You are on page 1of 45

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE

INVESTIGATION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.

Chapter 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

1.6

General ...........................................................................................................................1
Project Background ........................................................................................................1
Project Rationale .............................................................................................................1
Scope of Work .................................................................................................................2
Design Approach .............................................................................................................2
1.5.1
Agency Coordination .........................................................................................2
1.5.2
Field Reconnaissance Survey ..........................................................................2
1.5.3
Data Collection .................................................................................................3
1.5.4
Hydrologic Analysis ...........................................................................................3
1.5.5
Hydraulic Design ..............................................................................................3
1.5.6
Design Documentation ......................................................................................4
Contents of the Report ....................................................................................................4

Chapter 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

2.5

3.3

Available Information ...........................................................................................5

General ...........................................................................................................................5
Previous Study ................................................................................................................5
Topographic Map ............................................................................................................5
Field Reconnaissance Survey .........................................................................................5
2.4.1
General .............................................................................................................5
2.4.2
Existing Cross - Drainage Structure ..................................................................5
2.4.3
Field Observations ............................................................................................5
Basic Data Acquisition .....................................................................................................5
2.5.1
Rainfall Data .....................................................................................................6
2.5.2
Climatological Data ...........................................................................................6

Chapter 3
3.1
3.2

Introduction ..........................................................................................................1

Project Area Features ..........................................................................................7

The Project Route ...........................................................................................................7


Creeks Along the Project Road .......................................................................................7
3.2.1
Balante Creek ...................................................................................................7
3.2.2
Halang Creek ....................................................................................................7
Meteorological Characteristics .........................................................................................8
3.3.1
Air Stream .........................................................................................................8
3.3.2
Tropical Cyclones .............................................................................................8
3.3.3
Cyclone Tracks .................................................................................................8
3.3.4
Climate..............................................................................................................9
3.3.5
Rainfall ............................................................................................................10
3.3.6
Temperature ...................................................................................................10
3.3.7
Relative Humidity ............................................................................................11
3.3.8
Winds ..............................................................................................................11

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page i

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

Page No.
Chapter 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

4.6
4.7

General .........................................................................................................................12
Catchment Parameters..................................................................................................12
Time Parameter.............................................................................................................13
Frequency Analysis .......................................................................................................14
4.4.1
Rainfall Analysis ..............................................................................................14
Runoff Analysis .............................................................................................................22
4.5.1
Basin Characteristics ......................................................................................22
4.5.2
Storm Rainfall .................................................................................................23
4.5.3
Design Storm Frequency ................................................................................24
4.5.4
Delineation of Catchment Areas ......................................................................27
Runoff Calculation .........................................................................................................27
Selecting Run Off to be Consider in this Project ............................................................29

Chapter 5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5

5.6
5.7
5.8

5.9
5.10

Hydrology Study and Analysis............................................................................12

Hydraulics ..........................................................................................................30

General .........................................................................................................................30
Design Standards ..........................................................................................................30
Design Criteria...............................................................................................................30
5.3.1
Design Flood Frequencies ..............................................................................30
Highway Hydraulics Structure........................................................................................30
Culvert Design Analysis .................................................................................................31
5.5.1
Inlet Control ....................................................................................................31
5.5.2
Outlet Control ..................................................................................................31
Mannings Roughness n For Culvert ............................................................................31
Sizing of Culvert (Closed Conduit) .................................................................................32
Open Channel ...............................................................................................................33
5.8.1
Hydraulic Considerations ................................................................................33
5.8.2
Hydraulic Design of Channels .........................................................................33
5.8.3
Open Channel Flow Equations ........................................................................33
5.8.4
Mannings Roughness n For Open Channel ..................................................34
5.8.5
Permissible Velocities for Unlined Channel .....................................................34
Open Channel Hydraulics ..............................................................................................35
Box Culvert ....................................................................................................................36
5.10.1 Existing Box Culvert ........................................................................................36

Chapter 6

Summary of Results...........................................................................................37

6.1
6.2

Flood Level and Depth ....................................................................................37


Drainage Along Viaduct and at Grade Surface ................................................ 41

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page ii

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

Page No.

List of Tables
Table2.5.1a
Table 2.5.1b
Table 4.4.1.3.3a
Table 4.4.1.3.3b
Table 4.5.1.1
Table 5.6.1
Table 5.8.4.1
Table 5.8.5.1
Table 6.1.1

Computed Extreme Values of Precipitation (mm) ...........................................6


Intensity of Computed Extreme Values (mm/hr) .............................................6
Computed Extreme Values of Precipitation (mm) ......................................... 21
Intensity of Computed Extreme Values (mm/hr) ........................................... 21
Values of C For Use in Rational Formula ...................................................23
Mannings n Values for Culvert ..................................................................31
Average Values of n for Mannings Roughness.......................................... 34
Recommended Permissible Velocities for Unlined Channel ......................... 34
Flood Level and Depth .................................................................................37

List of Figures
Figure 3.1.1
Figure 3.3.1
Figure 4.2.1.
Figure 4.4.1.3.2a
Figure 4.4.1.3.2b
Figure 4.4.1.3.3a
Figure 4.4.1.3.3a

Project Location .............................................................................................7


Climate Map of the Philippines and Frequency of Typhoons ..........................9
Catchment Area ...........................................................................................13
Rainfall Depth Duration Curve (27 years record) .......................................... 18
Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (27 years record) ............................... 19
Rainfall Depth Duration Curve (21 years record) .......................................... 21
Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (21 yrs record) ................................... 22

List of Annexes
Annex A
Annex B
Annex C
Annex D
Annex E
Annex F
Annex G
Annex H

Inventory of Existing Drainage Structures


Rainfall Data from 1993 - 2013
Regression Analysis for Rainfall Intensity versus Rainfall Duration
Equation of Data from PAGASA
Regression Analysis for Rainfall Intensity versus Rainfall Duration
Equation of Raw Rainfall Data from PAGASA
Log Pearson Type III Distribution Calculation
Hydraulic Analysis for Halang and Balante Creek
Flood Depth Map
Drainage Schedule

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page iii

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1

General

This report presents the updated technical information on the drainage, hydrological and
hydraulic aspects of the Detailed Engineering Design and Construction Supervision of LRT Line
2 East (Masinag) Extension Project located along Marcos Highway. The report is one of a series
of documents produced during the conduct of study and the detailed design of the LRT Line 2
East (Masinag) Extension Project. The required services are provided by the joint venture firms
of Foresight Development and Surveying Co. in Joint Venture with Soosung Engineering Co. Ltd
and Korea Rail Network Authority. This is prepared based on and in accordance with the scope
of services stipulated in the Terms of Reference (TOR) and the Consultants appreciation of the
project requirements.
The findings and results of the field investigation and study will provide the necessary inputs to
support the detailed design and construction supervision of the LRT Line 2 project and
appurtenant drainage structures and its eventual construction.
1.2

Project Background

The Government of the Philippines plans to expand the mass transit system in the Manila
Metropolitan area to solve the increasingly serious transportation problem. The LRT Line 2
Extension Project ("the Project") is a top priority project under DOTC's Manila Metropolitan Area
Transportation Master Plan and cited in the Comprehensive Integrated Infrastructure Program
(CIIP) of the National Economic Development Authority} (NEDA).
Based on these plans, the Philippine Government in 2011 sought the assistance of the
Japanese Government by requesting through Japan's Individual National Assistance for a
complete preparatory study for LRT Line 2 East Extension to Masinag. The study will focus on
the serious traffic congestion issue, air pollution and greenhouse gas reduction and climate
change mitigation that will address the aims LRT Line 2 by the extension of LRT Line 2 to the
east and to the west.
After more than five years in operation, it has been observed that the LRT Line 2 system greatly
contributed to the decongestion of the Recto Avenue-Legarda-Magsaysay-Aurora-Marcos
Highway corridor. However, it has also been noted that passengers boarding/alighting at the
existing Santolan Station are mostly from the eastern parts of Rizal (e.g. Antipolo, Cainta,
Taytay, and other towns).
Thus, the implementation of this project is being pursued to maximize the potential of the
existing Line 2 alignment from Recto to Santolan. It is envisioned that the extension will attract
117,000 additional daily passengers in 2015.
The LRT 2 East Extension Project is one of the identified priority projects included in the NEDA
Comprehensive Integrated Infrastructure Program (CIIP) 2009-2013. This project involves the
construction of a 4.2-km elevated rail extension from Santolan Station to Masinag in Antipolo
City along Marcos Highway. Two (2) additional passenger stations to be located at Emerald
near Sta. Lucia Mall and Masinag near SM Antipolo are to be constructed.
1.3

Project Rationale

To maximize the operations and capability of the existing LRT Line 2.To enable the commuters
coming from the eastern side of Rizal to have easier access to faster mode of transportation. To
enable more commuters to use public transport system to ease the road traffic and save on cost
Consultancy Services for the Civil Works
of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 1

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
of transport. To serve as vehicle in further economic development of the impacted area. To
improve the operation aspects of the LRT operations with the use of automated system. To
improve the facilities available to commuters and LRT employees. To have aesthetically and
environmentally friendly facilities, structurally sound and cost efficient.
1.4

Scope of Work

The detailed design will basically consider the following objectives.

To undertake hydrology and drainage studies along the project alignment.


To provide appropriate recommendations and design results such as sizes, length,
elevations, alignments and locations of appropriate drainage structure such as culverts
and bridge.

The following hydrologic and drainage undertaking is deemed necessary to carry out the
required above scope of work.

