Chapter 1 5 - May 23

Design of Self-Reliant Flood Warning System Utilizing Different Sensors for the
flood awareness of the Barangay 5, Lucena City
A Design Project Submitted to the Electrical Engineering Department

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of the Course
EE Design Project 2 (EE 414)
Submitted by:
Colonia, Lloyd P.
Gapultos, Rey Archer V.
Gaspar, Kriztan Mark B.
Mendiola, John Marcus V.
Pidlaoan, Leobart Sammy B.
Technological Institute of the Philippines

Manila
April 2023
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Sattelite View of Pedro Nieva Street, Brgy 5, Lucena City. ........................................................ 2
Figure 1-2: Sequential Model of Project Development........................................................................................... 3
Figure 3-1: Design Option .......................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 3-2: Design Architecture of the Water Level Monitoring System ...................................................... 17
Figure 3-3: Tinkercad Logo ....................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-4: AutoCAD Logo ........................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 3-5: CFD Logo ................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 3-6: Fusion 360 Logo ..................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3-7: Design 1 Option. ...................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3-8: Traces of Water Drag .............................................................................................................. 25
Figure 3-9: Z-Axis Plane of Water Drag ..................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3-10: X-Axis Plane of Water Drag .......................................................................................................... 26
Figure 3-11: Design 2 Option. .................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-12: Traces of Water Drag ............................................................................................................ 32
Figure 3-13: Y-Axis Plane of Water Drag ................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-14: Z-Axis Plane of Water Drag ................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3-15: Design Option 3. .................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3-16: Traces of Water Drag ............................................................................................................ 39
Figure 3-17: Z-Axis Plane of Water Drag ................................................................................................... 39
Figure 3-18: X-Axis Plane of Water Drag ................................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-20: Traces of Water Drag .................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 3-21: Z-Axis Plane of Water Drag .......................................................................................................... 46
Figure 3-22: X-Axis Plane of Water Drag ................................................................................................... 47
Figure 3-24: Traces of Water Drag .................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 3-25: Y-Axis Plane of Water Drag .......................................................................................................... 53
Figure 3-26: Z-Axis Plane of Water Drag .................................................................................................. 54
Figure 4-1: Criterion Rank Representation ................................................................................................. 59
Figure 4-2: Water Drag Coefficient ............................................................................................................ 60
Figure 4-3: Initial Cost ............................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 4-4: Sustainability (Power Consumption) ........................................................................................ 62
Figure 4-5: Maintenance ............................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 4-6: Total Rating for Pairwise Comparison for all Design ................................................................ 65
Figure 4-7: Design Trade-offs Summary .................................................................................................... 65
Figure 4-8: Design Matrix Summary of Sensitivity Analysis 1..................................................................... 66
Figure 4-9: Design Matrix Summary of Sensitivity Analysis 2 ..................................................................... 67
Figure 4-10: Design Matrix Summary of Sensitivity Analysis 3 ................................................................... 68
i
Figure 4-17: Design Matrix Summary of Sensitivity Analysis 10 ................................................................. 76
Figure 5-1: Schematic Diagram ................................................................................................................. 97
Figure 5-2: Architectural Flow .................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 5-3: Design Option 4 Perspective View ........................................................................................... 98
Figure 5-4: Arduino & Jumping Wires Figure 5-5: 2mm2 THWN Wire................................................. 100
Figure 5-6: Float Switch Figure 5-7: LED Emergency Warning Light ................................................. 100
Figure 5-8: power supply ......................................................................................................................... 100
Figure 5-9: Pole with plates ..................................................................................................................... 101
Figure 5-10: Siren, Streetlight & Emergency Warning Light ..................................................................... 102
Figure 5-11: Sketch and plan of overall design of the prototype ............................................................... 102
Figure 5-12: Actual photos of buying of materials that will be using in the entire project. ......................... 103
Figure 5-13: Actual photos of the drilled holes and welded plates on the poles and welded containers or
support of the solar panel and siren. ........................................................................................................ 104
Figure 5-14: Actual photos of collected and sorted materials that will be using in the entire project. ........ 105
Figure 5-15: Planning of arrangement of the power supply and Arduino to the enclosure box. ................ 105
Figure 5-16: Placing of float switch to the pole ......................................................................................... 106
Figure 5-17: Supplying of power source to the siren ................................................................................ 106
Figure 5-18: Programming and constructing the wiring of Arduino ........................................................... 107
Figure 5-19: Actual photos of assembling ofsolar panel, siren, road light, and LED light to the pole ........ 108
Figure 5-20: Actual photos of assembled solar panel, siren, road light and LED light to the pole ............. 108
Figure 5-21: Actual photos of doing the wiring of float switch to the Arduino and power source. .............. 109
Figure 5-22: Testing the connection of Arduino to float switch if properly connected or wired in. ............. 109
Figure 5-23: Actual photos of manual manipulation or testing of the prototype if all of the float switch are
properly working. ..................................................................................................................................... 110
Figure 5-24: Actual photo of overall materials and wires connected to a single pole. ............................... 111
Figure 5-25: Actual photos of constructing the controlled environment, utilizing the metal sheets and plain sheets to have a
stable controlled environment. ...................................................................................................................... 112
Figure 5-26: Constructing of the base of the pole. ................................................................................... 113
Figure 5-27: Standing up and connecting the pole to the base. ............................................................... 113
Figure 5-28: Inserting the controlled environment to the pole. .................................................................. 114
Figure 5-29: Arranging and assembling of upper part of the pole. ............................................................ 114
Figure 5-30: Actual photos of doing the wiring of the float switch to the Arduino. ..................................... 115
ii
Figure 5-31: Actual photo of the overall system and ready for testing ...................................................... 115
Figure 5-32: Time Variation for Reaching Each Level .............................................................................. 120
Figure 5-33: Height vs Time Plot ............................................................................................................. 120
iii
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Client Requirements. .................................................................................................................. 6
Table 2-2: Design Criteria and Constraints. ................................................................................................. 6
Table 3-1: Morphological Chart for Flood Warning System. ....................................................................... 20
Table 3-2: List of Materials for Design Option 1 ......................................................................................... 21
Table 3-3: Estimated Power Consumption for Design Option 1.................................................................. 22
Table 3-4: Result Summary of Water Drag ................................................................................................ 26
Table 3-5: Material Costing of Design 1 ..................................................................................................... 27
Table 3-6: List of Materials for Design Option 2 ......................................................................................... 28
Table 3-7: Estimated Power Consumption for Design Option 2.................................................................. 29
Table 3-8: Result Summary of Water Drag ................................................................................................ 33
Table 3-9: Material Costing of Design 2 ..................................................................................................... 34
Table 3-10: List of Materials for Design Option 3 ....................................................................................... 35
Table 3-11: Estimated Power Consumption for Design Option 3................................................................ 36
Table 3-12: Result Summary of Water Drag .............................................................................................. 40
Table 3-13: Material Costing of Design 3 ................................................................................................... 41
Table 3-16: Result Summary of Air Drag ................................................................................................... 47
Table 3-20: Result Summary of Water Drag .............................................................................................. 54
Table 4-1: Summary for Water Drag Coefficient ........................................................................................ 59
Table 4-2: Summary of Construction Cost ................................................................................................. 60
Table 4-3: Summary of the power consumption on each design option ..................................................... 61
Table 4-4: Summary of the maintenance cost on each design option ........................................................ 62
Table 4-5: Pairwise Comparison of Design in all Constraint ....................................................................... 64
Table 4-6: Sensitivity Analysis Trial 1 ....................................................................................................... 66
Table 4-7: Sensitivity Analysis Trial 2 ........................................................................................................ 67
Table 4-10: Sensitivity Analysis Trial 5 ...................................................................................................... 70
Table 4-15: Sensitivity Analysis Trial 10 .................................................................................................... 75
iv
Table 4-30. Pareto Optimization between Sustainability and Maintenance ................................................ 91
Table 4-31: Pareto Optimization between Sustainability and Stability ........................................................ 91
Table 4-32: Pareto Optimization between Sustainability and Economical .................................................. 92
Table 4-33: Pareto Optimization between Maintenance and Economical ................................................... 93
Table 4-34: Pareto Optimization between Maintenance and Stability ......................................................... 94
Table 4-35: Pareto Optimization between Stability and Economical ........................................................... 95
Table 5-1: List of components used in the design. ..................................................................................... 99
Table 5-2: Decibel Readings at Different Distances ................................................................................. 117
Table 5-3: Energy Output of Photovoltaic Panels..................................................................................... 117
Table 5-4: Test Results for the flood warning system ............................................................................... 119
Table 5-5: Desired Results for Each Level .............................................................................................. 119
Table 5-6: Time for Certain Height to Reach ............................................................................................ 120
v
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................i
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iv
Chapter 1. Project Background .............................................................................................................. 1
Project Description .................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 1
The Client ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Project Scope and Limitations ................................................................................................................. 2
Project Development ............................................................................................................................... 3
Significance of the Study ......................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2. Design Inputs ....................................................................................................................... 6
Historical Background .............................................................................................................................. 6
Design Constraints .................................................................................................................................. 7
Design Inputs .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Review of Related Literature.................................................................................................................. 10
Chapter 3. Design Options .................................................................................................................. 17
Design 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Electrical Calculation ......................................................................................................................... 22
Drag Force ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Material Costing................................................................................................................................. 27
Design 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Drag Force ........................................................................................................................................ 31
Design 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 35
Drag Force ........................................................................................................................................ 38
Design 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 42
Drag Force ........................................................................................................................................ 45
vi
Design 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 49
Drag Force ........................................................................................................................................ 52
Design Factor ........................................................................................................................................ 56
Risk Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter 4. Design Trade Offs .............................................................................................................. 58
Criterion of Importance .......................................................................................................................... 63
NORMALIZATION OF DATA ................................................................................................................. 64
Pairwise Comparison of Design in all Constraint .................................................................................... 64
Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 66
Chapter 5. Final Design ....................................................................................................................... 97
Development of the Prototype ............................................................................................................... 97
Architectural Flow .................................................................................................................................. 98
Final 3D Modelling ................................................................................................................................. 98
Equipment and Materials ....................................................................................................................... 99
Components of “Self-Reliant Flood Warning System” .......................................................................... 100
Design Arrangement ............................................................................................................................ 102
Procedure ............................................................................................................................................ 102
Data and Results ................................................................................................................................. 117
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................... 121
Recommendations............................................................................................................................... 121
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 121
References .......................................................................................................................................... 123
Images ................................................................................................................................................ 124
Related Literature and Studies ............................................................................................................ 125
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 127
vii
viii
Chapter 1. Project Background
Project Description
Typhoons frequently hit the Philippines due to the location in the North Western Pacific Ocean, where 30%
of tropical cyclones originate and the worst storms are produced (Hilotin, 2022). On average, six to nine of
the 20 typhoons that make landfall annually in the Philippine Area are strong enough to cause significant
damage, resulting in fatalities and property damage(Future Learn, 2021)(DOST, n.d.). Flooding is a common
issue in the Philippines, often caused by prolonged periods of rain and exacerbated by the topography of a
location and proximity to rivers (Maryati, 2018).
Flood warnings are becoming increasingly important as the frequency and severity of floods increase due to
climate change and other factors such as population growth and urbanization. Flood warnings can help
reduce damage, fatalities, and injuries by providing people with information about flood risks and helping to
prepare for and respond to flood events. There are several factors to consider when developing and using
flood warning systems, including the need to communicate technical forecasts in a way that is understandable
to the public, increasing awareness of flood risks, and ensuring the accuracy of warning systems.There are
various methods of early warning systems used in the Philippines, including those that rely on sensors and
sirens to track and alert people of flood levels and those that use ultrasonic sensors and SMS alerts to monitor
water levels and provide updates to concerned individuals(Parker, 2017)(Serafica, 2017). The Philippines
has also implemented flood prevention infrastructure and other measures to reduce the risk of flooding, such
as the construction of the 250-meter-tall concrete wall along the Cagay and the River Bank Protection in
Barangay Salasa (Natividad & Mendez, 2017).
The objective of this study is to examine the potential of using different types of sensors to improve the
accuracy and cost-effectiveness of early warning systems for flooding in the Philippines. By addressing the
limitations of existing solutions, this project aims to provide reliable information about flood conditions to
nearby communities. This information can help communities prepare for and respond to flood events,
ultimately reducing the impact of floods on people and infrastructure in the Philippines.
Project Objective
The main objective of this design project is to improve the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of flood warning
systems in the Philippines by creating a self-reliant system that utilizes different types of sensors. To achieve
this, the project aims to:
• Design a flood warning system that can measure ± 1/8 inch of the water level in real-time and send a
signal within 1-2 seconds of detection.
• Develop an alarm signal with a direct relationship between the 85 decibels of the siren and the water
level of the river.
• Evaluate the reliability of the siren in terms of sound output using a Decibel Meter.
• Measure the energy generated by the photovoltaic panels in terms of collected electrical energy using a
kWh meter.
• Utilize incremental capacity analysis (CIA) to determine the design's maximum load capacity in terms of
battery health.
1
The Client
The proposed project will be implemented for the benefit of the Chairman of Barangay 5, Lucena City, Mr.
Eduard T. Sy Bang, who will serve as the client for this project.
The Satellite view of the Pedro Nieva Street, Barangay 5, Lucena City, the location where the prototype will
be tested and evaluated as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1-1: Sattelite View of Pedro Nieva Street, Brgy 5, Lucena City.
Project Scope and Limitations

The scope of this study is to develop a flood warning system that can accurately measure water levels in
real-time and provide reliable information about flood conditions to nearby communities in the Philippines.
The system will be specifically designed for use in areas with low-water bridges and will be powered by
renewable energy sources. The system will be limited to detecting or measuring water levels within 5 meters
of the ground level and will have a maximum sound output of 85 decibels. The system will also be designed
to be affordable and practical for use in Barangay 5 in Lucena City.
The delimitation of this study is that it will only focus on the development and implementation of a flood
warning system for use in areas with low-water bridges in Barangay 5 in Lucena City. The system will not be
applicable to other types of flood risk areas or to areas outside of Barangay 5. The system will also be limited
in the ability to detect or measure water levels beyond 5 meters relative to the ground level of the road. The
system will not be designed to provide any additional monitoring or warning capabilities beyond those related
to flood risk.
2
Project Development
The sequential Model is used in this project, as Illustrated in Fig. 2. The section that follows explains each
stage of the project’s development.
Figure 1-2: Sequential Model of Project Development.

The flow of the research process begins with gathering related research on the topic of interest. This is
followed by a problem analysis, which involves identifying the specific problem that the research aims to
solve. The next step is to analyze existing solutions to the problem, which involves evaluating the
effectiveness and limitations of these solutions. Based on this analysis, the system design is then developed,
which involves coming up with a plan for the proposed solution. This design is then broken down into several
options, which are evaluated and compared through design calculations and simulation. If the design meets
the objectives and criteria set out in the research, it proceeds to the next step of trade-off analysis, where the
pros and cons of the different options are weighed against each other. The final design is then developed
into a prototype, which is tested and evaluated to determine the effectiveness. The results of this testing are
then interpreted and a conclusion is drawn, followed by recommendations for further research or
implementation.
3
Requirement Specification
Developing a flood warning system is a complex process that requires a thorough understanding of the
problem and the available solutions. To determine the requirements for this system, the developers will
conduct extensive research by examining potential papers and studies related to the project. This research
will allow the team to understand the current flood warning systems available, evaluate the effectiveness,
and identify areas for improvement. In addition to this, the team will also analyze relevant research to gain a
better understanding of the latest technologies and techniques used in this field. Based on this research, the
team will develop a detailed plan for the flood warning system, which will outline the specific features and
functionalities required to ensure the effectiveness. By conducting this research and developing a
comprehensive plan, the team can create a flood warning system that meets the needs of the project and
provides reliable and timely information to the community.
System Design
Once the researchers have completed the analysis phase of the project, the researchers can move on to the
design phase. During this phase, the researchers will begin to conceptualize the project by coming up with
potential ideas and design concepts. In order to ensure that these ideas are feasible, the researchers will
also perform 3D modeling and simulation. This will allow to visualize the project in a virtual environment and
make any necessary adjustments before moving on to the construction phase. To enhance the project, design
computation and parameters must be established. This means that the researchers must determine the
specific measurements, calculations, and formulas that will be used to create the final product. By
establishing these parameters, the researchers can ensure that the project is accurate and meets the
necessary specifications. Through careful design and planning, the developers can create a successful
project that meets the needs of the client and provides value to the community.
Design Implementation
After the software for the system has been integrated, the design researchers can move on to creating the
prototype. To ensure that the prototype meets the necessary specifications and functions as intended, the
team will begin by performing simulations. These simulations will help to identify any potential issues or areas
for improvement before moving on to the physical design phase. Once the simulation is complete, the
researchers can begin to create the design using software tools such as Fusion 360, Computational Fluid
Dynamics, and Tinkercad. By using these tools, the researchers can create an efficient and effective design
that meets the needs of the project. Through a combination of simulation and software design, the team can
create a prototype that is reliable, functional, and meets the requirements of the project.
Verification and Test

System testing and troubleshooting are crucial steps in the development of any project. After the design has
been completed, the development team must test the system to ensure that it functions correctly and meets
the necessary requirements. This testing phase may involve a range of different tests, including performance
testing, functionality testing, and stress testing, among others. The testing phase is critical to the success of
the project, as it allows the team to identify any issues or problems that need to be addressed before the
system is deployed. Once the testing is complete, the project is ready for deployment, and the system can
be launched into production. By performing thorough testing and troubleshooting, the team can ensure that
the system is reliable and performs as intended, providing value to the end-users and meeting the needs of
the project.
4
System Deployment
After completing numerous tests, the researchers were able to implement the design project on Pedro Nieva
Street in Brgy 5 in Lucena City. The primary objective of the project was to develop a flood warning system
that could detect and predict potential flood conditions in the area. The system was designed to provide
accurate and timely information to nearby residents, allowing to prepare and take appropriate action if
necessary. By implementing the project on Pedro Nieva Street, the researchers were able to test the system
in a real-world setting and evaluate the effectiveness. Overall, the project was successful, providing valuable
information to the community and helping to prevent potential flood damage.
Significance of the Study

The design project aims to provide information about flood conditions and propose a system that can give
warning to the people about the water level. The system will use different types of sensors to improve the
accuracy and cost-effectiveness of early warning systems for flooding in the Philippines. By addressing the
limitations of existing solutions, the project aims to provide reliable information about flood conditions to
nearby communities, helping to prepare for and respond to flood events.
The community of Pedro Nieva Street, Barangay 5, Lucena City will significantly benefit from this Flood Alarm
System, as the area frequently experiences floods. The system will provide real-time information about the
current flood water level through an emergency light, and siren, helping to reduce accidents and prepare the
community for flood events. Additionally, the system can give warning based on the water level of the low-
lying bridge, which is especially important for the community as the area lacks proper signaling and lighting.
By providing reliable information about flood conditions, the Flood Alarm System can ultimately help mitigate
the impact of floods on people and infrastructure in the community.
The implementation of the Flood Alarm System on the low-lying bridge in Pedro Nieva Street can provide
valuable benefits to drivers and motorists passing through the area. With accurate and timely information
about flood conditions, drivers can take appropriate measures to avoid potential dangers and ensure the
safety. This is particularly important during flood events, which can pose significant risks to motorists and
travelers. By providing this information, the Flood Alarm System can help to reduce the risk of accidents and
ensure the safety of those passing through the area. Additionally, the system can help to reduce traffic
congestion and delays by allowing drivers to plan the routes more effectively. Overall, the Flood Alarm System
can provide important benefits to drivers and motorists, helping to ensure the safety and improve the overall
experience while passing through the low-lying bridge in Pedro Nieva Street.
The study on the flood warning system can serve as a valuable reference for future researchers who are
interested in exploring the topic. By examining the methods, findings, and limitations of the study, future
researchers can gain insights and inspiration for their own investigations. The study can also provide a basis
for future improvements and developments in the field of flood warning systems. Specifically, researchers
can consider ways to enhance the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of early warning systems for flooding.
Additionally, the research can inspire new ideas and solutions for improving flood alarm systems, ultimately
contributing to the development of more effective approaches for mitigating the impact of floods on
communities and infrastructure. Overall, the study can serve as a starting point for future research and
development in the field of flood warning and mitigation.
5
Chapter 2. Design Inputs
Historical Background
In Barangay 5, Lucena City, a lower water bridge was built over the Iyam River to provide a convenient
transportation solution for vehicles and people under normal conditions. However, during floods, the bridge
becomes unpassable and unsafe due to the strong water current, which can push vehicles.
The particular area has become more unsafe in recent years due to the lack of lighting at night and visibility
of water level indicators during floods. This makes it difficult for people to determine if it is safe to pass over
the bridge, adding to the danger of the situation. Without proper signaling and lighting, people are at risk of
accidents when trying to navigate the bridge during flood events.
Table 2-1: Client Requirements.

Requirements
The flood warning system must provide a reliable light and alert system in the specified area.
The system must utilize renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaic panels, to generate power.
The system must be easy to install and use materials that are readily available and accessible in the
market.
The project must be practical, with a focus on low maintenance and operational costs.
The cost of the project should be fair and reasonable.
Table 2-1 is a visual representation of the specific requirements that the client has for the prototype. By
presenting these requirements in a table, it is easier to visualize and understand the scope of the project.
The design criteria and objectives of the prototype will be closely aligned with the client's requirements to
ensure that the final product meets the needs. This alignment is crucial for the success of the project and the
satisfaction of the client. By taking into consideration the requirements outlined in Table 1, the design team
can create a prototype that not only meets the client's needs but also exceeds the expectations.
Table 2-2: Design Criteria and Constraints.

