0 views

Uploaded by Rhea Mamba

- Fundamental Finite Element Analysis and Applications
- Manifold4 Ppt
- Btech Prod 2011
- Mechanics With Matlab
- Thermal Systems
- Paulin Research Group_ FE107 Experimental Validation
- Heat transfer and pressure drop in a fluid/solar spiral tube exchanger
- 1987_Rank, Zienkiewicz_A Simple Error Estimator in the Finite Element Method
- Morega
- What
- Numerical Simulations of Traffic Flow Models
- Finite Element Methods1
- Paulin Research Group_ FE107 Experimental Validation.pdf
- Finite Element Analysis of Cable Stayed Bridge Model
- FEM-Question Paper (1).pdf
- CAD 2160911
- Artikel ANSYS
- 03 - Finite Element Analysis & the Guyed Tower Study
- V
- Finite Element Analysis

You are on page 1of 125

TUGUEGARAO RIVER

Submitted by:

Guillermo, Denver V.

Mamba, Rhea D.

Manaligod, Laica C.

Maruquin, Elha E.

Abstract

Water quality aspect with regards to temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH of Pinacanauan de

Tuguegarao River, located at Barangay Caggay, Tuguegarao City was studied. The main

objective was to develop a two-dimensional water quality model for each parameter. A 200

meter length and 121 meter width was selected as the boundary. Water samples were collected

from designated points in the boundary for every 14 days and analyzed for different parameters.

Simulated values from the developed models were compared to the measured values using

statistical paired t-test and found no significant difference. Furthermore, the developed models

i

Table of Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... i

Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2 .................................................................................................................................. 6

ii

2.5.1 Formulation of Water Quality Model ...................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................... 35

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 35

3.4 Estimation and Calibration of Reaeration and Decay Rate Coefficient ......................... 41

iii

3.6 Simulation Methodology ........................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................... 47

4.4.3 pH ............................................................................................................................ 55

CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................................... 67

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 69

APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................... 77

iv

A.4 Slope of the River .......................................................................................................... 80

APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................... 82

APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................................... 88

APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................................... 95

v

D.1 Simulation Results......................................................................................................... 95

vi

LISTS OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework of the Study (Orlob, et al., 1983) ...................................... 30

Figure 7: Theoretical Vs. Actual Temperature for (a) I1 (b) I2 (c) I3. ..................................... 50

Figure 13: First discharge for the chosen boundary. A continuous flowing water coming

Figure 14: Second discharge located upstream. A pipe projected directly to the river coming

from residential houses which produces a dark fluid with an awlful smell. .......................... 111

Figure 15: A photo of the group measuring the width of the river (left side) and the its length

Figure 16: Labelled plastic bottles for the sample collection. From boundary 1 to boundary 7

and inner boundary 1 to inner boundary 3 with two replicates. ........................................... 112

Figure 17: Sample collection from the chosen sampling points. The sampling bottles was

Figure 18: Analysing the samples using chemical test for the parameters pH and DO. Photo

vii

Figure 19: On-site water analysis using the equipment devices (Thermometer, pH meter, and

Figure 20: On-site chemical testing of pH at different sampling points. .............................. 113

Figure 22: Setting up for the Measuring of velocity using a table tennis ball and timer. ..... 114

Figure 23: On-site sampling at the center of the river. ......................................................... 114

Figure 24: Photo taken during the last data collection with the boat owner Lyafayeth Tasi.

................................................................................................................................................ 114

Figure 25: Photo taken at the Laboratory of BFAR with ma'am Divine. ............................. 115

viii

LISTS OF TABLES

Table 1: Monitored Water Quality Parameters per Type of Water Body (DENR-EMB, 2014).

.................................................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Number of classified inland surface water bodies (EMB National Water Quality

Table 8: Typical values of the decay coefficient for various types of wastes. From [Davis and

Table 14: Prediction of Dissolved Oxygen. ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

ix

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Water is one of the most essential natural resources for the existence and survival of

the entire life on this planet. All living organisms need large quantity and good quality of water

to continue their life (Kang, Gao, & Xie, 2017). Preserving this natural resource and ensuring

its availability therefore is very essential to have quality life not just for the present but also for

As populations and economics grow, water quality is degrading at an alarming rate due

to the increase of pollutant loadings in this natural resource. High organic loadings can reduced

dissolved oxygen to levels that are fatal to parts of the aquatic ecosystem and can cause

intolerable odors. Toxic heavy metals and other micro-pollutants can accumulate in the bodies

of aquatic organisms, including fish, making them unfit for human consumption even if they

themselves survive (Loucks & Beek, 2005). In addition, these pollutants can cause water borne

diseases and can end up in surface and ground water bodies. Addressing this concern, models,

water quality analysis, and evaluation techniques were developed in order to attain water

quality.

Water quality models are very useful in describing the ecological state of the water

system and to predict the change in this state when certain boundary or initial conditions are

altered (Lindenschmidt, 2005). Model will also help to explore various water pollution

scenarios and solve water quality planning and forecasting tasks (Ruzgas, Inga Ruzgiene, &

Tomas, 2014). Also, model can become a helpful tool in the management process, enabling the

user to explore new horizons of the imaginations, to compare choices, and to identify pathways

1

River water quality is of great environmental concern since it is one of the major

available fresh water resources for human consumption (Jarvie, Whitton, & Neal, 1998). One

of the most popular river water in the Province of Cagayan is the Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao

River. This river supplies water to more than 500 hectares of farms in 8 Barangays of

Peñablanca and 4 Barangays of Tuguegarao City (Espejo, Tungpalan, Negi, & Alex, 2015).

means of a mathematical model in order to determine the condition of the river water and

formulate solutions.

The study focuses on the water quality modelling of Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River.

1. Is the simulated values of water quality parameters have acceptable compatibility with

2. What is the accuracy of the developed model compared to the published models?

3. How will the water quality parameter (temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH) of

Generally, the study aimed to develop a water quality model of the Pinacanauan de

Tuguegarao River.

2

1. Compare the difference of the simulated value and the actual values of water quality

3. Determine the change in the concentration of the different water quality parameters

Cagayan was selected as the locale of the study. This study focused on assessing the water

quality of the river and developed a model that will serve as a forecasting tool for the different

this study were dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH and were gathered On-Site. The

collection of data was from December 20, 2018 to April 28, 2019 with 14 days’ interval.

The mathematical model developed could be used to predict water quality parameters.

and Natural Resources (EMB-DENR) and Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources could

adapt the developed model to established justified and reasonable programs for long term

measures for pollutant discharge reduction, rational use of water resources, estimation of the

monitoring facilities, prediction and quality management of the environment, etc. This research

could also be used by future researchers as a reference in testing the validity of related studies.

3

1.6 Locale of the Study

This study was conducted at Brgy. Caggay, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Water sampling

and collection were done at the selected boundaries of Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River. A

length of 200 meters long and a width of 121 meters was selected as the sampling site in the

river. Data analyses were done on-site with the supervision of Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic

Resources.

Coefficient of determination (R2) - is a measure used in statistical analysis that assesses how

well a model explains and predicts future outcomes and the accuracy of the model. It is

Diffusion - is the process by which both ionic and molecular species dissolved in water move

Dispersion - is the process whereby solutes are mixed during advective transport due to

velocity variations caused by flow variations within the pores and by heterogeneities in the

Dissolved Oxygen – measures the concentration of oxygen dissolved in water. The higher the

DO, the better the condition for the growth and productivity of aquatic resources.

Dry Bulb Temperature - the ambient temperature of air in the river indicated by a

thermometer.

logarithmic scale.

Pollution Load - amount of pollutant being discharged into the environment; the product of

Surface Water - all waters open to the atmosphere and subject to surface runoff.

4

Temperature – is the measurement of how hot or cold a system is. In theoretical terms,

Temperature is what determines the direction of heat flow — out of the region with the higher

Reaction rates - are usually expressed as the concentration of reactant (H2CO3) consumed or

Reaeration rate - A net rate at which oxygen is replenished in a stream through atmospheric

River reaches - is a length of a stream or river, usually suggesting a level, uninterrupted stretch.

Water Quality - characteristics of water that define its use in terms of physical, chemical,

is evaluated.

Wet Bulb Temperature - the temperature achieved through evaporative cooling of river water

from the thermometer bulb, assuming good air flow and that the ambient air temperature

5

Chapter 2

Cagayan Valley. It is also renowned tourism spot in the province. The clear Pinacanauan de

Tuguegarao River serves as a national swimming pool for outdoor recreation, source of

domestic water for consumption of nearby communities and support the National Irrigation

Administration (NIA) for irrigating the rice fields and other agricultural lands. (Dayag,

However, in recent years, pollution of rivers has increased steadily. This situation has

activities, dumping of domestic and raw sewage into nearby water courses, increased use of

fertilizer and agrochemicals, lack of environmental regulations and their tardy implementation

Philippine water quality is assessed based on the set beneficial use as defined in

Department of Natural Resources (DENR)-Administrative Order (DAO) 1990- 34. Under this

DAO, there are 33 parameters that define the desired water quality per water body

classification. Accordingly, a water body must meet the corresponding criteria of each

applicable parameter 100 percent of the time to maintain its designated classification. In the

absence of a water quality index, an interim methodology based on compliance to DAO 1990-

34 is used for all surface waters. Table 1 presents the parameters monitored to assess the water

6

Table 1: Monitored Water Quality Parameters per Type of Water Body (DENR-EMB, 2014).

Inland surface water Dissolve oxygen (DO)

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

Total suspended solid (TSS)

Phosphates

Nitrates

Heavy metals

Cyanide as free cyanide

Groundwaters Fecal Coliform

Nitrates

Salinity (chloride content)

Coastal and marine waters Fecal Coliform

Total Coliform

DO

Table 2: Number of classified inland surface water bodies (EMB National Water Quality

Status Report, 2006)

Classification Definition Number

Waters intended as public water supply

Class AA requiring only approved disinfection to meet the 5

PNSDW.

Waters suitable as water supply requiring

Class A 203

conventional treatment to meet the PNSDW.

Waters intended for primary contact recreation

Class B 149

(e.g. bathing, swimming, skin diving, etc.)

Waters for fishery, recreation/boating, and

Class C supply for manufacturing processes after 231

treatment.

Class D Waters intended for agriculture, irrigation,

23

livestock watering, etc.

7

Table 3 and Table 4 shows the standard water parameter for the different water classifications.

Class

Parameter Unit

AA A B C D

BOD mg/L 1 3 5 7 15

Chloride mg/L 250 250 250 350 400

Color TCU 5 50 50 75 150

Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 5 5 5 5 2

Fecal Coliform MPN/100 ml <1.1 <1.1 100 200 400

Nitrate mg/L 7 7 7 7 15

Phosphate mg/L <0.003 0.5 0.5 0.5 5

Temperature C 26-30 26-30 25-31 25-32 26-30

Total Suspended Solid mg/L 25 50 65 80 110

Oil and grease <1 1 1 2 5

Class

Parameter Unit

AA A B C D

Ammonia as NH3-N mg/L NDA 0.5 0.5 0.5 7.5

BOD mg/L NDA 20 30 50 120

COD TCU NDA 60 60 100 200

Color mg/L NDA 100 100 150 300

Fluoride MPN/100 ml NDA 2 2 2 4

Nitrate as NO3-N mg/L NDA 14 14 14 30

pH (Range) NDA 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 5.5-9.5

Phosphate mg/L NDA 1 1 1 10

Surfactants (MBAS) C NDA 2 3 15 30

Total Suspended Solid mg/L NDA 70 85 100 150

Oil and grease mg/L NDA 5 5 5 15

The conservation equations state that what goes into the system must either come out

of the system somewhere else, get used up or generated by the system, or remain in the system

8

Conservation of mass governs law of conservation which states that the mass entering

the system is equal to mass leaving the system. For fluid dynamics, it states that all mass flow

rates into a control volume are equal to all mass flow rates out of the control volume plus the

rate of change of mass within the control volume (Duncan, 2017). This is expressed

m

m in m out (2)

t

Adolf Fick was the first man to propose the phenomenological relation for diffusion.

