Group 16 Design of Stormwater Drainage in Barangay Bambang Pasig City Magboo

Major (Capstone) Design Experience Information
CE 509 CE Projects 2
2nd Semester, SY 2018-2019
Aguillon, Edralyn V.
Student/Team
Barreda, Maria Claudette M.
Group
Magboo, James Matthew F.
DESIGN OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE AT BARANGAY
Project Title
BAMBANG, PASIG CITY
Program Concentration Area Water, Structural
Constraints 1
Economic constraint of the project deals with the fact that in
construction, it is required to create a project that will sufficiently meet
the required strength and durability while minimizing the costs. This
constraint also takes into consideration the relationship of the design
Economic
life of the project with the cost, having greater design life will result to
higher cost of the project. For this, the designers will assess the total
costs (that which includes the initial costs and maintenance costs) of
alternatives to come up with the best design
Sustainability constraint takes into account the problem on how long
the design life of a project is with respect to its design strength. One of
the basic ideas in engineering design is that with greater design
Sustainability strength, there is an equivalent increase in cost due to the need of higher
quality material. However, choosing the cheapest materials and leaving
the structure without timely maintenance treatment can have expensive
maintenance requirements.
Time is a very significant factor that should be considered in any
construction project. The longer the time to finish the project could
mean a larger cost. The project schedule should be followed correctly
Constructability so the actual money being spent will not exceed the allocated money
for the entire project. The designers will estimate the man-hour and
time needed for the equipment to be rented for each trade-off for a
better judgment of the trade-off that will govern in the project.
The size and the materials to be used for the drainage system plays a
big part especially in serving the drainage’s primary function which is
to collect surface water and/or ground water and direct it away, thereby
keeping the ballast bed drained. The storm water drainage must also
protect the substructure from erosion, from becoming sodden, and from
losing its load-bearing capacity and stability. The amount of water and
Serviceability the amount of force it can hold are one of the most critical factors to be
considered. The amount of rainfall is not consistent and it always
changes that is why the stability and the capacity to hold large amount
of discharge must be considered. The storm water drainage to be built
expects to hold a huge amount of water as well as great discharge to be
produced especially during rainy seasons. The material to be used
should determine the most efficient and stable to hold such great
discharge which will be determined using the trade-offs considered by
the designers.
Risk assessment is the process of evaluating risks to worker’s safety
and health from workplace hazards. It is a systematic examination of
all aspects of work that considers: hazards identification, risk analysis,
and risk control. In designing flood control structures, the designers
should be aware of, and assess the risks from, the following principal
hazards, all the sources of flooding are need to be consider in order to
mitigate the impact of flooding in the area. Flood risk is the
Risk Assessment combination of flood damage potential and the probability of its
occurrence. Flood control measures have its design capacity, but if
poorly designed or constructed or when it exceeds its capacity the flood
control measures could fail and the damage can have devastating
consequences. The process of flood risk assessment is to evaluate the
actual usage of the designed drainage system and how much more can
it hold on if a certain storm exceeded the designed rainfall data used in
the designed stormwater drainage
Tradeoff 1
Reinforced concrete pipes have been available since the eighties of the 19th
Century. The relatively thin wall thickness and resulting weight reduction
brought about by this was the reason that, already at the start of the 20th
Century, reinforced concrete pipes with circular cross sections were
produced in the factory in sizes up to DN 2500.
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Reinforced concrete pipes for gravity system sewers can be dimensioned for
any load cases; they are especially suited for high loads and for dynamic
stresses caused by heavy traffic with small cover depth. Pipes with smaller
nominal sizes were often reinforced in only one direction, larger ones
received spiral reinforcement, very large ones, double and triple layers
depending on the loading
HDPE is a hydrocarbon polymer prepared from ethylene/petroleum by a
catalytic process. It is a kind of thermoplastic which is famous for its tensile
strength. Its unique properties can stand high temperatures. HDPE is a boon
to developing countries like India where it is used to prevent groundwater
High-Density Polyethylene
pollution. It can be easily molded and welded together. Due to its high
Pipe (HDPE)
chemical resistance property, it is used in piping systems. HDPE pipes are
used to both carry potable water and hazardous waste. It has other
applications also like in making backpacking frames, bottle caps, food
storage containers, vehicles fuel tanks, folding chairs.
Ductile iron pipe, made from ductile cast iron, is a graphite-rich cast iron in
which the graphite has a spheroidal shaped molecular structure. This
Ductile Iron Pipe molecular structure makes the cast iron less brittle and more resistant to
impact than the other varieties, which have a flaky structure. The ductile iron
pipe is used in trenchless technology for water and sewer lines.
Constraint 2
Economic Economic constraint of the project deals with the fact that in construction, it
is required to create a project that will sufficiently meet the required strength
and durability while minimizing the costs. This constraint also takes into
consideration the relationship of the design life of the project with the cost,
having greater design life will result to higher cost of the project. For this,
the designers will assess the total costs (that which includes the initial costs
and maintenance costs) of alternatives to come up with the best design
Time is a very significant factor that should be considered in any construction
project. The longer the time to finish the project could mean a larger cost.
The project schedule should be followed correctly so the actual money being
Constructability spent will not exceed the allocated money for the entire project. The
designers will estimate the man-hour and time needed for the equipment to
be rented for each trade-off for a better judgment of the trade-off that will
govern in the project.
The size and the materials to be used for the drainage system plays a big
part especially in serving the drainage’s primary function which is to collect
surface water and/or ground water and direct it away, thereby keeping the
ballast bed drained. The storm water drainage must also protect the
substructure from erosion, from becoming sodden, and from losing its load-
bearing capacity and stability. The amount of water and the amount of force
it can hold are one of the most critical factors to be considered. The amount
Serviceability of rainfall is not consistent and it always changes that is why the stability
and the capacity to hold large amount of discharge must be considered. The
storm water drainage to be built expects to hold a huge amount of water as
well as great discharge to be produced especially during rainy seasons. The
material to be used should determine the most efficient and stable to hold
such great discharge which will be determined using the trade-offs
considered by the designers.
Sustainability constraint takes into account the problem on how long the
design life of a project is with respect to its design strength. One of the
basic ideas in engineering design is that with greater design strength, there
Sustainability is an equivalent increase in cost due to the need of higher quality material.
However, choosing the cheapest materials and leaving the structure without
timely maintenance treatment can have expensive maintenance
requirements.
Risk assessment is the process of evaluating risks to worker’s safety and
health from workplace hazards. It is a systematic examination of all aspects
of work that considers: hazards identification, risk analysis, and risk control
Risk Assessment resistant to pressure and surges of water. Due to this said pressure the
material can decay and later become weak and have a tendency to broke
down. The designers estimated the strength of the material in terms of
material properties of each trade-off.
Tradeoff 2
Detention tank are used to reduce the peak outflow from a certain location.
Urban development results in increase impervious areas which causes faster
catchment responses and higher peak flow rates. It is often employed to
Detention Tank return peak flow rates and volumes to the pre-developed condition to prevent
the development resulting in adverse flood impacts downstream. It performs
this through intercepting storm water flows and releasing storm water
volumes in a controlled manner over a period of time.
According to Jana Napoli Floodwall is a primarily vertical artificial barrier
designed to temporarily contain the waters of a river or other waterway
which may rise to unusual levels during seasonal or extreme weather
Flood Wall events. Flood walls are mainly used on locations where space is scarce,
such as cities or where building levees or dikes would interfere with other
interests, such as existing buildings, historical architecture or commercial
use of embankments.
It is the removal of sediments and debris from the bottom of lakes, rivers,
harbors, and other water bodies. Dredging is often focused on maintaining
or increasing the depth of navigation channels, anchorages, or berthing
Dredging areas to ensure the safe passage of boats and ships. Vessels require a certain
amount of water in order to float and not touch bottom. It is also performed
to reduce the exposure of fish, wildlife, and people to contaminants and to
prevent the spread of contaminants to other areas of the water body.
Standards
National Plumbing Code of The basic goal of the National Plumbing Code of the Philippines is to ensure
the Philippines the qualified observance of the latest provision of the plumbing and
environmental laws.
National Building Code of The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096).
the Philippines (Presidential
Decree No. 1096) The National Building Code of the Philippines, also known as Presidential
Decree No. 1096 was formulated and adopted as a uniform building code to
embody up-to-date and modern technical knowledge on building design,
construction, use, occupancy and maintenance. The Code provides for all
buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and
requirements to regulate and control location, site, design, and quality of
materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance This code also
provides guidelines for the design of wastewater disposal system and storm
drainage system. It consist wastewater and drainage provisions.
DPWH -Technical Standards This volume of the Technical Guidelines was formulated in order to establish
and Guidelines for Planning uniformity in planning and designing of flood control projects. It aims to
and Design -Flood Control provide the engineers of DPWH involved in flood control planning and
Volume I design, the essential tools to formulate effective and efficient
countermeasures against floods.
Indian Standard 3370 This provide some of the equations needed to do find the allowable stresses
and design requirements for concrete storage structure.
CONCRETE STRUC'TURES FOR STORAGE OF LIQUIDS - CODE OF
PRACTICE
Modern Tools/Techniques
(For SO e)
StormCAD STAAD Pro is one of the most widely used stormwater drainage analysis and
design software worldwide. Basically StormCAD helps civil and sanitary
engineers automate tasks by removing the tedious and long procedures of the
manual methods. StormCAD can also be used to analyze catchment,
conduits, manholes, rainfall data and apply design constraints based on the
codes and provisions from the design standards. The designers used the
software to create an analytical model to analyze and measure the initial
deflection of each trade-offs.
RUBRIC FOR STUDENT DESIGN PROJECT REPORT
Design Project Design of Storm-water Drainage in Barangay Bambang Pasig City

Title:
Group Members: Aguillon, Edralyn V. Course Code: CE 509
Barreda, Maria Claudette M. Course Title: CE Design Projects 2
Magboo, James Matthew Sem./School Year: 2nd Sem/2018-2019
Instructor: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores
Intended Learning Outcome: Ability to write a design project report that illustrates effective writing in English.
UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXEMPLARY

CRITERIA SCORE
1 2 3
Content (Substance) The report presents The report lacks The report presents
irrelevant relevant complete and relevant
data/information data/information data/information
Format The report does not The report follows some The report fully
follow the prescribed of the prescribed format complies with the
format prescribed format
Coherence (Logical flow of The report does not Some parts of the The whole report
discussion) present a logical flow of report present a logical presents a logical flow
discussion flow of discussion of discussion
Grammar, Spelling, Writing There are many There are occasional The report is free of
Mechanics (punctuation, grammatical and spelling errors and violations errors and violations
italics, capitalization, etc.) errors, and writing
mechanic violations
TOTAL SCORE
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞
𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 =
𝟒
Total Score
Rating = ( ) x 100
12
Evaluated by:
ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES Date: _________________________________

Signature over Printed Name
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RUBRIC FOR ENGINEERING PROJECTS

(Engineering Programs)
Student Outcome (b): Identify, formulate and solve complex engineering problems.
Program: BS in Civil Engineering Course: CE 509 – CE Design Projects 2 Section: CE52FA1 2ND Semester School Year: 2018-2019
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary

Performance Indicators Score
1 2 3
1. Ability to identify an engineering The problem is not identified The problem is stated but not The statement of the problem
problem clearly identified has been clearly and fully
(Statement of the Problem) identified.
2. Ability to formulate engineering Unable to formulate an Presents a general approach to Presents a detailed step by step
solutions to a given problem appropriate solution to the solve an engineering problem solution to solve an engineering
(Design/Research Methodology) problem problem
3. Ability to apply the best solution Not able to solve the given The solution to the problem The correct solution to the
to an engineering problem engineering problem has not been fully elaborated problem has been clearly
(Summary and Conclusion) derived and presented
Evaluated by:

RUBRIC FOR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS WITHIN MULTIPLE CONSTRAINTS AND STANDARDS
Student Outcome (c): Solve complex engineering problems by designing systems, components, or processes to meet specifications within realistic
constraints such as economic, environmental, cultural, social, societal, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
in accordance with standards.
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary

1 2 3
4. Apply appropriate Less than three constraints are Three constraints are applied in the More than three appropriate constraints are
constraints in the design applied in the design process design process applied in the design process
process
5. Apply appropriate Appropriate standards and codes Appropriate local standards and Appropriate local and international standards and
standards and codes in are not applied in the design codes are applied in the design codes are applied in the design process
the design process process process
6. Use trade-offs to Less than three options were used Three options were used in the More than three options were used in the trade-
determine final design in the trade-offs to determine the trade-offs to determine the final offs to determine the final design choice
choice final design choice design choice
Total Score
Mean Score = (Total Score / 3)
Percentage Rating = (Total Score / 9) x 100%
Evaluated by:

RUBRIC FOR MODERN TOOL USAGE

Student Outcome (e): Use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice in complex engineering activities.
Unsatisfactory Developing Satisfactory Very Satisfactory

1 2 3 4
7. Apply appropriate Fails to identify any Identifies modern Identifies modern Applies the most appropriate
techniques, skills, and modern techniques to techniques but fails to techniques and is able to modern technique in
modern tools to perform perform discipline- apply these in performing apply these in performing performing discipline-
a discipline-specific specific engineering discipline-specific discipline-specific specific engineering task
engineering task. task. engineering task. engineering task. exceeding the requirements.
8. Demonstrate skills in Fails to apply any Attempts to apply modern Shows ability to apply Shows ability to apply the
applying different modern tools to solve tools but has difficulties to
fundamental procedures most appropriate and
techniques and modern engineering problems. solve engineering in using modern tools effective modern tools to
tools to solve problems. when solving solve engineering problems.
engineering problems. engineering problems.
9. Recognize the benefits Does not recognize the Recognizes some Recognizes the benefits Recognizes the need for
and constraints of benefits and benefits and constraints of and constraints of benefits and constraints of
modern engineering constraints of modern modern engineering tools. modern engineering modern engineering tools
tools. engineering tools. tools and shows intention and makes good use of
to apply them for them for engineering
engineering practice. practice.
Evaluated by:

RUBRIC FOR ETHICS

Student Outcome (h): Apply principles of ethics and commit to professional ethics and responsibilities.
Performance Unsatisfactory Developing Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Exemplary

Score
Indicators 1 2 3 4 5
1. Understand the Student is not Student is aware of Student is aware of Student understands Student understands
code of ethics aware of any codes the existence of the existence of and abides by the and abides by the code
relevant to the for ethical behavior code of ethics code of ethics and code of professional of professional ethics
practice of the other bases for ethics and becomes part of his
profession ethical behavior personal values system
2. Evaluate the Student shows no Student shows Student is aware of Student knows the Student is aware of the
ethical extent of a awareness of limited awareness of the ethical extent of ethical extent of a ethical extent of a
discipline-related ethical extent of a the ethical extent of a discipline-related discipline-related discipline-related
problem discipline-related a discipline-related problem problem and its problem and knows how
problem problem implication if not to address it
addressed
3. Apply relevant Blames others for Does not recognize Recognizes the need Takes personal Takes personal
principles of his own issues and the need to take to take personal responsibility for all responsibility for all of
ethics problems personal responsibility for his his actions his actions and exerts
responsibility for his actions effort to make amends
actions
Evaluated by:

RUBRIC FOR INDIVIDUAL AND TEAM WORK

Student Outcome (i): Function effectively as an individual and as a member or leader in diverse teams and in multidisciplinary setting.
Unsatisfactory Developing Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Exemplary

1 2 3 4 5
1. Take responsibility as an Does not perform Performs very little Performs nearly all Performs all Performs all
individual or as a team assigned task of the assigned assigned tasks assigned tasks assigned tasks and
member fulfilling appropriate tasks extends help or
roles to assure team success. support to other
team members
2. Contribute useful inputs in Does not Contributes to the Contributes to the Contributes Consistently and
relation to the team’s contribute to the group only when group with knowledge, actively contributes
objective. group even when prompted occasional opinions, and skills knowledge,
prompted prompting without prompting opinions, and skills
3. Communicate freely to Does not share Shares Shares Shares Consistently and
teammates, give and provide information, information, information, information, actively shares a
feedback and suggestion to feedback, or feedback, or feedback, or feedback, or great deal of
improve team outputs. suggestions even suggestions only suggestions with suggestions information,
when prompted when prompted occasional without prompting feedback, or
prompting suggestions
Evaluated by:

RUBRIC FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
Student Outcome (j): Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with various communities including engineering experts and society at large using
appropriate levels of discourse.
Program:BS in Civil Engineering Course: CE 509 – CE Design Projects 2 Section: CE52FA1 2ND Semester School Year: 2018-2019
Score
10. Express ideas Does not communicate his Communicates Communicates important Clearly communicates the Clearly and effectively
clearly ideas clearly information as isolated information but not a clear main idea or theme and communicates the main
ideas in a random fashion theme or over all structure provides suitable support idea or theme and
and detail provides support that
contains rich, vivid, and
powerful detail
11. Effectively Does not demonstrate the Presents information in a Presents information in a Presents information in a Presents information in a
communicate with ability to adjust tone or style and tone style and tone inappropriate style and tone consistent style and tone that
diverse audiences style for different inappropriate for both for the audience’s level of with the audience’s level effectively capitalized on
audiences audience’s level of interest interest or the audience’s of interest and level of the audience’s level of
and level of knowledge level of knowledge knowledge or interest and level of
understanding knowledge or
understanding
12. Effectively Uses only one method of Uses one method and Attempts to use two Uses of two different Uses multiple methods of
communicate in a communication when correctly applies the methods of communication, methods of communication, applying
variety of ways more than one method is conventions and rules of but does not apply the communication, applying the conventions and rules
clearly needed or that method conventions and rules of the conventions and rules of those methods in highly
requested and does not those methods of those methods in creative and imaginative
correctly apply the customary ways ways
conventions and rules of
that method
Total Score
Evaluated by:

RUBRIC FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Student Outcome (k): Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of engineering and management principles and apply these to one’s own work, as a member and
leader in a team, to manage projects and in multidisciplinary environments.
Program: BS in Civil Engineering Course: CE – 509 CE Design Projects 2 Section: CE52FA1 2nd Semester School Year: 2018-2019
Performance Indicators Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary
Score
1 2 3
4. Understands engineering and Team members do not Team members demonstrate Team members are
management principles demonstrate awareness of any some knowledge of engineering knowledgeable about engineering
engineering and management and management principles and management principles
principles
5. Applies engineering and Team members do not Team members accept a Team members accepted and
management principles to an demonstrate willingness to designated role in an assigned executed with full competence a
assigned task and in multidisciplinary assume a designated role in a task and in multidisciplinary designated role in an assigned
environments group project environments but the expected task and in multidisciplinary
output was not fully completed environments beyond the expected
output
6. Manages assigned projects in Project does not meet Project meets the minimum Project exceeds the minimum
multidisciplinary environments minimum requirement and/or requirement and shows some requirement and demonstrates
shows insufficient evidence of evidence of good management consistent, efficient, and thoughtful
good management skills. skills. use of time and skills.
Total Score
Percentage Rating = (Total Score /9 ) x 100%
Evaluated by:
ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES
Printed Name and Signature of Faculty Member Date
RUBRIC FOR LIFELONG LEARNING

Student Outcome (l): Recognize the need for, and prepare to engage in lifelong learning.
Program: BS in Civil Engineering Course: CE – 509 CE Design Projects 2 Section: CE52FA1 2nd Semester School Year: 2018 - 2019

Score
7. Learn independently Shows no interest to Requires detailed or Requires minimal Completes a task Completes an assigned
complete a task step-by-step guidance to complete without supervision or task independently beyond
independently instructions to a task guidance what is required and
complete a task identifies best practices
8. Acquire relevant Relies on classroom Begins to look Looks beyond Looks beyond Educational interests and
knowledge from instruction only beyond classroom classroom classroom pursuits exist and flourish
outside sources to requirements, requirements, requirements, outside classroom
solve problems showing interest in pursuing additional pursuing substantial requirements,
pursuing knowledge knowledge and knowledge and knowledge and/or
independently showing interest in actively pursuing experiences are pursued
independent independent independently, and applies
educational educational knowledge learned into
experiences experience practice
9. Recognize one’s Unable to recognize Recognizes Recognizes Avoids committing Learns from mistakes and
weaknesses or own shortcomings or weaknesses or weaknesses or mistakes practices continuous
mistakes as learning mistakes mistakes but does not mistakes and exerts improvement
opportunities exert effort to address effort to address them
them
Total Score
Evaluated by:
ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES
Printed Name and Signature of Faculty Member Date
ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT ASSESSMENT TOOL
Design Project Title: Design of a Storm-water Drainage in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City
Group Members: Aguillon, Edralyn V. Course Code: CE 509
Barreda, Maria Claudette M. Course Title: CE Design Projects 2
Magboo, James Matthew Sem./School Year: 2nd Semester A.Y. 2018 - 2019
Scale
SOs Addressed by the
Performance Indicators Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary Score
Course
1 2 3
Identify, formulate, and solve Identify an engineering The engineering problem The engineering problem The engineering problem
complex engineering problems problem and/or satisfy a and/or need is unidentified and/or need is identified and/or need is clearly and
(student outcome b) need specifically identified
Formulate engineering The engineering solution to a The engineering solution to The engineering solution to
solutions to a given problem given problem and/or need is a given problem and/or a given problem and/or
and/or need not formulated need is partly formulated need is correctly and
completely formulated
Solve the engineering The engineering problem The engineering problem The engineering problem
problem and/or satisfy the and/or need is unsolved and/or need is solved by and/or need is innovatively
need adopting existing solved by adopting new
technologies, systems, technologies, systems,
components, or processes components, or processes
and methods and methods
Solve complex engineering Apply appropriate constraints Less than three constraints Three constraints are More than three
problems by designing in the design process are applied in the design applied in the design appropriate constraints are
systems, components, or process process applied in the design
processes to meet process
specifications within realistic Apply appropriate standards Appropriate standards and Appropriate local Appropriate local and
constraints such as economic, and codes in the design codes are not applied in the standards and codes are international standards and
environmental, cultural, social, process design process applied in the design codes are applied in the
societal, political, ethical, process design process
health and safety, Use trade-offs to determine Less than three options were Three options were used in More than three options
manufacturability, and final design choice used in the trade-offs to the trade-offs to determine were used in the trade-offs
sustainability in accordance determine the final design the final design choice to determine the final
with standards choice design choice
(student outcome c)
Scale
SOs Addressed by the
Performance Indicators Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary Score
Course
1 2 3
Use the techniques, skills, and Identify appropriate Techniques, skills, and Techniques, skills, and Techniques, skills, and
modern engineering tools techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools modern engineering tools modern engineering tools
necessary for engineering modern engineering tools are not clearly identified in are well identified in the are appropriately identified
practice in complex necessary in the design the design process design process in the design process
engineering activities process
(student outcome e) Use appropriate techniques, Techniques, skills, and Techniques, skills, and Appropriate techniques,
skills, and modern modern engineering tools modern engineering tools skills, and modern
engineering tools in the are not appropriately used in are appropriately used in engineering tools are
design process the design process the design process accurately used in the
design process
Apply principles of ethics and Demonstrate ethics by Design project submitted or Design project submitted Design project submitted or
commit to professional ethics submitting or presenting a presented does not cite or presented partly cited presented completely cited
and responsibilities design project that cites references references based on references based on
(student outcome h) references Turnitin results Turnitin results
Demonstrate professionalism Design project is not Design project is submitted Design project is submitted
by submitting or presenting submitted or presented on or presented on schedule or presented ahead of
the design projects on schedule as planned as planned schedule as planned
schedule as planned
Communicate effectively on Deliver effective oral
complex engineering activities presentations Use the mean score from the rubric for oral presentation of design projects
with various communities
including engineering experts Write a design project report
and society at large using that illustrates effective
appropriate levels of discourse Use the mean score from the rubric for design project report
writing in English
(student outcome j)
Total Score
Total Score
Percentage Rating= ( ) x 100
12
Evaluated by:
ENGR. RHONNIE C ESTORES Date: _________________________________

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE
Civil Engineering Department
CE 509
CE Design Projects 2
DESIGN OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE AT BARANGAY BAMBANG, PASIG CITY
PREPARED BY:
AGUILLON, EDRALYN V.
BARREDA, MARIA CLAUDETTE M.
MAGBOO, JAMES MATTHEW
CE52FA1
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. RONNIE ESTORES
Adviser
2nd Semester, 2019
ii
Approval Sheet
The design project entitled “Design of Storm-Water Drainage in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City”
prepared by Edralyn V. Aguillon, Maria Claudette M. Barreda, Leonard SJ. Marcelino, and Vernon Royce O.
Mendoza, James Matthew Magboo of the Civil Engineering Department was examined and evaluated by the
members of the Students Design Evaluation Panel, and is hereby recommended for approval.
Engr. Yenko Tandoc Engr. Sean Lawrence Mainao

