Chapter 4

Chapter 4
PRESENTATION OF DATA, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The Preliminary Survey on nearby residents and motorists regarding their insights of the problem with
the recurrent flooding along the Macaiban Bridge yields the following results.
Demographic Profile
In terms of the demographic distribution of the respondents for this study the data tabulation and
interpretation are presented as follows:
2
Figure 3. General Profile of the Resident Respondents
General Profi le of the Resident Respondents

30%
70%
Male Female
Regarding the gender profile of the respondents, out of the 50 sample size of the population for nearby
residents, 15 are male and 35 are female which is 30% and 70% respectively.
Figure 4. Location Distribution of the Resident Respondents
3
Location Distribution of the Resident Respondents
8%
34%
30%
28%
Tumana Macaiban Patag Poblacion
When it comes to the location or residency of the participants of this survey interview under the nearby
resident category, 17 individuals are currently living at barangay Tumana comprising 30% of the totality.
Then 15 respondents from barangay Patag representing 30% of the totality. Followed by 14
respondents whose locations are within the immediate vicinity of the area under consideration which is
28% of the total sample size. Finally, the remaining 8% being compost of 4 respondents are from
barangay Poblacion.
Figure 5. Period of Residency of the Resident Respondents
4
Period of Residency of the Resident Respondents
18
2 32
14
32
Years of Residency 1-10 years 11-20 years

21-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years
In reference to length or duration of residency of the Type A respondents (nearby residents) the
following data were gathered and tallied: 16 individuals or 32% of the sample size have 1-10 years of
residency within their current location, another 16 individuals corresponding to 32% have 11-20 years
of residency, 7 respondents or 14% have residency ranging from 21-30 years, 31-40 years of residency
involves only 1 person being 2% and the remaining single person or 2% of the sample size belongs to
the 41-50 years residency class.
Figure 6. Occupational Distribution of the Resident Respondents
5
Occupational Distribution of the Resident Respondents
58
Percentage
16
8
4 4 4 2 2 2
Occupation
In consideration of the occupation or job of the Type A respondents, the succeeding information are
gathered: the household holds the largest number of respondents being 42% corresponding to 21
unemployed individuals, followed by the student, farmer, store owner, helper and factory worker in
descending order comprising the 14%, 12%, 10%, 8% and 4% respectively. Finally, the categories
sewer, construction worker, teacher, welder, and tricycle driver compost the remaining 10% being 2%
each.
Figure 7. Gender Profile of Motorist Respondents
6
Gender Profi le of Motorist Respondents
Female
14%
Male
86%
Male Female
Regarding the gender profile of the respondents, out of the 50 sample size of the population for Type B
respondents (motorists), the ratio of male to female respondents under motorists category is 43 is to 7
which is 86% and 14% respectively.
Figure 8. Location Distribution of Motorist Respondents
Location Distributi on of Motorist Respondents

40
36
35
30
25
20
14
Percentage
15
10
10
6
5 8
6
4
0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Axis Title
7
When it comes to the location or residency of the participants of this survey interview under the
motorists category, the population sample is more dispersed as compared to the Type A respondents
covering 15 barangays and distinct locations within Sta. Maria as follows: 18 individuals are within the
immediate vicinity of the area under consideration, currently living at Macaiban area; following is Perez
comprising 14% of the totality; 10% respondents from barangay Sta. Clara compost of 5 individuals;
followed by 4 respondents whose locations is at barangay Tumana which is 8% of the total sample
size; both barangay Parada and barangay Patag have 6% share of the totality with 3 individuals each;
second to the least quantity it barangay Poblacion having 2 respondents representing 4% of the total;
lastly, the remaining barangays namely Catmon, San Gabriel, San Vicente, Pulong Buhangin, Balasing,
Guyong, Partida and M. Sapa share the same numerical percentage being 2%.
Figure 9. Occupational Distribution of the Motorist Respondents
Occupational Distribution of the Motorist Respondents

58
Percentage
16
8
4 4 4 2 2 2
Occupation
In consideration of the occupation or job of the Type B respondents, the succeeding information are
gathered: the Driver category holds the largest number of respondents being 58% corresponding to 29
employed individuals; followed by the Fabric Cutter with 16% share of respondents from the totality;
8
next is Businessman with 4 individuals representing 8% of the Type B respondents; Mechanic,
Engineer and Printing all garnered 4% or 2 respondents each; finally the categories Project Supervisor,
Office Worker and Student compost the remaining 6% being 2% each.
Survey Result for Type A Respondents (Nearby Residents)
For the 50 nearby residents, the gathered data tabulation and interpretation are presented below.
Figure 10. Flooding Experience
Flooding Experience
4%
96%
Yes No
Figure 11. Flood Frequency
9
FLOOD FREQUENCY
If there is only
typhoon
28% Always, whenever
it rains
34%
Only when the