Fick’s First Law stated that when considering the flux of particles in a one-dimensional

system caused by a concentration gradient (Paul, Laurila, Vuorinen, & Divinski, 2014), the

dm C

J D (3)

dtA x

Where J is the flux, dm is the is the change in the amount of matter in small time dt,

A is the area, D is the diffusion coefficient, C is the concentration of the particles and x is the

position parameter. The negative sign indicates that diffusion occurs in the direction opposite

Molecular diffusion is a transport process that originates from molecular activity with

concentration gradient as its driving force. The molecular diffusion is described by the

C

Specific mass flux: q Dm

x

C

Molecular diffusion: q Dm

x

9

C

Turbulent Diffusion: q ε D

x

C

Dispersion: q K

x

v x

Momentum Flux: T ρv

y

v x

Turbulent Momentum Exchange: T ρvt

y

T

Heat Flux: qT ρC p DT

x

Mass transfer describes the transport of mass from one point to another. Mass transfer

may take place in a single phase or over phase boundaries in multiphase systems. In the vast

majority of engineering problems, mass transfer involves at least one fluid phase (gas or

CYCLOPEDIA, 2015).

T T T 2T 2T 2T T

v x vy vz DT 2 2 2 (4)

x y z x y z t

C C 2 C (5)

vx K I

t t x 2

The equation represents a typical one-dimensional flow that was used to solve mass

10

I = the sink or source term that describes the reaction of the substance with its

environment.

C C C 2 C 2 C

v x vy Kx 2 Ky 2 I (6)

t x y x y

This equation represents a two-dimensional flow which considers both the x and y axis

C C C C 2C 2C 2C

v x vx vx Kx K K I

t z 2

(7)

t t t x 2 y 2

y z

This equation considers the flow in any direction to solve mass transport.

Heat transfer from systems of high temperature to systems of lower temperature (Nave,

T T T 2T 2T 2T T

v x vy vz DT 2 _ 2 2 (8)

x y z x x x t

The heat content of an object depends upon its specific heat and mass. The Heat

Transfer is the measurement of the thermal energy transferred when an object having a defined

specific heat and mass undergoes a defined temperature change (Heat Transfer Formula, n.d.).

Q = mcpΔT (9)

Where:

m = mass

11

ΔT = change in temperature

2.3.2.3.1 Conduction

equation:

q -kAT (10)

where:

2.3.2.3.2 Convection

q hAs T (11)

where:

12

2.3.2.3.3 Radiation

Radiation heat transfer involves the transfer of heat by electromagnetic radiation that

arises due to the temperature of the body. Radiation does not need matter. Emissive power of

a surface:

E TS W / m 2 (12)

where:

= Steffan-Boltzman constant (5.67 x 10-8 W/m2 K4)

The finite difference method (FDM) is used to approximate differential equation when

it is imposed on the grids or boundary, called boundary-value problems (Kaw, Nguyen, &

Snyder, 2012). FDM is applied to partial differential equation (PDE) by replacing the

approximated dependent variable with the independent variable which are defined by a finite

grid of points. Using Taylor’s theorem, the partial derivatives at each grid points are

Taylor’s Theorem

Let U(x) have n continuous derivatives over the interval a, b . Then for

a x0 , x0 h b ,

U xx ( x o ) U ( n 1 ) ( x o )

U ( x o h ) U ( x o ) hU x ( x o ) h 2 .... h n 1 O( h n ) (13)

2! ( n 1 )!

where,

dU d 2U d n 1U (14)

Ux U xx U ( n 1)

dx dx 2 dx n 1

13

U x ( xo ) is the derivative of U with respect to x evaluated at x xo

The interpretation of the Taylor’s theorem is that the known value of U and the values

of its derivatives at point xo then equation 8 for its value at the (nearby) point x o + h. The

n n

expression contains an unknown quantity O(h ) . If the term O(h ) is discarded in the equation

(i.e. truncate the right-hand side of the equation 8), an approximation to U ( x0 h) is observed.

n

The error in this approximation is O(h ) (D.M.Causon & Mingham, 2010).

Finite difference method has two categories based on time differencing scheme:

implicit and explicit. When sets of equations, matrix or iterative technique are used to define

the dependent variables, the numerical method is implicit. Whereas, the explicit numerical

solution scheme for direct computation of the dependent variables needed for the mathematical

modelling and are used when time accuracy is important (Flow-3D, 2019).

time integration methods reduces the computing time with time steps that are large thus, have

less strict stability conditions. Explicit, on contrary needs to obey to strict stability conditions.

Implicit schemes, has smaller computing times however, the accuracy is dependent on time

With the utilization of both implicit and explicit methods by means of dispersion model,

a technique that leads to more practical and applicable water quality model in a flooding stream

14

technique proposed is suitable to be used in real-world problem because of its easy to computer-

The finite element method (FEM) is a numerical technique for solving problems which

are described by PDE to achieve approximate solution. In the form of nodal values of the

physical area, approximation of functions in finite elements which is the interest are

determined. A discretized finite element problem with unknown nodal values is changed from

a continuous physical problem. A system of linear algebraic equations should be solved for

linear problem and in using nodal values, the amounts inside finite elements can be recovered

(Nikishkov, 2004).

2.4.2.1 Discretization

Discretization means converting of continuous PDE into a form that poses a finite

dimensional space also called discrete equation. The process considers the motion taking place

in discrete group, attempting to develop a model that determines the position of the particle at

the nth position. During the procedure, data are collected at specific points or moments in time.

A numerical model is obtained through the discretization of time and space variables in

PDEs on a grid which is later solved in a computer. This numerical approach is considered

cheaper than creating traditional scale models. Moreover, the latter model defies accurate

2.4.2.2 Solvers

Once the matrix equations have been established, the equations are passed on to a solver

to solve the system of equations. Depending on the type of problem, direct or iterative solvers

15

2.5 Mathematical Model

The aim of Mathematical modeling is to describe the real world, its interaction, and its

dynamics through mathematics (Quarteroni, 2009). It is a tool that could be used to develop

scientific understanding of a system. It can also help in testing the effect of changes in a system

define a mathematical relationship between quantities in a data set. These are obtained from

the general appearance of a data set without regard for underlying biological ideas. Mechanistic

models on the other hand derive relationship between the variables in the data set. Data

obtained are thought to have arisen due to the nature of the relationship is specified in terms of

evolution are completely determined by its initial (starting) value fall under the deterministic

model. In contrast, stochastic models tolerate randomness; these are most appropriate for

processes that are not well defined and whose model variables’ values are defined by

probability distribution rather than a unique value (Livshits & Coleman, 2008). The table below

Empirical Mechanistic

Deterministic Predicting cattle growth from a Planetary motion, based on

regression relationship with feed Newtonian mechanics (differential

intake equations)

Stochastic Analysis of variance of variety Genetics of small populations

yields over sites and years based on Mendelian inheritance

(probabilistic equations)

16

2.5.1 Formulation of Water Quality Model

The mathematical model of the stream water quality is derived from mass balance

equations of particular pollution parameter along the selected stream (Sileika, 1996).

Regression equations expressing the effect of reservoir on pollution were obtained from the

representation. Zero-dimensional models are for the estimation of spatially averaged pollutant

concentration at minimum cost and cannot predict the fluid dynamic of the system. One-

dimensional models on the other hand are for system’s whose geometry was conceptualized as

a linear network or segments or volumes section. They are formulated by only simulating the

longitudinal differences in the river. For two- or three- dimensional models, the spatial

Water quality models are used to describe the main water quality process for different

types of water system such as streams, rivers, lakes reservoirs, estuaries, coastal waters and

Advective transport A

T Xo ( M / T ) of a constituent at a site X0 is the product of the site’s

average water velocity v Xo L / T and surface or cross-sectional area and the constituent’s

average concentration C Xo M / L3 .

A

TXo v Xo A C Xo (15)

through the elementary area y and z via water moving with velocity vx. The pollutant mass

17

crossing the area during the time interval t and concentration C is given by (Benedini &

Tsakiris, 2013):

M Cyzv x t (16)

T Xo M / T across a surface area is assumed to be proportional

C

to the concentration gradient times the surface area A at site Xo. Letting

D Xo L2 / T

x X Xo

C

TXoD DXo A (17)

x X Xo

the Fick’s Law (Benedini & Tsakiris, 2013). The mass crossing the area is:

C

J x yzt ( E ) x yzt (18)

x

A one-dimensional equation added with the advective and dispersive terms along with

t t C C

M i t v XoC Xo v Xo v C Xo v D Xo D Xo v A (19)

t

Mi

x Xo x Xo v

A study presented a simple mathematical model for river pollution. The model

18

APS x, t APS x, t APS x, t

Z PS x, t dx (20)

t x 2 x

DX S X S x, t (21)

t x 2 x

Expansion of the pollutant and the dissolved oxygen concentrations were accounted

for. The river (Shat Al-Diwanya in Iraq) was assumed to have a uniform cross-sectional area

with a steady state system for simplification. The result of the model for pollution concentration

and dissolved oxygen level was approximately consistent with the values obtained from those

Another study was conducted to model river pollution using the Fickian advection-

dispersion. This approach was based on the convective-diffusive mass transport in running

C CV X C

DX S s St (22)

t x x x

The study incorporated two kinds of models. The first models were numerical models

implemented in COMSOL Multiphysics. The second ones were the analytical model that

MATLAB®.

The advection-diffusion model with sink source terms to prevent physical processes

T T T T T T T H

u v D xx D xy D yx D yy 0 (23)

t x y x x y y t y Pc p

19

( x, y ) = coordinates = water density (kg/m3)

Equation (23) includes a global, source/sink heat term H . The Net Heat Exchanges

(W/m2) are expressed as follows (Baca & Arnett, 1976) (Edinger, 1979) (Ryan & Harleman,

H H s H sr H a H ar H br H e H c (24)

Where:

The net short wave solar radiation H ns is computed (Ryan & Harleman, 1973):

H ns H s H sr 0.94 H sc 1 0.65SK 2 (25)

Where:

The Net Long-Wave Radiation emitted by the atmosphere is computed as (Swinbank, 1963):

Where:

20

H na = net long wave atmospheric radiation (kW m-2);

The outgoing black-body radiation emitted from water surface is a function only of the water

Where:

Where:

4157

ea 2.171x108 exp = saturated vapor pressure [mb];

Td 239.09

21

Table 6: Coefficients to Compute Saturation Vapor Pressure.

T j j j

0–5 1 6.05 0.522

5 – 10 2 5.10 0.710

10 – 15 3 2.65 0.954

15 – 20 4 -2.04 1.265

20 – 25 5 -9.94 1.659

25 – 30 6 -22.29 2.151

30 – 35 7 -40.63 2.761

35 - 40 8 -66.90 3.511

T Td

Br

Hc

He

6.19 x10 4 p s

e s ea

(29)

Where:

Br = Bowen ratio;

The general mass balance equation for the dissolved oxygen in a segment with all the

dC

V reaeration oxidation of CBOD - oxidation NBOD - sediment oxygen deman(SOD)

dt

photosynthesis - respiratio n - oxygen transport by advection

C C

k aV C s C Vk d L Vk n Ln VS PV RV V

dC

V u V Dx (37)

dt x x

22

C C C C

V k aV C s C Vk d L

dC

V u V v V Dx V D y (30)

dt x y x x y y

Vk n Ln VS PV RV V

Where:

Assuming that the volume “V” along the river is constant, hence

C C C C

k a C s C k d L

dC

u v Dx D y (31)

dt x y x x y y

k n Ln S V V

Since all the processes in dissolved oxygen do not occur simultaneously in a river

(Haider & Ali, 2010) , photosynthesis and respiration are not expected due to high turbidity,

sediment oxygen demand is not an important parameter as sediments are frequently wash away

with floods.

The deoxygenation through CBOD and reaeration is only considered in the model since

C C C C

k a C s C k d L

dC

u v Dx Dy (32)

dt x y x x y y

23

2.5.4 Formulation of pH Model

The mathematical model for predicting the diffusion of pH was formulated base from

the mass and momentum principle and obtain an ordinary differential equation of (Ukpaka &

Douglas, 2016):

u v Dx Dy kp (33)

dt x y x x y y

u, v = river velocity;

D y , D x =diffusion coefficients.

The carbon dioxide (CO2) reacts in and with water which provides the acidity of the

river water and the natural rain. CO2 binds with water to form carbonic acid H2CO3 with

subsequent decomposition into the bicarbonate ion HCO3- and a proton H+:

H 2 CO3 HCO3 H

2 (34)

HCO3 CO3 H

H 2 O H OH

Reaeration at the surface of the water body is a function of CO2 saturation level

(source) and this saturation level is a function of water temperature as it affects Henry’s Law

constant

24

Henry’s constant for CO2 can be calculated using

From the reactions above (Eqn. 34), the equilibrium constants are:

k1

HCO H 3

(37)

H 2CO3

k2

CO H 2

(38)

HCO

3

3

k w H OH (39)

The equilibrium constant vary with temperature according to the following relationship

14.84350.032786TK

3404.71

(40)

k1 10 TK

2902.39

6.4980.02379TK (41)

k 2 10 TK

Water quality models were widely used to predict the concentrations of different water

parameters. Several models of temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH were already published.

