-dams-2013-07/
Fauziyah, S., Sobriyah, & Susilowati. (2013). "Analisis Karakteristik dan Intensitas Hujan Kota
Surakarta". Matriks Teknik Sipil, 82-89, DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/mateksi.v1i2.37551
Ferdiansyah, A., Nugroho, E. O., & Soeharno, A. W. H. (2022). Kajian Risiko Banjir Pada Saluran
Drainase Jalan Ir. H. Juanda Bandung. Bulletin of Civil Engineering, 2(2).
https://doi.org/10.18196/bce.v2i2.15514
Fine, W. T. (1971). "Mathematical Evaluation for Controlling Hazards". Journal of Safety Research,
3(4), 157-16.
Fouhy, David, and Bayona Francisco Ríos. Reliability-Based Analysis of Concrete Dams. Thesis, KTH,
Jord- och bergmekanik, 2014. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-176867.
Brotowiryatmo, S.H. (1993). Analisis Hidrologi. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta.

183
“Pengembangan Material, Teknologi, dan Infrastruktur Berkelanjutan dalam Upaya Mitigasi Bencana”
Surakarta, 27 Juni 2023

Brotowiryatmo, S.H. (2000). Teori, Masalah, Penyelesaian. Nafiri Offset, Yogyakarta.

Haryanto, Y. A., Jayadi, R., & Istiarto. (2022). 'Pengembangan Model Optimasi Pemanfaatan Air
Waduk Serbaguna Wonogiri Paska Pembangunan Closure Dike''. Jurnal Teknik Sumber
Daya Air, 2(1), 1-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.56860/jtsda.v2i1.25
Maghrebi, M., ghezelsofloo, A., & alimirzaei, H. (2018). "Risk Assessment for Spillway Overflow
Structure Components (Case Study: Chandir Dam)". Journal of Water and Sustainable
Development, 4(2), 41-48. doi: 10.22067/jwsd.v4i2.59241
Pambudi, H. G., Marsudi S., Fidari J. F. (2023). " Wonogiri Dam break Analysis Study with the
HEC-RAS and INASAFE Programs". Jurnal Teknologi dan Rekayasa Sumber Daya Air
(Jtresda), 3(2), 294-306.
Renaningsih, Saraswati. (2018) "Integrated Simulation of Spillway and Diversion Structure in Flood
Risk Assessment of Upper Solo River". Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum, vol. 4, no.
2, pp. 117-128, doi:10.22146/jcef.34166.
Sandi, C. Nugroho, E.O. and Cahyono, M. (2022). "Dambreak Risk Analysis of Jenelata Dam and
its Mitigation Plan". Bulletin of Civil Engineering, 2(2).
https://doi.org/10.18196/bce.v2i2.15533
Silva, F., Lambe, T.W., & Marr, W.A. (2008). "Probability and Risk of Slope Failure". Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134, 1691-1699.
Sowinski, M. (2005). "The Influence of Piers on the Risk of Flooding Upstream from a Bridge".
Archives of Hydro-Engineering and Environmental Mechanics, 52(4),287-301.
The Bureau of Reclamation of United States Department of the Interior. (1977). Design of Small
Dams. Washington: A Water Resources Technical Publication.
Yang, G. (2007). Life Cycle Reliability Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Canada.

184
 ISBN 978-602-397-901-1

9 786023 979011

View publication stats