rain is heavy
38%
Always, whenever it rains Only when the rain is heavy If there is only typhoon
With regards to flooding experience, out of the 50 nearby resident respondents, 48 said they had
experienced flooding due to the overflowing Sta. Maria River which is 96% of the totality. The remaining
two which is 4% of the totality said the opposite.
Figure 12. Rainfall Intensity
RAINFALL INTENSITY
22% 20%
14%
44%
LIGHT (CONTINUOUS) MODERATE HEAVY VERY HEAVY
10
In terms of frequency of flooding occurrence along the concerned site, 17 which comprises 28% of the
total sample population, said that flooding always occurs whenever it rains regardless of the duration
and intensity. 19 ,which representing 38%, said that it only floods when the rain is heavy and the
remaining 34% compost of 14 respondents said that it only floods whenever there is a storm or typhoon
affecting their area.
When it comes to rainfall intensity that triggers the flood, out of 50 respondents, 20% of the totality said
that light rainfall already causes the overflow, 14% said that moderate rainfall intensity causes flooding,
44% said only heavy rainfall does and the remaining 22% said only very heavy rainfall can cause
flooding.
Figure 13. Usual Flood Level Experienced/Observed
Usual Flood Level Experienced/Observed
14% 20%
2%
6%
2%
18%
38%
LEG LEVEL WAIST LEVEL CHEST LEVEL EYE LEVEL

OVERHEAD LEVEL ABOVE THE BRIDGE ABOVE 7 FEET
Figure 14. Maximum Flood Level Experienced/Observed
11
Maximum Flood Level Experienced/Observed
4%
2%
6% 2%
86%
1M 2M 3M
MORE THAN 5M NEVER EXPERIENCED
In terms of usual flood level, out of the 50 respondents, 20% said it rises from 1 to 2 feet (0.3-0.6 m) over
the bridge deck, % said it rises from 2 to 3 feet (0.6-0.9 m), 38% said it rises from 3 to 4 feet (0.9-1.2 m), 18% said
it rises from 4 to 5 feet (1.2-1.5 m), 2% said it rises from 5 to 6 feet (1.5-1.8m), 6% said it rises from 6 to 7 feet
(1.8-2.1m) and the remaining 14% said it rises more than 7 feet (above 2.1 m).
Figure 15. Maximum Flood Level Occurence
MAXIMUM FLOOD LEVEL OCCURENCE

2%
6%
10%
82%
ONDOY LAST YEAR THIS YEAR (2018) HENRY
12
In terms of maximum flood level observed with respect to the surface of the bridge deck, 6% said 1
meter above, 2% said it is 2 meters above, 4% said it is 3 meters above, 0% said it is 4 meters
above, 86% said it is 5 meters and the remaining 2% said it is more than 5 meters.
Based on the follow up question regarding the maximum height of flood observed, 82% of the
residents responded that this occurred during the typhoon Ondoy, 2% said it happened during the
typhoon Henry, 10% it happened last year. The remaining 6% happened this year.
Figure 16. Cause of Flooding Excluding Local Isolated Rainfall
Cause of Flooding Excluding Local Isolated Rainfall
Mountain Dam Garbage and Wastes
68.2
27.3
4.5
Figure 17. Flooding Experience Without Local Isolated Rainfall
13
Flooding Experience Without Local Isolated Rainfall
44%
56%
Yes No
In connection to the occurrence of river overflowing without localized rainfall, 44% said they have
observe such phenomenon and the remaining 56% said otherwise. Of the 44% of the respondents
that said yes, 68% that this is due to the mountain upstream , 27.3% said this is because of the Dam
, while the remaining said that is is due to garbage and wastes.
Figure 18. Hourly Rate of Flood Level Rise
Hourly Rate of Flood Level Rise

2% 22%
27%
49%
1-3 FT/HR 3-6 FT/HR

6-9 FT/HR MORE THAN 15 FT PER HR
14
With regards to the rate of flood level rise, the description given by the respondents was converted
into numerical quantity that yield the following percentage. 22.4% said the rate of water level rise is
1-3 feet per hour, 49% said it is 3-6 feet per hour, 26.5% said it 6-9 feet per hour, 2% it is more than
15 feet per hour.
Figure 19. Visual Description of Flood Flow Velocity
Visual Description of Flood Flow Velocity