Internal Adviser External Adviser
Engr. Amelia Marquez, Ph.D

Panel Member
Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

Panel Chairman
iii
ABSTRACT
Storm-water is collected by drains and catch basins which then convey it underground through sewers. Its
discharge to a natural water system such as a creek, river or lake. If not be discharged properly, problems
in drainages may occur.
The project design includes the lay-out of both water engineering and structural engineering context of the
storm-water drainage. The results of the design were based on the constraints provided by the client and
stated by the designers. Economic, Constructability, Sustainability and Serviceability are the derived
constraints for this project. These are the limiting factor that the designers considered and this serves as the
basis in deciding what possible alternative that may use in the project. The three trade-offs that the designers
chose for the storm-water drainage are pipe materials. The constraints are ranked based on the client and
designers’ perspective of what is the most important factor that needs to consider in the design. This was
evaluated based on the equations formulated by (Otto & Antonsson, 1991). In the initial design and raw
ranking of the trade-offs, Reinforced Concrete Pipe governed among the three trade-offs provided.
The resulting values are provided by a software which is the StormCAD it provided the designers the value
of the discharge needed to get the adequacy of the pipe. Then, the designers estimated and ranked the
trade-offs for the validation of the winning trade-off. As assessed by the designers, Reinforced Concrete Pipe
governed as the trade-off which satisfied the constraints of the design project.
iv
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Project .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 The Client ............................................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.4.1 General Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Scope and Limitation ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Project Development Plan ................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Topography ........................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.2 Geography ........................................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Flooding Incidence............................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Rainfall Data ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Elevation Data ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Outfall ................................................................................................................................................ 11
2.5 Existing Drainage Data ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Design Inputs for Water Context ........................................................................................................ 20
2.6.1 The Manning’s Formula .............................................................................................................. 20
2.6.2 Run-off Coefficient ...................................................................................................................... 21
2.6.3 Design Depth of Flow ................................................................................................................. 23
2.6.4 Design Storm Frequency ............................................................................................................ 23
2.6.5 Time of Concentration ................................................................................................................ 23
2.6.6 Velocity Limits ............................................................................................................................. 25
2.6.7 Slope Limits ................................................................................................................................ 25
2.7 Design Inputs for Structural Context .................................................................................................. 25
2.7.1 Moment Distribution Method ....................................................................................................... 25
2.7.2 Beam Stiffness............................................................................................................................ 25
2.7.3 Fixed End Moments (FEM) ......................................................................................................... 25
i
2.7.4 Distribution Factor, DF ................................................................................................................ 26
2.7.5 Computation for Flood Wall ........................................................................................................ 26
2.7.6 Computation for Dredging ........................................................................................................... 30
2.8 Related Literature and Studies .......................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS............................................................ 35
3.1 Design Constraints ............................................................................................................................ 36
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints ............................................................................................................. 36
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints ................................................................................................................ 37
3.2. Trade-offs for Water Context ............................................................................................................ 37
3.2.1. Material Trade-offs..................................................................................................................... 38
3.3. Designer’s Raw Ranking .................................................................................................................. 41
3.3.1 Initial Estimated Values for Economic (Cost of the Project) ........................................................ 41
3.3.2 Initial Estimated Values for Sustainability (Maintenance Cost) ................................................... 43
3.3.3 Initial Estimated Values for Constructability (Labor and Equipment) .......................................... 44
3.3.4 Initial Estimated Values for Serviceability (Efficiency) ................................................................. 46
3.3.4 Initial Estimated Values for Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 47
3.4. Trade-off Assessment....................................................................................................................... 49
3.4.1. Economic Assessment............................................................................................................... 49
3.4.2. Sustainability Assessment ......................................................................................................... 49
3.4.3. Constructability Assessment ...................................................................................................... 49
3.4.4. Serviceability Assessment ......................................................................................................... 49
3.4.5. Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 50
3.5. Trade-offs for Structural Context....................................................................................................... 50
3.5.1. Process Trade-offs .................................................................................................................... 50
3.5.2 Flood Control System Tradeoffs ................................................................................................. 53
3.6 Designer’s Raw Ranking ................................................................................................................... 54
3.6.4 Initial Estimated Values for Serviceability ................................................................................... 58
3.6.5 Initial Estimated Values for Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 59
3.6.2. Initial Estimated Values ............................................................................................................. 60
3.7 Trade-offs Assessment: ..................................................................................................................... 61
3.7.4 Serviceability Assessment .......................................................................................................... 61
ii
3.7.5 Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 62
3.8 Design Standards .............................................................................................................................. 62
3.8.1 National Plumbing Code of the Philippines ................................................................................. 62
3.8.2 National Building Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1096) ................................. 62
3.8.3 Indian Standard 3370 ................................................................................................................. 62
3.8.4 DPWH -Technical Standards and Guidelines for Planning and Design -Flood Control Volume I 62
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE ................................................................................................... 62
4.1 Water Context ........................................................................................................................................ 62
4.1.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 62
4.1.2 Design Process............................................................................................................................... 63
4.1.3. Design Process for Drainage System ............................................................................................ 64
4.1.4 Reinforced Concrete Pipe ............................................................................................................... 65
4.1.5 HDPE.............................................................................................................................................. 70
4.1.6 Ductile Iron Pipe ............................................................................................................................. 75
4.1.7 Designer’s Final Raw Ranking ........................................................................................................ 80
4.1.7.1 Computation of Final Rankings ................................................................................................ 81
4.1.8 Trade-off Assessment..................................................................................................................... 85
4.1.8.1 Economic Assessment............................................................................................................. 85
4.1.8.2 Sustainability Assessment ....................................................................................................... 85
4.1.8.3 Constructability Assessment .................................................................................................... 85
4.1.8.4 Serviceability Assessment ....................................................................................................... 85
4.1.9 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs, and Standards ......................................................... 85
4.1.9.1 Economic Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 86
4.1.9.2 Sustainability Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 87
4.1.9.3 Constructability Alternatives..................................................................................................... 88
4.1.9.4 Serviceability Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 89
4.1.10 Sensitivity Analysis for Constraints ............................................................................................... 89
4.1.10.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Sustainability Constraint ............................................ 90
4.1.10.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Constructability Constraint ......................................... 93
4.1.10.3 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Serviceability Constraint ............................................ 96
4.1.11. Summary of Comparison of Trade-Offs ....................................................................................... 98
iii
4.2 Structural Context .................................................................................................................................. 99
4.2.1 Design Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 99
4.2.2 Design Process............................................................................................................................... 99
4.2.3. Design Process for Underground Detention Tank ....................................................................... 101
4.2.4 Design Process for Flood Wall...................................................................................................... 101
4.2.5 Design Process for Dredging ........................................................................................................ 103
4.2.4 Designers Raw Ranking ............................................................................................................... 103
4.2.4.1 Computation of Final Rankings .............................................................................................. 104
4.2.5 Trade-offs Assessment: ................................................................................................................ 108
4.2.5.4 Serviceability Assessment ..................................................................................................... 109
4.2.6 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs, and Standards ....................................................... 109
4.2.6.1 Economic Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 109
4.2.6.3 Serviceability Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 110
4.2.6.4 Sustainability Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 110
4.2.7 Sensitivity Analysis for Constraints ............................................................................................... 111
4.2.7.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Constructability Constraint ......................................... 111
4.2.7.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Sustainability Constraint ............................................ 113
4.2.7.3 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Serviceability Constraint ............................................ 115
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 118
5.1. Final Design Scheduling of Reinforced Concrete ........................................................................... 118
5.2. Final Design Scheduling of Detention Tank .................................................................................... 121
APPEDIX A- Summary of Design Computation for Stormwater Drainage ................................................. 128
APPENDIX B-Summary of Design Computation Using HDPE .................................................................. 131
APPENDIX C-Summary of Design Computation Using DIP ...................................................................... 135
APPENDIX D-Street Elevation .................................................................................................................. 140
APPENDIX E- Computation for Backfill and Excavated Area of RCP ........................................................ 144
APPENDIX F- Computation for Backfill and Excavated Area of HDPE ..................................................... 149
APPENDIX G- Computation for Backfill and Excavated Area of DIP ......................................................... 154
APPENDIX H: DETENTION TANK ............................................................................................................ 159
APPENDIX I: DETENTION TANK (STRUCTURAL) .................................................................................. 162
APPENDIX J: FLOOD WALL (STRUCTURAL) ......................................................................................... 163
iv
APPENDIX K: DREDGING (STRUCTURAL)............................................................................................. 170
Appendix L (Final Estimates for Stormwater Drainage) ............................................................................. 172
Appendix M (Final Estimates for Stormwater Drainage) ............................................................................ 172
Appendix N (Final Estimates for Stormwater Drainage) ............................................................................ 173
Appendix O (Initial Estimates for Floodwall) .............................................................................................. 174
Appendix P (Initial Estimates for Dredging) ............................................................................................... 175
Appendix Q (Initial Estimates for Detention Tank) ..................................................................................... 176
Appendix R (Final Estimates for Floodwall) ............................................................................................... 177
Appendix S (Final Estimates for Dredging) ................................................................................................ 178
Appendix T (Final Estimates for Detention Tank) ...................................................................................... 179
MINUTES OF THE MEETING ................................................................................................................... 181
CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................................................................... 187
EDRALYN AGUILLON............................................................................................................................... 188
v
List of Figures:
Figure 1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2-1 Topographic Map of Barangay Bambang, Pasig City ................................................... 4
Figure 2-2 5 Year Flood Hazard Map of Bambang, Pasig City ...................................................... 5
Table 2-1 Precipitation Data of Pasig City ..................................................................................... 5
Figure 2-3 Average Annual Precipitation Data of Pasig City .......................................................... 6
Figure 2-4 Elevation of Luna Street .............................................................................................. 6
Figure 2-5 Elevation of CM- Cruz Street ........................................................................................ 7
Figure 2-6 Elevation of V. Porzon Street ....................................................................................... 7
Figure 2-7 Elevation of F. Manalo Street ....................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-8 Elevation of G Valderama Street .................................................................................. 8
Figure 2-9 Elevation of M. Santos Street ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-10 Elevation of Villarosa Street ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-11 Elevation of Jose Pueblo Street................................................................................ 10
Figure 2-12 Pasig River near Barangay Bambang ...................................................................... 11
Figure 2-13 Drainage map of the Pasig-Marikina River system ................................................... 12
Figure 2-22 Forces Acting on the Floodwall ................................................................................ 29
Table 2-5 Soil Factors for Floodwall Design ................................................................................ 30
Figure 2-23 Calculated Maximum and Minimum Diameter of Storm Sewer Pipes ....................... 34
Figure 3-1 Reinforced Concrete Pipe .......................................................................................... 38
Figure 3-2 High-Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) .................................................................... 39
Figure 3-3 Ductile Iron Pipe ...................................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-4 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference ................................................................... 41
Table 3-1 Initial Estimated Values for Economic (Cost of the Project) ......................................... 42
Figure 3-5 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of RC Pipe and HDPE Pipe ...................... 42
Figure 3-6 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of RC Pipe and DI Pipe ............................. 43
Table 3-2 Initial Estimated Values for Sustainability (Maintenance Cost) .................................... 43
Figure 3-8 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of RC Pipe and DI Pipe ...................... 44
Table 3-3 Initial Estimated Values for Constructability (Labor and Equipment) ........................... 44
ii
Figure 3-10 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of RC Pipe and DI Pipe ........................... 46
Table 3-4 Initial Estimated Values for Serviceability (Efficiency Cost) ......................................... 46
Figure 3-11 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of DIP and HDPE Pipe ............................ 46
Figure 3-12 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of RC Pipe and DIP................................. 47
Figure 3-11 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of DIP and HDPE Pipe ............................ 48
Table 3-5 Initial Designers Ranking ............................................................................................. 49
Figure 3-13 Detention Tank ......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 3-14 Floodwall .................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 3-15 Dredging ................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 3-16 Structural Context Area ............................................................................................ 54
Table 3-6 Initial Economical Cost Estimate.................................................................................. 54
Figure 3-17 Initial Ranking Scale for Economic Constraint (1)..................................................... 55
Figure 3-18 Initial Ranking Scale for Economic Constraint (2)..................................................... 55
Table 3-7 Initial Labor and Equipment Cost Estimate .................................................................. 55
Figure 3-19 Initial Ranking Scale for Constructability Constraint (1) ............................................ 56
Figure 3-20 Initial Ranking Scale for Constructability Constraint (2) ............................................ 56
Table 3-8 Initial Sustainability Factor Estimate ............................................................................ 57
Figure 3-21 Initial Ranking Scale for Sustainability Constraint (1) ............................................... 57
Figure 3-22 Initial Ranking Scale for Sustainability Constraint (2) ............................................... 58
Figure 3-22 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of Detention Tank and Flood Wall ........... 58
Table 3-9 Initial Estimated Values for Risk Assessment .............................................................. 59
Figure 3-24 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of Detention Tank and Dredging ............. 60
Figure 3-25 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of Flood Wall and Dredging .................... 60
Table 3-10 Summary of Initial Estimated Values ......................................................................... 60
Figure 4-1 General Design Process............................................................................................. 63
Figure 4-2 Design Process for Storm Water Drainage ................................................................. 64
Figure 4-3 Flow chat for Reinforced Concrete Pipe ..................................................................... 65
iii
Table 4-1 Design Result of Storm Water Drainage using Reinforced Concrete Pipe .................. 66
Figure 4-4 Flow chat for HDPE ................................................................................................. 70
Table 4-2 Design Result of Stormwater Drainage using HDPE .............................................. 71
Figure 4-5 Flow chat for DIP ..................................................................................................... 75
Table 4-3 Design Result of Stormwater Drainage Using Ductile Iron Pipe ........................... 76
Table 4-4 Summary of Final Estimated Values for Water Context ............................................... 80
Figure 4-6 Cost Difference ........................................................................................................... 81
Figure 4-7 Cost Difference ........................................................................................................... 81
Figure 4-8 Labor Cost Difference................................................................................................. 82
Figure 4-9 Labor Cost Difference................................................................................................ 82
Figure 4-10 Maintenance Cost Difference ................................................................................... 82
Figure 4-11 Maintenance Cost Difference .................................................................................. 83
Figure 4-12 Service Discharge Efficiency Difference ................................................................... 83
Figure 4-13 Service Discharge Efficiency Difference .................................................................. 83
Table 4-5 Water Context Final Designer’s Ranking ................................................................ 84
Figure 4-14 Economic Comparison ............................................................................................. 86
Figure 4-15 Sustainability Comparison ........................................................................................ 87
Figure 4-16 Constructability Comparison ..................................................................................... 88
Figure 4-17 Serviceability Comparison ........................................................................................ 89
Table 4-6 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Economic vs. Sustainability Constraint ................... 90
Figure 4-18 Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint (RC Pipe) ..................... 91
Figure 4-19 Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint (HDPE Pipe) ....... 91
Figure 4-20 Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint (DIP Pipe) .................... 92
Figure 4-21 Summary of Variation between Economic and Sustainability Constraint .................. 92
Table 4-7 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Constructability Constraint .............. 93
Figure 4-22 Variation Between Economic and Constructability Constraint (RC Pipe) ................. 94
Figure 4-23 Variation Between Economic and Constructability Constraint (HDPE Pipe) ............. 94
Figure 4-24 Variation Between Economic and Constructability Constraint (DIP Pipe) ................. 95
Figure 4-25 Summary of Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint ................. 95
Table 4-8 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Serviceability Constraint ................. 96
Figure 4-26 Variation Between Economic and Serviceability Constraint (RC Pipe) ..................... 97
iv
Figure 4-27 Variation Between Economic and Serviceability Constraint (HDPE Pipe) ................ 97
Figure 4-28 Variation Between Economic and Serviceability Constraint (DIP Pipe) .................... 98
Figure 4-29 Summary of Variation between Economic and Serviceability Constrain ................... 98
Table4-9 Summary of Initial Estimated Values ............................................................................ 98
Figure 4-30 General Design Process......................................................................................... 100
Figure 4-31 Design Process for Detention Pipes ....................................................................... 101
Figure 4-32 Design Process for Flood Wall ............................................................................... 103
Figure 4-33 Design Process for Dredging .................................................................................. 103
Table 4-10 Summary of Final Estimated Values for Structural Context ..................................... 103
Figure 4-32 Cost Difference ....................................................................................................... 104
Figure 4-33 Cost Difference ....................................................................................................... 104
Figure 4-34 Labor Cost Difference............................................................................................. 105
Figure 4-35 Labor Cost Difference............................................................................................. 105
Figure 4-36 Serviceability Cost Difference ................................................................................ 106
Figure 4-37 Serviceability Cost Difference ................................................................................. 106
Figure 4-38 Maintenance Cost Difference ................................................................................. 107
Figure 4-39 Maintenance Cost Difference ................................................................................. 107
Table 4-5 Structural Context Final Designer’s Ranking ....................................................... 108
Figure 4-40 Economic Comparison ........................................................................................... 109
Figure 4-42 Serviceability Comparison ...................................................................................... 110
Figure 4-43 Sustainability Comparison ...................................................................................... 110
Figure 4-51 Summary of Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint ............... 115
Figure 4-52 Variation Between Economic and Serviceability Constraint ................................... 116
Figure 4-55 Summary of Variation between Economic and Serviceability Constrain ................. 118
Figure 5-1 Manhole Cover Detail ............................................................................................... 119
Figure 5-2 Manhole Plan (Top View) ......................................................................................... 119
Figure 5-3 Cross Section of Storm-water Drainage ................................................................... 120
Figure 5-4 Manhole Plan (Section A-A) ..................................................................................... 120
Figure 5-5 Cylindrical Detention Tank Plan................................................................................ 121
v
Figure 5-6 Cylindrical Detention Tank Top View ........................................................................ 123
Figure 5-7 Cylindrical Detention Left Side ................................................................................. 124
Figure 5-8 Cylindrical Detention Tank Right Side ...................................................................... 125
Figure 5-9 Stormwater Drainage Design Layout ........................................................................ 126
Figure 5-10 Storm Water Drainage Flow Network ..................................................................... 127
vi
ABBREVIATION
HDPE – High-Density Polyethylene Pipe
DIP – Ductile Iron Pipe
RCP – Reinforced Concrete Pipe
𝑄– flow rate (𝑚3/𝑠)
𝐴– Cross sectional area of flow (𝑚2)
𝑉 – Mean Velocity across a cross section (𝑚/𝑠)
𝑛 – Manning’s Coefficient of roughness (S.I. unit)
𝑅 – Hydraulic Radius (cross sectional area divided by the wetted perimeter) (𝑚)
𝑆 – Slope of the hydraulic gradient (non-dimensional)
𝑡𝑐 – time of concentration, in minutes
𝐾 – unit’s conversion coefficient, in which K = 0.0078 for traditional units, and K = 0.00195 for SI Units
𝐿 – the channel flow length, in feet or meters as
𝑆 – the dimensionless main-channel slope
fbuoy – total force due to buoyancy (KN/m)
fbuoy1 – buoyancy force due to hydrostatic pressure at the floodwall heel acting at an approximate
distance of B/3 from the heel (KN/m)
fbuoy2 – buoyancy force due to hydrostatic pressure at the floodwall toe, acting at an approximate distance
of B/3 from the toe (KN/m)
yw – specific weight of water (9.81 KN/m for fresh water and 10.05 KN/m for saltwater)
Ah – width of the footing above the heel (m)
C – width of the footing above the toe (m)
H – floodproofing design depth (m)
Dt – depth of soil above the floodwall toe (m)
tftg –thickness of the floodwall footing (m)
twall –thickness of the floodwall (m)
wftg – weight of the footing (KN/m)
B – width of the footing (m)
Sg – unit weight of wall material (concrete is 23.56 𝐾𝑁/𝑚3 )
vii
wst – weight of the soil over the toe (KN/m)
C – width of the footing toe (m)
Dt –depth of the soil above the floodwall toe (m)
ysoil – unit weight of soil (KN/m)
wwh – weight of the water above the heel (KN/m)
wG – total gravity forces acting downward (KN/m)
V – Volume
SEMSWA – Storm water Management Manual
viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Project
According to 2015 census, Pasig City has a population of 755,300 people. Although it has this large
number of population, the city is considered as a first class highly urbanized city in Metro Manila. The city has a
total land area of 31 km2. It is composed of 30 barangays including the Barangay Bambang which has a total
population of 20,657 people and has an area of 38.41 ha.
Based on research, the barangay has an existing drainage system but it has a substandard material used in
constructing the lines. It is considered to be the primary cause of flooding in the area. Last August 12, 2018, a
southwest monsoon hit Bambang that results in traffic congestions and evacuating families near the Marikina
River caused by an immediate uplift of water. Therefore, an effective drainage system should be design and
implement.
The project is the design of storm water drainage in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City. This will be design in
order to lessen the flooding on the area by collecting the rainwater using a standard drainage system that is based
on the Water Code of the Philippines.
1.2 Project Location

The figure shows the location of the project in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City which is prone to flood due
to an inadequate drainage system.
Figure 1.1 Project Location
1
1.3 The Client
The client is the head of Flood Control Department of Pasig Municipal Hall, Engr. Minwena P.Gamilla.
The project, if implemented, will be funded by the Pasig Municipal Budget Department. The client demands
to have an economical project cost, quality of the drainage system, and to have a short duration of project to
avoid traffic congestions.
1.4 Project Objectives
1.4.1 General Objectives

The main objective of the project is to design a storm water drainage that will be efficient, convenient, and
effective among residents and can protect and preserve establishments in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1. To analyse the existing conditions, data and information about the project location.
2. To identify and recommend mitigation plan and necessary program and projects.
3. To rank all alternatives considering multi-criteria analysis such as economy, constructability, and
efficiency.
4. To develop a standard design for the best alternative.
1.5 Scope and Limitation
The following were the scope of the design project
1. Estimate quantity of materials to be used in the design project including equipment and labor costs
for the overall estimated cost.
2. Propose a detailed design and plan layout resulted from trade-offs to provide the client’s needs.
The following were the limitation of the design project
1. The design study includes the area bounded in Barangay Bambang only.
2. The design study does not include actual execution and construction of proposed design.
3. The design study does not include the analysis, maintenance and alterations of the system after the
proposal.
1.6 Project Development Plan
For the project’s completion, the designers developed a plan in order to design an effective storm-water
drainage in Barangay Sta. Lucia, Pasig City. The designers must begin by identifying the problem. And as the
problem was identified, which is the inadequacy of the existing drainage, the conceptualization of the project
should be analyzed. The designers should apply various methods for gathering data.
Then, the project’s constraints must be classified. It is the scope and the expected accomplishment of the
project. After considering the constraints, the designers will provide possible trade-offs that may solve the problem
and proceed in designing of each given trade-offs. The designers will estimate each designs and will view the
results then evaluate the most economic and effective design. The diagram shown is the detailed process of the
plan.
2
START
IDENTIFYING
THE PROBLEMS
CONCEPTUALIZATION
DATA GATHERING
PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
AND STANDARDS
TRADE-OFF 1 TRADE-OFF 2 TRADE-OFF 3
DESIGN OF TRADE-OFF 1 DESIGN OF TRADE-OFF 2 DESIGN OF TRADE-OFF 2
EVALUATION OF
RESULT
FINAL DESIGN
END
Figure 1.1 Project Development Plan
3
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS
2.1. Topography
Figure 2.1 shows the topographic map of Barangay Bambang, Pasig City. Bambang is situated at approximately
14.5554° N, 121.0801° E, these coordinates is estimated at 12 meters above mean sea level.
Figure 2-1 Topographic Map of Barangay Bambang, Pasig City
(Source: http://en-ph.topographic-map.com)
2.1.2 Geography
According to Geographical and Demographic Profile of Pasig City, it lays approximately 12 km. East of Manila
sprawled along the banks of Marikina and Pasig Rivers, on the southeastern end of Pasig River, bounded by
Quezon City and Marikina City on the North, Mandaluyong City on the West, Makati City, Pateros and Taguig on
the South, Cainta and Taytay (Province of rizal) on the East.
2.2 Flooding Incidence

Pasig City is prone to flooding incidence because it is surrounded by 3 major waterways namely Pasig River,
Marikina River and the Manggahan floodway – and the Laguna de Bay. This is one of the reasons why it is
recognized as a leader in urban disaster preparedness. But the city was not always this prepared.
4
Figure 2-2 5 Year Flood Hazard Map of Bambang, Pasig City
(Source: https://lipad-fmc.dream.upd.edu.ph )
2.3 Rainfall Data
Figure 2.3 shows that Pasig City is provided with the highest annual average precipitation of 2586.7mmin the year
of 2012. Table 2.3 shows that April is the driest weather with an average precipitation of 16.67mm and September
is the wettest weather with an average of 393.17mm.
Table 2-1 Precipitation Data of Pasig City
MONTHLY TOTAL AND ANNUAL CLIMATIC
DATA RAINFALL DATA RAINFALL AMOUNT (mm)
YEAR JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL
2012 29.5 87.5 55.5 4.5 125 -2 -2 -2 472 278.5 7 14.5 1074
2013 53.5 76 27 34.5 68 257 -2 921.9 734.5 277.8 99 37.5 2586.7
2014 T 3 7 0 64.5 193.5 380.5 244 424 227 34 120.5 1698
2015 25 0.5 7 T 32.5 91 294.5 241 268 221 14 294.5 1492
2016 0.5 20.5 T 12 47 124.5 268 348.5 136.5 266.5 98 70 1292
2017 39 31.5 3.5 38 70 169 272.5 298.5 324 194.5 114.5 61.5 1616.5
(Source PAG-ASA Science Garden, Quezon City)
(Source: PAG-ASA Science Garden, Quezon City)
5
450
400
384.32 393.17
350
300
250
227.55
200 203.08
150 139.08
100 100.25
67.83 61.08
50
24.58 36.5 16.67 14.83
0
Figure 2-3 Average Annual Precipitation Data of Pasig City
(Source PAG-ASA Science Garden, Quezon City)

2.4 Elevation Data
16
14
12
10
Elevation
A. Luna Street (297.24m)
Figure 2-4 Elevation of Luna Street
6
14
12
10
Elevation
C.M. Cruz Street (316.82)
Figure 2-5 Elevation of CM- Cruz Street
12
10
8
Elevation
V. Porzon Street 241.36m
Figure 2-6 Elevation of V. Porzon Street
7
14
12
10
Elevation
F. Manalo Street 278.09m
Figure 2-7 Elevation of F. Manalo Street
12
10
8
Elevation
G Valderama Street 238.86m
Figure 2-8 Elevation of G Valderama Street
8
14
12
10
Elevation
M Santos Street 233.81m
Figure 2-9 Elevation of M. Santos Street
14
12
10
Elevation
0
0+000 0+020 0+040 0+060
Villarosa Street 81.81m
Figure 2-10 Elevation of Villarosa Street
9
14
12
10
Elevation
Jose Pueblo Street 328.81m
Figure 2-11 Elevation of Jose Pueblo Street
10
2.5 Outfall
The designer consider the Pasig River to be the outfall of the design Stormwater Drainage. Pasig river flows north-
northwest through the market town of Pasig and bisects Manila, then enters the bay between the North and South
harbours. Its length is 14 mi (23 km) and it has an average of 50 meters in width. It can carrya maximum discharge
of 56 𝑚3 /𝑠.
Figure 2-12 Pasig River near Barangay Bambang

(SOURCE: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:0121jf )
11
Figure 2-13 Drainage map of the Pasig-Marikina River system
(SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasig_River )
12
2.5 Existing Drainage Data
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2.6 Design Inputs for Water Context
2.6.1 The Manning’s Formula

The Manning’s Formula will be used to calculate the flow rate in pipes and conduit of all shapes in gravity of flow
and condition. In the formula, velocity is related to roughness, slope and hydraulic radius as follows:
𝑄 = 𝐴𝑉
1 2 1
𝑉 = ( ) 𝑅3𝑆 2
𝑛
Figure 2-14 Manning’s Formula

Where:
𝑄 = flow rate (𝑚3/𝑠)
𝐴 = Cross sectional area of flow (𝑚2)
𝑉 = Mean Velocity across a cross section (𝑚/𝑠)
𝑛 = Manning’s Coefficient of roughness (S.I. unit)
𝑅 = Hydraulic Radius (cross sectional area divided by the wetted perimeter) (𝑚)
𝑆 = Slope of the hydraulic gradient (non-dimensional)
In practice, when designing the storm drains, the slope of the invert is used for S according to the supposition that
the condition of the flow in the pipes is uniform. Manning’s roughness coefficient is basically an index of the
frictional resistance to flow. Value for the coefficient is usually determined from the tabulated data shown below:
20
Table 2-2 typical Values of Roughness Coefficient
2.6.2 Run-off Coefficient

The runoff coefficient (c) is the variable of the rational formula least susceptible to precise determination. The
runoff coefficient accounts for the integrated effects of rainfall interception, infiltration, depression storage
and temporary storage in transit during the peak rate of runoff. Its use in the formula implies a fixed ratio for
any given drainage area, whereas, in reality, the coefficient depends on rainfall intensity and duration as well
as the catchment characteristics. The greater the rainfall depth, the lesser the relative effect of rainfall
abstractions on the peak discharge, and therefore the greater is the runoff coefficient.
21
Table 2-3 Runoff Coefficient
22
2.6.3 Design Depth of Flow
2.6.3.1 Closed Conduit
Circular conduit is to be assumed to flow full as the design flow by means of Manning
formula. Although it is theoretically possible for a pipe flowing less than full to carry more
than when it is full, it is impractical to assume that this large conveyance will be available.
On the other hand, in case of rectangular conduit (culvert), design depth of flow should be
set 90% of full as the design flow. The ratios 𝑄/𝑄𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 and 𝑉/𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 are called the hydraulic
elements. A symbol without subscript represents the value of a variable when conduit is
flowing partially full.
2.6.4 Design Storm Frequency