The formulated model of dissolved oxygen was applied in Surma River, Bangladesh and it is

found out the coefficient of difference between the simulated model and actual mode is R 2 =

0.963 (Ahmed, 2014). Also, the mathematical model developed was also applied in Tigris

River and the model predicted the depletion of dissolved oxygen with maximum absolute error

of 11% and correlation coefficient of 0.921 (Nasir, Gzar, & Ghulam, 2013).

Models were also used for the prediction of temperature in Wera, Nene, and Tamar

River located at Northampton. The three rivers were predicted at year 1970 to 1976 and the

25

correlation between observed and predicted monthly values of river temperature for three rivers

1970-1971 0.96 0.94 0.98

1971-1972 0.94 0.946 0.88

1972-1973 0.96 0.97 0.96

1973-1974 0.96 0.976 0.90

1974-1975 0.90 0.905 0.85

1975-1976 0.962 0.953 0.90

The pH model was also use in stagnant water in the neighborhood of the Asphalt

Company Nigeria Limited located at Enito 3, a village located between Ahoada and Mbiama

in Ahoada West Local Government Area of River State and the coefficient of determination

A study on a method of water quality improvement (Makita & Saeki, 2006) for

aquaculture purposes was made. During the process, the adjective diffusion equation was used

to calculate the mass diffusion transfer of water in a semi-closed water area. Thus, the value of

the coefficient of horizontal diffusion (Dx) used for the equation was calculated by

Dx cL4 / 3

Where L is the grid size and c is considered constant with a value of 0.01. For vertical

coefficient

D y 0.067 u* H

D y 0.067 H gRh S

H = average height;

26

g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 m/s2;

Rh = hydraulic radius;

2.6 MATLAB®

In 1970’s, Cleve Moler developed MATLAB®. The name MATLAB® stands for

MATrix LABoratory and it was written originally to provide easy access to matrix software

developed by the LINPACK (linear system package) and EISPACK (Eigen system package)

projects (Houcque, 2005). MATLAB® is a software package that lets you do mathematics and

computation, analyze data, develop algorithms, do simulation and modelling and produce

graphical displays and graphical user interfaces (Knight, 2000). Simulink is a MATLAB®

extension that has been adopted in other fields of engineering as a means for modeling and

simulating complex systems without the need to write thousands of lines of computer code

during model development. Simulink models can be easily integrated to read and write data

from the workspace and to interact with scripts written with its own high-level programming

language. Simulink has been utilized previously to model the dynamics of engineered systems

advantages for solving technical problems. It is an interactive system whose basic data element

is an array that does not require dimensioning. The software package is now considered as a

modeling in the sugar industry and building systems modeling. In the area of environmental

engineering, Simulink has been used for simulating wastewater treatment plants, either as

for simulation of storm water systems or for integrated models that include both engineered

27

and natural surface water systems. Simulink has also been used to model the hydrodynamics

and water quality of a few surface water natural systems (Bowen, Perry, & Bell, 2014).

Complex modelling closer to the end-user and the decision-maker is what the

integration of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and MATLAB® brings. The hydrologist

modelling in MATLAB® benefits from presentation and accessibility through ArcView while

the GIS expert benefits from the powerful calculation, visualization and animation options

allows implementation of algorithm, graphics and creation of interface with other computer

languages. In their report, they described how MATLAB® programming tool can be used for

prediction of water quality in river. They conclude that this programming tool helps to predict

future water quality using present data and helps to save time, manpower and other cost for

continuous analysis.

In the study of (Bowen, Perry, & Bell, 2014), a storm water runoff model based on the

Soil Conservation Services (SCS) method and a finite-volume based water quality model has

been developed to investigate the use of Simulink for use in teaching and research. A

graphically based model development environment for system modeling and simulation is

called the Simulink in which it is a MATLAB® extension that is widely used for mechanical

and electrical systems. In addition, their paper talked also about the benefits for water quality

model in teaching and research. A finite volume, multi-layer pond model using the water

quality kinetics present in CE-QUAL-W2 has been developed using Simulink. The model is

one of the first uses of Simulink for modeling eutrophication dynamics in stratified natural

systems.

28

According to (Skorzinski, Shacham, & Brauner, 2009), Simulation programs are widely

concepts. In their study, they developed a pollutant dispersion simulation program applicable

implemented and the user interface is provided in the form of a MATLAB GUI. They also

discussed about three types of simulations namely the use of the oxygen sag model to predict

oxygen concentration and deficit of the river, prediction of pollutant dispersion in air from a

continuous point source using the Gaussian model and prediction of pollutant dispersion in

In the modeling of river water quality parameters, the study of (Dawood, Hussain, &

Hassan, 2016) employed the Artificial Neural Network Model to predict the water quality

parameters in Shatt Al Arab River. Based on their study Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)

are a form of artificial intelligence whose paradigm architecture is inspired by the way

biological nervous systems such as the brain. Moreover, an ANNs was built, trained and

implemented using MATLAB neural toolbox using back propagation with Levenberg-

Marquardt algorithm. The results prove the ability of the Neural Network models to predict

very well the monthly values of electric conductivity and turbidity. They also concluded that

Neural Network models can be used for the prediction of eater quality parameters.

29

2.7 Theoretical Framework

Conceptualization

Sensitivity Analysis

Selection of model

type

Computational

Representation

sample Verification

field data

set

Second and

additional Validation

field data

sets

Application

According to (Orlob, et al., 1983), the first step of the modeling procedure is

conceptualization. One of its importance is to know the locations of control structures and

tributaries along a river, or to know whether various portions of a lake can be considered

essentially deep or shallow. Conceptualization will involve a choice regarding the possible

(spatial) segregation of the water body into a number of discrete segments and layers. Besides

a spatial separation of the water body it may be necessary to include a grouping and

differentiation of biotic species according to how one visualizes their roles in the ecology of

30

With the conceptualization of the modelling problem comes also model formulation. It

is useful to distinguish between various types of model and to discuss briefly their

about the type of model, elimination of the relationships that do not affect the output results,

examination of alternative types of models and careful relationships of base data collection.

This information is integrated into a conceptual model, in general through the introduction of

simplifying assumptions and qualitative interpretations regarding the flow and the transport

process.

possible to state the relationships involved in some formal mathematical or statistical way.

Adoption of a hierarchical approach to this process often results in a clearer set of equations in

which the influence of primary and secondary relations can be more easily appreciated. Some

preliminary data may be needed to guide the choice. For the formulation of methods of solution,

only in a few special cases it may be possible to solve the equations analytically, but most

models involve the use of numerical methods for solving partial differential equations,

interpolation, etc. The choice of the appropriate numerical technique is crucial for numerical

stability and accuracy and also for minimizing computational effort. For selection of a

computer code, the decision depends on the project goals. If a modelling is intended only to

provide a first approximation, a simple code may be appropriate. The form of input and output

results, and the choice of the language, are in dependence of the available facilities.

The calibration of the model is one of the most critical, difficult, and valuable steps in

the model application process. After a pollutant transport model is calibrated to a satisfactory

degree, it is often applied to predict and simulate the future contaminant migration.

31

parameter estimation, and verification. Model structure identification begins by identifying the

large subdivisions of model and proceeds by fitting these together in diagrammatic form with

a flow chart. It is better the model to be created from different modules (separated parts) and

every part to be developed, tested and calibrated apart. Parameter estimation deals with the

computation of values for the parameters that appear in the model equations, once the structure

of these relationships has been properly identified. Verification is the determination of whether

the correct model has been obtained from a given single set of experimental data. Calibration

and verification represent the bulk of the procedure for model development and testing, once

Validation of the model refers to the testing of the adequacy of the model against a

second, independent set of field data. Because validation thus entails the design and

implementation of new experiments, it is unfortunately a step in the analysis that is all too

without suitable proof. The validation of the model depends on the local possibilities. Model

reliability of the calibrated model using one or more independent data sets. Ideally it is possible

to compare the output results from the model with the observed data.

model output responses to changes in the model parameter values. It examines the distribution

of model responses that are possible, given the distributions of estimated parameter values

Sensitivity analysis is used before and after calibration mainly to test the responsiveness

and sensitivity of the numerical model to every input parameter. It is useful for: examining the

likely uncertainty in simulation results due to uncertainty in model input parameters, and

32

examining how well parameters are likely to be estimated from the available data for model

model parameters affect the model results. If the model results are highly sensitive to a

particular parameter, the uncertainty associated with that parameter will significantly affect the

ability of the model to make meaningful interpretations and predictions. It is the mean of

Figure 3, shows the conceptual framework of the study. The framework is divided into

three major parts- segmentation of Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River, data collection, and

water quality model. The segmentation of Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River is based on the

location of the source and setting boundaries within the river reaches. Different parameters

such as dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH were collected. A water quality model is then

developed.

33

SEGMENTATION OF PINACANAUAN DE TUGUEGARAO RIVER

River Reaches

- Location of Boundaries

DATA COLLECTION

- Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

- Temperature

-pH

River Geometry

- Length -Velocity

- Width - Depth

Two-Dimensional Model

- DO model

Field Data - Temperature model

- DO - pH model

- Temperature

- pH

Validation

Model Output

of Model

34

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The study area is located in Brgy. Caggay, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan at the latitude

and longitude of 17° 37’ 37.41” N and 121° 44’ 25.44” E, respectively (Figure 4). It has a total

population of about 7,577 and approximately 25% of its total population resides along the river.

The river has an average depth of 1.56461 m. and an average velocity of 0.30618 m/s. The river

is surrounded by agricultural lands, however there were two pollutant sources were located in

the selected sampling site that impact the water quality of river water (domestic and household

effluents). Also, the nearest distance of the sampling site from the road is 31.8 m while the

furthest is 64.9 m.

35

3.2 Initial and Boundary Conditions

The selected length and width of the rivers’ boundary are 200 m. and 121m.,

respectively. The data were gathered at the outer and inner nodes of the study area. From the

outer nodes, seven points were selected as initial conditions which are denoted as B1 to B7 and

for the inner nodes, three points were selected (I1 to I3). Each point, three parameters were

tested (DO, temperature, and pH). In addition, the location of the upper and lower streams were

identified.

Source 1

Source 2

B4 B3 B2

B5 I1 I2 I3 B1 121 m.

B6 B7

200 m.

50 m. 50 m.

1 m. 1 m.

Figure 4: Selection of Boundary

36

3.3 Data Collection

Water parameters were measured using two methods: chemical testing method and the

used of measuring devices. The chemical method was used to validate the result of the

measuring devices. The dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH of each point in the boundary

were measured with two replicates. The water sampling was every after 14 days and were

A. Water Collection

The sampling bottles were rinsed with sample water from the river. A bottle was

submerged in the river and the cap was removed. After the bottle was filled with water, the cap

was replaced and the bottle was retrieved from the river. When air bubbles appeared, the

sampling method was repeated until such time that no air bubbles were seen from the sample.

A DO bottle was filled with sample water and added with 8 drops of Manganous Sulfate

Solution (4167). Additional 8 drops of Alkaline Potassium Iodide Azide Solution (7166) was

added to the sample before it was capped, mixed by inverting several times and allowed the

precipitate to settle. Another 8 drops of Sulfuric Acid was added to the sample, capped and

mixed properly until the formed precipitate dissolved. The sample was now “fixed”

A test tube was filled to 20 mL line with “fixed” sample and then capped. The sample

was titrated using Direct Reading Titrator (0377) with Sodium Thiosulfate, 0.025N (4169) until

the color turned to very faint yellow. The titrator was removed and the “fixed” sample was

added with 8 drops of Starch Indicator Solution (4170 WT) where the sample turned blue. The

sample was titrated until the blue color disappeared. Dissolved oxygen was recorded in ppm.

37

C. pH Measurement

A test tube (0106) was filled with 10 mL sample water, added with 8 drops of Wide

Range pH Indicator (2218), capped and properly mixed. The test tube was inserted into a wide

range Octa-Slide 2 Bar (3483-01) and Octa-Slide 2 Viewer and the pH was determined by

comparing the color of the sample with the corresponding color in the Octa-Slide 2 Viewer.

Immerse the DO probe into the solution under test to a depth of at least 10cm. Allow

the test to stabilize for several minutes to achieve thermal equilibrium between the probe and

2. pH Measurement

Calibrate the pH meter by rinsing its electrode with distilled water. After calibration,

rinsed the electrode and submerged it in the water sample. Allow the readings to stabilize.

