You are on page 1of 182

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA

Poblacion II, Malinta, Valenzuela City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY


________________________________________________________

One Day Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and Isohyetal Map for National

Capital Region (NCR) & Region III, Philippines

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Presented to the Faculty of the

College of Engineering

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela

Authors’ name:

Castillo, Mc. Lorenz M.

Matorres, John Paul A.

Mondero, Crissalyn Joyce V.

Ngo, Celene Pia J.

March 2018

i
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research study would not be possible without the help of the following persons:

First and foremost, our Heavenly Father, Almighty God for giving the researchers

patience, wisdom and good health to finish the study on time and to compile this

manuscript.

To Engr. Kevin Lawrence De Jesus, for being our external thesis adviser and for

giving us direct criticisms and suggestions that made our study on tract, well and refined.

To Engr. Jordan Velasco, dean of College of Engineering, for encouraging us to

finish this study.

To the staffs of the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical Astronomical Services

Administration (PAGASA) by providing all the meteorological data needed by the

researchers and responding to all the question they have to understand what is implied in

the study.

To the admins, staffs, and all of the people committed to Pamantasan ng Lungsod

ng Valenzuela (PLV) for providing outstanding and high quality facilities needed for fast

fulfillment of the study.

Lastly, to their loving parents and colleagues that never stopped from encouraging

and motivating the researchers physically, mentally, and financially in order to accomplish

this study. It would have been more difficult without them.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS ix

LIST OF EQUATIONS x

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ITS MEANING xii

LIST OF TABLES xiii

LIST OF FIGURES xv

LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX xvi

LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDIX xx

ABSTRACT xxi

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.0 Background of the Study 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem 4

1.2 Objective 5

1.3 Significance of the Study 5

1.4 Scope and Limitations 5

1.5 Conceptual Framework 6

1.6 Definition of Terms 8

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11

2.0 Description of the Study Area 11

2.0.1 Geography and Its Feature 11

iv
2.0.2 Population 14

2.0.3 Climate and Weather 14

2.1 Meteorological Condition and Global Nature of Heavy Precipitation 15

2.2 Concepts of Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) 16

2.3 Methods of PMP Estimation 17

2.3.1 Local Method 17

2.3.2 Transposition Method 17

2.3.3 Combination Method 18

2.3.4 Inferential Method 18

2.3.5 Generalized Method 19

2.3.6 Statistical Method 20

2.4 Data & Statistical Methods of PMP Estimations 20

2.4.1 Sample Size 20

2.4.2 Reconstruction and Estimation of Data 21

2.4.2.1 Station-Average Method 21

2.4.2.2 Normal-Ratio Method 22

2.4.2.3 Isohyetal Method 23

2.4.2.4 Quadrant Method 23

2.4.3 Analysis for Consistency of Records 24

2.4.3.1 Double Mass Curve Analysis 24

2.5 Hershfield Approach for PMP Analysis 25

2.6 Frequency Distribution and Statistical Model Analysis 25

2.6.1 Gumbel Distribution 26

v
2.6.2 Normal Distribution 26

2.6.3 Log Normal Distribution 27

2.6.4 Log Pearson Type III Distribution 27

2.7 Goodness of Fit and Probability Plotting 28

2.7.1 Chi-Square Test 29

2.7.2 Coefficient of Determination 30

2.7.3 Correlation Coefficient 30

2.7.4 Derivation of Return Period 31

2.7.5 Techniques for the Derivations of PMP Contours 31

2.7.5.1 Inverse Distance Weighting 32

2.8 Past Research Work of PMP 32

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 36

3.0 Research Methodology 36

3.1 Data Collection 37

3.2 PMP Estimation 38

3.3 Fitting Data to the Probability Distribution Functions 39

3.3.1 Normal Distribution 39

3.3.2 Log Normal Distribution 40

3.3.3 Log Pearson Type-III Distribution 41

3.3.4 Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I Distribution 42

3.4 Testing the Goodness of Fit of Data to Probability 42

Distribution Functions

3.5 Estimation of Return Period Values for PMP 43

vi
3.6 Construction of PMP Isohyetal Map 44

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 51

4.0 Rainfall Weather Stations 51

4.1 Average Annual Total and Annual Daily Maximum 53

4.2 Consistency Test 54

4.3 Estimation of Maximum Frequency Factor 54

4.4 Estimation of PMP 55

4.5 PMP to Highest Observed Rainfall Ratio 56

4.6 Comparison of the Probability Distribution Functions 57

4.6.1 Normal Probability Distribution Function 57

4.6.2 Log Normal Probability Distribution Function 59

4.6.3 Log Pearson Type-III Probability Distribution Function 59

4.6.4 Gumbel/Evi Probability Function 61

4.7 Testing the Goodness of Fitting of Data to Probability 62

Distribution Functions

4.7.1 Chi-Square Test 62

4.7.2 Correlation Coefficient Test 62

4.7.3 Coefficient of Determination Test 63

4.8 Computation of Pmp Return Period 64

4.8.1 Pmp Return Period Values 64

4.8.2 Estimation of PMP and Depth of Various Years 65

Return Period

4.8.3 Ratios of PMP to Factor of Safety 67

vii
4.9 Construction of PMP Isohyetal Map 68

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION 73

CHAPTER 6. RECOMMENDATIONS 75

REFERENCES 76

APPENDICES 83

Appendix Table 83

Appendix Figure 134

Procedures using Excel 137

LETTER 149

RESUME 150

viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AGROMET Agrometereogical Station

CV Coefficient of Variation

CDF Cumulative Distribution Function

GEV Generalized Extreme Values

GOF Goodness of Fit

FOS Factor of Safety

HOR Highest Observed Rainfall

IDW Inverse Distance Weighting

LPT-III Log Pearson type III

NCR National Capital Region

PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services

Administration

PMF Probable Maximum Flood

PMP Probable Maximum Precipitation

PSA Philippine Statistics Authority

QGIS Quantum Geographical Information System

SYNOP Surface Synoptic Station

WMO World Meteorological Organization

ix
LIST OF EQUATIONS

Equation 2.10 22
Equation 2.11 23
Equation 2.12 23
Equation 2.13 27
Equation 3.10 38
Equation 3.11 38
Equation 3.12 38
Equation 3.13 39
Equation 3.14 39
Equation 3.15 40
Equation 3.16 40
Equation 3.17 40
Equation 3.18 40
Equation 3.19 40
Equation 3.20 41
Equation 3.21 41
Equation 3.22 41
Equation 3.23 41
Equation 3.24 41
Equation 3.25 42
Equation 3.26 42
Equation 3.27 42
Equation 3.28 43
Equation 3.29 43
Equation 3.30 43
Equation 3.31 44

x
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ITS MEANING

X2 Chi-square test

ν Degree of Freedom

α Critical Level

R2 Coefficient of Determination

Oi Observed Rainfall Values

Pi Predicted Rainfall Values

𝑂̅ Mean of Observed Rainfall data

𝑃̅ Mean of Predicted Rainfall data

r Correlation Coefficient

𝐾𝑚 Maximum Frequency Factor

𝑋𝑃𝑀𝑃 PMP Estimation

𝑥̅𝑛 Mean of the Annual Extreme Series

𝑆𝑛 (𝜎) Standard Deviation

𝑋̅ Mean for the Random Variable

𝑌̅ Mean for the Random Variable

𝑥1 Highest Observed Annual Maximum Rainfall

Z Standard Normal Deviate

XT Extreme Value

W Intermediate Variable

𝐶𝑠 Standardized Skew or Coefficient of Skewness

𝑦̅𝑛 Reduced mean of 𝑦𝑛

xi
𝑌𝑇 Reduced Variate

T Return Period

F Cumulative Distributive Function

P Plotting Probability

Fx Log Normal Cumulative Distributive Function

xii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Different Plotting Positions Formula 28

Table 2. Expressions Used to Estimated Parameters of Log Normal Probability 40

Distribution

Table 3. Types of Rainfall Weather Stations in the Philippines 51

Table 4. Listing of PAGASA Synoptic Stations as of July 2017 52

Table 5. Average Annual Total and Annual Daily Maximum 54

Table 6. Derivation of Maximum Frequency Factor (Km) 55

Table 7. Frequency Factor Table for Km 55

Table 8. Derivation of Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) 56

Table 9. Ratio of PMP to HOR 57

Table 10. Standard Normal Deviate (Z) and Its Extreme Values Derived 58

By Normal Distribution for Port Area (MCO), Manila

Table 11. Standard Normal Deviate (Z) and Its Extreme Values Derived 59

By Log Normal Distribution for Port Area (MCO), Manila

Table 12. Standard Normal Deviate (Z) and Its Extreme Values Derived 60

By Log Pearson Distribution for Port Area (MCO), Manila

Table 13. Computation of Extreme Values Using Gumbel 61

for Port Area (MCO), Manila

Table 14. Results of Testing the Good of Fit of Data to Probability 63

Distribution Functions for Port Area (MCO), Manila

Table 15. Summary of GOF for Stations 64

xiii
Table 16. Annual Exceedence and Return Periods 65

Table 17. Rainfall Depths (mm) for Various Years of Return Period 66

Table 18. Ratio of PMP to Various Years of Return Period (FOS) 67

xiv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework 7

Figure 2. Boundaries of NCR 12

Figure 3. Boundaries of Region III 13

Figure 4. Distribution of Selected Rainfall Weather

Stations in NCR & Region III 53

Figure 5. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for

NCR and Region III (30 mm contour interval) 69

Figure 6. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for

NCR and Region III (5mm contour interval) 70

Figure 7. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for Region III 71

Figure 8. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for NCR 72

xv
LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX

Appendix Table 1. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2001) 83

Appendix Table 2. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2002) 83

Appendix Table 3. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2003) 84

Appendix Table 4. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2004) 84

Appendix Table 5. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2005) 85

Appendix Table 6. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2006) 85

Appendix Table 7. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2007) 86

Appendix Table 8. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2008) 86

Appendix Table 9. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2009) 87

Appendix Table 10. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2010) 87

Appendix Table 11. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2001) 88

Appendix Table 12. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2002) 88

Appendix Table 13. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2003) 89

Appendix Table 14. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2004) 89

Appendix Table 15. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2005) 90

Appendix Table 16. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2006) 90

Appendix Table 17. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2007) 91

Appendix Table 18. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2008) 91

Appendix Table 19. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2009) 92

Appendix Table 20. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2010) 92

Appendix Table 21. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2001) 93

Appendix Table 22. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2002) 93

xvi
Appendix Table 23. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2003) 94

Appendix Table 24. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2004) 94

Appendix Table 25. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2005) 95

Appendix Table 26. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2006) 95

Appendix Table 27. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2007) 96

Appendix Table 28. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2008) 96

Appendix Table 29. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2009) 97

Appendix Table 30. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2010) 97

Appendix Table 31. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2001) 98

Appendix Table 32. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2002) 98

Appendix Table 33. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2003) 99

Appendix Table 34. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2004) 99

Appendix Table 35. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2005) 100

Appendix Table 36. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2006) 100

Appendix Table 37. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2007) 101

Appendix Table 38. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2008) 101

Appendix Table 39. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2009) 102

Appendix Table 40. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2010) 102

Appendix Table 41. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2001) 103

Appendix Table 42. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2002) 103

Appendix Table 43. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2003) 104

Appendix Table 44. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2004) 104

Appendix Table 45. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2005) 105

xvii
Appendix Table 46. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2006) 105

Appendix Table 47. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2007) 106

Appendix Table 48. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2008) 106

Appendix Table 49. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2009) 107

Appendix Table 50. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2010) 107

Appendix Table 51. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2001) 108

Appendix Table 52. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2002) 108

Appendix Table 53. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2003) 109

Appendix Table 54. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2004) 109

Appendix Table 55. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2005) 110

Appendix Table 56. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2006) 110

Appendix Table 57. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2007) 111

Appendix Table 58. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2008) 111

Appendix Table 59. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2009) 112

Appendix Table 60. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2010) 112

Appendix Table 61. Normal Distribution of Iba Zambales Station 113

Appendix Table 62. Normal Distribution of Science Garden Station 113

Appendix Table 63. Normal Distribution of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station 114

Appendix Table 64. Normal Distribution of CIAC Station 114

Appendix Table 65. Normal Distribution of Cabanatuan Station 115

Appendix Table 66. Log Normal Distribution of Iba Zambales Station 115

Appendix Table 67. Log Normal Distribution of Science Garden Station 116

Appendix Table 68. Log Normal Distribution of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station 116

xviii
Appendix Table 69. Log Normal Distribution of CIAC Station 117

Appendix Table 70. Log Normal Distribution of Cabanatuan Station 117

Appendix Table 71. Log Pearson Type III of Iba Zambales Station 118

Appendix Table 72. Log Pearson Type III of Science Garden Station 118

Appendix Table 73. Log Pearson Type III of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station 119

Appendix Table 74. Log Pearson Type III of CIAC Station 119

Appendix Table 75. Log Pearson Type III of Cabanatuan Station 120

Appendix Table 76. Gumbel of Iba Zambales Station 120

Appendix Table 77. Gumbel of Science Garden Station 121

Appendix Table 78. Gumbel of Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station 121

Appendix Table 79. Gumbel of CIAC Station 122

Appendix Table 80. Gumbel of Cabanatuan Station 122

Appendix Table 81. Goodness of Fit Probability for Iba Zambales Station 123

Appendix Table 82. Goodness of Fit Probability for Science Garden Station 124

Appendix Table 83. Goodness of Fit Probability for Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station 125

Appendix Table 84. Goodness of Fit Probability for CIAC Station 126

Appendix Table 85. Goodness of Fit Probability for Cabanatuan Station 127

Appendix Table 86. Double Mass Curve for Iba Zambales Station 128

Appendix Table 87. Double Mass Curve for Science Garden Station 129

Appendix Table 88. Double Mass Curve for Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station 130

Appendix Table 89. Double Mass Curve for CIAC Station 131

Appendix Table 90. Double Mass Curve for Cabanatuan Station 132

Appendix Table 91. Double Mass Curve for Port Area Station 133

xix
LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDIX

Appendix Figure 1. Double Mass Curve for Iba, Zambales 134

Appendix Figure 2. Double Mass Curve for Science Garden 134

Appendix Figure 3. Double Mass Curve for Cubi Pt., Subic Bay 135

Appendix Figure 4. Double Mass Curve for CIAC 135

Appendix Figure 5. Double Mass Curve for Cabanatuan 136

Appendix Figure 6. Double Mass Curve for Port Area 136

xx
ABSTRACT

Philippines had severely suffered from natural disasters such as floods, landslides
and earthquakes and most common of them is flood. Because of extensive variety of
precipitation, and extreme floods, the study of one day Probable Maximum Precipitation
(PMP) for the regions of NCR & Region III is necessary. The objectives of this study were
to develop one day PMP and their return periods for selected stations, to identify best fit
probability distribution function for the stations and to develop one day PMP isohyetal map
for the study area. The researchers had only selected one type of rainfall weather station
for this study wherein the synoptic weather station.

The annual daily extreme rainfall series of 6 stations (2 from NCR and 4 from
Region III) were subjected to statistical analysis using Hershfield technique adapted
version of Chow. Double mass curve was used to check the consistency of the data, in
accordance, there were a little slope changes that were not significant. Maximum frequency
factor (Km) of each station were computed and station at Science Garden got the extremely
high Km value of 7.36. It was found that the PMP vary from 170.98 mm (Nueva Ecija
station) to 957.62 mm (Science Garden station) with an average of 370.40mm and the ratio
of one-day PMP to highest observed rainfall varied from 1.54 (Zambales station) to 2.10
(Science Garden station) with an average of 1.26. Different probability distribution
functions were used to predict extreme daily rainfall for each station. Normal, log normal,
log Pearson type III and Gumbel probability distribution functions were used and the
predicted values were subjected to three goodness of fit tests such as chi-square (x2),
correlation coefficient (r) and coefficient of determination (R2) tests to assess how best the
fits had been. It is concluded that the log normal distribution is the best fit for this series of
data (66.67%) and Gumbel performed second (33.33%). PMP estimates for one-day
durations using Log Normal had an average return period 17 years. The depth of one-day
PMP to rainfall depth for frequencies return period of 5, 10, 50, 100, 1000 and 10000 year
floods had been estimated and found to vary from 135.33 mm to 817.43 mm. The predicted
PMP value to depths of various years return period ratios were computed and found to vary
from 0.4755 (at 10000 years) to 4.2145 (at 5 years). Accordingly, estimated PMP values
for the 100, 1000 and 10000 years are uncertain, but reasonable for return periods of 10
and 50 years for designing of hydraulic structures. However, the use of PMP for 5 years of
return periods for hydraulic structures will be stable but costly.

Isohyetal map over the regions was generated by the use of QGIS software, IDW
interpolation approach and the PMP isohyetal lines were varying from 331 mm to 496mm,
at contour interval of 30 mm. The PMP Isohyetal Map generated shows that area along the
Science Garden station in Quezon City accumulated the highest observed rainfall with a
value of 957.62 mm and decreasing both North-East and South-West direction.

xxi
Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Water is an essential part of our planet's biosphere, but it is possible to have too

much of a good thing. Too much water in same place and same time will spell disaster for

millions of people living or having a property far from high ground. Due to this, analyzing

hydrologic design and risk requires enough assessment on extreme weather events that is

essential to the said task (Macklin, et al., 1999).

In the past years, Philippines has been facing extreme typhoons that has been

causing huge amount of precipitation resulting to flood especially in the affected areas.

Natural phenomena that usually occurs are floods, rainstorms, droughts, and high winds

that have immediate impact that includes loss of human life, damage to property,

destruction of crops, loss of livestock, and deterioration of human health. As the

infrastructures are concerned, disruptions to communication, supplies of electricity and

clean water, damaged roads and bridges, and huge loss in agriculture and ecology took

place (What Are the Consequences of Floods? | Office of the Queensland Chief Scientist.

Retrieved from www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-floods/flood-

consequences). Thus, the key on having an effective planning approach of constructing

engineering structures, pollution control, reservoir management and insurance relies on

risk calculation based on the amount of frequencies of the said events (Einfait, et al., 1998).

Philippine climate is tropical and maritime. It is characterized by relatively high

temperature, high humidity and abundant rainfall. It is similar in many aspects to the

1
climate in Central America. Temperature, humidity, and rainfall has been regularly

monitored and forecasted by the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical

Services Administration (PAGASA) (Climatology and Agrometeorology. Retrieved from

www1.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/index.php/27-climatology-and-agrometeorology).

Using temperature and rainfall bases, Philippines rainy season happens from June

to November where kind of flood like flash flood and river floods are usually present.

Several factors such as rainfall intensity and duration plays an important role in having a

flash flood (Richards, 1999). These floods that happen with such great force can create

catastrophic damages to human life and properties (Greenough et al, 2001). Flashflood

occurs in the different parts of the Philippines at all times. As a sample of these kind of

events, the Philippines encountered a two week stretch of 1972 heavy rain in Luzon known

as “Great Flood in 1972.” Flood waters of Pampanga and Agno River submerged most part

of Central Luzon (PDC, 1975), cities in Pasig, Pateros, Marikina, and Napindan (Taguig)

by flood after continuous rains making more than 900 families and 26 secondary roads

swamped. Another event according to PAGASA, the typhoon with international name

“Ketsana” known as “Bagyong Ondoy” in the Philippines, happened last September 26,

2009 poured about 455 mm of rain in Manila for six hours straight that left massive flood

in the said area and the amount of rainfall it poured were determined to be equivalent to

months of average rainfall in Manila. In addition, flood made by super typhoon “Reming”

affected 3.5 million people in Bicol area that left more than 700 people killed, 700

misplaced, and 2600 injured (NDRRMC, 2017). Because of such events stated, it led

various studies to prioritize mitigation of flood in each region.

2
National Capital Region (NCR) known as Metro Manila, one of the three defined

metropolitan areas as defined by the National Economic and Development Authority

(NEDA), and Region III known as Central Luzon, the most abundant source of water in

the Luzon, both show the need of mitigation of flood.

With the Philippine economy on a sustained growth track, pushing development

outside the capital has become a national priority as Metro Manila is now bursting at the

seams that makes development on Central Luzon becomes necessary.

For future developments and advancement of these regions, studies of one-day

Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) over a region or a catchment area are essential.

The estimation of PMP, together with its spatial and temporal distributions, is essential for

calculating Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for the safe design of dams, and for planning

flood disaster mitigation and preparedness measures. Specifically, it is used in the design

of spillway of dams that will minimize the risk of overtopping of a dam, which generally

leads to loss of life and damage to property. Hence, knowledge on extreme rainfall events

and PMP would be the basis in engineering practices for designing hydraulic structures and

set up measures for reducing the impact of the disaster (Chow, V. T., 1952).

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO, 1986) defines the probable

maximum precipitation PMP as “the greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration

that is physically possible over a given size storm area at a particular geographical location

at a certain time of year.” There are different methods that can be used to estimate PMP

but as for the researchers, statistical analysis of extreme rainfalls was made.

Considering the importance of the issue, an attempt will be made to estimate one

point PMP and to generate the corresponding Isohyetal Map that is often needed for proper

3
planning, management, assessment and designing of different types of water resource

structures and conservation projects.

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Philippines throughout the years encountering various storms and flash floods as

the outcome, development and assessment of hydraulic structures are important. Research

of one-day PMP over a district or a catchment territory are fundamental for the arranging

and outlining of hydraulic structures. Thus, information on outrageous precipitation

occasions and PMP would be the premise for designing hydraulic structures in engineering

practices and set up measures for decreasing the effect of the catastrophe. In this way, to

conquer the restrictions of frequency based storm in the local state, estimation of one-day

PMP and the comparing Isohyetal Map for the design rainfall inputs for figuring PMF were

made.

The data obtained may give preparatory premise to planning of hydrologic

structures to limit the harms of hydraulic structures and the resulting loss of properties

because of the deterioration or overtopping of the structures under surge conditions. This

study may also be useful in the assessment of the existing structures.

Understanding the significance of the issue in the regions, an attempt will be made

to evaluate one point PMP and to generate an Isohyetal Map of the regions, which is

frequently required for appropriate arranging, administration, and planning of various sorts

of water asset and conservation projects.

4
1.2 OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to construct a one day PMP and Isohyetal Map for

NCR and Region III, Philippines. The following objectives were set in order to achieve the

aim of the study:

i. To estimate one day point PMP and their return periods for selected rainfall

weather stations

ii. To identify best fit probability distribution function for NCR and Region III

iii. To construct one day PMP Isohyetal Map for NCR & Region III

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to serve as an initial basis for the improvement of

different engineering practices in terms of designing and assessing hydraulic structures

such as dams, reservoir, basis and catchments to minimize damages and the collateral loss

of properties considering the weather and flood conditions in the Philippines by means of

formulating a one-day PMP and to generate an Isohyetal Map in order to estimate the

possible maximum rainfall in the cities of NCR and Region III (Central Luzon Region) at

a certain time or for a stated period.

1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

This research’s objective is to construct a one day PMP and Isohyetal Map of NCR

and Region III of the Philippines. It may be noted that an estimate of PMP for any location

in the Philippines is not yet available and is limited to the regions stated. It is the purpose

5
of this paper to present such an estimate in the future. Hence, the researchers will not be

discussing the full usage of PMP but rather estimating PMP for future references.

The researchers will only select one type of rainfall weather station for the study.

Available data given by the PAGASA will be utilized for the completion of this study.

Rainfall data from the year 2001 until 2010 were analyzed by the researchers due to the

availability of the said data. Daily maximum rainfall was selected for each station and an

array of annual daily maximum values of rainfall was formed.

1.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A conceptual framework serves as an organizing device with flow charts and

context in order to formulate a conceptual variation and organize objectives that will be

used as a guide to be followed throughout the study. It is also used as an abstract

representation connected to the collection and analysis of data that will help the readers to

understand more about the significance and research problem of the study.