1.5

To assess/evaluate the existing drainage structures along the project in terms of its
workability and hydraulic adequacy.
To delineate physical characteristics of watershed areas and carry out flood flow
estimation of peak flow of major and minor waterways.
To establish flood level for Railway vertical geometric design purposes;
To undertake hydraulic analysis to determine the required waterway conveyance
structures such as side ditches, sizes of pipes and box culverts cross-drainage.
Design Approach

Railway drainage design is an integral component in the design of railway network. Drainage
design for the project facilities must strive to maintain compatibility and minimize interference
with existing drainage patterns, control flooding of the project surface for design flood events.
The design of the project drainage facilities is a process which evolves as an overall railway
design develops. The primary elements of the process include agency coordination, data
collection and field investigation, hydrologic analysis, hydraulic design and final design
documentation. Each of these elements is briefly described in the following:
1.5.1

Agency Coordination

Prior to the detailed design of railway drainage facilities, it is essential to coordinate with
concerned line agencies and other local entities that have interests in project and drainage
matters. The concerns of these agencies are generally related to potential impacts resulting
from the project drainage. Other entities with interests in project drainage as well as storm
drainage systems include local municipalities and developers. The local municipalities are
generally aware of proposed development in the vicinity of the project which may impact
drainage design.
1.5.2

Field Reconnaissance Survey

Field reconnaissance involved field review of information from maps and plans, ocular
inspection and investigation of existing drainage structures, channels/structures condition
and flood flow characteristics, type and extent of vegetation, the limit and extent of flooding
condition and topographic features.

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 2

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
Inventory of existing drainage structures must be taken to include bridges spanning the
roadway, cross drainage such as box and pipe culverts, roadside ditches, storm drainage
systems and its appurtenant structures, etc. Whenever possible, interviews of residents
along the stretch of the project alignment should be conducted especially for alignment
situated along the floodplain areas. Information obtained such as the extent of depth of
flooding, duration and direction of flood flow, available high water mark elevations and
flooding history will have a considerable effect on the project vertical and geometric design.
1.5.3

Data Collection

The analysis and design of the hydrological and drainage aspects of the project cannot be
successfully conducted without the availability of a wide range of secondary base data. This
process involves assembling and reviewing technical data, background information, previous
studies and relevant documents including the following information:

Watershed mapping identifying topographic features, watershed boundaries, existing


drainage patterns and ground cover.
Land use mapping identifying existing and expected future land uses.
Soils maps identifying soil types and hydrologic soil groups.
Flood histories and the extent of flooding including high water mark elevations.
Descriptions of existing drainage facilities including sizes, shapes, materials, invert
elevations information, age, condition, etc.
Climatological and rainfall data.

The abovementioned data are further supplemented by primary data at the project site by
means of actual site inspection/investigation of existing structures.
1.5.4

Hydrologic Analysis

The establishment of elevation along floodplains and the design of drainage structures are
based on hydrological criteria which are predominantly estimates of flow and flood levels.
The method of frequency analysis is undertaken to quantify the uncertainty inherent in
hydrologic data. The objective of frequency analysis of hydrologic data is to relate the
magnitude of extreme events to their frequency of occurrence or recurrence interval. The
recurrence interval, which is also called return period, is defined as the average interval of
time within which a hydrologic event of given magnitude is expected to be equaled or
exceeded exactly once. The hydrologic data subject to frequency analysis are assumed to
be independent and are gathered to provide inputs for the design of drainage and flood
mitigating structures in the project area. The data are processed statistically and are
analyzed and evaluated accordingly to come up with a design flow parameters based on
designated return periods. These shall serve as inputs for the determination of flood level as
well as the design of structures capable of withstanding the flow which passes through a
specific point or reach of the river that could be expected near the proposed projects site.
1.5.5

Hydraulic Design

The design of drainage structures consisting of bridges, pipes and box culverts and drainage
canals/ditches on identified waterways is based on hydraulic principles used to economically
carry out the selected design discharge. The hydraulic design opening to determine the span
and elevation of major structures such as bridges will be designed using the HEC-RAS
computer program. The sizes of drainage structures will be designed using Mannings
equation for open channel flow and further facilitated using nomographs.

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 3

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
1.5.6

Design Documentation

This process includes the preparation of documentation for the preliminary design plans
related to the hydrology and drainage aspects of the project. Design documentation includes
here to design report and its supporting hydrology and hydraulics analysis.
1.6

Contents of the Report

The report contains the following sections with a brief description of each chapters contents.

Chapter 1: Introduction - Provides background information for the report and presents
the scope of work performed including contents of the report.

Chapter 2: Available Information - Provides a description of data collected and field


works performed during the course of study.

Chapter 3: Project Area Features - Provides general description of the project areas
physical and natural environment.

Chapter 4: Hydrology - Provides analysis of rainfall data and determination of design


storm rainfall depths over the project area for a range of storm duration and conversion
of the rainfall hyetographs to discharge at the proposed bridge crossing.

Chapter 5: Hydraulics - Discusses the relevant hydraulics design parameters and


related calculations of the design floods using Mannings equation for the proposed cross
drainages.

Chapter 6: Summary of Results - Summarizes the flood study investigations and


results of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses conducted on the waterways.

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 4

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION
2.1

General

This section outlines the different types of information utilized in the detailed design of road
drainage including reference reports and documents as well as data, both previously available
and collected specifically for this road project.
2.2

Previous Study

A previous study was conducted by Parsons Brinkerhoff and TCGI Engineers. The Detailed
Engineering Design, Package 4, Marcos Highway (Evangelista to Masinag). The Drainage
Structure Designed by Parsons Brinkerhoff and TCGI Engineers was considered in this project.
2.3

Topographic Map

Topographic maps of the project road were secured from National Mapping & Resource
Information Authority (NAMRIA)in the scale of 1:50,000.
2.4

Field Reconnaissance Survey

2.4.1

General

The purpose of field inspection/investigation and inventory survey is to gain an


understanding of site characteristics, identify exact locations and sizes of existing cross
drains, present physical condition of existing drainage structures and its appurtenances,
location and extent of flooding and other potential relevant data useful as inputs to the
detailed design of the drainage structures. The site investigation provides an opportunity to
obtain an appreciation of site topography, stream flow regime, flooding and channel
condition, geology, road alignment and other equally important and necessary items of
information which could not be obtained from other sources. From these on-site
observations it is often possible to identify practical locations for improvements of the road
alignment, condition and its appurtenant drainage structures.
2.4.2

Existing Cross - Drainage Structure

The inventory of existing drainage structures (box culverts, and pipe culverts) were obtained
from actual site investigation, as shown in Annex A.
2.4.3

Field Observations

In order to identify actual flood and inundation conditions in the project road, interviews of
residents along the whole stretch of the road were also undertaken to determine the extent
or depth of flooding, duration and direction for the yearly as well as the largest flood
experienced in the area.
2.5

Basic Data Acquisition

The update, analysis and design of the hydrological and drainage aspects of the project cannot
be successfully conducted without the availability of a wide range of secondary base data. The
data collected include climatological and rainfall data, climatological data and topographic maps.

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 5

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
2.5.1

Rainfall Data

The nearest rainfall station reckoned from the project site record is situated in Science
Garden. Daily Rainfall From 1993 to 2013 is considered in this project. The RainfallIntensity-Duration-Frequency Data (27 years of record) was also obtained from PAGASA.
Raw Rainfall Data from 1993 to 2013 is shown in Annex B and Tables 2.5.1a and 2.5.1b
shows the Computed Extreme Values of Precipitation and Intensity of Computed Extreme
Values respectively (based on 27 years of records).
Table2.5.1a Computed Extreme Values of Precipitation (mm)
(Based on 27 years of records)
T

10

20

30

12

24

(yrs)

mins

mins

mins

hr

hrs

hrs

hrs

hrs

hrs

20.3

31.1

38.7

53

77.1

93.3

120.1

143.9

164.1

29.4

46.2

58.5

81.4

113.8

136.7

175.3

210.5

240.9

10

35.5

56.2

71.6

100

138.1

165.4

211.9

254.5

291.8

15

38.9

61.8

79

110.7

151.9

181.6

232.5

279.4

320.5

20

41.2

65.7

84.1

118.1

161.5

193

246.9

296.8

340.6

25

43.1

68.8

88.1

123.8

168.9

201.7

258

310.3

356

50

48.7

78.1

100.4

141.3

191.6

228.6

292.3

351.6

403.7

100

54.3

87.4

112.6

158.8

214.3

255.4

326.2

392.6

451

Table 2.5.1b Intensity of Computed Extreme Values (mm/hr)


(Based on 27 years of records)
T

10

20

30

12

24

(yrs)

mins

mins

mins

hr

hrs

hrs

hrs

hrs

hrs

121.8

93.3

77.4

53

38.5

31.1

20

12.0

6.8

176.4

138.6

117

81.4

56.9

45.6

29.2

17.5

10.0

10

213

168.6

143.2

100.1

69.1

55.1

35.3

21.2

12.2

15

233.4

185.4

158

110.7

76.0

60.5

38.8

23.3

13.4

20

247.2

197.1

168.2

118.1

80.8

64.3

41.2

24.7

14.2

25

258.6

206.4

176.2

123.8

84.5

67.2

43

25.9

14.8

50

292.2

234.3

200.8

141.3

95.8

76.2

48.7

29.3

16.8

100

325.8

262.2

225.2

158.8

107.2

85.1

54.4

32.7

18.8

2.5.2

Climatological Data

The nearest synoptic station for the project road is Science Garden. Climatological data
were obtained such as daily rain fall, temperature, relative humidity and wind data.

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 6

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
3. PROJECT AREA FEATURES
3.1

The Project Route

The LRT Line 2 Extension Project is situated along Marcos highway from Santolan Station to
Sumulong highway (Masinag) junction. The Project intercepts two (2) Creek namely Balante and
Halang Creek. The two (2) creeks are the most important drainage system that crosses the
project alignment.
The project starts at K023+000 (Santolan Station) and ends at K027+200 (Sumulong Highway
(Masinag) junction. The LRT Line 2 project location is shown in the Figure 3.1.1.