The design of drainage structure considers estimates of magnitude of floods based on frequency of
occurrence. The selection of flood frequencies normally differs depending on the type of drainage
structure or condition being considered
The design storm frequencies considered desirable for use in the Philippines are provided:
Table 2-4 Design Storm Frequency
2.6.5 Time of Concentration

The time of concentration is the time for the runoff to become established and flow from most remote part
of the drainage area to the outlet point.
Figure 2-15 Time of Concentration
23
Where:
𝑡𝑐 – time of concentration, in minutes
𝐾 – unit’s conversion coefficient, in which K = 0.0078 for traditional units, and K = 0.00195 for SI Units
𝐿 – the channel flow length, in feet or meters as
𝑆 – the dimensionless main-channel slope
4.4.5. Rainfall Intensity
The rainfall intensity (I) is the average rainfall rate in 𝑚𝑚ℎ𝑟 with the safety level indicated in the form of
return period for a catchment area during the concentration time. The rainfall intensity is obtained from
the rainfall intensity duration frequency (RIDF) curve.
The rainfall intensity can be expressed as follows:
1726.23
𝐼 = 0.66
𝑡𝑐 + 0.45
Figure 2-16 Rainfall Intensity
Figure 2-17 Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency Curve
24
2.6.6 Velocity Limits
The minimum velocity for culverts is 0.6 𝑚/𝑠. Maintaining velocity may become difficult during dry
seasons. In this kind of situations, introducing smaller channel in the bottom of the culvert is possible to
confine the smaller flows to a smaller cross section to possibly achieve the minimum velocity. On the other
hand, the maximum velocity that the culverts can accumulate is limited to 5.0 𝑚/𝑠., to prevent damages
to the culvert.
2.6.7 Slope Limits

The minimum velocity and the Manning’s formula “n” value are considered in order to determine the minimum
slope used in the design. Slopes are commonly calculated using the depth of the invert of the pipe, since the
designers’ goal is to mainly determine the diameter of the pipe, the designers decided instead of adjusting the
slope for the minimum velocity, they maintain a slope of 0.0008m/m and adjust the diameter to reach the
minimum velocity.
2.7 Design Inputs for Structural Context
2.7.1 Moment Distribution Method

One of the method used by the designers to compute the structural design of the detention tank is the Moment
Distribution Method. Instead of the typical loads, they considered the water stress and the soil stress that the
detention tank will experience. Here are the following equations under Moment Distribution Method:
Carry-Over Moment
Carry-over moment is defined as the moment induced at the fixed end of a beam by the action of the moment
applied at the other end.
MA=−1/2MB
Figure 2-18 Carry Over Moment Formula
2.7.2 Beam Stiffness

Beam stiffness is the moment required to produce unit rotation at the simply supported end of a beam, the other
end being rigidly fixed.
Absolute K=4EI/L
Figure 2-19 Beam Stiffness Formula
2.7.3 Fixed End Moments (FEM)

Assume that each span of continuous beam to be fully restrained against rotation then fixed-end moments at the
ends its members are computed.
25
Figure 2-20 Fixed End Moment Formula
2.7.4 Distribution Factor, DF

At a joint, the distribution factor of a member is the ratio of the bending stiffness of the member to the sum of
bending stiffness of all the members connected to the joint.
𝐾
𝐷𝐹 =
Σ𝐾
Note:
DF = 0 for fixed end.
Figure 2-21 Distribution Factor Formula
2.7.5 Computation for Flood Wall

Step 1: Assume wall height and footing depth
The choice of wall thickness depends on the wall material, the strength of the material, and the height of the wall.
Typical wall thicknesses are 8, 12, and 16 inches for masonry, concrete, or masonry/ concrete walls. The footing width
depends on the magnitude of the lateral forces, allowable soil bearing capacity, dead load, and the wall height. The
typical footing width is the proposed wall height. Typically, the footing is located under the wall in such a manner that
1/3 of its width forms the toe and 2/3 of the width forms the heel of the wall
❖ H , 𝐷𝑡, 𝐷 = 𝐷ℎ, 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔
Step 2: Determine dimensions
❖ 𝐵, 𝐴ℎ, 𝐶, 𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙
Wall and footing to be reinforced concrete having unit weight (Sg )
Step 3: Calculate forces.
Determine Lateral Forces:
26
1
❖ 𝑓𝑠𝑡𝑎 = 𝑦𝑤𝐻 2
2
1
❖ 𝑓𝑑𝑖𝑓 = (𝑆 − 𝑦w)𝐷2
2
𝐶𝑑 𝑉 2
❖ 𝑑ℎ = 2𝑔
❖ 𝑓𝑑ℎ = 𝑦𝑤(𝑑ℎ)𝐻
❖ 𝐹𝑛 = 𝑊𝑉𝐶𝐷𝐶𝐵𝐶𝑆𝑡𝑟
❖ 𝐹𝑆𝑡𝑎 = 𝑓𝑠𝑡𝑎 + 𝑓𝑑𝑖𝑓 + 𝑓𝑑ℎ
Since Fn acts only at a single point, we will not include loading into the uniform lateral floodwall loading. Once the
floodwall is sized, we will evaluate the wall perpendicular to flow to determine ability to resist the impact loading. If
necessary this wall will be redesigned to resist impact loads. This process will avoid overdesigning of the entire
floodwall.
1
❖ 𝐹𝑝 = 2 [𝑘𝑝(𝑦𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 − 𝑦𝑤) + 𝑦𝑤 ]𝐷𝑡 2
Determine Vertical Forces:

1
❖ 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦1 = 𝑦𝑤𝐻𝐵
2
1
❖ 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦2 = 𝑦𝑤𝐷𝑡𝐵
2
❖ 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦 = 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦1 + 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦2

❖ 𝑤𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = (𝐻 − 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔)𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑆𝑔
❖ 𝑤𝑓𝑡𝑔 = (𝐵𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔𝑆𝑔g
❖ st=CDt-tftgysoil
❖
❖ 𝑤𝑤ℎ = Aℎ (H − 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔)(𝑦𝑤)
❖ 𝑊𝐺 = 𝑤𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 + 𝑤𝑓𝑡𝑔 + 𝑤𝑠𝑡 + 𝑤𝑠ℎ + 𝑤𝑤ℎ =
❖ 𝐹𝑣 = 𝑊𝐺 − 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦
Step 4: Check sliding.
❖ 𝐹𝑓𝑟 = 𝐶𝑓𝐹𝑣v
❖ c=CsB
❖ 𝐹𝑅 = 𝐹𝑓𝑟 + 𝐹𝑐 + 𝐹𝑝p
❖ SSL=FR/fSta>1.5
27
Step 5: Check overturning.
𝐻 𝐷 2𝐵 𝐻 𝐵
❖ 𝑀𝑜 = 𝐹𝑆𝑡𝑎 3 + 𝑓𝑑𝑖𝑓 3 + 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦1 + 𝑓𝑑ℎ 2 + 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦2 3 =
3
𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐶 𝐵 𝐴ℎ 𝐴ℎ 𝐷𝑡
❖ 𝑀𝑅 = 𝑤𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 (𝐶 + ) + 𝑤𝑓𝑡𝑔 (2) + 𝑤𝑠𝑡 ( 2 ) + 𝑤𝑠ℎ (𝐵 − ) + 𝑤𝑤ℎ (𝐵 − ) + 𝐹𝑝( 3 ) =
2 2 2
𝑀𝑅
❖ 𝐹𝑆𝑂𝑇 = 𝑀𝑂 > 1.5
Step 6: Determine eccentricity.

𝐵 (𝑀𝑅−𝑀𝑂) 7
❖ 𝑒 = (2) − ( )<6
𝐹𝑣
Step 7: Check soil pressure.

1.5
❖ 𝑞 = 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 + (𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛)
8
𝐹𝑣 6𝑒
❖ 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ( 𝐵 ) (1 + )
𝐵
𝐹𝑣 6𝑒
❖ 𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛 = ( 𝐵 ) (1 − )
𝐵
Step 8: Select reinforcing steel.

For steel in the vertical floodwall section:
𝐻
❖ 𝑀𝑏 = 𝐹𝑆𝑡𝑎 ( 3 − 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔)
❖ According to ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES for Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential

Structures, df is typically the floodwall thickness minus 0.09 m to allow a minimum of 0.08m between
the reinforcing steel and the floodwall edge.
❖ Diameter should be a multipliable by 6
𝑀𝑏
❖ 𝐴𝑠 = ( 7.5𝑑𝑓
1000
)=
4𝐴𝑠
❖ 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = √ 𝜋
For top steel in the footing section:

𝐴ℎ
❖ 𝑀𝑏 = (𝑤𝑠ℎ + 𝑤𝑤ℎ) ( 2 )
𝑀𝑏
❖ 𝐴𝑠 = ( 7.5𝑑𝑓 )
1000
4𝐴𝑠
28
For bottom steel in the footing section:
1.5
8
𝐶2
❖ 𝑀𝑏 = (𝑞 + 2𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥) ( 6 ) =
𝑀𝑏
❖ 𝐴𝑠 = ( 7.5𝑑𝑓 )
1000
4𝐴𝑠
Figure 2-22 Forces Acting on the Floodwall
29
Table 2-5 Soil Factors for Floodwall Design
2.7.6 Computation for Dredging

Volume to be Dredge
The volume of the grid, V, the elevation of the depth above or below the reference, H and the area of the
reference frame is the vertical projection technique.
𝑉 = 𝐻∗𝐴
Cycle Time
The total time required for one dredging cycle of a TSHD. The effective production of the dredger is calculated
by the hopper load by the cycle time.
Duration of Dredging
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
𝑇𝑑 =
2 ∗ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘ℎ𝑜𝑒
Carriage of Dredge material

𝐿
𝑇𝑔 =
𝐶𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑
Unloading
30
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
𝑇𝑢 =
2 ∗ 74
Return trip
𝐿
𝑇𝑟 =
𝐶𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑
Number of trucks needed
148
𝑁=
𝑄ℎ
Dredging
❖ Basic Conditions
Study of the backfill site was made according to following items as basic condition.
• Classification of soil: Dredged soil after stabilized treatment

• If extra dredging occurs, the amount of part reclamation will increase.
• Site Area: 1160 m2 is planned.
• Maximum embankment height of dredged material is decided to 3.0 m by a circle slide method.
31
2.8 Related Literature and Studies
According to Linsley(1942), "From a strict hydrological sense, flood is defined as a rise, usually brief, in the water
level in a stream to a peak from which the water level recedes at a slower rate. The episodic behavior of a river
that may be considered flood is then termed "flood event" which is described as a flow of water in a stream
constituting a distinct progressive rise, culminating in a crest, together with the recession that follows the crest.”
“A storm water detention tank is an artificial flow-control structure that is used to “detained” storm water for a short
period of time. Storm water stored in the detention tank will then be filtered to be reuse. The concept of the storm
water detention tank is to temporarily store excess storm water runoff. This is to avoid hydraulic overload of the
sewer system, which could result in the flooding if roads and building with untreated wastewater or its release
directly into the environment, causing pollution. When space is available in the sewer system, the detained water
is released at a rate not exceeding the capacities of the sewer system, and the tank should be cleaned ready for
the next flush.” (Mays, Lary W, 2010)
As stated by the IJDRBC Vol. 6(November 2015), the existing drainage system in Manila and suburbs are is
composed of closed principal channels called “drainage mains” or the “outfalls”, and open channels called “creeks”
or the “estuary”, secondary or the tertiary drainage channels called “drainage laterals”, and pumping stations. The
initial drainage construction works were based on the plan for the drainage of Manila and suburbs areas. A master
plan prepared in 1952 by the former Bureau of Public Works (BPW), subsequent system improvements were
based on lateral revisions of the 1952 master plan. One of such revisions was made in 1978 under the “Manila
and suburbs flood control projects”, another was made in 1984 under” Metro Manila integrated urban drainage
and flood control master plan” of the Ministry of Public Works and Highways now it is called the Department Public
Works and Highways (DPWH).
The DPWH today is in charge of the installation and maintenance of drainage facilities located along national
roads. The Local Government Units (LGU), on the other hand, are responsible for the construction and
maintenance of drainage facilities located along cities or municipal roads. The DPWH has installed 35 drainage
mains (outfalls) along the national roads of Metro Manila, which all together have a total length of 34 kilometers.
There is no consolidated data on drainage facilities constructed by the various LGU but most of the roads within
Manila and suburbs have drainage laterals installed. Manila suburbs which are being serviced by 15 pumping
stations for draining the storm water to the Pasig River or Manila bay. All these stations are operated and
maintained by the DPWH and were designed for draining storm water of a 10 years return period of these pumping
stations. Seven (7) were composed and become operational between 1976 and 1977 through financial assistance
by the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF). These seven stations shown in Figure 1 are Valencia,
Quiapo, Pandacan, Aviles-Sampaloc, Paco, Sta. Clara, and Tripa De Gallina. Procurements of the required
equipment for three (3) of the 15 stations for draining the storm water namely: Libertad, Binondo and Makati
pumping stations, was individually undertaken during 1979 to 1985. The export-import bank (EXIM bank) of Japan
financed the equipment procurement. The construction of 5 remaining stations namely: Vitas, Balut, Escolta, san
Andres and Balete were made possible through the financial loan assistance from OECF Japan. The said
construction started in 1994 and it was completed in 1998. To address the increasing accumulation of sediments
and garbage in drainage channels, The DPWH carried out the project for retrieval of flood prone areas in Metro
Manila. The Phase 1 of the project was implemented in 1990 and the Phase 2 is in 1994 for this project, which
was also meant to complement the gains made in other flood control projects.
Based from “An Analysis of the Public Perception of Floods in Manila City” (Tomas Ganiron Jr.), In Manggahan
Floodway, the main purpose of its construction was to divert a portion of the Marikina flood flow towards to Laguna
32
Lake in order to minimize the flooding hazard and damage of low-lying areas located along the Marikina and Pasig
Rivers. Flood volumes diverted from. Marikina a River as well as sustained direct rainfall and tributary inflows from
surrounding lakeshore watersheds may cause the significant rise of the Laguna Lake level. Its slow recession is
due to the low discharge capacity of the single outlet, the Napindan Pasig River channel.
Pump station is one of the factors in solving the flood problem in our country. This is very important factor in the
clean-up of the river. They are very complex but can be simplified in a simple tour but once know how they work,
they seen a lot easier to understand. First, a number of pumps are opened. When the river got to a certain point,
those pumps would open. From there the water goes into a bar screen. This filtered the river water, cleaning out
the debris. After being filtered, the water flows through the gates and into the river. When the water goes through
the pump, it pushes open a check valve, or a flap, that keeps the river water out. These are the depths when the
pumping stations kick in. The pump station at the Lagusnilad Underpass plays an important role in flood control
such as (a) It removes storm water from the streets and permits the transportation arteries to function during bad
weather-when this is done efficiently, the life expectancy of street pavement is extended. (b) The pump station
controls the rate and velocity of runoff along gutters and other surfaces in a manner that reduces the hazard to
local residents and potential for damage to pavement. (c) The pump conveys runoff to natural or manmade
drainage ways. (d) The system was designed to control the mass of pollutants arriving at receiving waterways. (e)
Major open drainage ways and detention facilities offer opportunities for multiple uses such as recreation, parts,
and wildlife preserves.
According to a study made by Zairon Delos Santos, Mikhail Dimitri Paulino and Fiina Kamille Pel, Quezon City is
one of the Local Government Units that adopts the Green Building Standards to strictly adhere to energy efficiency,
cost effectiveness and mitigate adverse impacts on environmental degradation and the city government also plans
to develop an eco-village that will house the informal settlers. In line with this matter, they will also need to invest
in drainage works. But, the city government may also face floods especially on the low areas. For this reason,
investigation has been made for the possibilities of constructing a storm sewer system. The infrastructure would
manage the storm water and to have a potential source of water for the village.
Based from the calculations for the design of the storm sewer system, the pipe diameters to be laid are 0.30, 0.36
and 0.53 mm. These sizes are capable of withstanding the volume of rain with 41.2 mm of precipitation. It is
showed that the storm water volume for a day during the rainy season of the Philippines with the assumed rate of
precipitation which is 41.2 mm., is 3,014,887 cubic meters. During also that season, the water requirement of the
tenants of the village is 320427.9 cubic meters. Therefore, comparing the two values, it shows that the storm water
is higher than the water requirements and is capable of supplying these requirements if the local government will
subject this water to treatment.
“In the 1950's, the Shanghai government completed development of new residential areas, suburban industrial
areas and satellite towns, and the separated drainage system was implemented for those areas. After ten years,
six drainage systems were built in new residential areas, and six small sewage treatment plants and three sewage
systems were established in the new industrial areas. Meanwhile, technological transformation was done for the
original three sewage treatment plants (Wang, 2007). In 1983, the municipal government proposed the policy of
―comprehensive and simultaneous management and governance‖ and adopted the combined co-existence with
separated drainage system in Shanghai. A combined drainage system was constructed as the main style. In order
to serve new residential areas, four medium-sized sewage treatment plants were built or rebuilt and another four
small sewage treatment plants were constructed (Li, 2008).
According to this case study by Renato T. Cruz, “Water Pollution Control - A Guide to the Use of Water Quality
Management Principles,” factories and squatter colonies situated in the banks of Pasig River contributes to the
33
extensive pollution along the river. Industrial pollution accounts for 45 per cent of the total pollution in the Pasig
River. About 315 of the 2,000 or more factories situated in the river basin have been determined as principal
polluters of the river. Domestic liquid waste contributes another 45 per cent of the pollution load in the Pasig River.
There were approximately 4.4 million people living in the Pasig River catchment area during the study period and
only 0.6 million, or 12 per cent, were serviced by the sewerage system which treats domestic wastewaters before
discharging them into Manila Bay. Untreated waste-waters from the remaining 88 per cent of the population flow
through canals and esteros into viaducts leading into the Pasig River. Lastly, the 10 per cent of the pollution in the
Pasig River are from solid wastes.
As a further matter, “For the flashfloods experienced in the urban area of New Delhi, India, the author proposed
the idea of pre-fabricated drain design. Oarno and Cairncross (1991) formulated low cost drainage system design
used in informal urban settlements implemented in San Salvador, Brazil. Furthermore, they stated that the smallest
channel which is less than 300 mm deep conveniently lined with brick or with pre-cast concrete elements. The
elements weigh less than 50 kg carried by two persons. These pre-cast channels laid on a bed of compacted
sand, 50mm thick. The advantage of the pre-fabricated elements over masonry/ in situ concrete lining is they can
be laid quickly. There are difficulties concerning the masonry drains. It requires several days to set and if drains
constructed during dry season, the shortage of water for curing process of concrete takes place. The used of pre-
cast elements can overcome the said difficulties and the firm quality control can be enforce in the preparation of
the product.” (Pre-Cast Drainage Design in New Delhi, India)
Moreover, S. Needhidasan and M. Nallanathel of Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha University Chennai
conducted a case study for drainage design of Palayam Area, Calicut City in Kerala, India. The case study is an
approach to Storm Water Management for Environmental Protection. According to them, they said area is
experiencing excess runoff that is considered as a threat to the environment due to dense population. The
urbanization increases the surface runoff, by creating more impervious surfaces such as pavement and buildings
that prevents percolation of the water down through the soil to the aquifer. Excessive runoff reduces groundwater
recharge, thus lowering the water table and making droughts worse who depend on water wells. Thus,
urbanization and runoff quality create big impact to the environment and causes a general degradation of water
quality in the receiving waters. (Storm Water Drainage by Rational Method in Calicut, India)
Figure 2-23 Calculated Maximum and Minimum Diameter of Storm Sewer Pipes
Lastly, “In the Zambian city of Ndola, the capital of the Copperbelt Province, flooding occurs in some parts of the
city. The city is among the cleanest, well-planned and most-organized cities in Zambia with an approximate
34
population of 455,194 in 2010 as compared to 374,757 in 2000. Lately, Ndola has been facing challenges with
pluvial floods and flash floods caused by short lived intense convective rainfall and/ or prolonged frontal rainfall
events, where the proximity to the equator influences the climatology.
According to the study, the major problem with the system is blockages resulting from mainly garbage being
thrown into the systems as well as silt build-up overtime if no adequate maintenance is done. From the modelling
and simulations, it can also be concluded that changing the size of the pipe (P27=600mm) draining water from
the under bridge would improve the drainage systems’ rainfall events’ handling capacity to more than 10yrs return
period without flooding. The pipe to be changed lies on a 200m length stretch which may not be too costly as it
lies outside the CBA on the downstream part of the catchment.” - David Titus Banda, “Drainage System and Storm
Water Management for Ndola Central Business Area, Zambia.
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS
35
3.1 Design Constraints
Design Constraints are necessary action to determine the limiting factors that will affect the construction of the
project. These constraints will give a better understanding about the factors that needs to be assessed before,
during and after the project. Constraints may be in form of health, safety, political, environmental, constructability,
sustainability and financial. A design constraint is normally imposed externally, either by the organization or by
some external regulation. During system design, it is important to identify each design constraint as it is to elicit
requirements since the design constraints place an overall boundary around the system design process.
The following constraints were considered by the designer because it has a substantial impact on the storm water
drainage to be built at Barangay Bambang, Pasig City for flood mitigation measures:
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints
3.1.1.1 Economic Constraint (Total Cost of the Project)
Economic constraint of the project deals with the fact that in construction, it is required to create a project
that will sufficiently meet the required strength and durability while minimizing the costs. This constraint
also takes into consideration the relationship of the design life of the project with the cost, having greater
design life will result to higher cost of the project. For this, the designers will assess the total costs (that
which includes the initial costs and maintenance costs) of alternatives to come up with the best design
3.1.1.2. Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)
Sustainability constraint takes into account the problem on how long the design life of a project is with
respect to its design strength. One of the basic ideas in engineering design is that with greater design
strength, there is an equivalent increase in cost due to the need of higher quality material. However,
choosing the cheapest materials and leaving the structure without timely maintenance treatment can have
expensive maintenance requirements.
3.1.1.3. Constructability Constraint (Labor and Equipment Cost)
Time is a very significant factor that should be considered in any construction project. The longer the time
to finish the project could mean a larger cost. The project schedule should be followed correctly so the
actual money being spent will not exceed the allocated money for the entire project. The designers will
estimate the man-hour and time needed for the equipment to be rented for each trade-off for a better
judgment of the trade-off that will govern in the project.
3.1.1.4. Serviceability Constraint (Efficiency)
The size and the materials to be used for the drainage system plays a big part especially in serving the
drainage’s primary function which is to collect surface water and/or ground water and direct it away,
thereby keeping the ballast bed drained. The storm water drainage must also protect the substructure
from erosion, from becoming sodden, and from losing its load-bearing capacity and stability. The amount
of water and the amount of force it can hold are one of the most critical factors to be considered. The
amount of rainfall is not consistent and it always changes that is why the stability and the capacity to hold
large amount of discharge must be considered. The storm water drainage to be built expects to hold a
huge amount of water as well as great discharge to be produced especially during rainy seasons. The
material to be used should determine the most efficient and stable to hold such great discharge which will
be determined using the trade-offs considered by the designers.
36
3.1.1.5 Risk Assessment (Room for Exceeding Actual Discharge)
Risk assessment is the process of evaluating risks to worker’s safety and health from workplace hazards. It is
a systematic examination of all aspects of work that considers: hazards identification, risk analysis, and risk
control. In designing flood control structures, the designers should be aware of, and assess the risks from, the
following principal hazards, all the sources of flooding are need to be consider in order to mitigate the impact of
flooding in the area. Flood risk is the combination of flood damage potential and the probability of its
occurrence. Flood control measures have its design capacity, but if poorly designed or constructed or when it
exceeds its capacity the flood control measures could fail and the damage can have devastating
consequences. The process of flood risk assessment is to evaluate the actual usage of the designed drainage
system and how much more can it hold on if a certain storm exceeded the designed rainfall data used in the
designed stormwater drainage
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints

3.1.2.1 Social
This constraint discuss on how it will impact the surrounding of the project after its completion to the residents
of the area. The level of the flood is unpredictable as it can affect the livelihood of the residents. But it should
also be considered how the design will improve the ability of the community to avoid floods and at the same time
to keep the environment same. This constraint determines the useful of the given project to the improvement of
the lives of the client by providing alternative engineering designs to minimize the risk of flood in the community
and to measure how it will have effect to the area after the construction. Since the said area are prone to flooding,
the designers considered on designing the flood control system on low-lying areas.
3.1.2.2 Environmental
This constraint discuss the overall impact of the designed stormwater drainage to the environment of the project
location. The impact of the materials that will be used in the project is needed to be considered as it can affect
the strength of the soil, which can cause problems since the project location is a residential site. This constraint
determines the fit of a certain material, or process to the design and assess whether it is appropriate to be
implemented or not.
3.2. Trade-offs for Water Context

To address these multiple constraints, the designers came up with three trade-offs for storm water drainage.
Considering design constraints, trade-offs that have significant effects on the design of storm water drainage were
provided by the designer. As for the trade-off, the designers will have to evaluate which of the three is effective
considering each constraint. The following are the trade-offs that were chosen by the designers.
37
3.2.1. Material Trade-offs
3.2.1.1. Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Reinforced concrete pipes have been available since the eighties of the 19th Century. The relatively thin
wall thickness and resulting weight reduction brought about by this was the reason that, already at the
start of the 20th Century, reinforced concrete pipes with circular cross sections were produced in the
factory in sizes up to DN 2500.
Reinforced concrete pipes for gravity system sewers can be dimensioned for any load cases; they are
especially suited for high loads and for dynamic stresses caused by heavy traffic with small cover
depth.Pipes with smaller nominal sizes were often reinforced in only one direction, larger ones received
spiral reinforcement, very large ones, double and triple layers depending on the loading
Figure 3-1 Reinforced Concrete Pipe
The Advantages of RC Pipe:

❖ With the right design and drainage system, it can be more efficient in flood control since it has dual purpose
of flood mitigation which could control flood in the road and the over flowing of canal
The Disadvantages of RC Pipe:
❖ It requires more activity. Roads are needed to paved first and dredging/excavation is need for placing of
concrete pipes and drainages.
3.2.1.2 High-Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE)
HDPE is a hydrocarbon polymer prepared from ethylene/petroleum by a catalytic process. It is a kind of
thermoplastic which is famous for its tensile strength. Its unique properties can stand high temperatures.
HDPE is a boon to developing countries like India where it is used to prevent groundwater pollution. It
38
can be easily molded and welded together. Due to its high chemical resistance property, it is used in
piping systems. HDPE pipes are used to both carry potable water and hazardous waste. It has other
applications also like in making backpacking frames, bottle caps, food storage containers, vehicles fuel
tanks, folding chairs.
Figure 3-2 High-Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE)

(Source: http://www.conteches.com)
The Advantages of HDPE:
❖ It has lower life cycle costs and maintains optimum flow rates
❖ It has corrosion resistance. Does not rust, rot or corrode.
❖ Heat-fused joints create a homogenous, monolithic system. The fusion joint is stronger than the pipe.
❖ It has excellent water hammer characteristics. It is designed to withstand surge events.
❖ It is easily moulded into nearly any shape, providing one of the primary benefits of most plastics:
malleability.
❖ Highly corrosion resistant
❖ Ease of handling and installation, exceptional toughness
❖ Excellent abrasion resistance
❖ Service performance in excess of 50 years
The Disadvantages of HDPE:

❖ Exposure to apparent heat or temperature may cause high thermal expansion
❖ It has poor weathering resistance and subjected to stress cracking
❖ It is difficult to bond and is flammable
❖ It also has a poor temperature capability
39
3.2.1.3 Ductile Iron Pipe
Ductile iron pipe, made from ductile cast iron, is a graphite-rich cast iron in which the graphite has a
spheroidal shaped molecular structure. This molecular structure makes the cast iron less brittle and more
resistant to impact than the other varieties, which have a flaky structure. The ductile iron pipe is used in
trenchless technology for water and sewer lines.
Figure 3-3 Ductile Iron Pipe

(Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=ductile+iron+pipe )
Advantage of Ductile Iron Pipe:

❖ Ductile iron pipe is made from 100% recycled ferritic scrap—and is itself a 100% recyclable material.
❖ It requires very little maintenance once it’s installed and is designed to last for well over 100 years.
❖ It is strong enough to withstand the most severe conditions, from high-pressure applications, to heavy
earth and traffic loads, to unstable soil conditions.
❖ It has tremendous burst strength, making it ideal for high-pressure applications and protection against
sudden pressure surges. With its conservative design and high safety factor, it can also accommodate
increased pressure loadings over the years, factors that may not have been anticipated when the pipe
was first designed and installed.
Disadvantage of Ductile Iron Pipe:
❖ Like most ferrous materials, ductile iron is susceptible to corrosion, therefore its useful life depends on
the impact of corrosion. Corrosion can occur in two ways in ductile iron pipes: graphitization, the leaching
away of iron content through corrosion leading to a generally weakened pipe structure, and corrosion
pitting, which is a more localized effect also causing weakening of the pipe structure
40
❖ Over the last 100 years, the average thickness of iron pipes has decreased due to increased metal
strength, through metallurgical advancements as well as improved casting technique.
3.3. Designer’s Raw Ranking

Trade-offs was considered to satisfy the multiple constraints. By giving the client an option into which one of the
interchange design will be chosen, the designer used the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design by
the process as follows, scaled the criterion’s importance from 0 to 10, 10 being the highest and likewise, to satisfy
the ability of the criterion it was scaled also from 0 to 10, and also 10 being the highest.
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝑥10% Equation 3.1
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘=𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘−(% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒) Equation 3.2

The governing rank is the subjective value set by the designer. It depends on the designer’s own discrepancy on
ranking the importance of each constraint. The subordinate rank in Equation 3-2 is a variable that corresponds to
its percentage distance from the governing rank (Otto & Antonsson, 1991).
Figure 3-4 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference

Since the criterion’s importance is subjective, its value will then depend on the client’s preferable cost savings and
designer’s perspective in the design of the structure. Thus, based on the constraints, one may be cheaper but will
take longer construction duration and have short term effectiveness; on the other hand, one may be expensive
but will take shorter construction duration and have long term effectiveness. In the ability to satisfy criterion, the
governing trade-off that satisfies different constraints was subjectively ranked higher. And then the other trade-off
(the subordinate trade-off) which accounted higher cost was computed its rank in accordance with Equation 3-1
and Equation 3-2.
3.3.1 Initial Estimated Values for Economic (Cost of the Project)
For initial estimates, the designers used the minimum Storm Sewer Pipe Diameter by SEMSWA
Stormwater Management Manual presented in Chapter 9, Table 9-1, 18inch diameter or approximately
equal to 450 mm. The storm water drainage to be design has a total length of 2016.8 m.
❖ According to Reinforced Concrete Pipe Prices, RCP 450mmx1m has a price of 803.00 per piece.
❖ The designers used a 450 mm diameter HDPE it has a market value of Php 1000per meter based on the
price given by HDPE pipe price list.
❖ The market price of a 450mm diameter DIP is Php 22500 per 6 meter length according to Shandong
Liaocheng Zhicheng Pipe Co., Ltd..
41
Table 3.1 shows the initial cost of the three trade-offs. By means of this initial result, the designers may
find out what trade-off governs in terms of economical cost whichever has the lower price for material
cost.
Table 3-1 Initial Estimated Values for Economic (Cost of the Project)
Description RCP HDPE DIP
Economical Cost 2,105,337.52 2,621,840 7,563,000
(Php)
SUBORDINATE 10 8.03 2.78
RANK
3.3.1.1 Computation of Ranking for Economic Constraint
Governing Rank : 10 (Reinforced Concrete Pipe)

❖ RCP Vs. HDPE
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝑥10%
2,621,840−2,105,337.52
2,621,840
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟏. 𝟗𝟕
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘=𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘−(% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘= 10-1.97
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 =8.03
Figure 3-5 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of RC Pipe and HDPE Pipe
❖ RCP Vs. DIP

7,563,000−2,105,337.52
7,563,000
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟕. 𝟐𝟐
42
Figure 3-6 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of RC Pipe and DI Pipe
3.3.2 Initial Estimated Values for Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)

As stated by Wiegand, et al, 1986, estimated value of maintenance cost is ranges from 3% to 5% of the
total construction cost of storm water drainages. For this the designers graded DIP as the lowest
maintenance cost of 3% because of its strength and flexibility, while coming second is the HDPE for it
also offers abundant strength capacity but lacking the flexibility capacity and coming last is the RCP.
Table 3-2 Initial Estimated Values for Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)
Sustainability 105,226.88 104,873.6 226,890
Cost
SUBORDINATE 9.97 10 4.62
RANK
3.3.2.1 Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraint
Governing Rank : 10 (HDPE)
❖ RCP Vs. HDPE
105,226.88−104,873.6
105,226.88
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟎. 𝟎𝟑
43
❖ HDPE Vs. DIP
226,890−104,873.6
226,890
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟓. 𝟑𝟖
3.3.3 Initial Estimated Values for Constructability (Labor and Equipment)

The designers made an initial estimate of the duration of the project, man-hour and time needed for the
equipment to be rented for each trade-off for a better judgment of the trade-off that will govern in the
project.
According to the book “Construction Management” (2009) of (E. Elbeltagi) the labor costs and equipment
costs is approximately 30% of the estimated value for material cost. The book discussed the basic
principle for estimating labor costs, equipment costs, operating costs and preparing detailed cost
estimate.
Table 3-3 Initial Estimated Values for Constructability (Labor and Equipment)
Constructability 631,601.26 786,552 2,268,900
Cost
44
SUBORDINATE 10 8.03 2.58
RANK
3.3.3.1 Computation of Ranking for Constructability
Governing Rank : 10 (Reinforced Concrete Pipe)
❖ RCP Vs. HDPE
786,552−631,601.26
786,552
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟏. 𝟗𝟕
❖ RCP Vs. DIP

2,268,900−631,601.26
2,268,900
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟕. 𝟐𝟐
45
3.3.4 Initial Estimated Values for Serviceability (Efficiency)
According to Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association Ductile Iron Pipe is more efficient than other pipe
material due to its nominal inside diameter which results in a lower head loss and lowering Pumping cost
of 21%, second is HDPE 19%, and lastly is RCP 16%. In this case the designers considered the average
efficiency cost of each material trade-off.
Table 3-4 Initial Estimated Values for Serviceability (Efficiency Cost)
Economical 336,854.00 498,149.6 1,588,230
Cost (Php)
SUBORDINATE 2.12 3.14 10
RANK
3.3.4.1 Computation of Ranking for Serviceability

Governing Rank : 10 (Ductile Iron Pipe)
❖ RCP Vs. HDPE
1,588,230−498,149.6
1,588,230
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟔. 𝟖𝟔
Figure 3-11 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of DIP and HDPE Pipe
❖ RCP Vs. DIP

46
1,588,230−336,854.00
1,588,230
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟕. 𝟖𝟖
Figure 3-12 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of RC Pipe and DIP
3.3.4 Initial Estimated Values for Risk Assessment
According to Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association Ductile Iron Pipe is more resistant to high pressure,
and surges than other pipe material due to its nominal inside diameter which results in a lower head loss
and lowering Pumping cost of 11%, second is HDPE 9%, and lastly is RCP 6%. In this case the designers
considered the average efficiency cost of each material trade-off.
Economical 1,263,202.5 2,359,656 831,930
Cost (Php)
RANK

Governing Rank : 10 (Ductile Iron Pipe)
❖ RCP Vs. DIP
1,263,202.5−831,930
1,263,202.5
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟑. 𝟒𝟏
47
Figure 3-11 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of DIP and HDPE Pipe
❖ RCP Vs. DIP

2,359,656−831,930
2,359,656
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟔. 𝟒𝟕
48
Table 3-5 Initial Designers Ranking
Importance Design Of Stormwater Drainage
Design Criteria (Scale 0-10) RCP HDPE DIP
Economic 10 10 8.03 2.78

Sustainability 9 9.97 10 4.62
Constructability 9 10 8.03 2.58
Serviceability 10 2.12 3.14 10
Risk 8 6.59 3.53 10
Assessment
OVER_ALL RANK 353.65 302.21 272.6
3.4. Trade-off Assessment

The Trade-off Assessment discusses the results of justification in the designer’s rating of the criteria:
3.4.1. Economic Assessment
In this case, economic constraint was given an importance of ten (10) since the client wanted the cost to
be observed. The designers estimated the three trade-offs in terms of their prices per meter, and the
research shows that the RC Pipe is the most economical for storm water system because it has the lowest
price of PHP 2,105,337.52.
3.4.2. Sustainability Assessment
For sustainability assessment, the designers considered the amount of annual maintenance cost of each
trade-offs required. Using the estimated value of maintenance cost the designer’s assessment resulted
to; HDPE having the least required maintenance cost while RCP was being the second and DIP being
the last.
3.4.3. Constructability Assessment
Constructability includes the equipment and labor costs of the project. Since two included factors are
relatively proportion to the time of each tradeoffs being finished, the designers assessed the constraints
according to the estimated labor and equipment cost that will be used for each. From the book
“Construction Management (2009)” that says, the estimated labor and equipment cost is 30 % of the
material cost. From this, it resulted to RCP being the favored tradeoffs for this assessment. While, HDPE
comes second, and DIP comes up last.
3.4.4. Serviceability Assessment
The Serviceability Constraint has given an importance factor of 10 in terms of efficiency of the pipe to
transpose water after it has been execute.. The designers estimated the serviceability in terms of
estimating the maximum discharge capacity of each trade-off. The rough estimation was made through
49
Manning’s Formula. The results show that the HDPE which has the largest discharge capacity of 0.64767
m3/s is the most efficient.
3.4.5. Risk Assessment
The Risk Assessment Constraint has given an importance factor of 8 in terms of resistant to pressure and
surges of water. Due to this said pressure the material can decay and later become weak and have a
tendency to broke down. The designers estimated the strength of the material in terms of material
properties of each trade-off. The results show that the DIP which has the largest pressure resistance
among the three tradeoffs.
3.5. Trade-offs for Structural Context

A storm-water system cannot be complete without the used of secondary structures to lessen the tendency of
flood in a specific area. These are the structure designed to store the excess storm-water run-off, and prevent
storm-water run-off from the outfall of the system in a particular area. It helps to prevent flooding and can reduce
erosion in nearby rivers and streams. It also delays the water’s delivery downstream. These systems can be
considered using some various processes that can be used after the assessment of the water context such as the
trade-offs presented below.
3.5.1. Process Trade-offs
3.5.1.1 Detention Tank
Detention tank are used to reduce the peak outflow from a certain location. Urban development results in
increase impervious areas which causes faster catchment responses and higher peak flow rates. It is often
employed to return peak flow rates and volumes to the pre-developed condition to prevent the development
resulting in adverse flood impacts downstream. It performs this through intercepting storm water flows and
releasing storm water volumes in a controlled manner over a period of time.
Figure 3-13 Detention Tank
3.5.1.2 Flood Wall

According to Jana Napoli Floodwall is a primarily vertical artificial barrier designed to temporarily contain
the waters of a river or other waterway which may rise to unusual levels during seasonal or extreme
weather events. Flood walls are mainly used on locations where space is scarce, such as cities or where
50
building levees or dikes would interfere with other interests, such as existing buildings, historical
architecture or commercial use of embankments.
Figure 3-14 Floodwall

Advantages
❖ Levees and floodwalls can protect a building and the surrounding area from inundation without
significant changes to the structure if the design flood level is not exceeded.
❖ There is no pressure from floodwater to cause structural damage to the building.
❖ These barriers are usually less expensive than elevating or relocating the structure. ü Occupants
do not have to leave the structure during construction.
Disadvantages
❖ This technique cannot be used to bring a substantially damaged or improved structure into
compliance with floodplain development standards.
❖ May violate floodplain development standards, particularly in floodway locations, by causing
obstructed flow or in increased flood heights.
❖ Failure or overtopping of a levee or floodwall results in as much damage as if there was no
protection (or more).
❖ May restrict access to the structure. If human intervention is required for closures, there must be
adequate warning time.
❖ May be expensive.
❖ For buildings with basements, hydrostatic pressure from groundwater may still cause damage.
51
❖ Local drainage can be affected, possibly creating water problems for others. ü Interior drainage
must be provided.
❖ Require periodic maintenance.
❖ No reduction in flood insurance premiums.
❖ Do not eliminate the need to evacuate during floods.
3.5.1.3 Dredging
It is the removal of sediments and debris from the bottom of lakes, rivers, harbors, and other water bodies.
Dredging is often focused on maintaining or increasing the depth of navigation channels, anchorages, or
berthing areas to ensure the safe passage of boats and ships. Vessels require a certain amount of water in
order to float and not touch bottom. It is also performed to reduce the exposure of fish, wildlife, and people to
contaminants and to prevent the spread of contaminants to other areas of the water body.
Figure 3-15 Dredging

Advantages of Dredging:
1.) Removing sediments can maintain the appropriate width and depth for enabling the safe, unobstructed
passage of cargo vessels carrying oil, raw materials and other essential commodities.
2.) A critical underwater excavation step in many waterway construction projects such as bridges and underwater
tunnels.
3.) Sediment removal is sometimes used as source of materials for land building projects.
4.) It can help to restore a shoreline or beachfront to its original condition by reversing the effects of soil erosion.
5.) It can clean-up waterway after a toxic material spill or via removal of trash, debris decaying vegetation, sludge
or other materials that can contaminate water and soil.
52
Disadvantages of Dredging:
1.) Disturbing the natural water flow may have unintended and unknown effects. Changing the water flow often
destroys habitats.
2.) Dredging causes harmful to wildlife in a variety of ways such as the mechanical act of dredging destroys
habitats and may kill fish and other animal life.
3.) It can crush and kill marine flora, smooth bedforms so plant life has a harder time gaining a foothold and
reduce biodiversity.
3.5.2 Flood Control System Tradeoffs

3.5.2.1. Flood Control System 1
System 1 is composed of the winning tradeoff in the water context and detention tank. A detention tank will be
constructed before the outfall of the system to the river. A detention tank will be used to control the volume of
stormwater during severe storm weather. This will be able to divert and manipulate water to flow in a gradual
manner. Storm water will then be diverted into the outfall when the river can safely take the volume of water
initially detained in the tank.
3.5.2.2 Flood Control System 2
System 2 is composed of the winning tradeoff in the water context and flood wall. A flood wall will be
constructed outside the outfall of the stormwater drainage system. A flood wall will be used to prevent the river
reaching to the residential area of the location. This will be able to act like a barrier that keeps the Barangay
Bambang flood free due to river overflowing whenever a severe storm weather hits the country.
3.5.2.3 Flood Control System 3

System 3 is composed of the winning tradeoff in the water context and dredging. A dredging will be processed
outside the outfall of the stormwater drainage system. A dredging will be used to increase the volume capacity
of the river. The tendency of the river to overflow and cause flood will be lessen due to increase in volume
capacity will be useful for severe storm weather that is done by the dredging.
53
Figure 3-16 Structural Context Area
3.6 Designer’s Raw Ranking

3.6.1 ECONOMIC (MATERIAL COST)
The designers presented prices for different systems using the site “All Cost Data Info” to come up with the
project’s initial material cost which are as follows:
❖ A Precast Concrete Pipe with a minimum of 46 cm diameter pipe will cost a converted amount of 572 php
per unit length..
❖ A Flood Wall with a minimum height of 3m will cost a converted amount of 5500php per unit length.
❖ A Dredging process with a minimum height of 3m will cost a converted amount of 430php per unit volume.
By means of this initial result, the designers may find out what trade-off governs in terms of economic cost
whichever has the lower price for material cost.
Table 3-6 Initial Economical Cost Estimate
Description System 3
System 1 System 2
Economical Cost (Php) 1,213,785 11,638,779.35 1,500,000
SUBORDINATE RANK 10 0.18 1.43
The computation for the ranking of the three trade-offs is illustrated below using the formula stated above.
• Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint
➢ GOVERNING RANK
System 1: 10
▪ System 1 vs System 2
ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
11638779.35 −1213785
11638779.35
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 8.96
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − %𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 – 8.96
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 1.04
54
Figure 3-17 Initial Ranking Scale for Economic Constraint (1)
1500000 −1213785
1500000
Figure 3-18 Initial Ranking Scale for Economic Constraint (2)
3.6.2 CONSTRUCTABILITY (LABOR AND EQUIPMENT COST)

The designers made an initial estimate of the duration of the project. The designers considered the
number of man-hour and time rent to discern which trade-off governs in terms of labor cost and equipment
cost.
According to the book “Construction Management” (2009) of (E. Elbeltagi) the labor costs and equipment
costs is approximately 30% of the estimated value for material cost. The book discussed the basic
principle for estimating labor costs, equipment costs, operating costs and preparing detailed cost estimate.
Table 3-7 Initial Labor and Equipment Cost Estimate
Description System 1 System 2 System 3
Labor and Equipment
Cost(Php) 364135.5 3491633.805 450000
• Computation of ranking for Constructability

Constraint
55
➢ GOVERNING RANK
System 1 :10
3491633.805 −364135.5
3491633.805
Figure 0-19 Initial Ranking Scale for Constructability Constraint (1)
450000 −364135.5
450000
Figure 0-20 Initial Ranking Scale for Constructability Constraint (2)

3.6.3 SUSTAINABILITY (MAINTENANCE COST)
As mentioned in the first context, the estimated value of maintenance cost which ranges from 3% to 5%
of the total construction cost will again be used for the materials of detention tank.
❖ A Detention Tank will have a maintenance cost of 3% because of its life expectancy which last for 70-100
years.
❖ A Flood Wall will have a maintenance cost of 4% because of its life expectancy which last for 50 years.
56
❖ A Dredging will have a maintenance cost of 5% because of its life expectancy which last for 5-10 years
Table 3-8 Initial Sustainability Factor Estimate
Description System 1 System 2 System 3
Maintenance Cost per
year 36413.55 465551.174 75000
(Php)
• Computation of ranking for Constructability
Constraint
➢ GOVERNING RANK
System 1: 10
465551.174 −36413.55
465551.174
Figure 0-21 Initial Ranking Scale for Sustainability Constraint (1)

75000−36,413.55
75000
57
Figure 0-22 Initial Ranking Scale for Sustainability Constraint (2)

3.6.4 Initial Estimated Values for Serviceability
Description Detention Tank Flood Wall Dredging
Economical 336,854.00 1,498,149.6 588,230
Cost (Php)
SUBORDINATE 2.25 10 3.93
RANK

Governing Rank : 10 Flood Wall
❖ Detention Tank Vs Flood Wall
1498149.6−336854
1498149.6
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟕. 𝟕𝟓
Figure 3-22 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of Detention Tank and Flood Wall
58
❖ Flood Wall Vs Dredging
1,498149.6−588230
1498149.6
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟔. 𝟎𝟕
3.6.5 Initial Estimated Values for Risk Assessment
Table 3-9 Initial Estimated Values for Risk Assessment
Description Detention Tank Flood Wall Dredging
Economical 1,263,202.5 2,359,656 831,930
Cost (Php)
RANK
3.6.5.1 Computation of Ranking for Risk Assessment

Governing Rank : 10 Dredging
❖ Detention Tank Vs Dredging
1,263,202.5−831,930
1,263,202.5
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟑. 𝟒𝟏
59
Figure 3-24 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of Detention Tank and Dredging
❖ Flood Wall Vs Dredging

2,359,656−831,930
2,359,656
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 𝟔. 𝟒𝟕
Figure 3-25 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference of Flood Wall and Dredging
3.6.2. Initial Estimated Values

Table 3-10 Summary of Initial Estimated Values
Ability to satisfy the criterion

(on a scale 0 to 10)
Criterion's Importance
Design Criteria
(on scale of 0 to 10) Detention Tank Flood Wall
Dredging
Economical 10 10 0.18 1.43

Sustainability 9 10 0.14 0.86
60
Serviceability 10 2.25 10 3.93
Risk Assessment 8 2.12 3.14 10
Over-all Rank 319.46 129.8 154.21
3.7 Trade-offs Assessment:

The criterion’s importance is subjective, and the values that computed will depend to the client’s and
designer’s decision. The storm-water drainage design is subject for deliberation, it is important to consider
the economic constraint which was given an importance of (10) since the designers and the client have
higher consideration for the expenses of the project because of financial limitation. For the constructability
constraint, the ranking was (9) to give account to the construction duration of the project. In sustainability
constraint, it was given an importance factor of (9) since the structure needs to maintain for its long-term
duration.
3.7.1 Economic Assessment

In this case, economic constraint was given an importance of ten (10) since the client wanted the cost to
be observed. The designers estimated the three trade-offs in terms of their prices per unit length/volume,
and the research shows that the Detention Tank is the most economical for storm water system because
it has the lowest price of 213,785 php.
3.7.2 Constructability Assessment

Constructability includes the equipment and labour costs of the project. Since two included factors are relatively
proportion to the time of each trade-offs being finished, the designers assessed the constraints according to the
estimated labour and equipment cost that will be used for each. From the book “Construction Management
(2009)” that says, the estimated labour and equipment cost is 30 % of the material cost. From this, it resulted
Detention Tank being the favoured trade-offs for this assessment. While, Dredging comes second, and Flood
Wall comes up last considering the labour and equipment costs these trade-offs need to finish its methods.
3.7.3 Sustainability Assessment

For sustainability assessment, the designers considered the amount of annual maintenance cost of each
trade-offs required. Using the estimated value of maintenance cost the designer’s assessment resulted to;
Detention Tank having the least required maintenance cost while Dredging was being the second and
Floodwall being the last.
3.7.4 Serviceability Assessment

The Serviceability Constraint has given an importance factor of 10 in terms of efficiency of the structure
to repel storm water after it has been acquired by the storm water drainage.. The designers estimated the
serviceability in terms of estimating the maximum discharge capacity of each trade-off. The results show
that the Flood Wall which has the largest discharge capacity that can sustain stormwater drainage
61
3.7.5 Risk Assessment
The Risk Assessment Constraint has given an importance factor of 8 in terms of resistant to pressure and
surges of water. Due to this said pressure the material can decay and later become weak and have a
tendency to broke down. The designers estimated the strength of the material in terms of material
properties of each trade-off. The results show that the Flood Wall which has the largest pressure
resistance among the three tradeoffs.
3.8 Design Standards
3.8.1 National Plumbing Code of the Philippines

The basic goal of the National Plumbing Code of the Philippines is to ensure the qualified observance of
the latest provision of the plumbing and environmental laws.
3.8.2 National Building Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1096)
The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096). The National Building Code of the Philippines,
also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was formulated and adopted as a uniform building code to
embody up-to-date and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use, occupancy
and maintenance. The Code provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards
and requirements to regulate and control location, site, design, and quality of materials, construction,
use, occupancy, and maintenance This code also provides guidelines for the design of wastewater
disposal system and storm drainage system. It consist wastewater and drainage provisions.
3.8.3 Indian Standard 3370

The Indian Standard 3370. The Indian Standard provide some of the equations needed to do find the
allowable stresses and design requirements for concrete storage structure.
3.8.4 DPWH -Technical Standards and Guidelines for Planning and Design -Flood Control Volume I
This volume of the Technical Guidelines was formulated in order to establish uniformity in planning and
designing of flood control projects. It aims to provide the engineers of DPWH involved in flood control planning
and design, the essential tools to formulate effective and efficient countermeasures against floods.
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE

4.1 Water Context
4.1.1 Methodology
The methodology that will be used in the design of the drainage systems will be in accordance with the
aforementioned design standards in Chapter 3. In this project, the designers will be considering three (3) trade-
offs, which are as follows; 1.) Reinforced Concrete Pipe, 2.) High-Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE), and 3.)
Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP)
62
4.1.2 Design Process
The following figure will be used by the designers in the design process of the systems. Each trade-off will be
evaluated to come up with the most effective design.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM
PLANNING OF THE DESIGN PROJECT
PROJECT CONSTRAINTSTRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDRDS
USING THE DATA GATHERED AND DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
COMPARISON OF TRADE-OFFS BASED STANDARDS
EVALUATION OF TRADE-OFFS
MATERIALS TRADE-OFF 1, 2 and 3
DESIGN
FINAL DESIGN 0AND DETAILS OF THE GOVERNING TRADE-OFF
Figure 4-1 General Design Process

Figure 4-1 shows the flow of the general process in the design of the proposed system. Identification of the
problem comes up first for the designers need to know the rationale for designing the new system. Considering
all the design aspects (i.e. topographic map, road elevations, rainfall data, etc.) and the constraints that will limit
the design of the system together with the proposed trade-offs, the designers can now proceed to the detailed
design of the system. The governing trade-off which is most effective one will be chosen as the final design
63
4.1.3. Design Process for Drainage System
START
GATHERED DATAOF THE PROJECT LOCATION
COMPUTATION OF THE DESIGN DISCHARGE
PIPE DESIGN LAYOUT
ESTIMATION OF PROJECT COST
CONSTRUCTION AND PROJCT DURATION
END
Figure 4-2 Design Process for Storm Water Drainage

Figure 4-2 shows the step by step process that will be conducted by the designers to determine the most effective
design for the system. The data gathered includes plans and maps (i.e. topographic map, elevation map, road
network), average rainfall intensity in the location, and other parameters needed for the computation of the
discharge. The water and wastewater discharge will be computed by the designers using the “Manning’s
Equation”.
64
4.1.4 Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Figure 4-3 Flow chat for Reinforced Concrete Pipe
65
Table 4-1 Design Result of Storm Water Drainage using Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Design of Stormwater Drainage
A. Luna Street
Pipe
Highest Lowest Diameter Actual Design Actual/Design Remarks
Conduit
Elevation Elevation Discharge Discharge
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
A.LUNA P-1 13.4 9.46 675 239.62 325.41 73.6 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-2 13.36 13.4 675 220.94 266.89 82.8 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-3 13.36 13.27 600 199.69 235.46 84.8 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-4 13.3 13.27 600 180.43 226.96 79.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-5 13.45 13.3 600 159.01 235.75 67.4 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-6 13.5 13.12 500 138.78 146.32 94.9 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-7 13.5 13.5 500 120.36 143.27 84 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-8 13.5 13.5 450 99.14 109.92 90.2 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-9 13.51 13.5 400 77.58 78.89 98.3 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-10 13.55 13.51 350 54.93 56.55 97.1 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-11 13.55 13.54 300 35.33 37.94 93.1 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-12 13.55 13.54 225 16.78 19.58 85.7 ADEQUATE