6
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
A. Selection of rainfall weather
A. List of ff. stations to be analyzed
information for B. Computation of Average Annual
rainfall weather Total and Annual Daily
stations within Maximum of every station
NCR & Region C. Consistency Test on data
III D. Estimation of Maximum
i. Number of Frequency Factor (Km) 1.Probable Maximum
rainfall weather E. PMP Estimation Precipitation
stations F. Comparison of the Probability
ii.Weather Station Distribution Functions 2.Ratio of PMP to
Profile i. Normal HOR
 Elevations ii. Log Normal
and iii. Log Pearson Type-III
3.PMP Return Period
coordinates iv. Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I
 Years of G. Testing the Goodness of Fit
(GOF) of Data to Probability 4.Isohyetal Map of 24
record
Distribution Functions hr PMP for NCR &
B. Rainfall Data i. Chi-square Test Region III
i. Daily ii. Correlation Coefficient test
Maximum iii. Coefficient of Determination
Rainfall Test
ii.Annual H. Computation of PMP Return
Maximum Period
Rainfall I. Construction of PMP Isohyetal
Map

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

7
1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS

 Annual Daily Maximum - the amount of highest observed rainfall for 24 hrs in a

whole year. (Chow, 1988)

 Catastrophic - is a phenomenon that can occur due to continuous rainfall that is

very harmful or disastrous. (Merriam Dictionary, 2018)

 Catchment area - an area characterized by all runoff being conveyed to the same

outlet. (Webster Dictionary, 2018)

 Contour line - a line on a map joining points of equal height above or below sea

level. (Merriam Dictionary, 2018)

 Disaster Mitigation - the action of lessening the severity or intensity and

probability of disaster. (Public Safety Canada, 2015)

 Duration - the period of time that a storm or rainfall last. (Merriam Dictionary,

2018)

 Elevation - distance of something above a reference point (such as sea level).

(Merriam Dictionary, 2018)

 Flood - the overflowing of rain water in a particular area due to continuous rainfall.

(Webster Dictionary, 2018)

 Forecast - a prediction about how something (as the weather) will develop.

(Merriam Dictionary, 2018)

 Geocoding - is the process of converting addresses (like a street address) into

geographic coordinates (like latitude and longitude), which you can use to place

markers on a map, or position the map. (GISLounge, 2015)

8
 High humidity - define as a high percentage of moisture in the air. (Webster

Dictionary, 2018)

 Isohyetal Map - is a map depicting contours of equal precipitation amounts

recorded during a specific time period. (Glossary of Meteorological Terms, 2015)

 Precipitation - the quantity of water falling to earth at a specific place within a

specified period of time. (Webster Dictionary, 2018)

 Probability distribution - a function of a discrete variable who’s integral over

any interval is the probability that the random variable specified by it will lie

within that interval. (Webster Dictionary, 2018)

 Probability of exceedence - The probability of a given rainfall total accumulated

over a given duration will be exceeded in any one year. (LGAM, 2018)

 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) - define as the greatest depth of

precipitation for a given duration meteorologically possible for a given size storm

area at a particular location at a particular time of year, with no allowance made for

long-time climatic trends. (Hurstville LGA Overland Flood Study, 2018)

 Rainfall Intensity - is a value expressing rainfall in terms of inches per hour used

in hydraulic calculations. The term “one inch per hour of rainfall” equals

approximately one cubic foot per second per acre. (Texas Department of

Transportation Glossary, 2013)

 Return Period - also known as a recurrence interval (sometimes repeat interval)

is an estimate of the likelihood of an event, such as an earthquake, flood,

landslide, or a river discharge flow to occur. (Merriam Dictionary, 2018)

9
 Spatial Analysis - The process of examining the locations, attributes, and

relationships of features in spatial data through overlay and other analytical

techniques in order to address a question or gain useful knowledge. (Esri, 2018)

10
Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The significance of literature review was to establish a theoretical framework for

the Construction of One Day Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and Isohyetal Map

through journals, references, internet and articles. The information provided was related to

the aim and objectives of this study. This chapter discusses on the description of the study

area, weather stations, probable maximum precipitation and other related studies that is

useful in the completion of this research.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

The following presents a description of the study area characteristics in terms of

geography, population, climate and weather.

2.0.1 GEOGRAPHY AND ITS FEATURE

Standing about N 14O 33’ 41.7298” latitude and E 121O 2’ 0.636” longitude and

comprising of 16 cities and one municipality, the National Capital Region is the only region

in the country that has no province. Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas, Valenzuela, Quezon

City, Marikina, Pasig, Taguig, Makati, Manila, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Pasay, Parañaque,

Las Piñas and Muntinlupa are the 16 cities included in this region, while Pateros is the only

lone municipality in the region. Governed by the Mayor of each cities it has 17 Local

Government Unit (LGU’s) and one municipality in Metro Manila. The extends of the

boundaries of Metro Manila lies in Bulacan in the North, Rizal to the east, Cavite to the

11
south-west and Laguna to the South while Manila Bay lies to the west and Laguna de Bay

to the south-east.

Figure 2. Boundaries of NCR

Metro Manila are subdivided into four zones: Coastal Margin (including reclaimed

areas in Manila Bay), the Guadalupe Plateau, the Marikina Valley, and the Laguna

Lowlands based on geographical features. 69% of the region rests on Guadalupe Plateau

and Marikina Valley which lies on high elevation and solid geographical foundations. The

remaining 31% are flood-prone areas that rests on so-called Coastal Margin and Laguna

Lowlands. Manila, Navotas, Malabon and parts of Caloocan are cities that are prone to

floods. Land subsidence and rising sea levels are some cause of floods in the following

areas particularly in Navotas and Malabon City. The eastern part experiences heavy flood

damage like in towns in Pasig City, Marikina City, Municipality of Pateros and Taguig

City caused by overflow of Pasig and Marikina rivers.

12
Figure 3. Boundaries of Region III

The Central Luzon also known as the Rice Granary of the Philippines comprised of

mountains, dormant and active volcanoes, lush, verdant farmlands and natural sea harbors.

It lies between North Luzon and Metro Manila. It has seven (7) provinces, twelve (12)

cities, one hundred eighteen (118) municipalities. The seven of which includes Aurora,

Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales while the twelve cities are

Balanga, Bataan; Malolos and San Jose del Monte from Bulacan; Cabanatuan, Gapan,

Munoz, and San Jose from Nueva Ecija; Angeles and San Fernando from Pampanga;

Tarlac, Tarlac; and Olongapo, Zambales. It bounds all area of Manila Bay to the north

down to the tip of Bataan Peninsula to the west and to the east are the lands north of

Caraballo Mountain. It is the longest contiguous area of lowlands so it otherwise known as

the Central Plain of Luzon.

13
2.0.2 POPULATION

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), Population Censuses, the

total population of NCR is 11.86 Million with an average growth rate of 1.78. The NCR

itself contributes about 13% of the entire country population.

The seven (7) most populated barangay mostly lie in Quezon City (Commonwealth,

Batasan Hills, Payatas and Holy Spirit) while Barangay 176 in Caloocan with almost 244

thousand people rank number one.

On the other hand, the Central Luzon has the highest urban population ratio of

(60.3%) to the total population, approximately 9,793,184.

There are three areas of urban population concentration: (a) areas in Bulacan along

highways leading from Metro Manila; (b) San Fernando-Angeles City-Mabalacat corridor

area; (c) Subic-Dinalupihan area. The total urban population in these areas is over 2

million, over half of the total urban population in Central Luzon.

Human resources in the region are better prepared in terms of a higher participation

rate at the primary and secondary levels of education. The participation rate of Central

Luzon is 94.2% and 86.1%, respectively, as compared to the national average of 85.7%

and 66.1% in SY 1992-93. There are comparatively more non-government organizations,

cooperatives and people’s organizations in the region.

2.0.3 CLIMATE AND WEATHER

NCR includes a tropical wet and dry climate that outskirts on a tropical monsoon

climate. Together with the rest of the Philippines, Manila lies entirely within the tropics.

Its vicinity to the equator implies that the temperature extend is little, rarely going lower

14
than 20oC and going higher than 38oC. Be that as it may, dampness levels are typically

high which influences it to feel significantly hotter. It has a particular, yet generally short

dry season from January through April, and moderately lengthy wet season from May

through December.

For the Region III November to April is generally dry while wet for the rest of the

year. The northeast monsoon ‘amihan’ prevails from October to January bringing in

moderated and light rains. From May to September the southwest monsoon ‘habagat’. The

hottest month is May having an average temperature of 29.7 C (85.5 F) while the coldest

is February with an average temperature of 25.1 C (77.2 F).

2.1 METEOROLOGICAL CONDITION AND GLOBAL NATURE OF HEAVY

PRECIPITATION

Modern meteorological research on extreme precipitation and flash floods is

closely tied to specific deadly and destructive events. Extreme precipitation resulting to

high trends of rainfall intensities are caused by complex and complimentary scale

interaction that turn out to be a major problem for estimating rainfall forecast (Dairaku et

al., 2004). The occurrences of rain of heavy rainfall events and zones is established by

rainfall durations and rate that varies in nature spatially and temporally and also rainfall

properties that are associated with broadly distinct climate. Topography, characteristics of

the land surface, and human changes to the landscape all of which predict whether a flood

happens with a given amount of rain are highly variable, even over a limited geographic

region (Schumacher 2017). Also several factors that can identified rainfall factors and

intensities, likewise rapid inflows of moisture-laden air, large rate of decrease of cloud

15
moisture content and small intra-storm evaporative losses during droplet descent to the

surface that will be further inclined by meteorological and regional variation such as local

land surface properties including topography (Smith et al., 2001).

Various research studies have different description for rainfall rates. For instance,

the description of Pawlina (2002), Laakso et al. (2003) and Dairaku et al. (2004) defines

that the rainfall greater than 5mm/hr. are ‘strong’, like in accordance, to the study made by

Tokay and Short (1996) describe exceeding values of rainfall rates of 5mm are denoted as

‘heavy’ and rainfall rates of above 20mm/hr. as ‘extreme’. Also the dividing line for strati

form to convective rains are termed as “heavy rains” are about 5-10mm/hr. rain rates then

rain rates of 5-2mm/hr., 2-1mm/hr. and less than 1mm/hr are termed as ‘moderate’, ‘light’

and ‘very light’ accordingly hence the global average rainfall lies in between 2-3 mm/hr.

(Chui and Chang, 2001). The average depth in individual event may be 20-50 times as

global mean daily rainfall amount. Thus, the major challenge faced is not just estimating

the occurrence of rainfall but also forecasting the quantitative precipitation of rainfall

duration and intensity.

2.2 CONCEPTS OF PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION (PMP)

PMP is one of the conceptual paradigm that used various hydrological practices

and derives the magnitude of extreme precipitation and storm. There are six currently

existing methods in computing PMP in accordance to Manual Estimation of Probable

Maximum Precipitation (WMO, 2009). The six methods includes: Empirical relationships

between variables in a particular valley, Statistical methods, Storm model approach,

16
Maximization and transposition of actual storms, Use of generalized data and theoretical

or empirical methods derived from maximum depth, duration, and area observations.

2.3 METHODS OF PMP ESTIMATION

According to Manual on Estimation of Probable Maximum Precipitation (WMO,

2009), there are six methods of PMP estimation currently used named as follows:

(a) The local method (local storm maximization or local model);

(b) The transposition method (storm transposition or transposition model);

(c) The combination method (temporal and spatial maximization of storm or storm

combination or combination model);

(d) The inferential method (theoretical model or ratiocination model);

(e) The generalized method (generalized estimation);

(f) The statistical method (statistical estimation).

2.3.1 LOCAL METHOD

PMP is estimated according to the maximum storm of the observed data in the

design watershed or specific location. This method is applicable where there are several

years of observed data. (WMO, 2009)

2.3.2 TRANSPOSITION METHOD

In this method an extraordinarily large storm in the adjacent area is transposed to

the design area or the location to be studied. The work focuses on two aspects. The first is

to ascertain the storm transposition probability, which can be done in three ways:

17
(a) By determining the meteorologically homogeneous zone, studying the possible

transposition range of the storm and carrying out a detailed analysis of the design watershed

conditions;

(b) By making a variety of adjustments for the transposed storm, based on the

differences in geographic and topographic conditions between the original storm

occurrence area and the design area. This method, which is widely applied, is used for

design areas where high efficiency storms are rare. (WMO, 2009)

2.3.3 COMBINATION METHOD

This method reasonably combines two or more storms in a local area, based on

principles of synoptic meteorology and experience of synoptic forecasting, in order to form

a sequence of artificial storms with a long duration. The work focuses on selection of

combinations, determination of combination schemes and reasonable demonstration of

combination sequences. This method is applicable for deriving PMP/PMF in large

watersheds with long durations, and requires strong meteorological knowledge. (WMO,

2009)

2.3.4 INFERENTIAL METHOD

The inferential method generalizes the 3-D spatial structure of a storm weather

system in the design area to create a simplified physical storm equation for the main

physical factor that influences the storms. According to the available wind field data, the

method uses either a convergence model or a laminar model. In the convergence model, it

is assumed that the inflow of storm moisture converges to the centre from all sides and

18
rises to create an event. In the laminar model, it is assumed that the inflow of storm

moisture crawls along an inclining surface in a laminar fashion and rises to create an event.

This method, requiring strong available observation data of upper meteorology in the

design area, is applicable for watersheds with an area of hundreds to thousands of square

kilometres. (WMO, 2009)

2.3.5 GENERALIZED METHOD

The generalized method is used to estimate PMP for a large, meteorologically

homogeneous zone. The procedure involves grouping the observed rainfall of a storm into

convergence and orographic rainfall. Convergence rain, which is the rainfall created

through atmospheric convergence and rising induced by a passing weather system, is

assumed to occur anywhere in meteorologically homogeneous zones. Orographic rain is

the rainfall created through orographic rising. The generalization method uses convergence

rainfall and the main results are as follows:

(a) PMP depth, which is shown as a generalized depth– area–duration (DAD) curve

(produced via storm transposition);

(b) PMP spatial distribution, which is a group of concentric ellipses generalized

from isohyets;

(c) PMP temporal distribution, which is a single peak map of a generalized

hyetograph. This method requires a large amount of long-term data obtained by rainfall

self-recorders in the study area. This is a time-consuming and expensive process. However,

the method can lead to high accuracy and easy application of PMP results. This method is

19
applicable to watersheds under 13 000 km2 in orographic regions and 52 000 km2 in

non‑orographic regions, and rainfall durations of 72 hours or less. (WMO, 2009)

2.3.6 STATISTICAL METHOD

The statistical method was proposed by Hershfield of the United States. PMP is

derived from data from numerous gauge stations in a meteorologically homogeneous zone,

using the hydrological frequency analysis method together with the regional generalized

method. The procedure differs from the traditional frequency analysis method, resulting in

different physical connotations (Wang G., 2004). This method is mainly applicable for

watersheds with a collecting area under 1 000 square km. (WMO, 2009)

2.4 DATA & STATISTICAL METHODS OF PMP ESTIMATIONS

Utilizing of sufficient example and complete homogeneous information is desirable

for better exactness and precision of results in a statistical analysis. Before grasping on

statistical analysis, one should first consider the quality, adequacy and homogeneity of the

sample. Issues of fulfillment and homogeneity of the example in extreme precipitation

investigation can be fill first by separating the daily annual extreme arrangement and

recognizing and evaluating the missed year's information, and testing the consistency of

record lastly recreating the data for any gaps and irregularity of records (Chow et al., 1988).

2.4.1 SAMPLE SIZE

Hypothetically the example measure as little as ten years have no significant in

estimation of the probability of exceedence of a variate when contrasted with the parent

20
distribution, however in actual cases this little size (few of ten years) can't give adequate

experimental way to deal with inclining toward the best fit appropriation (Koutsoyiannis,

2004).

The annual maximum would be separate from day by day spans if no less than 50%

of the months in the allotted wet season and no less than half of the data for the aggregated

period were available. The highest value every year is remove as the annual maximum for

that specific year. Furthermore, for one-day if all the days in the month were missing or if

over 10 days of the month missing and the extreme precipitation for that month were zero

that month would be set to missing. On the other hand, if over 15 days were missing and

the most extreme for the 10 month was under 30% of the normal one-day greatest

precipitation for that month over the time of record at that station, that month would be

likewise set to missing (NOAA, 2006).

2.4.2 RECONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATION OF DATA

According to (Chow et al., 1988) there are some number of methods that can be

used in order to determine the gaps and missing data of the following stations, such as

station average method, the normal ratio method, the isohyetal method and the quadrant

method that is significant in creating the daily annual extreme rainfall data especially for

the irregularities of the stations.

2.4.2.1 STATION-AVERAGE METHOD

The station-average method is considered as one of the simplest method in

approximating average rainfall in order to determine the missing data by calculating the

21
arithmetic mean of the recorded rainfall and the overall number of gauges. Station-average

method is quite conceptually simple but may not be that accurate because it is only suitable

for uniform rainfall only.

(2.10)

Where,

Pi – the rainfall catching at gauge station i

ni – number of stations

2.4.2.2 NORMAL-RATIO METHOD

The station-average method and normal-ratio method both conceptually simple, but

according to (Chow et al., 1988) the normal-ratio method calculate the average annual

catch with the use of the amount of rainfall depth for every stations using the general

formula below. Both methods will provide a nearly similar value of missing data if the

value of normal annual precipitation of the index stations is measured less than 10%,

however, there are some factors that causes the difference of missing data between the two

methods such as the huge difference between elevations or the annual variability of the

region was high while the average annual rainfall is low or vice-versa that leads the value

of normal annual precipitation to exceeds more than 10%, that is when the normal-ratio

method shall govern and be used in the computation of missing data (Viessman and Lewis,

1996).

22
(2.11)

Pi – rainfall at gauge i

Wi – the weight factor for the rainfall depth Pi

(2.12)

Where,

Ai – the average annual normal catch at gauge i

Ax – the average annual catch at station x

n – the number of stations

2.4.2.3 ISOHYETAL METHOD

According to (Chow et al., 1988) the coordinates of the gauges will be used in order

to plotted the gauge locations on the map. The catch will be estimated by interpolating the

amount of rainfall measured between every stations at a selected interval, and finally,

compute the amount of aerial rainfall using the area bounded by the connecting lines of

every gauges.

2.4.2.4 QUADRANT METHOD

The quadrant method is another method that can be used to determine the missing

rainfall data recorded. The coordinates of the station with missing data serves as a center

point for the quadrant method where the region is divided into four quadrants using north,

23
south, and east-west lines that will intersect in the center point of the station with missing

data. The distances between other stations that is closest to the station with missing data

and the center point of the quadrant is computed with the use of Cartesian plane coordinate

system to estimate an independent value of rainfall. The quadrant method uses the function

of the reciprocal of the square of the distances between the closest stations and the center

point of the quadrant in order to estimate the weight of the rainfall depth which are not that

reliable and accurate and consumes a lot of time and effort (Chow et al,. 1988).

2.4.3 ANALYSIS FOR CONSISTENCY OF RECORDS

Mass curve analysis and the graphical regression are some of the simplest and

common methods available to test for the homogeneity of records.

2.4.3.1 DOUBLE MASS CURVE ANALYSIS

The strategies for applying the double-mass curve technique to hydrologic data and

the way the outcomes are used vary somewhat with the type of data being analyze. In this

way, the use of the double-mass curve to records of precipitation, runoff, sediment, and

precipitation-runoff are treated separately in this manual despite the fact that this requires

some redundancy. (Searchy and Hardison, 1960)

In double mass curve analysis the data is plotted with y-axis is accumulated total

for the station to be considered and the x-axis is an accumulated average total based on all

the stations which presumed to be homogenous. By adding progressive values, it is

accepted that the arbitrary mistake will tend to cancel each other while the straight

relationship is fortified by redundancy. Noteworthy change in the slope or pattern the

24
subsequent line is a sign as to breaks in homogeneity (Shahn, 2002). An adjustment in

slope may happen simply by chance, in this way, it is prudent corroborate apparent breaks

by persistent well- defined period of at least five years and by historical authentic proof of

progress. It ought to be noted too that proportionality changes may happen more than once

during the time of record and holds on for important time (Hamed, 2000).

2.5 HERSHFIELD APPROACH FOR PMP ANALYSIS

According to Dhar (1969), Kamt (1971) and Rakhecha et al. (1992) Hershfield

approach is widely used in India leading the estimation of one day PMP for stations

throughout the country. The method is considered as one of the most common statistical

approach in estimating PMP which requires a set of maximum annual daily and highest

observed rainfall data together with the coordinates of every stations in order to calculate

the frequency factor (Km) and its rainfall return period.

2.6 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AND STATISTICAL MODEL ANALYSIS

Because rainfall are unpredictable and varies with time space, one of the best tool

that can estimate the return period is by using several probability distributions (Bhaka et

al., 2006). Hydrologic variables, parameters or data requires uses statistical analysis that

are distinct observations or data points be independent of each other, and that the data be

representative of a large and unbiased population of hydrologic data.

Knowing the appropriate and suitable probability distribution is the first step to

analyze frequency of precipitation for demonstrating depth for inspecting extremes

(Gerezihier, 2013). Rainfall frequency analysis has several probability distribution some

25
of the commonly used distribution includes: Gumbel distribution, log-Pearson type-III

distributions, Log Normal distribution and Normal distribution (Pathak, 2001).

2.6.1 GUMBEL DISTRIBUTION

In probability theory and statistics, the Gumbel distribution (Generalized Extreme

Value distribution Type-I) is used to model the distribution of the maximum (or the

minimum) of a number of samples of various distributions. This distribution might be used

to represent the distribution of the maximum level of a river in a particular year if there

was a list of maximum values for the past ten years. It is useful in predicting the chance

that an extreme earthquake, flood or other natural disaster will occur. The potential

applicability of the Gumbel distribution to represent the distribution of maxima relates

to extreme value theory, which indicates that it is likely to be useful if the distribution of

the underlying sample data is of the normal or exponential type.

2.6.2 NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

Normal distribution is sometimes called as a Gaussian distribution that is

considered as one of the most common statistical approach together with a probability

density function that is described in a symmetrical or bell-shaped graph showing the

maximum value at the midpoint of the curve where the mean, median and mode lies. The

left side of the curve represent the –α or the values that is less than the mean while the right

side of the graph shows +α or the values that is greater than the mean of the following

series of data.

26
2.6.3 LOG NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

Lognormal distribution has been generally connected in a wide range of parts of

life sciences, including science, nature, geography, and meteorology and in addition in

financial aspects, and risk analysis. On a fundamental level, the lognormal distribution is

characterized as the circulation of an arbitrary variable whose logarithm is typically

distributed, and more often it is figured with two parameters. Besides, log-uniform and log-

laplace distributions can be comparatively characterized with applications in finance.

(Toulias and Kitsos, 2013)

Log normal distribution has two parameters (the mean and the standard deviation)

of log normal distribution have been once in a while use for rainfall intensity duration

analysis. It is also the transformed normal distribution with an advantage that is bounded

as x>0 and the log change has tendency to diminish the positive skewness. (Haan, 1977)

2.6.4 LOG PEARSON TYPE III DISTRIBUTION

Most of the problem in evaluating hydrologic data is that the mean above and below

does not have equal spread. Because of the lower bound is restricted only from 0 to mean

while the upper bound has no limitation, skewed distribution was introduced. Skew was

presented to take account that it may occur in the data so that the Log Pearson type III

distribution for fitness development. (Osadolor et al., 2013).

The three parameters includes (mean, standard deviation and coefficient of

skewness) made the distribution differ from most of the distribution function and necessary

for describing the said function.

27
2.7 GOODNESS OF FIT AND PROBABILITY PLOTTING

GOF are test made for compatibility of a random sample. These test shows how

well the distribution of the acquired data fits the certain data. The most common test

comprised of Chi-Square Test (x2 test), Correlation coefficient (r-test) and Coefficient of

Determination (R2 test). As described by Gaeg (2005), by computing the plotting

probability for a given length of record to obtain relation between the magnitude of point

and the occurrence probability the probability of distribution of hydrologic data can be

obtained. A number of different formula are used to estimate the plotting probability of a

given data, with no unanimity on the preferred method.