Figure 3.1.1 Project Location


3.2

Creeks Along the Project Road

3.2.1

Balante Creek

The Balante Creek has significant large watershed draining the area of Marikina city
including Marikina Heights in the North. Balante Creek has a catchment area of 11.88 sq.
km. (11880.00 hectares).
3.2.2

Halang Creek

Halang Creek drains the immediate area north of Marcos Highway as well as the
southeastern area after Masinag Junction. Halang Creek has a catchment area of 4.55 sq.
km. (455.00 hectares)

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 7

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
3.3

Meteorological Characteristics

3.3.1

Air Stream

The principal air streams, which significantly affect the area, are the southwest monsoon,
northeast monsoon, and Pacific trade winds. The southwest monsoon originating from the
north side of the Indian Ocean affects the area during the months of May to October. During
this period the distribution of rainfall is influenced by the vertical situation of shear line
between the South Pacific trade and southeast monsoon. The air mass is classified as
equatorial maritime and is warm and very humid. The northeast monsoon, which affects the
area from October to March, is most dominant during January and February. The North
Pacific trade winds generally prevail during April and May whenever the northeast and the
southwest monsoons are weak. In the Philippines, the northeast monsoon is associated
with the dry season while the southwest monsoon is linked with the wet season.
3.3.2

Tropical Cyclones

Tropical cyclones are the most influential factors that bring considerable rainfall in the
Philippines. There are three classifications of tropical cyclones, namely: depressions which
have wind speed of 45 to 63 kph, storms which have wind speed of 64 to 119 kph and
typhoons which have maximum speed of 120 kph or stronger. Typhoons usually occur from
June to December with highest frequencies in July and August. The mean annual number of
tropical cyclones that pass through the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR) is about 20.
The cyclones originate in the region of Marianas and Caroline Islands in the Pacific Ocean
usually between 125E and 170E. Their movements follow westerly or northwesterly
course over the country and deposit substantial amount of rainfall. The most frequent
disastrous typhoons generally occur during the months of October and November.1
Tropical cyclones are classified according to their intensity. The World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) provides the following classification:
Classification
Tropical depression

Maximum Sustained Winds


(kph)
Up to 62

Tropical storm

62-88

Severe tropical storm

89-117

Typhoon

118 or more

Studies at selected stations in the Philippines have shown that 47% of the average yearly
rainfall is due to tropical cyclones, 14% to monsoons and 39% to other weather disturbances
such as thunderstorm, easterly waves, International Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and
fronts.
3.3.3

Cyclone Tracks

Tropical cyclone tracks vary from year to year. In general, tracks during the months of
January, March, April, and May are located over northeastern Mindanao and the Visayas.
About 55 to 60 percent of tropical cyclones that form in the Pacific Ocean move westward. In
February, about 80 percent of cyclones have westward movement but dissipate before
reaching the east coast. In June, the track is across Luzon with 70 percent moving in a
generally westward direction.

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 8

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
From July to October, the tracks are located over Northern Luzon, reaching its northwest
position in the latter half of August. During this period, about 80 to 95 percent of the
cyclones approaching from the east moves toward the west. The position of cyclone tracks
shift southward around September and in November is located across Central Luzon with
secondary tracks over northeastern Mindanao and Visayas.
About 70 percent of cyclones during this month have generally westward movement. In
December, the track is located across Southern Luzon and Northern Visayas.
A secondary track passes through northeastern Mindanao and Visayas where about 80
percent moves toward the west.
3.3.4

Climate

The Climate of the Philippines is tropical and maritime. It is characterized by relatively high
temperature, high humidity and abundant rainfall. The Philippine climate is classified into four
types depending on rainfall distribution and pattern (Figure 3.3.1). The four climate types are
described as follows:
Type I:

Two pronounced seasons. Dry from November to April, wet during the rest of the
year.
Type II: No dry season with a very pronounced rainfall from November to April and wet
during the rest of the tear.
Type III: Seasons are not very pronounced, relatively dry from November to April, wet
during the rest of the year.
Type IV: Rainfall is more or less evenly distributed throughout the year.
The project site is classified under Type I.

Figure 3.3.1 Climate Map of the Philippines and Frequency of Typhoons

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 9

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

3.3.5

Rainfall

The nearest rainfall station reckoned from the project road with considerable and reliable
rainfall record located in Science Garden. Based on the 29-year record the area receives a
total (average) of 2,574.4 mm annually. The rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year.
Highest monthly mean rainfall is about 504.2 mm in August. The months from June to
September generally experience intense rainfall. The monthly average maximum rainfall
values based on the record from PAGAGSA are shown as follows.
Rainfall, mm
Average

Month

3.3.6

Jan

18.5

Feb

14.6

Mar

24.8

Apr

40.4

May

186.7

Jun

316.5

Jul

493.3

Aug

504.2

Sep

451.2

Oct

296.6

Nov

148.8

Dec

78.7

Temperature

The temperature data for the project area are reckoned at PAGASAs synoptic station
located at Science Garden. The monthly mean, minimum and maximum temperature are
shown as follows:
Month

Max

Temperature, C
Min

Mean

Jan

30.6

20.8

25.7

Feb

31.7

20.9

26.3

Mar

33.4

22.1

27.8

Apr

35.0

23.7

29.4

May

34.7

24.7

29.7

Jun

33.1

24.6

28.8

Jul

31.9

24.1

28.0

Aug

31.3

24.2

27.8

Sep

31.6

24.0

27.8

Oct

31.6

23.5

27.6

Nov

31.4

22.7

27.1

Dec

30.5

21.6

26.0

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 10

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
Based on record, the mean monthly variation of temperature is relatively small with values
ranging from 0.0 C to 0.9C. The mean annual temperature is about 27.7C. January is the
coldest month with a recorded temperature of 20.8C while April is the warmest at 35.0C.
3.3.7

Relative Humidity

The average annual relative humidity for the project area reckoned at the station is about
77.6%. The mean monthly values of the relative humidity range from a low of 67 percent to a
high of 84 percent. The most humid months usually occur during July to November while the
month of April is the least humid. The monthly relative humidity data for the project area is
shown below.

3.3.8

Month

Rel. Humidity, %

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

76
73
69
67
72
79
83
84
84
83
82
79

Winds

The easterly winds generally affect the project area throughout the months except during the
month of August where the prevailing wind direction is westerly. The average wind speed is
about 2.0 m/s.
The monthly normal and extreme wind speed and direction reckoned at nearest synoptic
station are shown below:
1

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Normal
Speed (mps)
Direction
1
N
1
NE
1
SE
1
SE
1
S
1
SW
2
SW
2
SW
1
SW
1
N
1
N
1
N

Source: PAGASA

Period of Record: 1981-2010

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 11

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
4. HYDROLOGY STUDY AND ANALYSIS
4.1

General

This section discusses the various procedures used in estimating peak discharge to be
conveyed across and along the project site. The study activities consist of familiarization on the
present site conditions, field investigations, data gathering and hydrologic analysis.
Relevant and important items noted during this study, are as follows:

4.2

Recommended design storm frequency period


Magnitude of the tributary (drainage) area
The values of rainfall intensity obtained from the nearest relevant monitoring stations of
PAGASA
Catchment Parameters

The size of the watershed or catchment basin is the most important parameter affecting the
determination of the total runoff. For given conditions, the peak flow at the proposed site is
approximately proportional to the drainage area.
The shape of a basin affects the peak discharge. Long, narrow basins generally give lower peak
discharges than pear-shaped basins. A basin orientation with respect to the direction of storm
movement can affect peak discharge. Storms moving upstream tend to produce lower peaks
than those moving downstream. The mean elevation of a drainage basin is an important
characteristic affecting runoff. Higher elevation basins can receive a significant amount of
precipitation.
The location of this divide and thus the perimeter of the basin is determined from the
topographic maps in the available scale of 1:50,000. The delineated waterways crossing the
project road is shown in Figure 4.2.1.

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 12

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

Figure 4.2.1 Catchment Area


4.3

Time Parameter

The main effect the slope has on water flow is the time of concentration, or the time it takes the
rainfall to flow from the farthest point in the watershed to the point under consideration (bridge
and culvert sites). Steep slopes cause a shorter time of concentration and, thus higher peak
discharge than do flatter slopes.
The time of concentration is a variable often used in computing surface runoff. The variable
indicates the response time at the outlet of a watershed for a rainfall event, and is primarily a
function of the geometry of the watershed. In flood hydrology, the time of concentration of a
watershed is normally considered as constant, independent of the magnitude of the flood.
The time of concentration is defined as the time required for a drop of water to flow to the
watershed outlet from the most distant point in the watershed. It is influenced by surface
roughness slope and flow patterns.
Estimating the time of concentration for the watershed is expressed as;
Tc = L1.15 /51*(H) 0.385
Where:
Tc

time of concentration, the time required for storm runoff to travel from
the most remote point of the drainage basin to the point of interest in
minutes.

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 13

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
L

length of mainstream from the farthest point to the point of interest in


meters.
difference in elevation between most remote point and outlet in meters.