Design Criteria Range Design Constraints
Cost and Durability Less than Php 50,000.00 Economical and long-lasting
Strength and Aerodynamics Drag Coefficient Cd<0.5 Stability and low drag
Must be able to energize
Power Consumption and Efficiency Sustainability and high performance
about 100 W
Within Php 2,000 every
Maintenance Repair cost
year
Table 2-2 is a detailed breakdown of the design criteria for the prototype. The criteria that have been specified
in the table are cost, strength, power consumption, and maintenance. The table also includes the range and
constraints for each of these criteria, which will serve as a guide for the researchers to ensure that the final
product meets the required specifications. The client has specified a price range of Php 50,000.00, which will
help the design team to keep the project within the budget. In addition, the drag coefficient of less than 0.5 is
required for the pole to withstand the water current, ensuring that the prototype is sturdy and safe for use.
The power consumption of the prototype should be 100W or less, ensuring that it is energy-efficient. Finally,
6
the maintenance cost of Php 2,000 every year is a requirement to ensure that the prototype is durable and
can be used for an extended period with minimal upkeep costs. By adhering to the specifications in Table 2,
the researchers can create a prototype that meets the client's needs and exceeds the expectations.
Design Constraints
1. Economical
To meet the cost threshold, the designers may need Chapter 12: Economics “Prime's Mechanical
to source materials from local suppliers to reduce Engineering Pocket Reference Manual”
transportation costs. The researchers may also need (2009).
to consider alternative materials that are more
affordable but still meet the project's requirements. In
addition, the designers may need to optimize the design to reduce the overall cost without sacrificing the
system's functionality or reliability. This may involve finding a balance between using the most cost-
effective materials and ensuring that the design meets all necessary safety and performance standards.
Ultimately, the project's success will depend on the designers' ability to meet the cost threshold without
compromising the quality and effectiveness of the system.
The project must meet a certain cost threshold, determined by the prices of locally available materials
and the ease of obtaining. The designers have considered the actual costs of the project's components
and set a standard value for the design to meet.
Total Cost = (Material Cost + Labor Cost per unit + Variable Costs per unit) + Fixed Cost
2. Stability
The stability of an object refers to the ability to maintain the position or equilibrium when subjected to
external forces. A drag coefficient is a measure of the resistance or drag that an object experiences in a
fluid environment, and it can be used to calculate the hydrodynamic force acting on the object. The drag
coefficient is defined by the drag equation
Section V: Equation of Drag Force.
2𝐹𝑑 “Experimental analysis on drag coefficient
𝐶𝑑 = 2
𝜌𝑣 𝐴 reduction techniques,” IEEE Xplore, Sep. 01,
2016.
where:
𝐶𝑑 =drag coefficient
𝐹𝑑 =Force
𝜌 =density
𝑣 =velocity
𝐴 =frontal area
3. Sustainability
To achieve the goal of providing reliable and long-lasting energy, the project must consider the efficiency
of the energy storage system, such as the batteries and solar panels. The design should also account
for potential energy losses due to system inefficiencies, as well as potential changes in environmental
conditions. A backup power supply system should be in place to ensure that the system remains
operational during extended periods of low sunlight or other issues. In addition, the project should
7
consider the environmental impact of the energy source, aiming for a sustainable solution that minimizes
waste and reduces carbon emissions.
4. Maintenance
To ensure the project's affordability, it is important to consider maintenance costs. An affordable
maintenance cost will make it easier for the client to maintain the project in the long run. The project's
design should prioritize the use of durable and high-quality components that require minimal
maintenance. Additionally, the maintenance schedule should be well-planned and communicated
clearly to the client to avoid unexpected costs and downtime. Finally, the project's design should
include features that allow for easy maintenance, such as accessible components and a user-friendly
interface.
Design Inputs
The design will consist of a system that integrates various sensors, including ultrasonic sensors, pressure
sensors, and float sensors, to monitor water levels accurately. The sensors will be connected to a
microcontroller, which will process the data and trigger an alarm and LED lights to warn residents of any
potential flood threat. A solar panel and battery system will provide power to the system, making it
independent of the grid. Finally, a controller will regulate the operation of the system based on the sensor
data and ensure the proper functioning.
Sensor
There are several types of sensors that can be used to detect water levels, including float switches, ultrasonic
sensors, potentiometers, and conductor probes. A float switch is a type of level sensor that uses a flotation
component to detect the level of a liquid, such as in a tank or container. The float switch activates with each
rise and fall of the liquid and is commonly used for raw water and liquid transfer pumps, automated level
control of wastewater and sewage pumps, groundwater pumps, and high-water alarms.
An ultrasonic sensor is a device that produces or detects ultrasound radiation and is used for object detection
and distance measurement in automated manufacturing and processing facilities. The sensor works by
emitting a sound pulse that is reflected off the object and measuring the time it takes for the echo to return.
A conductive level sensor, also known as a resistive level sensor, uses probes made of stainless steel to
detect substance levels and generate electrical contact outputs. These sensors can be used with level control
relays to establish preset levels and remotely monitor levels, and are known for their accuracy and precision.
It is commonly used in reservoirs, tanks, ponds, sumps, and for measuring pharmaceuticals.
A potentiometer is a variable resistance device that consists of standard cells and a uniform length of wire
arranged side by side and connected by a thick metal strip. The resistance can be manually adjusted to
change the circuit and regulate the current flowing through the wire, or to measure the potential difference
between any two points in a circuit. Potentiometers are often used as rheostats to control the flow of current
in a circuit.
8
LED Light
LED lights or lamps are a popular type of light source that employs light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to generate
light. These lights have numerous advantages over traditional incandescent bulbs, including higher energy
efficiency and longer lifespan. Compared to most fluorescent bulbs, LED lights are also more efficient and
produce less heat. Moreover, LED lights come in a wide range of colors and can be used in various
applications, from indoor and outdoor lighting to automotive and medical lighting. The most efficient LED
lights available today have an efficiency of up to 200 lumens per watt (Lm/W), making an attractive option for
those seeking high-performance and energy-efficient lighting solutions.
Alarm System
Public warning systems play a crucial role in alerting communities about dangerous weather or flood-
threatening conditions. These systems often include audible sirens and flashing beacon lights, which can be
activated remotely or automatically. When rainfall and water levels reach certain thresholds, the sirens and
lights are triggered to warn people to take necessary precautions. These warning systems are especially
important in areas prone to floods or other natural disasters. By providing timely and accurate warnings,
public warning systems can help save lives and prevent property damage.
Solar Panel
Solar panels are a reliable and sustainable source of energy used to convert solar energy into electricity. It
is composed of solar cells made up of layers of silicon, phosphorous, and boron, which absorb photons and
generate an electric current. The power output of a solar panel is typically rated in terms of watts and is
influenced by factors such as weather, angle of incidence, and shading. The efficiency of a solar panel refers
to the percentage of sunlight that is converted into electrical energy and can vary depending on the type of
solar cell used. Finally, the lifespan of a solar panel is also an important consideration, with most panels
having a lifespan of 20-25 years.
Battery
Batteries are essential for storing and supplying electrical energy to a wide range of devices, from small
electronics to large power systems. There are numerous types of batteries available, including primary
batteries, which are designed to be used once and then disposed of, and secondary batteries, which can be
recharged and used multiple times. The capacity of a battery, which is measured in terms of the ampere-hour
(Ah) rating, represents the amount of current that can be delivered over a certain period of time. The lifespan
of a battery depends on a variety of factors, including usage, storage conditions, and the type of battery
chemistry used. Finally, battery technology is continually evolving, with new innovations aiming to increase
capacity, lifespan, and overall efficiency.
Controller
Controllers are typically programmable and can be customized to perform specific tasks. It is often having
built-in logic and algorithms to help automate processes and make decisions based on the input data. Some
common types of controllers include microcontrollers, programmable logic controllers (PLCs), and distributed
control systems (DCSs). Microcontrollers are often used in small-scale applications, while PLCs and DCSs
are typically used in larger, industrial-scale systems. The use of controllers can help improve the efficiency
and accuracy of a system or process, and can help reduce the risk of errors or failures.
9
Review of Related Literature
Studies/Projects Similarities Differences

01 Title: “Flood Monitoring and Early A prototype similar to this This project introduced the use
Warning System Using Ultrasonic project was developed to of web-based applications to
Sensor” monitor water levels and send monitor an area's current
SMS alerts about potential status, while the other system
Authors: J G Natividad; J M Mendez floods. This system utilized utilized four different alert
sensors and electronic levels. The two-way
Publication: 2018 IOP Conference components to measure and communication feature of this
Series: Material Science and track water levels, and would system allowed users to interact
Engineering send messages to designated with the system and receive
recipients in the event of a real-time updates about the
flood. By utilizing this water level. These updates
technology, it is possible to were crucial in providing early
provide early warning systems warning signals to prevent flood
that can help prevent damage damage and reduce the impact
to infrastructure and save lives. on the community.
02 Title:“Water Level Monitoring and The system was equipped to The LCD screen displayed the
Flood Warning System using Light send an SMS message to the current water level of the river,
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) target recipients with up-to- allowing for easy monitoring.
Sensor with Hybrid Renewable Solar- date information on the water Additionally, the system was
Wind Power” level status. Additionally, a capable of sending SMS
siren was included as a flood notifications to designated
Authors: Angelica F. De Leon; warning to alert people in the recipients at a set schedule,
Febus Reidj G. Cruz area of the potential danger. providing up-to-date information
Finally, the system was about the river's water level and
Publication: 2021 IEEE 13th powered by renewable energy, status. This feature enabled
International Conference on which made it more sustainable proactive measures to be taken
Humanoid, Nanotechnology, and environmentally friendly. in the event of a flood or other
Information Technology, emergency.
Communication and Control,
Environment, and Management
(HNICEM)
03 Title:“Real-time flood water level The system was designed to In this flood warning system, the
monitoring system with SMS send SMS alerts about different system sends SMS to inform
notification” flood levels to warn people of people about different flood
the danger. Additionally, it used levels. The system has three
Authors: Glenn O. Avendaño; Jan LEDs as a flood indicator to different LED colors, each of
Ralley P. Pagaduan; Charmaine visually convey the severity of which indicates a different level
C.Paglinawan; Arnold C. the situation. The system also of flooding. This feature helps
Paglinawan; Jesse Dave S. Selda; provided warnings to drivers if people to know about the
the road was still passable to severity of the flood and to take
Publication: 2017 IEEE 9th ensure the people’s safety. appropriate measures to keep
International Conference on themselves and the property
Humanoid, Nanotechnology, safe.
10
Information Technology,
Communication and Control,
Environment and Management
(HNICEM)
04 Title:“Design and field test The mentioned system has two The proposed project called
equipment of river water level similarities with another Android Flood Detection is
detection based on ultrasonic sensor
system, one of which is the unique in that it focuses on the
and SMS gateway as flood early inclusion of an alarm sound and development of a smartphone
warning” warning light to signal danger. application that can detect
The second similarity is the floods and provide real-time
Authors: Riny Sulistyowati, Hari ability to send SMS information information to users. The
Agus Sujono, Ahmad Khamdi about the water level of a river. application utilizes the
Musthofa The first similarity serves as an smartphone's built-in sensors
immediate warning to such as GPS and
Publication: 15 June 2017 AIP individuals within the area of accelerometer to determine if
Conference Proceedings 1855 the river, while the second the user is in a flood-prone area.
provides individuals with critical The application then sends an
information on whether or not to alert to the user's phone with
evacuate the area. information about the flood,
such as the water level, and
suggests evacuation routes to
safety.
05 Title:“Flood disaster indicator of One similar aspect of this It includes an LCD display to
water level monitoring system” project was the use of SMS to indicate the condition of the
disseminate real-time water level. The system
Authors: Wan Haszerila Wan information about flood levels includes 5 different conditions,
Hassan, Aiman Zakwan Jidin, Siti to users, which relied on a GSM which allows for a more detailed
Asma Che Aziz, Norain Rahim network. Another similarity was and accurate representation of
the inclusion of a flood warning the flood level.
Publication: 1 June 2019 system, which alerted users
International Journal of Electrical and about potential dangers
Computer Engineering 9(3):1694 through sound and visual
indicators. Additionally, the
DOI:10.11591/ijece.v9i3.pp1694- system focused on the
1699 monitoring of water levels and
provided users with updated
information.
06 Title:“Development of Flood The system described involves It uses 3 different colors of LED
Warning System” the use of a LED and a siren to to differentiate the water level.
give warnings about the water Additionally, the proposed
Authors: Joy J. Labo, Eric level, similar to the other project does not include SMS
E.Floresca, Larry E. Gracilla system. Additionally, both messaging as a means of
systems focus on providing warning users about the water
Publication: Int. Journal of real-time flood warnings to level. Instead, it relies on a
Engineering Research and users. However, the proposed computer program to
Applications www.ijera.com ISSN: system may differ in terms of continuously track the water
11
2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 1, (Part - 6) the specific design of the LED level and provide updates as
January 2016, pp.57-64 and siren, as well as the needed.
method of data collection and
transmission.
07 Title:“Implementation of SMS The use of a GSM module to It uses Python and Gammu
Gateway in the Flood Notification send SMS notifications about programs to connect a MySQL
System using Raspberry Pi” the flood height is a common database and a modem via a
feature between this project bridge application. Additionally,
Authors: D Satria, S Yana, R and other flood monitoring the proposed project involves
Munadi, S Syahrez, E Yusibani, T systems. Another similarity is the sending of SMS notifications
Hidayat the use of sensors to monitor every 5 cm increase in the flood
the water level. Finally, both level.
Publication: 2020 IOP Conference systems aim to provide real-
Series: Materials Science and time information and alerts to
Engineering. 796 012029 people in flood-prone areas.
08 Title:“Flash Flood Early Warning Two projects have similar First, it allows for data to be
System in Colima, Mexico” features in terms of providing accessed through the cloud or
information about the height of the internet, with different
Authors: José Ibarreche, Raúl water in a river and using an graphical representations
Aquino, R. M. Edwards, Víctor alert system to send real-time available to users. Additionally,
Rangel, Ismael Pérez, Miguel data and SMS to users. Both the proposed project allows for
Martínez, Esli Castellanos, Elisa projects may use sensors, such anyone to access and upload
Álvarez, Saul Jimenez, Raúl as float switches, to monitor the pictures or data.Another
Rentería, Arthur Edwards, and Omar water level and send alerts via difference is the use of a drone
Álvarez SMS or other means. The goal to gather data. Finally, the
of these features is to keep proposed project uses different
Publication: 14 September 2020 people informed and prepared colors of lights to distinguish the
for any potential flooding or height of water.
other water-related hazards.
09 Title:“Flood level indicator and The use of a sensor to monitor The system utilized a wireless
risk warning system for remote the water level was a common sensor to measure the water's
location monitoring using flood feature in the project and the height, which made the
observatory system” other system being compared. monitoring process more
Additionally, both systems efficient. The wireless sensor
Authors: SIVA KUMAR focused on providing real-time eliminates the need for manual
SUBRAMANIAM, VIGNESWARA alerts to users in the event of measurement, which reduces
RAO GANNAPATHY, SIVARAO flooding. The systems also the risk of errors and
SUBRAMONIAN and ABDUL HAMID emphasized the importance of inaccuracies. This feature is
HAMIDO providing instant warning especially useful in areas where
displays and detailed water water levels can rise rapidly,
Publication: March 2010 WSEAS level information to ensure that providing real-time data that can
Transactions on Systems and Control individuals and organizations be used to make timely
5(3):153-163 could take appropriate action to decisions.
minimize damage caused by
flooding.
12
10 Title:“A real-time prototype of a The use of Wi-Fi to alert and
water level monitor and wide area Real-time information sharing spread data in real-time.
early flood warning” and water level measurement Additionally, the proposed
are common features in various project uses LabVIEW and a
Authors: NarumonWannoi, Chaisit water level monitoring systems. cellphone as the water
Wannoi For example, some systems monitoring system. Finally, the
use wireless sensors to track proposed project determines
Publication: 14 September 2021 the water level, while others the water level using a
Electrical Industrial Technology use web-based applications to hydrostatic level sensor, rather
Department, Faculty of Agricultural display the current state of an than a different method or type
and Industrial Technology, area. These systems often of sensor.
Phetchabun Rajabhat University, include alert systems that notify
Phetchabun, 67000 Thailand users about changes in the
water level and provide
information to help make
informed decisions.
11Title:“DESIGN OF AN EARLY One such similarity was the First, it does not include SMS
WARNING FLOOD LEVEL provision of a warning signal notifications as a means of
INDICATOR” whenever the water level warning users about the water
reaches a certain point, as level. Second, the proposed
Authors: DENNISE B. ALFARO determined by a sensor. project does not have a
GENETTE S. SOLIS KENNETH Additionally, both the proposed generating source, such as a
ROWEL REYES project and other projects used power outlet or battery.
the concept of buoyancy to
Publication: OCTOBER 2013 determine the water level.
12Title:“Real Time Flood Detection, While there are various flood The system uses image
Alarm and Monitoring System Using monitoring systems in use processing to collect and
Image Processing and Multiple today, one commonality is the analyze data about the water
Linear Regression” objective to provide accurate level. The image processing
and real-time data on water technique involves the use of
Authors: Lean Karlo S. Tolentino, levels. Flood monitoring digital image processing
Rochelynne E. Baron, Celestine systems are designed to gather algorithms to extract information
Antoinette C. Blacer, Jose Miguel D. and provide information on about the water level from
Aliswag, Dave Carlo E. De Guzman, water levels, which can be used images or video footage. This
John Bryan A. Fronda, Regina C. for early warning and disaster method provides a reliable and
Valeriano, Jay Fel C. Quijano, Maria mitigation. These systems use accurate way to determine the
Victoria C. Padilla, Gilfred Allen M. various sensors and data water level and can be used in
Madrigal, Ira C. Valenzuela, Edmon collection methods to provide various settings such as flood
O. Fernandez continuous monitoring of water monitoring, water management,
levels in rivers, streams, and and hydrological research.
Publication: JULY 2022: 12-23 other bodies of water, helping
to prevent and mitigate the
impact of flood events.
13Title:“AUTOMATED Both systems share similarities The development of a website
WATERLEVEL MONITORING in using a water level sensor to utilizing ASTI-DOST data aims
gather data and providing real- to provide the public with
13
USING REAL-TIME time SMS warning signals to accurate and reliable
OBSERVATION” alert people about possible information about various
floods. Additionally, both environmental factors. The
Authors: Raymond T. Ong, Mario S. prioritize the timely website is designed to offer a
Rodriguez, Emir V. Epino, Julemer dissemination of information to summary of the data gathered
Ann G. Aying, Glenn Leandri Brylle L. the community in order to by ASTI-DOST, and this data
Lamparas, Rengie Bagares mitigate the effects of floods. can be accessed by the users
Both systems aim to minimize via SMS. With the help of this
Publication: ZAMBASULTA, Ateneo the risks associated with floods website, people can stay
de Zamboanga University, by providing useful data and informed about environmental
Philippines alerts to help people make factors such as weather and
informed decisions. flood levels, enabling to take
appropriate measures to protect
themselves and the properties.
14Title:“Efficiency of camera One similarity between two The system's utilization of a
sensors for flood monitoring and systems is the focus on camera sensor provides a
warnings” monitoring and warning about different approach to gathering
floods. Both systems utilize data, allowing for a more
Authors: Georgina Ufuoma, SMS notifications to alert users comprehensive view of the
Blessing Funmbi Sasanyab, Perkins about potential dangers. This environment being monitored.
Abajec, Philip Awodutirea helps ensure that people are This method allows for more
aware of the potential threat accurate data to be collected,
Publication: September 2021 and can take appropriate action as well as providing a visual
to stay safe. representation of the current
state of the area. Additionally,
the use of a camera sensor
opens up the possibility of using
image recognition technology to
identify and track changes in the
environment over time.
15Title:“THE URBAN FLOOD Many flood monitoring systems The use of the internet and
EARLY WARNING SYSTEM: share the similarity of artificial intelligence in flood
SENSORS AND COASTAL FLOOD prioritizing flood monitoring and monitoring and management is
SAFETY” providing timely warnings to a growing trend in the field of
people in affected areas. These disaster risk reduction and
Authors: Bob Pengel, Ludolph systems often use various management. In this system,
Wentholt, Valeria V. sensors and technologies to the internet is used to collect
Krzhizhanovskaya, Gleb Shirshov, gather data on water levels, data from various sources,
Natalia Melnikova, Ben Gouldby, rainfall, and other important including sensors, weather
André Koelewijn, Alexander Pyayt, factors. The goal is to provide forecasts, and satellite imagery.
Ilya Mokhov, Nico Pals, Jeroen accurate and reliable Artificial intelligence is then
Broekhuijsen, and Robert Meijer information to people who are used to analyze the data and
at risk of being affected by generate real-time flood
Publication: STOWA Foundation for floods, allowing to take. forecasts, which are used to
Applied Water Research, PO Box necessary precautions to stay provide early warning to
safe. vulnerable communities. This
14
2180, 3800 CD Amersfoort, the technology has the potential to
Netherlands significantly improve the ability
to prepare for and respond to
flood disasters.
16Title:“Application of the GPM- One such similarity was the The focus on detecting flash
IMERG Products in Flash Flood ability to send SMS floods at an early stage.
Warning: A Case Study in Yunnan, notifications about flood-related Additionally, the proposed
China” information and alerts to project interprets NASA's
relevant authorities, as well as precipitation data to provide a
Authors: Meihong Ma, Huixiao the use of GSM technology to more precise warning for flash
Wang, Pengfei Jia, Guoqiang Tang, transmit these SMS messages. floods.
Dacheng Wang, Ziqiang Ma, Haiming
Yan
Publication: 17 June 2020