16%
37% 8%
39%
gentle slow and gentle slightly fast fast very fast
In terms of the flood flow velocity, 37% of the respondents said the flow is slow and gentle, 8% said
the flow is slightly fast, 39% said it is fast and the remaining 37% said it is very fast.
Figure 20. Observed Flood Subsidence Duration
15
Observed Flood Subsidence Duration
4%
12%
12% 45%
6%
20%
1-3 HRS 3-6 HRS 6-9 HRS 9-12 HRS 12-24 HRS NO IDEA
When it comes to the duration before the flood water subside and the water level return to normal
after the rain stops, 46% of the respondents said it is 1-3 hours, 20% said it is 3-6 hours, 6% said it
is 6-9 hours, 12% said it is 9-12 hours, 12% said it is 12-24 hours, and the remaining 4% said they
do not have an idea.
Figure 21. Preparatory Measures Done
PREPARATORY MEASURES DONE
63.3
20.4
8.2
4.1
2.0 2.0
Harvest the crops Putting our things Evacuate stay at home fishing None
early in an elevated
area
In terms of preparatory measures done whenever there is a pronounced overflowing of the river,
8.2% of the respondents said they harvest the crops earlier than expected, 63.3% of the totality said
16
they prepare their things and place them in an elevated area, 2% said they evacuated to the
designated evacuation center and the 4.1% said they stay at home.The other 2% go to fishing and
the remaining 20.4% will do nothing.
Figure 22. Bad Effects of Recurrent Flooding
BAD EFFECTS OF RECURRENT FLOODING
Destruction of Loss of Health Risk and Damage to Road inaccess Mud None
crops livelihood Hazards property
With regards to the bad effects of the recurrent overflowing of the Sta. Maria River, 18% answered
the destruction of crops, 8 % said loss of livelihood, 20% answered high health risks and disease
susceptibility, 22% said damage to property, 28% road inaccessability, 2% said mud and the
remaining 4% said there is no bad effects.
Figure 23. Favorability to Sta. Maria River Redevelopment
17
FAVORABILITY TO STA MARIA RIVER REDEVELOPMENT
Yes No
.
In response to the favorability of the respondents to the redevelopment of the area to prevent
the recurrent river overflow, 100% said yes, they want it to be redevelop.
Figure 24. Suggested Flooding Solution
As a follow up question
Suggested Flooding Solution
regarding the most
78
80 appropriate solution to the
70 problem, 4% of the
60
respondents suggested Dikes
50
and Levees, 78%
40
reconstruction of the
30
14
Macaiban Bridge, 2% said
20
4 removal of water lily, 14%
10 2 2
0
said removal of garbage and
Dikes and Levees Construction of a Water Lily Garbage and Evacuate
new bridge Wastes wastes, the remaining 2%
said to evacuate.
Survey Result for Type B Respondents (Motorists)
18
For the 50 motorists that utilizes or passes the Macaiban Bridge, the gathered data tabulation and
interpretation are presented as follows.
Figure 25. Frequency of Crossing the Macaiban Bridge
Frequency of Crossing the Macaiban Bridge

14% 2%
42%
14%
12% 16%
Everyday 2-5 times a week Once in a week

2-3 times a month Once a month This is the first time.
In terms of the frequency of crossing the Bridge, almost all of the respondents pass the bridge everyday
comprising 42% of the total motorist respondents. 16% said they only cross the bridge 2 to 5 times a
week. 12% answered they only cross the bridge once a week. 14% said they only pass the bridge 2-3
times a month and the remaining 14% said only once a month.
Figure 26. Benefits from Using the Macaiban Bridge
19
BENEFITS FROM USING THE MACAIBAN BRIDGE
57.1
35.7
7.1
I get to my destination easier. I can avoid traffic. I can save time and money.
Figure 27. Flooding Experience
FLOODING EXPERIENCE
36%
64%
Yes No
In terms of the benefits obtained from the Macaiban Bridge, 51% said they get to their destination
easier, 35.7% said they can avoid heavy traffic flow and the remaining 7.1% said they can save time
and money.
20
Figure 28. Flooding Frequency
FLOODING FREQUENCY
31% 6%
63%
Always, whenever it rains Only when the rain is heavy If there is only typhoon
With regards to flooding experience, out of the 50 nearby resident respondents, 32 said they had
experienced flooding due to the overflowing Sta. Maria River which is 64% of the totality. The
remaining one which is 36% of the totality said the opposite.
Figure 29. Usual Flood Level Observed/Experienced
Usual Flood Level Observed/Experienced

3% 22%
19% 3%
53%
LEG LEVEL WAIST LEVEL CHEST LEVEL EYE LEVEL

OVERHEAD LEVEL ABOVE THE BRIDGE ABOVE 7 FEET
21
In terms of frequency of flooding occurrence along the concerned site, 2 of the respondents which is
6% of the total, said that flooding always occurs whenever it rains regardless of the duration and
intensity. 20 ,which is 62.5%, said that it only floods when the rain is heavy and the remaining 31.3%
compost of 10 respondents said that it only floods whenever there is a storm or typhoon affecting their
area.
In terms of usual flood level, out of the 50 respondents, 21.9% said it rises from 1 to 2 feet (0.3-0.6 m)
over the bridge deck, 53.1% said it rises from 2 to 3 feet (0.6-0.9 m), 19% said it rises from 3 to 4 feet (0.9-1.2 m),
3.1% said it rises from 4 to 5 feet (1.2-1.5 m), 3.1% said it rises from 5 to 6 feet (1.5-1.8m), 0% said it rises from 6
to 7 feet (1.8-2.1m) and the remaining 0% said it rises more than 7 feet (above 2.1 m).
Figure 30. Maximum Flood Level Experienced/Observed
Maximum Flood Level Experienced/Observed