The minimum Tc for moderate slopes and paved is 10minutes, for areas which do not afford
surface storage and are steeper than 1:10 is 5 minutes.
Once the time of concentration Tc is estimated, the rainfall intensity (I), corresponding to a storm
of equal duration, obtained from Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency (RIDF) table or graph.
4.4

Frequency Analysis

Frequency analysis is concerned with estimating the relationship between an event and
corresponding return period of that event. It is generally based on assumed (population)
probability distributions and sample estimates of the population parameters.
4.4.1

Rainfall Analysis

4.4.1.1

Data Availability

The Rainfall Data Considered in this project is the raw Daily Rainfall Data from 1993 to 2013.
The Raw data will be analyze to come up with Probable Rainfall Intensity and probable
discharge at a given return period. Rainfall gauging stations are found available from the
following locations.
Rainfall Stations and Years of Record
Sta. No./Location
Science Garden.
Quezon City

4.4.1.2

Coordinates
Latitude
0

14 3841.0N

Longitude
0

121 0231.0E

Years of
Record

Station
Type

1993-2010

Synoptic

Rainfall Data

a. Maximum Yearly Rainfall


Maximum Yearly Rainfall
(mm)
1993

145.4

1994

131.2

1995

143.2

1996

104.4

1997

156.6

1998

137.2

1999

204.8

2000

267

2001

110.4

2002

246.4

2003

137.4

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 14

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
Maximum Yearly Rainfall
(mm)
2004

135.6

2005

104.6

2006

159.6

2007

147

2008

125.6

2009

455

2010

122

2011

250.9

2012

391.4

2013

225.7

b. Maximum Monthly Rainfall


Maximum Monthly Rainfall (mm)
May
Jun
Jul
Aug

Year

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

1993

11.6

12.2

1.4

109.2

145.4

79

94.6

118.2

89.6

32.4

1994

24.8

23.6

30

13

25.4

123.8

101.4

131.2

97.1

78.7

87.2

1995

16.1

5.4

1.8

61.2

64

74.8

115.8

143.2

58.2

70.8

49.4

1996

17

8.6

29.6

37

33.6

53.2

89.8

104.4

65.6

34.4

7.2

1997

4.2

25.3

14

156.6

35.7

80.4

145

47.5

56.7

34.4

1998

11.8

2.5

1.2

78.3

91

60

49

137.2

128.1

36.6

84.2

1999

10.2

3.4

20.3

38.5

48.8

40

103.2

196.2

204.8

152.1

46.6

36

2000

9.2

25.7

23.4

17.8

96.1

35

175.1

115.1

267

160.6

102.8

33.6

2001

19.8

35.8

5.3

17.2

48.8

49.5

107.4

110.4

34

57.8

39

30.2

2002

8.4

8.6

15.4

10

18.8

36

246.4

99.7

64.6

76

76.5

18.4

2003

1.4

5.2

5.2

20.6

137.4

55.6

38.4

100.2

120.2

52.2

30.4

5.4

2004

3.6

25

33.4

61.2

24

40.6

135.6

79

32.2

126.7

45.4

2005

8.4

9.8

16.8

65.2

85.3

54.6

59.6

86.9

104.6

34.6

12.9

2006

24.2

2.4

26.8

54.8

69.4

116.4

58.9

159.6

36.5

30.4

53

2007

1.4

24.1

15.3

14.6

107

21

42.4

147

53.5

78.6

65.4

26.3

2008

30.2

19.4

7.1

49.6

125.6

38.6

52.4

74.7

91.4

61.4

25

2009

22

7.8

37.1

40.4

86

75.7

153.5

93

455

79

15.5

2010

2.4

15.2

52.8

56.5

105.9

122

120.6

88.2

45

67

2011

51.5

0.2

16.6

1.2

75

250.9

99

109.5

121.2

70.7

105.6

58.4

2012

41

65

1.6

46.7

84.4

116.9

391.4

159.3

98.9

7.9

18

2013

13.7

61.7

55.3

45.6

61.6

78.7

84.4

225.7

148.8

80.8

27.2

34.8

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 15

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
c. Average Yearly Rainfall
Ave Yearly Rainfall
mm.
1993

7.06

1994

7.08

1995

8.74

1996

5.58

1997

6.07

1998

7.36

1999

9.14

2000

11.05

2001

6.24

2002

8.13

2003

5.98

2004

6.08

2005

6.47

2006

7.27

2007

6.27

2008

6.49

2009

9.62

2010

7.28

2011

8.61

2012

12.03

2013

9.62

d. Average Monthly Rainfall

Month

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Ave. monthly rainfall


May
Jun
Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

1993

0.00

0.04

0.52

0.53

0.05

10.85

16.03

15.31

17.28

11.33

7.47

5.34

1994

1.59

0.88

1.36

1.00

5.96

14.06

25.79

11.14

14.22

5.02

0.26

3.65

1995

0.56

0.29

0.07

0.18

9.76

13.09

11.60

20.87

24.95

11.26

6.16

6.12

1996

0.63

0.00

0.34

2.68

3.73

4.75

12.90

10.96

16.18

8.93

5.40

0.42

1997

0.38

1.16

0.03

1.01

15.60

5.56

18.22

18.05

7.82

3.15

1.53

0.34

1998

0.56

0.00

0.17

0.05

6.00

9.64

6.46

8.81

20.61

15.70

5.97

14.3

1999

1.25

0.14

2.67

4.59

6.48

8.19

22.84

27.92

14.53

11.08

5.56

4.37

2000

0.56

1.31

3.34

1.25

19.10

5.91

32.36

16.78

20.14

17.32

8.50

6.06

2001

0.68

3.76

0.40

1.04

8.42

8.28

16.74

17.72

6.10

6.16

2.44

3.13

2002

0.27

0.48

0.70

0.68

1.60

6.14

42.27

14.34

14.21

7.79

7.83

1.21

2003

0.05

0.26

0.31

0.74

15.03

7.73

8.65

12.27

16.59

5.96

3.94

0.22

2004

0.19

1.26

0.00

2.95

6.66

7.15

10.83

22.13

10.28

2.79

6.82

1.94

2005

0.41

0.43

0.52

1.19

4.45

17.63

7.14

11.05

13.79

15.74

2.55

2.79

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Nov

Dec

Page 16

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

Month

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Ave. monthly rainfall


May
Jun
Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2006

1.82

0.24

2.53

0.00

5.57

11.12

21.37

10.00

22.25

6.85

2.96

2.48

2007

0.07

0.86

0.71

0.86

8.33

3.31

6.64

21.61

14.59

7.10

9.49

1.68

2008

1.52

0.82

1.25

1.18

8.45

12.05

7.27

13.88

14.92

8.05

6.26

2.26

2009

1.39

0.37

3.02

4.62

8.66

14.60

21.32

13.16

37.45

8.78

1.80

0.21

2010

0.16

0.00

0.08

0.67

2.00

11.85

13.24

20.26

12.89

13.34

8.48

4.42

2011

2.59

0.00

0.57

0.40

6.04

18.00

15.46

20.71

13.88

11.24

8.74

5.75

2012

1.33

4.43

6.31

0.07

10.57

10.44

28.59

44.75

24.54

10.94

0.89

1.55

2013

1.52

3.18

4.26

1.79

5.48

18.56

8.65

31.05

22.78

11.43

2.99

3.75

4.4.1.3

Design Storm Hyetograph

The process is undertaken in two stages, namely; (a) probable point rainfall frequency
analysis, (b) rainfall intensity duration frequency (RIDF) analysis.
4.4.1.3.1 Probable Point Rainfall Frequency Analysis
Probable rainfall analysis has two sub-parts, namely frequency analysis and selection of the
best fit frequency distribution.
Frequency Analysis
This involves the fitting of theoretical frequency distributions to the annual maximum rainfall
data. Two types of theoretical distributions are used in this study, namely Extreme Value
Distribution (Gumbel), and Log Pearson Type III Distribution.
1. Extreme Value Distribution (Gumbel)
This distribution utilizes the Fisher-Tippet extreme value function, which relates
magnitude linearly with the logarithm of the reciprocal of the exceedance probability.
Working equations are the following:

RTr = R + KTr S
KTr =

(YTr Yn )
Sn

YTr = (0.83405 + 2.3025 log log


Where:

RTr =
R=
S =
KTr =
YTr =
Yn, Sn =
n

Tr
Tr 1

Probable rainfall at return period Tr


Mean of the annual maximum rainfall series
Frequency factor at return period Tr
Standard deviation of annual maximum rainfall series
reduced variate at return period Tr
reduced mean and reduced standard deviation
number years of record

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 17

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
Reduced Mean and Standard Deviation
n

Yn

Sn

Yn

Sn

Yn

Sn

0.49522

0.94963

21

0.52519

1.06938

31

0.53714

1.11588

10

0.49522

0.94963

22

0.52673

1.07547

32

0.53803

1.11927

11

0.49969

0.96753

23

0.52819

1.08115

33

0.53889

1.12245

12

0.50348

0.98327

24

0.52959

1.08648

34

0.53959

1.12557

13

0.50699

0.99712

25

0.53084

1.09143

35

0.54026

1.12849

14

0.51000

1.00951

26

0.53202

1.09615

36

0.54107

1.13127

15

0.51285

1.02055

27

0.53326

1.10048

37

0.54177

1.13391

16

0.51542

1.03058

28

0.53419

1.10471

38

0.54243

1.13649

17

0.51770

1.03972

29

0.53533

1.10860

39

0.54294

1.13900

18

0.51978

1.04806

30

0.53616

1.11238

40

0.54363

1.14130

19

0.52177

1.05575

20

0.52352

1.06282

4.4.1.3.2 Rainfall intensity duration frequency (RIDF) analysis


This method determines the probability that rainfall of a given intensity and duration is
equaled or exceeded.
From this probability determination, the return period of time interval measured in years, over
which a given storm event may be expected to occur again, can be predicted. The results of
the analysis are presented in curves or graphs that will relate rainfall intensity of a given
duration to the probable frequency of occurrence of said event. From these rainfall frequency
curves, the relationship between rainfall intensity and duration for any pre- determined return
period can be developed. Tables 2.5.1a and 2.5.1b shows the Computed Extreme Values of
Precipitation and Intensity of Computed Extreme Values respectively. Figures 4.4.1.3.2a
and 4.4.1.3.2b shows the Rainfall Depth Duration Curve and Rainfall Intensity Duration
Frequency respectively as shown as follows:
X=Rain fall Duration, Y= Rainfall Depth
600
500
2 yrs.
400

5 yrs.
10.yrs.

300

15 yrs
25 yrs.

200

50 yrs.
100 yrs.

100
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 4.4.1.3.2a Rainfall Depth Duration Curve (27 years record)


Consultancy Services for the Civil Works
of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 18

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

X=Rainfall Duration, Y=Rainfall Intensity


350
300
250

2yrs.
5yrs

200

10yrs
15yrs

150

25yrs
50yrs.

100

100yrs

50
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 4.4.1.3.2b Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (27 years record)

Regression Analysis Parameters of Rainfall Intensity versus Duration frequency


Constants
Yrs.