M. Santos Street
Pipe
Highest Lowest Diamter Actual Design Actual/Design Remarks
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
M.SANTOS P-1 12.68 12.64 300 13.82 36.97 37.4 ADEQUATE
M.SANTOS P-5 12.79 12.8 300 28 36.87 75.9 ADEQUATE
66
C.M. Cruz Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
CM CRUZ P-1 9.49 9.48 1,000.00 1,069.42 1,645.72 65 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-2 9.52 9.49 1,250.00 1,063.03 1,697.52 62.6 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-3 9.55 9.52 1,250.00 1,055.02 1,702.03 62 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-4 9.58 9.55 900 531.96 699.21 76.1 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-5 9.61 9.58 900 518.91 701.33 74 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-6 12 9.61 900 502.43 703.41 71.4 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-7 12.01 12 900 485.06 702.69 69 ADEQUATE

V. Pozon Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
V. POZON P-1 9.55 9.52 1,000.00 535.37 891.32 60.1 ADEQUATE
V. POZON P-6 9.51 9.49 1,000.00 471.64 889.43 53 ADEQUATE
V. POZON P-9 12.64 9.53 350 432.77 526.06 82.3 ADEQUATE
67
F. Manalo Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
F.MANALO P-1 12.66 12.64 775 416.46 469.28 88.7 ADEQUATE
F.MANALO P-7 12.68 12.65 775 312.61 488.56 64 ADEQUATE
F.MANALO P-12 12.79 12.75 300 14.92 39.25 38 ADEQUATE

Villarosa Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
VILLAROSA P-1 12.15 12.01 675 263.79 321.14 82.1 ADEQUATE
VILLAROSA P-12 12.38 12.36 300 15.26 36.37 42 ADEQUATE
68
J. Pueblo Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
J.PUEBLO P-1 12.66 12.64 300 29.15 36.46 80 ADEQUATE
J.PUEBLO P-2 12.66 12.63 400 53.59 80.51 66.6 ADEQUATE

Outfall
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
OUTFALL P-1 9.52 9 800 1,465.28 1,565.30 93.6 ADEQUATE
69
4.1.5 HDPE
Figure 4-4 Flow chat for HDPE
70
Table 4-2 Design Result of Stormwater Drainage using HDPE

A. Luna Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
A.LUNA P-1 13.4 9.46 600 242.69 309.01 78.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-2 13.36 13.4 600 223.3 253.43 88.1 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-3 13.36 13.27 550 201.53 242.71 83 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-4 13.3 13.27 550 181.78 233.95 77.7 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-5 13.45 13.3 500 160.28 188.47 85 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-6 13.5 13.12 500 139.86 190.21 73.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-7 13.5 13.5 450 120.88 140.63 86 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-8 13.5 13.5 450 99.56 142.89 69.7 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-9 13.51 13.5 400 77.9 102.56 76 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-10 13.55 13.51 350 55.14 73.51 75 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-11 13.55 13.54 300 35.46 49.32 71.9 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-12 13.55 13.54 200 16.78 18.59 90.3 ADEQUATE
71
C.M. Cruz Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
CM CRUZ P-1 9.49 9.48 800.00 1,117.90 1,179.97 94.7 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-7 12.01 12 800 495.19 667.27 74.2 ADEQUATE
M. Santos Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)

Villarosa Street
72
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
VILLAROSA P-3 12.15 12.1 550 230.65 242 95.3 ADEQUATE
VILLAROSA P-9 12.38 12.34 400 94.32 103 91.6 ADEQUATE

V. Pozon Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
V. POZON P-1 9.55 9.52 800.00 558.01 639.07 87.3 ADEQUATE
V. POZON P-2 9.5 9.52 800.00 544.65 664.61 82 ADEQUATE
V. POZON P-9 12.64 9.53 300 447.37 453.37 98.7 ADEQUATE

G. Valderama Street
73
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
G.VALDERAMA P-1 9.46 9.45 600 263.06 282.82 93 ADEQUATE
G.VALDERAMA P-2 9.48 9.45 600 278.58 285.75 97.5 ADEQUATE

J. Pueblo Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
J.PUEBLO P-4 12.68 12.65 400 89.09 118 75.5 ADEQUATE

Outfall
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
74
4.1.6 Ductile Iron Pipe
Figure 4-5 Flow chat for DIP
75
Table 4-3 Design Result of Stormwater Drainage Using Ductile Iron Pipe

A. Luna Street
Highest Lowest Pipe Diamter Actual Design Actual/Design Remarks
Conduit
Elevation (m) Elevation (m) (mm) Discharge (L/s) Discharge (L/s) (%)
A.LUNA P-1 13.4 9.46 600 242.69 280.92 86.4 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-2 13.36 13.4 600 223.3 230.39 96.9 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-3 13.36 13.27 550 201.53 220.65 91.3 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-4 13.3 13.27 550 181.78 212.68 85.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-5 13.45 13.3 500 160.28 171.34 93.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-6 13.5 13.12 500 139.86 172.92 80.9 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-7 13.5 13.5 450 120.88 127.85 94.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-8 13.5 13.5 450 99.56 129.9 76.6 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-9 13.51 13.5 400 77.9 93.23 83.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-10 13.55 13.51 350 55.14 66.83 82.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-11 13.55 13.54 300 35.46 44.84 79.1 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-12 13.55 13.54 200 16.78 16.9 99.3 ADEQUATE

C.M. Cruz Street
Pipe
Conduit Highest Lowest Diamter Actual Design Actual/Design Remarks
CM CRUZ P-1 9.49 9.48 900.00 1,099.02 1,468.54 74.8 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-7 12.01 12 800 486.77 606.61 80.2 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-18 13 12.95 300 28.14 38.01 74 ADEQUATE
76
F. Manalo Street
Pipe
Conduit
Elevation Elevation
(m) (m) (mm) Discharge (L/s) Discharge (L/s) (%)

M. Santos Street
Pipe
Conduit Highest Lowest Diamter Actual Design Actual/Design Remarks
77
Villarosa Street
Pipe
Conduit
Elevation Elevation
(m) (m) (mm) Discharge (L/s) Discharge (L/s) (%)
VILLAROSA P-5 12.33 12.27 550 184.5 217.11 85 ADEQUATE

V. Pozon Street
Conduit
V. POZON P-9 12.64 9.53 350 441.7 621.71 71 ADEQUATE
78
G. Valderama Street
Pipe
Conduit
(m) (m) (mm) (L/s) (L/s) (%)
G.VALDERAMA P-7 9.52 9.49 400 68.7 96.73 71 ADEQUATE

J. Pueblo Street
Conduit

Outfall
Conduit
79
4.1.7 Designer’s Final Raw Ranking
Table 4-4 Summary of Final Estimated Values for Water Context
DESIGN OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE
CONSTRAINTS
HDPE Reinforced Concrete Ductile Iron Pipe
Economic
Php 16,895,552.92 Php 14,360,971.59 Php 32,213,345.64
Constructability
Php 2,312,495.34 Php 1,879,010.08 Php 4,452,583.89
Sustainability
Php 578,123.84 Php 469,752.52 Php 1,113,145.97
Serviceability (73.535%) 82.43% 82.157%
Php 12,424,144.84 Php 11,837,748.88 Php 26,465,518.38
80
4.1.7.1 Computation of Final Rankings
Economic Constraint (Cost)
Governing Rank : RCCP = 10.0

HDPE
16,895,552.92−14,360,971.59
% difference = 𝑥10
16,895,552.92
% difference = 1.50
Subordinate Rank = 10 – 1.50
Subordinate Rank = 8.50
Figure 4-6 Cost Difference

DIP
32213345.64−14,360,971.59
32213345.64
% difference = 5.54

Constructibility Constraint (Labor Cost)
Governing Rank : RCCP = 10.0
HDPE
1,373,534.37−955,550.75
1,373,534.37
% difference = 1.87
81
Figure 4-8 Labor Cost Difference
DIP
4,452,583.89−1879010.08
1765163.742
% difference = 5.78

Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)
Governing Rank : RCCP= 10.0
HDPE
578123.84−469752.52
578123.84
% difference = 1.87
Figure 4-10 Maintenance Cost Difference

DIP
1,113,145.97−469752.52
1,113,145.97
% difference = 5.78
82
Servicability Constraint (Efficiency Discharge)

Governing Rank : RCCP = 10
HDPE
82.43−73.535
82.43
% difference = 1.08
Figure 4-12 Service Discharge Efficiency Difference

DIP
82.43−82.157
82.43
% difference = 0.03
Figure 4-13 Service Discharge Efficiency Difference
83
Table 4-5 Water Context Final Designer’s Ranking
IMPORTANCE
DESIGN OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM
(Scale 0-10)
Ductile Iron Pipe

DESIGN CRITERIA HDPE Reinforced
Concrete
Economic 10 8.5 10 4.45
Constructability 9 8.13 10 4.22
Serviceability 10 8.92 10 9.97
OVER-ALL
RANK
320.54 380 221.96
84
4.1.8 Trade-off Assessment
The comprehensive discussion presented below cover’s the designer’s justification in the rating criteria
above:
4.1.8.1 Economic Assessment
In this criterion, RCCP governed. RCCP got the highest point of five (5) since the estimated cost for the
design is PHP 14,360,971.59. The design is the most economical in the sense that, considering the initial
plastic material cost, it is much cheaper than the two other trade-offs.
4.1.8.2 Sustainability Assessment
In terms of sustainability, since the RCCP has the cheapest maintenance cost of PHP 469,752.52, it is
considered as the governing trade-off. Having the cheapest maintenance means longest service life which
results to being the most economical amongst the other trade-offs. Client can also consider that RC Pipe is
made of Reinforced Concrete actually strengthens as the time goes by.
4.1.8.3 Constructability Assessment
In this criterion, the assessment is based on the labor cost of construction and that cover the amount of work
needed. RCCP governed amongst the two other trade-offs having only Php 1,879,010.08 of labor cost based
on estimated total cost. It has the shortest period of installation also compare to two trade offs.
4.1.8.4 Serviceability Assessment
In terms of serviceability, the trade-off with the highest discharge efficiency will be considered as the
governing trade-off. With the amount of discharge of 82.43%, RCCP governed in this criterion, it serves as
an advantage that the pipe chosen has a high discharge efficiency that it maximize the designed stormwater
drainage and has the least excess capacity that the actual discharge it receives.
4.1.9 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs, and Standards

The engineering standards provided for the design of drainage and sewerage system were guided and
assisted the designers to design an economical and trusted design. The designers assure that every single
detail that they have included in the design conforms to the codes and standards with legitimate data.
Through the consideration of multiple constraints, the designers have chosen what particular designs among
the tradeoffs that they will use. The trade-off is very significant in the design for it will solve the problem
regarding the concern of expenses.
85
4.1.9.1 Economic Alternatives
Economic Comparison
35000000
30000000
25000000
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
RCCP HDPE DIP
Figure 4-14 Economic Comparison
86
4.1.9.2 Sustainability Alternatives
Sustainability Comparison
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
RCCP HDPE DIP
Figure 4-15 Sustainability Comparison
87
4.1.9.3 Constructability Alternatives
Constructability Comparison
5000000
4500000
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
RCCP HDPE DIP
Figure 4-16 Constructability Comparison
88
4.1.9.4 Serviceability Alternatives
Serviceability Comparison
84.0%
82.0%
80.0%
78.0%
76.0%
74.0%
72.0%
70.0%
68.0%
RCCP HDPE DIP
Figure 4-17 Serviceability Comparison
4.1.10 Sensitivity Analysis for Constraints

One of the most important things to do after the validation is the sensitivity analysis of each trade-offs
wherein the designer will optimize the constraints of the design project having an additional 5% to 20%
to a certain factor to observe the variation between two constraints, taking the Economical Constraint
as its basis. The results of the alteration will be an additional choice for the client. The table below will
indicate the effects of each case.
89
4.1.10.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Sustainability Constraint
Table 4-6 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Economic vs. Sustainability Constraint
RC PIPE HDPE PIPE TRADE-OFF 3
PERCENT MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE

COST MAINTENANCE COST
INCREASE OVERALL COST OVERALL COST OVERALL COST
COST
0 16,895,552.92 578,123.84 14,360,971.59 469,752.52 32,213,345.64 1,113,145.97
5 17,740,330.57 578,123.84 15,079,020.17 469,752.52 33,824,012.92 1,113,145.97
10 18,585,108.21 578,123.84 15,797,068.75 469,752.52 35,434,680.2 1,113,145.97
15 19,429,885.86 578,123.84 16,515,117.33 469,752.52 37,045,347.49 1,113,145.97
20 20,274,663.5 578,123.84 17,233,165.91 469,752.52 38,656,014.77 1,113,145.97
The table above shows the result of the alterations made to observe the variation between the Economic (Cost) and
Sustainability (Maintenace Cost) Constraints. There are no changes in the maintenance cost although the cost has
been optimized having an additional 5% to 20% to its total original cost because the cost of the project doesn’t affect
the maintenance to be used of the structure. Based on researches, the service life of the structure mainly depends
on the quality of the construction and the environment in which the structure is located.
90
Figure 4-18 Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint (RC Pipe)
Figure 4-19 Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint (HDPE Pipe)
91
Figure 4-20 Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint (DIP Pipe)
Figure 4-21 Summary of Variation between Economic and Sustainability Constraint
92
4.1.10.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Constructability Constraint
Table 4-7 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Constructability Constraint
CONSTRUCTION OVERALL CONSTRUCTION OVERALL CONSTRUCTION

PERCENT OVERALL COST COST COST COST COST COST
INCREASE
0 16,895,552.92 2,312,495.34 14,360,971.59 1,879,010.08 32,213,345.64 4,452,583.89
5 17,740,330.57 2,428,120.107 15,079,020.17 1,972,960.58 33,824,012.92 4,675,213.085
10 18,585,108.21 2,543,744.87 15,797,068.75 2,066,911.09 35,434,680.2 4,897,842.28
15 19,429,885.86 2,659,259.64 16,515,117.33 2,160,861.59 37,045,347.49 5,120,471.47
20 20,274,663.5 2,774,994.41 17,233,165.91 2,254,812.10 38,656,014.77 5,343,100.67
The table above shows the result of the alterations made to observe the variation between the
Economic (Cost) and Constructability (Labor Cost) Constraints. We, as the designers chose the labor
cost as the factor to be optimized having an additional 5% to 20% to its total cost because based on
the computations, the manpower varies inversely with the number of working days. Also, based on the
observations made on the actual field, a large quantity of manpower induces lesser number of working
days
93
RC Pipe
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0 5 10 15 20
RC Pipe
Figure 4-22 Variation Between Economic and Constructability Constraint (RC Pipe)
HDPE Pipe
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0 5 10 15 20
HDPE Pipe
Figure 4-23 Variation Between Economic and Constructability Constraint (HDPE Pipe)
94
DIP Pipe
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
0 5 10 15 20
DIP Pipe
Figure 4-24 Variation Between Economic and Constructability Constraint (DIP Pipe)
Labor Cost
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
0 5 10 15 20
RCPC Pipe HDPE Pipe DIP Pipe
Figure 4-25 Summary of Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint
95
4.1.10.3 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Serviceability Constraint
Table 4-8 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Serviceability Constraint
OVERALL EFFICIENCY OVERALL EFFICIENCY

PERCENT OVERALL COST EFFICIENCY COST COST
INCREASE
0 16,895,552.92 73.535% 14,360,971.59 82.43% 32,213,345.64 82.157%
5 17,740,330.57 73.535% 15,079,020.17 82.43% 33,824,012.92 82.157%
10 18,585,108.21 73.535% 15,797,068.75 82.43% 35,434,680.2 82.157%
15 19,429,885.86 73.535% 16,515,117.33 82.43% 37,045,347.49 82.157%
20 20,274,663.5 73.535% 17,233,165.91 82.43% 38,656,014.77 82.157%
Serviceability (Discharge Efficiency) Constraints. We, as the designers chose the cost of the pipes used as the factor
to be optimized having an additional 5% to 20% to its total cost. Based on the computations, the results, the efficiency
stays the same even if it increases the cost because, design discharge solely based on the designed diameter and
it did not affect the design because discharge varies on rainfall that the drainage receives.
96
RC Pipe
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0 5 10 15 20
RC Pipe
Figure 4-26 Variation Between Economic and Serviceability Constraint (RC Pipe)
HDPE Pipe
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0 5 10 15 20
HDPE Pipe
Figure 4-27 Variation Between Economic and Serviceability Constraint (HDPE Pipe)
97
DIP Pipe
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0 5 10 15 20
DIP Pipe
Figure 4-28 Variation Between Economic and Serviceability Constraint (DIP Pipe)
Efficiency
0.84
0.82
0.8
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.7
0.68
0 5 10 15 20
RCPC Pipe HDPE Pipe DIP Pipe
Figure 4-29 Summary of Variation between Economic and Serviceability Constrain
4.1.11. Summary of Comparison of Trade-Offs
Table4-9 Summary of Initial Estimated Values

98
DESIGN OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE
Reinforced HDPE
Ductile Iron Pipe
Concrete
Discharge Efficiency 73.535% 82.43% 82.157%
Labor Cost Php 2,312,495.34 Php 1,879,010.08 Php 4,452,583.89
Maintenance Cost Php 578,123.84 Php 469,752.52 Php 1,113,145.97
Unit Cost/meter Php 4,116.00 Php 2,069.29 Php 11243.37
Total Project Cost Php 16,895,552.92 Php 14,360,971.59 Php 32,213,345.64
The table shows the summary of the comparison of values among the three trade-offs: Reinforced Concrete Pipe, HDPE
Pipe, and Ductile Iron Pipe. The comparison includes the values calculated for the different constraints: Maintenance Cost,
Efficiency of the material used in the designed system, Labor Cost, and the total design budget for each trade off.
4.2 Structural Context
4.2.1 Design Methodology

The methodology that will be used in the design of the complimentary structure to the previous context that will be
in accordance with the aforementioned design standards in Chapter 3. In this project, the designers considered to
have first a comparison between three process for diverting, controling, and improve capacity in handling storm
water to determine whichever is the desirable type of process will be used and will proceed to have the design of
the structure based on the results from the previous design of stormwater drainage and the governing material for
this particualr design, thus, considering three (3) trade-offs, in which the designers shall be using different systems
as trade-offs.
The design of the process used that will be implemented in the systems will be chosen between the structure trade-
offs; 1.) Detention Tank , 2.) Flood Wall, and 3.) Dredging.
4.2.2 Design Process

The following figure will be used by the designers in the design process of the systems. Each trade-off will be
evaluated to come up with the most effective design.
99
Figure 4-30 General Design Process
Figure 4-4 shows the flow of the general process in the design of the proposed detention pipes. Identification of the
problem comes up first for the designers need to know the rationale for designing the detention pipe. Considering all
the design aspects (i.e. discharge required, area of catchment, rainfall data, etc.) and the constraints that will limit
the design of the system together with the proposed trade-offs, the designers can now proceed to the detailed design
of the system. The governing trade-off which is most effective one will be chosen as the final design.
100
4.2.3. Design Process for Underground Detention Tank
Figure 4-31 Design Process for Detention Pipes

4.2.4 Design Process for Flood Wall
The design of floodwalls consists of the proper selection and sizing of the actual floodwall and the specification of
appurtenances such as drainage systems, stair details, wall facings, patios, existing structure connections (sealants),
existing structure support (posts and columns), and closure details.
Start
Determine:
1. Wall height
Prepare plans and
2. Footing depth
Specifications
101
Assume Dimensions:
102
Figure 4-32 Design Process for Flood Wall
4.2.5 Design Process for Dredging
Figure 4-33 Design Process for Dredging
4.2.4 Designers Raw Ranking

Table 4-10 Summary of Final Estimated Values for Structural Context
DECISION CRITERIA DETENTION TANK FLOOD WALL DREDGING
TRADE OFF 1 TRADE OFF 2 TRADE OFF 3
ECONOMIC (Cost) ₱ 1,341,230.00 ₱ 15,077,400.18 ₱ 1,437,815.39
103
CONSTRUCTABILITY ₱ 164,562.44 ₱ 476,836.00 ₱ 202,509.21
(Duration)
SERVICEABILITY ₱ 989,774.85 ₱ 12,622,270 ₱ 1,012,546.05
(Efficiency)
SUSTAINABILITY ₱ 30,000 ₱ 20,000 ₱ 50,627.39
(Maintenance)
4.2.4.1 Computation of Final Rankings

❖ Economic Constraint (Cost)
Governing Rank: Detention Tank= 10.0
FLOOD WALL TRADE-OFF 2
Php. 1,495,248.90−Php.1,341,230.00
Php 1,495,248.90.
% difference = 9.11
DREDGING TRADE-OFF 3
Php. 1,484,398.22 −Php.1,341,230.00
Php 1,484,398.22
% difference =0.67

Constructability Constraint (Cost)
Governing Rank: DETENTION TANK = 10.0
FLOOD WALL TANK TRADE-OFF 2
Php.476836.00−Php.164562.44
Php.476836.00
% difference = 6.55
104
Php.202509.21−Php.164,562.44
Php.245,429.99
% difference = 1.87
105
❖ Serviceability Constraint (Cost)
Governing Rank: DETENTION TANK = 10.0
FLOOD WALL TRADE-OFF 2
Php. 12622270.00−Php.989,774.85
% difference = 𝑥10%
Php. 12622270.00
% difference = 9.22
Figure 4-36 Serviceability Cost Difference
Php. 1012546.05 −Php.989,774.85
% difference = 𝑥10%
Php. 1012546.05
% difference = 0.22
Figure 4-37 Serviceability Cost Difference
106
❖ Sustainability Constraint (Cost)
Governing Rank: FLOOD WALL = 10.0
DETENTION TANK TRADE-OFF 1
Php 30000−Php. 20000
% difference = 𝑥 10%
Php.30000
% difference = 3.33

Php.50627.39−Php.20000
% difference = 𝑥 10%
Php 50627.39
% difference = 6.05
107
Table 4-5 Structural Context Final Designer’s Ranking
Importance Design Of Stormwater Detention Tank

Design Criteria
(Scale 0-10) Trade-off 1 Trade-off 2 Trade-off
Economic 10 10 0.89 9.33

Serviceability 9 10 0.78 9.78
OVER_ALL RANK 346.7 146.97 294.08
4.2.5 Trade-offs Assessment:

The criterion’s importance is subjective, and the values that computed will depend to the client’s and
designer’s decision. The storm-water drainage design is subject for deliberation, it is important to consider
the economic constraint which was given an importance of (10) since the designers and the client have
higher consideration for the expenses of the project because of financial limitation. For the constructability
constraint, the ranking was (9) to give account to the construction duration of the project. In sustainability
constraint, it was given an importance factor of (9) since the structure needs to maintain for its long-term
duration.
4.2.5.1 Economic Assessment

In this case, economic constraint was given an importance of ten (10) since the client wanted the cost to be
observed. The designers estimated the three trade-offs in terms of their prices per unit length/volume, and
the research shows that the Detention Tank is the most economical for storm water system because it has
the lowest price of 213,785 php.
4.2.5.2 Constructability Assessment

Constructability includes the equipment and labour costs of the project. Since two included factors are relatively
proportion to the time of each trade-offs being finished, the designers assessed the constraints according to the
estimated labour and equipment cost that will be used for each. From the book “Construction Management (2009)”
that says, the estimated labour and equipment cost is 30 % of the material cost. From this, it resulted Detention
Tank being the favoured trade-offs for this assessment. While, Dredging comes second, and Flood Wall comes up
last considering the labour and equipment costs these trade-offs need to finish its methods.
4.2.5.3 Sustainability Assessment

For sustainability assessment, the designers considered the amount of annual maintenance cost of each trade-
offs required. Using the estimated value of maintenance cost the designer’s assessment resulted to; Detention
Tank having the least required maintenance cost while Dredging was being the second and Floodwall being the
last.
108
4.2.5.4 Serviceability Assessment
The Serviceability Constraint has given an importance factor of 10 in terms of efficiency of the structure to
repel storm water after it has been acquired by the storm water drainage.. The designers estimated the
serviceability in terms of estimating the maximum discharge capacity of each trade-off. The results show that
the Flood Wall which has the largest discharge capacity that can sustain stormwater drainage
4.2.6 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs, and Standards

The engineering standards provided for the design of drainage and sewerage system were guided and assisted the
designers to design an economical and trusted design. The designers assure that every single detail that they have
included in the design conforms to the codes and standards with legitimate data.
Through the consideration of multiple constraints, the designers have chosen what particular designs among the
tradeoffs that they will use. The trade-off is very significant in the design for it will solve the problem regarding the
concern of expenses.
4.2.6.1 Economic Alternatives
Economic Comparison Figure

1,550,000.00 4-40
1,500,000.00
1,450,000.00
1,400,000.00
1,350,000.00
1,300,000.00
1,250,000.00
Trade-off 1 Trade-off 2 Trade-off 3
Economic Comparison
109
4.2.6.2 Constructability Alternative
4.2.6.3 Serviceability Alternatives
Serviceability Comparison
104000000.0%
103000000.0%
102000000.0%
101000000.0%
100000000.0%
99000000.0%
98000000.0%
97000000.0%
96000000.0%
Figure 4-42 Serviceability Comparison

4.2.6.4 Sustainability Alternatives
Sustainability Comparison
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Figure 4-43 Sustainability Comparison
110
4.2.7 Sensitivity Analysis for Constraints
One of the most important things to do after the validation is the sensitivity analysis of each trade-offs wherein the
designer will optimize the constraints of the design project having an additional 5% to 20% to a certain factor to observe
the variation between two constraints, taking the Economical Constraint as its basis. The results of the alteration will be
an additional choice for the client. The table below will indicate the effects of each case.
4.2.7.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Constructability Constraint
Table 4-6 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Economic vs. Constructability Constraint
PERCENT Trade-off 1 Trade-off 2 Trade-off

The
OVERALL CONSTRUCTABILITY OVERALL CONSTRUCTABILITY OVERALL CONSTRUCTABILITY

COST COST COST
0 1,495,248.90 250,874.69 1,484,398.2 245,429.99 1,341,230.0 164,562.44
2 0
5% 1,570,011.35 250,874.69 1,558,618.1 245,429.99 1,408,291.5 164,562.44
3 0
10% 1,644,773.79 250,874.69 1,632,838.0 245,429.99 1,475,353.0 164,562.44
4 0
15% 1,719,536.24 250,874.69 1,707,057.9 245,429.99 1,542,414.5 164,562.44
5 0
20% 1,794,298.68 250,874.69 1,781,277.8 245,429.99 1,609,476.0 164,562.44
6 0
table above shows the result of the alterations made to observe the variation between the Economic (Cost) and
Constructability (Labor Cost) Constraints. We, as the designers chose the labor cost as the factor to be optimized having
an additional 5% to 20% to its total cost because based on the computations, the manpower varies inversely with the
number of working days. Also, based on the observations made on the actual field, a large quantity of manpower induces
lesser number of working days.
111
2,000,000.00
1,800,000.00
1,600,000.00
1,400,000.00
1,200,000.00
1,000,000.00
800,000.00
600,000.00
400,000.00
200,000.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Economic Constructability
Figure 4-
44 Variation
Between Economic and Constructability Constraint
(TRADE-OFF 1)
2,000,000.00
1,800,000.00
1,600,000.00
1,400,000.00
1,200,000.00
1,000,000.00
800,000.00
600,000.00
400,000.00
200,000.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 4-45 Variation Between Economic and Constructability Constraint