Table 1. Different Plotting Positions Formula

Plotting Position Formula

𝑚 − 0.5
Hazen (1930)
𝑛
𝑚
Weibull (1939)
𝑛+1

(𝑚 − 0.375)
Gringorton (1963)
𝑛 + 0.25

(𝑚 − 0.4)
Cunnane (1978)
𝑛 + 0.2
𝑚
California (1923)
𝑛

(𝑚 − 0.44)
Blom (1958)
𝑛 + 0.12

(𝑚 − 0.3)
Chegodajev (1955)
𝑛 + 0.2

28
The easiest method is by arranging the event series in decreasing order and

assigning the magnitude (m) for each event. The severest event will be on top and will be

ranked as ‘1’while the lightest event will be placed on bottom and will be denoted as (n)

of the series. The following is the general form on calculating most of plotting position

formulas (Al-Weshah, 2000).


𝑚−𝑎
𝑃(𝑋 ≥ 𝑋𝑚 ) = 𝑛+1−2𝑎 (2.13)

Where ‘m’ is the rank (1 is being the highest data in the series), ‘n’ is the sample

size and ‘a’ is the constant characteristic particular per plotting position formula. The

plotting position for the following are as follows: 0.4 for Cunnane formula, 0 for Weibull

formula, 0.375 for Blom Formula, 0.44 for Gringorten and 0.5 for Hazen Formula (Granata

2006).

2.7.1 CHI-SQUARE TEST (𝒙𝟐 )

The chi-square test is utilized to test if an example originates from a populace with

specific distribution and applies to information that put in to classes. The subsequent

computed estimations of chi-square (𝑥 2 𝑐) can be contrasted and the organized estimations

of chi-square (𝑥 2 𝑣, 1 − 𝑎). The degree of freedom (ν) is given by ν = m-p-1, where 'm' is

the quantity of intervals and 'p' is the quantity of parameters utilized as a part of fitting the

proposed dissemination. A confidence level which is regularly communicated as 1-α

where, 'α' is named as the critical level. The typcal value for confidence level is 95 %. The

invalid theory for the test is that the proposed probability distribution fits the information

enough and rejected if the estimation of 𝑥 2 𝑐 is bigger than a constraining worth 𝑥 2 𝑣, 1 − 𝑎

29
which is resolved from the x 2 distribution with ν degree of freedom at 5 % level of

significance, else it is acknowledged (Bhaka et al., 2006).

2.7.2 COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION (𝑹𝟐 )

The coefficient of determination is the measure of the distinction between the

difference of the observed values and the variance of the values determined for given

estimations of Pi by the utilization of linear regression line. This test is utilized as a part of

statistical model examination to evaluate how well a model clarifies and predicts future

results. It is characteristic of the level of clarified changeability in the model, and utilized

as a rule to quantify the precision of the model.

According to Krause and Flugel (2005), the coefficient of determination (R2) is

calculated by the observed rainfall values (Oi), predicted rainfall values (Pi), mean of the

observed rainfall data (𝑂̅) and mean of predicted rainfall data (𝑃̅). Hence, the range in

possible values for R2 is from zero to one. The closer R2 is to one, the better the regression

equation fits the data.

2.7.3 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (r)

In correlation coefficient the greater, the absolute value of r, the greater is the linear

relationship. The correlation coefficient of a set of observations. It is the most usually

utilized factual parameter for estimating the level of relationship between two linearly

dependent variables. If there is no linear relationship, r=0, if there r=±1, all estimations of

r between these points of confinement depict the different degrees of correlative affiliation.

30
The greater the absolute value of r, the more prominent is the linear relationship. (Haan,

1977)

2.7.4 DERIVATION OF RETURN PERIOD

In designing engineering structures there are factors that needs to be considered

which contain safety, economy and efficiency. Hence, this structured must be tolerant to

withstand such pressures for their estimated economic life which vary from less than 10

year to more than 1000 years or so (Hersfield, 1962). Thus, design of water control

structures relies on predicting runoff when intense events occurs. This requires computing

the rainfall duration and intensity of a certain time for analysis of project cost and for

adequacy of structures. Consequently, the return period of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 500

and 1000 years for duration of 1, 2 and 3-day duration of rainfall are commonly used in the

world for designing and planning the hydraulic structure (Deshpande et al., 2008).

2.7.5 TECHNIQUES FOR THE DERIVATIONS OF PMP CONTOURS

There are so many different methods for the estimation of rainfall, one of them was

the development of isohyetal map which is commonly used for spatial analysis and

estimation of aerial precipitation that shows the different rainfall intensities for every

individual stations plotted in the map. The values of rainfall data can vary throughout the

world depending on the duration or return period of the storm, the climate of particular

region or country, the depth and elevation of the stations and its location (Houze, 1997).

The computation of probable precipitation for those particular remote areas without a

31
gauge or recording station is possible by means of calculating the missing data together

with the spatial analysis of the available rainfall data near the missing data (WMO, 1986).

The development of isohyetal map can be possible with the help of Geographical

Information System (GIS) software in order to produce a shape file of a particular area with

a rainfall value in a form of contours of different intervals depending on the choice of the

user.

2.7.5.1 INVERSE DISTANCE WEIGHTING (IDW)

Inverse distance weighting is a surface mapping software technique that is mostly

used for fitting series of rainfall data to estimate the aerial precipitation in a form of

rectangular cell throughout the particular region varying based on the latitude, longitude or

rectangular coordinates and elevation of the rainfall stations (NOA A, 2006). According to

Wackernagel, (2003) the IDW is also a technique incorporated with interpolation where

grid points and the center point of the stations are interpolated and weighted in an inverse

function from the distance of grid points.

2.8 PAST RESEARCH WORK ON PMP

The use of PMP approach for designing water structures is a century old technique

(Linsley et al., 1982). In the Philippines, there is just a little information pertaining to the

importance of PMP.

The development of Isohyetal maps for one duration, annual daily extreme rainfall

of one day duration in the selected weather station in NCR and Region III are subjected to

32
statistical analysis by the use of Hersfield formula based on the appropriate maximum

frequency factor.

According to Koutsoyiannis (1999) Hershfield method of Probable Maximum

Precipitation is a useful tool, widespread and reliable tool for hydrologic design because it

can analyze huge amount of rainfall information (2 645 data records throughout the world

containing 95,000 station-years) nevertheless the analysis performed on the said method

doesn’t have evidence that an upper bound of precipitation amount exist and, besides,

suggested that a simple alternative formulation of the method is possible.

Mulualem in (2010) for Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State (Ethiopia) had been

considered based on the actual maximum daily rainfall data, the highest value of frequency

factors was found 8.1, one-day PMP values varied from 170 mm to 284 mm, and the mean

ratio of PMP to HOR was about 1.8. Extreme Value Type-I distribution was fitted to one-

day extreme rainfall series and depths of rainfall for various return periods were estimated

and found with a return period of 4.9 *103 years.

The mean value of one-day annual maximum rainfall at Dharamshala Region

located in India is found to be 142.9 mm with standard deviation and coefficient of

variation of 54.8 and 51.34 respectively. The coefficient of skewness is 1.1. And observed

that all distribution are fitted in the function significantly (Sharma, Kumar, Ganguly 2016).

The study in Poland calculated the highest value of PMP to be 219.9mm, whereas

the correlation between the value of PMP and the mean maximum sum of the precipitation

obtained a regression factor on alfa=0.05. (Suligowski, 2007)

In 2012 Mulugeta had attempted to develop PMP isohyetal map for one-day

duration in West Shewa Zone Oromia Region, (Ethiopia) subjected to statistical analysis

33
using Hershfield formula. Based on the actual maximum daily rainfall data of varying

record length of the stations, the highest value of frequency factor was found as 6.80 and

PMP varying between 105 to 243 mm and the ratio PMP to HOR varied from 1.50 to 2.30

with average of 1.75.

Koutsoyiannis (2006) denotes that probabilistic analysis on the annual daily

maximum rainfall depths, the hypothetical upper limit of the PMP method corresponds to

a small, although not negligible, exceedence probability. For example, this probability for

the Athens area is 0.27%, a value that would not be acceptable for the design of a major

hydraulic structure. A probabilistic approach, based on the GEV model, seems to be a more

consistent tool for studying hydrological extremes. In the study it showed that estimation

of PMP can be obtained by generalized extreme values (GEV) distribution with linear

function of average annual maximum precipitation and for return period of about 60,000

years in Athens, Greece.

Based on the actual rainfall data of the stations, the highest value of this frequency

factor was found to be 8.7. The frequency factor of 8.7 was subsequently used to estimate

24-h PMP values for the 33 stations. The estimated PMP for Selangor Region in Malaysia

varied between 375 to 500 mm and the average ratio of the 24-h PMP to the highest

observed 1-day rainfall was found to be about 2.0. (Desa, Noriah, Rakhecha, 2001).

Another study by (Ghahraman, 2008) use Hersfield formula to obtain the PMP of

Atrak Watershed in Iran and other places and where results obtained showed that of 30

stations considered in the study the highest frequency factor of the stations is 9.63 for one

day duration and the estimated PMP values obtained over the Atrak Watershed is 97mm to

265mm, where the Mean Ratio was about 2.51. The PMP maps (Isohyetal Maps) are said

34
to be an important tool in determining reliable and consistent estimates of precipitation for

hydraulic structure designs in the said location.

The updating study in Johor, Malaysia have concluded that 24-h PMP varied from

400 mm to over 1000 mm while the average ration of 24-Hr PMP to HOR is 2.0 for the 39

stations considered along the study area. (Desa and Rakhecha, 2007).

Based on the research work of (Rakhecha and Clark, 1999) the figured PMP values

a generalized map in Indian Region was produced and was found out that one-day PMP

lies in between of 70cm to 170cm. Which the results are considerably higher than the

statistical analysis done by Hersfield method that leads to serious implications for dam

safety over much in the region.

Daily rainfall data of Gujjar khan for a period of 30 years (1961-1990) were

collected from Pakistan meteorological department (PMD), Lahore using Hershfield

technique and Gumble distribution of extreme values the estimation of 1-day probable

maximum precipitation are determined result see that the PMP for Gujjar khan was

estimated to be 357.39 mm and the ratio of the 1-day and PMP to highest 1-day

precipitation was 1.19. (Boota et al., 2015).

35
Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter features the sequential order of methods that will be conducted in order

to achieve the objectives of the study. It is also imperative in getting essential data from

reliable sources. From that point, an analysis is conducted for the completion of the study.

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The following methodology conducted in this study serves as a guide in order to

achieve the desired objectives of the study. Research methodology can be divided into

stages as listed below in a consecutive order:

1. Selection of rainfall weather stations to be analyzed.

2. Data collection for selected rainfall weather stations’ profile including its

daily maximum and annual maximum rainfall acquired from PAGASA Weather

Forecast for the years of 2001 to 2010.

3. Data consistency test using Double Mass Curve.

4. Analysis of data using Hershfield equation to obtain maximum frequency

factor for each of the following selected rainfall weather stations.

5. Estimation of PMP.

6. Fitting data to the probability distribution functions such as:

 Normal Distribution

 Log Normal Distribution

 Log Pearson Type-III Distribution

36
 Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I Distribution

7. Testing the goodness of fit of data to probability distribution functions such

as:

 Chi-square Test

 Correlation Coefficient Test

 Coefficient of Determination Test

8. Estimation of return period values for PMP.

9. Development of PMP Isohyetal Map using QGIS.

10. Formulating conclusion and recommendation from the accumulated results

of the study.

3.1 DATA COLLECTION

The collection of principal information such as the list of rainfall weather stations

available, with its profile such as number of operating years, elevation, altitude correction,

status and station coordinates were made. Only one type of rainfall weather station is

selected by the researchers. Data collected includes, daily annual rainfall, daily extreme

rainfalls (which were extracted from the daily annual data of rainfall) and annual totals

rainfall. Data collected undergone consistency test for homogeneity of data.

Due to the availability of the data given to the researchers, rainfall data from 2001

until 2010 were collected and analyzed. In addition to this, two out three stations from NCR

and four out of nine stations from Region III were selected to be analyzed.

37
3.2 PMP ESTIMATION

PMP computation were done through the Hershfield (1961, 1965) technique, an

adapted version of Chow (1952), for the frequency analysis of rainfall. Using equation

(3.10), one-day annual maximum rainfall values of all stations were analyzed to extract the

station based PMP estimates. The values of 𝑥̅ , 𝑥̅𝑛−1, σ, and σ𝑛−1 were estimated using

equation (3.11 and 3.12). The maximum frequency factor (𝐾𝑚 ) was estimated for each

station using equation (3.13). After which a frequency table for 𝐾𝑚 was formed. Then,

upper limit of the estimated 𝐾𝑚 was chosen from the extremely high values. The estimated

PMP where then compared to the highest observed rainfall of each station for analysis. It

can be seen in Table 7.

𝑋𝑃𝑀𝑃 = 𝑥̅𝑛 + 𝑆𝑛 𝐾𝑚 (3.10)

where,

𝑋𝑃𝑀𝑃 - PMP estimate for a station

𝑥̅𝑛 - mean of the annual extreme series

𝑆𝑛 - standard deviation of the annual extreme series

𝐾𝑚 - maximum frequency factor

The sample mean(𝑋̅) and standard deviation (𝑆𝑛 ) could be computed by:

1
𝑋̅ = ∑ni=1 𝑥𝑖 (3.11)
𝑛

∑𝑛 ̅ 2
𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 −𝑋)
𝑆𝑛 = √ (3.12)
𝑛−1

where,

𝑋̅ - mean for the random variable

𝑥𝑖 - the ith value of the random variable

38
𝑆𝑛 – sample standard deviation

According to Hershfield (1961, 1965), the maximum frequency factor (𝐾𝑚 ) can be

calculated as

𝑥1 −𝑥̅ 𝑛−1
𝐾𝑚 = (3.13)
σ𝑛−1

where,

𝑥1 - highest observed annual maximum rainfall in the series

𝑥̅𝑛−1 - mean of the annual maximum, excluding the highest value

σ𝑛−1 - standard deviation of the annual maximum, excluding the highest value

3.3 FITTING DATA TO THE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS

Frequency analysis usually involves the fitting of a theoretical frequency

distribution using a selected fitting method, although empirical graphical methods can also

be applied.

Four different probability distribution functions (Normal Distribution, Log Normal

Distribution, Log Pearson Type-III Distribution and Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I

Distribution) were used to analyze the given data and after which will be compared to each

other to know what is the best fit probability distribution function for the region of NCR

and Region III.

3.3.1 NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

It is one of the most common statistical approach used in continuous probability

distribution in order to determine the unknown distribution of random values which is also

known as the normal deviate (Z). In this study, the Weibull method (Table 1) for plotting

39
probability was used to estimate the extreme value (XT) and the standard normal deviate

(Z) using the equation (3.14 and 3.15), where XT is the variate, X̄ is the mean, and Sn is

the standard deviation of the following set of data.

𝑋𝑇 = 𝑋̅ + 𝜎𝐾𝑇 (3.14)

𝑋𝑇 + 𝑋̅
𝐾𝑇 = (3.15)
𝑆𝑛

3.3.2 LOG NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

The values of the ‘Z’ and ‘W’ were evaluated using equations (3.16) and (3.17)

respectively and the other parameters were estimated using equations (3.18) and (3.19)

given in Table 2, where w is the intermediate variable. The annual daily maximum values

were organized in the descending order of magnitude and assigned a rank m with 1 for the

highest value.

(2.516+0.8028𝑤÷0.0103𝑤 2 )
𝑍 = 𝐾𝑇 = 𝑤 − ⌊(1÷1.4328𝑤+0.1893𝑤2 +0.0013𝑤3 )⌋ (3.16)

1
1 2
𝑤 = [ln 𝑝2 ] (0 < 𝑝 ≤ 0.5) (3.17)

Where p is the probability of exceedence

Table 2. Expressions Used to Estimated Parameters of Log Normal Probability

Distribution

Parameter Formula

𝑌𝑇 𝑌̅𝑛 + 𝐾𝑇 𝑆𝑦 (3.18)

𝑋𝑇 10𝑌𝑇 (3.19)

40
3.3.3 LOG PEARSON TYPE-III DISTRIBUTION

The procedure for fitting the LPT-III distribution is similar to normal and log

normal. For this distribution, the following steps are given by Raghunath (2006) as;

 Take the logarithmic transformation of the series of hydrologic data

(𝑌𝑖 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑋𝑖 )

 The probability plotting positions uses Hazen formula to calculate P (Table

1)

 Mean 𝑌̅, standard deviation (Sn), and standardized skewness (𝐶𝑠 ) of the

logarithmic were computed by equation (3.20), (3.21) and (3.22)

respectively, and

∑𝑦
𝑦̅ = (3.20)
𝑛

∑(𝑦−𝑦̿)2
𝑆𝑦 = √ (3.21)
𝑛−1

The coefficient of skewness (𝐶𝑠 ) is estimated given by Kite (1977) as:

𝑛 ∑(𝑦−𝑦̅)3
𝐶𝑠 = [(𝑛−1)(𝑛−2)𝑆3 ] (3.22)
𝑦

 𝐾𝑇 and K were calculated using equation (3.23) and (3.24)

accordingly
1 1
𝐾𝑇 = 𝑧 + (𝑧 2 − 1)𝑘 + 3 (𝑧 3 − 6𝑧)𝑘 2 (𝑧 2 − 1)𝑘 3 + 𝑧𝑘 4 + 3 𝑘 5 (3.23)

𝐶𝑠
Where, 𝑘= (3.24)
6

41
3.3.4 GUMBEL EXTREME VALUE TYPE-I DISTRIBUTION

This distribution was done by plotting the ranked annual maximum rainfall values.

In addition to this, exceedence probability was also estimated.

According to Subramanya (1996), frequency factor of this distribution is given by:

𝑌𝑇 −𝑦̅𝑛
𝐾𝑇 = (3.25)
S𝑛

where,

𝑦̅𝑛 - reduced mean of 𝑦𝑛 (a function of sample size n values of which are given in

concerned table, maximum value is 0.577 at n=∞)

𝑆𝑛 - reduced standard deviation (a function of sample size n, values of which are given in

concerned table, maximum value is 1.2825 at n=∞)

𝑌𝑇 – reduced variate which is estimated as

𝑇
𝑌𝑇 = −ln[ln (𝑇−1 )] (3.26)

where T is the return period

Weibull method was used to estimate the value of return period by taking the

inverses of probability plotting position.

Finally, equation (3.27) is used to compute the extreme value

𝑋𝑇 = 𝑥̅ + 𝐾𝑡 ∗ 𝑆 (3.27)

3.4 TESTING THE GOODNESS OF FIT OF DATA TO PROBABILITY

DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS

The best-fit model for each of the station were determined by subjecting the

probability distribution into a three Goodness of Fit tests (GOF) namely the chi-square test

(X2), coefficient of correlation (r) and coefficient of determination (R2). From the goodness

42
of fit tests, a set of total test scores were obtained and tabulated ranging from one to four

(1-4) for each of the distribution model of every station resulting to the selection of the

probability distribution method with the highest total score for a particular station. A score

of four will be awarded for the distribution method that satisfies the following criteria of

the three goodness of fit test. For chi-square test, the distribution method that has a chi-

square value closest to 1 will received the score of four while the distribution method with

the highest extreme value will be awarded the score of four for the coefficient of correlation

and coefficient of determination.

3.5 ESTIMATION OF RETURN PERIOD VALUES FOR PMP

Equations (3.28) along with the estimated parameters of equations (3.30) and (3.31)

for shape and locations were used for the computation of return period values

corresponding to estimated PMP value for duration of one day for all stations.

1
𝑇 = 1−𝐹 (3.28)

Where,

T - Return period

F - Cummulative distributive function

𝑙𝑛𝑥−𝜇𝑙𝑛𝑥 2
1 −0.5( )
𝐹 = 𝑓(𝑥) = {𝑥𝜎 𝑒 𝜎𝑙𝑛𝑥
− ∞ < 𝜇 < ∞} (3.29)
𝑙𝑛𝑥 √2𝜋

Where 𝜎𝑙𝑛𝑥 and 𝜇𝑙𝑛𝑥 are the location and shape parameters of Lognormal Distribution

respectively and estimated as follows;

𝜎2
𝜎𝑙𝑛𝑥 = √𝑙𝑛 (1 + 𝜇𝑥2 ) (3.30)
𝑥

43
1 2
𝜇𝑙𝑛𝑥 = 𝑙𝑛𝜇𝑥 − 2 𝜎𝑙𝑛𝑥 (3.31)

3.6 CONSTRUCTION OF PMP ISOHYETAL MAP

The coordinates of the stations were plotted in the base map of NCR and Region

III with the use of open layer plugin in Quantum Geographic Information System (QGIS)

software that will be used in order to construct a PMP Isohyetal Map. After using the open

layer plugin, a shape file was used to create a vector map by isolating the base map of NCR

and Region III with points, polylines and polygons. Finally, contour lines and elevations

of the map were generated with the use of vector point layer located in the contour plugin

together with the Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) for the elevation data and Inverse

Distance Weighting (IDW) for interpolating other types of data such as rainfall data,

populations and etc.

1. Download the following QGIS Plugins such as OpenLayer, Interpolation, and


GeoCoding Plugin.

44
45
2. Select Web > OpenLayer Plugin > Google Map > Google Physical

46
3. Click the Add Vector Layer then Browse the following shapefiles of the
selected stations then click Open.

47
4. On the Plugins Toolbar, select Geocoding then input the coordinates of the
selected stations.

48
5. Add field and enter “rainfall data” values

49
6. Select Raster > Interpolation > Interpolation for the contours.

7. Then Raster > Extraction > Contour

50
Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results and the significance of the findings of the research

by interpreting and discussing the outcome made by undergoing the methods stated on the

last chapter.

4.0 RAINFALL WEATHER STATIONS

According to PAGASA there were three class/type of rainfall weather stations in

the Philippines, namely synoptic, radar and agromet. Table 3 shows the types of rainfall

weather stations that is used in the Philippines. Indicated in the table are each type’s number

of station, its percentage and its description.

Table 3. Types of Rainfall Weather Stations in the Philippines


No. of
Types of Station % Description of Stations
Stations
A station where observation of almost all meteorological elements are made at fixed observation
SYNOP (Surface times and are transmitted to the Central Office. It is responsible for the dissemination of public
56 70
Sypnotic Station) weather forecast, tropical cyclones bulletins, warning and advisories and other related information to
protect the lives and property of the general populace.
A station where doppler weather radar is installed. It could be a combined sypnotic-radar station or an
independent (purely) radar stations. Radar stations conduct regular observations twice a day at 2:00
AM and 2:00 PM. However, if there is an existing tropical cyclone within the Philippine Area of
Radar Station 6 7.5
Responsibility all radar station may be required to observe on a 24-hour basis, dependent on the
proximity of the stations to the tropical cyclone or the effective range of the radar itself, and transmit
their radar report every hour or every 30 minutes, if possible, to Central Office
Agromet This type of station gathers and provides on routine basis simultaneous meteorogical and biological
(Agrometereogical 18 22.5 information. It is also responsible for the dissemination of agricultural meteorogical advice, warning,
Station) forecast, bulletin and other important information needed by farmers.
Total 80 100

As for this study, the researchers had selected one type of rainfall weather station

to be analyzed which is the SYNOP (Surface Synoptic Station). Synoptic weather

stations were selected for it has the most number of stations (as seen in the table) and as

51
per suggested by PAGASA itself for it has the most precise data that is needed in the

study.