825.301

10

0.64239

1354.58

11.9

0.65959

10

1753.36

13.3

0.66948

15

1989.69

14

0.67441

25

2320.51

15

0.6822

50

2604.68

15.5

0.67489

100

3144.45

16.5

0.69248

Regression Analysis for Rainfall Intensity versus Rainfall Duration Equation of data from
PAGASA is presented in Annex C.
2. Log Pearson Type III Distribution. (See Annex E for Calculation)
This distribution belongs to the family of distribution suggested by Pearson with log
transformation of rainfall data. The parameters used are the mean, standard deviation
and skewness coefficient. The working equations are the following:
Consultancy Services for the Civil Works
of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 19

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

RTr = R + KTr S
KTr =

2
G

{[( Kn

G
6

G
6

+ 1]3 1}

Where:

RTr =
R=

Log of probable rainfall at return period Tr

KTr =

Frequency factor at return period Tr

Mean of the log of rainfall series

S=
Kn =

Standard deviation of the log of rainfall series

G =

Skewness coefficient of the series

Normal frequency factor (see table)

Probability
Table for Normal Frequency Factor

Kn
-3.71902
-3.29053
-3.09023
-2.87816
-2.57583
-2.32635
-2.05375
-1.95996
-1.75069
-1.64485
-1.28155
-0.84162
-0.52440
-0.25335
-0.17733
0.00000

P
0.99990
0.99950
0.99900
0.99800
0.99500
0.99000
0.98000
0.97500
0.96000
0.95000
0.90000
0.80000
0.70000
0.60000
0.57040
0.50000

Tr
1.000
1.001
1.001
1.002
1.005
1.010
1.020
1.026
1.042
1.053
1.111
1.250
1.429
1.667
1.753
2.000

Kn
0.00000
0.17733
0.25335
0.52440
0.84162
1.28155
1.64485
1.75069
1.95996
2.05375
2.32635
2.57583
2.87816
3.09023
3.29053
3.71902

P
0.50000
0.42960
0.40000
0.30000
0.20000
0.10000
0.05000
0.04000
0.02500
0.02000
0.01000
0.00500
0.00200
0.00100
0.00050
0.00010

Tr
2.000
2.328
2.500
3.333
5
10
20
25
40
50
100
200
500
1000
2000
10000

4.4.1.3.3 Rainfall intensity duration frequency (RIDF) analysis


This method determines the probability that rainfall of a given intensity and duration is
equaled or exceeded.
From this probability determination, the return period of time interval measured in years, over
which a given storm event may be expected to occur again, can be predicted. The results of
the analysis are presented in curves or graphs that will relate rainfall intensity of a given
duration to the probable frequency of occurrence of said event. From these rainfall frequency
curves, the relationship between rainfall intensity and duration for any pre- determined return
period can be developed. Tables 4.4.1.3.3a and 4.4.1.3.3b shows the Computed Extreme
Values of Precipitation and Intensity of Computed Extreme Values respectively (based on 21
Consultancy Services for the Civil Works
of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 20

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
years of records). Figures 4.4.1.3.3a and 4.4.1.3.3b shows the Rainfall Dept Duration Curve
and Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency respectively as shown as follows:
Table 4.4.1.3.3a Computed Extreme Values of Precipitation (mm)
(Based on 21 years of records)
T

10

20

30

12

24

(yrs)

mins

mins

mins

Hr

hrs

hrs

hrs

hrs

hrs

23.0

35.2

43.8

60.0

87.3

105.6

136.0

162.9

185.8

30.7

48.3

61.1

85.0

118.9

142.8

183.1

219.9

251.7

10

36.9

58.4

74.4

104.0

143.5

171.9

220.3

264.5

303.3

25

45.7

72.9

93.4

131.2

179.1

213.8

273.5

329.0

377.4

50

53.1

85.2

109.5

154.1

208.9

249.3

318.7

383.4

440.2

100

61.3

98.7

127.2

179.3

242.0

288.4

368.4

443.3

509.3

Table 4.4.1.3.3b Intensity of Computed Extreme Values (mm/hr)


(Based on 21 years of records)
T

10

20

30

12

24

(yrs)

mins

mins

mins

hr

hrs

hrs

hrs

hrs

hrs

137.9

105.6

87.6

60.0

43.6

35.2

22.7

13.6

7.7

184.3

144.8

122.2

85.0

59.4

47.6

30.5

18.3

10.5

10

221.4

175.2

148.8

104.0

71.8

57.3

36.7

22.0

12.6

25

274.2

218.8

186.8

131.2

89.5

71.3

45.6

27.4

15.7

50

318.6

255.5

218.9

154.1

104.5

83.1

53.1

31.9

18.3

100

367.9

296.1

254.3

179.3

121.0

96.1

61.4

36.9

21.2

X=Rain fall Duration, Y= Rainfall Depth


600
500
2 yrs.

400

5 yrs.
10.yrs.

300

15 yrs
25 yrs.

200

50 yrs.
100 yrs.

100
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 4.4.1.3.3a Rainfall Depth Duration Curve (21 years record)


Consultancy Services for the Civil Works
of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 21

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
X=Rainfall Duration, Y=Rainfall Intensity
400
350
300
2yrs.
250

5yrs
10yrs

200

15yrs
25yrs

150

50yrs.

100

100yrs

50
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 4.4.1.3.3a Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (21 yrs record)


Regression Analysis Parameters of Rainfall Intensity versus Duration frequency
Constants
Yrs.

2
5
10
25
50
100

890.5
1416.98
1825.49
2358.02
2935.59
3551.31

9
12
13.3
14
15.5
16.5

0.63455
0.65951
0.66988
0.67559
0.68567
0.69252

Regression Analysis for Rainfall Intensity versus Rainfall Duration Equation of Raw Rainfall
data from PAGASA is presented in Annex D.
4.5

Runoff Analysis

Runoff is the amount of water that flows out of a watershed sub-area as a result of a storm
event. This value is equal to the amount of rainfall that occurs on the area, minus the amount of
rainfall that is infiltrated into the ground, intercepted by foliage, is lost through evaporation and
evapotranspiration or is held in small depressions.
4.5.1

Basin Characteristics

1. Basin Area the area of a drainage basin is the most important watershed characteristic
affecting any surface runoff calculation. Determining the size of the watershed area that
contributes to flow generation at the site of the drainage structure is the basic step in a

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 22

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
hydrologic analysis. This is regardless of the method used to evaluate flood flows, most
frequently determined from field surveys, topographic maps or aerial photographs.
2. Slope the slope of a drainage basin is one of the major factors affecting the rate of
overland flow and time of concentration of rainfall runoffs. Steep slope tends to hasten
the arrival of maximum discharge while flat slope has the opposite effect, at the point
under consideration. The areas surrounding the site are predominantly rolling terrain.
3. Shape the shape, or outline formed by the basin boundaries, affects the rate at which
water is supplied to the main stream as it proceeds along its course from runoff source to
the site of drainage structure. Long narrow watersheds generally give lower peak
discharge than do fan or pear shaped basins. The areas irregular, long and narrow.
Classification of C coefficient any changes in C value will also
cause increase or
decrease in surface water runoff. Ground cover characteristics are another critical factor
considered in runoff determination.
The values of C coefficients, taking into considerations the above mentioned factors, are
classified into 11 surface categories, as presented in Table 4.5.1.1.
Table 4.5.1.1 Values of C For Use in Rational Formula
Surface

4.5.2

Value Proposed

Concrete or asphalt pavement

0.9 1.0

Bituminous Macadam and DBST (sandy to clayey)

0.7 0.9

Gravel surface road and shoulder

0.3 0.6

Residential area city

0.3 0.6

Residential area town & village

0.2 0.5

Rocky surface

0.7 0.9

Bore clayey surface (faces of slips, etc.)

0.7 0.9

Forested land (sandy to clay)

0.3 0.5

Flattish cultivated areas (not flooded)

0.3 0.5

Steep or rolling grassed areas

0.5 0.7

Flooded or wet paddy

0.7 0.8

Storm Rainfall

As for long duration rainfall, the standard rainfall duration is an important factor to develop a
model hyetograph, which will be used for the evaluation of flood runoff analysis within the
drainage basin. In this case, mostly duration of rainfall was considered.
Rainfall event characteristics which are considered important to any highway drainage
design are:
Intensity (rate of rainfall), in mm/hr
Duration (time rainfall lasts), minutes
Frequency (statistical probability of how often rainfall will occur) a return period

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 23

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
4.5.3

Design Storm Frequency

The rainfall intensity from which the frequency of recurrence is based, dictates the design
frequency. Presented below are various selected standards to illustrate the principle.
Cases

Design Storm Frequency

Bridge (MFWL)

1 in 50 years

Box culvert (Discharge)

1 in 25 years

Pipe Culvert (Discharge)

1 in 15 years

Embankment (HFL)
Road Surface (Drainage)

1 in 10 years
1 in 10 years

Roadside Drainage (Ditches)

1 in 10 years

These design frequencies, which were used, are not totally dependent on economic
consideration alone but also based on guidelines used in similar projects in the different
regions of the country.
The runoff model adopted in this context are the Rational Formula, which has been widely
used in the Philippines for the design of the rural or urban drainage improvement project with
an area less than or equal to 20 square km. and Unit Hydrograph for the areas greater than
20 square kms. The parameters necessary for the estimation using the said formula are as
follows:
1. Rational Method
Q = 0.278 CIA
Where:
Q
C
I
A

=
=
=
=

design discharge in cu.m/second


coefficient of runoff (refer to Table 4.5.1.1)
Rainfall intensity, in mm/hr
Drainage Area, in (sq. km)

Rainfall Intensity is estimated based on the calculated rainfall depth and duration. The
relationship between duration, intensity and frequency at any location maybe obtained
from analysis of rainfall records obtained at the location.
The rainfall intensity-frequency-duration data are useful in peak flow estimation of runoff.
The general equation for rainfall intensity derived for the project area is:
I = A / (tc + d)b
Where:
I

Tc =
A,d,b =

average rainfall intensity in mm/hour for the selected frequency and for
a duration equal to the time of concentration.
storm duration, in minutes
constants depending on the frequency of occurrence and usually
derived by analytical method.