3. Temperature Measurement

At the sampling site, submerged the thermometer in the water for one minute. Removed

the thermometer from the water then read the temperature and record the temperature as

degrees Celsius.

The number of boundaries, rate of flow, velocity, and the cross-section area were

determined. The input data for model validation were topographical and hydraulic data and

water quality in the sampling site. Topographical data were river cross-section that was

measured at all sampling boundaries. Required hydraulic data are flow rates, water depth and

velocity.

38

The data required for this model are as follows:

Location of the intersection point of the sewage and the main river

The model formulation for a particular pollutant was based in mass balance principle

The mathematical model, corresponding with initial and boundary conditions, consists

parameter.

C C C 2C 2C

u v Dx 2 D y 2 S

t x y x y

Where:

39

3.4.1 Discretization of DO Model

C C C 2C 2C

u v D x 2 D y 2 k a (C s C ) k d L

t x y x y

Where:

L = BOD concentration

The formulated model was discretized (See solution in Appendix), and the equation becomes:

D x D y i , j 1,t v

x 2 y 2 x

C i , j ,t 1 t C i , j ,t

C C i , j 1,t

u i , j ,t k a C s C i , j ,t k d L

y

processes:

T T T T T T T H

u v D xx D xy D yx D yy 0

t x y x x y y t y Pc p

40

Discretizing the model (See solution Appendix), it becomes

Dx D y i , j 1,t v

x 2

y 2

x

Ti , j ,t 1 t Ti , j ,t

T Ti , j 1,t H

u i , j ,t

y PCp

represented as:

C C C 2C 2C

u v Dx 2 D y 2 k p

t x y x y

Where:

k p is the rate constant due to chemical reaction (See appendix for the calculation of k p )

D x D y i , j 1,t v

x 2 y 2 x

C i , j ,t 1 t C i , j ,t

u C i , j ,t C i , j 1,t k

y p

Reaeration and decay rates are very important parameters in order to predict the

dissolved oxygen concentration in the river (Gonçalves, Silveira, Lopes Júnior, da Luz , &

Simões, 2017). Estimating reaeration and decay rate coefficient requires considerable efforts

since measuring these coefficients is laborious and expensive task. Hence, the coefficients used

in this study were estimated using developed equation. For the estimation of reaerations rates,

41

5V

k a (20C )

h5 / 3

where:

The calculated ka (20C ) were calibrated according to stream temperature using the formula:

k a k a (20C ) x (T 20)

The temperature correction coefficient, θ, depends on the mixing condition of the river water

body. Values generally range from 1.005 to 1.030. In practice, a value of 1.024 is often used

Decay rate coefficients is also dependent on temperature. The formula for estimating

k d k d (20C ) x (T 20)

where θ is 1.047. The typical value at the reference temperature 20 °C is commonly estimated

Raw domestic sewage 0.35-0.70

Treated domestic sewage 0.12-0.23

Polluted river water 0.12-0.23

Table 8: Typical values of the decay coefficient for various types of wastes. From [Davis and

Cornwell, 1991]

finite difference scheme. The finite difference approximation expressed the values and the

42

partial derivative of each function within a four-point grid formed by the intersections of the

space line i-1, I and i+1 with the time lines tn and tn+1. A control volume was defined and

situated around the grid point i. The river bed, the water surface and the two cross-sections

situated at i-1 and i+1, respectively, are the boundaries of this control volume as shown in the

figure below.

For a discrete time interval change in Δt, beginning at tn and collecting term in

M Dp M Dp M

2 2

p

t x 2 y 2

M (N wi , N Li , t + 1) M (N wi , N Li , t ) M (N wi+1 , N Li , t + 1) 2M (N wi , N Li , t + 1) + M (N wi 1 , N Li , t + 1)

ρp = +

Δt Δx 2

( )

M (N w , N Li+1 , t + 1) 2M (N wi , N Li , t + 1) + M N wi , N Li +1 , t + 1

Δy 2

ρp = Dρ p

Δt Δx 2

+

Δy 2

43

M(i, j, t + 1) M(i, j, t ) Dρ p

= [M(i + 1, j, t + 1) 4M(i, j, t + 1) + M(i 1, j, t + 1)]

Δt ρ p Δx 2

+ M(i, j + 1, t + 1) + M(i, j 1, t + 1)

M (i, j, t + 1) Dρ p Dρ p

+ 4M (i, j, t + 1) = [M(i + 1, j, t + 1) + M(i 1, j, t + 1)]

Δt ρ p Δx 2

ρ p Δx 2

M (i, j, t )

+ M (i, j + 1, t + 1) + M (i, j 1, t + 1) +

Δt

1 4Dρ p Dρ p

+ M (i, j, t + 1) = [M (i + 1, j, t + 1) + M (i 1, j, t + 1) + M (i, j + 1, t + 1)

Δt ρ p Δx 2

ρ p Δx 2

M (i, j, t )

+ M (i, j 1, t + 1)] +

Δt

2013a. The simulation starts by loading the initial conditions such as pH, DO and temperature

of the water (Figure 7). Parameter values (e.g. dimensions of river, re-aeration rate, decay rate,

etc.) were initialized. Matrixes for the pH, DO and temperature were initially allocated in order

The loop is initialized by comparing the simulation time (tinst) with the target end time

(tend). The loop will terminate if the value of tinst is equal to that of tend. While tinst is not equal

The simulation time is then increased by time increment, dt (1 second). The new Temp

(temperature at tinst + dt) is calculated followed by, pH (pH at tinst + dt), and DO (DO at tinst +

dt). Initial temp, pH, and DO are then updated by the calculated values.

Another conditional statement is set in order to record the simulated data. If the

remainder is equal to the zero, then, the computed temp, pH and DO will be stored in an MS

Excel file. These data (denoted as simulation data) will be compared with the actual data.

44

Start

Load Initial

Temp, pH, DO

Conditions

Initialized Values

No

Update Boundary

Conditions

Increase time

Counter (tinst+dt)

Compute Temp

Compute pH

Compute DO Cs

Update Initial

Conditions

No Is trem= 0?

Yes

45

3.7 Model Validation

Once the model was simulated, model testing was performed. The model was then used

to simulate an independent period for which field data under different environmental conditions

were available for comparison and validation. Results of the validation run were then compared

with field data for the same period, and a decision was made as to whether predictions and

observations were close enough to consider the model valid for predictive purposes and this

was done using the paired t-Test in Microsoft Excel 2016. If validation results were not

adequately close, the model process controlling parameters were adjusted accordingly, and the

calibration and validation process was repeated. This was done iteratively until the results were

The results of the simulated data of Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen were

Coefficient of Determination (R2) was used to measure if the simulated data was a good

for the actual data. The R2 was calculated using MATLAB™ 2013a (See codes at Appendix

C.2).

46

CHAPTER 4

The actual river water quality parameters (dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH) were

taken every after 14 days. Water quality model for each parameter was developed using the

gathered data at the boundaries as the initial condition and was simulated using MATLAB™

2013a software. The simulated data of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH were visually

compared with respective observed data values, as it can be seen in Table 9,10, and 11,

respectively.

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

I1 I2 I3

Day

Actual Simulated Actual Simulated Actual Simulated

0 7.66 7.628197 7.66 7.662857 7.66 7.684965

1 7.665 6.603236 7.685 7.489097 7.685 7.35746

2 6.41 6.58578 5.955 3.501366 6.1 5.26473

3 9.03 8.343301 8.27 8.343418 8.16 8.053624

4 8.24 8.197079 8.19 8.240218 7.56 7.845481

5 8.23 7.656159 7.525 7.535051 7.335 7.113582

6 6.95 6.462873 6.5 6.534535 6.3 6.359633

7 5.36 4.562447 5.22 5.693666 6.625 4.625674

8 2.485 4.716579 5.63 3.987134 4.75 5.09569

9 7.39 6.925908 7.345 7.535377 7.555 7.292036

10 6.34 6.225017 6.29 6.251743 7.003 6.210554

47

Table 10: Actual Vs. Theoretical for Temperature Model.

TEMPERATURE (°C)

I1 I2 I3

Day

Actual Simulated Actual Simulated Actual Simulated

0 23.64 23.58306 23.642857 23.64 23.64 23.65483

1 23.5 23.60445 23.5 23.49234 23.5 23.44924

2 23.5 23.97994 22.5 22.87967 23 22.1495

3 24.5 23.65148 24.5 24.13597 25 23.54031

4 22.5 24.25581 22.75 22.99172 23 23.2918

5 26.25 26.20346 25.95 26.20466 26.05 26.09612

6 26 26.31361 27 26.99176 27 26.81986

7 27.5 27.48192 26.75 26.99172 27 27.25281

8 29 29.23192 29 29.08876 29.5 29.36588

9 30.5 30.22895 30.5 30.64344 30.5 30.7923

10 30.25 30.19987 30.6 30.55036 31.3 30.85068

pH

I1 I2 I3

Day

Actual Simulated Actual Simulated Actual Simulated

0 6.74 6.758943 6.74 6.729063 6.74 6.74268

1 6.8 6.843442 6.85 6.872851 6.8 6.926767

2 6.9 6.901611 7.2 7.263789 7.2 7.065241

3 6.9 6.190473 5.8 5.739827 6.05 5.858941

4 5.3 5.891832 5.5 6.655944 5.7 5.416848

5 6.9 5.556923 6.85 7.07706 6.9 6.926402

6 4.365 5.09313 6.715 5.159399 7.04 4.886551

7 7.15 6.930695 6.95 7.127184 6.95 6.90239

8 6.9 6.943442 6.25 6.757937 6.4 6.390641

9 7.05 6.980695 7 7.089762 7.05 7.13565

10 6.9 6.951611 7.65 7.610443 7.933 7.946445

48

4.1.1 Statistical Analysis of Data

The statistical tool paired t-test in Microsoft Excel® 2016 was used to determine the

level of marginal significance between the actual and theoretical values. The Table 12 shows

that there is no significant difference between the actual and theoretical values since all the

calculated P values were greater than 0.05 for each water quality parameters (see Appendix

D.2) .Therefore, the application of these models is for calculating water quality parameters

P- VALUE

Day DO Temperature pH

1 0.094416 0.385828 0.090023

2 0.154069 0.49749 0.365715

3 0.202691 0.053374 0.436546

4 0.211568 0.132078 0.315326

5 0.131526 0.220891 0.491016

6 0.269425 0.400069 0.081096

7 0.195773 0.120917 0.409407

8 0.403408 0.120917 0.177925

9 0.226458 0.387781 0.284465

10 0.159461 0.151495 0.389146

The values of the actual and theoretical water quality parameters were plotted and their

coefficient of determination was determined. The R2 of the developed model were compared

to the published model. For the water quality parameters, temperature, pH and dissolved

oxygen, the highest R-squared value was 0.99514, 0.98654 and 0.98112, respectively. The

simulated results were in good arguments with measured values. The R2 of the simulated data

were compared to the published models and results show that model developed model is in

good fit to the actual data compared to the published model (See Table 13).

49

R2= 0.94974

(a) I1

R2= 0.99514

(b) I2

R2= 0.97082

(c) I3

Figure 7: Theoretical Vs. Actual Temperature for (a) I1 (b) I2 (c) I3.

50

R2= 0.91673

(a) I1

R2= 0.92082

(b) I2

R2= 0.98654

(c) I3

Figure 8: Theoretical vs. Actual pH for (a) I1 (b) I2 (c) I3.

51

R2= 0.89811

(a) I1

R2= 0.98112

(b) I2

R2= 0.89112

(c) I3

52

Table 13: Comparison of the R2 of the Simulated and Published Models.

Wear River Nene River Tamar

Temperature Model I1 0.94974

(Smith, 2009) I2 0.99514 0.962 0.976 0.98

I3 0.97082

Suma River Tigris River

Dissolved Oxygen

I1 0.89811

Model

I2 0.98112 0.963 0.921

(Ahmed, 2014)

I3 0.89112

Ahoada River

pH Model

I1 0.91673

(Ukpaka & Douglas,

I2 0.92082 0.839

2016)

I3 0.98654

4.3Contour mapping

4.3.1 Temperature

The initial and final values simulated during the water quality sampling for temperature

was mapped as shown in Figure 9. As seen in the figures below, the initial and final temperature

conditions have the same area of the river wherein both maps displays lower temperature on

the left side of the map and higher temperature on the left side. This difference in temperature

is due to the depth of the river for which the deeper the river the lower the temperature.