Table 4. Listing of PAGASA Synoptic Stations as of July 2017

YEARS
STN ALT
STATION NAME LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELEV. OF STATUS
CODE # COR.
RECORD
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR)
NAIA (MIA),
429 14.506011 121.004731 21.0 2.4 Jan. 1949 - Closed
Pasay City
Port Area (MCO), Jan. 1949 -
425 14.587628 120.967958 15.0 1.7 Operational
Manila Present
Science Garden, Apr. 1961 -
430 14.643847 121.044525 42.0 4.9 Operational
Quezon City Present
REGION III
Baler, Aurora Jan. 1951 -
333 15.7620 121.5620 6.0 0.7 Closed
(Synop) 1994
Baler, Aurora Jan. 1995 -
334 15.750 121.630 173.0 SPL Operational
(Radar & Synop) Present
Cabanatuan, Nueva Jan. 1951 -
330 15.470572 120.95125 32.0 3.6 Closed
Ecija 1981
Cabanatuan, Jan. 1989 -
330 15.470572 120.95125 32.0 3.6 Operational
Nueva Ecija Present
Jan. 1951 -
336 Casiguran, Aurora 16.265333 122.128756 4.0 0.5 Operational
Present
Clark Airport, May 1997 -
327 15.1717 120.5616667 151.6 SPL Operational
Pampanga Present
CLSU Muñoz,
329 15°43'00''N 120°54'06''E 76.0 8.6 Jan. 1982- Closed
Nueva Ecija
Cubi Pt., Subic Sep. 1994 -
426 14.791889 120.270831 19.1 2.2 Operational
Olongapo Present
Jan. 1951 -
324 Iba, Zambales 15.326211 119.969167 5.5 0.6 Operational
Present

Table 4 presents the list of synoptic stations in the study area (NCR & Region III)

with the profile of each station. There were 3 synoptic weather stations in NCR and 9 in

Region III, a total of 12 stations in the regions. Due to the availability of the data that is

given, the researchers had only analyzed 2 out of 3 synoptic stations in NCR and 4 of the

9 synoptic stations in Region III, with a total of 6 stations.

52
Figure 4. Distribution of Selected Rainfall Weather Stations in NCR & Region III

The distribution of selected synoptic rainfall weather stations in NCR and Region

III is presented in Figure 4. The selected stations were as follows: Cabanatuan, Nueva

Ecija; Iba, Zambales; Clark Airport, Pampanga; Cubi Pt., Subic Olongapo; Port Area

(MCO), Manila and Science Garden, Quezon City.

4.1 AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL AND ANNUAL DAILY MAXIMUM

Rainfall data collected from year 2001 to 2010 of six different synoptic weather

stations within NCR and Region III were analyzed. The average annual total and annual

daily maximum vary from place to place as shown in Table 5. The highest rainfall data

observed was located at Iba, Zambales of Region III with 4266.84 mm.

53
Table 5. Average Annual Total and Annual Daily Maximum

Average annual total Annual daily maximum


Station Name
rainfall (mm) (mm)
Port Area (MCO), Manila 2083.49 151.1
Science Garden, Quezon City 2560.67 174.36
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija 1783.78 115.61
Clark Airport, Pampanga 2001.88 124.43
Cubi Pt., Subic Olongapo 3705.77 194.1
Iba, Zambales 4266.84 195.64

4.2 CONSISTENCY TEST

Using double mass curve analysis, it resulted that there were a little slope changes

that were not persistence significant period change in the double mass curves (see

Appendices), therefore the little change in slope might have occurred by chance or due to

micrometeorological and climate properties. In addition to this, the data obtained from

Science Garden station has a higher slope compare to other stations in the graph because

of the its extreme precipitation and climate variability for example, the Typhoon Ondoy

that hit Metro Manila on 2009. But there were no historical evidences for Science Garden

station that it change from their original position or first established place. Therefore, the

changes were not significant for the existence of inconsistency of records and relative

homogeneity of records was observed for the precipitation.

4.3 ESTIMATION OF MAXIMUM FREQUENCY FACTOR (𝑲𝒎 )

Table 6 presents the values computed in the derivation of the maximum frequency

factor for the 6 stations. The values vary from 1.53 in Iba, Zambales to 7.36 in Science

Garden, Quezon City having an average value of 2.98, standard deviation of 2.17 and CV

54
of 72.93%. The coefficient of variation (CV) shows the large variability or dispersion of

the frequency distribution.

Table 6. Derivation of Maximum Frequency Factor (𝐾𝑚 )

Station Name HOR ̅𝒏−𝟏


𝒙 𝝈𝒏−𝟏 𝑲𝒎
Port Area (MCO), Manila 258.5 139.17 49.22 2.42
Science Garden, Quezon City 455 143.18 42.35 7.36
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija 157.8 110.92 20.84 2.25
Clark Airport, Pampanga 186.8 117.50 35.01 1.98
Cubi Pt., Subic Olongapo 287.6 183.71 44.72 2.32
Iba, Zambales 264.4 188.00 49.97 1.53
Mean 2.98
Sn 2.17
CV 72.93

As shown in Table 7, the greatest number of stations had the values of K m lies

between 1.50 and 3.00. Only one station has a value greater than 6.00 which is the station

of Science Garden, Quezon City that got 7.36. This was chosen as the extremely high K m

value.

Table 7. Frequency Factor Table for 𝐾𝑚

No. Quintile interval Frequency Frequency (%)


1 1.50 ≤ Km ≤ 3.00 5 83.33
2 3.00 < Km ≤ 4.50 0 0.00
3 4.50 < Km ≤ 6.00 0 0.00
4 Km > 6.00 1 16.67

4.4 ESTIMATION OF PMP

The derivation of the estimation of PMP of every station is shown in Table 8. The

station in Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija got the lowest estimated PMP of 170.98 mm while the

highest was at Science Garden, Quezon City. Hence, the lowest estimated PMP was located

55
at Region III while the greatest PMP lies at NCR. The stations got a mean PMP of 370.40

mm, standard deviation of 293.16 and CV of 79.15%.

Table 8. Derivation of Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)

Annual daily
Station Name maximum 𝝈𝒏 HOR ̅𝒏−𝟏
𝒙 𝝈𝒏−𝟏 PMP(mm)
(mm)
Port Area (MCO),
151.10 59.81 258.5 139.17 49.22 296.11
Manila
Science Garden,
174.36 106.38 455 143.18 42.35 957.62
Quezon City
Cabanatuan, Nueva
115.61 24.61 157.8 110.92 20.84 170.98
Ecija
Clark Airport,
124.43 39.62 186.8 117.50 35.01 202.85
Pampanga
Cubi Pt., Subic
194.10 53.45 287.6 183.71 44.72 318.27
Olongapo
Iba, Zambales 195.64 52.95 264.4 188.00 49.97 276.59
Mean 370.40
Sn 293.16
CV 79.15

4.5 PMP TO HIGHEST OBSERVED RAINFALL (HOR) RATIO

The ratio of PMP and HOR is tabulated in Table 9. The value calculated varies

from 1.05 (Iba, Zambales) to 2.10 (Science Garden, Quezon City) with an average value

of 1.26, standard deviation of 0.41 and CV of 32.81.

The values calculated confirmed the statement of Hershfield (1962) that the

magnitude of PMP should not exceed three times the HOR at an individual station. For that

reason, the PMP predicted values were neither overestimated nor underestimated. But it

must be taken note that the values calculated only represented the best estimation with the

available knowledge, data and techniques. It does not give the exact suggestion for the

56
predicted PMP value for it keeps on changing over time and with the new record of heavy

storms.

Table 9. Ratio of PMP to HOR

Station Name HOR PMP(mm) PMP:HOR


Port Area (MCO), Manila 258.5 296.11 1.15
Science Garden, Quezon City 455 957.62 2.10
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija 157.8 170.98 1.08
Clark Airport, Pampanga 186.8 202.85 1.09
Cubi Pt., Subic Olongapo 287.6 318.27 1.11
Iba, Zambales 264.4 276.59 1.05
Mean 370.40 1.26
Sn 293.16 0.41
CV 79.15 32.81

4.6 COMPARISON OF THE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS

Stated in this chapter are the comparison of the different probability distribution

functions used in this study.

4.6.1 NORMAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION

The annual maximum rainfall data were used to calculate the exceedence

probability of standard normal deviate value (Z) of each stations. The standard normal

deviate of the other stations are shown in the Appendices. Based on the maximum values

derived by normal probability distribution, the increasing of rainfall probability to occur

tends to give a decreasing value of standard normal deviate that gives also extreme value

(XT) in decreasing order so, the plotting probability is inversely proportional to the standard

normal value while the standard normal value is linearly proportional to the extreme value

of records of all station.

57
Table 10. Standard Normal Deviate (Z) and Its Extreme Values Derived By Normal

Distribution for Port Area (MCO), Manila (mm)

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P (%) Z X̄ Sn Z*Sn Xt=X̄ + Z*Sn
2001 178 258.5 1 0.09 1.34 151.10 59.81 79.86 230.96
2002 248.2 248.2 2 0.18 0.91 151.10 59.81 54.34 205.44
2003 123.6 178 3 0.27 0.60 151.10 59.81 36.16 187.26
2004 111.4 154 4 0.36 0.35 151.10 59.81 20.86 171.96
2005 91 131.4 5 0.45 0.11 151.10 59.81 6.83 157.93
2006 94 123.6 6 0.55 0.00 151.10 59.81 0.00 151.10
2007 154 120.9 7 0.64 0.00 151.10 59.81 0.00 151.10
2008 120.9 111.4 8 0.73 0.00 151.10 59.81 0.00 151.10
2009 258.5 94 9 0.82 0.00 151.10 59.81 0.00 151.10
2010 131.4 91 10 0.91 0.00 151.10 59.81 0.00 151.10
Mean 151.1
Sn 59.81
CV (%) 39.59

Using the normal probability distribution, the mean, standard deviation and

coefficient of variation for the Port Area (MCO), Manila were computed together with the

percentage of rainfall probability, standard normal deviate (Z) and extreme values (XT)

tabulated and presented on a table showing the different extreme values for every year from

2001 up to 2010 as shown in Table 10 above. Other results for each station is shown in the

Appendices.

The highest extreme value (XT) for the Port Area (MCO), Manila is 230.96 mm

recorded last 2001 with a mean of 151.1, a standard deviation of 59.81 and a 39.59% of

coefficient of variation.

58
4.6.2 LOG NORMAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION

The computed standard deviation and mean are tabulated and presented on a table

for the following stations as follows. The standard normal variate value (Z) for exceedence

probability for the annual maximum rainfall data of the stations were estimated and

presented in tables. It demonstrates that the standard normal variable of all stations records

decrease with decrease in repeat interval and extreme value got indicates straight

proportionality with the standard normal variable.

Table 11. Standard Normal Variable (Z) and Its Extreme Values Derived By Log Normal

Distribution for Port Area (MCO), Manila (mm)

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Log RF. Rank P W Z YT XT


2001 178 258.5 2.41 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.41 254.39
2002 248.2 248.2 2.39 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.31 205.96
2003 123.6 178 2.25 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.26 180.93
2004 111.4 154 2.19 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.21 163.01
2005 91 131.4 2.12 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.17 148.41
2006 94 123.6 2.09 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.13 135.55
2007 154 120.9 2.08 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.09 123.49
2008 120.9 111.4 2.05 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 2.05 111.47
2009 258.5 94 1.97 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 1.99 98.42
2010 131.4 91 1.96 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 1.91 81.44
Mean 2.15
Sn 0.16

4.7.3 LOG PEARSON TYPE-III PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION

The computed values of mean, standard deviation and coefficient of skewness are

tabulated and presented on Table 12 for Port Area, MCO, Manila Station. Other results can

be seen in the Appendices. The standard normal variate (Z) for exceedence probability for

59
the annual maximum rainfall data of the station were derived and also presented in the

table. It shows the standard normal deviate has an inverse proportionality with the plotting

probability and the extreme values obtained shown increasing trend as the value of standard

normal deviate increases.

Table 12. The Standard Variable (Z) and Its Extreme Values Derived By Log Pearson

Distribution for Port Area (MCO), Manila (mm)

Record RF. Log 𝟑


years
Rainfall
Order R.F.
Rank (𝒚 − ȳ) P W Z KT YT XT
2001 178 258.5 2.41 1 0.01772 0.05 2.45 1.65 3.33 2.68 480.545
2002 248.2 248.2 2.39 2 0.01436 0.15 1.95 1.04 1.09 2.33 211.559
2003 123.6 178 2.25 3 0.00096 0.25 1.67 0.67 0.12 2.17 147.933
2004 111.4 154 2.19 4 0.00005 0.35 1.45 0.39 -0.48 2.08 119.177
2005 91 131.4 2.12 5 -0.00004 0.45 1.26 0.13 -0.86 2.01 103.454
2006 94 123.6 2.09 6 -0.00021 0.55 1.09 -0.12 -1.11 1.98 94.574
2007 154 120.9 2.08 7 -0.00033 0.65 0.93 -0.38 -1.23 1.96 90.468
2008 120.9 111.4 2.05 8 -0.00115 0.75 0.76 -0.67 -1.21 1.96 91.116
2009 258.5 94 1.97 9 -0.00570 0.85 0.57 -1.01 -0.97 2.00 99.549
2010 131.4 91 1.96 10 -0.00715 0.95 0.32 -1.56 -0.11 2.13 136.025
ȳ 2.15
Sn 0.16
Cs 0.64
K 0.11

For Port Area MCO, Manila, the mean, standard deviation and skew coefficient

were estimated 2.15, 0.16 and 0.64 correspondingly while the highest extreme value for

this station is 480.545 mm.

60
4.6.4 GUMBEL/EVI PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION

Table 13 shows the computed extreme values using Gumbel distribution function

of station Port Area (MCO), Manila. Computation of extreme values of each station using

Gumbel can be seen in the Appendices.

The result shows that the reduced variate (YT )value of all stations records decreases

with increase in plotting probability (P) (decrease in recurrence interval, T), and extreme

value (XT)obtained shows linear proportionality with the reduced variate (YT). Generally,

the comparison of probability distribution function stations shows, as the variate of stations

records decrease the plotting probability increase (recurrence interval decrease) and

extreme value obtained shows linear proportionality with the standard normal variable (KT).

Table 13. Computation of Extreme Values Using Gumbel for Port Area (MCO), Manila

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P T YT KT XT


2001 178 258.5 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 267.97
2002 248.2 248.2 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 221.07
2003 123.6 178 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 191.98
2004 111.4 154 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 169.93
2005 91 131.4 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 151.44
2006 94 123.6 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 134.88
2007 154 120.9 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 119.18
2008 120.9 111.4 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 103.42
2009 258.5 94 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 86.31
2010 131.4 91 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 64.82
ȳ 151.1 Yn 0.50
Sn 59.81 Sn 0.95

The mean of data shown is 151.1 having a standard deviation of 59.81. The standard

normal variable got a mean of 0.50 and a standard deviation of 0.95. The extreme value

ranges from 64.82 mm to 267.97 mm.

61
4.7 TESTING THE GOODNESS OF FITTING OF DATA TO PROBABILITY

DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS

The results of the following tests conducted for the goodness of fitting hydrological

data by probability distribution functions is shown below.

4.7.1 CHI-SQUARE TEST

Using chi-square test the values computed by each probability distribution of a

certain station is being compared by calculating x2 and tabulated x2 at the 5% significance

level with the degrees of freedom of 10 for this case. Having the least value of x2 was

determined to be the best fit probability distribution. Log normal having the least x 2 at the

stations of Science Garden (94.28), Cubi Pt. Subic Bay (5.04), Port Area (13.65) and Iba

Zambales (122.69) and Gumbel for Cabanatuan (1.10) and Clark Airport, Pampanga

(2.88), on the other hand LPT III have the weak model according to all stations. For full

table and result of goodness of fit see Table 12 and 13.

4.7.2 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT TEST

In the correlation coefficient test the observed and predicted rainfall for 10 years in

each station are linearly compared. Probability distribution having r value closest to 1 was

determined to be the best fit probability. For this test, normal distribution of Port Area have

the closest r of 0.969 to 1. LPT III for Science Garden (0.9743) and Gumbel for Cabanatuan

(0.9905), Clark International Airport (0.9877), Cubi Pt. Subic Bay (0.9823), and Iba

Zambales (0.7552). The weak probability for the applied test is LPT III except for Port

62
Area that has weak probability in Normal Distribution. For complete result of correlation

test in NCR and Region III see Table 12 and 13.

4.7.3 COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION TEST

Using coefficient of determination the value of R2 closer to 1 is the best fit

probability. Port Area having the best fit for Log Normal Distribution has R 2 value of

0.9962 and also the Science Garden (0.9908), Cabanatuan (0.9990), Clark Airport

(0.9973), Cubi Pt. Subic Bay (0.9991), and Iba, Zambales (0.9962). The weakest

probability distribution for the stations is LPT III except for Iba, Zambales. See Appendices

for necessary computed result for coefficient determination test of other stations.

Table 14. Results of Testing the Good of Fit of Data to Probability Distribution

Functions for Port Area (MCO), Manila

S.N Observed Gumbel EVI Log Normal Log Pearson type III Normal
1 258.5 267.97 254.39 480.55 230.96
2 248.2 221.07 205.96 211.56 205.44
3 178 191.98 180.93 147.93 187.26
4 154 169.93 163.01 119.18 171.96
5 131.4 151.44 148.41 103.45 157.93
6 123.6 134.88 135.55 94.57 151.10
7 120.9 119.18 123.49 90.47 151.10
8 111.4 103.42 111.47 91.12 151.10
9 94 86.31 98.42 99.55 151.10
10 91 64.82 81.44 136.03 151.10
Mean 151.10 151.10 150.31 157.44 170.91
Sn 59.81 63.05 52.61 119.46 28.28
Sum 1511.00 1511.00 1503.06 1574.40 1709.06
CV (%) 39.59 41.73 35.00 75.88 16.55
𝟐
𝒙 value 21.6732 13.6533 171.6549 85.9287
𝒙𝟐 tab 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.9629 0.9653 0.8028 0.9690
𝑹𝟐 value 0.9271 0.9962 0.6540 0.8023
*Port Area uses Log-Normal Distribution as best fit for its rainfall data

63
Table 15. Summary of GOF for Stations

Distribution Log Normal Gumbel LPT III Normal


Port Area (MCO),
Manila Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija
Science Garden,
Station Name Quezon City Clark Airport, Pampanga
Cubi Pt., Subic
Olongapo
Iba, Zambales
in number 4 2 0 0
in % 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00

The table above shows the summary of GOF for all synoptic stations in NCR and

Region III, from the results calculated by frequency analysis Log Normal Distribution

accumulated a total of 66.67% followed by Gumbel gathering a percent score of 33.33

while the LPT III and Normal Distribution shows no fit for rainfall data collected.

4.8 COMPUTATION FOR PMP RETURN PERIOD

The following are the results in the computation of PMP return period of various

years.

4.8.1 PMP RETURN PERIOD VALUES

Log Normal distribution function was fitted to daily annual maximum rainfall.

Based on sample mean and standard deviation, the respective parameters of distribution

function are location and shape and corresponding Log Normal Cumulative Distributive

Function (fx) was then estimated. The annual exceedence for the predicted one-day PMP

depths P (X≥Xo) were computed from the Log Normal distribution of each station

64
respectively and the probability of exceedence of a specific value variaties usually

expressed in terms of return period.

Table 16. Annual Exceedence and Return Periods

Station name P(X≥X∞) T


Port Area (MCO), Manila 0.939293884 16.47
Science Garden, Quezon City 0.937243938 15.93
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija 0.946419537 18.66
Clark Airport, Pampanga 0.939924636 16.65
Cubi Pt., Subic Olongapo 0.941758472 17.17
Iba, Zambales 0.941656605 17.14
Mean 17.00
CV (%) 5.49

Table 16 shows the annual exceedence and return period computed. Science Garden

station with the lowest value of return period (15.93) and Cabanatuan station with the

maximum value (18.66). The PMP return period varies between 15 to 20 year's occurrence

interval, with a coefficient of variability of 5.49% and an average value of 17. Accordingly,

the predicted return period is nearly in order of 17 years and observed variability in return

period (T) is less than 20% thus the mean value could justly represent the overall T value

for comparisons.

4.8.2 ESTIMATION OF PMP AND DEPTH OF VARIOUS YEARS RETURN

PERIOD

Using Log Normal as fit for the data evaluated the computated rainfall intensity and

durations for 2- years, 5- years, 10- years, 25- years, 50- years, 100- years and 200- years

return period are presented in the table below (Table 17).

65
Table 17. Rainfall Depths (mm) for Various Years of Return Period

24-Hr 100- 200- 500- 1000- 10000-


Stations 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year
PMP Year Year Year Year Year
Port Area
(MCO), 296.11 193.01 226.77 269.30 300.91 332.49 364.29 406.92 439.77 553.58
Manila
Science
Garden,
957.62 227.22 276.38 340.57 389.73 439.98 491.62 562.39 618.02 817.43
Quezon
City
Cabanatuan
, Nueva 170.98 135.33 148.50 163.96 174.79 185.14 195.15 208.00 217.52 248.37
Ecija
Clark
Airport, 202.85 158.16 184.09 216.44 240.29 263.97 287.68 319.28 343.50 426.65
Pampanga
Cubi Pt.,
Subic 318.27 237.81 269.39 307.68 335.26 362.16 388.67 423.41 449.61 537.20
Olongapo
Iba,
276.59 240.26 272.54 311.75 340.01 367.61 394.83 430.52 457.47 547.68
Zambales
max 957.62 240.26 276.38 340.57 389.73 439.98 491.62 562.39 618.02 817.43
min 170.98 135.33 148.50 163.96 174.79 185.14 195.15 208.00 217.52 248.37
mean 370.40 198.63 229.62 268.28 296.83 325.23 353.71 391.75 420.98 521.82
Sn 293.16 44.19 53.43 66.69 77.56 89.17 101.53 119.05 133.21 186.08

The maximum intensity for 5-year rainfall duration is 240.26 mm comes from Iba,

Zambales station, while the rest of the highest intensities of 10- year, 25- year, 50- year,

100- year, 200- year, 1000- year and 10,000- year duration appears in Science Garden

station with 276.38 mm, 340.57 mm, 389.73 mm, 439.61 mm, 562.39mm, 618.02mm and

817.43 mm accordingly, while all the minimum duration comes from Cabanatuan, Nueva

Ecija station.

66
4.8.3 RATIOS OF PMP TO FACTOR OF SAFETY (FOS)

Table 18. Ratio of PMP to Various Years of Return Period (FOS)

24-Hr 100- 200- 500- 1000- 10000-


Stations 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year
PMP Year Year Year Year Year
Port Area
(MCO), 296.11 1.5342 1.3057 1.0996 0.9841 0.8906 0.8128 0.7277 0.6733 0.5349
Manila
Science
Garden, 957.62 4.2145 3.4648 2.8119 2.4571 2.1765 1.9479 1.7028 1.5495 1.1715
Quezon City

Cabanatuan,
170.98 1.2634 1.1513 1.0428 0.9782 0.9235 0.8761 0.8220 0.7860 0.6884
Nueva Ecija

Clark Airport,
202.85 1.2826 1.1019 0.9372 0.8442 0.7685 0.7051 0.6353 0.5905 0.4755
Pampanga

Cubi Pt., Subic


318.27 1.3383 1.1815 1.0344 0.9493 0.8788 0.8189 0.7517 0.7079 0.5925
Olongapo

Iba, Zambales 276.59 1.1512 1.0148 0.8872 0.8135 0.7524 0.7005 0.6424 0.6046 0.5050
max 957.62 4.2145 3.4648 2.8119 2.4571 2.1765 1.9479 1.7028 1.5495 1.1715
min 170.98 1.1512 1.0148 0.8872 0.8135 0.7524 0.7005 0.6353 0.5905 0.4755
mean 370.40 1.7974 1.5367 1.3022 1.1711 1.0650 0.9769 0.8803 0.8187 0.6613
Sn 293.16 1.1908 0.9494 0.7436 0.6340 0.5488 0.4806 0.4090 0.3651 0.2610

The forecasted PMP values are compared to various duration with their respective

depths and the resulting ratios were calculated and presented in Table 18. The ratios varies

from 0.4755 (at 10000 years) and 4.2145 (at 5 years).

The ratio introduced can be used as Factor of Safety (FOS) (Al-mamu and Hashim,

2004). PMP values are reasonable for designing hydraulic structures or not, usually the

accepted FOS value for engineering practices in Structural Engineering is between 1.4 and

1.7 and for Geotechnical design between 1.5 and 2.0. Consequently, it can be determined

that the derived PMP, is very indeterminate for 100 and 200 years and practical for

67
designing of hydraulic structures for return periods in the orders of 10 and 50 years.