Table 1.4.1.2 Regression analysis parameters of rainfall intensity versus duration


frequency represent values of constants of a given return period.
Consultancy Services for the Civil Works
of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 24

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

For large basin area, equation is express as follows:


C = C1A1 +C2A2 + --- / A1 + A2 + --The equation represents the percent of water which will run off the ground surface during
storm. The remaining amount of precipitation is lost to infiltration, transpiration,
evaporation and depression storage.

Time of Concentration Tc Equation is express as follows:


Tc = L1.15 /51*(H) 0.385
Where:
Tc =
L

H =

time of concentration, the time required for storm runoff to travel


from the most remote point of the drainage basin to the point of
interest in minutes.
length of mainstream from the farthest point to the point of interest
in meters.
difference in elevation between most remote point and outlet in
meters.

The minimum Tc for moderate slopes and paved is 10minutes, for areas which do not
afford surface storage and are steeper than 1:10 is 5 minutes.
Once the time of concentration Tc is estimated, the rainfall intensity (I), corresponding to
a storm of equal duration, obtained from Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency (RIDF)
table or graph.
2. Unit Hydrograph
Peak floods of rivers or stream with catchments areas larger than 20sq. km. may be
computed using the Snyder Method and U.S. Soil Conservation Services (SCS) Method
Unit Hydrograph principle.
Existing bridge with long span or wide riverbed, with drainage area of more than 20 sq
km. may be hydrologically analyzed by the more accurate unit hydrograph method in
order to determine more accurately the new bridge opening and safe span.
The instantaneous unit hydrograph for each individual watershed may be derived from a
dimensionless graph prepared by the basin physiographic characteristics of respective
project sites as inputs.
For each watershed, the 50-year rainfall values at intervals equal to D the duration of
excess rainfall in hours ranging from 1/4 to1/5 of basin lag time may be derived from
designed rainfall intensity curves. The increments will be computed and rearranged into
a pattern that would yield maximum run-off.
The results of this analysis give the effective rainfall values to be used in the computation
of the flood hydrograph. For relatively small size watersheds along the project roads,
adjustment factors for area and duration may not be applied to the rainfall data furnished
by PAGASA, i.e. point rainfall is assumed equal to area rainfall.
In the absence of specific base flow data for each river or stream, mean monthly flows
from July to October which are generally the wet months in the country from stream
Consultancy Services for the Civil Works
of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 25

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
gages in the vicinity of the may be considered for analysis. The ratio of base flow to peak
run-off (as suggested by Te Chow in Applied Hydrology) is 0.01 at the start of the storm
while the maximum possible ratio is 0.10.
For each bridge site the roughness coefficient n should be estimated in the field using
Manning values for various bed conditions. The n values of all bridge sites along each
project road may be averaged and applied in the design of minor drainage structures.
The final step in the SCS Method is the computation of the flood hydrograph. This
requires the application of the convolution or superposition methods in order to
determine peak discharges. The method involves computing Lg (time to peak run-off)
and tr (duration of rainfall) by the modified Snyders Formula.
The parameter Lg and tr given by the following:
Lg = 0.6865 Ct (L x Lca / S1/2)0.38
This is the lag time from midpoint of unit rainfall duration, tr, to peak of unit hydrograph,
in hours
tr = Lg / 5.5, unit rainfall duration in hours
Where:
L

Lca =
S
Ct

=
=

distance along longest water course from point of interest to


watershed divide, km
distance along watercourse from point of interest to intersection of
perpendicular from centroid of basin to stream alignment, km
harmonic mean slope of the main river or stream
coefficient representing variation of catchments slopes and storage

In the absence of hydrologic records of nearby basins of similar characteristics as the


basins under study, the coefficient Ct has to be assumed, e.g.
Ct

1.2 for mountainous drainage areas

0.70 for foothill drainage areas

0.35 for valley drainage areas

Compute for the time to peak, (tp) in hours.


tp = Lg + tr, in hour
Compute for the unit peak discharge (qp) in cms/sec per one millimeter depth of rainfall
in the basin.
qp = (0.278(Cp) (D.A)) / tp
Where:
Cp =
D.A. =
tp
=

basin coefficient ranging from 0.60 to 0.80


Drainage Area in sq. km.
time to peak, in hours

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 26

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
Compute for the time base, (tb) in hours
tb = 2.67 (tp), in hours
Plotting the rainfall depth duration curves and using the dimensionless graph, the runoff is given by the Convolution method as follows:
j

Qj = R(i) U (j-i+1)
i=1

Where:
Qj= run-off at time j, cms
R (i)
= excess rainfall during time j-i+1
U (j-i+1) = unit graph ordinate, cms
4.5.4

Delineation of Catchment Areas

The drainage areas of each waterway were delineated from the scale 1:50,000 topographic
map produced by the NAMRIA which is basically the main source of information necessary
in the determination of the watershed area. The drainage areas were determined with the aid
of AutoCAD software. Delineation of the drainage watershed is done by connecting the high
points that enclosed the limit of drainage area. The continuous line defined is then allowed to
intersect with the road alignment, using the latter as the final line of closure. The delineation
of each waterway drainage areas is presented in Figure 4.2.1.
4.6

Runoff Calculation

The method use in the computation of the discharge of the two creek namely Balante and
Halang creek is Rational method because the catchment area is less than 20 sq. km.
1. Using RIDF data from PAGASA (27 years of record, 1983-2010)

HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WATERSHEDS AND RELATED DISCHARGES


PROJECT: LRT Line 2 Extension Project
BASIN

NAME OF

WATERSHED

NO.

CREEK

AREA

1.
2.

Balante
Creek
Halang

WATERSHED

ELEVATION

UP

ha

km2

1188.00

11.880

18.4

27.8

455.00

4.550

21.1

30

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

LENGTH

AVERAGE

TIME OF

OF STREAM

SLOPE

CONCEN.

Ls

Tc

m/m

mins

9.40

7616.00

0.00242

185.98

8.90

5222.00

0.00404

114.31

DN

Page 27

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

BASIN

NAME OF

RAINFALL INTENSITY

RUNOFF

NO.

CREEK

FOR RETURN PERIOD OF

COEFF.

2-year

5-year

10-year

15-year

25-year

50-year

100-year

mm/hr

mm/hr

mm/hr

mm/hr

mm/hr

mm/hr

mm/hr

Balante Creek

27.80

41.41

50.63

55.84

62.29

72.55

79.51

0.40

Halang

37.25

55.71

68.24

75.33

84.15

97.61

107.60

0.50

2.

BASIN

NAME OF

DISCHARGE

NO.

CREEK

Q
5-year

10-year

25-year

50-year

100-year

m3/s

m3/s

m3/s

m3/s

m3/s

1.00

Balante Creek

56.48

66.89

82.28

95.85

105.04

2.00

Halang

36.37

43.16

53.22

61.74

68.05

Using RAW RAINFALL DATA FROM PAGASA (21 years of record, 1993-2013)

HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WATERSHEDS AND RELATED DISCHARGES


PROJECT: LRT Line 2 Extension Project
BASIN

NAME OF

WATERSHED

NO.

CREEK

AREA

WATERSHED

ELEVATION

ha

km2

UP

DN

LENGTH

AVERAGE

TIME OF

OF STREAM

SLOPE

CONCEN.

Ls

Tc

m/m

mins

1.

Balante Creek

1188.00

11.880

18.4

27.8

9.40

7616.00

0.00242

185.98

2.

Halang

455.00

4.550

21.1

30

8.90

5222.00

0.00404

114.31

BASIN

NAME OF

RAINFALL INTENSITY

RUNOFF

NO.

CREEK

FOR RETURN PERIOD OF

COEFF.

2-year

5-year

10-year

25-year

50-year

100-year

mm/hr

mm/hr

mm/hr

mm/hr

mm/hr

mm/hr

1.00

Balante Creek

31.37

43.32

52.60

65.77

77.22

89.78

0.45

2.00

Halang

41.96

58.27

70.91

88.76

104.39

121.50

0.50

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 28

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

4.7

BASIN

NAME OF

DISCHARGE

NO.

CREEK

Q
5-year

10-year

25-year

50-year

100-year

m3/s

m3/s

m3/s

m3/s

m3/s

1.00

Balante Creek

64.39

78.18

97.75

114.77

133.43

2.00

Halang

36.85

44.84

56.14

66.02

76.84

Selecting Run Off to be Consider in this Project

In selecting Run Off to be considered in the Detailed Drainage Design of this project, we need to
consider the latest rainfall occur. Among the two alternatives that were used to determine the
Runoff, the calculated Runoff using the raw rainfall data from 1993 to 2013 is more reliable. This
data includes the rainfall occur in four (4) consecutive days. This happened on August 18,19,20,
and 21, their respective rainfall are as follows, 174.8,108.8,225.7 and 166.1mm. This event
rarely happens. From the raw rainfall data, it only happens once in 21 years.
The two (2) alternatives are reliable in computing probable rainfall intensity, therefore, in this
alternatives, we will consider whichever is larger. Runoff used in this project is presented table
below;
BASIN

NAME OF

DISCHARGE

NO.