13%
13%
59%
16%
1M 2M 3M
4M 5M MORE THAN 5M
In terms of maximum flood level observed with respect to the surface of the bridge deck, 12% said 1
meter above, 0% said it is 2 meters above, 12.5% said it is 3 meters above, 0% said it is 4 meters
above, 15.6% said it is 5 meters and the remaining 59.4% said it is more than 5 meters.
22
Figure 31. Maximum Flood Level Occurence
MAXIMUM FLOOD LEVEL OCCURENCE

13% 3%
84%
ONDOY OTHERS Garbage and Wastes
Based on the follow up question regarding the maximum height of flood observed, 84% of the
residents responded that this occurred during the typhoon Ondoy, 13% said it is other occurences,
3% it happened because of garbages and wastes.
Figure 32. Flooding Experience Without Local Rainfall
23
FLOODING EXPERIENCE WITHOUT LOCAL RAINFALL
50% 50%
Yes No
Figure 33. Cause of Flooding Excluding Local Isolated Rainfall
Cause of Flooding Excluding Local Isolated Rainfall

12%
24%
65%
Mountain Dam Garbage and Wastes
In connection to the occurrence of river overflowing without localized rainfall, 50% said they have
observe such phenomenon and the remaining 50% said otherwise. Of the 50% of the respondents
that said yes, 65% that this is due to the mountain, 23% said this is because of the Dam , while the
remaining said it is due to garbage and wastes.
24
Figure 34. Flood Flow Velocity
FLOOD FLOW VELOCITY

28% 16%
22%
34%
In terms of the flood flow velocity, 16% of the respondents said the flow is slow and gentle, 22% said
the flow is slightly fast, 34% said it is fast and the remaining 28% said it is very fast.
Figure 35. Percentage of Respondents who passed the Bridge during an Overflow
25
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO PASSED THE BRIDGE
DURING AN OVERFLOW When it comes to crossing the
31% bridge during the overflowing
of water, 31% said yes, they
managed to cross and the
remaining 69% said
otherwise.
69% Figure 36.

Flood Level When
Respondents Passed
Yes No
FLOOD LEVEL WHEN RESPONDENTS PASSED

10%
30%
60%
WAIST LEVEL LEG LEVEL KNEE LEVEL
26
Of the 31% that said they crossed the bridge during overflow, 10% said it was waist level, 60% said
it was knee level and the remaining 30% said it was leg level.
Figure 37. Flood Flow Velocity When They Passed
FLOOD FLOW VELOCITY WHEN THEY PASSED

10% 30%
60%
In the event of crossing the bridge during the overflow, 60% of the respondents said the flow is slow
and gentle, 0% said the flow is slightly fast, 60% said it is fast and the remaining 10% said it is very
fast.
27
Figure 38. Type of Vehicle When They Passed
TYPE OF VEHICLE WHEN THEY PASSED
10%
20%
20%
50%
bicycle motocycle tricycle Walk
In the event of crossing the bridge, of the 31% of the respondents that manage to cross during
overflow, 10% said they are riding bicycle, 20% said they are riding motorcycle, 50% said they are
riding tricycle and the remaining 20% was on bare foot.
Figure 39. Favorability to Sta Maria River Redevelopment
FAVORABILITY TO STA MARIA RIVER REDEVELOPMENT
100%
1 2
28
In response to the favorability of the respondents to the redevelopment of the area to prevent the
recurrent river overflow, 1% said yes, they want it to be redevelop.
Figure 40. Suggested Flooding solutions
SUGGESTED FLOODING SOLUTIONS

4% 2% 2%
6%
86%
Dikes and Levees Construction of a new bridge dredging

Riprap removal of culvert
As a follow up question regarding the most appropriate solution to the problem, 4% of the
respondents suggested dredging, 86% reconstruction of the Macaiban Bridge, 6% said the
construction of dikes and levees. 2% of the respondents suggested the removal of culvert, and the
remaining 2% is the construction of riprap.
Traffic Analysis Survey
29
Figure 41. Traffic Volume in the right lane of Santa Maria- Tumana Road
TRAFFIC VOLUME
(RIGHT LANE)
160
140
120 Motorcycles
Passenger
NO. OF VEHICLES
100 Pickups, Panels, Vans