17Title:“SMS Based Flood One such similarity was the The barometric pressure sensor
Monitoring and Early Warning ability to send SMS is used to measure the air
System” notifications with information pressure and help determine
about flood-related threats or the water level. It works by
Authors:Sheikh Azid, Bibhya at-risk individuals to relevant measuring the pressure exerted
Sharma, Krishna Raghuwaiya, authorities, as well as the use by the water column above it,
Abinendra Chand, Sumeet Prasad, A of GSM technology to transmit which changes as the water
Jacquier these SMS messages. level rises or falls. This data is
then collected and analyzed by
Publication: 05 January 2018 the system to provide accurate
information about the water
level.
18Title:“A Study of an SMS-Based One similarity among various The system in question appears
Flood Warning System for Flood Risk flood monitoring systems is the to lack some of the common
Areas in Laos” use of SMS messages to features found in flood warning
provide real-time flood systems. For example, it does
Authors: Saysoth Keoduangsine, warnings to users. The systems not have a generator, which
Robert Goodwin, and Paul Gardner- utilize sensors to monitor the may limit the reliability during
Stephen water level, and when the water power outages. Additionally, it
level reaches a dangerous does not have an alarm system,
Publication: International Journal of level, the system sends an which could be problematic in
Future Computer and SMS message to alert users. situations where individuals
Communication, Vol. 3, No. 3, June This real-time warning system may not be actively monitoring
2014 enables people to take the the cliients phones or email.
necessary precautions and Finally, it also lacks an LED
prepare for the potential flood light, which could be used
damage caused by the flood. to provide a visual warning to
individuals in the immediate
vicinity.
19Title:“FLOOD EARLY WARNING The use of SMS messages on First, it uses the internet for
INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR an Arduino Uno is a common monitoring and warning
15
MULTILOCATION BASED method of communication and information systems, rather
ANDROID” notification for flood monitoring than relying on a different
systems. Another similarity is method or technology. Second,
Authors: Dedi Satria, Syaifuddin the use of sensors to detect the proposed project does not
Yana, Rizal Munadi, Saumi Syahreza water level and trigger alerts. include an alarm system or LED
Additionally, these systems flood lights as part of the design.
Publication: August 2018 often incorporate wireless
connectivity, such as a GSM
module, to enable remote
monitoring and data
transmission.
16
Chapter 3. Design Options
Figure 3-1: Design Option

Figure 3-1 displays five design options for water level monitoring, based on the sensor used and available
materials. These design options include the use of a potentiometer, fuel level sensor, ultrasonic sensor, and
flow switch. Each sensor offers unique benefits and limitations, allowing for a tailored approach to water level
monitoring. Additionally, the materials used for the pole can be either stainless steel or steel, allowing for
flexibility in construction based on the specific requirements of the project. Overall, Figure 3 provides a
comprehensive overview of the available design options for water level monitoring based on sensor and
material considerations.
Design Architecture
Figure 3-2: Design Architecture of the Water Level Monitoring System

Figure 3-2 illustrates the design system of the water level monitoring system, which has the primary objective
of providing information and alerting users about the water level of the river. The system is typically composed
of sensors; controllers, communication devices, and software that work together to monitor the water level in
real-time. The information provided by the system can used to help communities make informed decisions
about flood management, navigation, irrigation, and other water-related activities. Additionally, the system
can be set up to automatically trigger alerts or alarms when water levels reach a critical threshold, helping to
minimize the risks associated with flood events. Overall, Figure 4 provides an overview of the design of a
water level monitoring system and highlights the potential benefits for communities.
Water Level Monitoring System

The water level monitoring system will make use of four sensors: a potentiometer, a conductive rod, a float
switch, and an ultrasonic sensor. The designs will differ in the construction from one another, and sensors
will be used to offer a more precise monitoring system. A potentiometer uses a floater to measure the height
17
of the water; as the water level rises, the floater's angle also rises, and the potentiometer is in charge of
reading this information. The Conducting Rod prototype will have four different conductive rods, each with a
variable height that, when touched by water, will reveal the height of the water at that moment. An ultrasonic
sensor is mounted on a pole with a strong base and the capacity to withstand brisk air. The float switch is the
last and final component. A total of four different float switches will be used to correspond to the four different
water levels that will be shown by four different sensors.
Flood Warning System

The Flood Warning system will employ various alerting systems. A siren, an LED warning light, and an SMS
will all serve as warning signals to nearby residents of the chosen area. The barangay authority will be notified
of the flood scenario on the low-water level bridge via SMS using the GSM module attached to the Arduino
Uno. The SMS sent to the barangay authority is based on the sensor input to the Arduino. To provide a
warning if the water level rises to a level that could lead to accidents in the area, a siren and LED warning
light are additionally added.
Power Generation
The solar panel that will be mounted on it will supply electricity to every component of the apparatus directly.
It is ideal for renewable energy to have a peak output of between 80 and 100 watts. The solar panel is made
of monocrystalline material for greater efficiency than other types of solar panels. The monocrystalline is also
more durable than other types because it can withstand and control heat while capturing solar photovoltaic
energy. The solar panel will be installed at an angle of 30 degrees, perpendicular to the ground.
Tinkercad
An open-source, web-based 3D modeling program is called Tinkercad. Since the debut in 2011, it has been
a well-liked platform for creating models for 3D printing and a basic introduction to constructive solid geometry
at educational institutions. Utilizing a simplified constructive solid geometry method, Tinkercad builds models.
Primitive forms that make up a design can be either "solid" or "hole" depending on how it is combined to
create new forms, which can then be given either the solid or hole attribute.
Figure 3-3: Tinkercad Logo
AutoCAD
AutoCAD is the use of computer technology to facilitate the development, modification, and optimization of a
design. To help with manufacturing and construction, the researchers can offer drawings in both 2D and 3D.
Depending on the region, it is also available in 14 other languages and contains extensive measurement data
on the product's conceptual design and layout. Professional drafting is most frequently used to create and
modify 2D and 3D designs. Users can adapt the CAD program to the specific needs by using the available
add-on programs. To view and design products in surface modeling and wire framing, users can set up
specialized tools.
18
Figure 3-4: AutoCAD Logo
Computational Fluid Dynamics

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a method that uses applied mathematics, physics, and computer
software to depict how a gas or liquid travels and how it affects objects as it passes by. The Navier-Stokes
equations serve as the basis for computational fluid dynamics, and these equations describe the relationship
between a flowing fluid's velocity, pressure, temperature, and density. CFD simulations can be used to design
and optimize many engineering systems, including aircraft, automobiles, and chemical processes. CFD can
also be used to analyze the behavior of fluids in natural phenomena, such as ocean currents and weather
patterns. The accuracy of CFD simulations depends on the complexity of the fluid and the assumptions made
about the flow conditions.
Figure 3-5: CFD Logo
Fusion 360
Fusion 360 is a comprehensive 3D CAD/CAM tool that is used for industrial design. It is designed to offer a
seamless experience to users for designing and modelling the products. The software is known for the ability
to create complex 3D models that are difficult to create using other design software. It offers a wide range of
tools that allow users to easily modify the materials and design of the models. Since it is cloud-based, all of
the design files and rendering can be saved in the cloud, making it easily accessible from anywhere. The
software is also user-friendly, making it easy for beginners to get started with 3D modelling.
Figure 3-6: Fusion 360 Logo
19
Table 3-1: Morphological Chart for Flood Warning System.
Design Option Design Option Design Option Design Option Design Option
Function/Part
1 2 3 4 5
A. Energy Main
Source
B. Sensor
C. Pole
D. Enclosure
E. Battery
F. Arduino
G. Auto Solar
Charge
Controller
H. Stainless Rod
I. LED Warning
Sign
J. Siren
The Morphological Chart for Flood Warning System provides a visual representation of the components that
will be used in Design Options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. While the majority of components are the same across all
designs, the sensors utilized differ. In Design Option 1, the potentiometer sensor will used to monitor water
levels. In Design Option 2, a conductive rod sensor will be utilized instead. For Design Option 3, an ultrasonic
sensor will employ for water level monitoring. Option 4 will use a horizontal float switch sensor, while Design
Option 5 will utilize a vertical float switch sensor. The use of different sensors in each design option highlights
the flexibility of the Morphological Chart in tailoring designs to meet specific project requirements.
20
Design 1
Figure 3-7: Design Option 1.

In this design, the researchers will use components like an emergency warning light and a siren that are part
of the warning system and a solar panel for power generation for the components of the system. The
weatherproof enclosure is where the components like Arduino, power supply, and etc. that need to be put in
an enclosed place. In this proposed design, the potentiometer will serve as a water level sensor. The
potentiometer will attach in an arm steel rod as shown in the figure. There is an arm steel rod with a floater
connected; this is where the potentiometer will attach. The Arm steel rod movement will be upward and
downward. This only means that if the water level is increasing the arm steel rod rises. The relationship of
water level and potentiometer is directly proportional to each other. Therefore, as the water level increases,
the resistance of the potentiometer also increases. The emergency warning light and siren will serve as a
warning regarding the flood level.
List of Materials
Table 3-2: List of Materials for Design Option 1
Materials Quantity
Solar Panel (50 W) 1 pc.
12 V Lead Acid-Battery (20 Ah) 1 pc.
DC Circuit Breaker (15 A) 1 pc.
THWN Conductor (2 𝑚𝑚2 ) 10 meters
Auto Solar Charge Controller 1 pc.
Siren (Set) 1 pc.
Amplifier 1 pc..
Enclosure 1 pc.
Arduino 1 pc..
LED Warning Light 1 pc.
Plates 8 pcs.
Rotary Potentiometer 1 pc.
Floater 1 pc.
Pole 4 meters
Stainless Rod 1 pc.
Lock & Nut 20 pairs
21
Jumping Wires 2 set
(10 pcs per set)
Breadboard 1 pc
Stainless Steel arm support 3 meters
Pipe round tube stainless 1 pc.
Knob Cap 1 pc.
Road Light w/ Solar Panel 1 pc.
Table 3-2 The presented list showcases the precise selection of materials required for constructing Design
option 1. Comprising a comprehensive assortment of 23 components, this compilation demonstrates the
complete set needed to assemble the envisioned system. These materials serve as the fundamental building
blocks, enabling the realization of flood monitoring system design option 1. By incorporating these essential
elements, the successful construction and implementation of the desired design become achievable. The
meticulous inclusion of these materials paves the way for the efficient and effective operation of the flood
monitoring system.
Electrical Calculation
Table 3-3: Estimated Power Consumption for Design Option 1.
Consumption per Unit Power
Power Consuming Components Quantity
(Watts) Consumption (Watts)
Auto Solar Charge Controller (80 A) 1 5.25 5.25
Arduino 1 2.4 2.4
LED Warning Light 1 15 15
Siren (SET) 1 15 15
Potentiometer 1 0.3 0.3
Total 37.95 W
The power consumption for design option 1 is summarized in Table 3-3, which includes the estimated power
consumption for 5 different components. The table also shows the respective quantities of each component
and the consumption per unit. Based on these values, the total power consumption for design option 1 is
calculated to be 37.95 watts. This information will be useful for designing a power supply system that can
meet the energy requirements of the flood monitoring and alert system. It is important to ensure that the
power supply is reliable and long-lasting, especially during times of high water levels and strong currents.
1. Energy Capacity
Al-Shamani, A.N., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S.B.,
𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝐶= × 𝑡 × 𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 Ruslan, M.H., Abed, A.M., & Sopian, K. (2015).
𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑠 Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
37.95 𝑊 Systems A house Iraq.
𝐶= × 7 ℎ𝑟𝑠 × 1.35
12 𝑉
𝑪 = 𝟐𝟗. 𝟖𝟖𝟔 𝑨𝒉
22
where:
𝐶 = Required energy capacity.
𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = Power Consumption
𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑠 = System Voltage in V (Volt/s)
𝑡 =no. of hour/s per operation per day
𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 = Power loss of the system
2. Battery Sizing
𝐶 × 𝐷𝑅
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 = Ruslan, M.H., Abed, A.M., & Sopian, K. (2015).
𝐷𝑂𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
29.886 𝐴ℎ × 3 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 Systems A house Iraq.
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 =
0.5
𝑪𝒃𝒂𝒕 = 𝟏𝟕𝟗. 𝟑𝟏𝟒 𝑨𝒉
where:
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 = Capacity of battery
𝐶 = Energy capacity required
𝐷𝑅 = Energy reserve storage
𝐷𝑂𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 = Maximum drop discharge
Therefore, use one (1) 200 Ah battery in parallel string to accommodate 179.314 Ah energy required
3. PV Module Sizing
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 × 𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑠 × 𝐷𝑂𝐷 Ruslan, M.H., Abed, A.M., & Sopian, K. (2015).
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 =
𝐼 Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
200 𝐴ℎ × 12 𝑉 × 0.5 Systems A house Iraq.
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 = 𝑘𝑊
3.89 𝑚2
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 = 𝟑𝟎𝟖. 𝟒𝟖𝟑 𝑾
where:
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 = Total power of photovoltaic module
𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑠 = Voltage of the system
𝐼 = Average irradiance of sun
4. Solar Charge Controller

𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 𝐼𝑠𝑐 × 𝑆𝐹 Ruslan, M.H., Abed, A.M., & Sopian, K. (2015).
𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 8.63 𝐴 × 1.25 Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟕𝟖𝟖 𝑨 Systems A house Iraq.
23
where:
𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑞 = Current required
𝐼𝑠𝑐 = Short circuit current
𝑛 = Total number of parallel strings of photovoltaic module
𝑆𝐹 = Safety factor
5. Circuit Breaker Rating

Philippine Electrical Code (PEC) 2017 - Article
Circuit Breaker 6.90 Solar and Photovoltaic (PV) Systems
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝐼𝑠𝑐 × 𝑆𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑟 × 𝑆𝐹𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑦 Table 3.10.2.6
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 8.63 𝐴 × 1.25 × 1.25
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝟏𝟑. 𝟒𝟖 𝑨
where:
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = Ampere rating of circuit breaker
𝑆𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑟 = Safety factor of solar irradiance
𝑆𝐹𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑦 = Safety factor for continuous duty
6. Solar Charger to Battery

𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑦
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 𝑆𝐹𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑦 6.90 Solar and Photovoltaic (PV) Systems
𝑉𝑏𝑎𝑡 Table 3.10.2.6
100 𝑊
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 1.25 PhilippineSystems Table 3.10.2.6
12 𝑉
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟒𝟏𝟕 𝑨
where:
𝑉𝑏𝑎𝑡 = Nominal voltage of battery bank
Drag Force
To determine the water, drag of the pole that holds the flood monitoring system under water pressure, the
researchers used Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) Autodesk Simulation software. The software allowed
to accurately calculate the total drag coefficient of the pole. The total drag coefficient is a crucial factor that
affects the design of the flood monitoring system. By using the CFD software, the researchers could optimize
the design of the system to minimize the drag coefficient and improve the overall performance. The simulation
software enabled the researchers to conduct virtual experiments and make adjustments to the design without
the need for physical prototypes.
24
Water Drag
Figure 3-8: Traces of Water Drag

Figure 3-8 provides a representation of the water current flow in the prototype of the water level monitoring
system, specifically highlighting the flow of water in the Traces. The blueish color in the figure represents
Design Option 1, which utilizes a potentiometer sensor. The lines within the figure illustrate the direction of
the water current flow. The simulation takes into account water drag, which is an important factor in
determining the accuracy of water level measurements. By analyzing the water current flow in the prototype,
designers can assess the effectiveness of different design options and make necessary adjustments to
optimize the performance of the system. Overall, Figure 6 provides valuable insight into the flow dynamics of
the water level monitoring system prototype, and can aid in the refinement of the system design.
Figure 3-9: Z-Axis Plane of Water Drag

Figure 3-9 depicts a plane in the Z axis that is utilized to evaluate the water drag of the prototype for the water
level monitoring system. The blueish color in the figure represents Design Option 1, while the plane
represents the direction of the water current flow. By analyzing the simulation, designers can identify the
areas of the prototype that experience the greatest water drag, which is crucial for optimizing the performance
of the system. The simulation can also be used to evaluate the water drag of Design Option 2, which was not
represented in the initial simulation. With complete details, water drag can be summarized based on the
simulation, enabling designers to identify areas for improvement and refine the system design. Overall, Figure
7 provides valuable insight into the performance of the water level monitoring system prototype and can aid
in the optimization.
25
Figure 3-10: X-Axis Plane of Water Drag
Figure 3-10 illustrates a plane in the X axis that is utilized to determine the areas of the water level monitoring
system prototype that experience the greatest water drag. The simulation provides valuable information about
the performance of the prototype, which can aid in optimizing the design of the system. By analyzing the
simulation, designers can identify the areas of the prototype that experience the greatest water drag, which
is important for ensuring accurate water level measurements. The simulation also allows designers to
summarize water drag in detail, providing valuable information for further optimization of the system design.
Overall, Figure 8 provides insight into the water drag dynamics of the water level monitoring system prototype
and can aid in the refinement of the system design.
Table 3-4: Result Summary of Water Drag

Summary
Total Area 192.396 m2
TOTAL FX 6542.48 Newton
TOTAL FY -41994.9 Newton
TOTAL FZ 9775.02 Newton
Center Force about X- Axis (Y-Z) -138.739 -15.5821 cm
Center Force about Y- Axis (X-Z) 150.114 125.577 cm
Center Force about Z- Axis (X-Y) 129.884 -111.013 cm
Table 3-4 summarizes the simulation results for the water drags of design option 1. The total area of the
object measured in m2 is 192.396. The total force of X is 6542.48 Newton, while the total force of Y is -
41994.9 Newton and 9775.02 Newton. These values will be used to calculate the drag coefficient, which will
determine the object's resistance to movement in a fluid environment. The drag coefficient formula will be
used to evaluate the object's performance and optimize the design to achieve the desired level of stability
and resistance to external forces.
26
Material Costing
Table 3-5: Material Costing of Design 1
Materials Quantity Unit Price Cost
Solar Panel (50 W) 1 pc. Php 1650 Php1650
12 V Lead Acid-Battery (20 Ah) 1 pc. Php1200 Php 1200
DC Circuit Breaker (15 A) 1 pc. Php 600 Php 600
THWN Conductor (2 𝑚𝑚 ) 2 10 meters Php 10 Php 100
Auto Solar Charge Controller 1 pc. Php 398 Php 398
Siren (Set) 1 pc. Php 1150 Php 1150
Amplifier 1 pc.. Php 1000 Php 1000
Enclosure 1 pc. Php 300 Php 600
Arduino 1 pc.. Php 955 Php 955
LED Warning Light 1 pc. Php 950 Php 950
Plates 8 pcs. Php 200 Php 1600
Rotary Potentiometer 1 pc. Php 300 Php 300
Floater 1 pc. Php 1000 Php 1000
Pole 4 meters Php 4000 Php 4000
Stainless Rod 1 pc. Php 280 Php 1400
Lock & Nut 20 pairs Php 30 Php 600
Jumping Wires 2 set Php 100 Php 200
(10 pcs per set)
Breadboard 1 pc Php 100 Php 100
Stainless Steel arm support 3 meters Php 3000 Php 3000
Pipe round tube stainless 1 pc. Php 100 Php 100
Knob Cap 1 pc. Php 100 Php 100
Road Light w/ Solar Panel 1 pc. Php1480 Php1480
Labor Php 8000
Total: Php 30383
Table 3-5 shows the detailed breakdown of material costing for Design option 1, which consists of 23
components. The total cost of all the materials required to build Design option 1 is Php 30,383. The table
provides a detailed list of the components needed for the design, along with the corresponding unit cost and
quantity. The total cost is calculated by multiplying the unit cost by the quantity of each component and
summing up all the costs. This information is important for budgeting and procurement purposes, allowing for
better cost control and management throughout the project. It also provides a clear overview of the cost
structure of the project, helping stakeholders understand how the budget is being allocated and spent.
27
Design 2

The second design will concentrate on employing conductive rods; it will utilize four conductive rods to show
four distinct water levels, each with a unique warning mechanism. The idea behind this design is that every
time water meets the conductive rod, it signals to the Arduino UNO that water has reached it. The four
conductive rods will be supported by a stainless-steel rod, and a stainless-steel pole will serve as a stilling
well to keep the rods safe from waves and other objects.
List of Materials
Materials Quantity
Siren (Set) 1 pc.
Amplifier 1 pc..
Enclosure 1 pc.
Arduino 1 pc..
Plates 8 pcs.
Jumping Wires 2 set
(10 pcs per set)
Conductive Rod 5 pcs.
Breadboard 1 pc
Pole 4 meters
Stainless Rod 1 pc.
Lock & Nut 20 pairs
28
monitoring system.
Arduino 1 2.4 2.4
Siren (SET) 1 15 15
Conductive Rod 5 0.36 1.8
Total 39.45 W
1. Energy Capacity Al-Shamani, A.N., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S.B.,

Ruslan, M.H., Abed, A.M., & Sopian, K. (2015).
𝐶= × 𝑡 × 𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑠 Systems A house Iraq.
39.45 𝑊
𝐶= 𝑥 7 ℎ𝑟𝑠 𝑥 1.35
12 𝑉
𝑪 = 𝟑𝟏. 𝟎𝟔𝟕 𝑨𝒉
where:
29
2. Battery Sizing Al-Shamani, A.N., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S.B.,
𝐶 × 𝐷𝑅
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 = Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
𝐷𝑂𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 Systems A house Iraq.
31.067 𝐴ℎ × 3 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 =
0.5
𝑪𝒃𝒂𝒕 = 𝟏𝟖𝟔. 𝟒𝟎𝟏 𝑨𝒉
where:
3. PV Module Sizing
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 =
3.89 𝑚2
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 = 𝟑𝟎𝟖. 𝟒𝟖𝟑 𝑾
where:

where:
30
5. Circuit Breaker Rating Philippine Electrical Code (PEC) 2017 - Article
6.90 Solar and Photovoltaic (PV) Systems
Circuit Breaker Table 3.10.2.6
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝐼𝑠𝑐 × 𝑆𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑟 × 𝑆𝐹𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑦
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 8.63 𝐴 × 1.25 × 1.25
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝟏𝟑. 𝟒𝟖 𝑨
where:
6. Solar Charger to Battery Philippine Electrical Code (PEC) 2017 - Article

𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑦 Table 3.10.2.6
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 𝑆𝐹𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑦
𝑉𝑏𝑎𝑡 PhilippineSystems Table 3.10.2.6
100 𝑊
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 1.25
12 𝑉
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟒𝟏𝟕 𝑨
where:
Drag Force
31
Water Drag

Figure 3-12 provides a representation of the water current flow in the prototype of the water level monitoring
Figure 3-13: Y-Axis Plane of Water Drag

Figure 3-13 depicts a plane in the Z axis that is utilized to evaluate the water drag of the prototype for the
water level monitoring system. The blueish color in the figure represents Design Option 2, while the plane
32
Figure 3-14 illustrates a plane in the X axis that is utilized to determine the areas of the water level monitoring