However, the use of PMP for 2 and 5 years of return periods for hydraulic structures will

be stable but comparatively expensive. Therefore, PMP method could solve the limitations

of common probabilistic approach.

4.9 CONSTRUCTION OF PMP ISOHYETAL MAP

The purpose of Isohyetal Map was to serve as a simplified model of a region

subjected into a specific amount of rainfall in order to fully understand the distribution of

one-day PMP values in a region particularly in National Capital Region (NCR) and Region

III. The PMP Isohyetal Map were generated with the use of Quantum Geographical

Information System (QGIS) software based on the surface mapping software technique

called Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) which shows the estimated spatial distribution

and aerial precipitation throughout the region in a form of rectangular cell showing the

values of PMP designed in a form of contour lines varying between 150 mm up to 960 mm

at a contour interval of 30 mm and 5 mm. The PMP Isohyetal Map generated in Figure 5

and 6 shows that area along the Science Garden station in Quezon City accumulated the

highest observed rainfall with a value of 957.62 mm and decreasing both North-East and

South-West direction.

68
69
Figure 5. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for NCR and Region III (30 mm contour interval)
Figure 6. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for NCR and Region III (5mm contour interval)

70
71
Figure 7. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for Region III
72
Figure 8. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for NCR
Chapter 5

CONCLUSION

The consequences of precipitation variability, droughts and extreme floods were

exhibiting great influence in human life. The estimation of probable maximum

precipitation (PMP) with respective return periods has great value to solve many problems.

Hydrologists use PMP together with its spatial and temporal distributions for the

catchments to estimate the probable maximum flood (PMF). The objectives of this research

were to estimate one-day PMP and their return periods, to identify best fit frequency

distribution model for each rainfall weather station in particular PMP and to generate the

corresponding Isohyetal Map, for quick estimation of PMPs for ungauged catchments in

NCR and Region III for purpose of planning, management, assessing and designing of

different water resources projects.

In order to estimate the PMP, annual total rainfall and daily maximum rainfall was

collected for the selected rainfall weather stations which is the synoptic stations from

PAGASA. A total of 6 stations were analyzed, 2 from NCR and 4 from Region III. After

checking the data’s consistency, Hershfield (1961, 1965) technique for estimating PMP,

an adapted version of Chow (1952) for frequency analysis of rainfall was used for PMP

computation. Daily annual extreme rainfall data was applied to derive maximum frequency

factors (Km) and the corresponding one-day PMP estimation values.

The maximum frequency factors (Km) of individual rainfall stations were found to

vary from 1.53 to 7.36 at an average value of 2.98 and CV 72.93. As PMP deals with

unusual rainfall values, the corresponding Km used was chosen from the extremely high

73
values i.e. 7.36. The PMP values were found to vary from 170.98 mm to 957.62 mm at an

average value of 370.40 mm and CV 79.15%. The ratio one-day PMP to highest observed

rainfall (HOR) varied from 1.05 to 2.10 with average of 1.26.

The best frequency distribution obtained for the extreme daily rainfall in the regions

was the Log Normal distribution, which accounted 66.67%, followed by the Gumbel

distribution 33.33%. The outcome was relied on the results of three goodness-of-fit tests,

Chi-square, correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination. The PMP return period

values were derived using Log Normal distribution and found to vary from 16.47 and 18.66

at an average value of 17 years and the observed variability was found as 5.49%.

The ratios of daily PMP to the design rainfall varying from 5 year to 10000 year

return period were worked out and found to vary from 135.33 mm to 817.43 mm. The

predicted PMP value to depths of various years return period ratios were found to vary

from 0.4755 to 4.2145.

Isohyetal map were generated by means of QGIS software based on the IDW

interpolation technique. Accordingly, PMP grid values were varying between 150 mm and

960 mm at a contour interval of 30 mm and 5 mm. The PMP Isohyetal Map generated

shows that area along the Science Garden station in Quezon City accumulated the highest

observed rainfall with a value of 957.62 mm and decreasing both North-East and South-

West direction.

74
Chapter 6

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations for the construction of one day PMP Isohyetal Map is

included in this chapter for future study and for the improvement of One day Probable

Precipitation based on the objectives of the study.

From the research of One-day Probable Maximum Precipitation, in order to achieve

such accurate and precise results the collection of hydrologic data plays an important role.

The researchers suggest to study the whole region of Luzon to be analyzed, all the

characteristic of gauging stations must be considered and long recorded rainfall data must

be collected. Hence, higher enveloping Km factor may be found in effect higher PMP

values may be derived and to obtained more verified best fit probability distribution

function for the region.

Philippines is a country where mostly extreme rainfalls mostly occur since it is a

tropical country and lies near the Pacific Ocean where typhoons are usually produced, so

the researchers recommend to make an update on PMP estimation if a certain climate

variability happens.

Maps developed in isohyetal only provides point PMP estimations. Thus, in order

to get reliable area estimation, areal reduction factors needs to be considered.

75
REFERENCES

Al-Mamun, A. and A. Hashim. 2004. General long duration probable maximum

precipitation isohyetal map for Peninsula, Malaysia. Journal of Spatial Hydrology,

4(1):156-179.

Al-Weshah, R.A. 2000. Rainfall-Runoff Analysis and Modeling in Wadi Systems.

University of Jordan. Amman, Jordan.

Bhaka S. R., A.K. Bansal, N. Chhajed and R. C. Purohit, 2006. Frequency analysis of

Consecutive day’s maximum rainfall at Banswara Rajasthan, Indi. ARPN Journal of

Engineering and Applied Sciences, 1(3): 1819-6608.

Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., & Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill,

USA.

Dairaku K., S. Emori and T. Oki, 2004. Rainfall amount, intensity, duration and frequency

relationships in the Mae-Chaem watershed in Southeast Asia. Journal of

Hydrometeorology 5:458–470.

Desa M, M.N., Noriah, A.B., & Rakhecha, P.R Probable maximum precipitation for 24 h

duration over southeast Asian monsoon region – Selangor, Malaysia. Atmospheric Region

Research, 58(1), 41-54.

76
Desa, M.M. and P.R. Rakhecha, 2006. Probable maximum precipitation for 24-hr duration

over an equatorial region: Part 2-Johor, Malaysia. Humid Tropics Centre (HTC) Kuala

Lumpur, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia.

Eliason, J. (1997). A statistical model for extreme precipitation. Water Resources

Research, 33(3), 449-455.

Gaeg, 2005. Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulics Structures, Khanna Publisher.New

Delhi.

Ghahraman .B., 2008. The estimation of one-day duration probable maximum precipitation

over atrak watershed in Iran. Iranian Journal of Science & Technology, Transaction B,

Engineering, Vol. 32, No. B2, pp 175-179, Printed in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Greenough G., M. McGeehin, S. Bernard, J. Trtanj, J. Riad and D. Engelberg, 2001. The

Potential Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Health Impacts of Extreme

Weather Events in the United States. Environmental Health Perspective, 109(2).

Haan C.T., 1977. Statistical methods in hydrology. The Iowa University Press, Iowa,

U.S.A.

Hansen E.M., D.D. Fenn, L.C. Schriner, R.W. Stodt and J.F. Miller, 1988. Probable

maximum precipitation estimates United States between the continental divide and the

77
103rd meridian. Hydro meteorological Report no. 55, national Weather Service, Silver

Springs. 59.

Hansen E.M., L.C. Schreiner and J.F. Miller, 1982. Application of probable maximum

Precipitation estimates, United States east of the 105th meridian Hydro meteorological

Report No. 52, National Weather Service, Washington D.C.

Hansen, E.M., 1987. Probable maximum precipitation for design floods in the United

States. Journal of Hydrology 96 (1-4).

Hershfield D.M., 1962. Rainfall frequency atlas of the United State for durations from 30

mints to 24 hours and return periods from 1 year to 100 years. Tech. Paper no. 40, U.S.

Depart. Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Hershfield D.M., 1961. Estimating probable maximum precipitation, proceedings ASCE.

Journal of Hydraulics, Division 87: 99-106.

Hershfield D.M., 1965. Methods of estimating probable maximum precipitation. Journal

of American Water Works Association 57: 965-972.

Hershfield D.M., 1975. Some small scale characteristics of extreme storm rainfalls in small

basins. Hydraulic Science Bulletin XX, 1, 3, 77-85.

78
Hershfiled, 1981. The magnitude of the hydrological frequency factor in maximum rainfall

estimation. Hydrological science Bulletin 26.

Koutsoyiannis, D., 1999. A probabilistic view of Hershfield’s method for estimating

probable maximum precipitation. Water Resources Research 35(4):1313-1322.

Koutsoyiannis D., 2004. Statistics of extremes and estimating extreme rainfall part-I

theoretical investigation. Hydrological Science Journal 49(4.).

NOAA, 2006. Frequency Alas of the United State, 1 (4).

Osadolor Christopher Izinyon and Henry Nwanne Ajumuka, 2013. Paper on Civil and

Environmental Research Part II, Probability distribution models for flood prediction in

Upper Benue River Basin.

Pathak C.S., 2001. Frequency analysis of daily rainfall maxima for central and south

Florida. Technical publication EMA (390), Hydro Information Systems & Assessment

Department, Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Division, West Palm Beach,

Florida.

Pawlina, A.A., 2002. No rain intervals within rain events: some statistics based on Milano

radar and rain gauge data. Proceedings of COST 280, First International Workshop on

79
propagation impairment mitigation for millimeter wave radio systems, 1–3 July 2002,

Malvern, UK.

Raghunath H.M., 2006. Hydrology Principles, Analysis and Design. New Age

International (P) Limited, Publishers, NewDelhi.

Rakhecha P.R., N.R. Deshpande and M.K. Soma, 1992. Probable maximum precipitation

for 2 day duration over the Indian Peninsula. Theoretical and applied climatology

Subramanya M.A., 1996. Goodness of fittest for extreme value distribution. Biometrika

84.

Tewelde Yideg, 2012. Assessing the potential of geonetcast earth observation and in-situ

data for drought early and monitoring in Tigray, Ethiopia, Enscheda, and the Netherlands.

Tokay .A and A.D. Short, 1996. Evidence from tropical raindrop spectra of the origin of

rain from stratiform versus convective clouds. Journal of Applied Meteorology 35.

USAID, 2009. Tigray regional overview and livelihood zone summaries.

Viessman W. and G.L. Lewis, 1996. Introduction Hydrology, Happer Collins College

Publishers.

80
Wanielista M.P., R. Kersten and R. Eaglin, 1996. Hydrology: Water Quantity and Quality

Control. 2nd Edn, Wiley, New York, ISBN-10: 0471072591

Meeker W. Q., and Escobar L. A., 2017. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. A Guide

for Practitioners and Researchers.

WMO, 1969. Estimation of Maximum Flood. Tech Note 98, WMO 233, Geneva,

Switzerland.

WMO, 1973. Manual for estimation of probable maximum precipitation. WMO 332,

Geneva.

WMO, 1986. Manual for estimation of probable maximum precipitation. Operational

Hydrologic Rep 1, paper 332, Geneva, Switzerland.

WMO, 1994. Guide to Hydrological Practices. Data Acquisition, Processing and Analysis.

WMO, 2009. Manual on Estimation of Probable Maximum Precipitation.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (1986). Manual for Estimation if Probable

Maximum precipitation: Summary 2nd, WMO 332, 1.

81
Article form the typhoon Ketsana and its effect on the Philippines retrieved from:

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2009/h2009_Ketsana.html

Climate and Population status of the Philippines (2010) an article retrieved from:

http://r3.denr.gov.ph/index.php/about-us/regional-profile

List of different weather station in the Philippines from: www.pag-

asa.dost.gov.ph/inex.php/engineering/111-meteorological-facilities

Geographical features of National Capital Region Philippines retrieved from:

http://nnc.gov.ph/regional/offices/national-capital-region/57-region-ncr-profile/244-ncr-

profile

Geographical features of Central Luzon Region (Region III) retrieved from:

http://nnc.gov.ph/regional/offices/national-capital-region/57-region-regionIII-profile/244-

regionIII-profile

List of the different devastating typhoon that hit the Philippines (1980-2010) retrieved

from: https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/watlinpsu99.pdf

Typhoon consequences and its impact to Queensland Australia retrieved from:

www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-flood-consequences

82
APPENDICES

Appendix Table

Appendix Table 1. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2001)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January - 2.5 - - - -
February 86 4.1 10.5 8 47.6 23
March 57.3 13 5.6 7 28.2 27
April 44.8 26.2 5.3 8 28.2 13
May 388.2 330.9 24.5 14 116.2 10
June 558.8 635.4 22.5 23 72.4 22
July 733.2 829.2 35.4 27 127.8 27
August 1044.4 1116.2 48 28 224.4 23
September 531.1 575.8 49.5 22 264.4 23
October 70.3 258.4 5.2 11 23.4 2
November 2 92.7 0.4 1 2 8
December 11.8 35.1 1.4 4 6 6
SUM 3527.9

Appendix Table 2. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2002)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January - 2.5 - - - -
February 2.6 4.1 0.4 2 1.6 2
March 0.3 13 0.1 1 0.3 23
April 43.6 26.2 4.6 4 22 18
May 232.4 330.9 11.5 15 36.2 27
June 542.7 635.4 25.1 20 90.4 5
July 2104.8 829.2 73 26 250.9 25
August 416.7 1116.2 22.5 25 83.2 2
September 457.3 575.8 21.3 20 71.8 10
October 137.6 258.4 10 13 48 9
November 41.4 92.7 6.2 6 34 22
December -1 35.1 - NONE - -
SUM 3978.4

83
Appendix Table 3. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2003)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January - 2.5 - - - -
February -1 4.1 - - - -
March 3.2 13 0.3 4 1.4 21
April -1 26.2 - - - -
May 834.4 330.9 44 18 153.2 26
June 299.6 635.4 21 13 81.1 18
July 448.8 829.2 37.6 21 201.6 22
August 1539.7 1116.2 57.6 28 194.6 7
September 625.1 575.8 37 21 180 2
October 113.3 258.4 10.7 7 41.6 17
November 46.3 92.7 4.2 5 17.7 14
December - 35.1 - - - -
SUM 3908.4

Appendix Table 4. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2004)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January -1 2.5 - - - -
February 11.2 4.1 1.3 4 6.6 22
March -1 13 - - - -
April 8.8 26.2 1.6 1 8.8 9
May 484.98 330.9 30.6 15 115 20
June 967.3 635.4 45.7 25 221.4 6
July 548 829.2 35.2 24 183 25
August 761.1 1116.2 30.3 31 136.4 4
September 111.9 575.8 83 13 36.6 1
October 54.1 258.4 5.9 6 26.4 6
November 59.4 92.7 10.2 3 55.8 29
December 93.2 35.1 15.6 2 86.8 2
SUM 3098.0

84
Appendix Table 5. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2005)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0.1 2.5 - 1 0.1 12


February - 4.1 - - - -
March 0.4 1.3 0.1 1 0.4 27
April 16.8 26.2 1.6 4 6.2 15
May 82.7 330.9 7.1 11 36.6 20
June 507.1 635.4 20.8 22 79.4 4
July 549.1 829.2 28.1 19 110 28
August 849.5 1116.2 41.9 23 145.6 5
September 238 575.8 16.6 22 85.6 16
October 241.1 258.4 19.2 13 88 7
November 30 92.7 3.7 5 18.8 12
December 32 35.1 3.1 7 16 4
SUM 2546.8

Appendix Table 6. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2006)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 34.1 2.5 3.5 7 15.2 25


February 5.8 4.1 0.7 3 3.6 21
March 25.5 13 3.1 4 15.9 14
April 15.4 26.2 2.8 1 15.4 30
May 56.6 330.9 3.9 10 14.1 21
June 244.3 635.4 19 23 81.8 13
July 1593.5 829.2 56 28 184.6 26
August 896.2 1116.2 43.4 28 200.6 14
September 315.5 575.8 15.5 19 56.8 10
October 511.1 258.4 42.2 13 217.3 30
November 73.7 902.7 11.3 7 62 11
December 23.4 35.1 2.4 5 11.6 10
SUM 3795.1

85
Appendix Table 7. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2007)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 5.5 2.5 0.9 3 5 27


February 0.4 4.1 0.1 1 0.4 26
March 39.6 13 4.9 4 20.8 22
April 7.4 26.2 1.3 2 7 4
May 125.8 330.9 7.2 18 26.8 10
June 35.8 635.4 2.3 14 7.4 1
July 529.9 829.2 36.7 19 179.6 13
August 1056.8 1116.2 54.4 27 247.2 8
September 752.1 575.58 45.5 21 18.7 1
October 296.5 258.4 17.4 17 63.8 3
November 217.8 92.7 15.9 10 65.4 26
December 2 35.1 0.4 1 2 10
SUM 3069.6

Appendix Table 8. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2008)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 14.8 2.5 1.6 4 8.2 22


February 23.4 4.1 3.8 3 20.4 27
March 16.3 13 1.7 3 8 31
April 35.2 26.2 2.5 10 10.6 27
May 309.1 330.9 1.3 19 65.2 17
June 366.5 635.4 23.1 18 107.6 22
July 490.1 829.2 22 20 77.8 15
August 651.2 1116.2 32.1 24 131.8 4
September 871.02 575.8 44.5 19 16.4 9
October 91.9 258.4 4.2 1.9 16.4 9
November 174.6 92.7 22.6 3 119.4 10
December 10 35.1 1.6 2 8.8 13
SUM 3054.1

86
Appendix Table 9. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2009)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 3 2.5 0.4 2 1.6 23


February 21.2 4.1 2.5 5 12.6 18
March 20 13 2.6 2 13.2 31
April 180 26.2 13 11 51.6 22
May 257.7 330.9 15.9 16 71 7
June 1006.5 635.4 37.7 24 136.4 5
July 981.3 829.2 40.7 2.9 152.6 18
August 323.6 1116.2 21.3 23 92 6
September 1269.2 263.6 258.4 21.3 14 99.8
October 263.6 258.4 21.3 14 99.8 3
November 2.4 92.7 0.4 2 2 4
December - 35.1 - - - -
SUM 4328.5

Appendix Table 10. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2010)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0.4 2.5 0.1 1 0.4 18


February - 4.1 - - - -
March 6.4 13 0.8 3 4 13
April 27.4 26.2 3.5 2 15.2 30
May 10.7 330.9 9.1 6 35 10
June 315.6 635.4 15.7 14 49.8 4
July 284.7 829.2 17.2 22 68 29
August 787.4 1116.2 32.4 27 123.6 28
September 356.3 575.8 23.6 16 109.6 2
October 461.2 258.4 29.9 18 112.8 19
November 112.5 92.7 8.2 12 27.7 10
December -1 35.1 - - - -
SUM 2361.6

87
Appendix Table 11. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2001)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 21.1 19.0 3.6 4 19.8 17


February 105.3 7.2 8.3 8 35.8 20
March 12.3 17.2 1.1 6 5.3 26
April 31.3 30.6 3.2 8 17.2 15
May 261.1 143.6 13.7 18 48.8 10
June 248.5 350.7 12.5 20 44.5 27
July 518.5 467.7 22.9 25 107.4 19
August 549.2 504.2 23.8 27 110.4 17
September 183.1 389.6 9.9 20 34.0 30
October 191.0 272.6 11.9 17 57.8 13
November 73.1 149.7 8.0 7 39.0 8
December 96.9 55.7 8.2 10 30.2 6
SUM 2291.4

Appendix Table 12. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2002)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 8.4 19.0 1.5 1 8.4 31


February 13.4 7.2 1.7 5 8.6 1
March 21.6 17.2 2.9 3 15.4 23
April 20.4 30.6 2.1 5 10.0 22
May 49.7 143.6 4.4 9 18.8 26
June 184.2 350.7 8.4 17 36.0 26
July 1310.4 467.7 64.9 25 246.4 7
August 444.5 504.2 22.3 27 99.7 13
September 426.3 389.6 17.1 24 64.6 6
October 241.5 272.6 16.1 17 76.0 9
November 235.0 149.7 17.3 15 76.5 4
December 37.4 55.7 4.1 5 18.4 31
SUM 2992.8

88
Appendix Table 13. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2003)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 1.6 19.0 0.7 2 1.4 8


February 9.6 7.2 1.7 3 5.2 22
March 21.1 17.2 3.5 3 20.6 24
April 22.1 30.6 3.8 4 20.6 24
May 465.8 143.6 36.8 14 137.4 27
June 231.8 350.7 13.5 14 55.6 17
July 268.3 467.7 11.2 25 38.4 22
August 380.5 504.2 20.0 25 100.2 19
September 497.6 389.6 29.2 25 120.2 2
October 184.9 272.6 11.9 18 52.2 12
November 118.2 149.7 7.4 14 30.4 17
December 6.8 55.7 1.0 2 5.4 13
SUM 2208.3

Appendix Table 14. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2004)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 6.0 19.0 0.7 3 3.6 6


February 10.0 25.0 23.0 13 36.5 29
March - 17.2 - - - -
April 88.4 30.6 8.1 9 33.4 8
May 206.6 143.6 14.4 11 61.2 22
June 214.6 350.7 7.3 24 23.6 20
July 335.6 467.7 17.2 21 39.0 22
August 686.0 504.2 33.2 23 135.6 24
September 308.3 389.6 16.2 21 79.0 1
October 86.6 272.6 6.8 11 32.2 1
November 204.5 149.7 13.1 17 126.7 29
December 60 55.7 8.3 4 45.4 2
SUM 2206.6

89
Appendix Table 15. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2005)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 12.7 19.0 1.6 4 8.4 20


February 12.0 7.2 1.6 2 7.0 9
March 16.0 17.2 1.9 6 9.8 18
April 35.8 30.6 3.9 3 16.8 25
May 137.9 143.6 13.4 12 65.2 28
June 528.9 350.7 20.5 22 85.3 4
July 221.2 467.7 12.3 19 54.6 5
August 342.4 504.2 16.3 23 59.6 1
September 413.6 389.6 20.4 25 86.9 15
October 487.8 272.6 24.2 20 104.6 27
November 76.6 149.7 6.7 11 34.6 29
December 86.6 55.7 4.6 14 12.9 14
SUM 2371.5

Appendix Table 16. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2006)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 56.3 19.0 4.9 10 24.2 25


February 6.8 7.2 0.6 7 2.4 7
March 78.5 17.2 5.7 10 26.8 13
April - 30.6 - - - -
May 172.8 143.6 12.2 11 54.8 24
June 333.6 350.7 19.0 17 69.4 2
July 662.6 467.7 31.6 24 116.4 23
August 310.1 504.2 13.9 21 58.9 6
September 667.6 389.6 33.2 21 159.6 9
October 212.2 272.6 10.8 17 36.5 29
November 88.7 149.7 6.9 10 30.4 30
December 76.8 55.7 9.6 8 53 10
SUM 2666.0

90
Appendix Table 17. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2007)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 2.2 19.0 0.3 4 1.4 11


February 24.1 7.2 4.6 1 24.1 26
March 21.9 17.2 2.9 5 15.3 19
April 25.8 30.6 3.0 4 14.6 11
May 258.3 143.6 19.8 15 107.0 29
June 99.4 350.7 4.7 22 21.0 10
July 205.9 467.7 10.2 21 42.4 10
August 669.9 504.2 38.9 25 147.0 17
September 437.6 389.6 13.9 25 53.5 28
October 220.2 272.6 15.9 20 78.6 2
November 284.6 149.7 16.0 18 65.4 21
December 52.2 55.7 5 9 26.3 26
SUM 2302.1

Appendix Table 18. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2008)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 47.1 19.0 5.4 10 30.2 12


February 23.9 7.2 1.9 10 8.0 25
March 38.9 17.2 4.3 5 19.4 2
April 35.5 30.6 2.2 11 7.1 14
May 261.8 143.6 12.2 25 41.8 23
June 361.4 350.7 27.5 14 125.6 22
July 225.3 467.7 11.1 24 38.6 27
August 430.4 504.2 15.4 21 52.4 20
September 447.7 389.6 21.8 24 74.4 24
October 249.4 272.6 17.4 21 91.4 27
November 187.9 149.7 12.9 15 61.4 9
December 70 55.7 5.1 9 25 4
SUM 2379.3