Moreover, the color of the map shows higher temperature during the final sampling which is

53

(a) Initial Temperature (b) Final Temperature

Figure 9: (a) Initial and (b) Final Temperature

Water quality contour maps were generated using the simulated initial and final values

of the dissolved oxygen model, as shown in Figure 10. The map shows the changes in the

concentration of the dissolved oxygen at a given distance in the boundary. From the contour

map of dissolved oxygen and temperature the relationship of both parameters are directly

proportional (Addy & Green, 1997). Dissolved oxygen is highest at the source, since colder

water holds more dissolved oxygen than warm water. Very little difference of the initial and

Figure 10: (a) Initial and (b) Final DO

54

4.3.3 pH

The figures below are the contour maps for the river’s pH with the right one as the

initial condition and the other as the final. They are regular topographic maps but instead of

level.

The two figures show very little difference of pH level trend. They both displayed the

darkest color at areas around the source and the lightest color at the middle of the sinks. These

indicates that the sources, especially at the first one (B4), greatly affects the water’s pH. This

could be due to the content of the sources’ discharge that falls under domestic water waste.

Domestic water wastes usually contains acidic chemical compositions, dissolved components

and complex of detergents that contribute to the decrease of pH (Easa & Abou-Rayan, 2010).

Figure 11: (a) Initial and (b) Final pH

55

4.4 Prediction of Water Quality Parameters

4.4.2 Case 2: The classification effluent discharge of Source 1 is at Class B

The effect of Class B effluent discharge into the river was evaluated using the

developed model. Point B4 was changed from its current status which is Class C into Class B.

The selected temperature of the Class B effluent was based on DENR-Administrative Order

No. 2016-08(See Appendix E). Figures 12 shows the changes in temperature of the river when

a Class B effluent was discharged. It is observed that the changed in temperature of the river is

small for I1 and I3 while the predicted I2 temperature ranges from 25.31416 - 27.2513 °C

compared to the actual temperature change range of 23.5 – 30.6 °C (See Appendix A.1).

(a) I1 (b) I2

(c)I3

Figure 12: Temperature Prediction for Case 2.

56

The predicted and actual DO values of I1, I2 and I3 were shown in Figures 13. As can

be seen, I1 and I3 have the smallest change between its predicted and actual values unlike I2

with predicted values that ranges to 6.73-7.61and actual values of 5.8-7.65. Based from the

results, even if Class B effluent was discharged to the river, the condition of the river will

remain at Class C.

(a) I1 (b) I2

(c) I3

57

The selected value of pH for Class B effluent was also based from DENR-

actual to predicted values of each internal nodes (I1, I2 and I3), I2 have the biggest change of

pH with predicted values that ranges from 6.297044 – 6.609495 and actual values that ranges

(a) I1 (b) I2

(c) I3

Figure 14: Prediction of pH for Case 2.

58

4.4.3.1 Contour Mapping of Case 2

The figure below shows the comparison between the contoured map of the current

temperature condition of the river from the gathered data and the predicted temperature where

set by the DENR Administrative Order 2016-08-WQG (Water Quality Guidelines) and General

Effluent Standards (GES) (see Appendix E) instead of the current discharge coming from one

of the sources. The colorbar in the figures denotes the temperature condition of the water, from

darkest color (coldest) to lightest color (hottest). The contour map of the predicted temperature

condition of the river displays multiple color gradient as compared to the contour map of the

current temperature condition. The multiple gradient denotes multiple temperature in the

boundary because of the Class B discharge. Based from the colorbars, the current temperature

condition of the river is hotter compared to the predicted temperature condition. Therefore,

changing the one class of the sources to B could contribute to colder temperature in the river.

Actual Predicted

The dissolved oxygen for Class B is 5 mg/L as set by the DENR Administrative Order

2016-08-WQG (Water Quality Guidelines) and General Effluent Standards (GES) (see

Appendix E). Applying the same case for dissolved oxygen, it can be observed from the figures

59

below that the level of dissolved oxygen decreases as the current discharge was changed to

Class B. The prediction shows that due to the continuous Class B discharge in the river the

Actual Predicted

The same case was used for pH wherein one of the discharge was changed to Class B and

the standard pH was set to 6. The predicted pH shows multiple colour gradient which implies

multiple pH level in the boundary as compared to the current pH condition of the river. Based

from the colorbars, the pH from the current condition is more neutral as compared to the

predicted pH of the river. Therefore, the Class B discharge makes some part of the river acidic.

Actual Predicted

60

4.4.4 Case 3: The classification of effluent discharge of Source 1 is at Class D

The following figures shows the different water quality parameters temperature, pH,

and DO for the Pinacanauan Rivers at its interior nodes I1, I2, and I3. The effect of Class D

effluent discharge into the river was evaluated using the developed model. Point B4 was

changed from its current status which is Class C into Class D. The selected temperature of the

Class D effluent was based on DENR-Administrative Order No. 2016-08(See Appendix). The

continuous lines in the figures represent the graph of the river’s current condition with two

discharges at B2 and B4 of class C. The broken lines on the other hand are the projected water

qualities of the river at its interior nodes if there will be only one sink (B4) and a discharge of

class D.

The set of figures below (Figure 18) show the current and projected water temperature

for the interior nodes. The projected graphs have the same trend as the current graph. This is

especially true to I1 and I3 beginning with a slight increase, followed by a decrease, to another

increase then to a sudden increase before flattening out towards the end. Both graphs have a

lesser maximum and minimum temperature than the current graph. Their temperature ranges

also lessened; I1 originally has a temperature range of 23.5-30.5⁰C while the projected values

ranges 23.74987-30.228954⁰C; and I3 has a current data temperature range of 23-31.3⁰C while

the projected data has 28.82607-30.91033⁰C. At I2 on the other hand, although it has a similar

trend, the projected graph has a wide gap in values with the actual graph. It has a much greater

minimum temperature than the current graph and a slightly greater maximum temperature,

lessening the temperature range from 22.5-30.6⁰C to 23.34844-30.88578⁰C. The overall effect

of having one discharge with a class D to the water instead of two of class C is having a lesser

temperature range.

61

(a)I1 (b)I2

(c)I3

The water parameter DO for case 3 at the interior nodes are shown below. This water

parameter has a good fit for I1 and I3. The DO for the actual river condition has a range of

2.485-9.03mg/L for I1 while the projected values has a range 4.562447-6.980695mg/L. For I3,

the actual river’s DO ranges from 4.75-7.685mg/L while the projected value has 4.851-

7.648077mg/L range. Unlike the two nodes, I2 has a bad fit. It showed a significant drop in its

DO failing to achieve even a third of the current river’s DO. Although the broken line has the

same trend as the continuous line, its peaks and sinks are not as dramatic as the continuous line.

No point had the two lines managed to intersect. The range for I3’s actual DO is from 5.22-

8.27 mg/L while the projected DO for the river ranged 3.421788-4.374152mg/L. Nonetheless,

62

having one discharge with a class D to the water instead of two of class C is having a smaller

range of DO values.

(a)I1 (b)I2

(c)I3

For the projected pH of the river for Case 3, the above figures are shown. The same as

with temperature, the trend of the pH graphs of the projected water qualities is follows the

trends of the current water qualities. The best fit among the three is in I1 followed by I3 and

the least is I2. Because the graphs of the current river pH have very high and low peaks, the

one with the least pH range is I2, followed by I3, then I1. In I1, the current river pH range was

4.365-7.15 while the projected pH range was only 5.09313-6.980695. In R2, the current data

has 5.5-7.65 pH range while the predicted pH range was from 5.638497-6.242771. Lastly, the

63

current pH range in I3 was 5.7-7.933 while the projected pH values has a range of 6.041629-

7.842703. All three graphs showed that having one discharge with a class D to the water instead

(a)I1 (b)I2

(c)I3

64

4.4.4.1 Contour Mapping of Case 3

The contoured maps for the predicted and the current temperature of the river is shown

in Figure 21. In this case, the discharge coming from one of the sources was changed to Class

D where the temperature was set to 31˚C. The figure shows that both current and predicted

values displays higher temperature at the left side of the boundary as indicated by the color in

the colorbar. It can also be observed from the maps that there was a little change between the

Actual Predicted

Applying the same case for dissolved oxygen, the maps show the change in the level of

dissolved oxygen when current discharge was changed to Class D. The dissolved oxygen for

Class D effluent is 3 mg/L as set by the DENR Administrative Order 2016-08-WQG (Water

Quality Guidelines) and General Effluent Standards (GES). The map shows that discharge of

65

Actual Predicted

Figure 22: Actual vs. Prediction DO Contour Map.

The comparison between the current and predicted pH of the river is shown in the

Figure 23. The same case was used wherein one of the discharge was changed to Class D and

the pH was set to 5.5 instead of the original effluent coming from one of the sources. Based

from the colorbar, the figure shows higher pH on the current values as compared to the

predicted values. It can also be observed from the figure that blue color appeared on the

predicted pH which indicates that the river becomes more acidic as Class D effluent of 5.5 pH

`

Actual Predicted

Figure 23: Actual vs. Predicted pH Contour Map.

66

CHAPTER 5

Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River were measured. For each parameter, a 2-D mathematical

model was formulated and then discretized using the method finite implicit difference. The

Simulated temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH values were visually and statistically

compared with the measured values. The formulated model proved to be a good tool to predict

Results show that there is no significant difference between the actual and theoretical

values since all the calculated P values were greater than 0.05 for each water quality

parameters. The acceptable R-squared value for temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH, was

Also, the model was used to predict the amount of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and

pH. The predicted value for DO, temperature and pH was 6.74335, 23.64282, and 7.663018,

respectively.

67

5.2 Recommendations

Developing river quality models needs to consider the following considerations starting

from data collection up to model simulation for better data and results; Testing of water

parameters needs to be at least a year, to account for the two seasons (dry and wet) of the

country, including the natural calamities such as typhoons and El Niño that may affect the

concentration and condition of the river. Also a closer time interval during water sampling for

more accurate and reliable data. Selection of wider boundary for sampling points to avoid

biases in the data collection. Make use of 3 dimensional model for more actual representation

of the river and enables better decisions in water quality assessment. Consideration of more

river parameters in model formulation to account the effect of each parameter to the river

quality. Using higher quality of computer with a bigger storage and faster speed is very

68

REFERENCES

http://echo2.epfl.ch/VICAIRE/mod_2/chapt_9/main.htm

Abdullah, N. (2007). A Study of Several Implicit Finite Difference Schemes for the Linear

Convection Equation.

Addy, K., & Green, L. (1997). Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature. Natural Resources Facts.

Ali, W., & Husnain , H. (2010). Development of Dissolved Oxygen Model for a Highly

Variable Flow River: A Case Study of Ravi River in Pakistan. Research Gate.

Chemical Engineering.

Approach.

Baca, R., & Arnett, R. C. (1976). A limnological model for eutrophic lakes and

Benedini, M. (2011). Water Quality Models for Rivers and Streams. State of the Art and

69

Benedini, M., & Tsakiris, G. (2013). Water Quality Modelling for Rivers and Streams. New

York: Springer.

Bowen, I. (1926). The ratio of heat losses by conduction and by evaporation from any water

Bowen, J. D., Perry, D. N., & Bell, C. D. (2014, November). Hydrologic and Water Quality

616-629. doi:10.3390

Bowie, G. L., Mills, W. B., Porcella, D. B., Campbell, C. L., Pagenkopf, J. R., Rupp, G. L., . .

Quality Modeling.

Churuksaeva, V., & Starchenko, A. (2015). Mathematical Modeling of a River Stream Based

D.M.Causon, & Mingham, C. G. (2010). Introductory Finite Difference Methods for PDES.

Dawood, A. S., Hussain, H. K., & Hassan, M. (2016, October). Modeling of River Water

Dayag, C. R., Gazmen, M. N., & Quizon, R. A. (2016). Water Quality Monitoring

Easa, A., & Abou-Rayan, A. (2010). Domestic Wastewater Effect on the Pollution of the

70

Conference, IWTC, pp. 909-923. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b27/3b40fb9e49934bc0f67073adeff954752c1d.pdf

https://nptel.ac.in/courses/105101010/downloads/Lecture29.pdf

Espejo, J., Tungpalan, J., Negi, V., & Alex, S. (2015). Physicochemical and Bacteriological

101/numerical-issues/implicit-versus-explicit-numerical-methods/

Fonseca, A. R. (2014). River Water Quality Modelling for River Basin and Water Resources

Management.