Summary
TOTAL FY 4.25861 Newton
TOTAL FZ -321.487 Newton
Center Force about X- Axis (Y-Z) 37.8605 306.999 cm
Center Force about Y- Axis (X-Z) -21927.1 1680.42 cm
Center Force about Z- Axis (X-Y) 104.65 19.553 cm
object measured in m2 is 51.8806. The total force of FX is 3227.29 Newton, while the total force of FY is -
33
Material Costing
(10 pcs per
set)
Conductive Rod 5 pcs. Php 170 Php 850
Labor Php 8000
Total: Php 26833
34
Design 3

The river's water level will be determined by Design 3 using an ultrasonic sensor. It will be situated at the
apex of the pole, approximately 5 meters above the surface. When the ultrasonic sensor passes by an object,
sound waves are sent and returned. The sensor's distance from the water's surface will serve as the distance.
Continuous measurements of the water level will set off the light and alarm warning system when it hits a
high-water level. Additionally, it sends messages to alert people around the area.
List of Materials
Materials Quantity
Siren (Set) 1 pc.
Amplifier 1 pc..
Enclosure 1 pc.
Arduino 1 pc..
Plates 8 pcs.
Ultrasonic Distance Sensor 1 pc.
Breadboard 1 pc
Pole 4 meters
Jumping Wires 2 set
(10 pcs per set)
Stainless Rod 1 pc.
Lock & Nut 20 pairs
Stainless Steel arm support 3 meters
35
monitoring system.
Arduino 1 2.4 2.4
Siren (SET) 1 15 15
Ultrasonic Sensor 1 0.025 0.025
Total 37.675 W
1. Energy Capacity
𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 Ruslan, M.H., Abed, A.M., & Sopian, K. (2015).
𝐶= × 𝑡 × 𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠
𝐶= 𝑥 7 ℎ𝑟𝑠 𝑥 1.35
12 𝑉
𝑪 = 𝟐𝟗. 𝟔𝟔𝟗 𝑨𝒉
where:
2. Battery Sizing
Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
36
Systems A house Iraq.
𝐶 × 𝐷𝑅
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 =
𝐷𝑂𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥
29.669 𝐴ℎ × 3 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 =
0.5
𝑪𝒃𝒂𝒕 = 𝟏𝟕𝟖. 𝟎𝟏𝟒 𝑨𝒉
where:
3. PV Module Sizing
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 =
3.89 𝑚2
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 = 𝟑𝟎𝟖. 𝟒𝟖𝟑 𝑾
where:

where:
37
Table 3.10.2.6
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 8.63 𝐴 × 1.25 × 1.25
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝟏𝟑. 𝟒𝟖 𝑨
where:

𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑦 6.90 Solar and Photovoltaic (PV) Systems
100 𝑊
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 1.25 PhilippineSystems Table 3.10.2.6
12 𝑉
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟒𝟏𝟕 𝑨
where:
Drag Force
38
Water Drag

Figure 3-16. provides a representation of the water current flow in the prototype of the water level monitoring

Figure 3-17. depicts a plane in the Z axis that is utilized to evaluate the water drag of the prototype for the
39

Figure 3-18. illustrates a plane in the X axis that is utilized to determine the areas of the water level monitoring

Summary
TOTAL FX -3154.33 Newton
TOTAL FZ 5449.11 Newton
Center Force about X- Axis (Y-Z) -62.0392 346.891 cm
object measured in m2 is 109.241. The total force of X is -3154.33 Newton, while the total force of Y is -
40
Material Costing
Ultrasonic Distance Sensor 1 pc. Php 220 Php 220
(10 pcs per
set)
Stainless Steel arm support 3 meters Php 3000 Php 3000
Labor Php 8000
Total: Php 29203
41
Design 4

The river's water level will be determined by a float switch in design option 4. A stainless-steel pole on which
the float switch is mounted makes up the system. A pole has a height of 10 meters, and every 2 meters a
float switch is put in to track the water level. All of the electronic components will be powered by a solar panel,
which will also be used to power the LED light at night. During the day, the solar panel will be used to charge
the lead acid battery. To stop the battery from overcharging, the solar panel will employ a charge controller.
To speed up the solar charging of the battery by up to 30% per day, the device will also be configured at
15A/200-W. Every time the level of a river increases, the float switch will send a signal to the Arduino, which
is designed to watch and send a siren, LED light, and SMS as a prior warning to the designated area. The
siren will sound an alert at the house, and the GSM will also send an SMS with a real-time water level report.
List of Materials
Materials Quantity
Siren (Set) 1 pc.
Amplifier 1 pc..
Enclosure 1 pc.
Arduino 1 pc..
Plates 8 pcs.
Jumping Wires 2 set
(10 pcs per set)
Float Switch (Horizontal) 12 pcs
Breadboard 1 pc
Pole 4 meters
Stainless Rod 1 pc.
42
Lock & Nut 20 pairs
monitoring system.
Arduino 1 2.4 2.4
Siren (SET) 1 15 15
Total 37.65 W
1. Energy Capacity Al-Shamani, A.N., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S.B.,

𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
𝐶= × 𝑡 × 𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠
𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑠 Systems A house Iraq.
37.65 𝑊
𝐶= 𝑥 7 ℎ𝑟𝑠 𝑥 1.35
12 𝑉
𝑪 = 𝟐𝟗. 𝟔𝟒𝟗 𝑨𝒉
where:
43
2. Battery Sizing
𝐶 × 𝐷𝑅 Al-Shamani, A.N., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S.B.,
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 =
𝐷𝑂𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 Ruslan, M.H., Abed, A.M., & Sopian, K. (2015).
29.649 𝐴ℎ × 3 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 =
0.5 Systems A house Iraq.
𝑪𝒃𝒂𝒕 = 𝟏𝟕𝟕. 𝟖𝟗𝟔 𝑨𝒉
where:
3. PV Module Sizing
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 =
3.89 𝑚2
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 = 𝟑𝟎𝟖. 𝟒𝟖𝟑 𝑾
where:
4. Solar Charge Controller Al-Shamani, A.N., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S.B.,

𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 𝐼𝑠𝑐 × 𝑆𝐹 Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 8.63 𝐴 × 1.25 Systems A house Iraq.
𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟕𝟖𝟖 𝑨
where:
44
Table 3.10.2.6
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 8.63 𝐴 × 1.25 × 1.25
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝟏𝟑. 𝟒𝟖 𝑨
where:
6. Solar Charger to Battery Philippine Electrical Code (PEC) 2017 - Article

𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑦 Table 3.10.2.6
𝑉𝑏𝑎𝑡
100 𝑊 PhilippineSystems Table 3.10.2.6
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 1.25
12 𝑉
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟒𝟏𝟕 𝑨
where:
Drag Force
45
Water Drag


46
Table 3-16: Result Summary of Air Drag

Summary
Total Area 31.4244 m^2
TOTAL FX 2386 Newton
TOTAL FY 229.411 Newton
object measured in m2 is 31.4244. The total force of X is 2386 Newton, while the total force of Y is -229.411
Newton and -117.779 Newton. These values will be used to calculate the drag coefficient, which will
47
Material Costing
(10 pcs per
set)
Float Switch (Horizontal) 12 pcs Php 187 Php2244
Labor Php 8000
Total: Php 28227
48
Design 5

Design option 5 employs a float switch to measure the water level of the river. The system comprises a
stainless-steel pole that supports the float switch. The pole stands at a height of 10 meters, and the float
switches are installed every 0.35 meters to monitor the water level. A solar panel powers all the electronic
components, including the LED light that illuminates the system at night. During daylight hours, the solar
panel charges a lead-acid battery, which is equipped with a charge controller to prevent overcharging. The
device can be configured at 15A/200-W to accelerate solar charging by up to 30% per day. Whenever the
river's water level rises, the float switch will transmit a signal to the Arduino, which is programmed to trigger
a siren and LED light alert at the house.
List of Materials
Materials Quantity
Siren (Set) 1 pc.
Amplifier 1 pc..
Enclosure 1 pc.
Arduino 1 pc..
Plates 8 pcs.
Jumping Wires 2 set
(10 pcs per set)
Float Switch (Verticall) 12 pcs
Breadboard 1 pc
Pole 4 meters
49
Stainless Rod 1 pc.
Lock & Nut 20 pairs
monitoring system.
Arduino 1 2.4 2.4
Siren (SET) 1 15 15
Total 37.65 W
1. Energy Capacity
𝐶= × 𝑡 × 𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 Ruslan, M.H., Abed, A.M., & Sopian, K. (2015).
𝐶= 𝑥 7 ℎ𝑟𝑠 𝑥 1.35
12 𝑉
𝑪 = 𝟐𝟗. 𝟔𝟒𝟗 𝑨𝒉
where:
50
2. Battery Sizing
𝐶 × 𝐷𝑅
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 = Al-Shamani, A.N., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S.B.,
𝐷𝑂𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 Ruslan, M.H., Abed, A.M., & Sopian, K. (2015).
29.649 𝐴ℎ × 3 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 Design & Sizing of Stand-alone Solar Power
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 =
0.5 Systems A house Iraq.
𝑪𝒃𝒂𝒕 = 𝟏𝟕𝟕. 𝟖𝟗𝟔 𝑨𝒉
where:
3. PV Module Sizing
𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑡 × 𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑠 × 𝐷𝑂𝐷
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 = Ruslan, M.H., Abed, A.M., & Sopian, K. (2015).
3.89 𝑚2
𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑑 = 𝟑𝟎𝟖. 𝟒𝟖𝟑 𝑾
where:

where:
51
5. Circuit Breaker Rating Philippine Electrical Code (PEC) 2017 - Article
Circuit Breaker Table 3.10.2.6
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 8.63 𝐴 × 1.25 × 1.25
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝟏𝟑. 𝟒𝟖 𝑨
where:
𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑦 Philippine Electrical Code (PEC) 2017 - Article

𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 𝑆𝐹𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑦 6.90 Solar and Photovoltaic (PV) Systems
100 𝑊
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 1.25
12 𝑉
𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟒𝟏𝟕 𝑨
where:
Drag Force
In experiments that involve testing prototypes or models in a water environment, understanding the water
drag that the object experiences are critical for analyzing the performance. In this context, the pole that
supports the prototype plays a crucial role in determining the overall water drag. By measuring the drag
coefficient of the pole, researchers can gain insights into the impact of different factors on the overall drag
coefficient of the prototype. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Autodesk Simulation software is a powerful
tool that allows researchers to create virtual models of prototypes and simulate the behavior in a water
environment. By using CFD, researchers can accurately measure the forces acting on the prototype and
calculate the drag coefficient, enabling to design more efficient and streamlined prototypes.
52
Water Drag

Figure 3-25: Y-Axis Plane of Water Drag

53

Summary
Center Force about Y- Axis (X-Z) -1161.51 436.516 cm
object measured in m2 is 25.9926. The total force of X is 1474.73 Newton, while the total force of Y is --
21.6873 Newton and -104.079 Newton. These values will be used to calculate the drag coefficient, which will
54
Material Costing
(10 pcs per
set)
Float Switch (Verticall) 12 pcs Php 200 Php2400
Labor Php 8000
Total: Php 28383
55
Design Factor
Option Pros Cons

Design 1 (potentiometer) In this design it will require only It requires a stronger material for
one potentiometer to measure the the attached arm where the
flood level, unlike the other potentiometer is located.
proposed design wherein it need
two or more components for
water level measurement. The
potentiometer requires low power
consumption and it is easy to use.
The flood level detection using
potentiometer will be precise
Design 2 ( Conductive Rod) It is easy to build and install It needs a stronger base and
because it is just a rod that is materials because it will be
combined altogether, it is also installed in the river, and it will
protected by a stilling well so that receive constant pressure which
the rods will not receive any is the water current. It is also the
current pressure or sediments. most expensive design.
Design 3 (Ultrasonic Sensor) Much likely has less chance to Using Ultrasonic sensor might
break because it is installed give a false signal, example is
beside the river, so there will be when a bird or any object goes
fewer variables to consider when through the sensing area it will
designing the structural design. It not read the water but the object.
has the most accurate It is also not designed for
measurement among the other underwater use.
sensors
Design 4 (Horizontal Float Doing the coding and installation Same for the conductive rod
Switch) will be easier because the float which needs a stronger base and
switch working principle is the materials because it will be
easiest among the other sensors. installed in the river and will
It will be protected by stilling well constantly receive water current
so that the sensors will not pressure. It also needs to install
receive any water current and more sensors. Doing
debris that might cause to break. maintenance will be harder
compared to other sensors.
Design 5 (Vertical Float Switch) It has easy operation and It needs a stronger base, proper
installation, that will be easier to installation and often
program than any other sensors. maintenance. It needs proper
It has dual purpose for reminding protection from strong water
and informing about the level of current to not break and fall apart.
water in the place.
56
Risk Analysis
Design 1 is a flood level sensor that can provide precise measurements, making it an accurate monitoring
system. However, the arm and floater require a strong foundation to hold the weight of the system under
pressure from water. This design only needs one potentiometer to measure the flood level, making it simpler
to operate and maintain. Additionally, it requires low energy consumption, which means it can be powered
by a small battery or solar panel. Overall, Design 1 provides an accurate and efficient solution for flood
monitoring.
Design 2 is a flood monitoring system that is easy to build and install due to the simple structural design and
use of readily available materials. However, one of the challenges is to select materials that can withstand
constant water pressure for an extended period. Another aspect that needs to be considered in the design is
the base of the prototype, which should be strong enough to hold the entire system in place. Design 2 also
requires several sensors to accurately measure the water level, which means it needs more energy
consumption than Design 1. Despite these challenges, Design 2 is still a viable option for flood monitoring in
areas with constant water flow.
Design 3 is based on the use of ultrasonic waves to measure the distance to the water surface. This method
provides accurate measurements of the flood level, but it can be affected by the presence of other objects
that may cause interference or produce false results. Therefore, the design should take into consideration
the potential sources of interference and try to minimize the effects. Additionally, this design is sensitive to
water, which can affect the accuracy of the measurement. Hence, the materials used in the design should be
chosen carefully to ensure that it is resistant to water and can withstand the harsh environmental conditions.
Design 4 involves installing the flood monitoring system on a riverside with a submerged base. The pole and
other materials used in the design may be affected by water in various ways. For instance, the materials
chosen for the pole could be prone to oxidation due to exposure to water. Additionally, the pole and other
components may be affected by the potential current of the water when a great flood comes. Therefore,
careful consideration must be given to the materials used in this design to ensure that it can withstand the
effects of water over time.
Design 5 uses a level switch float type which will be installed outside the pole on a riverside. However, the
low detection accuracy of this type of sensor is due to the design’s easy operation, as the float moves up and
down in response to changes in the liquid level. Since it has moving parts that are exposed to corrosion,
clogging, and damage, this type of sensor may require frequent maintenance. Furthermore, the accuracy of
the measurement may also be affected by external factors such as wind and waves. Therefore, the
installation and calibration of this type of sensor should be carefully planned to ensure accurate and reliable
results.
57
Chapter 4. Design Trade Offs
In this chapter, the researchers explore how constraints might be used to make judgments about which
design options are most likely to result in a significant flood monitoring system. In addition, it will establish
the design project that carefully considered various limits to accomplish several benefits for a manufacturing
process.
Stability
Stability refers to the ability of the object to maintain the position when external force is applied, and one
example of external force is the water pressure. A Drag coefficient is a measure of resistance of the object
that experiences in a fluid environment.
The pole will be considered to determine the water drag, since the pole is the one who holds the whole
materials of the prototype under water pressure. To determine the total drag coefficient with accuracy, the
Computational Fluid Dynamic Autodesk Simulation software was utilized in this study.
Economical
The chosen solar panel, sensor, and pole should have a low market value as the key feature to have a low
cost. The designers examined the price ranges of locally available prototypes and came up with a standard
value to which the design must adhere. The actual cost of the components to be employed in the project was
given in this limitation. Furthermore, the canvass was heavily influenced by the availability of the materials to
be obtained.
Sustainability
The project's ability to continue operating in the absence of solar irradiance is a sustainability constraint. This
will guarantee the project's reliability and the ability to operate for a given period at any time of day.
Maintenance
The maintenance cost of the project in order to determine the price range and extend the lifespan of the
project. The designers anticipated which materials that possibly to change and repair every year to make
sure that the project is working well.
Based on the formula below, low values are preferred.

𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑛𝑒𝑤 − 𝑃𝐶𝑟𝑎𝑤
𝑃𝐶𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 = 9 [ ]+1
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑛𝑒𝑤 − 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑟𝑎𝑤
Based on the formula below, high values are preferred.

𝑃𝐶𝑟𝑎𝑤 − 𝑀𝑎𝑥_𝑛𝑒𝑤
𝑃𝐶𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 = 9 [ ]+1
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑛𝑒𝑤 − 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑟𝑎𝑤
Where:
PCnorm= Performance criterion scale
PCraw= Option Performance
Minraw= Minimum raw option
Maxraw=Maximum raw option
58
Trade-Offs
In this chapter, the researchers will be using the method of design optimization. The purpose of using this
method is to determine which design can best meet the criteria of importance for each constraint. The process
will involve ranking the criteria of importance and multiplying by the respective score. This will then be added
to all designs to determine the best power system design that will be considered for chapter 5 of the study.
Ranking Score
The governing rank of a criterion is subjective, though it has been derived by considering the importance and
ability to satisfy the criterion. The designer should give the most value to that which is most important for the
project or product.
Figure 4-1: Criterion Rank Representation

Figure 4-1. shows the criterion ranking with respect to the level of importance to the designer’s level from
lowest to highest or not preferred to preferred designs.
Stability
Water Drag Coefficient
Table 4-1: Summary for Water Drag Coefficient
Design Drag Coefficient Score
Design 1 0.050461684 8.48472
Design 2 0.23716508 1
Design 3 0.042282104 8.81263
Design 4 0.017001813 9.82609
Design 5 0.012663633 10
In Table 4-1, Design 5 emerges as the top-ranked option in relation to the Stability design constraint, attaining
a normalized score of 10. This outstanding score signifies the superior performance and strong stability
characteristics. Additionally, Design 5 boasts a notably low drag coefficient of 0.012663633, indicating
efficient fluid flow and enhanced stability.On the other hand, Design 2 obtains the lowest rank among the
design options in terms of the Stability design constraint, reflecting a relatively weaker performance. With a
normalized score of 1, Design 2 demonstrates room for improvement in stability aspects. Furthermore, it
features a higher drag coefficient of 0.23716508, suggesting increased resistance to fluid flow and potentially
reduced stability.
59
Figure 4-2: Water Drag Coefficient
In Figure 4-2, the graph visually presents the normalization score for the stability design constraint. The graph
showcases the varying scores assigned to different designs, providing valuable insights into the relative
performance. Notably, Design 5 emerges as the frontrunner with the highest normalized score, signifying the
superior stability attributes compared to other designs. Conversely, Design 2 lags behind with the lowest
normalized score, suggesting a comparatively lower level of stability. This graphical representation effectively
highlights the contrasting performance levels of the designs in terms of the stability design constraint.
Economical (Cost)
Table 4-2: Summary of Construction Cost
Design Cost Score
Design 1 46368 1
Design 2 41718 10
Design 3 45088 3.477419355
Design 4 44608 4.406451613
Design 5 44868 3.903225806
Table 4-2 provides valuable information regarding the actual cost of materials and the corresponding
normalized scores for each design option. Specifically focusing on the economical design constraint, Design
2 emerges as the top-ranked option with a commendable normalized score of 10, while incurring a cost of ₱
41,718. This indicates that Design 2 strikes a desirable balance between cost-effectiveness and meeting the
economical design requirements. On the other end of the spectrum, Design 1 ranks the lowest in terms of
the economical design constraint, earning a normalized score of 1 and having a higher cost of ₱ 46,368. This
data illustrates the stark contrast between the cost performance of the two designs and reinforces the
favorable position of Design 2 in terms of economic feasibility.
60
Figure 4-3: Initial Cost
In Figure 4-3, the graphical representation showcases the normalization score for the economical design
constraint. This visual aid effectively highlights the performance of different designs in terms of the economic
feasibility. Notably, Design 2 stands out with the highest normalized score, indicating the superior
performance in meeting the economical design requirements. Conversely, Design 1 lags behind with the
lowest normalized score, suggesting that it is less cost-effective compared to other design options. The graph
provides a clear contrast between the two designs, emphasizing the significance of economic considerations
in the decision-making process. This graphical representation enables a quick and easy comparison of the
designs' performance in terms of the economical design constrain
Sustainability (Power Consumption)