91
Appendix Table 19. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2009)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 43.1 19.0 4.5 6 22.0 23


February 10.2 7.2 1.5 3 7.8 6
March 93.7 17.2 9.0 8 37.1 27
April 138.5 30.6 9.3 14 40.4 19
May 264.8 143.6 18.1 16 86.9 7
June 438.1 350.7 19.5 20 75.7 3
July 660.8 467.7 33.8 25 153.5 16
August 408.1 504.2 23.0 21 93.0 21
September 1123.5 389.6 83.1 24 455.0 26
October 272.3 272.6 18.5 19 79.0 30
November 54.1 149.7 3.7 14 15.5 13
December 6.6 55.6 1.1 3 6 11
SUM 3513.8

Appendix Table 20. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2010)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 5.1 19.0 0.6 3 3.0 18


February - 7.2 - - - -
March 2.4 17.2 0.4 1 2.4 12
April 20.1 30.6 2.8 4 15.2 30
May 62.0 143.6 9.5 7 52.8 28
June 355.5 350.7 15.3 24 56.5 28
July 410.4 467.7 24.7 20 105.9 25
August 628.1 504.2 15.3 22 122.0 5
September 386.6 389.6 25.6 17 120.6 2
October 413.3 272.6 21.8 20 88.2 27
November 254.5 149.7 13.5 21 45.0 9
December 136.9 55.7 12.9 12 67 16
SUM 2674.9

92
Appendix Table 21. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2001)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 34.0 16.5 6.0 2 33.2 13


February 54.5 5.3 4.0 9 14.6 4
March 26.3 10.1 2.6 6 10.0 9
April 39.0 17.9 5.0 6 27.0 11
May 174.2 142.1 10.6 16 43.1 10
June 182.1 303.2 9.9 18 38.6 16
July 388.6 407.7 33.5 17 178.0 19
August 465.4 452.3 22.2 23 77.8 17
September 121.4 356.5 5.8 18 21.0 30
October 183.4 240.1 12.2 19 47.8 2
November 74.6 121.1 8.9 5 46.8 8
December 88.7 49.7 7.9 6 34.8 10
SUM 1832.2

Appendix Table 22. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2002)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 7.5 16.5 1.3 2 7.3 31


February 11.3 5.3 1.4 5 7.0 1
March 7.8 10.1 0.9 4 4.4 23
April 15.4 17.9 1.7 3 7.4 14
May 71.2 142.1 6.2 9 31.2 30
June 37.4 303.2 2.5 11 10.3 7
July 1468.8 407.7 70.4 25 248.2 20
August 363.3 452.3 16.5 22 78.8 13
September 277.7 356.5 14.4 22 58.8 6
October 212.4 240.1 13.0 17 64.2 10
November 140.1 121.1 9.8 13 39.6 4
December 29.3 49.7 2.4 8 9 6
SUM 2642.2

93
Appendix Table 23. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2003)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 8.5 16.5 1.3 2 7.0 15


February 8.3 5.3 1.5 2 7.9 11
March 1.2 10.1 0.2 2 0.8 8
April 18.4 17.9 2.9 4 15.8 5
May 408.1 142.1 31.8 11 119.1 27
June 232.1 303.2 15.1 13 58.4 17
July 334.1 407.7 21.0 22 111.7 27
August 425.5 452.3 23.9 24 117.2 19
September 366.7 356.5 26.5 19 123.6 2
October 97.9 240.1 7.3 13 26.0 13
November 129.6 121.1 10.7 13 42.0 8
December 11.4 49.7 1.9 2 10.4 13
SUM 2041.8

Appendix Table 24. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2004)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 1.2 16.5 0.2 2 1.0 6


February 40.5 5.3 5.3 4 25.5 23
March - 10.1 - - - -
April - 17.9 - - - -
May 225.3 142.1 16.8 13 79.8 22
June 260.2 303.2 10.3 23 31.0 13
July 150.6 407.7 6.7 18 21.0 26
August 426.3 452.3 24.1 21 97.6 24
September 173.3 356.5 11.8 15 51.8 1
October 75.6 240.1 5.7 9 24.2 1
November 152.8 121.1 20.3 15 111.4 29
December 41.3 49.7 5.5 4 29 2
SUM 1547.1

94
Appendix Table 25. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2005)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 9.8 16.5 0.9 5 3.6 20


February 8.9 5.3 1.2 3 6.1 10
March 15.8 10.1 2.5 3 14.0 18
April - 17.9 - - - -
May 60.1 142.1 4.1 11 18.0 31
June 312.9 303.2 14.8 20 54.0 9
July 175.1 407.7 11.4 18 45.2 12
August 262.4 452.3 14.1 18 52.2 12
September 328.8 356.5 16.5 26 65.2 15
October 296.0 240.1 18.9 20 91.0 27
November 33.8 121.1 2.2 13 9.3 5
December 87.2 49.7 5.3 12 19 10
SUM 1590.8

Appendix Table 26. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2006)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 56.1 16.5 5.3 7 28.0 25


February 17.4 5.3 1.8 4 8.4 2
March 79.9 10.1 7.9 5 37.2 1
April - 17.9 - - - -
May 50.6 142.1 3.3 9 13.8 12
June 191.5 303.2 12.5 14 62.5 3
July 569.3 407.7 24.0 24 94.0 23
August 246.4 452.3 11.7 18 53.0 14
September 515.4 356.5 21.4 21 69.2 9
October 199.0 240.1 10.2 16 38.0 2
November 63.7 121.1 7.6 8 40.0 30
December 105.9 49.7 14.4 7 80.3 10
SUM 2095.2

95
Appendix Table 27. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2007)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 1.2 16.5 0.1 2 0.6 4 & 11


February 15.0 5.3 2.1 2 10.5 26
March 28.0 10.1 4.5 3 25.0 19
April 27.2 17.9 3.3 5 17.4 11
May 107.3 142.1 7.6 12 30.5 29
June 41.4 303.2 3.1 9 10.4 30
July 186.6 407.7 12.3 15 56.8 10
August 620.2 452.3 36.3 22 154.0 17
September 400.8 356.5 14.1 21 43.0 28
October 212.1 240.1 12.1 19 51.0 2
November 289.5 121.1 18.4 17 63.8 15
December 48.2 49.7 5.1 6 27.4 26
SUM 1977.5

Appendix Table 28. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2008)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 58.5 16.5 6.4 5 32.4 12


February 20.7 5.3 1.9 5 6.6 3
March 19.9 10.1 2.5 3 13.6 23
April 40.1 17.9 3.6 7 17.8 28
May 218.4 142.1 9.2 20 24.9 11
June 233.4 303.2 23.9 10 120.9 22
July 365.0 407.7 18.5 17 63.2 31
August 547.3 452.3 26.7 20 80.5 15
September 388.9 356.5 23.5 17 91.5 8
October 125.1 240.1 8.0 17 43.0 4
November 127.8 121.1 9.9 12 46.0 11
December 54.6 49.7 3.9 9 18.3 4
SUM 2199.7

96
Appendix Table 29. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2009)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 10.3 16.5 1.5 4 8.0 8


February 26.1 5.3 2.8 6 13.0 16
March 60.9 10.1 8.5 7 47.0 25
April 111.6 17.9 7.8 10 27.4 22
May 294.6 142.1 19.3 14 89.0 7
June 386.9 303.2 20.1 16 67.8 3
July 598.8 407.7 34.9 23 148.5 16
August 307.4 452.3 21.2 21 107.2 21
September 839.2 356.5 49.3 21 258.5 26
October 243.4 240.1 17.2 19 85.0 30
November 64.8 121.1 5.4 8 25.5 13
December 2.2 49.7 0.4 1 2.2 22
SUM 2946.2

Appendix Table 30. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2010)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 6.0 16.5 0.9 2 5.0 18


February - 5.3 - - - -
March 6.2 10.1 0.8 2 4.3 12
April 13.7 17.9 1.4 4 6.3 29
May 13.8 142.1 1.9 4 10.2 28
June 348.1 303.2 21.3 18 99.0 11
July 347.3 407.7 26.4 19 131.4 13
August 312.6 452.3 16.8 15 49.7 23
September 362.1 356.5 16.8 17 52.4 16
October 289.4 240.1 15.5 19 67.8 18
November 197.8 121.1 11.1 16 42.0 22
December 65.2 49.7 7.1 9 30.5 19
SUM 1962.2

97
Appendix Table 31. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2001)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January - - - - - -
February 27.2 - 2.4 5 9.4 23
March 43.7 - 6.4 4 35.6 26
April 22.6 - 2.0 6 8.1 22
May 687.2 - 36.2 17 112.6 10
June 505.3 - 22.1 24 94.3 23
July 514.9 - 20.7 27 81.5 27
August 1251.0 - 49.6 29 147.6 23
September 451.3 - 24.1 21 112.0 23
October 106.3 - 8.3 11 41.9 9
November 30.9 - 5.2 4 28.8 8
December 16.9 - 1.5 5 6.5 6
SUM 3657.3

Appendix Table 32. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2002)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 1.6 - 0.3 1 1.6 31


February 5.1 - 1.0 1 5.1 1
March 20.6 - 2.7 3 13.0 7
April 4.1 - 0.7 1 4.1 15
May 259.8 - 16.9 14 68.9 27
June 398.4 - 20.4 18 73.4 3
July 2195.2 - 86.9 27 287.6 13
August 409.9 - 19.1 24 54.4 2
September 702.9 - 35.6 19 135.4 9
October 37.5 - 3.6 7 18.2 18
November 7.9 - 0.7 5 2.8 10
December 1 - 0.2 1 1 17
SUM 4044.0

98
Appendix Table 33. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2003)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 7.6 - 1.3 2 7.2 7


February 0.4 - 0.1 1 0.4 11
March 20.9 - 3.8 1 20.9 8
April 0.0 - 0.0 - - -
May 618.2 - 37.8 13 147.5 27
June 320.4 - 20.9 13 63.8 16
July 198.7 - 13.7 17 67.2 22
August 925.2 - 33.2 26 118.4 22
September 589.8 - 34.8 19 168.0 2
October 26.0 - 3.0 4 15.0 16
November 56.9 - 5.3 9 19.8 17
December 3.4 - 0.5 2 2.4 13
SUM 2767.5

Appendix Table 34. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2004)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 1013.3 - 1.7 1 0.5 7


February 1012.4 - 1.5 - - -
March 1011.1 - 2.2 1 0.3 17
April 1010.5 - 1.4 2 16.0 4
May 661.4 - 38.1 13 148.4 22
June 834.6 - 44.9 26 230.0 6
July 411.4 - 20.0 22 75.0 26
August 722.1 - 26.7 29 112.8 4
September 82.6 - 8.5 11 40.2 6
October 39.8 - 3.1 10 13.0 7
November 76.4 - 12.1 8 66.6 29
December 38 - 5.1 3 26.4 2
SUM 6913.6

99
Appendix Table 35. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2005)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0.6 - 0.1 2 0.4 9


February 4.4 - 0.6 3 2.8 9
March 18.6 - 2.0 3 8.6 28
April 2.0 - 0.4 1 2.0 3
May 72.1 - 5.9 7 27.0 31
June 471.9 - 20.2 23 65.3 6
July 759.5 - 32.5 24 119.7 27
August 795.4 - 42.1 21 152.0 12
September 402.9 - 20.9 22 89.2 16
October 111.2 - 33.6 12 33.6 16
November 58.3 - 28.0 6 28.0 16
December 17.1 - 3.6 11 3.6 9
SUM 2714.0

Appendix Table 36. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2006)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 23.4 - 2.7 7 14.8 25


February 0.4 - 0.1 2 0.2 21
March 25.8 - 4.2 4 23.5 13
April 1010.6 - 0.8 0 0.0 0
May 103.3 - 8.5 11 43.8 13
June 266.7 - 19.6 14 75.0 27
July 1308.3 - 46.9 25 146.4 6
August 943.7 - 41.3 27 207.0 14
September 394.2 - 18.6 23 79.8 28
October 168.9 - 18.4 11 98.6 29
November 11.9 - 1.4 4 6.8 30
December 61.5 - 8.6 6 47.6 10
SUM 4318.7

100
Appendix Table 37. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2007)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 6.2 - 0.7 5 4.0 4


February 0.3 - 0.1 1 0.3 7
March 0.7 - 0.1 2 0.6 22
April 0.0 - 0.0 0 0.0 0
May 212.9 - 15.1 12 57.0 22
June 33.4 - 2.2 9 8.2 26
July 416.9 - 26.1 19 95.2 13
August 1162.7 - 57.1 28 228.0 15
September 997.1 - 50.8 20 199.3 21
October 292.7 - 25.9 15 118.1 2
November 143.7 - 10.3 11 37.1 26
December 8.4 - 1.1 4 5.8 30
SUM 3275.0

Appendix Table 38. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2008)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 28.7 - 3.0 3 11.2 22


February 21.5 - 2.6 6 13.0 6
March 25.5 - 4.6 2 25.4 3
April 14.6 - 2.3 2 12.4 28
May 374.0 - 19.1 17 64.6 12
June 350.1 - 33.1 14 179.6 22
July 502.7 - 26.3 25 120.6 15
August 566.5 - 28.5 25 124.1 5
September 1165.8 - 58.3 22 242.9 23
October 88.2 - 4.5 14 16.5 10
November 241.3 - 25.4 7 100.7 10
December 0 - 0 0 0 0
SUM 3378.9

101
Appendix Table 39. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2009)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0.5 - 0.1 1 0.5 8


February 4.2 - 0.6 2 2.6 8
March 17.3 - 2.3 5 12.6 27
April 210.6 - 17.2 11 84.4 21
May 331.4 - 23.0 12 93.0 7
June 925.2 - 37.4 25 132.6 2
July 812.9 - 39.3 26 164.3 16
August 277.5 - 14.7 20 59.8 4
September 1259.2 - 48.6 23 163.8 8
October 208.2 - 17.2 14 92.6 3
November 23.5 - 2.4 7 12.3 2
December 0 - 0 0 0 0
SUM 4070.5

Appendix Table 40. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2010)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 2.1 - 0.3 3 1.8 18


February 0.0 - - - - -
March 4.2 - 0.8 1 4.2 12
April 9.5 - 1.4 2 7.5 29
May 84.6 - 10.2 3 46.2 26
June 216.5 - 10.2 18 35.7 4
July 347.0 - 16.0 20 64.2 25
August 474.8 - 19.1 24 60.4 28
September 277.1 - 18.5 14 70.3 1
October 401.6 - 25.6 15 113.6 19
November 59.6 - 4.5 10 16.6 11
December 41.2 - 5.9 4 32 16
SUM 1918.2

102
Appendix Table 41. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2001)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 1.8 - 0.3 2 1.6 7


February 42.4 - 3.3 9 12.0 1
March 41.0 - 5.4 5 29.6 26
April 153.4 - 11.1 10 48.0 22
May 113.1 - 7.1 15 35.6 10
June 225.4 - 10.3 21 41.0 26
July 590.0 - 22.6 29 29.6 5
August 467.1 - 20.3 28 62.2 23
September 277,9 - 13.4 22 42.0 13
October 74.1 - 8.2 10 42.1 9
November 29.9 - 3.9 5 20.6 8
December 35.5 - 2.8 8 12.8 6
SUM 1773.7

Appendix Table 42. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2002)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 6.4 - 0.8 2 3.4 15


February 1.5 - 2.0 3 1.2 8
March 9.1 - 1.1 4 5.0 13
April 4.4 - 0.5 4 2.8 6
May 148.9 - 7.7 17 26.4 22
June 115.5 - 10.0 19 41.3 7
July 945.0 - 41.4 24 170.7 12
August 308.6 - 11.2 26 39.2 20
September 301.1 - 14.2 19 50.0 9
October 73.6 - 5.3 13 22.0 7
November 31.7 - 2.6 7 11.3 3
December 4.8 - 0.5 3 2.6 17
SUM 1950.6

103
Appendix Table 43. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2003)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0.2 - 0.0 1 0.2 14


February 5.2 - 0.8 2 4.2 11
March 1.6 - 0.3 1 1.6 20
April 16.7 - 1.8 6 9.5 25
May 400.8 - 23.2 15 91.0 15
June 291.2 - 14.3 19 50.2 26
July 323.0 - 21.6 17 108.0 22
August 664.0 - 32.3 23 123.5 6
September 328.8 - 20.3 20 103.8 2
October 56.0 - 8.8 3 49.0 11
November 39.4 - 6.2 7 34.0 14
December 0.5 - 0.1 1 0.5 6
SUM 2127.4

Appendix Table 44. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2004)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0.0 - 0.0 NONE - 22


February 35.3 - 5.5 4 29.5 26
March 20.0 - 3.6 1 20.0 3
April 88.2 - 10.6 8 54.0 25
May 351.6 - 23.0 15 85.3 16
June 495.3 - 27.9 25 135.0 22
July 618.1 - 32.2 21 130.0 28
August 604.3 - 29.7 23 125.5 27
September 83.1 - 5.6 11 19.4 23
October 46.2 - 2.6 12 9.4 28
November 117.9 - 17.3 5 94.0 10
December 37.7 - 3.9 7 20.5 13
SUM 2497.7

104
Appendix Table 45. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2005)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0.0 - 0.0 NONE - -


February 21.9 - 4.1 2 21.5 20
March 9.0 - 1.0 4 5.5 17
April 15.8 - 1.7 3 6.3 25
May 197.7 - 16.3 10 79.5 28
June 160.3 - 10.6 16 40.2 23
July 312.7 - 16.2 22 75.8 31
August 221.9 - 9.3 18 29.0 12
September 268.8 - 12.5 20 45.0 16
October 128.6 - 11.2 13 59.4 27
November 49.8 - 4.9 11 25.5 16
December 27.8 - 2.8 7 13.2 10
SUM 1414.3

Appendix Table 46. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2006)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 91.7 - 13.5 7 75.2 22


February 1.2 - 0.2 2 1.0 26
March 33.1 - 3.1 5 13.1 3
April 20.0 - 3.7 1 20.0 25
May 88.1 - 4.8 12 18.2 16
June 154.4 - 8.4 17 32.2 22
July 760.4 - 36.8 23 107.2 28
August 351.1 - 12.9 28 56.4 27
September 201.5 - 11.0 18 39.0 23
October 104.4 - 8.7 8 37.4 28
November 30.2 - 3.3 4 16.0 10
December 57.8 - 5.6 6 27.8 13
SUM 1893.9

105
Appendix Table 47. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2007)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 3.8 - 0.7 1 3.8 24


February 8.0 - 1.1 3 4.8 25
March 40.8 - 5.4 4 29.4 24
April 18.8 - 2.9 4 15.6 3
May 213.4 - 10.7 16 36.0 10
June 179.7 - 13.8 14 59.0 21
July 219.3 - 13.7 20 57.5 5
August 637.8 - 39.1 25 186.8 8
September 435.5 - 18.3 26 79.4 13
October 141.3 - 11.9 16 59.2 1
November 146.6 - 12.0 13 64.0 15
December 7.9 - 0.9 5 4.2 10
SUM 2052.9

Appendix Table 48. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2008)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 25.4 - 2.6 5 13.0 22


February 4.6 - 0.5 4 2.6 26
March 57.0 - 5.0 5 21.0 3
April 9.4 - 1.4 2 7.6 25
May 279.3 - 11.5 25 42.8 16
June 270.3 - 10.9 16 95.4 22
July 292.8 - 11.3 24 37.6 28
August 358.4 - 16.8 20 68.6 27
September 297.0 - 19.0 19 69.8 23
October 115.3 - 6.7 14 25.3 28
November 131.3 - 11.2 11 56.2 10
December 2.4 - 3 3 1.2 13
SUM 1843.2

106
Appendix Table 49. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2009)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0 - - - - -
February 21.4 - 13.0 4 10.2 25
March - - - - - -
April 126.5 - 8.7 13 39.2 26
May 507.6 - 30.9 18 129.0 7
June 621.2 - 26.9 24 115.2 18
July 343.5 - 19.3 23 70.8 17
August 318.6 - 21.0 21 109.8 6
September 547.6 - 29.5 22 109.9 26
October 219.7 - 2.9 14 57.5 3
November 40.1 - 4.8 4 21.1 2
December 5.2 - 0.8 2 4.2 22
SUM 2751.4

Appendix Table 50. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2010)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 18.8 - 2.3 4 11.2 17


February 0.0 - 0.0 - - -
March 3.6 - 0.6 1 3.6 12
April 36.8 - 5.6 4 30.4 29
May 27.6 - 2.8 8 15.0 25
June 214.6 - 11.7 21 43.4 28
July 265.0 - 13.8 26 60.2 6
August 284.6 - 13.0 26 50.4 26
September 179.5 - 10.1 17 41.4 1
October 356.8 - 30.6 14 155.0 19
November 206.2 - 22.2 13 119.6 10
December 120.2 - 2.9 4 16 13
SUM 1713.7

107
Appendix Table 51. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2001)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 3.8 8.4 0.6 3 3.4 15


February 11.8 3.8 2 2 10.4 8
March - 15.2 - - - -
April 3.2 23.9 0.6 1 3.2 25
May 151.6 181.5 11.8 14 63.6 14
June 101.4 302.4 1 15 16 29
July 573.6 358.9 25.9 27 112.8 7
August 379.5 392.3 24.3 25 111.4 9
September 324.3 300.4 14.7 21 50.8 11
October 0 185.6 -2 7 19.8 8
November 0 1010.8 -2 1 0.1 13
December 7.4 35.7 1 2 5.2 3.1
SUM 1556.6

Appendix Table 52. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2002)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 1.2 8.4 0.2 1 1.2 7


February 49.3 3.8 3.5 8 11.8 24
March 27.7 15.2 2.9 5 14.5 26
April 3 23.9 0.4 2 1.8 1
May 185.6 181.5 11.1 17 33.8 23
June 124.5 302.4 7.2 15 31.8 28
July 401.4 358.9 21.7 23 107.5 4
August 265.2 392.3 11.2 25 40.6 11
September 168.7 300.4 8.5 22 30.4 16
October 210 185.6 12.4 12 47.8 6
November 21.4 120.8 3.5 5 19.4 8
December 68.6 35.7 6.2 7 31.4 7
SUM 1526.6

108
Appendix Table 53. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2003)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January - 8.4 - - - -
February 3.1 3.8 0.6 1 3.1 11
March 2.8 15.2 0.5 1 2.8 8
April 11.9 23.9 1.5 3 6.8 21
May 350.8 181.5 28 16 144.6 27
June 144.1 302.4 8.5 16 32.8 16
July 378 358.9 26.9 18 133 22
August 676.8 392.3 23.2 27 79.5 17
September 395.7 300.4 18.5 20 78 18
October 52.2 185.6 8.8 5 49 16
November 121.9 120.8 11 8 53.2 14
December - 35.7 - - - -
SUM 2137.3

Appendix Table 54. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2004)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January - 8.4 - - - -
February 36.8 3.8 6.6 4 35.4 9
March 0.8 15.2 0.1 1 0.8 22
April 10.2 23.9 1.3 3 6.6 14
May 162 181.5 12.7 15 64.4 22
June 430 302.4 17.6 23 58.8 30
July 204.4 358.9 11.9 17 55.4 24
August 690.5 392.3 35.8 25 150.6 26
September 119.5 300.4 7.6 15 30 1
October 68.2 185.6 5.8 8 24.4 7
November 239.9 120.8 31 8 157.8 29
December 100.8 35.7 2.9 4 86.3 2
SUM 2063.1

109
Appendix Table 55. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2005)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0.5 8.4 0.1 2 0.4 12


February - 3.8 - - - -
March 12.9 15.2 1.8 4 10.1 17
April 3.6 23.9 0.7 1 3.6 3
May 240.7 181.5 13.1 14 41.5 28
June 242 302.4 17.3 15 85 23
July 93.8 358.9 6.2 18 31.2 5
August 198.8 392.3 10.1 20 33 11
September 292.6 300.4 13.9 24 46.2 16
October 160.2 185.6 13.4 12 53.6 27
November 32 120.8 2.3 11 8 27
December 61.1 35.7 5.2 14 25.4 27
SUM 1338.2