CREEK

Q
5-year

10-year

25-year

50-year

100-year

m3/s

m3/s

m3/s

m3/s

m3/s

1.00

Balante Creek

64.39

78.18

97.75

114.77

133.43

2.00

Halang

36.85

44.84

56.14

66.02

76.84

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 29

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
5. HYDRAULICS
5.1

General

This document outlines and discusses the procedure of various hydraulic analyses in assessing
to determine and understand how different drainage facilities can be integrated to provide
complete drainage control. It also discusses the design standard and criteria adopted for the
design.
5.2

Design Standards

The following references were heavily relied on during the design process:
1. DPWH Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards
2. AASHTO Highway Drainage Guidelines
3. HDS 4 Introduction to Highway Hydraulics
5.3

Design Criteria

5.3.1

Design Flood Frequencies

One way to select the design flood frequency is through the concept of economics by
establishing the least total expected cost for the structure. This concept considers the capital
cost, maintenance costs, and the flood hazard costs that are incurred due to damage by a
range of flooding events. The flood frequency that generates the least total expected cost for
the life of the project would be the one chosen for the design of the structure. The following
design flood frequency:
Structure
Bridge
Box culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pavement
Road Surface
Ditches
5.4

Design Flood Frequency


1 in 50 years
1 in 25 years
1 in 15 years
1 in 10 years
1 in 10 years
1 in 10 years

Highway Hydraulics Structure

Highway hydraulics structure, perform the vital function of conveying, diverting, or removing
surface water from the highway right of way. One type of drainage facility will rarely provide the
most satisfactory drainage for all sections of a highway. Therefore, the designer should know
and understand how different drainage facilities can be integrated to provide complete drainage
control. They should be designed to be commensurate with risk, construction cost, importance
of the road, economy of maintenance and legal requirements.
Based on the study the drainage facilities adopted for this project are classified into two major
categories:
1. Cross Drainage involves the conveyance of surface water and stream flow across or
from the highway right of way. This is accomplished by providing a culvert to convey the
flow from one side of the roadway to the other side or past some other type of flow
obstruction.

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 30

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
2. Open Channel is a conveyance in which water flows with a free surface. The term is
generally applied to natural and improved watercourse, median swales, ditches, roadway
channels, curb and gutter flow, and others.
5.5

Culvert Design Analysis

Outlet control analysis was done to minimize excessive velocities at outlet and to design the
headwater depth. Each proposed cross-culvert were analyzed as to whether inlet or outlet
control condition.
5.5.1

Inlet Control

Inlet Control occurs when the culvert barrel is capable of conveying more flow than the inlet
will accept.
A culvert flowing in inlet control has shallow, high velocity flow categorized as supercritical.
For supercritical flow, the control section is at the inlet of the barrel.
5.5.2

Outlet Control

Outlet Control occurs when the culvert barrel is not capable of conveying as much flow as
the inlet opening will accept.
A culvert flowing in outlet control will have relatively deep, low velocity flow termed subcritical flow. For sub-critical flow the control is at the outlet of the culvert. The tail water
depth is either critical depth at the culvert outlet or the downstream channel depth,
whichever is higher.
5.6

Mannings Roughness n For Culvert


Table 5.6.1 Mannings n Values for Culvert
Type of Culvert
Concrete Pipe
Concrete Box

Wall Description
Smooth Walls
Smooth Walls

Manning (n)
0.010-0.013
0.012-0.015

Corrugated Metal pipes & Boxes,


annular or Helical Pipe (Manning n
values with barrel size) Refer to Figure
B-3

2-2/3 by inch Corrugation


6 by 1 inch corrugations
5 by 1 inch corrugation
3 by 1 inch corrugations
6 by 2 inch structural plate corrugation
9 by 21/2 inch structural plate
corrugation

0.022-0.027
0.022-0.025
0.025-0.026
0.027-0.028
0.033-0.035
0.033-0.037

Corrugated Metal Pipe, Helical


2-2/3 by inch corrugations
0.012-0.024
corrugations and Full Circular Flow
Smooth Walls
0.012-0.013
Spiral Rib Metal Pipe
NOTE: The values indicated in this table are recommended Manning n design values. Actual
field values for older existing pipelines may vary depending on the effects of the
abrasion, corrosion, deflection, and joint conditions. Concrete pipe with poor joints and
deteriorated walls may have n value of 0.014 to 0.018. Corrugated metal pipe with joint
and wall problems may also have higher n values, and in addition may experience
shape changes which could adversely affect the general hydraulic performance of the
culvert.
Consultancy Services for the Civil Works
of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 31

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

5.7

Sizing of Culvert (Closed Conduit)

Design capacity is determined by the use of the Bernoullis energy balancing equation. Sizing of
Culverts was done by aid of AutoCAD Land Development Desktop software. There are two (2)
controls of flow in culvert namely:
1. Flow with Outlet Control
For tail water (TW) elevation equal to or greater than the top of the culvert at the outlet,
set ho culvert height type equal, D or TW and find HW by the following equation.
HW = H + ho LSo
Where:
HW
H

vertical distance in meters from culvert invert to the pool surface.


head loss in meters

H = 1 + K (29 LN / R 1.33) V / 2g
ho

So
L

=
=

vertical distance in meters from culvert invert at outlet to control point


on hydraulic grade line.
slope of the barrel
culvert length in meters

For tail water (TW) elevation less than the top of the culvert at the outlet, use the
following equation of find HW:
HW = H + ho Lso
Where:
ho
dc
D

=
=
=

(dc + D) /2 or TW, whichever is greater


critical depth
culvert height

2. Flow with Inlet Control


For Unsubmerged it operates as a weir flow, the headwater is in low condition. A weir is
an unsubmerged flow control section where the upstream water surface elevation can be
predicted for a given flow rate. The Equation is express:
HWi/D = Hc/D + K (Q/AD0.5)M 0.5S2
HWi/D = K (Q/AD0.5)M
Submerged it operates as an orifice flow, the headwater submerging the culvert
entrance. An orifice is an opening, submerged on the upstream side and flowing freely
on the downstream side, which functions as a control section. The Equation is express:
HWi/D = c (Q/AD0.5)2 + Y-0.5S2
Where:
HW i
D
Hc

=
=
=

headwater depth above inlet control section invert, m


interior height of culvert barrel, m
specific head at critical depth (dc + Vc2/2g), m

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 32

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
Q
= discharge, cms
A
= full cross section area of culvert barrel, sq m
S
= culvert barrel slope, m/m
K, M, c, Y = constant
Notes:
1. Equation for (unsubmerged) apply up to about Q/AD0.5 = 1.07
2. For beveled inlets use +0.7S instead of -0.5S as the slope correction
factor
3. Equation for (submerged) applies above about Q/AD0.5 = 1.22
5.8

Open Channel

5.8.1

Hydraulic Considerations

The hydraulic design of open channel consists of developing a channel to carry the design
discharge under the controlling condition as follows:
1. Adding freeboard as needed
2. Determining the type of channel protection required to prevent erosion.
3. Provide channel linings to increase the hydraulic capacity of the channel by reducing
the channel roughness.
The hydraulic capacity of a drainage channel is dependent on the size, shape, slope and
roughness of the channel section. For a given channel:

The hydraulic capacity becomes greater as the grade or depth of flow increases.
The channel capacity decreases as the channel surface becomes rougher.
A rough channel can sometimes be an advantage on steep slopes where it is
desirable to keep flow velocities from becoming excessive high and reduce the flow
velocities

Open channel designs which lower the water surface elevation can result in excessive flow
velocities and cause erosion problems. A planned rise in water surface elevation can cause:

5.8.2

Objectional flooding of the road surface and adjacent properties.


An environmental and maintenance problem with sedimentation due to reduced flow
velocities.

Hydraulic Design of Channels

Open channel hydraulic design is of particular importance to highway design because of the
interrelationship of channels to most highway drainage facilities.
The hydraulic principles of open channel flow are based on steady state uniform flow
condition.
5.8.3

Open Channel Flow Equations

The Equations of open channel flow are based on uniform flow conditions. The Equation was
adopted:

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 33

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
3. Mannings Equation assuming uniform and turbulent flow conditions, the mean flow
velocity in open channel can be computed as:
V = (R2/3 S1/2) /n
Where:
V
n
S
R
A
Wp
5.8.4

=
=
=
=
=
=

mean velocity, m/sec


Manning coefficient of roughness (Table 5.8.4.1)
channel slope, m
hydraulic radius, m = A/Wp
cross sectional flow area, m2
wetted perimeter, m

Mannings Roughness n For Open Channel


Table 5.8.4.1 Average Values of n for Mannings Roughness
Type of Channel

n value

Unlined Channel:
Clay Loam
Sand
Gravel
Rock, Grouted Riprap
Lined Channels:
Portland Cement Concrete
Air Blown Mortar (troweled)
Air Blown Mortar (untroweled)
Air Blown Mortar (roughened)
Asphalt Concrete
Sacked Concrete
Pavement and Gutters:
Portland Cement Concrete
Asphalt Concrete

0.023
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.014
0.012
0.016
0.025
0.018
0.025
0.015
0.016

Depressed Median:
Earth (without Growth)
Earth (with Growth)
Gravel/ Riprap
5.8.5

0.040
0.050
0.055

Permissible Velocities for Unlined Channel


Table 5.8.5.1 Recommended Permissible Velocities for Unlined Channel
Permissible Velocity (m/sec)
Type of Material in Excavation Section

Intermittent
Flow

Sustained Flow

Fine Sand (Non colloidal)

0.8

0.8

Sandy Loam (Non colloidal)

0.8

0.8

Silt Loam (Non colloidal)

0.9

0.9

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 34

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
Permissible Velocity (m/sec)
Type of Material in Excavation Section

5.9

Intermittent
Flow

Sustained Flow

Fine Loam
Volcanic Ash
Fine Gravel
Stiff Clay (Colloidal)

1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2

1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2

Graded Material (Non colloidal)


Loam to Gravel
Silt to Gravel
Gravel
Coarse Gravel
Gravel to Cobbles (Under 150mm)
Gravel & Cobbles (Over 200mm)

1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.4

1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.4

Open Channel Hydraulics

An important factor in flood analysis is to estimate characteristics of the flow during flood times.
In order to do this, cross-sections of waterways are identified and representative cross sections
of the river channel are obtained by actual field survey. Mean bed slope of the stream is
obtained from actual survey of the waterway cross sections.
For a river or waterway where conventional stream gauging data are not available, the average
velocity for a given stage-height can be estimated using the Mannings formula. The Mannings
formula is essentially an empirical formula, based upon field observations and laboratory
measurements. This formula states that in steady uniform flow:
V = R2/3 S1/2/n
and,
Q = A R2/3 S1/2/n
Where:
V
Q
R
S
n
A
P