80 Buses
Single Unit 2-Axle Trucks
60
40
20
0
1 2 3
TIME OF COUNT
This graph shows the traffic volume in the right lane of Santa Maria Tumana Road during 6:00-8:00
AM, 11:00-1:00 PM and 5:00-7:00 PM. Each bar represents the total number of vehicles passing
through a certain point of time. The color of the bar indicates the type of vehicle passing the area; Blue
bars represent “Motorcycles”, Orange bars represent “Passenger”, Gray bars represent “Pick-ups,
Panels, Vans”, Yellow bars represent “Buses” and Light Blue bars represent “Single Unit 2-Axle
Trucks”.
The first time period is 6:00-8:00 am. The total number of vehicle passing through the right lane during
that time is 199. The first Vehicle classification is Motorcyles and Tricycles which got the highest
number which is 157 in total. Passenger cars is the second highest which is 33. Next is Pickups,
panels, and Vans which is 6 in total. Another is the busses which got none in number. Last
Classification is the Single Unit 2- Axle Trucks which consist of 3.
The next time period is 11:00 AM-1:00 PM. The total number of vehicle passing through that time is
122. Motorcycles and Tricycles which got the highest number which is 78 in total. Passenger cars is the
second highest which is 34. Next is Pickups, panels, and Vans which is 8 in total. Another is the
30
busses which got none in number. Last Classification is the Single Unit 2- Axle Trucks which consist of
2.
The last time period is 5:00-7:00 PM. The total number of vehicle passing through that time is 162.
Motorcycles and Tricycles which got the highest number which is 121 in total. Passenger cars is the
5.
Figure 41. Traffic Volume in the left lane of Santa Maria-Tumana Road
TRAFFIC VOLUME
(LEFT LANE)
160
140
120
NO. OF VEHICLES
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3
TIME OF COUNT
This graph shows the traffic volume in the left lane of Santa Maria Tumana Road during 6:00-8:00 AM,
11:00-1:00 PM and 5:00-7:00 PM. Each bar represents the total number of vehicles passing through a
certain point of time. The color of the bar indicates the type of vehicle passing the area; Blue bars
represent “Motorcycles”, Orange bars represent “Passenger”, Gray bars represent “Pick-ups, Panels,
Vans”, Yellow bars represent “Buses” and Light Blue bars represent “Single Unit 2-Axle Trucks”.
31
The first time period is 6:00-8:00 am. The total number of vehicle passing through the left lane during
that time is 195. The first Vehicle classification is Motorcyles and Tricycles which got the highest
number which is 151 in total. Passenger cars is the second highest which is 35. Next is Pickups,
panels, and Vans which is 6 in total. Another is the busses which got none in number. Last
Classification is the Single Unit 2- Axle Trucks which consist of 3.
The next time period is 11:00 AM-1:00 PM. The total number of vehicle passing through that time is
130. Motorcycles and Tricycles which got the highest number which is 92 in total. Passenger cars is the
6.
The last time period is 5:00-7:00 PM. The total number of vehicle passing through that time is 173.
Motorcycles and Tricycles which got the highest number which is 128 in total. Passenger cars is the
1.
River Scheme and Profile Characteristics
32
The Sta. Maria River reach considered in this study (lime green) stretches from the near end boundary
of Norzagaray as the upstream end point down to Macaiban Bridge with an overall length of 13.61 km.
The said river has three main tributaries. First is a small river called Balasing River measuring 2.68 km
in length and connected to Santa Maria River 8.61 km below the upstream boundary. Followed by the
Cay Pombo River that stretches 4.21 km and has a tributary point located 9.44 km downstream of the
upper end boundary. Lastly, the San Jose Del Monte River which is the longest tributary with an overall
length of 18.45 km and connected to the Sta. Maria River at a point 11.92 km from the upstream end.
Rainfall Intensity Duration and Frequency Data
33
DURATION (MINS)
STATION
5 10 15 20 30 45 60 80 100 120 150 180 360 720 1440
BALIUAG, BULACAN 358.8 271.8 232.4 207.6 174.0 140.7 117.9 103.9 94.4 86.0 76.5 69.4 46.0 28.0 16.1
SCIENCE GARDEN 288.6 212.4 181.4 135.0 92.5 79.3 53.7 31.4 18.3
CABANATUAN 258.6 212.7 177.4 134.2 83.4 61.0 36.4 21.0 13.0
SCIENCE GARDEN (DPWH) 121.7 119.9 118.1 116.3 112.9 108.0 103.5 98.0 92.9 88.2 81.8 76.2 52.5 30.0 14.2
The quest for rainfall data resulted to four RIDF data from three different synoptic stations of the
Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAG-ASA) relatively
close to the area under study since there is no available station within the drainage area of the Sta.
Maria River. The first is from the synoptic station of PAG-ASA from Baliuag, Bulacan which is based
from 18 years of record. The computed average rainfall intensity of within 1440 minutes of continuous
rainfall is 16.1 mm/hr. This station is ______________ km from the centroid of the drainage area under
consideration. The second is from the synoptic station from Science Garden, Agham Rd., Quezon City.
The calculated rainfall intensity for 24-hour duration is 18.3 mm/hr which is based from 50 years of
record. Another rainfall data of this location was also developed by PAG-ASA to be used by the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in Hydrologic Analysis of River Basins. The
average rainfall intensity for the 1440-minute period is 14.2 mm/hr. The Science Garden is 21.64 km
from the centroid of the Sta. Maria River Basin. Lastly, the fourth synoptic station is from Cabanatuan.
34
Also based from 50 years of record, the mean rainfall intensity is 13 mm/hr. This synoptic station is
74.34 km from the centroid of the catchment area of the drainage basin.
Based on the graphs of the curves, the two RIDF curves of Science Garden are almost coinciding while
the curve of Makinabang, Baliuag, Bulacan has a slight deviation from these two. Being the farthest
synoptic station among the three, Cabanatuan has the greatest deviation from the other three curves.
Judging from the locations of the aforementioned synoptic stations with respect to the centroid of the
drainage basin and the length of time at which the development of RIDF Curves where based from, the
researchers utilized the RIDF data gathered from the synoptic station at the Science Garden from
“Specific Discharge Curve, Rainfall Intensity Duration Curve, Isohyet of Probable 1-day Rainfall” by
PAG-ASA used in DPWH river system analysis. We disregarded the data from Makinabang, Baliuag,
Bulacan though it is the closest station to the area of study due to its limited record of only 18 years
whereas the minimum requirement must be at least one-half of the design return period which in this
case is 50 years.
Catchment Area Delineation
35
Figure ___________ shows the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the area with delineated river stream
flows and catchment area boundary and divisions. This model has the scale of 1:100,000 bounded by
its corners with coordinates (14.787N, 120.955E) – lower left, (14.92N, 120.955E) – upper left, (14.92N,
121.194E) – upper right and (14.787N, 121.194E) – lower right. This DEM was obtained from the
United States Geographic Survey.The files were dated September 23, 2014. Specifically the data was
obtained from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). This 1-arc second global digital elevation model has a spatial resolution of
about 30 meter.
36
Figure _______________ shows the entire drainage area, as well as the sub-basins, of the Santa
Maria River and its tributaries with a total area of 186.38 km 2. The whole catchment basin was divided
into 8 sub-basins with respect to the terrain of the area. The catchment area was delineated and
established through the use of ArcGIS software. The centroid of each sub-basin was obtained through
the use AutoCAD software. Due to some limitations of Google Earth as to the tracing of the river
centerlines, an estimated extension of the river was needed to accomplish the hydrologic model and
was made based on the Digital Elevation Model of the area.
AREA
DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION
SQ. M. SQ. KM.
SB-1 20540494.9 20.54 Cay Pombo River Catchment Area
SB-2 23761305.57 23.76 Sta. Maria River Upstream Catchment Area
SB-3 9940021.959 9.94 Unknown Catchment Area
SB-4 3134919.877 3.13 Sta. Maria River Mid-Catchment Area
SB-5 81300395.54 81.30 Sta. Maria River Downstream Catch Basin
SB-6 33130892.31 33.13 SJDM River Upstream Catchment Area
SB-7 12376891.31 12.38 SJDM River Mid-Catchment Area
SB-8 2193118.617 2.19 SJDM River Downstream Catchment Area
The sub-basins was derived from the division of the whole river basin considering the practical area at
which precipitation will run-off based on the DEM. It was observed that drainage areas decrease as it
37
comes near the discharge point and follows an ellipsoidal to trapezoidal pattern where the width of the
area perpendicular to the stream flow shortens down from the upstream boundary of the sub-basin
down to its downstream end. SB-5 is the greatest among the sub-basins with an area of 81.30 km 2
which is 4 to 5 times greater than the other sub-basins. It is characterize by an almost uniform slope
terrain throughout its area. Majority of the sub-basins have an area ranging from 9.94 km 2 to 33.13 km2.
The two smallest of the sub-basins are SB-4 and SB-8 having an area of 3.13 km 2 and 2.19 km2
respectively.
Derivation of Design Hyetograph
DURATION DESIGN HYETOGRAPH