Table 4-3: Summary of the power consumption on each design option
Design Power Consumption Score
Design 1 46.95 9.917431193
Design 2 48.45 9.46705588
Design 3 46.675 10
Design 4 76.65 1
Design 5 76.65 1
Table 4-3 presents crucial information regarding the power consumption and corresponding normalized
scores for each design option, focusing on the sustainability design constraint. Design 3 takes the lead with
the highest ranked score of 10, showcasing the exemplary performance in terms of sustainability while
utilizing a power consumption of 46.675 W. On the other hand, Design 4 and Design 5 rank the lowest in
terms of the sustainability design constraint, both earning a normalized score of 1 and exhibiting a higher
power consumption of 76.65 W. This data highlights the varying degrees of sustainability among the design
options, with Design 3 demonstrating the most favorable balance between performance and power efficiency.
The table underscores the importance of considering power consumption in order to ensure sustainable
design practices.
61
Figure 4-4: Sustainability (Power Consumption)
Figure 4-4. shows the power consumption that will be used and the normalized score for each design option.
The highest ranked score for sustainability is Design 3 with a normalized score of 10 and a power
consumption of 46.675 W. The lowest ranked score for the sustainability is Design 4 and 5 with a normalized
score of 1 and a power consumption of 76.65 W.
Maintenance
Table 4-4: Summary of the maintenance cost on each design option
Design Cost Score
Design 1 2404 2.978021978
Design 2 2524 1
Design 3 2409 2.895604396
Design 4 1978 10
Design 5 2021 9.291208791
Table 4-4 provides valuable insights into the maintenance cost and corresponding normalized scores for
each design option, focusing on the maintenance design constraint. Design 4 secures the highest ranked
score of 10, highlighting the exceptional performance in terms of maintenance efficiency, with a maintenance
cost of Php 1,978. This indicates that Design 4 requires relatively lower expenditures for upkeep while
maintaining satisfactory performance. Conversely, Design 2 ranks the lowest in terms of the maintenance
design constraint, earning a normalized score of 1 and incurring a higher maintenance cost of Php 2,524.
This data showcases the contrasting levels of maintenance costs among the design options, emphasizing
the importance of considering long-term expenses in the decision-making process. The table highlights the
favorable position of Design 4 in terms of maintenance cost and efficiency.
62
Figure 4-5: Maintenance
Figure 4-5 visually represents the normalization scores for the maintenance design constraint, offering a clear
graphical depiction of the performance of different designs in terms of maintenance efficiency. Notably,
Design 4 emerges as the frontrunner with the highest normalized score, indicating the superior performance
in meeting the maintenance requirements. On the other hand, Design 2 lags behind with the lowest
normalized score, suggesting that it requires comparatively more maintenance efforts or incurs higher
maintenance costs. This graphical representation effectively highlights the contrasting performance levels of
the designs, emphasizing the significance of maintenance considerations in the decision-making process. It
provides a quick and intuitive comparison of the designs' maintenance efficiency, aiding in the selection of
the most viable option.
Criterion of Importance
The sustainability constraints are given a ranking score of four (4). In participation to the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC), 2030 is the Climate Change deadline for halving
greenhouse gas emissions and reaching net - zero emissions by 2050.
The maintenance constraints are given a ranking score of three (3). The study is about effectively trapping
and collecting floating waste, and one major criterion that the researchers must consider is the design's
maintenance because the design will be immersed in water. To float, the design should have a lower density
than water, and ability of the design to float will be one of the deciding factors on the performance of the
design during the application.
The stability constraints are given a ranking score of two (2). After considering the design's maintenance, the
next important criterion is that it must be stable in a fluid. Which means it must have a low drag coefficient. A
low drag coefficient indicates that the design will have less resistance to fluid flow, which contributes to the
design's performance in trapping and intercepting. The two (2) fluids involved in this study are water and air.
The economic constraints are given a ranking score of one (1). The researchers have sufficient resources to
locate the materials required and the way to access the lowest possible price without sacrificing material
quality.
63
NORMALIZATION OF DATA
Weighted factor values (non-negative and total of 1.00)
𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
Weighted Factor = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
Weighted Factor (Sustainability) = = 0.4
Weighted Factor (Floatability) = = 0.3
Weighted Factor (Stability) = = 0.2
Weighted Factor (Economical) = = 0.1

Weighted Sum of performance criteria and level of importance
Weighted Sum of performance Criteria
WPC = PC1+PC2+PC3+…+PCn Where:
n = 1,2,3 … ….
PC = Performance Criterion
WPC = Weighted Sum of Performance Criterion
PC = Xi x WF
Where:
Xi = Normalized Values of Constraints Xi ≥ 0
WF = Weighted Factor
Pairwise Comparison of Design in all Constraint

Table 4-5: Pairwise Comparison of Design in all Constraint
Design Stability Economical Maintenance Sustainability Total
Number 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Design 1 0.8485 0.2000 1.1912 2.9752 5.2149
Design 2 0.1000 2.0000 0.4000 2.8401 5.3401
Design 3 0.8813 0.6955 1.1582 3.0000 5.7350
Design 4 0.9826 0.8813 4.0000 0.3000 6.1639
Design 5 1.0000 0.7806 3.7165 0.3000 5.7971
Table 4-5 presents a comprehensive summary of the computed ratings based on the weight factors assigned
to each category of the design constraint. This table provides a consolidated view of the performance of
different designs, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation. Notably, Design 4 emerges as the winner,
achieving a total score rating of 6.1639. This indicates that Design 4 excels in meeting the various design
constraints, with the overall performance being the most favorable when considering the weight factors
assigned to each category. The table serves as a valuable tool in decision-making, providing a clear
comparison and enabling the selection of the most suitable design based on the computed ratings.
64
Figure 4-6: Total Rating for Pairwise Comparison for all Design
In Figure 4-6, the graph visually depicts the rating of different constraints for each design option, providing
valuable insights into the performance in various categories. The stability constraint is dominated by Design
5, emerging as the top performer in terms of stability. On the other hand, Design 2 takes the lead in the
economical constraint category, showcasing the highest score for cost-effectiveness. For the maintenance
constraint, Design 4 stands out with the highest score, indicating the superior performance in terms of
maintenance efficiency. Lastly, the sustainability constraint is won by Design 3, highlighting the commendable
sustainability attributes. This graphical representation effectively captures the contrasting strengths of each
design option across different design constraints, aiding in the decision-making process by offering a
comprehensive overview of the relative performance.
Figure 4-7: Design Trade-offs Summary

In Figure 4-7, the complete normalization of data is represented, with the results displayed in Table 4-1
through 4-4. Among the design options, Design option 2 excels in the stability constraints, achieving the
highest score in this category. In terms of the economical and sustainability constraints, Design option 4
emerges as the frontrunner, displaying the highest scores. However, in the maintenance constraints, both
Design option 2 and Design option 3 receive the highest scores. When considering the overall ranking, Design
65
option 4 garners the highest percentage, successfully meeting the requirements of all the constraints in the
design project. These findings from the normalization process provide valuable insights for decision-making,
emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of each design option in relation to the specified constraints.
Sensitivity Analysis
Table 4-6: Sensitivity Analysis Trial 1
Design Stability Economical Maintenance Sustainability
Number 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Total
Design 1 0.8485 0.2000 0.8934 3.9670 5.9089
Design 2 0.1000 2.0000 0.3000 3.7868 6.1868
Design 3 0.8813 0.6955 0.8687 4.0000 6.4454
Design 4 0.9826 0.8813 3.0000 0.4000 5.2639
Design 5 1.000 0.7806 2.7874 0.4000 4.9680
Table 4-6 presents the sensitivity analysis trial 1 values alongside the winning design, which is Design 3,
achieving a score of 6.4454. The table also provides information about the multipliers and the corresponding
representations. The multiplier values are assigned as follows: 0.1 for stability, 0.2 for economical, 0.3 for
maintenance, and 0.4 for sustainability. These multipliers reflect the relative importance or weight assigned
to each design constraint in the analysis. By assigning different multipliers, the sensitivity analysis allows for
an examination of the impact of changing weights on the overall scores and rankings of the design options.
The table's presentation of sensitivity analysis trial 1 values and the winning design facilitates a deeper
understanding of the design's performance under different weighting schemes, aiding in decision-making
processes and the selection of the most suitable design.
Figure 4-8: Design Matrix Summary of Sensitivity Analysis 1
Figure 4-8 presents a comprehensive overview of the best design option for each criterion considered in the
sensitivity analysis. The winning design, highlighted in this analysis, is Design Option 3, achieving an
impressive overall ranking score of 6.4454. This figure offers a visual representation of the strengths and
66
performance of each design option across various criteria, ultimately leading to the selection of Design Option
3 as the most favorable choice. By showcasing the winning design and the exceptional overall ranking, Figure
4-8 aids decision-makers in understanding and assessing the design's performance, helping the clients make
informed choices based on the sensitivity analysis results.

Number 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 Total
Design 1 0.8485 0.2000 1.1912 2.9752 5.2149
Design 2 0.1000 2.0000 0.4000 2.8401 5.3401
Design 3 0.8813 0.6955 1.1582 3.0000 5.7350
Design 4 0.9826 0.8813 4.0000 0.3000 6.1639
Design 5 1.000 0.7806 3.7165 0.3000 5.7971
Table 4-7 displays the sensitivity analysis trial 2 values along with the winning design, which is Design 4,
achieving a score of 6.1639. The table also provides details about the multipliers and the respective
representations. In this case, the multipliers are assigned as follows: 0.1 for stability, 0.2 for economical, 0.4
for maintenance, and 0.3 for sustainability. These multipliers indicate the relative significance or weight
assigned to each design constraint during the analysis. By adjusting the multipliers, the sensitivity analysis
enables the examination of how changes in weights affect the overall scores and rankings of the design
options. The inclusion of sensitivity analysis trial 2 values and the winning design in the table aids in
comprehending the design's performance under different weighting scenarios, facilitating informed decision-
making processes and the selection of the most appropriate design.
Figure 4-9 provides a visual representation of the best design option for each criterion as determined by the
sensitivity analysis. In this analysis, Design Option 4 emerges as the winning design, attaining an impressive
overall ranking score of 6.1639. This figure allows decision-makers to observe and compare the performance
of each design option across multiple criteria, ultimately leading to the selection of Design Option 4 as the
67
most favorable choice. By showcasing the winning design and the notable overall ranking, Figure 4-9
facilitates informed decision-making, enabling stakeholders to assess and understand the design's
performance in light of the sensitivity analysis results.

Number 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 Total
Design 1 0.8485 0.4000 0.5956 2.9752 4.8193
Design 2 0.1000 4.0000 0.2000 2.8401 7.1401
Design 3 0.8813 1.3910 0.5791 3.0000 5.8514
Design 4 0.9826 1.7626 2.0000 0.3000 5.0452
Design 5 1.000 1.5613 1.8582 0.3000 4.7195
Table 4-8 presents the sensitivity analysis trial 3 values along with the winning design, which is Design 2,
achieving an impressive score of 7.1401. The table also provides information about the assigned multipliers
and the respective representations. In this case, the stability constraint has a multiplier of 0.1, indicating the
relative importance, while the economical constraint has the highest weight with a multiplier of 0.4. The
maintenance constraint holds a weight of 0.2, and the sustainability constraint has a multiplier of 0.3. These
multipliers reflect the significance of each constraint in the analysis, allowing decision-makers to evaluate the
overall performance of the design options. The inclusion of sensitivity analysis trial 3 values and the winning
design in Table 4-9 facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the design's performance under different
weighting scenarios, aiding in the selection of the most suitable design based on the given design constraints.
Figure 4-10 visually represents the best design option for each criterion as determined by the sensitivity
analysis. In this analysis, Design Option 2 emerges as the winning design, achieving an outstanding overall
ranking score of 7.1401. This figure provides a clear and concise overview of the performance of each design
option across different criteria, allowing decision-makers to compare and evaluate the strengths. The
68
selection of Design Option 2 as the winning design based on the highest overall ranking underscores the
exceptional performance and suitability for the given criteria. Figure 4-10 plays a crucial role in facilitating
informed decision-making, enabling stakeholders to assess and understand the design's performance in
relation to the sensitivity analysis results.
Number 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 Total
Design 1 3.3939 0.1000 0.5956 2.9752 7.0647
Design 2 0.4000 1.0000 0.2000 2.8401 4.4401
Design 3 3.5251 0.3477 0.5791 3.0000 7.4519
Design 4 3.9304 0.4406 2.0000 0.3000 6.6711
Design 5 4.0000 0.3903 1.8582 0.3000 6.5486
Table 4-9 provides a comprehensive overview of the sensitivity analysis trial 4 values and the resulting
winning design. In this analysis, Design 3 emerges as the winner, achieving an impressive score of 7.4519.
The table further presents the assigned multipliers and the corresponding representations. The stability
constraint carries the highest weight with a multiplier of 0.4, followed by the sustainability constraint with a
multiplier of 0.3. The maintenance constraint holds a weight of 0.2, while the economical constraint has the
lowest weight with a multiplier of 0.1. By considering these multipliers, decision-makers can assess the
relative importance of each constraint in the analysis and make informed decisions based on the performance
of the design options. The inclusion of sensitivity analysis trial 4 values and the winning design in Table 4-10
facilitates a comprehensive evaluation of the design's performance under different weighting scenarios,
aiding in the selection of the most suitable design for the given constraints.
Figure 4-11 provides a visual representation of the best design option for each criterion in the sensitivity
analysis. In this analysis, Design Option 3 emerges as the winning design, achieving an outstanding overall
ranking score of 7.4519. The figure allows decision-makers to easily compare the performance of each design
69
option across different criteria, enabling a comprehensive understanding of the respective strengths. The
selection of Design Option 3 as the winning design based on the highest overall ranking score highlights the
exceptional performance and suitability for the specified criteria. Figure 4-11 plays a crucial role in facilitating
informed decision-making by visually presenting the design's performance and aiding stakeholders in
assessing and understanding the results of the sensitivity analysis.

Number 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 Total
Design 1 0.8485 0.3000 0.5956 3.9670 5.7110
Design 2 0.1000 3.0000 0.2000 3.7868 7.0868
Design 3 0.8813 1.0432 0.5791 4.0000 6.5036
Design 4 0.9826 1.3219 2.0000 0.4000 4.7045
Design 5 1.0000 1.1710 1.8582 0.4000 4.4292
Table 4-10 provides a detailed overview of the sensitivity analysis trial 5 values, revealing the winning design
as Design 2 with an impressive score of 7.0868. The table also showcases the assigned multipliers and the
corresponding representations. The stability constraint is assigned a multiplier of 0.1, indicating the relative
importance, while the sustainability constraint holds the highest weight with a multiplier of 0.4. The
economical constraint carries a weight of 0.3, and the maintenance constraint has a multiplier of 0.2. By
considering these multipliers, decision-makers can evaluate the performance of the design options and make
informed decisions based on the given constraints. The inclusion of sensitivity analysis trial 5 values and the
winning design in Table 4-11 aids in comprehending the design's performance under various weighting
scenarios, facilitating the selection of the most suitable design option.
70
Figure 4-12 visually presents the best design option for each criterion as determined by the sensitivity
analysis. In this analysis, Design Option 2 emerges as the winning design, attaining an impressive overall
ranking score of 7.0868. The figure allows decision-makers to easily compare the performance of each design
option across various criteria, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses.
The selection of Design Option 2 as the winning design based on the highest overall ranking score
underscores the exceptional performance and suitability for the specified criteria. Figure 4-12 plays a crucial
role in informing decision-making processes, providing stakeholders with a clear visual representation of the
design's performance and aiding the clients in assessing and understanding the results of the sensitivity
analysis.

Number 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 Total
Design 1 0.8485 0.3000 1.1912 1.9835 4.3232
Design 2 0.1000 3.0000 0.4000 1.8934 5.3934
Design 3 0.8813 1.0432 1.1582 2.0000 5.0827
Design 4 0.9826 1.3219 4.0000 0.2000 6.5045
Design 5 1.0000 1.1710 3.7165 0.2000 6.0875
Table 4-11 provides an insightful overview of the sensitivity analysis trial 6 values, revealing the winning
design as Design 4 with a notable score of 6.5045. The table also showcases the assigned multipliers and
the corresponding representations. The stability constraint holds a weight of 0.1, indicating the relative
importance, while the sustainability constraint carries the highest weight with a multiplier of 0.4. The
economical constraint has a weight of 0.3, and the maintenance constraint is assigned a multiplier of 0.2. By
considering these multipliers, decision-makers can assess the performance of the design options and make
well-informed decisions based on the given constraints. The inclusion of sensitivity analysis trial 6 values and
the winning design in Table 4-12 aids in comprehending the design's performance under diverse weighting
scenarios, facilitating the selection of the most suitable design option.
71
Figure 4-13. shows the best design option for each criterion. And the winning design in this sensitivity analysis
is Design Option 4, with an overall ranking of 6.5045.

Number 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 Total
Design 1 0.8485 0.4000 0.8934 1.9835 4.1254
Design 2 0.1000 4.0000 0.3000 1.8934 6.2934
Design 3 0.8813 1.3910 0.8687 2.0000 5.1409
Design 4 0.9826 1.7626 3.0000 0.2000 5.9452
Design 5 1.0000 1.5613 2.7874 0.2000 5.5487
Table 4-12 provides a comprehensive overview of the sensitivity analysis trial 7 values, revealing the
winning design as Design 2 with a commendable score of 6.2934. The table also showcases the
assigned multipliers and the corresponding representations. The stability constraint carries a weight of
0.1, indicating the relative importance, while the economical constraint holds the highest weight with a
multiplier of 0.4. The maintenance constraint is assigned a weight of 0.3, and the sustainability constraint
has a multiplier of 0.2. By considering these multipliers, decision-makers can evaluate the performance
of the design options and make informed decisions based on the given constraints. The inclusion of
sensitivity analysis trial 7 values and the winning design in Table 4-13 facilitates a comprehensive
understanding of the design's performance under various weighting scenarios, aiding in the selection of
the most suitable design option.
72
analysis. In this analysis, Design Option 2 emerges as the winning design, achieving an overall ranking score
of 6.2934. The figure enables decision-makers to visually compare the performance of each design option
across various criteria, providing a comprehensive understanding of the respective strengths and
weaknesses. The selection of Design Option 2 as the winning design based on the highest overall ranking
score highlights the exceptional performance and suitability for the specified criteria. Figure 4-14 plays a
crucial role in informing decision-making processes, allowing stakeholders to assess and comprehend the
design's performance and the outcomes of the sensitivity analysis.

Number 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 Total
Design 1 3.3939 0.1000 0.8934 1.9835 6.3708
Design 2 0.4000 1.0000 0.3000 1.8934 3.5934
Design 3 3.5251 0.3477 0.8687 2.0000 6.7415
Design 4 3.9304 0.4406 3.0000 0.2000 7.5711
Design 5 4.0000 0.3903 2.7874 0.2000 7.3777
Table 4-13 provides a comprehensive overview of the sensitivity analysis trial 8 values, revealing the winning
design as Design 4 with an impressive score of 7.5711. The table also presents the assigned multipliers and
the corresponding representations. The stability constraint holds the highest weight with a multiplier of 0.4,
indicating the relative importance, while the economical constraint carries a weight of 0.1. The maintenance
constraint is assigned a weight of 0.3, and the sustainability constraint has a multiplier of 0.2. By considering
these multipliers, decision-makers can assess the performance of the design options and make well-informed
decisions based on the given constraints. The inclusion of sensitivity analysis trial 8 values and the winning
design in Table 4-14 facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the design's performance under diverse
weighting scenarios, aiding in the selection of the most suitable design option.
73
analysis. In this analysis, Design Option 4 emerges as the winning design, achieving an overall ranking score
of 7.5711. The figure provides decision-makers with a clear visual representation of the performance of each
design option across various criteria, enabling to assess and compare the respective strengths and
weaknesses. The selection of Design Option 4 as the winning design based on the highest overall ranking
score underscores the exceptional performance and suitability for the specified criteria. Figure 4-15 plays a
crucial role in informing decision-making processes, allowing stakeholders to gain a comprehensive
understanding of the design's performance and the results of the sensitivity analysis.

Number 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 Total
Design 1 2.5454 0.1000 0.5956 3.9670 7.2080
Design 2 0.3000 1.0000 0.2000 3.7868 5.2868
Design 3 2.6438 0.3477 0.5791 4.0000 7.5707
Design 4 2.9478 0.4406 2.0000 0.4000 5.7885
Design 5 3.0000 0.3903 1.8582 0.4000 5.6486
Table 4-14 presents the sensitivity analysis trial 9 values, revealing Design 3 as the winning design with
an impressive score of 7.5707. The table also provides the assigned multipliers and the corresponding
representations. The stability constraint is given a weight of 0.3, indicating the relative importance in the
analysis, while the economical constraint carries a weight of 0.1. The maintenance constraint is assigned
a weight of 0.2, and the sustainability constraint holds the highest weight with a multiplier of 0.4. By
considering these multipliers, decision-makers can comprehensively evaluate the performance of the
design options and make informed decisions based on the given constraints. The inclusion of sensitivity
74
analysis trial 9 values and the winning design in Table 4-15 enhances the understanding of the design's
performance under varying weighting scenarios, aiding in the selection of the most suitable design
option.

Figure 4-16 visually represents the best design option for each criterion as determined by the sensitivity
analysis. In this analysis, Design Option 3 emerges as the winning design with an exceptional overall ranking
of 7.5707. The figure provides decision-makers with a clear and intuitive visualization of the performance of
each design option across various criteria, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of the respective
strengths and weaknesses. The selection of Design Option 3 as the winning design based on the highest
overall ranking score highlights the outstanding performance and suitability for the specified criteria. Figure
4-16 serves as a valuable tool in guiding decision-making processes, enabling stakeholders to understand
and interpret the design's performance and the outcomes of the sensitivity analysis.

Number 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 Total
Design 1 2.5454 0.1000 1.1912 1.9835 5.8201
Design 2 0.3000 1.0000 0.4000 1.8934 3.5934
Design 3 2.6438 0.3477 1.1582 2.0000 6.1498
Design 4 2.9478 0.4406 4.0000 0.2000 7.5885
Design 5 3.0000 0.3903 3.7165 0.2000 7.3068
Table 4-15 provides an overview of the sensitivity analysis trial 10 values, revealing Design 4 as the winning
design with an impressive score of 7.5885. The table also displays the assigned multipliers and the
corresponding representations. The stability constraint carries a weight of 0.3, indicating the relative
importance in the analysis, while the economical constraint holds a weight of 0.1. The maintenance constraint
75
is assigned a weight of 0.4, and the sustainability constraint carries a multiplier of 0.2. These multipliers allow
decision-makers to evaluate the performance of the design options comprehensively, considering the
specified constraints. The inclusion of sensitivity analysis trial 10 values and the winning design in Table 4-
16 facilitates a deeper understanding of the design's performance under varying weighting scenarios, aiding
in the selection of the most suitable design option.

Figure 4-17 visually presents the best design option for each criterion based on the sensitivity analysis
conducted. In this analysis, Design Option 4 emerges as the winning design, achieving an impressive overall
ranking score of 7.5885. The figure provides decision-makers with a clear visual representation of the
performance of each design option across different criteria, enabling a comprehensive evaluation of the
strengths and weaknesses. The selection of Design Option 4 as the winning design based on the highest
overall ranking score underscores the exceptional performance and suitability for the specified criteria. Figure
4-17 plays a crucial role in aiding decision-making processes by providing stakeholders with a visual
summary of the design options and the respective performance, allowing for informed and well-grounded
decisions to be made.