Gonçalves, J. C., Silveira, A., Lopes Júnior, G. B., da Luz , M. S., & Simões, A. A. (2017).

Haider, H., & Ali, W. (2010). Development of Dissolved Oxygen Model for a Highly

Variable Flow River: A Case Study of Ravi River in Pakistan. Research Gate.

Herb, W., & Heinz , S. (2008). A flow and temperature model for the Vermillion River, Part

71

Hussain, S. A., Atshan, W. G., & Najam, Z. M. (2012, October). Mathematical Model for the

Introduction to Finite Difference Method and Fundamentals of CFD. (n.d.). Retrieved from

NPTEL: https://nptel.ac.in/courses/112104030/pdf/lecture1.pdf

Jarvie, H. P., Whitton, B., & Neal, C. (1998). Nitrogen and phosphorus s in east coast British

Environment, 79–109.

Kang, G. K., Gao, J., & Xie, G. (2017). Data-driven Water Quality Analysis and Prediction:

Kaw, A., Nguyen, C., & Snyder, L. (2012, July 17). mathforcollege. Retrieved from

http://nm.mathforcollege.com/:

http://mathforcollege.com/nm/mws/gen/08ode/mws_gen_ode_spe_finitedif.pdf

Knight, A. (2000). Beyond, Basics of MATLAB® and. Washington DC: CRC press LLC.

Ledder, G. (2015). Mathematics for the Life Sciences: Calculus, Modeling, Probability, and

Lindenschmidt, D.-I. K.-E. (2005). River water quality modelling for river basin and water

72

Livshits, D. I., & Coleman, N. (2008). Mathematical Modeling.

Loucks, D. P., & Beek, E. (2005). Water Resources Systems Planning and Management, An

Loucks, D. P., & Beek, E. (2005). Water Resources Systems Planning and Management, An

Loucks, D. P., & Beek, E. V. (2005). Water Resources Systems Planning and Management.

Makita, S., & Saeki, H. (2006). Method of Water Quality Improvement by Use of Ice Floe

Mirbaghery, S. A., Abaspour, M., & Zamani, K. (2009). Mathematical Modelling of Water

Mulla, R. K., & Bhosale, S. M. (2016, August). Water Quality Analysis and Simulation of

https://www.comsol.com/multiphysics/what-is-mass-transfer

https://www.comsol.com/multiphysics/navier-stokes-equations

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatra.html

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/index.html

73

Nikishkov, G. P. (2004). INTRODUCTION TO THE FINITE.

Orlob, G. T., , Bruce Beck, M., Harleman, D. F., Jacquet, J., Jorgesnen, S. E., . . . Watanabe,

Raterman, B., Schaars, F. W., & Griffioen, M. (2000). GIS and MATLAB Integrated

Groundwater Modelling.

Ryan, P., & Harleman, D. R. (1973). An analytical and experimental study of transient

EWRA, 31-41.

74

Serway, R. A., Faughn, J. S., Vuille, C., & Bennett, C. A. (2006). College Physics (7th ed.).

Skorzinski, E., Shacham, M., & Brauner, N. (2009). A Simulation Program for Modelling

Subklay, K., & Pochai, N. (2017). Numerical Simulations of a Water Quality Model in a

Flooding Stream Due to Dam-break Problem Using Implicit and Explicit Methods.

Swinbank, W. (1963). Long wave radiation from clear skies. Quarterly Journal of the Royal

Tetra Tech, I. (1983). The Integrated Lake-Watershed Acidification Study, Volume 1: Model

http://www2.physics.uiowa.edu/~rmerlino/1701_F_16/1701_conservation_laws.pdf

Ukpaka, C., & Douglas, I. E. (2016). Model Development for pH, Salinity and Conductivity

Sciences Journal.

Verwer, J. (1998, July). Numerical Algorithms for Air and Surface Water Quality Modelling.

ERCM.

75

Wageningen-Kessels van, F., Lint, H. v., Hoogendoorn, S. P., & Vuik, K. (2008). Implicit

76

APPENDIX A

First Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 6.85 23.75 7.86

B2 6.75 23.5 7.645

B3 6.8 23.5 7.505

B4 6.7 23.5 7.58

B5 6.8 23.5 7.62

B6 6.55 23.75 7.675

B7 6.75 24.0 7.755

I1 6.8 23.5 7.665

12 6.85 23.5 7.685

13 6.8 23.5 7.685

Second Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature

(mg/L)

B1 7.0 22.75 5.54

B2 6.8 22.75 4.785

B3 7.25 23.0 5.365

B4 6.75 23.25 0.83

B5 6.9 23.75 5.245

B6 7.1 22.75 5.8

B7 7.2 22.75 6.24

I1 6.9 23.5 6.41

12 7.2 22.5 3.95

13 7.2 23.0 6.1

Third Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature

(mg/L)

B1 6.9 24 8.4

B2 5.6 23.5 7.87

B3 5.65 24.0 8.22

B4 5.6 24.0 8.25

B5 6.9 24.3 8.45

B6 6.85 24.5 8.72

B7 6.9 24.75 8.48

I1 6.0 24.5 9.03

12 5.8 24.5 8.27

13 6.05 25.0 8.16

77

Fourth Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 5.4 22.75 7.61

B2 5.25 23.0 8.0

B3 6.7 23.0 8.045

B4 5.55 23.0 8.465

B5 5.2 22.75 8.195

B6 5.0 23.0 7.955

B7 5.4 23.75 7.995

I1 5.7 22.5 8.24

12 6.2 22.75 8.19

13 5.7 23.0 7.56

Fifth Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 6.95 26.0 7.445

B2 6.85 25.95 7.05

B3 6.85 26.1 7.365

B4 7.15 26.25 7.525

B5 6.85 26.35 8.2

B6 6.9 26.0 7.765

B7 6.8 26.8 7.64

I1 5.8 26.25 8.23

12 6.85 25.95 7.525

13 6.9 26.05 7.335

Sixth Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 6.86 27.0 6.35

B2 3.315 27.0 6.6

B3 5.64 26.75 6.25

B4 2.79 27.5 7.15

B5 3.755 26.0 6.9

B6 6.245 27.0 6.4

B7 7.07 27.75 6.3

I1 5.1 26.0 6.95

12 5.25 26.5 7.05

13 5.0 26.5 6.3

78

Seventh Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 7.0 26.5 6.49

B2 6.9 27.0 4.165

B3 6.9 27.0 5.73

B4 7.2 27.0 4.68

B5 6.95 26.75 5.855

B6 7.0 26.5 6.52

B7 7.05 26.0 6.59

I1 7.15 27.0 5.36

12 6.95 26.75 5.22

13 6.95 27.0 5.05

Eight Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 6.25 30.0 4.735

B2 6.15 29.0 3.74

B3 6.3 29.25 4.545

B4 7.0 28.75 2.585

B5 6.9 28.5 2.765

B6 6.9 29.25 2.745

B7 6.85 30.0 3.24

I1 6.9 29.0 4.25

12 6.5 29.0 4.1

13 6.4 29.5 4.75

Ninth Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 7.0 30.75 7.685

B2 6.95 30.75 7.175

B3 6.95 30.5 7.525

B4 7.05 31.0 7.315

B5 7.0 30.25 7.43

B6 7.0 31.0 7.56

B7 7.0 31.75 7.635

I1 7.05 30.5 7.39

12 7.0 30.5 7.345

13 7.05 30.5 7.555

79

Tenth Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 7.9 31.35 6.77

B2 7.9 30.65 6.02

B3 7.9 30.7 6.21

B4 7.05 30.35 6.19

B5 6.95 30.2 6.225

B6 7.9 30.55 6.685

B7 7.6 31 6.565

I1 6.9 30.25 30.25

12 7.75 30.6 30.6

13 7.633 31.3 7.003

Day 1 1.173333

Day 2 6.039467

Day 3 1.076667

Day 4 1.2

Day 5 0.683333

Day 6 1.393333

Day 7 0.923333

Day 8 0.38

Day 9 0.826667

Day 10 1.95

Average: 1.56461

Velocity (m/s)

v_1 0.205432

v_2 0.533079

v_3 0.569175

v_4 0.15232

v_5 0.070872

Average 0.306176

Elevation Difference

Slope river

Length of River

80

Length of river 200 m.

Minimum Elevation 18 m.

Maximum Elevation 27 m.

Elevation Difference 9 m.

Slope of river 0.045

A. 5 Meteorological Data

2018 2019 2019 2019

Dry Bulb Temp. (°C) 24.9 23.6 24.9 33.5

Wet Bulb Temp(°C) 22.5 21.6 21.1 22.5

Station Press. (hPa) 1008 1010.2 1009.7 1006.9

Mean Dew Point (°C) 22.2 20.6 19.5 20.8

Mean Relative Humidity 84% 83% 71% 70%

Wind Ave. Speed (m/s) 2 2 1 1

Mean Cloudiness (Oktas) 6 0 4 4

Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 26.42 24.86 23.37 24.86

Source: Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration

(PAGASA)-Tuguegarao City

(kW-hr/m^2/day)

December, 2018 2.9225

January, 2019 3.974839

February, 2019 5.573

March, 2019 5.702903

April, 2019 -130.954

Source: https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data-access-viewer/

81

APPENDIX B

C C C 2C 2C

u v Dx 2 D y 2 k a (C s C ) k d L

t x y x y

Ci , j ,t 1 Ci , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci j , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t Dx Ci 1, j ,t 2Ci , j ,t Ci 1, j ,t D y Ci , j 1,t 2Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

t x y x 2 y 2

k a C sat Ci , j ,t k d L

t x 2 y 2

u Ci , j ,t Ci j , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

k a C sat Ci , j ,t k d L

x y

x 2

y 2

t C

u Ci , j ,t Ci j , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

Ci , j ,t 1

i , j ,t

k C C k L

x y

a sat i , j ,t d

The advection-dispersion model with sink or source terms to prevent physical processes:

T T T T T H

u v D x D y 0

t x y x x y y Pc p

T T T T T H

Dx D y u v 0

t x x y y x y Pc p

Assume u = v

82

T 2T 2T T T H

Dx 2 D y u u 0

t x y 2

x y Pc p

D x D y i , j 1,t

t x 2

y 2

Ti , j ,t Ti 1, j ,t Ti , j ,t Ti , j 1,t H

- u u

x y Pc p

Dx D y i , j 1,t

x 2

y 2

Ti , j ,t 1 t Ti , j ,t

T Ti 1, j ,t Ti , j ,t Ti , j 1,t H

u i , j ,t u

x y Pc p

B.1.3 pH Model

The pH model was based on the two-dimensional advection-dispersion model and represented

as:

C C C 2C 2C

u v Dx 2 D y 2 k p

t x y x y

t x y x 2

D y C i , j 1,t 2C i , j ,t C i , j 1,t

kp

y 2

t x 2 y 2

u Ci , j ,t Ci j , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

kp

x y

83

Dx Ci 1, j ,t 2Ci , j ,t Ci 1, j ,t D y Ci , j 1,t 2Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

x 2

y 2

t C

u Ci , j ,t Ci j , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

Ci , j ,t 1

i , j ,t

kp

x y

S k a (C s C ) k d L

5V 50.30618

k a (20C ) 0.72599

h 5/3

1.564615 / 3

For the calibration of reaeration rate ka:

k a 0.72599 x1.02426.434520

1

k a 0.84568

day

H

S

Pc p

H H S H SR H A H AR H BR H E H C

H SN H S H SR 0.94 H SC 1 0.65SK 2

0.94 779.091 1 0.650.414

2

650.7868275 W/m 2

H AN H A - H AR 5.16432 10 13

1 0.17 SK TA 273.166

84

H AN H A - H AR 5.16432 10 1 0.17 SK TA 273.166

13

5.16432 10 -13

1 0.17 0.414 27.26 273.166

392.1994804 W / m 2

H BR TS

4

H BR 0.97 5.670 10 -8 26.4507 273.15

4

H BR 0.4431248322 W / m 2

H E W L a bW es - ea

H E W L a bW es - ea

L = (597 - 0.57 × TS )