INTENSITY
CUMULATIVE
RIDF (mm) INCREMENTAL EFFECTIVE
RAIN FOR (T)
(mm/hr) *reduced by DEPTH (mm) RAINFALL
HRS (mm)
HRS MINS fa* HOUR (mm/hr)
*reduced by
fa*
1 60 103.51 71.04 71.04 71.04 1 0.00
2 120 88.18 60.52 121.04 50.00 2 0.00
3 180 76.21 52.30 156.91 35.87 3 0.00
4 240 66.66 45.75 182.99 26.08 4 0.00
5 300 58.90 40.42 202.11 19.12 5 0.00
6 360 52.50 36.03 216.19 14.07 6 0.76
7 420 47.15 32.36 226.52 10.34 7 2.52
8 480 42.63 29.26 234.06 7.54 8 5.41
9 540 38.77 26.61 239.48 5.41 9 10.34
10 600 35.44 24.33 243.26 3.78 10 19.12
11 660 32.56 22.34 245.78 2.52 11 35.87
12 720 30.03 20.61 247.31 1.53 12 71.04
13 780 27.80 19.08 248.07 0.76 13 50.00
14 840 25.83 17.73 248.21 0.15 14 26.08
15 900 24.08 16.53 247.88 0.00 15 14.07
16 960 22.51 15.45 247.17 0.00 16 7.54
17 1020 21.10 14.48 246.15 0.00 17 3.78
18 1080 19.82 13.61 244.89 0.00 18 1.53
19 1140 18.67 12.81 243.45 0.00 19 0.15
20 1200 17.62 12.09 241.86 0.00 20 0.00
21 1260 16.66 11.44 240.15 0.00 21 0.00
38
22 1320 15.79 10.83 238.36 0.00 22 0.00
23 1380 14.98 10.28 236.50 0.00 23 0.00
24 1440 14.24 9.77 234.59 0.00 24 0.00
The design hyetograph was obtained using the Alternating Block Method. The respective rainfall
intensity for every hour was obtained through the formula R=A/(C+T) b where R is the rainfall intensity, T
is the time duration in minutes and A, b and C are constants with values 3312681.27, 1.63 and 520.65
respectively for the 50-year return period. The obtained rainfall intensity was then multiplied to a
reduction factor equal to 0.6863 which was derived from Horton’s formula stated below:
The cumulative rainfall for every duration was acquired by multiplying the adjusted rainfall intensity to
its corresponding duration. Then the incremental depth for every succeeding duration was obtained.
This incremental values was then arrange in an alternating manner such that the values will be
distributed evenly having the largest value at the middle of the distribution.
39
DESIGN HYETOGRAPH
(reduced by fa)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
RAINFALL (mm)
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
DURATION (hr)
The design hyetograph is a 24-hour rainfall graph. The precipitation starts on the 6 th hour with 0.76
mm/hr intensity and exponentially intensifies until it reached its peak at 71.04 mm/hr during the 12 th
hour. Then the intensity starts to diminish exponentially until it is just 0.15 mm/hr during the 19 th hour.
On the 20th hour, the rain already stops.
40
The Basin Model Diagram shows the relationship and connectivity of the sub-basins, river reaches and
other elements of the river system. This diagram was also used in creating the hydrologic model using
HEC-HMS. The diagram was compost of 8 sub-basins, 2 river reaches from the Sta. Maria river, 2 river
reaches from San Jose Del Monte river and 5 junction points.
HEC-HMS Hydrologic Modeling Parameters
Drainage Area = 186.38 sq. km.