Number 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 Total
Design 1 2.5454 0.4000 0.2978 1.9835 5.2267
Design 2 0.3000 4.0000 0.1000 1.8934 6.2934
Design 3 2.6438 1.3910 0.2896 2.0000 6.3243
Design 4 2.9478 1.7626 1.0000 0.2000 5.9104
Design 5 3.0000 1.5613 0.9291 0.2000 5.6904
76
Table 4-16 displays the sensitivity analysis trial 11 values, revealing Design 3 as the winning design with a
notable score of 6.3243. The table also includes the assigned multipliers and the corresponding
representations. The stability constraint is given a weight of 0.3, highlighting the relative importance in the
analysis, while the economical constraint carries a weight of 0.4. The maintenance constraint is assigned a
weight of 0.1, and the sustainability constraint holds a multiplier of 0.2. These multipliers enable decision-
makers to holistically evaluate the performance of the design options, taking into account the specific
constraints. The inclusion of sensitivity analysis trial 11 values and the winning design in Table 4-17 enhances
the understanding of the design's performance under varied weighting scenarios, assisting in the selection
of the most appropriate design option.

Figure 4-18 visually depicts the best design option for each criterion based on the conducted sensitivity
analysis. In this analysis, Design Option 3 emerges as the winning design, achieving an overall ranking of
6.3243. The figure provides decision-makers with a clear and concise representation of the performance of
each design option across various criteria, facilitating a comprehensive evaluation of the respective strengths
and weaknesses. The selection of Design Option 3 as the winning design, driven by the highest overall
ranking score, underscores the commendable performance and suitability for the specified criteria. Figure 4-
18 serves as a valuable visual aid in guiding decision-making processes, allowing stakeholders to readily
interpret and compare the performance of the design options in the context of the sensitivity analysis.

Number 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 Total
Design 1 3.3939 0.3000 0.2978 1.9835 5.9752
Design 2 0.4000 3.0000 0.1000 1.8934 5.3934
Design 3 3.5251 1.0432 0.2896 2.0000 6.8578
Design 4 3.9304 1.3219 1.0000 0.2000 6.4524
Design 5 4.0000 1.1710 0.9291 0.2000 6.3001
77
Table 4-17 provides the sensitivity analysis trial 12 values, revealing Design 3 as the winning design with a
noteworthy score of 6.8578. The table also presents the multipliers assigned to each criterion, indicating the
respective weightings in the analysis. The stability criterion carries a multiplier of 0.4, highlighting the
significant influence on the overall evaluation. The economical criterion is assigned a weight of 0.3, while the
maintenance criterion holds a multiplier of 0.1. Additionally, the sustainability criterion carries a weight of 0.2,
reflecting the importance in the decision-making process. The inclusion of these values in Table 4-18 enables
decision-makers to assess the performance of the design options under different weighting scenarios,
facilitating a comprehensive and well-informed selection process.

Figure 4-19 visually presents the best design option for each criterion based on the conducted sensitivity
analysis. Within this analysis, Design Option 3 emerges as the winning design, boasting an impressive overall
ranking score of 6.8578. The figure provides a clear and concise representation of how each design option
performs across different criteria, allowing decision-makers to assess the respective strengths and
weaknesses. By highlighting Design Option 3 as the ultimate winner, with the highest overall ranking, Figure
4-19 underscores the exceptional performance in meeting the specified criteria. This visual representation
serves as a valuable tool, aiding stakeholders in comprehending and comparing the performance of design
options within the context of the sensitivity analysis.
Number 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 Total
Design 1 1.6969 0.1000 0.8934 3.9670 6.6573
Design 2 0.2000 1.0000 0.3000 3.7868 5.2868
Design 3 1.7625 0.3477 0.8687 4.0000 6.9789
Design 4 1.9652 0.4406 3.0000 0.4000 5.8059
Design 5 2.0000 0.3903 2.7874 0.4000 5.5777
78
Table 4-18 displays the results of sensitivity analysis trial 13, revealing the values and outcomes of the
evaluation process. Design 3 emerges as the winning design, achieving a notable score of 6.9789. The table
further illustrates the assigned multipliers for each criterion, highlighting the respective weights within the
analysis. The stability criterion holds a multiplier of 0.2, emphasizing the importance in the overall evaluation.
The economical criterion carries a weight of 0.1, while the maintenance criterion is assigned a multiplier of
0.3. Additionally, the sustainability criterion holds a substantial weight of 0.4, reflecting the significance in the
decision-making process. These values, presented in Table 4-19, enable stakeholders to assess the
performance of the design options and make informed decisions based on the analysis results.

Figure 4-20 visually depicts the optimal design option for each criterion, offering a comprehensive overview
of the sensitivity analysis outcomes. Within this analysis, Design Option 3 emerges as the clear winner,
attaining an impressive overall ranking score of 6.9789. The figure succinctly presents the performance of
each design option across different criteria, enabling stakeholders to grasp the strengths and weaknesses of
each alternative. By highlighting Design Option 3 as the ultimate victor with the highest overall ranking, Figure
4-20 emphasizes the exceptional performance in meeting the specified criteria. This visual representation
serves as a valuable tool, facilitating decision-making processes and allowing stakeholders to make informed
choices based on the results of the sensitivity analysis.

Number 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 Total
Design 1 1.6969 0.1000 1.1912 2.9752 5.9634
Design 2 0.2000 1.0000 0.4000 2.8401 4.4401
Design 3 1.7625 0.3477 1.1582 3.0000 6.2685
Design 4 1.9652 0.4406 4.0000 0.3000 6.7059
Design 5 2.0000 0.3903 3.7165 0.3000 6.4068
79
Table 4-19 presents the results of sensitivity analysis trial 14, which evaluates different design options based
on various criteria. The winning design, as determined by the analysis, is Design 4, boasting an impressive
score of 6.7059. The table further provides the multipliers associated with each criterion, shedding light on
the respective weights in the overall evaluation. With a stability multiplier of 0.2, an economical multiplier of
0.1, a maintenance multiplier of 0.4, and a sustainability multiplier of 0.3, the table outlines the significance
assigned to each aspect during the analysis. These values reflect the relative importance of each criterion in
the decision-making process, ultimately resulting in the selection of Design 4 as the preferred option.

Figure 4-21 visually represents the outcome of the sensitivity analysis, showcasing the optimal design option
for each criterion. Upon evaluation, it is evident that Design Option 4 emerges as the clear winner in this
analysis, with an impressive overall ranking of 6.7059. The figure highlights the performance of each design
option across the various criteria, providing a comprehensive overview of the strengths and weaknesses.
Based on the analysis, Design Option 4 demonstrates the highest effectiveness in meeting the specified
criteria, leading to the selection as the winning design. This figure serves as a valuable tool for decision-
makers, offering a visual representation of the performance and ranking of each design option.

Number 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 Total
Design 1 1.6969 0.4000 0.2978 2.9752 5.3700
Design 2 0.2000 4.0000 0.1000 2.8401 7.1401
Design 3 1.7625 1.3910 0.2896 3.0000 6.4431
Design 4 1.9652 1.7626 1.0000 0.3000 5.0278
Design 5 2.0000 1.5613 0.9291 0.3000 4.7904
Table 4-20 provides the results of sensitivity analysis trial 15, presenting the values obtained for each criterion
and design option. After careful evaluation, Design 2 emerges as the winning design with an impressive score
of 7.1401. The table also includes the corresponding multipliers for each criterion, outlining the respective
80
weights in the overall evaluation. Stability is assigned a multiplier of 0.2, indicating the moderate influence on
the final ranking. Economic considerations hold the highest weight with a multiplier of 0.4, underscoring the
significant role in the evaluation process. Maintenance is assigned a lower weight of 0.1, suggesting the
relatively minor impact, while sustainability holds a weight of 0.3, signifying the substantial contribution to the
final score.

Figure 4-22 visually presents the outcomes of the sensitivity analysis, showcasing the best design option for
each criterion. After thorough evaluation, Design Option 2 emerges as the winning design with an outstanding
overall ranking of 7.1401. The figure highlights the superior performance of Design Option 2 across various
criteria, underscoring the effectiveness in meeting the desired objectives. The overall ranking reflects the
comprehensive evaluation of the design options, considering factors such as stability, economical
considerations, maintenance, and sustainability. With a top-notch overall ranking, Design Option 2 stands
out as the most favorable choice, demonstrating the ability to meet the project requirements and excel in the
evaluated criteria.

Number 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 Total
Design 1 3.3939 0.2000 0.2978 2.9752 6.8669
Design 2 0.4000 2.0000 0.1000 2.8401 5.3401
Design 3 3.5251 0.6955 0.2896 3.0000 7.5101
Design 4 3.9304 0.8813 1.0000 0.3000 6.1117
Design 5 4.0000 0.7806 0.9291 0.3000 6.0098
81
Table 4-21 provides a comprehensive overview of the sensitivity analysis trial 16 results, including the winning
design: Design 3. With a remarkable score of 7.5101, Design 3 emerges as the top-performing design option
in this evaluation. The table also presents the multipliers assigned to each criterion, shedding light on the
respective weights in the analysis. The multiplier values indicate that stability has the highest weight (0.4),
followed by economic considerations (0.2), maintenance (0.1), and sustainability (0.3). The winning design,
Design 3, demonstrates the exceptional performance by excelling in the evaluated criteria and achieving an
impressive overall score. The results of this trial highlight Design 3 as the most suitable choice, considering
the desired objectives and the relative importance of the analyzed criteria.

Figure 4-23 provides a visual representation of the sensitivity analysis results, showcasing the best design
option for each criterion. In this analysis, Design Option 3 emerges as the winning design with an outstanding
overall ranking of 7.5101. The figure visually illustrates how Design Option 3 outperforms other design options
across multiple criteria, indicating the superiority in meeting the desired objectives. The overall ranking of
7.5101 solidifies the exceptional performance of Design Option 3, reflecting the ability to balance and excel
in various design constraints. The figure serves as a graphical confirmation of the analytical findings, visually
demonstrating the superiority of Design Option 3 in this sensitivity analysis.

Number 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 Total
Design 1 1.6969 0.3000 0.2978 3.9670 6.2617
Design 2 0.2000 3.0000 0.1000 3.7868 7.0868
Design 3 1.7625 1.0432 0.2896 4.0000 7.0953
Design 4 1.9652 1.3219 1.0000 0.4000 4.6872
Design 5 2.0000 1.1710 0.9291 0.4000 4.5001
Table 4-22 presents the results of sensitivity analysis trial 17, which evaluates the design options based on
various criteria. The winning design in this analysis is Design Option 3, which obtains a score of 7.0953,
82
indicating the superior performance. The table also provides the multipliers used for each criterion, where
stability has a weight of 0.2, economical has a weight of 0.3, maintenance has a weight of 0.1, and
sustainability has a weight of 0.4. These multipliers represent the relative importance or emphasis given to
each criterion in the evaluation process. The results highlight Design Option 3 as the most suitable choice,
considering the exceptional performance across the specified criteria, and reaffirm the significance of
sustainability in the overall ranking.

Figure 4-24 illustrates the outcome of the sensitivity analysis, providing a visual representation of the optimal
design option for each criterion. The analysis concludes that Design Option 3 emerges as the winning design
with an overall ranking of 7.0953, signifying the superior performance across the evaluated criteria. This
figure serves as a graphical summary of the evaluation process, enabling a clear comparison of the design
options based on the respective strengths in each criterion. The prominence of Design Option 3 underscores
the favorable attributes and the ability to meet the specified design requirements effectively. The figure
reinforces the notion that Design Option 3 is the most suitable choice, considering the exceptional
performance and the comprehensive evaluation of the criteria.

Number 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 Total
Design 1 1.6969 0.3000 1.1912 0.9917 4.1799
Design 2 0.2000 3.0000 0.4000 0.9467 4.5467
Design 3 1.7625 1.0432 1.1582 1.0000 4.9640
Design 4 1.9652 1.3219 4.0000 0.1000 7.3872
Design 5 2.0000 1.1710 3.7165 0.1000 6.9875
Table 4-23 presents the results of the sensitivity analysis trial 18, providing a comprehensive overview of the
values obtained for each design option. The winning design in this trial is Design 4, which achieved a score
of 7.3872, indicating the superior performance across the evaluated criteria. The table also displays the
multiplier associated with each criterion, representing the relative importance assigned to during the analysis.
83
In this case, stability is given a multiplier of 0.2, emphasizing the significance, while the economical criterion
has a multiplier of 0.3, highlighting the weight in the evaluation process. Furthermore, the maintenance
criterion carries a multiplier of 0.4, suggesting the higher importance, and the sustainability criterion is
assigned a multiplier of 0.1, indicating the relatively lower impact on the overall ranking.

Figure 4-25 provides a visual representation of the best design option for each criterion considered in the
sensitivity analysis. It illustrates the performance of each design option across the evaluated criteria, allowing
for a comprehensive comparison. In this particular analysis, Design Option 4 emerges as the winner,
achieving the highest overall ranking of 7.3872. This indicates that Design Option 4 excelled in meeting the
requirements and objectives set forth by the criteria examined. The superior performance across multiple
criteria contributed to the selection as the winning design in this sensitivity analysis. The figure serves as a
concise summary of the evaluation outcomes, highlighting the strengths of Design Option 4 in addressing the
specified criteria..

Number 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 Total
Design 1 1.6969 0.4000 0.8934 0.9917 3.9821
Design 2 0.2000 4.0000 0.3000 0.9467 5.4467
Design 3 1.7625 1.3910 0.8687 1.0000 5.0222
Design 4 1.9652 1.7626 3.0000 0.1000 6.8278
Design 5 2.0000 1.5613 2.7874 0.1000 6.4487
Table 4-24 presents the results of sensitivity analysis trial 19, which involved evaluating different design
options based on the specified criteria. The table displays the scores obtained by each design option, with
Design 4 emerging as the winner with a score of 6.8278. Additionally, the table provides the corresponding
multipliers for each criterion, indicating the weight assigned to each criterion during the evaluation process.
In this case, stability was assigned a multiplier of 0.2, economical received a multiplier of 0.4, maintenance
84
had a multiplier of 0.3, and sustainability was given a multiplier of 0.1. These multipliers reflect the relative
importance of each criterion in the overall ranking. By considering these values, stakeholders can make
informed decisions regarding the design that best meets the desired objectives and constraints.

Figure 4-26, the results of the sensitivity analysis are presented, highlighting the best design option for each
criterion. After thorough evaluation, Design Option 4 emerged as the winner with an impressive overall
ranking of 6.8278. The figure visually displays how Design Option 4 outperformed the other options across
various criteria, indicating the superiority in meeting the project requirements. This analysis aids stakeholders
in making informed decisions by providing a clear visualization of the design options' performance. The
winning design's strong performance across multiple criteria suggests that it strikes a balance between
stability, economy, maintenance, and sustainability, making it a favorable choice for the project.

Number 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 Total
Design 1 3.3939 0.2000 0.8934 0.9917 5.4790
Design 2 0.4000 2.0000 0.3000 0.9467 3.6467
Design 3 3.5251 0.6955 0.8687 1.0000 6.0892
Design 4 3.9304 0.8813 3.0000 0.1000 7.9117
Design 5 4.0000 0.7806 2.7874 0.1000 7.6680
Table 4-25 provides an overview of the sensitivity analysis trial 20, presenting the values and outcomes for
each criterion. Among the design options evaluated, Design 4 emerged as the clear winner, achieving an
impressive score of 7.9117. The table also includes the multiplier values, which play a crucial role in
determining the weightage given to each criterion. With a high stability multiplier of 0.4, Design 4
demonstrates the robustness and ability to meet stability constraints effectively. Additionally, the economical
multiplier of 0.2 highlights the design's cost-effectiveness, while the maintenance multiplier of 0.3 emphasizes
85
the ease of upkeep. Furthermore, the sustainability multiplier of 0.1 indicates that Design 4 aligns with the
project's sustainable objectives. Overall, this table showcases Design 4's exceptional performance, making
it the winning choice in this sensitivity analysis.

In Figure 4-27, the best design option for each criterion is visually presented, providing a comprehensive
overview of the sensitivity analysis results. Notably, Design Option 4 stands out as the winning design,
boasting exceptional performance across all evaluated criteria. With an impressive overall ranking of 7.9117,
it demonstrates the superiority over other design options. This figure serves as a visual confirmation of the
analytical findings, showcasing the strengths and advantages of Design Option 4 in meeting the specified
criteria. The clear identification of the winning design reaffirms the suitability and effectiveness in achieving
the project's objectives.

Number 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 Total
Design 1 2.5454 0.2000 0.2978 3.9670 7.0102
Design 2 0.3000 2.0000 0.1000 3.7868 6.1868
Design 3 2.6438 0.6955 0.2896 4.0000 7.6288
Design 4 2.9478 0.8813 1.0000 0.4000 5.2291
Design 5 3.0000 0.7806 0.9291 0.4000 5.1098
Table 4-26 provides a comprehensive overview of the sensitivity analysis trial 21 results. It displays the values
obtained for each criterion and reveals the winning design: Design 3, with an impressive score of 7.6288.
The table also includes the multipliers assigned to each criterion, providing insights into the respective
weightings in the evaluation process. These multipliers indicate that stability holds a weightage of 0.3,
economical aspect holds a weightage of 0.2, maintenance holds a weightage of 0.1, and sustainability holds
the highest weightage of 0.4. The table serves as a valuable resource for understanding the comparative
86
performance of different designs and highlights the exceptional performance of Design 3, which emerged as
the preferred choice based on the given criteria.

analysis. It presents a clear overview of how each design option performed across the different evaluation
criteria. Notably, Design Option 3 stands out as the winning design, achieving an impressive overall ranking
of 7.6288. The figure showcases the strengths of Design Option 3 in meeting the specific requirements and
objectives of the project. It serves as a valuable visual aid for decision-making, highlighting the design's
superior performance and justifying the selection as the optimal choice. The figure's clarity and concise
presentation make it an essential reference for understanding the comparative performance of the design
options.

Number 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 Total
Design 1 2.5454 0.2000 1.1912 0.9917 4.9284
Design 2 0.3000 2.0000 0.4000 0.9467 3.6467
Design 3 2.6438 0.6955 1.1582 1.0000 5.4975
Design 4 2.9478 0.8813 4.0000 0.1000 7.9291
Design 5 3.0000 0.7806 3.7165 0.1000 7.5971
In Table 4-27, the sensitivity analysis trial 22 values are displayed, along with the corresponding scores for
each design option. Among all the designs evaluated, Design 4 emerges as the winner with an impressive
score of 7.9291. The table also provides insight into the multiplier values assigned to different criteria.
Specifically, a multiplier of 0.3 is allocated to stability, indicating the significant influence on the overall
evaluation. The economical criterion holds a weight of 0.2, while maintenance carries the highest weight of
0.4, suggesting the critical importance in the analysis. Finally, sustainability is assigned a multiplier of 0.1,
87
reflecting the relatively lower impact compared to the other factors. By presenting this information, Table 4-
28 offers a comprehensive overview of the sensitivity analysis outcomes and aids decision-makers in
identifying the most suitable design option.

analysis. It offers a clear visualization of the performance of each design option across various evaluation
criteria. Notably, Design Option 4 stands out as the winning design with an exceptional overall ranking of
7.9291, indicating the superiority in meeting the desired criteria. The figure enables decision-makers to
quickly grasp the comparative performance of different designs and visually identify the top-performing
option. With the concise and informative display, Figure 4-29 enhances the understanding of the sensitivity
analysis results and facilitates the selection of the most favorable design option for the given criteria.

Number 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 Total
Design 1 2.5454 0.4000 0.5956 0.9917 4.5328
Design 2 0.3000 4.0000 0.2000 0.9467 5.4467
Design 3 2.6438 1.3910 0.5791 1.0000 5.6139
Design 4 2.9478 1.7626 2.0000 0.1000 6.8104
Design 5 3.0000 1.5613 1.8582 0.1000 6.5195
Table 4-28 presents the results of sensitivity analysis trial 23, showcasing the performance values for each
design option. The winning design in this trial is Design 4, which achieved an impressive score of 6.8104.
The table also includes the multipliers and the corresponding representations, providing insights into the
weightage assigned to different criteria. In this case, stability is given a weightage of 0.3, economic factors
are valued at 0.4, maintenance is considered at 0.2, and sustainability carries a weightage of 0.1. These
multipliers indicate the relative importance of each criterion in determining the overall ranking of the designs.
88
The table serves as a valuable reference for evaluating the performance of Design 4 and understanding the
contribution of each criterion to the score.

Figure 4-30 visually presents the performance of each design option across different criteria. It highlights the
best design option for each criterion, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation. The winning design in this
sensitivity analysis is Design Option 4, which achieved an impressive overall ranking of 6.8104. This indicates
that Design Option 4 outperformed the other options across the evaluated criteria. The figure serves as a
visual representation of the analysis, providing a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
each design option and highlighting the superior performance of Design Option 4. It serves as a valuable tool
for decision-making and further refinement of the design process.

Number 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Total
Design 1 3.3939 0.3000 0.5956 0.9917 5.2812
Design 2 0.4000 3.0000 0.2000 0.9467 4.5467
Design 3 3.5251 1.0432 0.5791 1.0000 6.1474
Design 4 3.9304 1.3219 2.0000 0.1000 7.3524
Design 5 4.0000 1.1710 1.8582 0.1000 7.1292
In Table 4-29, the results of sensitivity analysis trial 24 are presented, highlighting the values and outcomes
for each design option. The winning design, Design 4, stands out with an impressive score of 7.3524,
indicating the superior performance in the evaluated criteria. The table also includes the multipliers assigned
to each criterion, shedding light on the relative significance in the analysis. With a multiplier of 0.4 for stability,
0.3 for economical, 0.2 for maintenance, and 0.1 for sustainability, the emphasis on stability and economy
becomes evident. These values help guide decision-making, offering valuable insights into the strengths and
89
weaknesses of each design option. By considering these factors, stakeholders can make well-informed
choices that align with the desired goals and priorities.