(TRADE-OFF 2)
112
1,800,000.00 Figure
4-46 Variation
1,600,000.00
Between
1,400,000.00 Economic and
1,200,000.00 Constructability
1,000,000.00 Constraint
(TRADE-OFF 3)
800,000.00
600,000.00
400,000.00
200,000.00
Labor Cost
300,000.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
250,000.00
200,000.00
150,000.00
100,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Trade-off 1 Trade-off 2 Trade-off
Figure 4-47 Summary of Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint
4.2.7.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Sustainability Constraint

Table 4-7 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Economic vs. Sustainability Constraint
OVERALL MAINTENANCE OVERALL MAINTENAN OVERALL MAINTENAN

COST COST COST CE COST COST CE COST
0 1,495,248.90 10,000.00 1,484,398.22 12,000.00 1,341,230.00 20,000.00
5% 1,570,011.35 10,000.00 1,558,618.13 12,000.00 1,408,291.50 20,000.00
10% 1,644,773.79 10,000.00 1,632,838.04 12,000.00 1,475,353.00 20,000.00
15% 1,719,536.24 10,000.00 1,707,057.95 12,000.00 1,542,414.50 20,000.00
20% 1,794,298.68 10,000.00 1,781,277.86 12,000.00 1,609,476.00 20,000.00
The table above shows the result of the alterations made to observe the variation between the Economic (Cost)
and Sustainability (Maintenace Cost) Constraints. There are no changes in the maintenance cost although the cost has
been optimized having an additional 5% to 20% to its total original cost because the cost of the project doesn’t affect the
113
maintenance to
2,000,000.00 be used of the
1,800,000.00 structure.
Based on
1,600,000.00
researches, the
1,400,000.00 service life of
1,200,000.00 the structure
1,000,000.00 mainly depends
on the quality of
800,000.00
the construction
600,000.00
and the
400,000.00 environment in
200,000.00 which the
structure is
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 located.
Economic Sustainability
Figure 4-48 Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint

(TRADE-OFF 1)
Figure
2,000,000.00
4-49 Variation
1,800,000.00 Between
1,600,000.00 Economic and
1,400,000.00 Sustainability
1,200,000.00
Constraint
(TRADE-OFF
1,000,000.00
1,800,000.00 2)
800,000.00
1,600,000.00
600,000.00
1,400,000.00
400,000.00
1,200,000.00
200,000.00
1,000,000.00
0.00
800,000.00 1 2 3 4 5
600,000.00 Economic Sustainability
400,000.00
200,000.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Economic Sustainability
114
Figure 4-50 Variation Between Economic and Sustainability Constraint
(TRADE-OFF 3)
Labor Cost Figure 4-51

25,000.00 Summary
of
Variation
20,000.00
Between
Economic
15,000.00 and
10,000.00
5,000.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Sustainability Constraint
4.2.7.3 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Serviceability Constraint
Table 4-8 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Economic and Serviceability Constraint
OVERALL CONSTRUCTABILITY OVERALL CONSTRUCTABILI OVERALL CONSTRUCTABILITY

TY
COST COST COST
0 1,495,248.90 1,036,019.85 1,484,398.22 1,032,125.85 1,341,230.00 989,774.85
5% 1,570,011.35 1,036,019.85 1,558,618.13 1,032,125.85 1,408,291.50 989,774.85
10% 1,644,773.79 1,036,019.85 1,632,838.04 1,032,125.85 1,475,353.00 989,774.85
15% 1,719,536.24 1,036,019.85 1,707,057.95 1,032,125.85 1,542,414.50 989,774.85
20% 1,794,298.68 1,036,019.85 1,781,277.86 1,032,125.85 1,609,476.00 989,774.85
Serviceability (Discharge Efficiency) Constraints. We, as the designers chose the cost of the pipes used as the factor to be
optimized having an additional 5% to 20% to its total cost. Based on the computations, the results, the efficiency stays the
same even if it increases the cost because, design discharge solely based on the designed diameter and it did not affect
the design because discharge varies on rainfall that the drainage receives.
115
200000000.00%
180000000.00%
160000000.00% Figure 4-
52
140000000.00%
Variation
120000000.00% Between
100000000.00%
80000000.00%
60000000.00%
40000000.00%
20000000.00%
0.00%
0 5 10 15 20
Economic Serviceability
Economic and Serviceability Constraint

(TRADE-OFF 1)
116
200000000.00%
180000000.00%
160000000.00%
140000000.00%
120000000.00%
100000000.00%
80000000.00%
60000000.00%
40000000.00%
20000000.00%
0.00%
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-53 Variation Between Economic and Serviceability Constraint

(TRADE-OFF 2)
CYLINDRICAL DETENTION TANK
Figure 4-
180000000.00% 54
Variation
160000000.00%
Between
140000000.00%
120000000.00%
100000000.00%
80000000.00%
60000000.00%
40000000.00%
20000000.00%
0.00%
0 5 10 15 20
Economic and Serviceability Constraint

(TRADE-OFF3)
117
Figure Efficiency 4-
55 1,040,000.00
1,030,000.00
1,020,000.00
1,010,000.00
1,000,000.00
990,000.00
980,000.00
970,000.00
960,000.00
0 5 10 15 20
Summary of Variation between Economic and Serviceability Constrain

CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN
The designers have come up to a design of drainage system that is in line with the code and standards by using
multiple constraints and trade-offs. The design of storm water drainage had undergone analysis, multiple
assessments and design processes in accordance with the general objectives. Therefore, the designers were able
to design a drainage system for storm water that satisfies the criteria and carefully assessed the constraints. The
trade-offs that were given by the designers were analysed with supporting details and computations.
With the aid of software such as storm-cad and Microsoft excel, the designers were able to design a storm-water
drainage system in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City to control and prevent flooding during heavy rainfall. The design
analysis for each trade-off is adequate and the final raw ranking and sensitivity analysis were validated to choose
which trade-off fits in the project in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City.
Concluding up the design of drainage system, the designers will suggest the use of Reinforced Concrete to Engr.
Minwena P.Gamilla, Municipal Engineer in the Engineering Department from Pasig Municipal Hall as the material to
be used in the project because it is more economical with an estimated price of Php 14,360,971.59 compared to the
other trade-offs. The designers can now put up a solution regarding the flooding in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City
due to an inadequate of drainage system in the said area.
5.1. Final Design Scheduling of Reinforced Concrete
5.1.1. Final Design Results
118
Figure 5-1 Manhole Cover Detail
Figure 5-2 Manhole Plan (Top View)
119
Figure 5-3 Cross Section of Storm-water Drainage
Figure 5-4 Manhole Plan (Section A-A)
120
Figure 5-4 Section of Road
5.2. Final Design Scheduling of Detention Tank
Figure 5-5 Cylindrical Detention Tank Plan
121
122
Figure 5-6 Cylindrical Detention Tank Top View
123
Figure 5-7 Cylindrical Detention Left Side
124
Figure 5-8 Cylindrical Detention Tank Right Side
125
Figure 5-9 Stormwater Drainage Design Layout
126
Figure 5-10 Storm Water Drainage Flow Network
127
APPEDIX A- Summary of Design Computation for Stormwater Drainage
A. Luna Street
Conduit Pipe Diamter Actual Discharge Design Discharge Actual/Design (%) Remarks
A.LUNA P-1 675 239.62 325.41 73.6 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-2 675 220.94 266.89 82.8 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-3 600 199.69 235.46 84.8 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-4 600 180.43 226.96 79.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-5 600 159.01 235.75 67.4 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-6 500 138.78 146.32 94.9 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-7 500 120.36 143.27 84 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-8 450 99.14 109.92 90.2 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-9 400 77.58 78.89 98.3 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-10 350 54.93 56.55 97.1 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-11 300 35.33 37.94 93.1 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-12 225 16.78 19.58 85.7 ADEQUATE

C.M. Cruz Street
CM CRUZ P-1 1,000.00 1,069.42 1,645.72 65 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-2 1,250.00 1,063.03 1,697.52 62.6 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-3 1,250.00 1,055.02 1,702.03 62 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-4 900 531.96 699.21 76.1 ADEQUATE
CM CRUZ P-5 900 518.91 701.33 74 ADEQUATE
128
F. Manalo Street
F.MANALO P-1 775 416.46 469.28 88.7 ADEQUATE
F.MANALO P-7 775 312.61 488.56 64 ADEQUATE

M. Santos Street
M.SANTOS P-1 300 13.82 36.97 37.4 ADEQUATE
M.SANTOS P-5 300 28 36.87 75.9 ADEQUATE
129
Villarosa Street
VILLAROSA P-1 675 263.79 321.14 82.1 ADEQUATE
VILLAROSA P-12 300 15.26 36.37 42 ADEQUATE

V. Pozon Street
V. POZON P-1 1,000.00 535.37 891.32 60.1 ADEQUATE
V. POZON P-6 1,000.00 471.64 889.43 53 ADEQUATE
V. POZON P-9 350 432.77 526.06 82.3 ADEQUATE
130
G. Valderama Street
G.VALDERAMA P-1 675 259.21 297.83 87 ADEQUATE
G.VALDERAMA P-2 700 273.87 331.56 82.6 ADEQUATE

J. Pueblo Street
J.PUEBLO P-1 300 29.15 36.46 80 ADEQUATE
J.PUEBLO P-2 400 53.59 80.51 66.6 ADEQUATE

Outfall
OUTFALL P-1 800 1,465.28 1,565.30 93.6 ADEQUATE
APPENDIX B-Summary of Design Computation Using HDPE
131
A. Luna Street
A.LUNA P-1 600 242.69 309.01 78.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-2 600 223.3 253.43 88.1 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-3 550 201.53 242.71 83 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-4 550 181.78 233.95 77.7 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-5 500 160.28 188.47 85 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-6 500 139.86 190.21 73.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-7 450 120.88 140.63 86 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-8 450 99.56 142.89 69.7 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-9 400 77.9 102.56 76 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-10 350 55.14 73.51 75 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-11 300 35.46 49.32 71.9 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-12 200 16.78 18.59 90.3 ADEQUATE

C.M. Cruz Street
CM CRUZ P-1 800.00 1,117.90 1,179.97 94.7 ADEQUATE
132
F. Manalo Street
F.MANALO P-9 350 52 77.19 67.4 ADEQUATE

M. Santos Street
133
V. Pozon Street
V. POZON P-1 800.00 558.01 639.07 87.3 ADEQUATE
V. POZON P-2 800.00 544.65 664.61 82 ADEQUATE
V. POZON P-9 300 447.37 453.37 98.7 ADEQUATE

Villarosa Street
VILLAROSA P-3 550 230.65 242 95.3 ADEQUATE
VILLAROSA P-9 400 94.32 103 91.6 ADEQUATE
134
G. Valderama Street

J. Pueblo Street
J.PUEBLO P-4 400 89.09 118 75.5 ADEQUATE

Outfall
APPENDIX C-Summary of Design Computation Using DIP
135
A. Luna Street
A.LUNA P-1 600 242.69 280.92 86.4 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-2 600 223.3 230.39 96.9 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-3 550 201.53 220.65 91.3 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-4 550 181.78 212.68 85.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-5 500 160.28 171.34 93.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-6 500 139.86 172.92 80.9 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-7 450 120.88 127.85 94.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-8 450 99.56 129.9 76.6 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-9 400 77.9 93.23 83.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-10 350 55.14 66.83 82.5 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-11 300 35.46 44.84 79.1 ADEQUATE
A.LUNA P-12 200 16.78 16.9 99.3 ADEQUATE

C.M. Cruz Street
CM CRUZ P-1 900.00 1,099.02 1,468.54 74.8 ADEQUATE
136
F. Manalo Street

M. Santos Street
137
Villarosa Street
VILLAROSA P-5 550 184.5 217.11 85 ADEQUATE

V. Pozon Street
V. POZON P-9 350 441.7 621.71 71 ADEQUATE
138
G. Valderama Street

J. Pueblo Street

Outfall
139
APPENDIX D-Street Elevation
A. Luna Street 237.24m
Station Elevation (m)
STA 0+000 13.40
STA 0+020 13.36
STA 0+040 13.27
STA 0+060 13.30
STA 0+080 13.45
STA 0+100 13.12
STA 0+120 13.50
STA 0+140 13.51
STA 0+160 13.55
STA 0+180 13.54
STA 0+200 13.53
STA 0+220 13.55
STA 0+237.24 13.56
C M Cruz Street 366.82m

STA 0+000 12.95
STA 0+020 12.60
STA 0+040 12.55
STA 0+060 12.40
STA 0+080 12.35
STA 0+100 12.33
STA 0+120 12.30
STA 0+140 12.27
STA 0+160 12.15
STA 0+180 12.10
STA 0+200 12.01
STA 0+220 12
STA 0+240 9.61
STA 0+260 9.58
STA 0+280 9.55
STA 0+300 9.52
STA 0+316.82 9.49
140
STA 0+000 9.52
STA 0+020 9.50
STA 0+040 9.53
STA 0+060 9.52
STA 0+080 9.51
STA 0+100 9.49
STA 0+120 9.48
STA 0+140 9.53
STA 0+160 9.50
STA 0+180 9.53
STA 0+200 9.52
STA 0+220 9.49
STA 0+240 9.48
STA 0+241.36 9.50

STA 0+000 12.64
STA 0+020 12.66
STA 0+040 12.63
STA 0+060 12.65
STA 0+080 12.69
STA 0+100 12.66
STA 0+120 12.68
STA 0+140 12.65
STA 0+160 12.63
STA 0+180 12.67
STA 0+200 12.71
STA 0+220 12.75
STA 0+240 12.79
STA 0+260 12.83
STA 0+278.09 12.87
141
STA 0+000 9.49
STA 0+020 9.48
STA 0+040 9.53
STA 0+060 9.50
STA 0+080 9.53
STA 0+100 9.52
STA 0+120 9.49
STA 0+140 9.48
STA 0+160 9.50
STA 0+180 9.49
STA 0+200 9.48
STA 0+220 9.50
STA 0+238.36 9.48

STA 0+000 12.93
STA 0+020 12.92
STA 0+040 12.90
STA 0+060 12.92
STA 0+080 12.88
STA 0+100 12.87
STA 0+120 12.84
STA 0+140 12.80
STA 0+160 12.79
STA 0+180 12.76
STA 0+200 12.73
STA 0+220 12.68
STA 0+233.81 12.64

STA 0+000 12.38
STA 0+020 12.33
STA 0+040 12.27
STA 0+060 12.15
STA 0+080 12.10
STA 0+081.81 12.01
142
Jose Puedlo Street 158.81m
STA 0+000 12.64
STA 0+020 12.66
STA 0+040 12.63
STA 0+060 12.65
STA 0+080 12.69
STA 0+100 12.66
STA 0+120 12.68
STA 0+140 12.65
STA 0+160 12.63
STA 0+180 12.67
STA 0+200 12.71
STA 0+220 12.75
STA 0+240 12.79
STA 0+260 12.83
STA 0+280 12.87
STA 0+300 12.83
STA 0+320 12.85
STA 0+328.81 12.89
143
APPENDIX E- Computation for Backfill and Excavated Area of RCP
Conduit ID(m) OD(m) Area(sq. m) Length(m) Excavation(cu. m) Backfill(cu.m)
A.LUNA P-1 0.675 0.86 0.580880482 20 22.472 10.85439037
A.LUNA P-2 0.675 0.86 0.580880482 20 22.472 10.85439037
A.LUNA P-3 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
A.LUNA P-4 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
A.LUNA P-5 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
A.LUNA P-6 0.5 0.67 0.352565236 20 15.138 8.086695289
A.LUNA P-7 0.5 0.67 0.352565236 20 15.138 8.086695289
A.LUNA P-8 0.45 0.6 0.282743339 20 12.8 7.145133224
A.LUNA P-9 0.4 0.54 0.229022104 20 10.952 6.371557911
A.LUNA P-10 0.35 0.48 0.180955737 20 9.248 5.628885263
A.LUNA P-11 0.3 0.4 0.125663706 20 7.2 4.686725877
A.LUNA P-12 0.225 0.34 0.090792028 17.24 5.027184 3.461929443
total 174.597184 92.81921501
144
CM CRUZ P-1 1.00 1.23 1.19 20 40.898 17.13342237
CM CRUZ P-2 1.25 1.36 1.45 20 48.672 19.61855114
CM CRUZ P-3 1.25 1.36 1.45 20 48.672 19.61855114
CM CRUZ P-4 0.9 1.12 0.99 20 34.848 15.14393088
CM CRUZ P-5 0.9 1.12 0.99 20 34.848 15.14393088
CM CRUZ P-6 0.9 1.12 0.99 20 34.848 15.14393088
CM CRUZ P-7 0.9 1.12 0.99 20 34.848 15.14393088
CM CRUZ P-8 0.9 1.12 0.99 20 34.848 15.14393088
CM CRUZ P-9 0.9 1.12 0.99 20 34.848 15.14393088
CM CRUZ P-10 0.6 0.75 0.44 20 18.05 9.214270662
CM CRUZ P-11 0.6 0.75 0.44 20 18.05 9.214270662
CM CRUZ P-12 0.6 0.75 0.44 20 18.05 9.214270662
CM CRUZ P-13 0.5 0.67 0.35 20 15.138 8.086695289
CM CRUZ P-14 0.5 0.67 0.35 20 15.138 8.086695289
CM CRUZ P-15 0.5 0.67 0.35 20 15.138 8.086695289
CM CRUZ P-16 0.4 0.54 0.23 20 10.952 6.371557911
CM CRUZ P-17 0.4 0.54 0.23 20 10.952 6.371557911
CM CRUZ P-18 0.3 0.4 0.13 26.82 9.6552 6.284899401
Total 478.4532 218.165023
145
F.MANALO P-1
F.MANALO P-2 ID(m) OD(m) Area(sq. m) Length(m) Excavation(cu. m) Backfill(cu.m)
F.MANALO P-1 0.775 0.9 0.636172512 20 24.2 11.47654975
F.MANALO P-2 0.775 0.9 0.636172512 20 24.2 11.47654975
F.MANALO P-3 0.775 0.9 0.636172512 20 24.2 11.47654975
F.MANALO P-4 0.775 0.9 0.636172512 20 24.2 11.47654975
F.MANALO P-5 0.775 0.9 0.636172512 20 24.2 11.47654975
F.MANALO P-6 0.775 0.9 0.636172512 20 24.2 11.47654975
F.MANALO P-7 0.775 0.9 0.636172512 20 24.2 11.47654975
F.MANALO P-8 0.775 0.9 0.636172512 20 24.2 11.47654975
F.MANALO P-9 0.35 0.48 0.180955737 20 9.248 5.628885263
F.MANALO P-10 0.35 0.48 0.180955737 20 9.248 5.628885263
F.MANALO P-11 0.3 0.4 0.125663706 20 7.2 4.686725877
F.MANALO P-12 0.3 0.4 0.125663706 18.09 6.5124 4.239143556
Total 225.8084 111.996038

M.SANTOS
M.SANTOS P-1 0.3 0.4 0.125663706 20 7.2 4.686725877
M.SANTOS P-2 0.4 0.54 0.229022104 20 10.952 6.371557911
M.SANTOS P-3 0.4 0.54 0.229022104 20 10.952 6.371557911
M.SANTOS P-4 0.35 0.48 0.180955737 20 9.248 5.628885263
M.SANTOS P-5 0.3 0.4 0.125663706 20 7.2 4.686725877
M.SANTOS P-6 0.25 0.34 0.090792028 13.81 4.026996 2.773158098
Total 49.578996 30.51861094
146
VILLAROSA)
VILLAROSA P-1 0.675 0.755 0.447696588 20 18.2405 9.286568238
VILLAROSA P-2 0.675 0.755 0.447696588 20 18.2405 9.286568238
VILLAROSA P-3 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
VILLAROSA P-4 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
VILLAROSA P-5 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
VILLAROSA P-6 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
VILLAROSA P-7 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
VILLAROSA P-8 0.5 0.67 0.352565236 20 15.138 8.086695289
VILLAROSA P-9 0.45 0.6 0.282743339 20 12.8 7.145133224
VILLAROSA P-10 0.4 0.54 0.229022104 20 10.952 6.371557911
VILLAROSA P-11 0.35 0.48 0.180955737 20 9.248 5.628885263
VILLAROSA P-12 0.3 0.4 0.125663706 11.81 4.2516 2.76751163
Total 179.1206 94.6442731

V. POZON
V. POZON P-1 1.00 1.23 1.188228881 20 40.898 17.13342237
V. POZON P-2 1.00 1.23 1.188228881 20 40.898 17.13342237
V. POZON P-3 1.00 1.23 1.188228881 20 40.898 17.13342237
V. POZON P-4 1.00 1.23 1.188228881 20 40.898 17.13342237
V. POZON P-5 1.00 1.23 1.188228881 20 40.898 17.13342237
V. POZON P-6 1.00 1.23 1.188228881 20 40.898 17.13342237
V. POZON P-7 1.00 1.23 1.188228881 20 40.898 17.13342237
V. POZON P-8 1.00 1.23 1.188228881 20 40.898 17.13342237
V. POZON P-9 0.35 0.48 0.180955737 11.36 5.252864 3.197206829
Total 332.436864 140.2645858
147
G.VALDERAMA
G.VALDERAMA P-1 0.675 0.755 0.447696588 20 18.2405 9.286568238
G.VALDERAMA P-2 0.7 0.87 0.59446787 20 22.898 11.0086426
G.VALDERAMA P-3 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
G.VALDERAMA P-4 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
G.VALDERAMA P-5 0.5 0.67 0.352565236 20 15.138 8.086695289
G.VALDERAMA P-6 0.5 0.67 0.352565236 20 15.138 8.086695289
G.VALDERAMA P-7 0.45 0.6 0.282743339 20 12.8 7.145133224
G.VALDERAMA P-8 0.4 0.54 0.229022104 20 10.952 6.371557911
G.VALDERAMA P-9 0.3 0.4 0.125663706 18.86 6.7896 4.419582502
Total 138.0561 72.83341638

J.PUEBLO
J.PUEBLO P-1 0.3 0.4 0.125663706 20 7.2 4.686725877
J.PUEBLO P-2 0.4 0.54 0.229022104 20 10.952 6.371557911
J.PUEBLO P-3 0.4 0.54 0.229022104 20 10.952 6.371557911
J.PUEBLO P-4 0.45 0.6 0.282743339 20 12.8 7.145133224
J.PUEBLO P-5 0.6 0.75 0.441786467 20 18.05 9.214270662
J.PUEBLO P-6 0.675 0.755 0.447696588 20 18.2405 9.286568238
J.PUEBLO P-7 0.675 0.755 0.447696588 20 18.2405 9.286568238
J.PUEBLO P-8 0.675 0.755 0.447696588 18.81 17.15519025 8.734017428
Total 113.5901903 61.09639949
Total 1691.641534 822.3375617
148
APPENDIX F- Computation for Backfill and Excavated Area of HDPE
A.LUNA P-1 0.6 0.657 0.339016332 20 14.68898 7.908653363
A.LUNA P-2 0.6 0.657 0.339016332 20 14.68898 7.908653363
A.LUNA P-3 0.55 0.559 0.245422003 20 11.52162 6.61317993
A.LUNA P-4 0.55 0.559 0.245422003 20 11.52162 6.61317993
A.LUNA P-5 0.5 0.559 0.245422003 20 11.52162 6.61317993
A.LUNA P-6 0.5 0.559 0.245422003 20 11.52162 6.61317993
A.LUNA P-7 0.45 0.457 0.164029621 20 8.63298 5.352387579
A.LUNA P-8 0.45 0.457 0.164029621 20 8.63298 5.352387579
A.LUNA P-9 0.4 0.406 0.129461892 20 7.34472 4.755482167
A.LUNA P-10 0.35 0.356 0.099538222 20 6.18272 4.191955567
A.LUNA P-11 0.3 0.324 0.082447958 20 5.49152 3.842560848
A.LUNA P-12 0.2 0.219 0.037668481 17.24 3.02667164 2.377267022
total 114.7760316 68.14206721
149
CM CRUZ P
CM CRUZ P-1 0.80 0.81 0.519123839 20 20.52338 10.14090323
CM CRUZ P-2 1.00 1.02 0.810731967 20 29.57312 13.35848067
CM CRUZ P-3 1.00 1.02 0.810731967 20 29.57312 13.35848067
CM CRUZ P-4 0.8 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
CM CRUZ P-5 0.8 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
CM CRUZ P-6 0.8 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
CM CRUZ P-7 0.8 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
CM CRUZ P-8 0.8 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
CM CRUZ P-9 0.8 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
CM CRUZ P-10 0.5 0.508 0.202682992 20 10.02528 5.971620167
CM CRUZ P-11 0.5 0.508 0.202682992 20 10.02528 5.971620167
CM CRUZ P-12 0.5 0.508 0.202682992 20 10.02528 5.971620167
CM CRUZ P-13 0.5 0.508 0.202682992 20 10.02528 5.971620167
CM CRUZ P-14 0.4 0.406 0.129461892 20 7.34472 4.755482167
CM CRUZ P-15 0.4 0.406 0.129461892 20 7.34472 4.755482167
CM CRUZ P-16 0.35 0.356 0.099538222 20 6.18272 4.191955567
CM CRUZ P-17 0.35 0.356 0.099538222 20 6.18272 4.191955567
CM CRUZ P-18 0.3 0.305 0.073061664 26.82 6.8397705 4.880256667
Total 276.0773905 144.0955092

F.MANALO
F.MANALO P-1 0.7 0.711 0.397035265 20 16.59842 8.657714701
F.MANALO P-2 0.675 0.686 0.369605234 20 15.69992 8.307815318
F.MANALO P-3 0.675 0.686 0.369605234 20 15.69992 8.307815318
F.MANALO P-4 0.675 0.686 0.369605234 20 15.69992 8.307815318
F.MANALO P-5 0.675 0.686 0.369605234 20 15.69992 8.307815318
F.MANALO P-6 0.675 0.686 0.369605234 20 15.69992 8.307815318
F.MANALO P-7 0.675 0.686 0.369605234 20 15.69992 8.307815318
F.MANALO P-8 0.6 0.61 0.292246657 20 13.122 7.277066868
F.MANALO P-9 0.35 0.356 0.099538222 20 6.18272 4.191955567
F.MANALO P-10 0.3 0.305 0.073061664 20 5.1005 3.639266717
F.MANALO P-11 0.25 0.254 0.050670748 20 4.12232 3.108905042
F.MANALO P-12 0.2 0.203 0.032365473 18.09 2.93797881 2.352487405
Total 142.2634588 79.07428821
150
M.SANTOS
M.SANTOS P-1 0.2 0.203 0.032365473 20 3.24818 2.600870542
M.SANTOS P-2 0.4 0.406 0.129461892 20 7.34472 4.755482167
M.SANTOS P-3 0.35 0.356 0.099538222 20 6.18272 4.191955567
M.SANTOS P-4 0.3 0.305 0.073061664 20 5.1005 3.639266717
M.SANTOS P-5 0.25 0.254 0.050670748 20 4.12232 3.108905042
M.SANTOS P-6 0.2 0.203 0.032365473 13.81 2.24286829 1.795901109
Total 28.24130829 20.09238114