Transform Method : SCS Unit Hydrograph
Routing Method : Muskingum-Cunge
Length of the Longest Water Course = 31,653 m
Maximum Elevation at Point of Origin = 283 m
Minimum Elevation at Discharge Point = 9m
41
General Slope = 0.0086564
Manning's Coefficient = 0.035
The transform method used was SCS Unit Hydrograph. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) unit
hydrograph method defines a curvilinear unit hydrograph by first setting the percentage of the unit run-
off that occurs before the peak flow (NRCS, 2007). A triangular unit hydrograph can then be fit to the
curvilinear unit hydrograph can be calculated. The standard unit hydrograph is defined with 37.5% of
unit runoff occurring before the peak flow. This definition corresponds to a peak rate factor of 484 which
incorporates the percentage of unit run-off before the peak, calculated total time base, and unit
conversions when applying the equations within the US Customary unit system.
The routing method used was Muskingum-Cunge routing method is based on the combination of the
conversation of mass and the diffusion representation of the conservation of momentum. It is
sometimes referred to as a variable coefficient method because the routing parameters are calculated
every step based on channel properties and the flow depth. It represents attenuation of flood waves
and be used in reaches with a small slope.
The Manning’s Roughness Coefficient was set to 0.035 since the river reaches are characterize as
natural streams with no rifts or deep pools, but more stones and weeds.
Lag Time
Sub-Basin Reach
SUB-BASIN Lca (km) Ct S
Length (L) hr min
1 5.88 0.7 9.79 0.008656 11.98 718.94

2 8.55 0.35 13.64 0.008656 15.28 916.89
3 4.06 0.35 7.01 0.008656 9.041 542.46
4 1.29 0.35 2.54 0.008656 4.111 246.65
5 8.59 0.7 14.32 0.008656 15.83 949.78
6 7.37 0.35 9.43 0.008656 12.6 755.74
7 4.02 0.35 6.21 0.008656 8.613 516.8
8 0.88 0.35 1.69 0.008656 3.107 186.43
42
The Modified Synder’s Lag Equation was used in determining the lag time of each sub-basin. Lca is the
length of water course from the downstream end of the sub-basin to the intersection on the stream
perpendicular from the centroid of the sub-basin (km). Ct is the lag time coefficient. The lag time
coefficient of SB-1 and SB-5 was set to 0.7 since the area is hilly while the rest was set to 0.35.
The sub-basin longest lag time is 949.78 minutes from SB-5 which also has the largest area, on the
other hand SB-8 has shortest lag time which is only 186.43 minutes and has also the smallest area.
Hydrologic Model Results
Analysis Duration: 3 Days