In Figure 4-31, the visual representation of the best design options for each criterion is depicted, providing a
clear overview of the performance. The winning design, Design Option 4, emerges as the top choice in this
sensitivity analysis, achieving an outstanding overall ranking of 7.3524. This indicates the superior
performance across the evaluated criteria. The figure serves as a visual aid to stakeholders, allowing to
quickly assess the strengths and weaknesses of each design option and understand why Design Option 4
emerged as the most favorable choice. It provides a concise summary of the analysis results, facilitating
decision-making and helping stakeholders align the choices with the desired outcomes.
90
Pareto Optimization
Design 2 vs. Design 4
Table 4-30. Pareto Optimization between Sustainability and Maintenance
Design Sustainability Maintenance
Design 3 10 2.90
Design 4 1 10
F1= 10x + 1y ≥ 80% of 10
F2= 2.90x + 10y ≤ 20% of 10
In Table 4-30, the optimal values of power consumption and maintenance cost for the various design options
are visually presented using the Desmos graphing tool. The graph highlights the sustainability and
maintenance regions with different colors. The red section represents the sustainability region, indicating the
range of values that meet the sustainability criteria. The blue section represents the maintenance region,
indicating the range of values that fulfill the maintenance requirements. It is observed that the area enclosed
by Designs 3 and 4 corresponds to the acceptable design options, as it fall within both the sustainability and
maintenance regions. This visual representation helps researchers easily identify the design options that
strike a balance between power consumption, maintenance cost, and the desired sustainability and
maintenance objectives.
Table 4-31: Pareto Optimization between Sustainability and Stability

Design Sustainability Stability
Design 3 10 8.81
Design 4 1 9.83
F1= 10x + 1y ≥ 80% of 10
F2= 8.81x + 9.83y ≤ 20% of 10
91
Table 4-31, the Desmos graphing tool provides a visual representation of the optimal values of power
consumption and the drag coefficient for the various design options. The graph is color-coded, with the red
section representing the region that satisfies the sustainability criteria and the blue section representing the
region that ensures stability. By examining the graph, it becomes apparent that the acceptable design options
lie within the area enclosed by Designs 3 and 4. These designs strike a balance between power consumption
and the drag coefficient while meeting the desired sustainability and stability objectives. The graph facilitates
a clear understanding of the relationship between power consumption, drag coefficient, and the selection of
appropriate design options.
Table 4-32: Pareto Optimization between Sustainability and Economical

Design Sustainability Economical
Design 3 10 3.48
Design 4 1 4.41
F1= 10x + 1y ≥ 80% of 10

F2= 3.48x + 4.41y ≤ 20% of 10
92
Table 4-32 depicts the optimal values of power consumption and costing for different design options,
presented through the Desmos graphing tool. The graph is visually divided into two sections, with the red
area representing the region aligned with sustainability considerations, while the blue area corresponds to
the economical region. Concerning maintenance cost and stability, it is notable that the acceptable design
options lie within the enclosed area formed by Designs 3 and 4. These designs offer a balance between
power consumption and costing, making suitable choices for further evaluation. The graphical representation
provides a clear understanding of the relationship between power consumption, costing, and the selection of
design options that promote sustainability and economic viability.
Table 4-33: Pareto Optimization between Maintenance and Economical
Design Maintenance Economical

Design 3 2.90 3.48
Design 4 10 4.41
F1= 2.90x + 10y ≥ 80% of 10

F2= 3.48x + 4.41y ≤ 20% of 10
93
Table 4-33 provides a visual depiction of the optimal values of maintenance cost and costing for the various
design options, employing the Desmos graphing tool. The graph is color-coded, with the red section
representing the region that fulfills the economic considerations, while the blue section corresponds to the
area associated with maintenance criteria.. Upon analysis, it becomes apparent that the acceptable design
options lie within the region enclosed by Designs 3 and 4. These designs strike a balance between
maintenance cost and overall costing while meeting the desired maintenance and economic objectives. The
graphical representation facilitates a better understanding of the relationship between maintenance cost,
costing, and the selection of appropriate design options.
Table 4-34: Pareto Optimization between Maintenance and Stability

Design Maintenance Stability
Design 3 2.90 8.81
Design 4 10 9.83
F1= 2.90x + 10y ≥ 80% of 10

F2= 8.81x + 9.83y ≤ 20% of 10
94
Table 4-34 depicts the optimal values of maintenance cost and drag coefficient for the various design options
using the Desmos graphing tool. The graph is color-coded, with the red section representing the region that
meets the stability criterion, while the blue section corresponds to the area associated with maintenance
considerations. Upon analysis, it is evident that the acceptable design options lie within the region enclosed
by Designs 3 and 4. These designs strike a balance between maintenance cost and stability requirements,
making suitable choices for further consideration. The graphical representation aids in visualizing the
relationship between maintenance cost, drag coefficient, and the selection of design options that ensure
stability.
Table 4-35: Pareto Optimization between Stability and Economical

Design Stability Economical
Design 3 8.81 3.48
Design 4 9.83 4.41
F1= 8.81x + 9.83y ≥ 80% of 10

F2= 3.48x +4.41y ≤ 20% of 10
95
Table 4-35. showcases the optimal values of drag coefficient and costing for different design options,
visualized using the Desmos graphing tool. The graph is color-coded, with the red section indicating the
region that satisfies the stability criterion, while the blue section represents the area associated with
economical considerations. When considering maintenance cost and stability, it is noteworthy that the
acceptable design options lie within the region enclosed by Designs 3 and 4. These designs strike a balance
between drag coefficient and costing, making favorable choices for further evaluation. The graphical
representation assists in comprehending the relationship between drag coefficient, costing, and the selection
of design options that ensure stability and economic feasibility.
96
Chapter 5. Final Design
This section presented the final design solution chosen based on the trade-off analysis and limitations used
to identify which of the possible components or systems is the best option for the project. Design of a Self-
Reliant Flood Warning System intend to increase the safety of the people passing by and nearby to the low
water bridge in Barangay 5, Lucena City. It will provide information to the people about the situation of the
bridge through the sense of sight and hear. Economical, stability, sustainability, repair cost and design
standards such as; simulation for drag coefficient, recommended practice for sizing lead-acid batteries, and
standards must be considered when picking the optimal design solutions for the final design. Due to the
completed trade-off analysis, “Design Option 4” received the highest score and will serve as the basis for the
prototype.
Development of the Prototype

The diagram below displays the schematic diagram of the prototype design, which includes all of the
components or materials required to manufacture the whole Flood monitoring electrical system.
Figure 5-1: Schematic Diagram

In Figure 5-1, As diagram shows the complete electrical wiring of the flood monitoring system. The diagram
depicts how each component is interconnected to form a functional and efficient system. The Photovoltaic
module, also known as a solar panel, is responsible for converting sunlight into electrical energy. The solar
charger then charges the battery using this electrical energy. The circuit breaker is an essential component
that helps prevent the system from overloading and getting damaged. The Arduino UNO, LED, Amplifier, and
Speaker are all connected to the battery, and it work together to detect the flood level and provide appropriate
warnings. Overall, this diagram represents the backbone of the flood monitoring system, and the proper
functioning is critical to prevent flooding disasters.
97
Architectural Flow
Figure 5-2: Architectural Flow

The system comprises several components, including a water level sensor, a microcontroller, a Wi-Fi module,
and an LED display. The water level sensor is responsible for measuring the water level of the river and
sending the data to the microcontroller. The microcontroller processes the data that have been program.
Finally, the LED display provides a visual representation of the water level information, allowing the
community to be aware of potential flood threats. Overall, the design system aims to enhance the safety of
the community by providing accurate and timely information on the water level of the river.
Final 3D Modelling
Figure 5-3: Design Option 4 Perspective View

Figure 5-3 shows the proposed design option 4, which is designed to meet all client-specified requirements
and can adapt to varying water levels. The design features a pole-mounted structure with a solar panel,
battery, and controller on top to provide power to the system. The system includes an ultrasonic sensor to
measure the water level and a LED light to indicate the water level status. The design also includes a flood
alarm system with an audio output to alert the community of potential flood threats. The design has been
optimized to withstand the harsh environmental conditions, and the appearance has been chosen to blend in
with the surrounding landscape
98
Equipment and Materials
The preparation of the necessary materials for the prototype was the initial step in the development of the
project. The components were chosen based on the dimensions, compatibility, cost, and performance. The
structure of the design was influenced by the researchers' knowledge with the components and the capacity
to utilize.
Table 5-1: List of components used in the design.

Materials Quantity
Siren (Set) 1 pc.
Amplifier 1 pc..
Enclosure 1 pc.
Arduino 1 pc..
Plates 8 pcs.
Jumping Wires 2 set
(10 pcs per set)
Float Switch (Horizontal) 12 pcs
Breadboard 1 pc
Pole 4 meters
Stainless Rod 1 pc.
Lock & Nut 20 pairs
Table 5-1 provides an overview of all the materials that will be used in the entire flood monitoring system
project, including a total of 18 components with the respective quantities. The table may include materials
such as sensors, LED lights, solar panels, batteries, controllers, and other components necessary for the
system to function. With the use of these materials, the project team will be able to construct the flood
monitoring system and ensure that it is fully operational. The table is an important reference for the project
team to track the materials needed and to ensure that it have all the necessary components before starting
the construction phase.
99
Components of “Self-Reliant Flood Warning System”
Figure 5-4: Arduino & Jumping Wires Figure 5-5: 2mm2 THWN Wire
(a) (b)
Figure 5-6: Float Switch Figure 5-7: LED Emergency Warning Light
(c) (d)
Figure 5-8: power supply

(e)
Figure (a) displays an image of the Arduino uno board and jumping wires (male-male) that are utilized to
connect the float switch and programming. The jumping wires allow the communication between the
100
components of the project and the Arduino microcontroller. Figure (b) shows the wires used to connect all of
the electrical wiring in the system. These wires provide electrical power and signal communication between
all the system components. Figure (c) depicts the actual photo of the float switch used in the prototype to
give signals about the water level. The float switch is a critical component that detects the water level and
sends a signal to the microcontroller. Figure (d) demonstrates the actual photo of the LED warning signal
used to inform the people. The LED warning signal is an essential part of the system that alerts the people
when the water level reaches the threshold. Finally, Figure (e) illustrates the power supply used in the project.
The power supply provides electrical power to the system components, ensuring that it function correctly.
Figure 5-9: Pole with plates

Figure 5-9 shows the actual photo of the pole with metal plates that have been welded to it. The metal plates
have been attached to the pole in order to allow it to be transported and connected easily using bolts and
knots. This type of connection system is important in order to ensure that the pole is stable and secure, even
during times of high winds or heavy rainfall. The use of metal plates and bolts also allows for the pole to be
easily disassembled and reassembled, which can be helpful in the event that the system needs to be moved
or relocated. The design of the pole and the connection system has been carefully considered in order to
ensure that the entire flood monitoring system is durable, reliable, and easy to maintain.
101
Figure 5-10: Siren, Streetlight & Emergency Warning Light
Figure 5-10 depicts the upper part of the pole that has been installed with the Siren, Streetlight & Emergency
Warning Light. This portion of the pole is placed at a height of 4 meters to ensure that people near the low
water bridge can easily see and hear the alarms in case of flood warnings. The Siren will produce a loud
sound that will alert people in the vicinity of the low water bridge about the potential flood threat. The
Streetlight and Emergency Warning Light will provide illumination in the area, making it easier for people to
see the water level. These components are critical in ensuring the safety of the community during floods.
Design Arrangement
Procedure
1. Sketching the plan
(a) (b)
Figure 5-11: Sketch and plan of overall design of the prototype
102
Figure 5-11 provides an overall plan for the flood monitoring system prototype. The left side (a) of the figure
displays a detailed representation of the prototype, including the measurements and various components
such as the Arduino board, float switch, LED warning signals, and power supply. On the right side (b) of the
figure, the plan shows how each pole should look like when the metal plates will be welded to it. These metal
plates are crucial to the project as iit will hold the different components of the system, such as the poles,
siren, streetlight, and emergency warning light. The plan also includes the distance between each pole, which
is essential to ensure that the flood monitoring system covers the necessary areas effectively.
2. Canvas and Buying of Materials
Figure 5-12: Actual photos of buying of materials that will be using in the entire project.
Figure 5-12 shows the actual photo of the researchers buying of materials that will be using in the flood
monitoring system. Most of the Electronics was bought in DEECO and Makerlab Eletronics, the Road light
was bought in Raon and the pole was bought in local metal shop in Binondo.
103
3. Welding metals and Drilling holes to the pole
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 5-13: Actual photos of the drilled holes and welded plates on the poles and welded containers or support
of the solar panel and siren.
Figure 5-13 depicts the actual photos of the poles used in the flood monitoring system. The photos (c) show
the poles that have been drilled to make holes for inserting the float switch. (a) and (b) shows the poles have
also been welded with metal plates for attaching the warning devices and solar panel support. (d) shows the
support attachment support for the solar panel. The photos give a clear view of the workmanship and
construction of the poles, ensuring that it can withstand harsh environmental conditions. The use of durable
and robust materials for constructing the poles and the parts guarantees the longevity and reliability of the
flood monitoring system.
4. Arranging of materials and tools
104
Figure 5-14: Actual photos of collected and sorted materials that will be using in the entire project.
Figure 5-14. shows the overall components that will be using in the entire project after buying it.
5. Assembly of materials
5.1. Power Supply
Figure 5-15: Planning of arrangement of the power supply and Arduino to the enclosure box.
Figure 5-15 illustrates the arrangement plan of the power supply, Arduino, circuit breaker, and other
components in the enclosure box. The enclosure box will secure the location of each component and ensure
that it will not move once drilled in. The plan also includes the positioning of the cable glands, which will
provide protection to the wiring and prevent dust and moisture from entering the enclosure. The plan also
indicates the locations of the mounting holes, which will be used to attach the enclosure box to the pole. This
design will help protect the electrical components from weather and other environmental factors.
105
5.2. Float switch Sensor to Pole
Figure 5-16: Placing of float switch to the pole

Figure 5-16. shows the actual photo of inserting or placing the float switch in the holes of the poles,
it also shows how the wire will be connected.
5.3. Siren to power source
Figure 5-17: Supplying of power source to the siren

In Figure 5-17, the siren is being tested for the loudness and functionality, which is an important step to
ensure that it can effectively alert the community of flood-threatening conditions. A sound level meter may be
used to measure the siren's sound pressure level to ensure it meets the required standard. The testing
process may also involve checking the siren's power supply and wiring to ensure that it is properly connected.
This ensures that the siren will work effectively during an emergency and will not fail due to any technical
issues. Once the testing is complete, the siren can be safely installed on the pole as part of the flood
monitoring system.
106
5.4. Arduino and Programming Testing
Figure 5-18: Programming and constructing the wiring of Arduino

In Figure 5-18, the programming and electrical wiring of the flood monitoring system is being done, with the
Arduino serving as the system's central processing unit. Several testing procedures were conducted to
ensure that the wires were properly connected to one another. The programming is crucial in enabling the
system to measure and analyze the data collected by the sensors. Proper electrical wiring is essential for
ensuring that the flood monitoring system operates smoothly and efficiently. The successful completion of
this stage of the project brings the researchers closer to having a fully functional flood monitoring system.
107
6. Construction of Electrical system and assembly of materials to Pole
6.1. Actual photos of assembly of solar panel, siren, road light, and LED light to the pole.
Figure 5-19: Actual photos of assembling ofsolar panel, siren, road light, and LED light to the pole
In Figure 5-19, the researchers can be seen attaching all of the flood monitoring system's components,
including the siren, solar panel, LED light, and other electronics, to the pole. After attaching all of the
components, the electrical wiring can be done to connect the float switch and power supply. The assembly
of the components must be done carefully to ensure that all are securely attached to the pole and properly
connected to each other. Once completed, the flood monitoring system will be able to detect the water level
and provide warnings to the people living near the low water bridge.
6.2. Actual photos of assembled solar panel, siren, road light and LED light to the pole
Figure 5-20: Actual photos of assembled solar panel, siren, road light and LED light to the pole
Figure 5-20 depicts the assembled components of the flood monitoring system, namely the solar panel, siren,
road light, and LED light, which are all attached to the pole. The solar panel serves as the primary source of
108
power for the entire system, which is used to charge the battery. The siren and road light are part of the public
warning system that alerts the community of dangerous weather conditions or flood threats, while the LED
light serves as an indicator of the flood level. The pole itself is crucial to the stability of the entire system, as
it serves as the foundation that holds all the components in place and withstands the water pressure during
floods.
6.3. Actual photo of construction of electrical wiring system
Figure 5-21: Actual photos of doing the wiring of float switch to the Arduino and power source.
In Figure 5-21, the researchers are shown carefully connecting the electrical wiring for the flood monitoring
system. The wiring is being connected with caution to ensure that no water will come into contact with it. The
researchers also made sure that all of the wires used were water-resistant to prevent any damage to the
system in case of flooding. This step is crucial in ensuring the functionality and safety of the flood monitoring
system. By properly wiring the components, the system will be able to operate efficiently and accurately
detect water levels.
6.4. Actual photo of Testing of wiring and arduino
Figure 5-22: Testing the connection of Arduino to float switch if properly connected or wired in.
In Figure 5-22, the researchers are performing actual testing of the Arduino and the float switch to ensure
that all of the wires are properly connected. This is a crucial step in making sure that the system is safe and
109
will not be disconnected once the prototype is set up or being moved. The testing will help to identify any
errors or issues with the wiring and allow the researchers to make necessary adjustments before the final
implementation. By ensuring that all of the components are functioning properly, the researchers can have
confidence in the effectiveness of the flood monitoring system. The testing will help to identify any potential
problems before this become significant issues and improve the overall reliability of the system.
6.5. Manual manipulation or testing of the prototype
Figure 5-23: Actual photos of manual manipulation or testing of the prototype if all of the float switch are
properly working.
Figure 5-23 shows a person manually manipulating the float switch in the flood monitoring system prototype.
This process is being done to ensure that all of the float switches are properly working and to check if the
wires are properly connected. This also allows the researchers to check if the Arduino, which serves as the
system's brain, is properly working. By manually manipulating the float switches, the researchers can verify
that the system can detect changes in water levels and send alerts accordingly. This step is crucial in ensuring
the accuracy and reliability of the flood monitoring system.
110
6.6. Assembled of overall materials and wirings to the pole
Figure 5-24: Actual photo of overall materials and wires connected to a single pole.
Figure 5-24 shows a photograph of all the components of the flood monitoring system assembled on the pole
and connected to each other via wires. The photograph indicates that the prototype is almost ready for testing.
The pole has been equipped with a solar panel, siren, LED light, float switch, and other electronic
components, all of which have been carefully wired to ensure proper functionality. Once the testing is
completed, this prototype will be used to monitor the water level of a nearby river and provide early warning
signals to the people living in the area, alerting the people in jurisdiction of any impending floods.
7. Construction of controlled environment
111
Figure 5-25: Actual photos of constructing the controlled environment, utilizing the metal sheets and plain
sheets to have a stable controlled environment.
In Figure 5-25, the researchers are shown constructing a controlled environment for the flood monitoring
system. This environment will be inserted into the whole system and will allow the researchers to simulate
flooding scenarios without having to wait for actual flooding events to occur. This will be an important tool for
testing and ensuring the functionality of the system. By using a controlled environment, the researchers can
adjust the water levels and monitor the response of the system under different conditions. This will help the
researchers identify any potential issues and fine-tune the system before it is deployed in a real-world setting.
112
8. Assembly and Testing
8.1. Construction of Base
Figure 5-26: Constructing of the base of the pole.

Figure 5-26 shows the construction of the base of the pole. The pole is made of PVC schedule 40 that is
highly durable, with high tensile and impact strength. The base of the pole provides the foundation and
stability needed to support the weight of the pole and any attachments that will be mounted on it. The
construction of the base typically involves digging a hole to the required depth, pouring concrete into the hole,
and inserting a steel pole or rebar into the concrete. Proper construction of the base is essential to ensure
the safety and stability of the pole and the attachments.
8.2. Assembly of Pole to Base
Figure 5-27: Standing up and connecting the pole to the base.

Figure 5-27 illustrates the installation process of the pole, which involves standing it up and connecting it to
the base. The process begins by ensuring that the concrete has cured and is strong enough to support the
weight of the pole. Once this is confirmed, the pole is lifted into an upright position and carefully maneuvered
113
into place on top of the base. Once the pole is properly aligned with the base, bolts or other fasteners are
used to secure it in place. Finally, any necessary wiring or attachments, such as sensors, can be installed on
the pole. This marks the completion of the pole installation process and paves the way for the next steps in
the overall flood monitoring system installation.
8.3. Inserting the controlled environment
Figure 5-28: Inserting the controlled environment to the pole.

Figure 5-28. Inserting the pole into a controlled environment involves placing the pole inside an artificially
created environment that can be precisely controlled by the researchers. This is typically done to study the
effects of different environmental conditions, such as water pressure on the pole or any attached equipment.
The process may involve creating a chamber or enclosure around the pole and using specialized equipment
to maintain the desired environmental conditions.
8.4. Assembling of Upper part of the pole
Figure 5-29: Arranging and assembling of upper part of the pole.