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

average velocity, m/s


discharge, m3/s
hydraulic radius, A/P
slope of the energy line
Mannings roughness coefficient
cross-sectional area, m2
wetted perimeter, m

The use of the above equation to estimate the peak discharge for a flood in which various
characteristics of the flow have been measured is often called the slope-area method. The
hydraulic slope of the river based on field survey is given as follows;
In reality, the value of n is highly variable and depends on a number of factors. The factors that
exert the greatest influence upon the coefficient of roughness include the surface condition,
vegetation, channel irregularity, variation of channel cross-sections and obstruction. Typical n
values that can be used in the project design are given below:

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 35

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
Values of Mannings Roughness Coefficient, n
Floodplains

Range

Pasture, short grass, no brush

0.030 0.035

Cultivated land no crop

0.030 0.040

Cultivated land nature field crops

0.045 0.055

Man-made channels and ditches


Earth, straight and uniform

0.017 0.025

Dredged

0.025 0.033

Lined smooth concrete

0.012 0.018

Lined grouted riprap

0.017 0.030

Asphalt pavement

0.013 0.016

5.10 Box Culvert


A box culvert may be defined as a drainage structure or conveyance structures and are
generally constructed to allow the continuation of a stream flow thorough a roadway.
The design of box culvert requires assessment of the characteristics of the waterway flowing
through it. For this, it is necessary to understand the factors that govern stream runoff, water
surface levels, scour and channel stability and hydrodynamic forces acting on the bridge.
In general, the presence of a box culvert in many locations cause the natural stream channel to
be somewhat constricted. Such case may reduce severely the area through which the water
must pass, particularly when the stream is at flood stage. In such event, the velocity of the water
through the box culvert opening may be considerably increased, with resultant danger to the box
culvert structure through scour at inlet and outlet headwalls, and the elevation of the water
upstream side may be increased subjecting the area above the culvert site to possible flooding.
It is therefore axiomatic that the box culvert must be designed to pass the flow occurring at flood
stage without excessive velocity and without damage to property located above the culvert
crossing.
5.10.1 Existing Box Culvert
Runoff at waterways crossing the roadway comes from intense rainstorms associated with
tropical cyclones or widespread and prolonged heavy rainfall associated with monsoonal
depressions. The hydrological characteristics of the study area is analyzed and estimated
through several approaches and techniques. The Rational Method is used to estimate the
peak runoff of Balante and Halang Creek.
Station

Drainage Area
(sq. km)

Slope
(m/m)

Balante

24+962

11.88

0.01119

Time of
Concentration
(min)
103.09

Halang

25+892

4.55

.00596

98.45

Sites

Flood Level
For the box culvert crossing Marcos Highway, the design flood levels of 5, 10, 25, 50, and
100 year return period were estimated using the HEC-RAS. The cross section at box culvert
site was used to derive the elevation and discharge relationship. Mean bed slope of the
Consultancy Services for the Civil Works
of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 36

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
stream was obtained from the waterways topographic map by scaled measurement of
distances between known spot elevations along the box culvert site survey. In this study, two
(2) cases of hydraulic analysis were performed. Case 1. Balante and Halang Creek was
analyst w/out dredging Balante Creek. Case 2. Balante and Halang Creek was analyst w/
Balante Creek Dredged Downstream. Result of this two case of hydraulic analysis presented
in Table 6.1.1 Flood Level and Depth. Hydraulic Analysis using HEC-RAS is presented in
Annex F.
6. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
6.1. Flood Level and Depth
From the Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis of the LRT Line 2 Project, Several Flood depth ware
obtained. The 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year return period were computed using HEC-RAS 4.0.
The computed maximum Flood level is located in K025+000.
The design of the surface drainage at the built-up areas will basically involve the proper
collection of storm runoff, its conveyance and disposal to the nearest discharge point. Computed
flood level and depth at various locations along Marcos Highway using the two (2) cases of
hydraulic analysis is presented below in Table 6.1.1. Flood Level and Depth. (All units are in
meters).
Table 6.1.1 Flood Level and Depth
CASE 1. WITHOUT DREDGING OF BALANTE CREEK
24+200

24+400
Emerald Station

24+300

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

10.616
10.616
10.616
10.616
10.616

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

-0.25
0.36
0.59
0.76
0.95

10.24
10.24
10.24
10.24
10.24

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.13
0.74
0.97
1.14
1.33

10.10
10.10
10.10
10.10
10.10

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.27
0.88
1.11
1.28
1.47

24+500

24+600

24+700

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.53
1.14
1.37
1.54
1.73

9.76
9.76
9.76
9.76
9.76

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.61
1.22
1.45
1.62
1.81

9.93
9.93
9.93
9.93
9.93

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.44
1.05
1.28
1.45
1.64

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 37

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
24+800
Return
Period
(Yrs.)
5
10
25
50
100

Balante Creek 24+890

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

10.31
10.31
10.31
10.31
10.31

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.06
0.67
0.90
1.07
1.26

10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.00
0.58
0.81
0.98
1.17

10.01
10.01
10.01
10.01
10.01

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.00
0.00
0.00
1.37
1.56

25+100
Return
Period
(Yrs.)
5
10
25
50
100

25+000

25+200

25+300

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

9.77
9.77
9.77
9.77
9.77

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.00
0.00
1.44
1.61
1.80

9.37
9.37
9.37
9.37
9.37

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.00
1.61
1.84
2.01
2.20

9.67
9.67
9.67
9.67
9.67

10.37
10.98
11.21
11.38
11.57

0.00
0.00
1.54
1.71
1.90

25+400

25+500

25+600

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.99
9.99
9.99
9.99
9.99

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00

9.78
9.78
9.78
9.78
9.78

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.01
0.23

9.51
9.51
9.51
9.51
9.51

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.07
0.26
0.50

-0.22
0.02

25+700

Halang Creek (25+790)

25+900

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.03
9.03
9.03
9.03
9.03

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.04
0.30
0.56
0.74
0.98

8.73
8.73
8.73
8.73
8.73

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.34
0.60
0.86
1.05
1.29

8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.18
0.44
0.70
0.89
1.13

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 38

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
26+000

26+100

26+200

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.31
9.31
9.31
9.31
9.31

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.01
0.27
0.46
0.70

9.61
9.61
9.61
9.61
9.61

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.40

9.47
9.47
9.47
9.47
9.47

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.11
0.30
0.54

26+300

26+400

26+500

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.42
9.42
9.42
9.42
9.42

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.16
0.35
0.59

9.51
9.51
9.51
9.51
9.51

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.07
0.26
0.50

9.52
9.52
9.52
9.52
9.52

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.06
0.25
0.49

26+600

26+700

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.39

12.52
12.52
12.52
12.52
12.52

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

CASE 2. WITH DREDGING OF BALANTE CREEK


24+200

24+400
Emerald Station

24+300

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

10.616
10.616
10.616
10.616
10.616

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.304

10.24
10.24
10.24
10.24
10.24

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.68

10.10
10.10
10.10
10.10
10.10

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.82

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 39

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT

24+500

24+600

24+700

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.27
0.68
1.08

9.76
9.76
9.76
9.76
9.76

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.35
0.76
1.16

9.93
9.93
9.93
9.93
9.93

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.18
0.59
0.99

24+800
Return
Period
(Yrs.)
5
10
25
50
100

Balante Creek 24+890

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

10.31
10.31
10.31
10.31
10.31

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.61

10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.52

10.01
10.01
10.01
10.01
10.01

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.51
0.91

25+100
Return
Period
(Yrs.)
5
10
25
50
100

25+200

25+300

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

9.77
9.77
9.77
9.77
9.77

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.34
0.75
1.15

9.37
9.37
9.37
9.37
9.37

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.15
0.74
1.15
1.55

9.67
9.67
9.67
9.67
9.67

9.47
9.52
10.11
10.52
10.92

0.00
0.00
0.44
0.85
1.25

25+400
Return
Period
(Yrs.)
5
10
25
50
100

25+000

25+500

25+600

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

9.99
9.99
9.99
9.99
9.99

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02

9.78
9.78
9.78
9.78
9.78

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23

9.51
9.51
9.51
9.51
9.51

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.07
0.26
0.50

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works


of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 40

HYDROLOGICAL AND DRAINAGE


INVESTIGATION REPORT
25+700

Halang Creek (25+790)

25+900

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.03
9.03
9.03
9.03
9.03

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.04
0.30
0.56
0.74
0.98

8.73
8.73
8.73
8.73
8.73

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.34
0.60
0.86
1.05
1.29

8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.18
0.44
0.70
0.89
1.13

26+000

26+100

26+200

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.31
9.31
9.31
9.31
9.31

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.01
0.27
0.46
0.70

9.61
9.61
9.61
9.61
9.61

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
-0.03
0.16
0.40

9.47
9.47
9.47
9.47
9.47

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.11
0.30
0.54

26+300

26+400

26+500

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.42
9.42
9.42
9.42
9.42

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
-0.10
0.16
0.35
0.59

9.51
9.51
9.51
9.51
9.51

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.07
0.26
0.50

9.52
9.52
9.52
9.52
9.52

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.06
0.25
0.49

26+600

26+700

Return
Period
(Yrs.)

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

Road
Elev.

Flood
Elev.

Flood
Depth

5
10
25
50
100

9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.39

12.52
12.52
12.52
12.52
12.52

9.06
9.32
9.58
9.77
10.01

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

The corresponding Flood Depth Map for the 5-years, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100years return period is shown in Annex G.
6.2 Drainage Along Viaduct and at Grade Surface.
Schedule of Drainage Structures is Presented Annex H.
Consultancy Services for the Civil Works
of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project

Page 41