= 2343.766255 W / m 2

eS = a j + b jTs

= 34.6054557

4157

e a = 2.171 × 108 e

Td + 239.09

= 24.51048738

H E 997.05 2343.766255 0 1 10 -9 2 34.6054558 - 24.51048738

0.04901276095 W / m 2

T -T

H C H E 6.19 10 8 p S A

e S - ea

85

H C H E 6.19 10 -4 p TS - TA

e S - ea

0.04901276095 6.19 10 -4 1008.7 26.4507 - 20.775

34.6054558 - 24.51048738

1.47205857 10 -5 W / m 2

Calculation for

H QS QSR Q A Q AR QBR QE QC

-650.7868275 392.1994804 - 0.4431248322 - 0.04901276095 1.47205857 10 -5

-259.049483 W/m 2

H - 259.049483 W/m 2

hcp

1.56461 m 997.05 kg3 4182 J

m kg

0.00005575964433

B.2.3 pH Model

2385.73

299.600714.0184 0.0152642 299.6007

k H 44,000mg / mol 10

mg

k H 1449.605441

L.atm

mg

CO2,sat 1449.605441 0.00033atm

L.atm

3404.71

14.84350.032786 299.6007 299.6007

k1 10

mg

k1 4.53557571x10 7

L

86

2902.39

6.4980.02379299.6007 299.6007

k2 10

mg

k 2 4.819166316 x10 11

L

Dx cL4 / 3

Dx 0.01200

4/3

2

cm 2 1m

Dx 11.69607095

sec 100cm

m2

Dx 1.169607095 x10 3

sec

B.3.2 Coefficient of vertical diffusion

D y 0.067 u* H

D y 0.067 H gRh S

m

Dy (0.067)(1.56461m) (9.81 )(1.56461m)(0.045m)

s2

m2

Dy 0.08712

sec

87

APPENDIX C

MATLAB™ CODES

clear all

close all

clc

%Initialized matrix

Temp(1:121,1:200,1:2) = 23.642857;

pH(1:121,1:200,1:2) = 6.72857;

DO(1:121,1:200,1:2) = 7.662857;

dx = 1;

dy = 1;

dt = 1;

t_end = 10*14*3600*24;

t_inst =0;

u = 1:200;

v = 1:121;

x = 1:200;

y = 1:121;

i = 2;

t = 1;

m = (2:199);

n = (2:120);

p = (120:199);

a = 0.306176; %velocitY

ka = 0.84568./(24*3600);

kd = 0.671940043./(24*3600);

kp = 0.00000045355757; %rate constant due to reaction

L = 1; %BOD

d = 0.000000146219647;

Dx = 0.001169607095; %longitudinal diffusion constant

Dy = 0.08712; %vertical diffusion constant

A = -0.01289651149;

Ey = 1.171645495;

ky = 4169663.1;

Cp = 4182;

r = 997.05; %density

K = 0.6096866667; %thermal conductivity

if t_inst == 0*3600*24

Temp(1,u,t) = 23.5;

Temp(1,v,t) = 23.5;

88

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0025.*x + 23.625;

Temp(200,y,t) = 23.75;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.8;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.002.*x + 6.45;

pH(200,y,t) = 6.85;

DO(1,v,t) = 7.58;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.0008.*x + 7.635;

DO(200,y,t) = 7.86;

Temp(1,v,t) = 23.75;

Temp(121,x,t) = 22.75;

Temp(200,y,t) = 22.75;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.9;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.001.*x + 7.05;

pH(200,y,t) = 7;

DO(1,v,t) = 5.245;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.0044.*x + 5.58;

DO(200,y,t) = 5.54;

Temp(1,v,t) = 24.3;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0025.*x + 24.375;

Temp(200,y,t) = 24;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.9;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.0005.*x + 6.825;

pH(200,y,t) = 6.9;

DO(1,v,t) = 8.45;

DO(121,x,t) = -0.0024.*x + 8.84;

DO(200,y,t) = 8.4;

Temp(1,u,t) = 23;

Temp(1,v,t) = 22.75;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0075.*x + 22.625;

Temp(200,y,t) = 22.75;

pH(1,v,t) = 5.2;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.019.*x + 4.05;

pH(200,y,t) = 5.4;

89

DO(1,u,t) = 0.00002.*x.^2 - 0.0065.*x + 8.4715;

DO(1,v,t) = 8.195;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.0004.*x + 7.935;

DO(200,y,t) = 7.61;

Temp(1,v,t) = 26.35;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.008.*x + 25.6;

Temp(200,y,t) = 26;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.85;

pH(121,x,t) = -0.001.*x + 6.95;

pH(200,y,t) = 6.95;

DO(1,v,t) = 8.2;

DO(121,x,t) = -0.0013.*x + 7.8275;

DO(200,y,t) = 7.445;

Temp(1,v,t) = 26;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0075.*x + 26.625;

Temp(200,y,t) = 27;

pH(1,v,t) = 3.755;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.0082.*x + 5.8325;

pH(200,y,t) = 6.86;

DO(1,v,t) = 6.9;

DO(121,x,t) = -0.001.*x + 6.45;

DO(200,y,t) = 6.35;

Temp(1,u,t) = 27;

Temp(1,v,t) = 26.75;

Temp(121,x,t) = -0.005.*x + 26.75;

Temp(200,y,t) = 26.5;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.95;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.0005.*x + 6.975;

pH(200,y,t) = 7;

DO(1,v,t) = 5.855;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.0007.*x + 6.485;

DO(200,y,t) = 6.49;

90

Temp(1,u,t) = -0.00007.*x.^2 + 0.0119.*x + 28.738;

Temp(1,v,t) = 28.5;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0075.*x + 28.875;

Temp(200,y,t) = 30;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.9;

pH(121,x,t) = -0.0005.*x + 6.925;

pH(200,y,t) = 6.25;

DO(1,v,t) = 2.765;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.005.*x + 2.4975;

DO(200,y,t) = 4.735;

Temp(1,v,t) = 30.25;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0075.*x + 30.625;

Temp(200,y,t) = 30.75;

pH(1,v,t) = 7;

pH(121,x,t) = 7;

pH(200,y,t) = 7;

DO(1,v,t) = 7.43;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.0008.*x + 7.5225;

DO(200,y,t) = 7.685;

Temp(1,v,t) = 30.2;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0045.*x + 30.325;

Temp(200,y,t) = 31.35;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.95;

pH(121,x,t) = -0.003.*x + 8.05;

pH(200,y,t) = 7.9;

DO(1,v,t) = 6.225;

DO(121,x,t) = -0.0012.*x + 6.505;

DO(200,y,t) = 6.77;

end

%discretized codes

%Temperature Model

%Interior Nodes

Temp(n,m,t+1) = ( dt.*((Dx.*(Temp(n-1,m,t)-

(2.*Temp(n,m,t))+Temp(n+1,m,t))./(dx.^2))+ (Dy.*(Temp(n,m-1,t)-

91

(2.*Temp(n,m,t))+ Temp(n,m+1,t))./(dy.^2))-((a.*(Temp(n,m,t)-Temp(n-

1,m,t)))./(dx))-((a.*(Temp(n,m,t)-Temp(n,m-1,t)))./(dy)))-

0.00003974749081)+ (Temp(n,m,t));

%pH Model

%Interior Nodes

pH(n,m,t+1) = ( dt.*((Dx.*(pH(n-1,m,t)-

(2.*pH(n,m,t))+pH(n+1,m,t))./(dx.^2))+ (Dy.*(pH(n,m-1,t)-(2.*pH(n,m,t))+

pH(n,m+1,t))./(dy.^2))-((a.*(pH(n,m,t)-pH(n-1,m,t)))./(dx))-

((a.*(pH(n,m,t)-pH(n,m-1,t)))./(dy)))+kp)+ (pH(n,m,t));

%DO Model

%Interior Nodes

DO(n,m,t+1)=( dt.*((Dx.*(DO(n-1,m,t)-

(2.*DO(n,m,t))+DO(n+1,m,t))./(dx.^2))+ (Dy.*(DO(n,m-1,t)-(2.*DO(n,m,t))+

DO(n,m+1,t))./(dy.^2))-((a.*(DO(n,m,t)-DO(n-1,m,t)))./(dx))-

((a.*(DO(n,m,t)-DO(n,m-1,t)))./(dy))+(ka.*(Csat(Temp(n,m,t))-DO(n,m,t)))-

(kd.*L)))+ (DO(n,m,t));

if rem(t_inst,1209600) == 0

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',t_inst,'Simulation Result',strcat('A',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',Temp(60,2,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('B',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',Temp(60,100,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('C',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',Temp(60,199,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('D',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',pH(60,2,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('F',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',pH(60,100,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('G',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',pH(60,199,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('H',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',DO(60,2,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('J',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',DO(60,100,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('K',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',DO(60,199,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('L',int2str(i)))

i = i+1;

end

Temp(n,m,1) = Temp(n,m,2);

pH(n,m,1) = pH(n,m,2);

DO(n,m,1) = DO(n,m,2);

Boundary = DO(60,200,1);

Inside = DO(60,60,1);

t_inst = t_inst + dt

end

92

C.2 Matlab™ Codes for Calculation of R2

% Compute coefficient of determination of data fit model and RMSE

%

% [r2 rmse] = rsquare(y,f)

% [r2 rmse] = rsquare(y,f,c)

%

% RSQUARE computes the coefficient of determination (R-square) value from

% actual data Y and model data F. The code uses a general version of

% R-square, based on comparing the variability of the estimation errors

% with the variability of the original values. RSQUARE also outputs the

% root mean squared error (RMSE) for the user's convenience.

%

% Note: RSQUARE ignores comparisons involving NaN values.

%

% INPUTS

% Y : Actual data

% F : Model fit

%

% OPTION

% C : Constant term in model

% R-square may be a questionable measure of fit when no

% constant term is included in the model.

% [DEFAULT] TRUE : Use traditional R-square computation

% FALSE : Uses alternate R-square computation for model

% without constant term [R2 = 1 - NORM(Y-F)/NORM(Y)]

%

% OUTPUT

% R2 : Coefficient of determination

% RMSE : Root mean squared error

%

% EXAMPLE

% x = 0:0.1:10;

% y = 2.*x + 1 + randn(size(x));

% p = polyfit(x,y,1);

% f = polyval(p,x);

% [r2 rmse] = rsquare(y,f);

% figure; plot(x,y,'b-');

% hold on; plot(x,f,'r-');

% title(strcat(['R2 = ' num2str(r2) '; RMSE = ' num2str(rmse)]))

%

% Jered R Wells

% 11/17/11

% jered [dot] wells [at] duke [dot] edu

%

% v1.2 (02/14/2012)

%

% Thanks to John D'Errico for useful comments and insight which has helped

% to improve this code. His code POLYFITN was consulted in the inclusion of

% the C-option (REF. File ID: #34765).

if isempty(varargin); c = true;

elseif length(varargin)>1; error 'Too many input arguments';

elseif ~islogical(varargin{1}); error 'C must be logical (TRUE||FALSE)'

else c = varargin{1};

end

% Compare inputs

if ~all(size(y)==size(f)); error 'Y and F must be the same size'; end

93

% Check for NaN

tmp = ~or(isnan(y),isnan(f));

y = y(tmp);

f = f(tmp);

if c; r2 = max(0,1 - sum((y(:)-f(:)).^2)/sum((y(:)-mean(y(:))).^2));

else r2 = 1 - sum((y(:)-f(:)).^2)/sum((y(:)).^2);

if r2<0

% http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~adelle/Garvan/Assays/GoodnessOfFit.html

warning('Consider adding a constant term to your model')

%#ok<WNTAG>

r2 = 0;

end

end

94

APPENDIX D

0 23.58306 23.64282 23.65483

1209600 23.60445 23.49234 23.44924

2419200 23.97994 22.87967 22.1495

3628800 23.65148 24.13597 23.54031

4838400 24.25581 22.99172 23.2918

6048000 26.20346 26.20466 26.09612

7257600 26.31361 26.99176 26.81986

8467200 27.48192 26.99172 27.25281

9676800 29.23192 29.08876 29.36588

10886400 30.22895 30.64344 30.7923

12096000 30.19987 30.55036 30.85068

Time pH 1 pH 2 pH 3

0 6.758943 6.729063 6.74268

1209600 6.843442 6.872851 6.926767

2419200 6.901611 7.263789 7.065241

3628800 6.190473 5.739827 5.858941

4838400 5.891832 6.655944 5.416848

6048000 5.556923 7.07706 6.926402

7257600 5.09313 5.159399 4.886551

8467200 6.930695 7.127184 6.90239

9676800 6.943442 6.757937 6.390641

10886400 6.980695 7.089762 7.13565

12096000 6.951611 7.610443 7.946445

Time DO 1 DO 2 DO 3

0 7.628197 7.662857 7.684965

1209600 6.603236 7.489097 7.35746

2419200 6.58578 3.501366 5.26473

3628800 8.343301 8.343418 8.053624

4838400 8.197079 8.240218 7.845481

6048000 7.656159 7.535051 7.113582

7257600 6.462873 6.534535 6.359633

8467200 4.562447 5.693666 4.625674

9676800 4.716579 3.987134 5.09569

10886400 6.925908 7.535377 7.292036

12096000 6.225017 6.251743 6.210554

95

Temperature

pH

96

D.2 Statistical Analysis Using Paired t-Test in Excel

D.2.1. Temperature

Actual Theoretical

Mean 23.5 23.515343

Variance 0 0.0064194

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation #DIV/0!

