Estimation of Land Development Induced Subsidence in

Northern Jakarta Areas

Widjojo A. Prakosoa
a
Civil Engineering Department, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424
E-mail : wprakoso@eng.ui.ac.id

ABSTRACT

Land subsidence has been identified as one of major geological hazards of Jakarta, and some areas in northern Jakarta are of
great concern (subsidence maximum value and rate: 0.8 m and 0.28 m/year, respectively). The hypothesis of this paper is that
the subsidence is primarily due to the compression of the normally consolidated, very soft to soft silt-clay deposits induced by
the land development of the areas. Some recent geotechnical data from west Ancol to Kamal were compiled, and soil
parameters along with their statistical properties were evaluated. The estimation of land subsidence is performed using the
Terzaghi's 1-D consolidation theory and the secondary compression theory, coupled with the Monte Carlo approach. Ranges of
estimated values, as well as their relevant statistical properties, were identified. The simulation results (final settlement: 1.6 m
0.7 m, subsidence rate: 0.22 0.16 m/year) were in the same range of field geodetical measurements confirming the paper
hypothesis.

Keywords: compressibility, consolidation, time dependence, land subsidence, statistical analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

Land subsidence has been identified as one of major geological hazards of Jakarta. Geodetical measurements (MUBA, MUTI,
and PIKA, see Figure 1) indicate that some areas in northern Jakarta are of great concern (e.g., [1]). The GPS-derived
maximum subsidence between December1997 and September 2007 is 0.8 0.9 m for MUTI and 0.3 0.4 m for PIKA, and the
subsidence rates for the three stations are given in Table 1. These rates have been also observed using other satellite-based
data and interpretation techniques (e.g., [2-4]). Natural consolidation, groundwater extraction, and land development related
loads are identified as the major causing factors of the subsidence. In this paper, it is hypothesized that the subsidence is
primarily due to the compression of the normally consolidated, very soft to soft silt-clay deposits induced by the land
development of the areas. To confirm this hypothesis, the land development induced subsidence is estimated and subsequently
compared to the measured subsidence. The focus areas are from west Ancol area in the east to Kamal area in the west which
have relatively thick very soft to soft clay-silt soil deposits. It is noted that near surface groundwater extraction of the areas is
assumed to be insignificant because the groundwater is brackish.

Table 1: Subsidence rate for GPS stations MUBA, MUTI, and PIKA (Source: [1])

Subsidence Rate (m/year)

Period
MUBA MUTI PIKA
2007-2008 0.28 0.15 0.18
2008-2009 0.14 0.10 0.11
2009-2010 0.15 0.08 0.07

Figure 1: Locations of GPS stations and geotechnical data

2. ESTIMATION METHOD

The estimation method consists of three subsequent steps. The first step is to compile and analyze the recent field and
laboratory geotechnical data available from the area. The normally consolidated, very soft to soft silt-clay deposits are to be
identified based on their N-SPT values; Kulhawy and Mayne [5] indicate the this type of deposits typically have N-SPT less
than 4 blows/0.3m. The second step is to perform the estimation analysis using the Terzaghi's 1-D consolidation theory and
the secondary compression theory described in [6]. The consolidation settlement is estimated by the following:

sconsol = CR Hsoft log ( final / initial ) (1a)

initial = (soft - water) (Hsoft / 2) (1b)

final = initial + fill Hfill (1c)

in which CR = compression ratio, Hsoft = thickness of very soft to soft soil layer, soft = saturated unit weight of very soft to soft
soil layer, water = water unit weight, fill = unit weight of fill materials, and Hfill = fill thickness. The time required to reach a
certain consolidation time is estimated by the following:

t = Tv (Hsoft / 2) 2 / cv (2)

in which Tv = theoretical time factor and cv = coefficient of consolidation. The theoretical relationship between the degree of
consolidation U and the time factor Tv proposed by Terzaghi [6] is adopted. The settlement due to the secondary compression
at time t is estimated by the following:

ssecondary = C Hsoft log ( t / tp ) (3)

in which C = coefficient of secondary compression and tp = time for completion of consolidation. The last step is to calculate
the subsidence rate which is given by the following:

Subsidence Rate = [sconsol (t2) sconsol (t1)] / (t2 t1) (4a)

Subsidence Rate = [ssecondary (t2) ssecondary (t1)] / (t2 t1) (4b)

in which t1 and t2 = earlier time and latter time, respectively. It is noted that three implicit assumptions were made in the above
equations for simplicity. First, as indicated by Equation 1b, the groundwater table is assumed to be at the ground surface level,
and this assumption is reasonable for the northern Jakarta areas. Second, as indicated by Equation 1c, the land development
induced load is due to placement of the fill layer only; building and surcharge loads are not considered because pile
foundations are typically used to support those loads in the northern Jakarta areas. Third, as indicated by Equation 2, that only
vertical consolidation drainage is considered, and the effect of prefabricated vertical drains is to be considered indirectly in the
analysis.

As shown in Figure 1, the considered areas are vast and therefore it is expected that the actual soil conditions would vary. To
consider this variation, the probabilistic approach is adopted and combined with the above equations; all soil parameters are to
be considered as probabilistic variables, and the probabilistic approach to be employed is the Monte Carlo simulation
approach.

3. GEOTECHNICAL DATA

The surface geology of the area is alluvial deposits, consisting of mangrove swamp deposits and nearshore marine deposits [7].
The geotechnical data for Sites 1 to 3 were collected from the library of Soil Mechanics Laboratory of Universitas Indonesia
and authors file. The soil boring and N-SPT logs of all sites are shown in Figure 2, and the very soft to soft silt-clay deposits
are identified as well in the logs. For each soil boring, the soil layer above the very soft to soft silt-clay deposit is assumed to
be the fill layer. The thickness variation of the very soft to soft silt-clay Hsoft and the fill layer Hfill is shown in Figure 3. The
unit weight of both soil layers is given in Table 2. The compression ratio CR and the coefficient of consolidation cv of the very
 N-SPT (blows/0.3m) N-SPT (blows/0.3m) N-SPT (blows/0.3m) N-SPT (blows/0.3m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0

5
V. Soft to Soft Layer V. Soft to Soft Layer V. Soft to Soft Layer
V. Soft to Soft Layer
10

15
Depth (m)

20

25

30

35

40

N-SPT (blows/0.3m) N-SPT (blows/0.3m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
Void
5

10 V. Soft to Soft Layer

V. Soft to Soft Layer
15
Depth (m)

20

25

30

35

40

N-SPT (blows/0.3m) N-SPT (blows/0.3m) N-SPT (blows/0.3m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0

5
V. Soft to Soft Layer V. Soft to Soft Layer V. Soft to Soft Layer
10

15
Depth (m)

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 2: Soil boring and N-SPT logs (top row: Site 1, middle row: Site 2, bottom row: Site 3)
 Table 2: Unit weight of soils

Unit Weight (kN/m3)

Very Soft to Soft Soils Fill Materials
No. Data 21 3
Mean 14.3 16.4
Standard Deviation 1.0 0.6
Coefficient of Variation 7.1% 3.8%
Minimum 12.6 15.7
Maximum 16.3 16.8

6 6
Mean = 12 m Mean = 2.19 m
SD = 2 m SD = 1.36 m
COV = 16.7% COV = 62.2%
No. Observations

No. Observations
4 4

2 2

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 2 4 6

Very Soft to Soft Soil Thickness, Hsoft (m) Fill Layer Thickness, Hfill (m)

Figure 3: Thickness of very soft to soft soil layers and fill layers.

8 12
Mean = 0.290 Mean = 0.220 cm2/min
SD = 0.084 SD = 0.203 cm2/min
6 COV = 29.0% COV = 92.0%
No. Observations
No. Observations

4
2

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Compression Ratio, CR Coefficient of Consolidation, cv (cm2/min.)