VILLAROSA
VILLAROSA P-1 0.6 0.61 0.292246657 20 13.122 7.277066868
VILLAROSA P-2 0.6 0.61 0.292246657 20 13.122 7.277066868
VILLAROSA P-3 0.55 0.559 0.245422003 20 11.52162 6.61317993
VILLAROSA P-4 0.55 0.559 0.245422003 20 11.52162 6.61317993
VILLAROSA P-5 0.55 0.559 0.245422003 20 11.52162 6.61317993
VILLAROSA P-6 0.5 0.508 0.202682992 20 10.02528 5.971620167
VILLAROSA P-7 0.5 0.508 0.202682992 20 10.02528 5.971620167
VILLAROSA P-8 0.45 0.457 0.164029621 20 8.63298 5.352387579
VILLAROSA P-9 0.4 0.406 0.129461892 20 7.34472 4.755482167
VILLAROSA P-10 0.35 0.356 0.099538222 20 6.18272 4.191955567
VILLAROSA P-11 0.35 0.356 0.099538222 20 6.18272 4.191955567
VILLAROSA P-12 0.2 0.203 0.032365473 11.81 1.91805029 1.535814055
Total 111.1206103 66.3645088
151
V. POZON
V. POZON P-1 0.80 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
V. POZON P-2 0.80 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
V. POZON P-3 0.80 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
V. POZON P-4 0.80 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
V. POZON P-5 0.80 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
V. POZON P-6 0.80 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
V. POZON P-7 0.80 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
V. POZON P-8 0.80 0.81 0.515299735 20 20.402 10.0960053
V. POZON P-9 0.3 0.305 0.073061664 11.36 2.897084 2.067103495
Total 166.113084 82.83514589

G.VALDERAMA
G.VALDERAMA P-1 0.6 0.61 0.292246657 20 13.122 7.277066868
G.VALDERAMA P-2 0.6 0.61 0.292246657 20 13.122 7.277066868
G.VALDERAMA P-3 0.5 0.508 0.202682992 20 10.02528 5.971620167
G.VALDERAMA P-4 0.45 0.457 0.164029621 20 8.63298 5.352387579
G.VALDERAMA P-5 0.45 0.457 0.164029621 20 8.63298 5.352387579
G.VALDERAMA P-6 0.4 0.406 0.129461892 20 7.34472 4.755482167
G.VALDERAMA P-7 0.35 0.356 0.099538222 20 6.18272 4.191955567
G.VALDERAMA P-8 0.3 0.305 0.073061664 20 5.1005 3.639266717
G.VALDERAMA P-9 0.25 0.254 0.050670748 18.86 3.88734776 2.931697454
Total 76.05052776 46.74893097
152
J.PUEBLO
J.PUEBLO P-1 0.3 0.305 0.073061664 20 5.1005 3.639266717
J.PUEBLO P-2 0.35 0.356 0.099538222 20 6.18272 4.191955567
J.PUEBLO P-3 0.35 0.356 0.099538222 20 6.18272 4.191955567
J.PUEBLO P-4 0.4 0.406 0.129461892 20 7.34472 4.755482167
J.PUEBLO P-5 0.55 0.559 0.245422003 20 11.52162 6.61317993
J.PUEBLO P-6 0.55 0.559 0.245422003 20 11.52162 6.61317993
J.PUEBLO P-7 0.55 0.559 0.245422003 20 11.52162 6.61317993
J.PUEBLO P-8 0.6 0.61 0.292246657 18.81 12.341241 6.844081389
Total 71.716761 43.4622812
Total 986.3591723 550.8151126
153
APPENDIX G- Computation for Backfill and Excavated Area of DIP
A.LUNA P-1 0.6 0.635 0.316692174 20 13.9445 7.610656511
A.LUNA P-2 0.6 0.635 0.316692174 20 13.9445 7.610656511
A.LUNA P-3 0.55 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
A.LUNA P-4 0.55 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
A.LUNA P-5 0.5 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
A.LUNA P-6 0.5 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
A.LUNA P-7 0.45 0.48 0.180955737 20 9.248 5.628885263
A.LUNA P-8 0.45 0.48 0.180955737 20 9.248 5.628885263
A.LUNA P-9 0.4 0.429 0.144545463 20 7.91282 5.021910732
A.LUNA P-10 0.35 0.378 0.112220831 20 6.68168 4.437263376
A.LUNA P-11 0.3 0.326 0.083468975 20 5.53352 3.864140496
A.LUNA P-12 0.2 0.222 0.038707563 17.24 3.07016816 2.402849772
total 112.4491082 67.28824554
154
C M Cruz Street 366.82m
CM CRUZ P-1 0.90 0.945 0.701380195 20 26.2205 12.1928961
CM CRUZ P-2 1.00 1.048 0.862605944 20 31.15008 13.89796111
CM CRUZ P-3 1.00 1.048 0.862605944 20 31.15008 13.89796111
CM CRUZ P-4 0.8 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
CM CRUZ P-5 0.8 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
CM CRUZ P-6 0.8 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
CM CRUZ P-7 0.8 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
CM CRUZ P-8 0.8 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
CM CRUZ P-9 0.8 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
CM CRUZ P-10 0.6 0.635 0.316692174 20 13.9445 7.610656511
CM CRUZ P-11 0.5 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
CM CRUZ P-12 0.5 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
CM CRUZ P-13 0.5 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
CM CRUZ P-14 0.5 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
CM CRUZ P-15 0.4 0.429 0.144545463 20 7.91282 5.021910732
CM CRUZ P-16 0.35 0.378 0.112220831 20 6.68168 4.437263376
CM CRUZ P-17 0.35 0.378 0.112220831 20 6.68168 4.437263376
CM CRUZ P-18 0.3 0.326 0.083468975 26.82 7.42045032 5.181812405
Total 304.3193903 155.2341195

F.MANALO P-1 0.75 0.758 0.45126151 20 18.35528 9.330049793
F.MANALO P-2 0.7 0.738 0.427762397 20 17.59688 9.041632054
F.MANALO P-3 0.675 0.685 0.368528453 20 15.6645 8.293930936
F.MANALO P-4 0.675 0.685 0.368528453 20 15.6645 8.293930936
F.MANALO P-5 0.675 0.685 0.368528453 20 15.6645 8.293930936
F.MANALO P-6 0.675 0.685 0.368528453 20 15.6645 8.293930936
F.MANALO P-7 0.675 0.685 0.368528453 20 15.6645 8.293930936
F.MANALO P-8 0.675 0.685 0.368528453 20 15.6645 8.293930936
F.MANALO P-9 0.35 0.378 0.112220831 20 6.68168 4.437263376
F.MANALO P-10 0.3 0.326 0.083468975 20 5.53352 3.864140496
F.MANALO P-11 0.3 0.326 0.083468975 20 5.53352 3.864140496
F.MANALO P-12 0.2 0.222 0.038707563 18.09 3.22153956 2.521319744
Total 150.9094196 82.82213157
155
M.SANTOS P-1 0.2 0.222 0.038707563 20 3.56168 2.787528738
M.SANTOS P-2 0.4 0.429 0.144545463 20 7.91282 5.021910732
M.SANTOS P-3 0.35 0.378 0.112220831 20 6.68168 4.437263376
M.SANTOS P-4 0.35 0.378 0.112220831 20 6.68168 4.437263376
M.SANTOS P-5 0.3 0.326 0.083468975 20 5.53352 3.864140496
M.SANTOS P-6 0.2 0.222 0.038707563 13.81 2.45934004 1.924788594
Total 32.83072004 22.47289531

VILLAROSA P-1 0.6 0.635 0.316692174 20 13.9445 7.610656511
VILLAROSA P-2 0.6 0.635 0.316692174 20 13.9445 7.610656511
VILLAROSA P-3 0.6 0.635 0.316692174 20 13.9445 7.610656511
VILLAROSA P-4 0.55 0.582 0.266033207 20 12.23048 6.90981585
VILLAROSA P-5 0.55 0.582 0.266033207 20 12.23048 6.90981585
VILLAROSA P-6 0.5 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
VILLAROSA P-7 0.5 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
VILLAROSA P-8 0.45 0.48 0.180955737 20 9.248 5.628885263
VILLAROSA P-9 0.45 0.48 0.180955737 20 9.248 5.628885263
VILLAROSA P-10 0.4 0.429 0.144545463 20 7.91282 5.021910732
VILLAROSA P-11 0.35 0.378 0.112220831 20 6.68168 4.437263376
VILLAROSA P-12 0.25 0.274 0.058964553 11.81 2.65342356 1.957052195
Total 123.4713436 71.86709687
156
V. POZON P-1 0.80 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
V. POZON P-2 0.80 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
V. POZON P-3 0.80 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
V. POZON P-4 0.80 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
V. POZON P-5 0.80 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
V. POZON P-6 0.80 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
V. POZON P-7 0.80 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
V. POZON P-8 0.80 0.842 0.556819024 20 21.71528 10.57889953
V. POZON P-9 0.35 0.326 0.083468975 11.36 3.14303936 2.194831802
Total 176.8652794 86.82602804

G.VALDERAMA P-1 0.675 0.685 0.368528453 20 15.6645 8.293930936
G.VALDERAMA P-2 0.675 0.685 0.368528453 20 15.6645 8.293930936
G.VALDERAMA P-3 0.5 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
G.VALDERAMA P-4 0.5 0.532 0.22228653 20 10.71648 6.270749404
G.VALDERAMA P-5 0.45 0.48 0.180955737 20 9.248 5.628885263
G.VALDERAMA P-6 0.4 0.429 0.144545463 20 7.91282 5.021910732
G.VALDERAMA P-7 0.4 0.429 0.144545463 20 7.91282 5.021910732
G.VALDERAMA P-8 0.35 0.378 0.112220831 20 6.68168 4.437263376
G.VALDERAMA P-9 0.25 0.274 0.058964553 18.86 4.23738936 3.1253179
Total 88.75466936 52.36464868
157
Jose Pueblo Street 158.81m
J.PUEBLO P-1 0.3 0.326 0.083468975 20 5.53352 3.864140496
J.PUEBLO P-2 0.35 0.378 0.112220831 20 6.68168 4.437263376
J.PUEBLO P-3 0.4 0.429 0.144545463 20 7.91282 5.021910732
J.PUEBLO P-4 0.4 0.429 0.144545463 20 7.91282 5.021910732
J.PUEBLO P-5 0.55 0.582 0.266033207 20 12.23048 6.90981585
J.PUEBLO P-6 0.55 0.582 0.266033207 20 12.23048 6.90981585
J.PUEBLO P-7 0.6 0.635 0.316692174 20 13.9445 7.610656511
J.PUEBLO P-8 0.6 0.635 0.316692174 18.81 13.11480225 7.157822449
Total 79.56110225 46.933336
Total 1069.161033 585.8085015
158
APPENDIX H: DETENTION TANK
Step 1: Identify peak discharge from site and maximum allowable peak discharge
𝐴 = 18 ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠
𝐶𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 0.7
𝑡𝑐 = 15 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
8913 8913
𝑖10 = = = 174.76𝑚𝑚/ℎ𝑟
𝑡𝑐 + 36 15 + 36
𝐶𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑥 𝑖10 𝑥 𝐴 0.7 𝑥 174.76 𝑥 18
𝑄𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = = = 6.1166𝑚3 /𝑠
360 360
𝐶𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑥 𝑖10 𝑥 𝐴 0.55 𝑥 174.76 𝑥 18
𝑄𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 = = = 4.806𝑚3 /𝑠
360 360
Description Equation Remarks

Site area 𝐴 = 18 ℎ𝑎
Weighted runoff 𝐶𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 0.70
coefficient of site
Time of 𝑡𝑐 = 15 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
concentration
Average rainfall 𝑖10 = 174.76𝑚𝑚/ℎ𝑟
intensity for 10-
year storm event
Peak discharge 𝑄𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 6.116 m3 /s
from site
Target runoff 𝐶𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 = 0.55
coefficient
Target peak 𝑄𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 = 4.806m3 /s
discharge
Step 2: Determine required detention volume
8913 𝑥 𝐶𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑥 𝐴 8913 𝑥 0.615 𝑥 5

𝐾1 = = = 5199.25
6 6
8913 𝑥 𝐶𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑥 𝐴 8913 𝑥 0.55 𝑥 5
𝐾2 = = = 2042.5625
12 12
𝐾3 = 𝑡𝑐 + 36 = 15 + 36 = 51
159
36𝐾1 𝐾3 36𝑥5199.25𝑥51
𝑡𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥 = −𝐾3 + √ = −51 + √ = 17.363𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
𝐾2 2042.5625
(𝐶𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 − 𝐶𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡)(𝑡𝑐 + 36) (0.70 − 0.55)𝑥(15 + 36)

𝑡𝑥𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = = = 13.909𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
𝐶𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 0.55
𝑼𝒔𝒆 𝟏𝟑. 𝟗𝟎𝟗 𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍
𝐾1 (𝑡𝑐 + 𝑡𝑥𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙) 𝐾2 (2𝑡𝑐 + 𝑡𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙) 5199.25(15 + 13.909) 2042.5625(2𝑥15 + 13.909)

𝑉𝑡 = − = −
(𝐾3 + 𝑡𝑥𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙) 𝐾3 (51 + 13.909) 51
3
= 557.062𝑚
Description Equation Remarks

Calculate K1 K1 = 5199.25
Calculate K2 K2 = 2042.5625
Calculate K3 K3 = 51
Calculate txmax txmax = 17.363 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
Calculate txlimit txlimit = 13.909 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
Select tcritical Tcritical = 13.909 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠 Compare txmax and txlimit
and select smaller of the
values
Required Vt = 557.062𝑚3
detention volume
160
Step 3: Determine detention tank configuration
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑑 = 6𝑚
𝑉𝑡 557.062
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 = = = 92.844𝑚2
𝑑 6
𝜋
𝐷𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 𝑥𝑑 2
4
𝜋 2
92.844 = 𝑥 𝑑
4
𝑑 = 10.87𝑚 = 11𝑚m
etention tank volume=π/4 x 11^2x6=570.199m^3
𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 557.199𝑚3

𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 < 𝐷𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
Step 4: Sizing of detention tank discharge control
𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒, 𝑄𝑜 = 𝐶𝑜 𝑥 𝐴𝑜 𝑥 √2𝑔 𝑥 𝐻𝑜

𝑄𝑜 = 𝑄𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 = 4.806𝑚3 /𝑠
𝑚3 𝜋𝑑 2 𝑑
4.806 = 0.6 𝑥 𝑥 √2 𝑥 9.81 𝑥 (5 − ( ))
𝑠 4 2
𝑑 = 1.043𝑚
161
APPENDIX I: DETENTION TANK (STRUCTURAL)
Depth of water = 4 mm
reeboard=1.3 m
H = 6 mm
iameter of tank=11 m
𝐌𝐚𝐱 𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐩 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 @ 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞e

=γ_w x H x D/2=9.81611/2=323.73kN/m
T 323730
Ast required = = = 2490.231 mm2
σst 130
@ 2m from topp
=γ_w x H x D/2=9.81211/2=107.91kN/m
T 107910
Ast required = = = 830.077 mm2
σst 130
𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝟏𝟏 𝐩𝐜𝐬 − 𝟏𝟎 𝐦𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫 @ 𝟐𝟓𝟎 𝐦𝐦 𝐜 − 𝐜
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐥l
σ_st=T/A_gtm-1A_st=323730/100 x t x 9.33-12490.231
t = 65.83 mm = 100 mm
0.24
Ast min = 𝑥 1000 𝑥 100 = 240 𝑚𝑚
100
𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝟒𝐩𝐜𝐬 − 𝟏𝟎 𝐦𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫 @ 𝟐𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐦 𝐜 − 𝐜
162
APPENDIX J: FLOOD WALL (STRUCTURAL)
Figure: Forces Acting on the Floodwall
163
Table 4.1 Soil Factorsfor Floodwall Design
Site soil conditions
❖ 𝑦soil (unit weight of soil) = 19𝐾𝑁/𝑚3

❖ 𝑆a(allowable soil bearing capacity) = 96𝐾𝑁/𝑚2
❖ 𝑆 (equivalent fluid pressure of soil) = 12.3𝐾𝑁/𝑚3
❖ 𝐶𝑓 (coefficient of friction) = 0.45
❖ 𝑘𝑝 (passive soil pressure coefficient) = 3.69
❖ 𝐶𝑆(cohesion) = 0
Local Flood condition
❖ 𝑦𝑤 (Freshwater) = 9.81𝐾𝑁/𝑚3
❖ Area of potential normal impact loading, 𝐶B = 0.2 (moderate upstream blocking)
❖ 𝐶Str = 0.8
❖ Expected flood velocity, V (m/sec)
Dimensional Information
Based on DPWH the floodwall height shall include freeboard, but for a large river or in the place with high wave
length, the floodwall may be higher than a man’s height, where river is not at sight. Also the height shall not
impair the scenic views, etc. The height shall have stability from structural standpoint.
❖ H = 2𝑚
❖ 𝐷𝑡 = 1.2m
❖ 𝐷 = 𝐷ℎ = 1.5m
❖ 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔 = 0.3m
❖ 𝐵 = 1.5m
164
❖ 𝐴ℎ = 0.6m
❖ 𝐶 = 0.5m
❖ 𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 0.4m
where:
fbuoy = total force due to buoyancy (KN/m)
fbuoy1 = buoyancy force due to hydrostatic pressure at the floodwall heel acting at an approximate distance of B/3 from
the heel (KN/m)
fbuoy2 = buoyancy force due to hydrostatic pressure at the floodwall toe, acting at an approximate distance of B/3 from
the toe (KN/m)
yw = specific weight of water (9.81 KN/m for fresh water and 10.05 KN/m for saltwater)
Ah = width of the footing above the heel (m)
C = width of the footing above the toe (m)
H = floodproofing design depth (m)
Dt = depth of soil above the floodwall toe (m)
tftg = thickness of the floodwall footing (m)
twall = thickness of the floodwall (m)
wftg = weight of the footing (KN/m)
B = width of the footing (m)
Sg = unit weight of wall material (concrete is 23.56 𝐾𝑁/𝑚3 )
wst = weight of the soil over the toe (KN/m)
C = width of the footing toe (m)
Dt = depth of the soil above the floodwall toe (m)
ysoil = unit weight of soil (KN/m)
wwh = weight of the water above the heel (KN/m)
wG = total gravity forces acting downward (KN/m)
1. Design a cantilever floodwall to protect a residence subject to 1m of flooding
Step 1: Assume wall height and footing depth
The choice of wall thickness depends on the wall material, the strength of the material, and the height of the wall.
Typical wall thicknesses are 8, 12, and 16 inches for masonry, concrete, or masonry/ concrete walls. The footing width
depends on the magnitude of the lateral forces, allowable soil bearing capacity, dead load, and the wall height. The
typical footing width is the proposed wall height. Typically, the footing is located under the wall in such a manner that
1/3 of its width forms the toe and 2/3 of the width forms the heel of the wall
165
❖ H = 2𝑚
❖ 𝐷𝑡 = 1.2m
❖ 𝐷 = 𝐷ℎ = 1.5m
❖ 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔 = 0.3m
Step 2: Determine dimensions
❖ 𝐵 = 1.5m
❖ 𝐴ℎ = 0.6m
❖ 𝐶 = 0.5m
❖ 𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 0.4m
Wall and footing to be reinforced concrete having unit weight (Sg )
Step 3: Calculate forces.
Determine Lateral Forces:

1 1
❖ 𝑓𝑠𝑡𝑎 = 2
𝑦𝑤𝐻 2 =
2
(9.81)(2)2 = 19.62𝐾𝑁/𝑚
1
❖ 𝑓𝑑𝑖𝑓 = (𝑆 − 𝑦w)𝐷 2 = 2.80𝐾𝑁/𝑚
2
𝐶𝑑 𝑉 2 1.25 (1.52)2
❖ 𝑑ℎ = 2𝑔
=
2(9.81)
= 0.1472𝑚
❖ 𝑓𝑑ℎ = 𝑦𝑤(𝑑ℎ)𝐻 2.888𝐾𝑁/𝑚
=
❖ 𝐹𝑛 = 𝑊𝑉𝐶𝐷𝐶𝐵𝐶𝑆𝑡𝑟 = 2.23 ∗ 1.52 ∗ 0.2 ∗ 0.8 = 0.5423𝐾𝑁/𝑚

❖ 𝐹𝑆𝑡𝑎 = 𝑓𝑠𝑡𝑎 + 𝑓𝑑𝑖𝑓 + 𝑓𝑑ℎ = 19.62 + 2.80 + 2.888 = 25.301𝐾𝑁/𝑚
Since Fn acts only at a single point, we will not include loading into the uniform lateral floodwall loading. Once the
floodwall is sized, we will evaluate the wall perpendicular to flow to determine ability to resist the impact loading. If
necessary this wall will be redesigned to resist impact loads. This process will avoid overdesigning of the entire floodwall.
1 1
❖ 𝐹𝑝 = 2 [𝑘𝑝(𝑦𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 − 𝑦𝑤) + 𝑦𝑤 ]𝐷𝑡2 = 2
[3.68(19 − 9.81) + 9.81 ]1.22 = 31.4791𝐾𝑁/𝑚

1 1
❖ 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦1 = 2
𝑦𝑤𝐻𝐵 = 2 (9.81)(2)(1.5) = 14.715𝐾𝑁/𝑚
1 1
𝑦𝑤𝐷𝑡𝐵 = (9.81)(1.2)(1.5) = 8.829715𝐾𝑁/𝑚
2
❖ 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦 = 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦1 + 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦2 = 23.544𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝑤𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = (𝐻 − 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔)𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑆𝑔 = (2 − 0.3)(0.4)(23.56) = 16.0208𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝑤𝑓𝑡𝑔 = (𝐵𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔𝑆𝑔 = 1.5(0.3)(23.56) = 10.602𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝑤𝑠𝑡 = 𝐶(𝐷𝑡 − 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔)𝑦𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 0.5(1.2 − 0.3)(19) = 8.55𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖
= 6.727𝐾𝑁/𝑚
166
❖ 𝑤𝑤ℎ = Aℎ (H − 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔)(𝑦𝑤) = 0.61 (2 − 0.3)(9.81) = 10.173𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝑊𝐺 = 16.0208 + 10.602 + 8.55 + 6.727 + 10.173 = 52.0728𝐾𝑁/𝑚
52.0728𝐾𝑁 23.544𝐾𝑁
❖ 𝐹𝑣 = 𝑊𝐺 − 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦 = 𝑚
− 𝑚
= 75.6168𝐾𝑁/𝑚

75.6168𝐾𝑁
❖ 𝐹𝑓𝑟 = 𝐶𝑓𝐹𝑣 = 0.45 ( ) = 34.0276𝐾𝑁/𝑚
𝑚
❖ 𝐹𝑐 = 𝐶𝑠𝐵 = 0(1.5) = 0
❖ 𝐹𝑅 = 𝐹𝑓𝑟 + 𝐹𝑐 + 𝐹𝑝 = 34.0276𝐾𝑁/𝑚 + 0 + 31.4791𝐾𝑁/𝑚 = 65.4406𝐾𝑁/𝑚
34.0276𝐾𝑁
𝐹𝑅 𝑚
❖ 𝐹𝑆(𝑆𝐿) = = 19.62𝐾𝑁 = 1.73 > 1.5 therefore OK for Sliding
𝑓𝑆𝑡𝑎
𝑚

𝐻 𝐷 2𝐵 𝐻 𝐵
❖ 𝑀𝑜 = 𝐹𝑆𝑡𝑎 + 𝑓𝑑𝑖𝑓 3 + 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦1 + 𝑓𝑑ℎ 2 + 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦2 3 =
3 3
2 1.5 2(1.5) 2 1.4
𝑀𝑜 = 19.62 + 2.80 + 14.715 + 2.888 + 8.829715 =
3 3 3 2 3
𝑀𝑜 = 44.44𝐾𝑁𝑚m
❖ R=wwallC+twall/2+wftgC/2+wstB/2+wshB-Ah/2+ wwhB-Ah/2+Fp(Dt/3)=
0.4 0.5 1.5 0.61 1.2
❖ 𝑀𝑅 = 16.0208(0.5 + )+ 10.60( 2 ) + 8.55( 2 ) + 6.727(1.5 − )+ 31.4791( ) =
2 2 3
❖ = 53.0642𝐾𝑁𝑚m
❖ SOT=MR/MO=42.74KNm/40.9074KNm=1.2971<1.5 therefore Not OK for Over Turning
Try increasing the footing size to overcome the overturning moment. Assume B = 2m; Ah = 1.2m; and C =
0.6m. This requires revision of Steps 3 and 4 for which the results are shown below. fsta, fdif , fdh, Fsta, Fp, wwall
will not change. Recompute vertical forces.
1 1
❖ 𝐹𝑝 = 2 [𝑘𝑝(𝑦𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 − 𝑦𝑤) + 𝑦𝑤 ]𝐷𝑡2 = 2
[3.68(19 − 9.81) + 9.81 ]1.22 = 31.4791𝐾𝑁/𝑚

1 1
𝑦𝑤𝐻𝐵 = 2 (9.81)(2)(2) = 19.62𝐾𝑁/𝑚
1 1
𝑦𝑤𝐷𝑡𝐵 = 2 (9.81)(1.2)(2) = 11.77𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦 = 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦1 + 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦2 = 31.39𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝑤𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = (𝐻 − 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔)𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑆𝑔 = (2 − 0.3)(0.4)(23.56) = 16.0208𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝑤𝑓𝑡𝑔 = (𝐵𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔𝑆𝑔 = 2(0.3)(23.56) = 14.14𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝑤𝑠𝑡 = 𝐶(𝐷𝑡 − 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔)𝑦𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 0.6(1.2 − 0.3)(19) = 10.26𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖
= 13.2336𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝑤𝑤ℎ = Aℎ (H − 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔)(𝑦𝑤) = 1.2 (2 − 0.3)(9.81) = 20.0124𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝑊𝐺 = 16.0208 + 14.14 + 10.26 + 13.2336 + 20.0124 = 73.6668𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝐹𝑣 = 𝑊𝐺 − 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦 = 88.8003𝐾𝑁/𝑚 − 31.39𝐾𝑁/𝑚 = 42.2768𝐾𝑁/𝑚
167
❖ 𝐹𝑓𝑟 = 𝐶𝑓𝐹𝑣 = 0.45(42.2768𝐾𝑁/𝑚) = 19.0245𝐾𝑁/𝑚

❖ 𝐹𝑐 = 𝐶𝑠𝐵 = 0(2) = 0
❖ 𝐹𝑅 = 𝐹𝑓𝑟 + 𝐹𝑐 + 𝐹𝑝 = 19.0245𝐾𝑁/𝑚 + 0 + 31.4791𝐾𝑁/𝑚 = 50.5037𝐾𝑁/𝑚
𝐹𝑅 50.5037𝐾𝑁/𝑚
❖ 𝐹𝑆(𝑆𝐿) = = = 1.92 > 1.5 therefore OK for Sliding
𝐹𝑆𝑡𝑎 26.2730

(𝐻) 𝐷 2𝐵 𝐻 𝐵
❖ 𝑀𝑜 = 𝑓𝑆𝑡𝑎 + 𝑓𝑑𝑖𝑓 3 + 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦1 + 𝑓𝑑ℎ 2 + 𝑓𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦2 3 =
3 3
2 1.5 2(2) 2 2
𝑀𝑜 = 26.2730 + 2.80 + 19.62 + 2.888 + 11.77 =
3 3 3 2 3
𝑀𝑜 = 55.802𝐾𝑁𝑚m
❖ R=wwallC+twall/2+wftgC/2+wstB/2+wshB-Ah/2+ wwhB-Ah/2+Fp(Dt/3)=
0.4 0.6 2 1.2 1.2
❖ 𝑀𝑅 = 16.0208 (0.6 + 2
) + 14.14 ( 2 ) + 10.26 (2) + 13.2336 (2 − 2
)+ 20.0124(2 − 2
)+
1.2
31.4791( ) = 86.4547𝐾𝑁𝑚
3
𝑀𝑅 86.4547𝐾𝑁𝑚
❖ 𝐹𝑆𝑂𝑇 = = 55.802𝐾𝑁𝑚 = 1.55 < 1.5 therefore OK for Over Turning
𝑀𝑂
Step 6: Determine eccentricity.
𝐵 (𝑀𝑅−𝑀𝑂) 2 (86.4547𝐾𝑁𝑚−55.802𝐾𝑁𝑚) 7
❖ 𝑒 =( )−( ) = (2) − ( 42.2768𝐾𝑁 ) = 0.275 < 6 therefore OK
2 𝐹𝑣
𝑚
Step 7: Check soil pressure.