Appendix Table 56. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2006)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 196 8.4 25.6 6 137.2 25


February 0.1 3.8 0 1 0.1 8
March 14.6 15.2 1.6 3 10 31
April 88.4 23.9 16.1 1 88.4 28
May 97.6 181.5 9 6 40 20
June 5 6 1.5 12 67.5 3
July 7 6 1.5 25 128 31
August 333.6 392.3 16.7 24 78.4 26
September 216.4 300.4 11.6 21 40 7
October 82.8 185.6 7.5 10 34.8 29
November 81.1 120.8 7.5 7 37 11
December 54.4 35.7 4.4 6 14.2 1
SUM 1177.0

110
Appendix Table 57. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2007)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0.2 8.4 - 1 0.2 15


February 0 3.8 - - - -
March 44 15.2 5.2 4 23.6 22
April 29.4 23.9 4.5 4 24.6 11
May 151.6 181.5 13.3 14 72.4 26
June 97.8 302.4 7.4 13 32.4 8
July 256.7 358.7 12.6 21 49.4 26
August 403 392.3 23.4 27 121.8 8
September 408 300.4 23.7 18 106 13
October 171 185.6 13 12 52 1
November 303.8 120.8 26.9 14 119.9 15
December 11.3 35.7 1.4 3 7.7 10
SUM 1876.8

Appendix Table 58. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2008)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 85.8 8.4 8.7 6 33.6 13


February 18 3.8 1.9 5 9.2 26
March 36.2 15.2 4.5 4 22.2 3
April 43.5 23.9 4.2 5 18.8 25
May 372.8 181.5 16.1 26 73.2 22
June 199 302.4 16.1 13 85.2 22
July 322.6 358.9 16.2 22 53.6 14
August 430.4 392.3 20.1 22 86.6 2
September 296.4 300.4 15 19 56.6 30
October 200.1 185.6 17.8 15 94.8 4
November 138.7 120.8 9.8 11 45.2 10
December 9 35.7 1.4 2 8 13
SUM 2152.5

111
Appendix Table 59. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2009)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January - 8.4 - - - -
February 13.2 3.8 2.1 3 10.8 18
March 16.2 15.2 2.9 2 16 25
April 236.3 23.9 18.1 11 72 20
May 172 181.5 14 18 73.8 7
June 510.9 302.4 22.3 23 102.8 12
July 454.2 358.9 19.2 26 79.4 10
August 344.5 392.3 17.8 22 81 6
September 527.1 300.4 24.1 23 107.6 20
October 352.5 185.6 22.5 15 96.2 8
November 44.8 120.8 4.8 6 21 4
December 1 35.7 0.2 1 1 23
SUM 2672.7

Appendix Table 60. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2010)

24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall

January 0.2 8.4 - 1 0.2 18


February - 3.8 - - - -
March 6 15.2 0.8 2 3.2 12
April 75.8 23.9 8.1 5 37.8 28
May 9.4 181.5 0.9 4 3.2 28
June 170.8 302.4 12 16 63.2 13
July 355.8 358.9 18.4 22 87 28
August 241.6 392.3 10.1 23 40.8 7
September 162.5 300.4 8.9 17 38.2 1
October 169.2 185.6 14.8 11 65.3 18
November 122.5 120.8 9.1 13 39 11
December 23.2 35.7 4.1 2 23 14
SUM 1337.0

112
Appendix Table 61. Normal Distribution of Iba Zambales Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P (%) Z X̄ Sn Z*Sn Xt=X̄ + Z*Sn
2001 264.4 264.4 1 0.09 1.34 195.64 52.95 70.69 266.33
2002 250.9 250.9 2 0.18 0.91 195.64 52.95 48.10 243.74
2003 201.6 247.2 3 0.27 0.60 195.64 52.95 32.01 227.65
2004 221.4 221.4 4 0.36 0.35 195.64 52.95 18.47 214.11
2005 145.6 217.3 5 0.45 0.11 195.64 52.95 6.05 201.69
2006 217.3 201.6 6 0.55 0.00 195.64 52.95 0.00 195.64
2007 247.2 152.6 7 0.64 0.00 195.64 52.95 0.00 195.64
2008 131.8 145.6 8 0.73 0.00 195.64 52.95 0.00 195.64
2009 152.6 131.8 9 0.82 0.00 195.64 52.95 0.00 195.64
2010 123.6 123.6 10 0.91 0.00 195.64 52.95 0.00 195.64
Mean 195.64
Sn 52.95
CV (%) 27.06

Appendix Table 62. Normal Distribution of Science Garden Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P (%) Z X̄ Sn Z*Sn Xt=X̄ + Z*Sn
2001 110.4 455 1 0.09 1.34 174.36 106.38 142.04 316.40
2002 246.4 246.4 2 0.18 0.91 174.36 106.38 96.65 271.01
2003 137.4 159.6 3 0.27 0.60 174.36 106.38 64.32 238.68
2004 135.6 147 4 0.36 0.35 174.36 106.38 37.10 211.46
2005 104.6 137.4 5 0.45 0.11 174.36 106.38 12.15 186.51
2006 159.6 135.6 6 0.55 0.00 174.36 106.38 0.00 174.36
2007 147 125.6 7 0.64 0.00 174.36 106.38 0.00 174.36
2008 125.6 122 8 0.73 0.00 174.36 106.38 0.00 174.36
2009 455 110.4 9 0.82 0.00 174.36 106.38 0.00 174.36
2010 122 104.6 10 0.91 0.00 174.36 106.38 0.00 174.36
Mean 174.36
Sn 106.38
CV (%) 61.01

113
Appendix Table 63. Normal Distribution of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P (%) Z X̄ Sn Z*Sn Xt=X̄ + Z*Sn
2001 147.6 287.6 1 0.09 1.34 194.10 53.45 71.37 265.47
2002 287.6 242.9 2 0.18 0.91 194.10 53.45 48.56 242.66
2003 168 230 3 0.27 0.60 194.10 53.45 32.32 226.42
2004 230 228 4 0.36 0.35 194.10 53.45 18.64 212.74
2005 152 207 5 0.45 0.11 194.10 53.45 6.10 200.20
2006 207 168 6 0.55 0.00 194.10 53.45 0.00 194.10
2007 228 164.3 7 0.64 0.00 194.10 53.45 0.00 194.10
2008 242.9 152 8 0.73 0.00 194.10 53.45 0.00 194.10
2009 164.3 147.6 9 0.82 0.00 194.10 53.45 0.00 194.10
2010 113.6 113.6 10 0.91 0.00 194.10 53.45 0.00 194.10
Mean 194.1
Sn 53.45
CV (%) 27.54

Appendix Table 64. Normal Distribution of CIAC Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P (%) Z X̄ Sn Z*Sn Xt=X̄ + Z*Sn
2001 62.2 186.8 1 0.09 1.34 124.43 39.62 52.90 177.33
2002 170.7 170.7 2 0.18 0.91 124.43 39.62 36.00 160.43
2003 123.5 155 3 0.27 0.60 124.43 39.62 23.96 148.39
2004 135 135 4 0.36 0.35 124.43 39.62 13.82 138.25
2005 79.5 129 5 0.45 0.11 124.43 39.62 4.52 128.95
2006 107.2 123.5 6 0.55 0.00 124.43 39.62 0.00 124.43
2007 186.8 107.2 7 0.64 0.00 124.43 39.62 0.00 124.43
2008 95.4 95.4 8 0.73 0.00 124.43 39.62 0.00 124.43
2009 129 79.5 9 0.82 0.00 124.43 39.62 0.00 124.43
2010 155 62.2 10 0.91 0.00 124.43 39.62 0.00 124.43
Mean 124.43
Sn 39.62
CV (%) 31.84

114
Appendix Table 65. Normal Distribution of Cabanatuan Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P (%) Z X̄ Sn Z*Sn Xt=X̄ + Z*Sn
2001 112.8 157.8 1 0.09 1.34 115.61 24.61 32.86 148.47
2002 107.5 144.6 2 0.18 0.91 115.61 24.61 22.36 137.97
2003 144.6 137.2 3 0.27 0.60 115.61 24.61 14.88 130.49
2004 157.8 121.8 4 0.36 0.35 115.61 24.61 8.58 124.19
2005 85 112.8 5 0.45 0.11 115.61 24.61 2.81 118.42
2006 137.2 107.6 6 0.55 0.00 115.61 24.61 0.00 115.61
2007 121.8 107.5 7 0.64 0.00 115.61 24.61 0.00 115.61
2008 94.8 94.8 8 0.73 0.00 115.61 24.61 0.00 115.61
2009 107.6 87 9 0.82 0.00 115.61 24.61 0.00 115.61
2010 87 85 10 0.91 0.00 115.61 24.61 0.00 115.61
Mean 115.61
Sn 24.61
CV (%) 21.29

Appendix Table 66. Log Normal Distribution of Iba Zambales Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Log RF. Rank P W Z YT XT


2001 264.4 264.4 2.42 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.47 298.17
2002 250.9 250.9 2.40 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.40 252.78
2003 201.6 247.2 2.39 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.36 228.42
2004 221.4 221.4 2.35 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.32 210.53
2005 145.6 217.3 2.34 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.29 195.64
2006 217.3 201.6 2.30 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.26 182.25
2007 247.2 152.6 2.18 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.23 169.45
2008 131.8 145.6 2.16 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 2.19 156.40
2009 152.6 131.8 2.12 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 2.15 141.89
2010 123.6 123.6 2.09 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 2.09 122.36
Mean 2.28
Sn 0.12

115
Appendix Table 67. Log Normal Distribution of Science Garden Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Log RF. Rank P W Z YT XT


2001 110.4 455 2.66 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.50 317.79
2002 246.4 246.4 2.39 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.39 245.87
2003 137.4 159.6 2.20 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.32 210.05
2004 135.6 147 2.17 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.27 185.05
2005 104.6 137.4 2.14 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.22 165.12
2006 159.6 135.6 2.13 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.17 147.89
2007 147 125.6 2.10 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.12 132.07
2008 125.6 122 2.09 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 2.07 116.61
2009 455 110.4 2.04 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 2.00 100.24
2010 122 104.6 2.02 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 1.90 79.64
Mean 2.19
Sn 0.19

Appendix Table 68. Log Normal Distribution of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Log RF. Rank P W Z YT XT


2001 147.6 287.6 2.46 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.47 294.42
2002 287.6 242.9 2.39 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.40 250.06
2003 168 230 2.36 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.35 226.21
2004 230 228 2.36 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.32 208.68
2005 152 207 2.32 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.29 194.08
2006 207 168 2.23 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.26 180.94
2007 228 164.3 2.22 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.23 168.36
2008 242.9 152 2.18 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 2.19 155.54
2009 164.3 147.6 2.17 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 2.15 141.26
2010 113.6 113.6 2.06 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 2.09 122.01
Mean 2.27
Sn 0.12

116
Appendix Table 69. Log Normal Distribution of CIAC Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Log RF. Rank P W Z YT XT


2001 62.2 186.8 2.27 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.31 205.13
2002 170.7 170.7 2.23 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.23 168.14
2003 123.5 155 2.19 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.17 148.82
2004 135 135 2.13 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.13 134.90
2005 79.5 129 2.11 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.09 123.49
2006 107.2 123.5 2.09 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.05 113.38
2007 186.8 107.2 2.03 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.02 103.86
2008 95.4 95.4 1.98 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 1.97 94.31
2009 129 79.5 1.90 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 1.92 83.87
2010 155 62.2 1.79 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 1.85 70.17
Mean 2.07
Sn 0.15

Appendix Table 70. Log Normal Distribution of Cabanatuan Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Log RF. Rank P W Z YT XT


2001 112.8 157.8 2.20 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.20 158.67
2002 107.5 144.6 2.16 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.15 140.49
2003 144.6 137.2 2.14 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.12 130.38
2004 157.8 121.8 2.09 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.09 122.77
2005 85 112.8 2.05 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.07 116.31
2006 137.2 107.6 2.03 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.04 110.39
2007 121.8 107.5 2.03 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.02 104.62
2008 94.8 94.8 1.98 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 1.99 98.63
2009 107.6 87 1.94 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 1.96 91.80
2010 87 85 1.93 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 1.92 82.31
Mean 2.05
Sn 0.09

117
Appendix Table 71. Log Pearson Type III of Iba Zambales Station

Record RF. Log


Rainfall ̅ )𝟑
Rank (𝒚 − 𝒚 P W Z KT YT XT
years Order RF.
2001 264.4 264.4 2.42 1 0.003 0.05 2.45 1.65 3.35 2.69 492.23
2002 250.9 250.9 2.40 2 0.002 0.15 1.95 1.04 1.11 2.41 259.09
2003 201.6 247.2 2.39 3 0.002 0.25 1.67 0.67 0.12 2.29 195.67
2004 221.4 221.4 2.35 4 0.000 0.35 1.45 0.39 -0.47 2.22 165.07
2005 145.6 217.3 2.34 5 0.000 0.45 1.26 0.13 -0.86 2.17 147.62
2006 217.3 201.6 2.30 6 0.000 0.55 1.09 -0.12 -1.11 2.14 137.46
2007 247.2 152.6 2.18 7 -0.001 0.65 0.93 -0.38 -1.23 2.12 132.63
2008 131.8 145.6 2.16 8 -0.001 0.75 0.76 -0.67 -1.22 2.12 133.23
2009 152.6 131.8 2.12 9 -0.004 0.85 0.57 -1.01 -0.98 2.15 142.64
2010 123.6 123.6 2.09 10 -0.006 0.95 0.32 -1.56 -0.13 2.26 182.02
ȳ 2.28
Sn 0.12
Cs -0.37
k -0.06

Appendix Table 72. Log Pearson Type III of Science Garden Station

Record RF. Log XT


Rainfall ̅ )𝟑
Rank (𝒚 − 𝒚 P W Z KT YT
years Order RF.
2001 110.4 455 2.66 1 0.1000 0.05 2.45 1.65 3.20 2.81 647.65
2002 246.4 246.4 2.39 2 0.0077 0.15 1.95 1.04 0.96 2.38 239.35
2003 137.4 159.6 2.20 3 0.0000 0.25 1.67 0.67 0.02 2.20 157.42
2004 135.6 147 2.17 4 0.0000 0.35 1.45 0.39 -0.53 2.09 123.20
2005 104.6 137.4 2.14 5 0.000 0.45 1.26 0.13 -0.88 2.02 105.60
2006 159.6 135.6 2.13 6 0.000 0.55 1.09 -0.12 -1.09 1.98 96.395
2007 147 125.6 2.10 7 -0.001 0.65 0.93 -0.38 -1.17 1.97 92.962
2008 125.6 122 2.09 8 -0.001 0.75 0.76 -0.67 -1.11 1.98 95.402
2009 455 110.4 2.04 9 -0.003 0.85 0.57 -1.01 -0.83 2.03 107.88
2010 122 104.6 2.02 10 -0.005 0.95 0.32 -1.56 0.03 2.20 158.35
ȳ 2.19
Sn 0.19
Cs 1.86
K 0.31

118
Appendix Table 73. Log Pearson Type III of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station

Record RF. Log


Rainfall ̅ )𝟑
Rank (𝒚 − 𝒚 P W Z KT YT XT
years Order RF.
2001 147.6 287.6 2.46 1 0.0064 0.05 2.45 1.65 3.35 2.68 483.92
2002 287.6 242.9 2.39 2 0.0014 0.15 1.95 1.04 1.11 2.41 256.50
2003 168 230 2.36 3 0.0007 0.25 1.67 0.67 0.13 2.29 194.26
2004 230 228 2.36 4 0.0006 0.35 1.45 0.39 -0.47 2.22 164.13
2005 152 207 2.32 5 0.0001 0.45 1.26 0.13 -0.86 2.17 146.92
2006 207 168 2.23 6 0.000 0.55 1.09 -0.12 -1.11 2.14 136.88
2007 228 164.3 2.22 7 0.000 0.65 0.93 -0.38 -1.24 2.12 132.07
2008 242.9 152 2.18 8 -0.001 0.75 0.76 -0.67 -1.22 2.12 132.63
2009 164.3 147.6 2.17 9 -0.001 0.85 0.57 -1.01 -0.98 2.15 141.85
2010 113.6 113.6 2.06 10 -0.010 0.95 0.32 -1.56 -0.13 2.26 180.50
ȳ 2.27
Sn 0.12
Cs -0.23
K -0.04

Appendix Table 74. Log Pearson Type III of CIAC Station

Record RF. Log


Rainfall ̅ )𝟑
Rank (𝒚 − 𝒚 P W Z KT YT XT
years Order RF.
2001 62.2 186.8 2.27 1 0.0078 0.05 2.45 1.6 3.3 2.57 373.85
2002 170.7 170.7 2.23 2 0.0040 0.15 1.95 1.0 1.1 2.24 172.63
2003 123.5 155 2.19 3 0.0016 0.25 1.67 0.7 0.1 2.09 123.21
2004 135 135 2.13 4 0.0002 0.35 1.45 0.4 -0.5 2.00 100.49
2005 79.5 129 2.11 5 0.0001 0.45 1.26 0.1 -0.9 1.94 87.923
2006 107.2 123.5 2.09 6 0.0000 0.55 1.09 -0.1 -1.1 1.91 80.772
2007 186.8 107.2 2.03 7 0.000 0.65 0.93 -0.4 -1.2 1.89 77.439
2008 95.4 95.4 1.98 8 -0.001 0.75 0.76 -0.7 -1.2 1.89 77.938
2009 129 79.5 1.90 9 -0.005 0.85 0.57 -1.0 -1.0 1.93 84.690
2010 155 62.2 1.79 10 -0.022 0.95 0.32 -1.6 -0.1 2.06 113.62
ȳ 2.07
Sn 0.15
Cs -0.58
k -0.10

119
Appendix Table 75. Log Pearson Type III of Cabanatuan Station

Record RF. Log


Rainfall ̅ )𝟑
Rank (𝒚 − 𝒚 P W Z KT YT XT
years Order RF.
2001 112.8 157.8 2.20 1 0.0030 0.05 2.45 1.65 3.35 2.36 229.85
2002 107.5 144.6 2.16 2 0.0012 0.15 1.95 1.04 1.11 2.16 143.23
2003 144.6 137.2 2.14 3 0.0006 0.25 1.67 0.67 0.13 2.07 116.42
2004 157.8 121.8 2.09 4 0.0000 0.35 1.45 0.39 -0.47 2.01 102.67
2005 85 112.8 2.05 5 0.0000 0.45 1.26 0.13 -0.86 1.98 94.53
2006 137.2 107.6 2.03 6 0.0000 0.55 1.09 -0.12 -1.11 1.95 89.66
2007 121.8 107.5 2.03 7 0.0000 0.65 0.93 -0.38 -1.24 1.94 87.30
2008 94.8 94.8 1.98 8 0.000 0.75 0.76 -0.67 -1.22 1.94 87.56
2009 107.6 87 1.94 9 -0.002 0.85 0.57 -1.01 -0.98 1.96 92.05
2010 87 85 1.93 10 -0.002 0.95 0.32 -1.56 -0.13 2.04 110.16
ȳ 2.05
Sn 0.09
Cs 0.15
K 0.02

Appendix Table 76. Gumbel of Iba Zambales Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P T YT KT XT


2001 264.4 264.4 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 299.09
2002 250.9 250.9 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 257.58
2003 201.6 247.2 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 231.83
2004 221.4 221.4 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 212.31
2005 145.6 217.3 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 195.94
2006 217.3 201.6 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 181.28
2007 247.2 152.6 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 167.39
2008 131.8 145.6 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 153.43
2009 152.6 131.8 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 138.29
2010 123.6 123.6 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 119.26
ȳ 195.64 Yn 0.50
Sn 52.95 Sn 0.95

120
Appendix Table 77. Gumbel of Science Garden Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P T YT KT XT


2001 110.4 455 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 382.23
2002 246.4 246.4 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 298.81
2003 137.4 159.6 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 247.08
2004 135.6 147 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 207.85
2005 104.6 137.4 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 174.97
2006 159.6 135.6 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 145.51
2007 147 125.6 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 117.59
2008 125.6 122 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 89.55
2009 455 110.4 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 59.12
2010 122 104.6 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 20.90
ȳ 174.36 Yn 0.50
Sn 106.38 Sn 0.95

Appendix Table 78. Gumbel of Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P T YT KT XT


2001 147.6 287.6 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 298.54
2002 287.6 242.9 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 256.63
2003 168 230 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 230.63
2004 230 228 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 210.92
2005 152 207 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 194.41
2006 207 168 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 179.60
2007 228 164.3 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 165.58
2008 242.9 152 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 151.49
2009 164.3 147.6 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 136.20
2010 113.6 113.6 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 117.00
ȳ 194.1 Yn 0.50
Sn 53.45 Sn 0.95

121
Appendix Table 79. Gumbel of CIAC Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P T YT KT XT


2001 62.2 186.8 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 201.85
2002 170.7 170.7 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 170.78
2003 123.5 155 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 151.51
2004 135 135 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 136.90
2005 79.5 129 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 124.66
2006 107.2 123.5 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 113.68
2007 186.8 107.2 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 103.29
2008 95.4 95.4 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 92.84
2009 129 79.5 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 81.51
2010 155 62.2 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 67.27
ȳ 124.43 Yn 0.50
Sn 39.62 Sn 0.95

Appendix Table 80. Gumbel of Cabanatuan Station

Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P T YT KT XT


2001 112.8 157.8 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 163.70
2002 107.5 144.6 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 144.40
2003 144.6 137.2 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 132.43
2004 157.8 121.8 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 123.36
2005 85 112.8 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 115.75
2006 137.2 107.6 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 108.94
2007 121.8 107.5 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 102.48
2008 94.8 94.8 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 95.99
2009 107.6 87 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 88.95
2010 87 85 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 80.11
ȳ 115.61 Yn 0.50
Sn 24.61 Sn 0.95

122
Appendix Table 81. Goodness of Fit Probability for Iba Zambales Station

Gumbel Log Pearson


S.N Observed EVI Log Normal type III Normal
1 264.4 598.94 298.17 492.23 266.33
2 250.9 568.43 252.78 259.09 243.74
3 201.6 457.02 228.42 195.67 227.65
4 221.4 501.76 210.53 165.07 214.11
5 145.6 330.46 195.64 147.62 201.69
6 217.3 492.50 182.25 137.46 195.64
7 247.2 560.07 169.45 132.63 195.64
8 131.8 299.27 156.40 133.23 195.64
9 152.6 346.28 141.89 142.64 195.64
10 123.6 280.74 122.36 182.02 195.64
Mean 195.64 443.55 195.79 198.77 213.17
Sn 52.95 119.66 53.47 110.24 25.03
Sum 1956.40 4435.46 1957.88 1987.66 2131.71
CV (%) 27.06 26.98 27.31 55.46 11.74
𝑿𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒍 1072.72 122.69 183.68 252.63
𝑿𝟐 𝒕𝒂𝒃 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.2135 0.7552 0.5378 0.6608
value 𝑹𝟐 0.0456 0.0396 0.6356 0.8292

123
Appendix Table 82. Goodness of Fit Probability for Science Garden Station

Gumbel Log Pearson


S.N Observed EVI Log Normal type III Normal
1 455 382.23 317.79 647.65 316.40
2 246.4 298.81 245.87 239.35 271.01
3 159.6 247.08 210.05 157.42 238.68
4 147 207.85 185.05 123.20 211.46
5 137.4 174.97 165.12 105.60 186.51
6 135.6 145.51 147.89 96.39 174.36
7 125.6 117.59 132.07 92.96 174.36
8 122 89.55 116.61 95.40 174.36
9 110.4 59.12 100.24 107.88 174.36
10 104.6 20.90 79.64 158.35 174.36
Mean 174.36 174.36 170.03 182.42 209.59
Sn 106.38 112.14 72.47 169.58 50.30
Sum 1743.60 1743.61 1700.34 1824.21 2095.86
CV (%) 61.01 64.32 42.62 92.96 24.00
𝑿𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒍 472.54 94.28 124.83 211.07
𝑿𝟐 𝒕𝒂𝒃 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.8358 0.8976 0.2637 0.6808
value 𝑹𝟐 0.7292 0.9908 0.6457 0.7582