Figure 4: Consolidation parameters of very soft to soft soil layers

soft to soft silt-clay are shown in Figure 4. The silt-clay coefficient of secondary compression was determined based on the
range of natural water contents and the correlation developed by Mesri and Godlewski [8] as shown in Figure 5. For each soil
parameter, the data histogram and the mean, standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (COV = SD / mean) values
are given.
 1.000

Coefficient of Secondary Compression, C

10
Mean = 96.7%
SD = 23.2%
0.100
8 COV = 24.0%
No. Observations

4 0.010

0 0.001
0 40 80 120 160 200 10 100 1000
Natural Water Content (%) Natural Water Content (%)

Figure 5: Estimation of coefficient of secondary compression (basic source of right figure: [8]).

Table 3: Input soil parameters

Very Soft to Soft Soil Fill

Probabilistic
Hsoft soft cv Hfill fill
Distribution CR C
(m) (kN/m3) (cm2/min.) (m) (kN/m3)
Uniform
Minimum - - - 0.05 0.007 1 -
Maximum - - - 0.40 0.020 5 -

Normal
Mean 12 14.3 0.290 - - - 16.4
Average 2 1.0 0.084 - - - 0.6

4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The analysis was conducted using the equations given above, and all seven parameters were treated as probabilistic variables.
Based on the observed data distribution shown in Figures 3 to 5, the probabilistic properties of the soil parameters given in
Table 3 were determined. The uniform distribution was used for two soil parameters, while the normal distribution was used
the remaining five soil parameters. As the Monte Carlo simulation approach was adopted, 1,000 random numbers were used
for each variable, and the analysis was performed using MS-ExcelTM. Random numbers generated were between 0 and 1, and
they were transformed to their respective soil parameters using a linear relationship for soil parameters having uniform
distribution and using the NORMINV function of MS-ExcelTM for soil parameters having normal distribution.

The probability density function of final consolidation settlement sconsol is shown in Figure 6. The mean and standard deviation
are about 1.6 m and 0.7 m, respectively. The validity of the estimation approach was checked by comparing final settlement
sconsol to fill layer thickness Hfill, and it is found that the condition of sconsol < Hfill indicating relatively dry ground surface after
consolidation is observed in about 96 percent of simulation results. The simulation results are in the same order of magnitude
as the range of observed subsidence of up to 0.8 0.9 m.

The probability density function of subsidence rate from year 1 to year 5 after fill placement (from 56 to 96 percent degree of
consolidation) is shown in Figure 6. The rate varies from less than 0.05 m/year to about 1.0 m/year, but about 88 percent of
simulation results indicates a rate less than 0.4 m/year. The mean and standard deviation are 0.22 m/year and 0.16 m/year,
respectively. The simulation results are in the same range as the observed subsidence rates for the three GPS stations ranging
from 0.07 to 0.28 m/year [1] and the rates observed by other techniques [2-4]. It is argued that the results imply that the
observed subsidence would be predominantly due to the land development of the area.
 0.8 0.8
Probability Density Function Mean = 1.58 m Mean = 0.22 m/year

Probability Density Function

SD = 0.70 m SD = 0.16 m/year
COV = 44.2% COV = 73.5%

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Final Settlement, sconsol (m) Subsidence Rate (m/year)

Figure 6: Probability density function of final settlement and subsidence rate for period between years 1 and 5

0.8
Subsidence Rate (m/year)

0.6
Mean + SD

0.4

Mean

0.2

Mean - SD

0.0
1 2 3 4 5
Year

Figure 7: Subsidence rate for different periods

The observed subsidence rate tends to decrease with time, and additional analyses were conducted to evaluate this trend.
Subsidence rates for the period between year 1 and 2 (from 56 to 76 percent degree of consolidation) through the period
between year 4 and 5 (from 93 to 96 percent degree of consolidation) were individually analyzed. As shown in Figure 7, the
general trend is that the subsidence rate decreases with time; for the period between year 1 and 2, the mean and standard
deviation are 0.45 m/year and 0.30 m/year respectively and, between year 4 and 5, the mean and standard deviation are 0.07
m/year and 0.05 m/year, respectively. It is postulated that the period between year 1 and 2 after fill placement would likely be
the construction period, and that the estimated subsidence rate would not be observed as the ground surface level might be
adjusted during construction. However, the subsequent values of subsidence rate of 0.25 m/year to 0.07 m/year are in the same
range as the observed subsidence rates of 0.07 to 0.28 m/year. These results would support the argument that the observed
subsidence would be predominantly due to the land development of the area.