1.5
8
42.2768𝐾𝑁
𝐹𝑣 6𝑒 6𝑒
❖ 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ( ) (1 + )= 𝑚
(1 + ) = 38.5746𝐾𝑁/𝑚2
𝐵 𝐵 2 2
42.2768𝐾𝑁
𝐹𝑣 6𝑒 6𝑒 3.7023𝐾𝑁
❖ 𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛 = ( ) (1 − )= 𝑚
(1 − 2 ) = < 95.76𝐾𝑁/𝑚2 therefore OK
𝐵 𝐵 2 𝑚2
Step 8: Select reinforcing steel.
For steel in the vertical floodwall section:
𝐻 2
❖ 𝑀𝑏 = 𝐹𝑆𝑡𝑎 ( − 𝑡𝑓𝑡𝑔) = 2.62730 ( − 0.3) = 0.9633𝐾𝑁𝑚
3 3
❖ According to ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES for Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential
Structures, df is typically the floodwall thickness minus 0.09 m to allow a minimum of 0.08m between
the reinforcing steel and the floodwall edge.
❖ Diameter should be a multipliable by 6
168
𝑀𝑏 0.9633𝐾𝑁𝑚
❖ 𝐴𝑠 = ( 1000
)=( 1000
) = 4.1432𝑥10−4 𝑚2
7.5𝑑𝑓 7.5(0.4−0.09)
4𝐴𝑠
❖ 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = √ = 0.0229m ≈ 22.97mm ≈ 24mm
𝜋
For top steel in the footing section:
𝐴ℎ 13.2336𝐾𝑁 20.0124𝐾𝑁 1.2

❖ 𝑀𝑏 = (𝑤𝑠ℎ + 𝑤𝑤ℎ) ( ) = ( + ) ( ) = 19.9476𝐾𝑁𝑚
2 𝑚 𝑚 2
𝑀𝑏 19.9476
❖ 𝐴𝑠 = ( 1000
)=( 1000
) = 8.5796𝑥10−4 𝑚2
7.5𝑑𝑓 7.5(0.3−0.09)
4𝐴𝑠
❖ 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = √ = 0.0331m ≈ 33.31mm ≈ 36mm
𝜋
For bottom steel in the footing section:

1.5 38.5746𝐾𝑁 1.5 38.5746𝐾𝑁 3.7023𝐾𝑁
❖ 𝑞 = 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 + (𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛) = + ( − )
8 𝑚2 8 𝑚2 𝑚2
45.113238.5746𝐾𝑁/𝑚2
𝐶2 45.113238.5746𝐾𝑁 38.5746𝐾𝑁 0.6
2
❖ 𝑀𝑏 = (𝑞 + 2𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥) ( ) = ( + 2( )) ( )
6 𝑚2 𝑚2 6
= 7.3357𝐾𝑁𝑚m
❖ s=Mb/1000/7.5df=7.3357KNm/1000/7.5(0.3-0.09)=4.6576x10^-4m^2
4𝐴𝑠
𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = √ = 0.0244m ≈ 24.4mm ≈ 24mm
𝜋
169
APPENDIX K: DREDGING (STRUCTURAL)
❖ Basic Conditions
Study of the backfill site was made according to following items as basic condition.
• Classification of soil: Dredged soil after stabilized treatment

• If extra dredging occurs, the amount of part reclamation will increase.
• Site Area: 1160 m2 is planned.
• Maximum embankment height of dredged material is decided to 3.0 m by a circle slide method.
Figure – Area to be dredge
Given:
Area = 1160 m2
Height = 3m
❖ Volume Calculation to be Dredge
• 𝑉 = 𝐻∗𝐴
• V = 3m*1160m2 = 3480 m3
❖ Cycle Time
• Duration of Dredging (Td)
170
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 3480
𝑇𝑑 = = = 38.67ℎ
2 ∗ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘ℎ𝑜𝑒 2 ∗ 45
• Carriage of Dredge material

𝐿 645
𝑇𝑔 = = = 87.16ℎ
𝐶𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 7.4
• Unloading
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 3480
𝑇𝑢 = = = 23.5ℎ
2 ∗ 74 2 ∗ 74
• Return trip
𝐿 645
𝑇𝑟 = = = 87.16ℎ
𝐶𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 7.4
• Total hour
𝑇𝑡 = 𝑇𝑑 + 𝑇𝑔 + 𝑇𝑢 + 𝑇𝑟 = 236.5ℎ
❖ Carriage on Final Backfill Site
100
( 0.7 )
𝑄ℎ = = 20𝑚3 /ℎ
7
148 148
𝑁= = = 7.4 = 8
𝑄ℎ 20
∴ 8 dump trucks are necessary
171
Appendix L (Final Estimates for Stormwater Drainage)
ESTIMATE(STORMWATER DRAINAGE)
Item no. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Amount (₱)
I. Other General Requirements ₱ 290,648.56

II. A. Construction survey and staking 1 55208.91 55208.91
II. B. Project Billboard 1 5812.9 5812.9
II. C. Mobilization and Demolization 2 L.S. 76256.32 152512.64
Backfilling 822.33756 cu.m 140 77114.114
II. Earth works ₱ 221,474.34

II. A. Volume of Excavated RCP 1691.6415 cu.m 212.87 209966.2829
II. B. Volume of Excavated Manhole 225 cu.m 32.2168 7248.78
II. C. Volume of Excavated Inlet 132.20663 cu.m 32.2168 4259.274496
III. Rebar works ₱ 2,874,235.00

III. A. Reinforcement of Drainage
Rebars of Drainage Horizontal (ø16mm) 997 pcs. 580 578260
GI tie wires 25 kgs. 45 1125
III. B. Rebars of Drainage Verticall (ø16mm) 2660 pcs. 580 1542800
III. C. Reinforcement of Sidewalk
Rebars of Sidewalk Horizontal (ø12mm) 332 pcs. 250 83000
III. D. Rebars of Sidewalk Vertical (ø12mm) 2660 pcs. 250 665000
IV. Concrete works ₱ 1,192,090.00

IV. A. Drainage
Portland cement 2392 bags 210 502320
Sand 133 cu.m 800 106400
Gravel 266 cu.m 900 239400
IV. B. Sidewalk
Sand 55 cu.m 800 44000
Gravel 110 cu.m 900 99000
V. Pipes ₱ 6,984,028.80
1696.8 m 4,116.00 6984028.8
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 11,562,476.70
V. Form works 40% of Concrete work ₱ 476,836.00
VI. Equipment Cost 20% of Material Cost ₱ 2,312,495.34
VII. Labor Cost 5% of Material Cost ₱ 578,123.84
VIII. VAT 12% of Material Cost ₱ 1,387,497.20
IX. Contingencies(5%) 5% of Material Cost ₱ 578,123.84
TOTAL ₱ 16,895,552.92
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPES
Appendix M (Final Estimates for Stormwater Drainage)
172

Backfilling 550.8151 cu.m 140 77114.114

II. A. Volume of Excavated HDPE 986.3592 cu.m 212.87 209966.2829


IV. A. Drainage
Sand 133 cu.m 800 106400
Gravel 266 cu.m 900 239400
IV. B. Sidewalk
Sand 55 cu.m 800 44000
Gravel 110 cu.m 900 99000
V. Pipes ₱ 3,511,171.27
1696.8 m 2,069.29 3511171.272
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 9,395,050.42
V. Form works 40% of Concrete work ₱ 1,020,000.00
VI. Equipment Cost 20% of Material Cost ₱ 1,879,010.08
VIII. VAT 12% of Material Cost ₱ 1,127,406.05
TOTAL ₱ 14,360,971.59
HDPE
Appendix N (Final Estimates for Stormwater Drainage)
173

Backfilling 585.8085 cu.m 140 82013.19022

II. A. Volume of Excavated DIP 1069.161 cu.m 212.87 227592.309


IV. A. Drainage
Sand 133 cu.m 800 106400
Gravel 266 cu.m 900 239400
IV. B. Sidewalk
Sand 55 cu.m 800 44000
Gravel 110 cu.m 900 99000
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 3,185,169.25
VI. Equipment Cost 20% of Material Cost ₱ 970,330.56
VIII. VAT 12% of Material Cost ₱ 549,798.33
TOTAL ₱ 5,640,299.42
Ductile Iron Pipe
Appendix O (Initial Estimates for Floodwall)
174
Length=645m=2116.1417ft
INITIAL ESTIMATES
Unit
Item Height(Feet) Price/Length Price(Peso)
Floodwall 3 5500 11638779.35
Appendix P (Initial Estimates for Dredging)
175
INITIAL ESTIMATES
Item Height(m) Area (m^2) Unit Price/Volume Price
floodwall 3 1160 435 1500000
Appendix Q (Initial Estimates for Detention Tank)
176
DETENTION TANK
Design Volume 468m3
Depth of Aggregate Subbase 500 mm
Depth of Pavement 300 mm
Structural Piece Detail
• Diameter 11 m
• Height 6m
• Unit Top 20 inches
• Unit Base 0 inches
• Unit Side Wall 15 inches
• Unit End Wall 15 inches
• Perimeter Wall 15 inches
Earthworks
• Excavation Cost ₱ 240,000.00
• Labor Cost (5 laborers) ₱ 6,000.00
• Equipment Cost ₱ 7,000.00
• No. of Working Days 6 days
Installation
• Transportation and Equipment ₱ 15,000.00
• Material (Precast) ₱ 1,741,646.25
• Labor Cost ₱ 14,000.00
• No. of Working Days 4 days
• Sub - Total Cost ₱ 2,023,646.25
Other Requirements
• Contigencies (5%) ₱ 101,182.31
• VAT (12%) ₱ 242,837.55
• Overall Cost ₱ 2,367,666.11
Appendix R (Final Estimates for Floodwall)
177
FINAL ESTIMATE(Floodwall)
Item Unit
Description Quantity Unit Amount (₱)
no. Cost
I. Other General Requirements ₱ 1,150,397.81
II.A. Construction survey and staking 1 55208.91 55208.91
II.B. Project Billboard 1 5812.9 5812.9
II.C. Mobilization and Demolization 2L.S. 544688 1089376
Backfilling 822.3376 cu.m 1000 0
II. Earth works ₱ 3,844,432.20

II. A. Volume of Excavated 18060 cu.m 212.87 3844432.2

III.A. Reinforcement of Floodwall
Rebars for vertical floodwall section(ø24mm) 1343 pcs. 580 778940
Rebars for top steel in the footing section(ø36mm) 2660 pcs. 620 1649200
Rebars for bottom steel in the footing section(ø24mm) 2645 pcs. 580 1534100
Sand 1960 cu.m 700 1372000
Gravel 2940 cu.m 700 2058000
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 12,622,270.01
TOTAL ₱ 15,077,400.18
Appendix S (Final Estimates for Dredging)
178
ESTIMATE(Dredging)

I. A. Construction survey and staking 1 55208.91 55208.91
I. B. Project Billboard 1 5812.9 5812.9
I. C. Mobilization and Demolization 2 L.S. 76256.32 152512.64

II. A. Volume of Excavation 3480 cu.m 212.87 740787.6
III. Material/Machinery ₱ 58,224.00

lll. A. DumpTruck Rental 8 5,672 45376
lll. B. Backhoe Rental 2 6,424 12,848
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 1,012,546.05
TOTAL ₱ 1,437,815.39
Appendix T (Final Estimates for Detention Tank)
179
Cylindrical Rectangular Detention Tank
ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST Amount (₱)
I. Earthworks ₱ 30,594.00
· Excavation 571 m3 300 171,300
· Dump Truck 9 Hrs 900 8,100
· Backhoe 11 Hrs 1500 16,500
· Fuel, oil, lubricants 6 Lot 999 5,994
II. Concrete Works ₱ 933,679.85
· Portland Cement 2586 Bags 225 581,850.00
· Sand 143.605 m3 850 122,064.25
· Gravel G-3/4 287.207 m3 800 229,765.60
III. Rebars ₱ 1,375.00
· 10 mm dia. X 6 mts. DSB Grade
11 Pcs 125 1,375.00
33
IV. Formworks ₱ 54,720.00
· 2” x 2” x 8” Rough Good Lumber 40 pcs 120 4,800.00
· Ord. Plywood ½” x 4’ x 8’ 40 Pcs 750 30,000.00
· C.W. Nails ASSTD 40 Kilo 48 1,920.00
· G.I. Wire #16 12 Rolls 1500 18,000.00
V. Equipment ₱ 19,000.00
· Concrete Mixer 4 Hrs 2000 8,000.00
· Concrete Pump Truck 4 Hrs 2000 8,000.00
· Crane 2 Hr 1500 3,000.00
Persons/per
VI. Manpower 120 500 ₱ 60,000.00
27 days
SUB - TOTAL
₱ 1,099,368.85
COST
Labor Cost 5% of Material Cost ₱ 54,968.44

VAT 12% of Material Cost ₱ 131,924.26
Contigencies (5%) 5% of Material Cost ₱ 54,968.44
TOTAL ₱ 1,341,230.00

Quezon City
180
CE509 – CE PROJECTS 2
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
RE : Capstone Design 2 – Trade-offs
DATE : January 3, 2019
VENUE : TIP QC– Q-2310
PURPOSE : Advising of Dual Context and its Trade-offs
ATTENDANCE
PRESENT:
1. Engr. Yenko Tandoc
2. Aguillon, Edralyn
3. Barreda, Maria Claudette
4. Magboo, James Matthew
DISCUSSION PRESIDED BY: Ms. Edralyn Aguillon
TIME STARTED: 7:00 PM TIME ADJOURNED: 7:30 PM
AGENDA DISCUSSION/AGREEMENTS STATUS

1. Advising of Dual Context Decided on the structure will be DONE
and its Trade-offs used and the Final Trade-offs will
be used for the capstone design.
Structure:
• Detention Tank/Pipe
Final Trade-offs:
• HDPE Detention Pipe
• CSP Detention Pipe
• RCCP Detention Pipe
There being no matter to be discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 PM.
181
Quezon City
RE : Capstone Design 2 – Design of Trade-offs
VENUE : City Hall – Pasig City
PURPOSE : Advising for Pipe Layout

Methods for the Design of Trade-offs
Dual Context
ATTENDANCE
PRESENT:
1. Engr. Sean Lawrence Malinao
DISCUSSION PRESIDED BY: Mr. James Matthew Magboo
TIME STARTED: 10:00 AM TIME ADJOURNED: 12:00 PM

1. Design of Trade-offs • Discussed the common DONE
distances and sizes of
pipes, manholes, and
catch basins
• Discussed the process
and computation possible
in designing each trade-
offs
182
Quezon City
RE : Capstone Design 2 – Design Project Topic
VENUE : T.I.P. Quezon City – Room Q-2310
PURPOSE : Confirmation of the Design Project Dual Context
ATTENDANCE
PRESENT:
1. Engr. Yenko Tandoc
DISCUSSION PRESIDED BY: Ms. Edralyn Aguillon

1. Confirmation of the • The design team had a DONE
Design Project Dual problem regarding the
Context dual context
• Consultation of the
design process and
computation to be used
for the structural context
183
Quezon City
RE : Capstone Design 2 – Final Design Project
PURPOSE : Checking of the Final Design Project
ATTENDANCE
PRESENT:
DISCUSSION PRESIDED BY: Ms. Maria Claudette Barreda

1. Checking of the Final • Consultation for the final DONE
Design Project revisions of the design
184
Quezon City
DATE : February 27, 2019
PURPOSE : Signing of the Approval Sheet
ATTENDANCE
PRESENT:
TIME STARTED: 10:00 AM TIME ADJOURNED: 10:30 AM

1. Signing of Approval • Checking for Final DONE
Sheet Revisions of the design
project
• Requesting for the e-
signature of the adviser
There being no matter to be discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM
185
Quezon City
DATE : February 28, 2019
PURPOSE : Signing of the Approval Sheet
ATTENDANCE
PRESENT:

2. Signing of Approval • Checking for Final DONE
Sheet Revisions of the design
project
• Requesting for the e-
signature of the adviser
There being no matter to be discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 PM
186
CURRICULUM VITAE
187
EDRALYN AGUILLON
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP) QC
Address: Purok 1 Angeles San Antonio Zambales
Email Address: aguillon_edralyn@gmail.com
Cellular No.: +639382721316
CAREER OBJECTIVE
To establish a career in engineering where i can demonstrate the learning outcomes of Civil Engineering program of Technological Institute of
the Philippines, a program accredited by the US-based outcomes-oriented ABET ( Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology),
Engineering Accreditation Commission
.
DESIGN PROJECTS COMPLETED/ RESEARCHES
OPEN CHANNEL FLOW MEASUREMENT (CIPOLLETI WEIR)

The experiment is all about the Open Channel Flow Measurement (Cipolleti Weir). A standard Cipoletti weir is trapezoidal in shape.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CRUSHED CEREMIC TILES AS SOIL STABILIZER

It is the process of mixing aggregates or admixtures with a soil to improve the soil's durability,strength,permeability, and other various soil
properties.
RELATIONSHIP OF METACENTRIC HEIGHT IN STABILITY OF FLOATING BODIES

This research will apply the concept of metacentric height for floating bodies.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ATTITUDE
Having graduated from TIP with its orientation towards outcome-based education, I have acquired and can demonstrate the following student
acquire outcomes (knowledge, skills and attitudes) necessary to the practice of the computing profession:
• Analyze complex problems and identify and define the computing requirements appropriate for solution.
• Use modern techniques and tools of the computing practice in complex activities.
• Understand professional, ethical, legal, security and social issues and responsibilities relevant to professional computing.
SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED
How to handle stress : A seminar on stress management

Technological Institute of the Philippines
October 16, 2016
Water Resources Engineering Seminar
Technological Institute of the Philippines Quezon City
March 07, 2018
20th National Civil Engineering Conference
Cuneta Astrodome
November 29, 2017
EXTRA AND CO-CURRICULAR ENGAGEMENT AND VOLUNTEER WORK
Philippine Institute of Civil Engineering

student member
June 05, 2017 – Present
188
OTHER SKILLS
Goal Oriented
Good Communication Skills
Adaptability to change
Multitasking
Honesty
Loyalty
Sociable
Helpful
Knowledge-Based Skills
Making a document using MS Word
Making a substantial powerpoint presentation
REFERENCES
Engr. Emmanuel Lazo Engr. Ricardo Vibas Engr. Mico Cruzado

Faculty member Faculty member Faculty member
Technological Institute of the Technological Institute of Technological Institute of
Philippines the Philippines the Philippines
emlazo_10@yahoo.com ricvibas123@gmail.com mico.p.cruzado@gmail.com
09455366909 09471731811 09989596026
Powered by
189
MARIA CLAUDETTE BARREDA
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Address: B27 L3 PHASE 3 VILLA ST CENTRAL BICUTAN TAGUIG
Email Address: barreda.claudette@gmail.com
Cellular No.: +639195158636
CAREER OBJECTIVE
To establish a career in the field of Civil Engineering where I can demonstrate the learning outcomes of the Civil Engineering program of the
Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP), a proram accredited by the US-based outcomes-oriented ABET (Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology), Computing Accreditation Commission. To learn more and continue acquiring knowledge about different
concepts and technical skills related to my program and enhance skills I have obtained from my previous experiences as a Civil Engineering
student. I want to use the knowledge I have and soon to be acquired to contribute to the welfare of our society and also be able to share my
knowledge to others.
DESIGN PROJECT COMPLETED/ RESEARCH
OPEN CHANNEL FLOW MEASUREMENT (CIPOLLETI WEIR)

The experiment is all about measuring a specific fluid using a trapezoidal shaped weir.
Having graduated from TIP with its orientation towards outcome-based education, I have acquired and can demonstrate the following
student acquire outcomes (knowledge, skills and attitudes) necessary to the practice of the computing profession:
Analyze complex problems and identify and define the computing requirements appropriate for solution.
Use modern techniques and tools of the computing practice in complex activities.
Understand professional, ethical, legal, security and social issues and responsibilities relevant to professional computing.
20th National Civil Engineering Conference

Cuneta Astrodome
November 29, 2017
Structural Retrofitting using Carbon Fiber

Seminar Rooms A & B, Technolohical Institute of the Philippines Quezon City
September 11, 2017
Structural Evaluation & Retrofitting of Existing Building

Seminar Rooms A & B, Technolohical Institute of the Philippines Quezon City
September 11, 2017
190
OTHER SKILLS
Ability to work under pressure

Team player
Proficiency in AutoCAD 2017
Goal oriented
Highly adaptable who is open to new ideas
REFERENCES
Emmanuel Lazo
Faculty Member
Technological Institute of the Philippines Quezon City emlazo_10@yahoo.com.ph +639455366909
Engr. Mico Cruzado
Faculty Member
Techonological Institute of the Philippines mico.p.cruzado@gmail.com 09989596026
191
JAMES MATTHEW MAGBOO
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Address: 2 B 14L 6-BP Towerville Gaya-Gaya San Jose del Monte Bulacan
Email Address: semajwehttam@gmail.com
Cellular No.: +639159893279
CAREER OBJECTIVE
To establish a career in information technology where I can demonstrate the learning outcomes of the Civil Engineering program of the
Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP), a proram accredited by the US-based outcomes-oriented ABET (Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology), Computing Accreditation Commission.
DESIGN PROJECTS COMPLETED/ RESEARCHES
An Evaluation of the Influence of Corn Cob Ash as an Additive Component on the Stabilization of Mud Blocks
October 2017
The Use of Chicken Bone Ash as Partial Replacement of Cement in a Concrete Mix
October 2017
Effect of Salt and Sugar to Basic Properties of Water

October 2017
Having graduated from TIP with its orientation towards outcome-based education, I have acquired and can demonstrate the following
student acquire outcomes (knowledge, skills and attitudes) necessary to the practice of the computing profession:
Analyze complex problems and identify and define the computing requirements appropriate for solution.
Use modern techniques and tools of the computing practice in complex activities.
Understand professional, ethical, legal, security and social issues and responsibilities relevant to professional computing.
PICE Midyear Convention - Student's Summit 2017

SMX Convention Center, Pasay City
June 15, 2017
Retrofitting of Concrete Structure for Environmental Sustainability

Seminar Room A and B, Building 1, Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
February 10, 2017
Earthquake Engineering Seminar

September 23, 2017
Intelligent Transportation System
192
August 14, 2017
Water Resources Engineering Seminar

March 07, 2018
Well Grounded: Withstanding Impact X Fortifying the Future. A seminar on earthquake & ground improvement
March 07, 2018
EXTRA AND CO-CURRICULAR ENGAGEMENTS AND VOLUNTEER WORKS
Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers

Officer - Commitee Member
June 06, 2016 - September 29, 2017
American Concrete Institute

Member
July 05, 2017 - September 29, 2017
OTHER SKILLS
Proficient in AutoCAD
Ability to Work in different environment
Skilled in using Microsoft Office
Proficient working under pressure
Good written and verbal communication
skills
REFERENCES
Engr. Roel Elvambuena

Faculty Member
Technological Institute of the Philippines
roel_elvambuena@yahoo.com
09988870545
Engr. Emmanuel Lazo
Faculty
Technological Institute of the Philippines -
Quezon City emlazo_10@yahoo.com.ph
09455366909
193
Title Design of Storm-Water Drainage in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City
Course Code CE 509 – Design Projects 2
Section CE52FA1
Group Members Aguillon, Edralyn V.

Barreda, Maria Claudette M.
Magboo, James Matthew
194
195

Group 16 Design of Stormwater Drainage in Barangay Bambang Pasig City Magboo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group 16 Design of Stormwater Drainage in Barangay Bambang Pasig City Magboo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Major (Capstone) Design Experience Information

Design Project Design of Storm-water Drainage in Barangay Bambang Pasig City

UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXEMPLARY

ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES Date: _________________________________

RUBRIC FOR ENGINEERING PROJECTS

Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary

ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES Date: _________________________________

Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary

ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES Date: _________________________________

RUBRIC FOR MODERN TOOL USAGE

Unsatisfactory Developing Satisfactory Very Satisfactory

ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES Date: _________________________________

RUBRIC FOR ETHICS

Performance Unsatisfactory Developing Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Exemplary

ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES Date: _________________________________

RUBRIC FOR INDIVIDUAL AND TEAM WORK

Unsatisfactory Developing Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Exemplary

ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES Date: _________________________________

ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES Date: _________________________________

RUBRIC FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT

RUBRIC FOR LIFELONG LEARNING

Performance Unsatisfactory Developing Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Exemplary

ENGR. RHONNIE C ESTORES Date: _________________________________

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department

DESIGN OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE AT BARANGAY BAMBANG, PASIG CITY

BARREDA, MARIA CLAUDETTE M.

MAGBOO, JAMES MATTHEW

ENGR. RONNIE ESTORES

2nd Semester, 2019

Engr. Yenko Tandoc Engr. Sean Lawrence Mainao

Engr. Amelia Marquez, Ph.D

Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

in drainages may occur.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Location

Figure 1.1 Project Location

1.4.1 General Objectives

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

TRADE-OFF 1 TRADE-OFF 2 TRADE-OFF 3

DESIGN OF TRADE-OFF 1 DESIGN OF TRADE-OFF 2 DESIGN OF TRADE-OFF 2

Figure 1.1 Project Development Plan

Figure 2-1 Topographic Map of Barangay Bambang, Pasig City

2.2 Flooding Incidence

(Source: PAG-ASA Science Garden, Quezon City)

Figure 2-3 Average Annual Precipitation Data of Pasig City

(Source PAG-ASA Science Garden, Quezon City)

A. Luna Street (297.24m)

Figure 2-4 Elevation of Luna Street

C.M. Cruz Street (316.82)

Figure 2-5 Elevation of CM- Cruz Street

V. Porzon Street 241.36m

Figure 2-6 Elevation of V. Porzon Street

F. Manalo Street 278.09m

Figure 2-7 Elevation of F. Manalo Street

G Valderama Street 238.86m

Figure 2-8 Elevation of G Valderama Street

M Santos Street 233.81m

Figure 2-9 Elevation of M. Santos Street

Figure 2-10 Elevation of Villarosa Street

Jose Pueblo Street 328.81m

Figure 2-11 Elevation of Jose Pueblo Street

Figure 2-12 Pasig River near Barangay Bambang