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 2

t Stat -0.33169

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.385828

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.771656

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 23 23.00304

Variance 0.25 0.849042

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.597042

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 2

t Stat -0.0071

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.49749

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.99498

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 24.66667 23.77592

Variance 0.083333 0.1003167

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.64423

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 2

t Stat 2.809982

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.053374

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.106749

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

97

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 4)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 22.75 23.51311

Variance 0.0625 0.436214

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.7298

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -1.53679

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.132078

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.264156

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 26.08333 26.16808

Variance 0.023333 0.003884

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.17952

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 2

t Stat -0.95148

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.220891

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.441782

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 26.66667 26.70841

Variance 0.333333 0.124288

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.969826

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.28847

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.400069

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.800139

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

98

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 7)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 27 27.24215

Variance 0.25 0.060159

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.999291

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -1.64434

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.120917

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.241834

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 29.16667 969644.9

Variance 0.083333 2.82E+12

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.5

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -1

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.211325

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.42265

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 30.5 30.5549

Variance 0 0.085221

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation #DIV/0!

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 2

t Stat -0.32571

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.387781

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.775562

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

99

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 10)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 30.71667 30.53364

Variance 0.285833 0.106098

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.972607

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.374666

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.151495

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.30299

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.678333 7.149931

Variance 0.000133 0.228489

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.990475

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.961589

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.094416

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.188832

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.155 5.117292

Variance 0.054025 2.394706

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.958531

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.355125

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.154069

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.308138

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

100

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 3)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 8.486667 8.246781

Variance 0.224433 0.027982

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.596881

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.045908

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.202691

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.405381

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.996667 8.094259

Variance 0.143633 0.046883

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.986288

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.99874

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.211568

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.423136

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.696667 7.434931

Variance 0.222358 0.081116

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.807971

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.541834

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.131526

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.263052

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

101

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 6)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.583333 6.452347

Variance 0.110833 0.007731

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.397646

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 0.73498

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.269425

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.538851

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 5.731667 4.960596

Variance 0.590108 0.404043

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.5355

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.084293

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.195773

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.391546

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 4.288333 4.599801

Variance 2.632608 0.317452

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.43955

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.27845

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.403408

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.806817

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

102

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 9)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.43 7.251107

Variance 0.012225 0.09412

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.08901

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 0.924279

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.226458

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.452916

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.544333 6.229105

Variance 0.158406 0.000437

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.80745

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.315456

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.159461

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.318921

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

D.2.3 pH

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.816667 6.88102

Variance 0.000833 0.001786

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.16741

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -2.02574

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.090023

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.180046

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

103

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 2)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.1 7.07688

Variance 0.03 0.032895

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.836898

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 0.394301

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.365715

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.731431

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 5.95 5.929747

Variance 0.0175 0.054531

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.557495

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 0.180939

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.436546

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.873091

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 5.866667 5.988208

Variance 0.083333 0.390806

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.925028

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.56208

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.315326

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.630651

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

104

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 5)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.516667 6.520128

Variance 0.385833 0.701498

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.99152

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.02542

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.491016

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.982031

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 5.116667 5.04636

Variance 0.015833 0.020252

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.919665

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 2.17017

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.081096

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.162192

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.016667 6.986756

Variance 0.013333 0.01499

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.39654

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 0.260547

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.409407

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.818815

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

105

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 8)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.6 6.69734

Variance 0.07 0.079151

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.86727

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -1.19096

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.177925

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.35585

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.033333 7.068702

Variance 0.000833 0.006335

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.22914

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.67562

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.284465

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.568931

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.494333 7.502833

Variance 0.284946 0.256109

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.997544

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.32154

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.389146

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.778292

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

106

APPENDIX E

Effluent Standards

AA A B C D SA SB SC SD

Ammonia as NH3-N mg/L NDA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 NDA 0.5 0.5 7.5

BOD mg/L NDA 20 30 50 120 NDA 30 100 150

Boron mg/L NDA 2 2 3 12 NDA 2 20 80

Chloride mg/L NDA 350 350 450 500 NDA n/a n/a n/a

COD mg/L NDA 60 60 100 200 NDA 60 200 300

Color TCU NDA 100 100 150 300 NDA 100 150 300

Cyanide as Free Cyanide mg/L NDA 0.14 0.14 0.2 0.4 NDA 0.04 0.2 0.4

Fluoride mg/L NDA 2 2 2 4 NDA 3 3 6

Nitrate as NO3-N mg/L NDA 14 14 14 30 NDA 20 20 30

pH(Range) mg/L NDA 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.5 5.5-9.5 NDA 6.5-9.0 6.0-9.0 5.5-9.5

Phosphate mg/L NDA 1 1 1 10 NDA 1 1 10

Selenium mg/L NDA 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 NDA 0.02 0.2 0.4

Sulfate mg/L NDA 500 500 550 1000 NDA 500 550 1000

Surfactants (MBAS) mg/L NDA 2 3 15 30 NDA 3 15 30

Temperature °C Change NDA 3 3 3 3 NDA 3 3 3

Total Suspended Solids mg/L NDA 70 85 100 150 NDA 70 100 150

107

APPENDIX F

LETTERS

108

109

110

APPENDIX F

DOCUMENTATION

Figure 24: First discharge for the chosen boundary. A continuous flowing water coming from the residential

houses.

Figure 25: Second discharge located upstream. A pipe projected directly to the river coming from residential

houses which produces a dark fluid with an awlful smell.

Figure 26: A photo of the group measuring the width of the river (left side) and the its length on the land area

(right side).

111

Figure 27: Labelled plastic bottles for the sample collection. From boundary 1 to boundary 7

and inner boundary 1 to inner boundary 3 with two replicates.

Figure 28: Sample collection from the chosen sampling points. The sampling bottles was

cupped under water to prevent air bubbles.

Figure 29: Analysing the samples using chemical test for the parameters pH and DO. Photo

taken at Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) laboratory.

112

Figure 30: On-site water analysis using the equipment devices (Thermometer, pH meter, and

DO meter).

113

Figure 33: Setting up for the Measuring of velocity using a table tennis ball and timer.

Figure 35: Photo taken during the last data collection with the boat owner Lyafayeth Tasi.

114

Figure 36: Photo taken at the Laboratory of BFAR with ma'am Divine.

115

- Fundamental Finite Element Analysis and ApplicationsUploaded bychamanchandel
- Manifold4 PptUploaded byofianha12
- Btech Prod 2011Uploaded bymikekruze
- Mechanics With MatlabUploaded byAlban Leandri
- Thermal SystemsUploaded byKrit Jimenez
- Heat transfer and pressure drop in a fluid/solar spiral tube exchangerUploaded byabdoo13
- 1987_Rank, Zienkiewicz_A Simple Error Estimator in the Finite Element MethodUploaded byIgnasi Aliguer
- WhatUploaded byShe Dil
- Paulin Research Group_ FE107 Experimental ValidationUploaded byAnne Wheeler
- MoregaUploaded byelectrotehnica
- Numerical Simulations of Traffic Flow ModelsUploaded byIsbar Pratama
- Finite Element Methods1Uploaded byGowtham Kan
- Paulin Research Group_ FE107 Experimental Validation.pdfUploaded byvenkatrangan2003
- Finite Element Analysis of Cable Stayed Bridge ModelUploaded bySukrit Ghorai
- FEM-Question Paper (1).pdfUploaded byAshok Dara
- CAD 2160911Uploaded byJit Jag
- Artikel ANSYSUploaded byRonald Mangasi Hutauruk
- 03 - Finite Element Analysis & the Guyed Tower StudyUploaded byhalcyon
- VUploaded byAravind Phoenix
- Finite Element AnalysisUploaded bySriRam
- MAE 656 - 04-D2Uploaded byAnanto Yusuf W
- finalfem-110325060303-phpapp02Uploaded bykhairy2013
- fem lpUploaded byKrishna Murthy
- IFEM.outline.17Uploaded byBoonme Chinnaboon
- FEM 2016-1Uploaded bykuldip mukherjee
- Albu 2012Uploaded byMaiman Lato
- 15 ThermalUploaded byMeer Mustafa Ali
- Leo Skec - UKACM 2017 - BirminghamUploaded byleoskec
- Finite element methodUploaded bydebasree das
- Foot ComfortUploaded byMustafa

- Chain Pull CalculationsUploaded bymech_abhi
- 2019 CandidatesUploaded byRhea Mamba
- #1Energy Balance Whole in CementUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Ch04 SolutionsUploaded byChong Sing
- Accomplishment Final.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Preface SolutionsUploaded byIsabel Gumaru
- GAS-ABSORPTION.pdfUploaded byKim GojoCruz
- Day 2 200 Items Answer KeyUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Summary (Done)Uploaded byRhea Mamba
- ConveyorUploaded byRhea Mamba
- FinalPD.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Research Assignment 1(Final).docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Application of Fourier Series in Chemical Engineer.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Ethanol Production.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Application of Simple Fixed Point.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Air Pollution Control.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- lec1Uploaded byVan Lim
- lec3.pdfUploaded byVivek Kumar M L
- lec4.pdfUploaded byRhea Mamba
- MATHEMATICAL-MODELLING-OF-WATER-QUALITY-IN-PINACANAUAN-de-TUGUEGARAO-RIVER.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- 32.TsakirisandAlexakis2012Uploaded byRhea Mamba
- 23_Arad1.pdfUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Gas Absorption.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Evaporator.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Trays and Packings Used in Distillation and Gas Absorption.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- FINAL-PAPER-FOR-THESIS.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Estimation-and-Calibration-of-Reaeration-and-Decay-Rate-Coefficient.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Best-Thesis.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Pak-Pak-Ganern-Ganern.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba

- CSNA17150ENC_001Uploaded bySuljic Almin
- project 2Uploaded byAnonymous teD0wByR
- Ionic Exchange Technology IUploaded byPedro Andrés Toledo Candia
- Chapt 2 week 2.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Ashman
- PEX-01-01Uploaded byWilian WylCell
- -Mathematical Model of Falling Film ReactorUploaded byNorasyikin Ismail
- A ModelofwaxdepositlayerformationUploaded byThevaruban Ragunathan
- DiffusionUploaded byPsAb HS
- Harvey 1928 the Oxygen Consumption of Luminous BacteriaUploaded byacdsilva
- Chemically Etched Fibery a Process for Smoother Tip.endnoteUploaded byWislay 'sivivatu' Obwoge
- c5Uploaded byAlexTayZhiXin
- Pengukuran Potensial Air Jaringan TumbuhanUploaded byReeza Megavitry
- OxidationUploaded byBarış Yaradanakul
- Fluctuation _ Article About Fluctuation by the Free DictionaryUploaded byمحمدزیب شیرپاؤ
- Physiology 7 RespirationUploaded byFahim Khan
- Cyclic Symmetric Multi-Scale Turing PatternsUploaded byJavier Omar Sánchez Osorio
- 68056_04.desbloqueadoUploaded byJhonatan Gerardo Soto Puelles
- Crashcourse ChemistryUploaded byAmbuj Sinha
- Thomas BaderUploaded byShashwat
- Nano GateUploaded byirum khan
- Lecture 2Uploaded byFrancis Kent Manalili
- Diffusion PlasmaUploaded byPriyanka Lochab
- Mulak 2005 - Kinetics of nickel leaching from spent catalyst in sulphuric acid solutionUploaded byapi-3775048
- Chemical Engineering CoursesUploaded bySavannah Stevens
- Biology Respiratory and SkinUploaded bymzunl25476
- Mina Mehregan & Mohammad Moghiman (2014). Effect of Aluminum Nanoparticles on Combustion Characteristics and Pollutants Emission of Liquid Fuels – a Numerical StudyUploaded bywhutecompressor
- Sarah Inwood_Final ReportUploaded byDhamwasu Trisarnwadhana
- KAPPA_DDA_book.pdfUploaded byFranck Iparraguirre
- Discrete phase modelling - combustionUploaded byFabian Andrey Diaz
- adsorption_sbs COMSOL.pdfUploaded byGustavo Palacios