In addition, prefabricated vertical drains were used to accelerate the consolidation of the very soft to soft soil layers in many
land development projects in northern Jakarta. The 90 percent degree of consolidation would be typically achieved in less than
6 months. This condition is equivalent to the period between year 3 and 4 which has the subsidence rate mean and standard
deviation values of 0.13 m/year and 0.09 m/year, respectively.
 0.8
Mean = 0.009 m/year

Probability Density Function

SD = 0.005 m/year
COV = 58.0%

0.4

0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

Subsidence Rate (m/year)

Figure 8: Probability density function of long term settlement rate

The long term subsidence rate was estimated assuming that the secondary compression theory applies and no additional loads
are imposed. The probability density function for such condition in the period of between year 5 and 20 is shown in Figure 8.
The mean and standard deviation are about 0.01 m/year and 0.005 m/year, respectively. The probability of subsidence rate of
greater than 0.02 m/year is only less than 5 percent. These simulation results suggest that some degree of land subsidence
would still be observed although the land development has finished for a period of time.

7. CONCLUSION

Land subsidence has been identified as one of major geological hazards of Jakarta, and the subsidence maximum value and
rate observed in the area between west Ancol and Kamal, North Jakarta vary up to 0.8 m and 0.28 m/year, respectively. The
hypothesis of this paper was that the subsidence is predominantly due to the compression of the normally consolidated, very
soft to soft silt-clay deposits induced by the land development of the areas. Recent geotechnical data from three sites in the
area were compiled, and field and laboratory soil parameters including their statistical properties were evaluated. The
estimation of land subsidence was performed using the classic Terzaghi's 1-D consolidation and secondary compression
theories, coupled with the Monte Carlo approach to consider the soil parameter variabilities. The statistical properties of all
seven soil parameters used in the simulations were determined based on the compiled geotechnical data. Ranges of estimated
values, as well as their relevant statistical properties, were presented. The final settlement mean and standard deviation values
were 1.6 m and 0.7 m, respectively, while the subsidence rate mean and standard deviation values for a period between year 1
and 5 were 0.22 m/year and 0.16 m/year, respectively. In addition, it is suggested that some degree of land subsidence (< 0.02
m/year) would still be observed long after the completion of the land development. The simulation results were in the same
range of field geodetical measurements supporting the hypothesis of this paper.

REFERENCES

[1] H.Z. Abidin, H. Andreas, I. Gumilar, Y. Fukuda, Y.E. Pohan, and T. Deguchi, Land subsidence of Jakarta (Indonesia) and its relation
with urban development, Natural Hazards, vol. 59, pp. 17531771, 2011.
[2] L. Bayuaji, J.T.S. Sumantyo, and H. Kuze, ALOS PALSAR D-InSAR for land subsidence mapping in Jakarta, Indonesia, Canadian
Journal of Remote Sensing, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 18, 2010.
[3] A.H.-M. Ng, L. Ge, X. Li, H.Z. Abidin, H. Andreas, and K. Zhang, Mapping land subsidence in Jakarta, Indonesia using persistent
scatterer interferometry (PSI) technique with ALOS PALSAR, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation, vol. 18, pp. 232242, 2012.
[4] L. Bayuaji, R.F. Putri, and J.T.S. Sumantyo, Combination of L, C and X-band SAR data for continuous monitoring of land deformation
in urban area by using DInSAR technique, IEICE Technical Report SANE2012-70, pp. 7782, 2012.
[5] F.H. Kulhawy and P.W. Mayne, Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design EL-6800, Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1990.
[6] K. Terzaghi, R.B. Peck, and G. Mesri, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Ed. 3., New York, NY : John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
[7] Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Geologi, Quarterinary Geology Map (1:250,000), 1995.
[8] G. Mesri and P.M. Godlewski, Time and stress compressibility interrelationship, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Divisions, vol. 103, no. GT5, pp. 417-430, 1977.