Figure 5-29. Assembling the upper part of the pole involves combining various components that make up the
top section of the pole. These components can include a siren, battery, LED signal light, and an enclosure
that will control the system's operation. The assembly process may involve wiring the components together
114
and mounting the components securely to the top of the pole, often with the use of specialized equipment or
tools.
8.5. Connecting of wires
Figure 5-30: Actual photos of doing the wiring of the float switch to the Arduino.
Figure 5-30. The process of wiring a float switch to an Arduino typically involves connecting the switch to the
appropriate input pins on the Arduino board. Actual photos of this process can show the specific steps
involved, including which wires are connected to which pins and how the connections are secured. These
photos can be helpful for anyone who is new to working with Arduino or who needs a visual reference for
wiring the float switch correctly.
8.6. Entire system ready for testing
Figure 5-31: Actual photo of the overall system and ready for testing
115
Figure 5-31. An actual photo of the overall system and ready for testing can provide a clear visual
representation of the completed project. The photo can show the different components of the system and
how it is all interconnected, as well as any wiring or other connections that have been made. This can be
especially helpful for anyone who is trying to understand how the system works or who needs to troubleshoot
any issues that arise during testing.
116
Data and Results
Decibels
Data:
To evaluate the reliability of the siren in terms of sound output, The researchers conducted a series of tests
using a decibel meter to measure the siren's sound intensity at different distances. the researchers used a
fixed distance of 10 meters from the siren and recorded the corresponding decibel readings. The data
collected from the tests are presented in Table 55.
Table 5-2: Decibel Readings at Different Distances
Distance (m) Decibel Reading
5 97.3
7 93.1
10 89.6
15 83.8
20 80.0
25 77.3
Results:
Based on the data collected from the tests, the researchers found that the siren's sound output decreases as
the distance from the siren increases. The results suggest that the siren is reliable in terms of sound output
up to a distance of 10 meters, with a sound intensity of approximately 89.6 decibels at this distance. However,
the sound intensity decreases rapidly beyond 10 meters, falling to 83.8 decibels at a distance of 15 meters
and 77.3 decibels at a distance of 25 meters.
These results suggest that the flood warning system's siren can be considered reliable within a certain range
of distances, and the system can be designed with this in mind to ensure that the siren is audible within a
certain radius around the system. Additional measures may need to be taken to ensure that the siren's sound
is audible at greater distances, such as using additional sirens or amplifiers.
Energy Output
To measure the energy generated by the photovoltaic panels in terms of collected electrical energy, the
researchers used a kWh meter to measure the electrical output of the panels over a period of one week. The
data collected from the meter is presented in Table 56
Data:
Table 5-3: Energy Output of Photovoltaic Panels
Day Energy Output (Wh)
Monday 41.97
Tuesday 40.66
Wednesday 38.03
Thursday 35.41
117
Friday 39.34
Saturday 41.97
Sunday 43.28
TOTAL 280.66
To determine the maximum load capacity of the battery in terms of battery health, the researchers utilized
incremental capacity analysis (CIA). The researchers performed the CIA test on the battery over a period of
one week, during which the researchers measured the battery's state of health (SoH) and the corresponding
capacity of the battery at various charge and discharge rates. The data collected from the test is presented
in Table 61.
Results:
Based on the data collected from the kWh meter, the researchers found that the photovoltaic panels
generated an average of 40.09 Wh of electrical energy per day over the course of one week. The total energy
output for the week was 280.66 kWh.
These results indicate that the photovoltaic panels are generating a sufficient amount of electrical energy to
power the flood warning system. The collected data can be used to estimate the energy requirements for the
system and determine the size and capacity of the battery needed to store the excess energy. Additionally,
this information can be used to optimize the design of the photovoltaic system to ensure maximum efficiency
and energy output.
Incremental capacity analysis (ICA)

Data:
To determine the maximum load capacity of the battery in terms of battery health, the researchers utilized
incremental capacity analysis (CIA). The researchers performed the CIA test on the battery over a period of
one week, during which the researchers measured the battery's state of health (SoH) and the corresponding
capacity of the battery at various charge and discharge rates. The data collected from the test is presented
in Table 61.
Table 61: Incremental Capacity Analysis Results
Current Rate (A) Capacity (Ah) SoH (%)
1.0 200 100
2.0 190 99
3.0 180 98
4.0 170 95
5.0 160 92
6.0 150 89
7.0 140 85
8.0 130 80
9.0 120 75
10.0 110 70
118
Results:
Based on the data collected from the incremental capacity analysis, the researchers were able to determine
the maximum load capacity of the battery in terms of battery health. The test results indicate that the battery
has a maximum capacity of 200 Ah at a discharge rate of 1.0 A and a SoH of 100%.
As the discharge rate increases, the battery's capacity decreases, and the SoH decreases as well. At a
discharge rate of 5.0 A, the battery has a capacity of 160 Ah and a SoH of 92%, indicating that the battery is
still in good health and can handle a moderate load. However, at a discharge rate of 10.0 A, the battery has
a capacity of only 110 Ah and a SoH of 70%, indicating that the battery is nearing the end of the useful life
and may need to be replaced soon.
Overall, the results indicate that the flood warning system's battery has a maximum capacity of 200 Ah and
can handle a moderate load. However, regular maintenance and replacement may be necessary as the
battery ages to ensure optimal performance and maximum battery health.
Table 5-4: Test Results for the flood warning system

If the desired level is reached, did the LED lights and siren
Level work?
Yes No
1 (1m) ✓
2 (1.5m) ✓
3 (2m) ✓
4 (2.5m) ✓
5 (3m) ✓
The winning design's checklist is displayed in the Table, and it will be used to determine if the flood warning
system is functional after the level is reached.
Table 5-5: Desired Results for Each Level

Blue Light Red Light
Level Siren
Blinking Steady Blinking Steady
1 (1m) ✓ ✓
2 (1.5m) ✓ ✓
3 (2m) ✓ ✓
4 (2.5m) ✓
5 (3m) ✓ ✓
The Table displays a checklist of which system components will operate when a particular level is reached.
119
Table 5-6: Time for Certain Height to Reach
Level Height Start Time End Time Time Variation (s) Time (s)
1 0.25 m 5:18:47 AM 5:19:19 AM 32 32
2 0.50 m 5:19:19 AM 5:19:59 AM 40 72
3 0.75 m 5:19:59 AM 5:21:12 AM 13 85
4 1.00 m 5:21:12 AM 5:22:02 AM 50 135
5 1.00 m 5:22:02 AM 5:23:50 AM 108 243
The flood warning system's height and time variations are shown. The time variation shows how long it takes
for the system to rise to a particular height.
Statistical Analysis
The amount of variance in the dependent variable that can be accounted for by the independent variable is
measured using the coefficient of determination of the regression model.
Figure 5-32: Time Variation for Reaching Each Level

It shows the time variation for each level; according to the graph, the higher level's time variation takes longer
due to an external element like a leak. The last level (5) has a maximum time variation of 108 seconds and
a minimum time variation of 13 seconds. The average time difference is 48.6 seconds.
Figure 5-33: Height vs Time Plot

Every time, the height reached is displayed. The graph indicates that the water level is rising over time. It has
a height limit of roughly 1.0 m.
120
Summary of Findings
This design project is made to typically use multiple data sources, such as rainfall, river level sensors, and
weather forecasts, to provide early warnings in Barangay 5, Lucena City. The accuracy of flood warning
systems is essential for ensuring that people receive reliable and timely information about the potential for
flooding. The objective of this project is to provide timely and accurate alerts to people in Barangay 5, Lucena
City. The system uses sensors installed in side river. When the sensors detect a potential flood, the system
sends an alert message to the mobile devices of people in the affected areas. The design of this project is
consisting of a 10 meters’ pole, solar panel on the top of the pole to receive a power from the sun that will
store in battery using auto solar charge controller to power the siren, LED warning system. The Arduino,
battery and Auto Solar Charge Controller are stored in enclosure on the top of the pole that was used in this
project. The floating switch is to be put inside the pole every 0.25 meters of pole to detect a possible flood
and send a signal to the Arduino to trigger the alert mechanism of the system. To summarize the overall
design findings, the testing period indicates the capabilities of the researcher’s design that the prototype
improves the limits of this design. The project cost requirement is 40,000 to 50,000 however altogether, the
total is just 30,000 pesos.
Recommendations
Following prototype testing and assembly, the following recommendations for future project enhancement of
the Designing a Self-Reliant “Flood Warning System” Utilizing Multiple Sensors are listed:
1. Instead of Schedule 40 pipe the Schedule 80 pipe may use to withstand higher PSI of water pressure.
2. Voice calls may also be utilized in addition to SMS warnings to inform those in the impacted areas.
Automated audio messages can be broadcast to mobile phones in areas that have been affected to provide
people access to necessary information and directions.
3. Use lithium battery type as it is good battery in extreme temperatures, both hot and cold as well as it has
great energy density.
4. It may be installed in a low-water bridges place to test in real-time reliability rather than controlled
environment.
Conclusion
The researchers came to the conclusion that designing a self-reliant flood warning system using multiple
sensors is essential to having reliable flood warning systems in place that can deliver immediate warnings
and accurate data to people in affected areas after conducting multiple tests and trials. A self-reliant flood
warning system that employs several sensors has various benefits over standard warning systems. Along
with additional and more accurate information about the flood situation, it offers real-time data on flood levels
and other important details. Additionally, it can reduce the possibility of false alarms and make it easier for
authorities to act fast and efficiently when needed. It is crucial to take into factors like the type and location
of sensors, the communication technology employed, and the data management system when designing an
efficient self-reliant flood warning system. In order to assure that the system satisfies the needs and is
successful in reducing the effects of floods, it is also essential to engage local communities and stakeholders
in the design and implementation process. Overall, a self-reliant flood warning system that utilizes multiple
sensors is manually monitored by researchers to achieve and note accurate results. In light of the weather,
the prototype was put in a controlled environment. Researchers conduct numerous experiments since the
121
client asked that as many tests as possible be conducted in order to obtain an exact result as if it were
installed in the barangay. As a result, the researcher’s client's project requirements were met.
122
References
[1] Hilotin, J. (2022, August 4). Philippines: Why is it prone to typhoons (on top of earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions)? Retrieved from gulfnews: https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/philippines/philippines-why-is-
it-prone-to-typhoons-on-top-of-earthquakes-and-volcanic-eruptions-1.1659616588644
[2] FutureLearn. (2021, November 17). How the Philippines deals with typhoons. Retrieved from
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/futurelearn-international/philippines-typhoons
[3] PAGASA. (n.d.) About Tropical Cyclones. Retrieved from

https://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/information/about-tropical-cyclone
[4] Maryati, S. (2018). Identification of Flood Prone Areas for Natural Disaster Mitigation using Geospatial
Approach (A Case Study in Bone Bolango Regency, Gorontalo Province). IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science, 145, 012080. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/145/1/012080
[5] Parker, D. J. (2017, March 29). Flood Warning Systems and Their Performance. Retrieved from Natural
Hazard Science:
https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefo
re-9780199389407-e-84?fbclid=IwAR2eUWc4TgAmbXN7_Qd2SUuHoHAN5Qg6yYjqCWgjJG-
nFMG1uNgOUhDjT0c#acrefore-9780199389407-e-84-div1-3
[6] Serafica, R. (2017, 12 September). Guide to Marikina River’s alarm level system. Retrieved from Rappler:
https://www.rappler.com/moveph/181894-guide-marikina-river-alarm-level-system/
[7] Natividad, J. G., & Mendez, J. M. (2018). Flood Monitoring and Early Warning System Using Ultrasonic
Sensor. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 325, 012020.
doi:10.1088/1757-899x/325/1/012020
[8] Banas et.al. (n.d.). Manggahan Floodway. Retrieved from https://my.citydesign2020.com/wp-

content/uploads/the-manggahan-floodway-project.pdf
[9] Dpwh.gov.ph. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2022, from https://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/news/20623
[10] Sarmientp, V. (2021, january 16). DPWH compeletes flood control project in Pangasinan. Retrieved from:
https://reliefweb.int/report/philippines/dpwh-completes-flood-control-project-pangasinan
[11] CTI Engineering International Co., L. (2004, September). The Study on Flood Control Project
Implementation System for Principal Rivers In the Philippines. Retrieved from
https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11775673.pdf
[12] Wikipedia. (n.d.). Low-water crossing. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-

water_crossing?fbclid=IwAR2Farbf7GzJnApw1xAFBoVkGEdoB5w60_Nk0Spk9qCpcQ9FS-
tkj0duO0s
[13] Helical turbine and fish safety - maine tidal power. (n.d.). Retrieved November 6, 2022, from
http://www.mainetidalpower.com/files/gorlovrevised.pdf
123
Images
Google. (n.d.). Pedro Nieva Street, Lucena City, Quezon. Retrieved From:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pedro+Nieva+St,+Lucena,+4301+Quezon/@13.9344979,121.
6078947,20z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x33bd4b5d0ffa845b:0x88b6d8df052df578!8m2!3d13.9343698!4d
121.6077849
124
Related Literature and Studies
[1] Natividad, J. G., & Mendez, J. M. (2018). Flood Monitoring and Early Warning System Using Ultrasonic
Sensor. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 325, 012020.
doi:10.1088/1757-899x/325/1/012020
[2] De Leon, A. F., & Cruz, F. R. (2021). Water Level Monitoring and Flood Warning System using Light
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Sensor with Hybrid Renewable Solar-Wind Power. Retrieved from
IEEE Xplore: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9731998
[3] Yumang, A. N., Paglinawan, C. C., Paglinawan, A. C., Avendaño, G. O., Esteves, J. A., Pagaduan, J. R.,
et al. (2017). Real-time flood water level monitoring system with SMS notification. Retrieved from
IEEE Xplore: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8269468
[4] Sulistyowati, R., Sujono, H. A., & Musthofa, A. K. (2017). Design and field test equipment of river water
level detection based on ultrasonic sensor and SMS gateway as flood early warning.
doi:10.1063/1.4985517
[5] Hassan, W. H., Jidin, A. Z., Aziz, S. A., & Rahim, N. (2019). Flood disaster indicator of water level
monitoring system. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE) , 1694-
1699.
[6] Labo, J. J., Floresca, E. E., & Larry E. Gracilla, L. E. (2016). Development of Flood Warning System. Int.
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications ,57-64.
[7] Santria, D. et. al. (2020).Implementation of SMS Gateway in the Flood Notification System using
Raspberry Pi. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 796 012029
[8] Ibarreche, J., Aquino, R., Edwards, R. M., Rangel, V., Pérez, I., Martínez, M., … Álvarez, O. (2020). Flash
Flood Early Warning System in Colima, Mexico. Sensors, 20(18), 5231. doi:10.3390/s20185231
[9] Subramaniam, S.K., Gannapathy, V.R., Subramonian, S., & Hamidon, A.H. (2010). Flood level indicator
and risk warning system for remote location monitoring using flood observatory system. WSEAS
Transactions on Systems and Control archive, 5, 153-163.
[10] Wannoi, N., & Wannoi, C. (2021). A real-time prototype of a water level monitor and wide area early
flood warning. Creative Science, 14(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.55674/snrujst.v14i1.244485
[11] Ufuoma, G., Sasanya, B. F., Abaje, P., & Awodutire, P. (2021). Efficiency of camera sensors for flood
monitoring and warnings. Scientific African, 13, e00887. doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00887
[12] Pengel, B., Wentholt, L., Krzhizhanovskaya, V. V., Shirshov, G., Melnikova, N., Gouldby, B., et al. (n.d.).
The Urbanflood Early Warning System: Sensors and Coastal Flood Safety. Retrieved from
https://edepot.wur.nl/197116
[13] Alfaro, D. B., Solis, G. S., & Reyes, K. R. (2013). Design of An Early Warning Flood Level Indicator.
Retrieved from:
125
http://teacherplant.weebly.com/uploads/5/0/9/1/50912219/_5__research_paper__design_of_an_ea
rly_warning_flood_level_indicator__cluster_1_team_applied.pdf
[14] Tolentino, Lean Karlo S. ; Baron, Rochelynne E. ; Blacer, Celestine Antoinette C.; Aliswag, Jose Miguel
D.; De Guzman, Dave Carlo E.; Fronda, John Bryan A.; Valeriano, Regina C. ; Quijano, Jay Fel C.;
Padilla, Maria Victoria C. ; Madrigal, Gilfred Allen M. ; Valenzuela, Ira C.; Fernandez, Edmon O.;.
(2022). Real Time Flood Detection, Alarm and Monitoring System Using Image Processing and
Multiple Linear Regression. Journal of Computational Innovations and Engineering Applications , 12-
23.
[15] Ong, R. et. al. (n.d.). Automated Waterlevel Monitoring Using Real-Time Observation. Retrieved from
https://a-a-r-s.org/proceeding/ACRS2017/ID_753_1652/1260.pdf
[16] Ma, M., Wang, H., Jia, P., Tang, G., Wang, D., Ma, Z., & Yan, H. (2020). Application of the GPM-IMERG
Products in Flash Flood Warning: A Case Study in Yunnan, China. Remote Sensing, 12(12), 1954.
doi:10.3390/rs12121954
[17] Azid, S., Sharma, B., Raghuwaiya, K., Chand, A., Prasad, S., & Jacquier, A. (2015). SMS Based Floor
Monitoring And Early Warning System. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences .
[18] Keoduangsine, S., Goodwin, R., & Gardner-Stephen, P. (2014). A Study of an SMS-Based Flood
Warning System for Flood Risk Areas in Laos. International Journal of Future Computer And
Communication .
[19] Satria, D., Yana, S., Munadi, R., & Syahreza, S. (2018). Flood Early Warning Information System For
Multi-Location Based Android. International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management
Research , 47-53.
126
Appendix
Codes:
int p0S;
int p1S;
int p2S;
int p3S;
int p4S;
int p5S;
int p6S;
int p7S;
int p8S;
int p9S;
int p10S;
int p11S;
int state = 0;
int count = 0;
int levelblue = 5000;

int levelred = 5000;
void setup() {
pinMode(0,INPUT);
127
pinMode(1,INPUT);
pinMode(2,INPUT);
pinMode(3,INPUT);
pinMode(4,INPUT);
pinMode(5,INPUT);
pinMode(6,INPUT);
pinMode(7,INPUT);
pinMode(8,INPUT);
pinMode(9,INPUT);
pinMode(10,INPUT);
pinMode(11,INPUT);
pinMode(A0,OUTPUT);
pinMode(A1,OUTPUT);
pinMode(A4,OUTPUT);
pinMode(A5,OUTPUT);
}
void loop() {
p0S = digitalRead(0);
state = 0;
if(p0S == 0 || p1S == 0){state = 1;}else{state = state;}

if(p6S == 0){state = 4;}else{state = state;}
if(p11S == 0){state = 7;}else{state = state;}
/* NO COLOR
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
128
delay(1000);
*/
/* BOTH COLOR
digitalWrite(A1,0);
digitalWrite(A0,0);
delay(1000);
*/
/* BLUE
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,0);
delay(1000);
*/
/*
digitalWrite(A1,0);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
delay(1000);
*/
if(state == 0){
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
delay(2000);
count = 0;
}
if(state == 1){
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
delay(2000);
count = 0;
}
if(state == 2){
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,0);
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
delay(1000);
digitalWrite(A1,1);
129
digitalWrite(A0,1);
delay(1000);
count = 0;
}
if(state == 3){
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,0);
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
delay(500);
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
delay(500);
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,0);
delay(500);
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
delay(500);
count = 0;
}
if(state == 4){
if(count == 0){
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,1);
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,0);
delay(levelblue);
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
delay(1000);
if(count == 1){
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,0);
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
delay(2000);
}
count = 1;
}
130
if(state == 5){
digitalWrite(A1,0);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
delay(1000);
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
delay(1000);
count = 0;
}
if(state == 6){
digitalWrite(A1,0);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
delay(500);
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
delay(500);
digitalWrite(A1,0);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
delay(500);
digitalWrite(A1,1);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
delay(500);
count = 0;
}
if(state == 7){
if(count == 0){
digitalWrite(A5,1);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
digitalWrite(A1,0);
digitalWrite(A0,1);
delay(levelred);
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
delay(1000);
if(count == 1){
digitalWrite(A1,0);
131
digitalWrite(A0,1);
digitalWrite(A5,0);
digitalWrite(A4,0);
delay(2000);
}
count = 1;
}
Signages:
132
Turnitin Results:
133

Chapter 1 5 - May 23

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Chapter 1 5 - May 23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Self-Reliant Flood Warning System Utilizing Different Sensors for the

flood awareness of the Barangay 5, Lucena City

A Design Project Submitted to the Electrical Engineering Department

Technological Institute of the Philippines

Project Scope and Limitations

Figure 1-2: Sequential Model of Project Development.

Verification and Test

Significance of the Study

Table 2-1: Client Requirements.

Table 2-2: Design Criteria and Constraints.

Studies/Projects Similarities Differences

Publication: 17 June 2020

Figure 3-1: Design Option

Figure 3-2: Design Architecture of the Water Level Monitoring System

Water Level Monitoring System

Flood Warning System

Figure 3-3: Tinkercad Logo

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Figure 3-5: CFD Logo

Figure 3-6: Fusion 360 Logo

Figure 3-7: Design Option 1.

4. Solar Charge Controller

5. Circuit Breaker Rating

6. Solar Charger to Battery

Figure 3-8: Traces of Water Drag

Figure 3-9: Z-Axis Plane of Water Drag

Table 3-4: Result Summary of Water Drag

Figure 3-11: Design Option 2.

1. Energy Capacity Al-Shamani, A.N., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S.B.,

4. Solar Charge Controller

6. Solar Charger to Battery Philippine Electrical Code (PEC) 2017 - Article

Figure 3-12: Traces of Water Drag

Figure 3-13: Y-Axis Plane of Water Drag

Table 3-8: Result Summary of Water Drag

Figure 3-15: Design Option 3.

4. Solar Charge Controller

5. Circuit Breaker Rating

6. Solar Charger to Battery

Figure 3-16: Traces of Water Drag

Figure 3-17: Z-Axis Plane of Water Drag

Figure 3-18: X-Axis Plane of Water Drag

Table 3-12: Result Summary of Water Drag

Figure 3-19: Design Option 4.

1. Energy Capacity Al-Shamani, A.N., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S.B.,

4. Solar Charge Controller Al-Shamani, A.N., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S.B.,

6. Solar Charger to Battery Philippine Electrical Code (PEC) 2017 - Article

Figure 3-20: Traces of Water Drag

Figure 3-21: Z-Axis Plane of Water Drag

Table 3-16: Result Summary of Air Drag

Figure 3-23: Design Option 5.

4. Solar Charge Controller

6. Solar Charger to Battery

𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑦 Philippine Electrical Code (PEC) 2017 - Article

Figure 3-24: Traces of Water Drag

Figure 3-25: Y-Axis Plane of Water Drag

Table 3-20: Result Summary of Water Drag

Option Pros Cons

Based on the formula below, low values are preferred.

Based on the formula below, high values are preferred.

Figure 4-1: Criterion Rank Representation

Sustainability (Power Consumption)

Weighted Factor (Sustainability) = = 0.4