124
Appendix Table 83. Goodness of Fit Probability for Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station

Gumbel Log Pearson


S.N Observed EVI Log Normal type III Normal
1 287.6 298.54 294.42 483.92 265.47
2 242.9 256.63 250.06 256.50 242.66
3 230 230.63 226.21 194.26 226.42
4 228 210.92 208.68 164.13 212.74
5 207 194.41 194.08 146.92 200.20
6 168 179.60 180.94 136.88 194.10
7 164.3 165.58 168.36 132.07 194.10
8 152 151.49 155.54 132.63 194.10
9 147.6 136.20 141.26 141.85 194.10
10 113.6 117.00 122.01 180.50 194.10
Mean 194.10 194.10 194.16 196.97 211.80
Sn 53.45 56.34 52.44 107.88 25.27
Sum 1941.00 1941.00 1941.55 1969.66 2117.98
CV (%) 27.54 29.03 27.01 54.77 11.93
𝑿𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒍 5.15 5.04 179.17 64.97
𝑿𝟐 𝒕𝒂𝒃 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.9823 0.9812 0.7318 0.8977
value 𝑹𝟐 0.9648 0.9991 0.6357 0.8308

125
Appendix Table 84. Goodness of Fit Probability for CIAC Station

Gumbel Log Pearson


S.N Observed EVI Log Normal type III Normal
1 186.8 201.85 205.13 373.85 177.33
2 170.7 170.78 168.14 172.63 160.43
3 155 151.51 148.82 123.21 148.39
4 135 136.90 134.90 100.49 138.25
5 129 124.66 123.49 87.92 128.95
6 123.5 113.68 113.38 80.77 124.43
7 107.2 103.29 103.86 77.44 124.43
8 95.4 92.84 94.31 77.94 124.43
9 79.5 81.51 83.87 84.69 124.43
10 62.2 67.27 70.17 113.62 124.43
Mean 124.43 124.43 124.61 129.26 137.55
Sn 39.62 41.77 41.05 90.79 18.73
Sum 1244.30 1244.30 1246.08 1292.56 1375.50
CV (%) 31.84 33.57 32.95 70.24 13.62
𝑿𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒍 2.88 4.34 194.40 58.05
𝑿𝟐 𝒕𝒂𝒃 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.9877 0.9799 0.6791 0.8778
value 𝑹𝟐 0.9755 0.9973 0.6492 0.8095

126
Appendix Table 85. Goodness of Fit Probability for Cabanatuan Station

Gumbel Log Pearson


S.N Observed EVI Log Normal type III Normal
1 157.8 163.70 158.67 229.85 148.47
2 144.6 144.40 140.49 143.23 137.97
3 137.2 132.43 130.38 116.42 130.49
4 121.8 123.36 122.77 102.67 124.19
5 112.8 115.75 116.31 94.53 118.42
6 107.6 108.94 110.39 89.66 115.61
7 107.5 102.48 104.62 87.30 115.61
8 94.8 95.99 98.63 87.56 115.61
9 87 88.95 91.80 92.05 115.61
10 85 80.11 82.31 110.16 115.61
Mean 115.61 115.61 115.64 115.34 123.76
Sn 24.61 25.94 23.23 43.81 11.64
Sum 1156.10 1156.10 1156.37 1153.44 1237.59
CV (%) 21.29 22.44 20.09 37.98 9.40
𝑿𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒍 1.10 1.23 48.28 21.62
𝑿𝟐 𝒕𝒂𝒃 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.9905 0.9882 0.7708 0.9316
value 𝑹𝟐 0.9811 0.9990 0.6141 0.8522

127
Appendix Table 86. Double Mass Curve for Iba Zambales Station

Average Cummulative
Annual Annual rainfall at the other stations rainfall Rainfall
Year Rainfall of the
at Iba Cubi Pt. Port Science other
Cabanatuan CIAC Subic Bay Area Garden stations Iba Others

2001 264.4 112.8 62.2 147.6 178 110.4 611 264.4 611

2002 250.9 107.5 170.7 287.6 248.2 246.4 1060.4 515.3 1671.4

2003 201.6 144.6 123.5 168 123.6 137.4 697.1 716.9 2368.5

2004 221.4 157.8 135 230 111.4 135.6 769.8 938.3 3138.3

2005 145.6 85 79.5 152 91 104.6 512.1 1083.9 3650.4

2006 217.3 137.2 107.2 207 94 159.6 705 1301.2 4355.4

2007 247.2 121.8 186.8 228 154 147 837.6 1548.4 5193

2008 131.8 94.8 95.4 242.9 120.9 125.6 679.6 1680.2 5872.6

2009 152.6 107.6 129 164.3 258.5 455 1114.4 1832.8 6987

2010 123.6 87 155 113.6 131.4 122 609 1956.4 7596

128
Appendix Table 87. Double Mass Curve for Science Garden Station

Annual Average Cummulative


Rainfall Annual rainfall at the other stations rainfall Rainfall
Year at Cubi Pt. of the
Science Subic Port other Science
Garden Cabanatuan CIAC Bay Iba Area stations Garden Others

2001 110.4 112.8 62.2 147.6 264.4 178 765 110.4 765

2002 246.4 107.5 170.7 287.6 250.9 248.2 1064.9 356.8 1829.9

2003 137.4 144.6 123.5 168 201.6 123.6 761.3 494.2 2591.2

2004 135.6 157.8 135 230 221.4 111.4 855.6 629.8 3446.8

2005 104.6 85 79.5 152 145.6 91 553.1 734.4 3999.9

2006 159.6 137.2 107.2 207 217.3 94 762.7 894 4762.6

2007 147 121.8 186.8 228 247.2 154 937.8 1041 5700.4

2008 125.6 94.8 95.4 242.9 131.8 120.9 685.8 1166.6 6386.2

2009 455 107.6 129 164.3 152.6 258.5 812 1621.6 7198.2

2010 122 87 155 113.6 123.6 131.4 610.6 1743.6 7808.8

129
Appendix Table 88. Double Mass Curve for Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station

Annual Cummulative
Rainfall Annual rainfall at the other stations Average Rainfall
at Cubi rainfall
Year
Pt. of the
Subic Port Science other Cubi Pt.
Bay Cabanatuan CIAC Iba Area Garden stations subic Bay Others

2001 147.6 112.8 62.2 264.4 178 110.4 727.8 147.6 727.8

2002 287.6 107.5 170.7 250.9 248.2 246.4 1023.7 435.2 1751.5

2003 168 144.6 123.5 201.6 123.6 137.4 730.7 603.2 2482.2

2004 230 157.8 135 221.4 111.4 135.6 761.2 833.2 3243.4

2005 152 85 79.5 145.6 91 104.6 505.7 985.2 3749.1

2006 207 137.2 107.2 217.3 94 159.6 715.3 1192.2 4464.4

2007 228 121.8 186.8 247.2 154 147 856.8 1420.2 5321.2

2008 242.9 94.8 95.4 131.8 120.9 125.6 568.5 1663.1 5889.7

2009 164.3 107.6 129 152.6 258.5 455 1102.7 1827.4 6992.4

2010 113.6 87 155 123.6 131.4 122 619 1941 7611.4

130
Appendix Table 89. Double Mass Curve for CIAC Station

Average Cummulative
Annual Annual rainfall at the other stations rainfall Rainfall
Year Rainfall Cubi Pt. of the
at Subic Port Science other
CIAC Cabanatuan Bay Iba Area Garden stations CIAC Others

2001 62.2 112.8 147.6 264.4 178 110.4 813.2 62.2 813.2

2002 170.7 107.5 287.6 250.9 248.2 246.4 1140.6 232.9 1953.8

2003 123.5 144.6 168 201.6 123.6 137.4 775.2 356.4 2729

2004 135 157.8 230 221.4 111.4 135.6 856.2 491.4 3585.2

2005 79.5 85 152 145.6 91 104.6 578.2 570.9 4163.4

2006 107.2 137.2 207 217.3 94 159.6 815.1 678.1 4978.5

2007 186.8 121.8 228 247.2 154 147 898 864.9 5876.5

2008 95.4 94.8 242.9 131.8 120.9 125.6 716 960.3 6592.5

2009 129 107.6 164.3 152.6 258.5 455 1138 1089.3 7730.5

2010 155 87 113.6 123.6 131.4 122 577.6 1244.3 8308.1

131
Appendix Table 90. Double Mass Curve for Cabanatuan Station

Average C4ummulative
Annual rainfall at the other stations rainfall Rainfall
Year Annual of the
Rainfall at Cubi Port Science other
Cabanatuan CIAC Pt. Iba Area Garden stations Cabanatuan Others

2001 112.8 62.2 147.6 264.4 178 110.4 762.6 112.8 762.6

2002 107.5 170.7 287.6 250.9 248.2 246.4 1203.8 220.3 1966.4

2003 144.6 123.5 168 201.6 123.6 137.4 754.1 364.9 2720.5

2004 157.8 135 230 221.4 111.4 135.6 833.4 522.7 3553.9

2005 85 79.5 152 145.6 91 104.6 572.7 607.7 4126.6

2006 137.2 107.2 207 217.3 94 159.6 785.1 744.9 4911.7

2007 121.8 186.8 228 247.2 154 147 963 866.7 5874.7

2008 94.8 95.4 242.9 131.8 120.9 125.6 716.6 961.5 6591.3

2009 107.6 129 164.3 152.6 258.5 455 1159.4 1069.1 7750.7

2010 87 155 113.6 123.6 131.4 122 645.6 1156.1 8396.3

132
Appendix Table 91. Double Mass Curve for Port Area Station

Average Cummulative
Annual Annual rainfall at the other stations rainfall Rainfall
Year Rainfall of the
at Port Cubi Pt. Science other Port
Area Cabanatuan CIAC Subic Bay Iba Garden stations area Others

2001 178 112.8 62.2 147.6 264.4 110.4 697.4 178 697.4

2002 248.2 107.5 170.7 287.6 250.9 246.4 1063.1 426.2 1760.5

2003 123.6 144.6 123.5 168 201.6 137.4 775.1 549.8 2535.6

2004 111.4 157.8 135 230 221.4 135.6 879.8 661.2 3415.4

2005 91 85 79.5 152 145.6 104.6 566.7 752.2 3982.1

2006 94 137.2 107.2 207 217.3 159.6 828.3 846.2 4810.4

2007 154 121.8 186.8 228 247.2 147 930.8 1000.2 5741.2

2008 120.9 94.8 95.4 242.9 131.8 125.6 690.5 1121.1 6431.7

2009 258.5 107.6 129 164.3 152.6 455 1008.5 1379.6 7440.2

2010 131.4 87 155 113.6 123.6 122 601.2 1511 8041.4

133
Appendix Figure

Appendix Figure 1. Double Mass Curve for Iba, Zambales

8000
RAINFALL AT IBA ZAMBALES

7000
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL RAINFALL AT THE OTHER STATIONS

Appendix Figure 2. Double Mass Curve for Science Garden


CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL

9000
RAINFALL AT SCIENCE

8000
7000
GARDEN

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL RAINFALL AT THE OTHER STATIONS

134
Appendix Figure 3. Double Mass Curve for Cubi Pt., Subic Bay

8000

RAINFALL AT CUBI PT., SUBIC


CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL 7000
6000
5000
4000
BAY

3000
2000
1000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL RAINFALL AT THE OTHER STATIONS

Appendix Figure 4. Double Mass Curve for CIAC

9000
8000
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL

7000
RAINFALL AT CIAC

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL RAINFALL AT THE OTHER STATIONS

135
Appendix Figure 5. Double Mass Curve for Cabanatuan

9000

RAINFALL AT CABANATUAN
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL 8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
CUMMULUTATIVE ANNUAL RAINFALL AT THE OTHER STATIONS

Appendix Figure 6. Double Mass Curve for Port Area

9000
RAINFALL AT PORT AREA
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL RAINFALL AT THE OTHER STATIONS

136
Normal Distribution using Microsoft Excel Software

137
138
Log Normal Distribution using Microsoft Excel Software

139
140
Log Pearson Distribution using Microsoft Excel Software

141
142
143
144
Gumbel Distribution using Microsoft Excel Software

145
146
Chi Square Test using Microsoft Excel Software

147
Correlation Coefficient Test using Microsoft Excel Software

Coefficient of Determination Test using Microsoft Excel Software

148
LETTER

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA


POBLACION II, MALINTA, VALENZUELA CITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

January 22, 2018


DR. VICENTE B. MALANO
Acting Administrator, PAGASA

Good day!
We are the students of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela currently taking
up Civil Engineering Project. In line with this, our thesis is entitled “Construction of One
Day Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and Isohyetal Map for NCR, Philippines.”
We are asking your permission if we can gather data regarding stations profiling,
daily annual precipitation and annual total rainfall data of synoptic weather stations in
NCR.
Attached in this document is the thesis proposal.
Hoping for your kind approval and positive feedback. Kindly inform us with your
most convenient date and time for your assistance. You may contact us through
09754975154 or e-mail us through celene_pia@yahoo.com.

Respectfully Yours,

Celene Pia J. Ngo


Crissalyn Joyce V. Mondero
John Paul A. Matorres
Mc. Lorenz M. Castillo

Noted by:

Engr. Jordan N. Velasco


Dean, College of Engineering and Information Technology

149
RESUME

150
CASTILLO, MC. LORENZ M.
.8 lt. 13 blk. 7 Northville 1A Phase 2B, Bignay Valenzuela City, Metro Manila
(+63) 9777180042 email: coco23t@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

 Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela


Poblacion II, Malinta, Valenzuela City
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

 Dalandanan National High School


G. Lazaro St. Dalandanan, Valenzuela City
Fifth Honorable Mention
Batch 2012-2013

 Pasolo Elementary School


Pasolo Rd., Pasolo, Valenzuela City
First Honorable Mention
Batch 2008-2009

ORGANIZATIONS

 Association of Civil Engineering Students (PLV-ACES)


Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
Member
2013-Present

AWARDS AND RECOGNITION

 CEIT Compendium Sport Writer Head


Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2017
 1st Runner Up 2017 KACEYAHAN QUIZ BEE 2.0
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2017
 Finalist in 2017 Dance Battle
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2017
 Finalist in Bridge Making Contest
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2017
 Participant in National Civil Engineering Quiz Bee (School Elimination)
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2017
 Contributor in Uhay: A Journal for Social Sciences
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2016
 1st Runner up 2016 Dance Battle
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2016
 Finalist General Information Quiz Bee
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2016
 Participant in Hataw Sayaw
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2015
 Participant in Cheer dance Competition (2015 PLV- Intramurals)
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2015
 Semi Finalist in Hataw Sayaw
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2014
 Participant in Cheer dance Competition (2014 PLV- Intramurals)
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2014
 Participant in 1st KACEYAHAN QUIZ BEE
Pamantasan ngt Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2013
 Honor Student
Dalandanan National High School
2010-2013
 3rd Place in Science Investigatory Project (MaGaLeaCoilBurner)
Marulas Elementary School
2013
 9th Place in 2013 Sports Writing Competition and Sports Commentator
Vicente P. Trinidad National High School
2013
 1st Place in Essay Writing Contest in English and Social Studies
Dalandanan National High School
2013
 5th Place in 2012 Sport Writing Competition
Valenzuela National High School
2012
 DNHS Oxyllibrium Newsletter Sports Contributor
Dalandanan National High School
2012-2013
 Honor Student
Pasolo Elementary School
2003-2009

SEMINARS AND TRAININGS

 Personality Development Seminar


Social Hall Valenzuela City
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
Poblacion II, Valenzuela City
2017

 2017 National Civil Engineering Summit: Reconstruct: Defining Service


through Innovation
UP- ACES Institute of Civil Engineering
UP Diliman, Quezon City
 2017 AdvanCE: Six Fields of Civil Engineering
Institute of Civil Engineering
UP Diliman, Quezon City
2017
 2016 Junior Philippine of Civil Engineering Student Convention: Ground
Zero PH
JPICE-Manila Chapter
SM Sta. Mesa, Manila City
2016
 2016 National Civil Engineering Summit: Civil Engineers of the Nation
UP-ACES Institute of Civil Engineering
UP Diliman, Quezon City
2016
 2015 National Civil Engineering Summit: Streamlining Civil Engineering in
an Advancing Nation
UP-ACES Institute of Civil Engineering
UP Diliman, Quezon City
2015
 2013 Annual CE Talk: Shake It up
UP Aggregates Institute of Civil Engineering
UP Diliman, Quezon City
2013

ON-THE-JOB TRAININGS

 Quality Control
FreyPhil Corporation, Calumpit Branch
Brgy. 57 Pungo, Calumpit Bulacan
2017
 Assistant Engineer
Solomonic Builders
Las Veras Maysan, Valenzuela City
2017

PUBLISHED PAPER

 “Pagtaya sa Buhay: Ang Aborsyon ayon sa isang Dating Abortista”


Author/Contributor
Uhay: A journal of the Social Sciences Volume 1 Number 1
ISNN 2467-7167

RESEARCH PAPERS

 “A study of Construction Waste Management Practices in Construction


firms in Valenzuela” College of Civil Engineering and Information Technology,
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela, Valenzuela City, March 2017
 “Evaluating Value Management for Selected Low Cost-Housing Projects
within Metro Manila” College of Civil Engineering and Information
Technology, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela, Valenzuela City, October
2017

THESIS PAPER
“One Day Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and Isohyetal Map for
National Capital Region (NCR) & Region III, Philippines”

The study serves as an initial basis for the improvement of different practices in the
field of planning and designing of hydraulic structures such as dams, reservoir and
earthen dams to lessen the collateral damage of properties considering weather and
flood condition in the Philippines.

SKILL AND INTERESTS


A competitive, hardworking and goal-oriented person. Knowledgeable in Autocadd,
C++ programming, SketchUp, Microsoft office, ArcGIS and Staad software and
program. Interest in puzzle, athletics and travelling. Fluent in Filipino and proficient
in English speaking.

REFERENCE

 Engr. Mark Ondac


Faculty, Civil Engineering and Information Technology Department
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
0945-120-5186
 Engr. Jordan Velasco
Dean, Civil Engineering and Information Technology Department
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
0906-595-9484
 Ms. John Paula Alba
Sales, Guanzon Company
Dalandanan, Valenzuela City
0909-608-9854

I hereby certify that all information written above is true and correct

Mc. Lorenz M. Castillo


Applicant
JOHN PAUL A. MATORRES
Contact #: 09050774069
Address: 6057 Matimyas St. Gen. T. De Leon Valenzuela City
Email: jpmatorres@yahoo.com

GOAL AND OBJECTIVE


To find a suitable on-the-job training where I could practice my knowledge and
developed my personality as a career person while enhancing and improving my skills.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

College PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA 2013 – Present


Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Poblacion II, Malinta, Valenzuela City

High School ST. BERNADETTE COLLEGE OF VALENZUELA 2009 – 2013


6121 Tullahan Rd, Valenzuela, 1442 Metro Manila

Elementary ST. BERNADETTE COLLEGE OF VALENZUELA 2003 - 2009


6121 Tullahan Rd, Valenzuela, 1442 Metro Manila

SKILLS

- Computer literate in Microsoft office particularly in:


 Microsoft Word
 Microsoft Excel
 Microsoft Powerpoint
- Abobe Photoshop
- AutoCAD
- SketchUp
PERSONAL DATA
Age: 19 years old
Birthdate: April 29, 1997
Birthplace: Valenzuela City
Height: 5`5''
Weight: 80 kg
Civil Status: Single
Citizenship: Filipino
Religion: Roman Catholic
Language Spoken: Tagalog, English

SEMINARS ATTENDED

Calculator Techniques
Valenzuela City Auditorium

CE Talk 2013, INTENCETY


(Seismic Risk Assessment in the Philippines through Civil Engineering)
UP Film Center
Osmeña Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, 1101 Metro Manila
July 20, 2013

UP NCES 2016
(Accelerate. Gearing up as Civil Engineers for the Nation)
UP Film Center
Osmeña Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, 1101 Metro Manila
September 16, 2016

REFERENCES

ENGR. Joe Louise Lee Garcia


Chairperson, Engineering Department
09773168216

I hereby certify that the information above given is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

John Paul A. Matorres


Valenzuela City, 1441
09498156045
crissajoyce36@gmail.com

CRISSALYN JOYCE V. MONDERO

OBJECTIVE To enhance and improve the skills I have in our university and
allowing me to utilize my education while gaining valuable work
experience.

SKILLS &  Skilled in CAD, MS office and Sketch-up


ABILITIES  Knowledgeable in Civil Engineering Sciences:
Strength of Materials, Fluid Mechanics and
Hydraulics, Theory of Structures, Steel Design,
Timber Design and Concrete design.
 Fast learner and independent with strong leadership
and critical thinking skills.

PERSONAL BIRTHDAY: November 17, 1997


INFORMATION AGE: 20 years old
GENDER: Female
MARITAL STATUS: Single
CITIZENSHIP: Filipino
RELIGION: Christian
HEIGHT: 5’0’”
WEIGHT: 45 kg

EDUCATION ELEMENTARY EDUCATION:


Caruhatan West Elementary School (2003-2009)
Karuhatan, Valenzuela City
SECONDARY EDUCATION:
St. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela (2009-2013)
Karuhatan, Valenzuela City
COLLEGE EDUCATION:
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela (2013-Present)
Poblacion II, Malinta Valenzuela City
SEMINARS National Civil Engineering Summit 2015
Next Top Civil Engineer: Discipline. Excellence. Commitment.
Integrity. Relevance.
University of the Philippines Diliman

National Civil Engineering Summit 2016


Accelerate: Gearing up as Civil Engineers for the Nation
University of the Philippines Diliman

Calculator Techniques
Valenzuela City Auditorium

Esplana Review Center


Geotechnical Engineering
Valenzuela City Auditorium

Personality Development Seminar


City Hall of Valenzuela City

National Civil Engineering Summit 2017


Reconstruct: Defining Service through Innovation
University of the Philippines Diliman

AFFILIATIONS Association of Civil Engineering Student


Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
Member

REFERENCES ENGR. JORDAN VELASCO


Dean, Civil Engineering and Information Technology Department
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
Contact Number: 09065959484
CELENE PIA J. NGO
47 A. PABLO ST. KARUHATAN, VALENZUELA CITY
292-32-32 ▪ 09335061401 ▪ 09754975154 ▪ celene_pia@yahoo.com ▪ celenepia28@gmail.com

Objectives
Seeking a summer internship that will enhance and utilize my skills and knowledge in the field of
engineering.

Personal Information
Age: 20 yrs. old
Birthday: October 23, 1996
Gender: Female
Height: 5’3”
Weight: 45 kgs.
Citizenship: Filipino
Religion: Born-Again Christian

Skills/Qualifications
 Computer literate in Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint, e-mail and social media
 Demonstrated experience in leadership through active role/participation in clubs and
organizations
 Can operate Autocad, SketchUp, STAAD, GRASP, Adobe Photoshop

Education
PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA
Malinta, Valenzuela City
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, June 2013

 Member of Association of Civil Engineering Students (ACES)

Seminars Attended
 CE Talk 2013 – Shake It Up
 3rd JPICE – LNM Students’ Convention: Ground Zero
 NCES 2015 – Next Top Civil Engineer: Discipline.Excellence.Commitment.Integrity.Relevance
 NCES 2016 – Accelerate.Gearing up as Civil Engineers for the Nation
 Calculator Techniques Tutorial
 Profiles: Inspirational Talks from the Pillars of Civil Engineering in the Philippines
 Civil Engineering Laboratory Tour
 Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics Review
 Mathematics Proficiency & Advanced Calculator Techniques

Affiliations
 Association of Civil Engineering Students – Secretary (S.Y. Present)
 Peer Facilitators Organization – Auditor (S.Y. 2015-2016)
 Association of Civil Engineering Students – 1st year representative (S.Y. 2013-2014)

References
ENGR. JOE LOUISE GARCIA

Chairman, Engineering Department

09773168216

I hereby certify that the information above given is true and correct to the best of my
abilities and beliefs

CELENE PIA J. NGO

CELENE PIA J. NGO Page 2