MAX. DISCHARGE 603.1 cms
ELEMENT DRAINAGE PEAK DISCHARGE

TIME OF PEAK VOLUME (MM)
NAME AREA (SQ. KM) (CMS)
SB-1 20.54 83.2 02Jan2000, 00:00 241.79

SB-2 23.76 77.1 02Jan2000, 03:00 229.86
SB-3 9.94 51.3 01Jan2000, 21:00 247.02
SB-4 3.13 28.4 01Jan2000, 16:00 248.21
SB-8 2.19 23.2 01Jan2000, 15:00 248.21
SB-5 81.3 255.2 02Jan2000, 03:30 227.28
SB-6 33.13 128.3 02Jan2000, 00:30 240.06
SB-7 12.38 66.5 01Jan2000, 20:30 247.42
J-1 54.24 197.9 02Jan2000, 00:00 237.52
J-2 184.18 602.7 02Jan2000, 01:30 232.64
J-3 186.37 603.1 02Jan2000, 01:30 232.62
J-4 114.43 372.7 02Jan2000, 03:00 229.53
J-5 81.3 255.2 02Jan2000, 03:30 227.28
SMR-1 54.24 197.8 02Jan2000, 00:00 237.15
SMR-2 184.18 602.7 02Jan2000, 01:30 232.44
SJDM-1 81.3 255 02Jan2000, 04:30 225.24
SJDM-2 114.43 372.7 02Jan2000, 03:00 228.47
43
The simulation was set to last for 3 days. The maximum peak discharge occurs at junction-3 which is
the outlet point of the river system considered. The maximum peak discharge is 603.1 cubic meters
which occurred after 25.5 hours after the commencement of the simulation.
The graph shows the amount of water that flowed across the Junction-3. It was observed that the curve
is slightly skewed to the right. The rising limb is much steeper than the falling limb. Also the outflows
from SMR-2 and SB-8 can be seen on the graph which are the two inflows for Junction-3. The peak
discharge of SB-8 occurs shortly after the start of precipitation. Contradictory, the outflow from SB-8
which is the product of almost all the outflows coming the other sub-basins has almost the same peak
discharge as with that of junction-3.
44
ANALYSIS OF SCHEME ESTIMATE
TRIAL SCHEME 1
Existing Condition:
Water Surface Elevation: 10.31m.
TYPE OF BRIDGE STRUCTURE: PSC GIRDER BRIDGE WITH R. C. PILE FOUNDATION
Cost of Bridge Without Channel Modification
TRI AL Ar ea Excavat i on Embankment Ri pr ap Br i dge

1(
TOTAL COST
SCHEME Lef t Ri ght Vol ume Cos t Tot al Vol ume Cos t Tot al L/ R L Cos t Tot al L Cos t
1)
St a.
0+200 14.135 52.382 831.45 300.00 249435.00 1640 249435.00
St a. Left 152 3818.63 580431.76
0+175 9.6793 28.435 476.43 300.00 142929.38 1640 142929.38
St a.
0+150 28.088 26.675 1369.1 300.00 410715.00 1640 410715.00
232 105332116
St a.
0+100 2.0973 19.032 264.11 300.00 79233.75 1640 79233.75
St a. Right 135 3818.63 515515.05
0+075 4.1199 13.26 217.25 300.00 65173.88 1640 65173.88
St a.
0+050 6.5937 82.421 300.00 24726.38 1640 24726.38
972213.38 1095946.81
TOTAL COST OF TRI AL SCHEME 1 107400275.87
TOTAL COST TRIAL SCHEME 1 WITH DEMOLITION 123510317.24
The trial scheme 1 represents the estimates of the Proposed PSC GIRDER BRIDGE WITH R.C.
PILE FOUNDATION without any channel modification along the bridge with a length of 232 meters. The
researchers based their pricing to the Estimated cost of bridge structure per linear meter (pesos) as of
December 2015 and in the cost estimates for work item of projects (pesos) as of October 2015 in
DPWH ATLAS. The water surface elevation that the researchers used for the length of the proposed
45
bridge is 10.31 meters with the clearance of 1.5 meters to the bridge. The researchers set different
station that will be excavated, dumped and compacted. There are 6 stations which are Sta 0+200, Sta
0+175, Sta 0+150, Sta 0+100, Sta 0+075, and Sta. 0+050.
In terms of excavation works, the Sta 0+200 has a volume of 831.45 cubic meter to be cut
which costed 249435 pesos. Sta 0+175 has a volume of 476.43 cubic meter to be cut which costed
142929.38 pesos. Sta 0+150 has a volume of 1369.1 cubic meter to be cut which costed 410715
pesos. Sta 0+100 has a volume of 264.11 cubic meter to be cut which costed 79233.75 pesos. Sta
0+075 has a volume of 217.25 cubic meter to be cut which costed 65173.88 pesos. Sta 0+050 has a
volume of 82.421 cubic meter to be cut which costed 24726.38 pesos. The summation for all the
excavation works is 972213.38 pesos.
The rip rap pricing that the researcher used is based on the the cost estimates for work item of
projects of DPWH ATLAS which is the Slope Protection per linear meter for Region III that costed
3818.63 pesos. The left bank slope protection is in 152 meters in length which costed 580,431.76
pesos. The right bank slope protection is in 135 meters in length which costed 515515.06. In
summation the Slope Protection Works costed 1095946.81.
The Bridge cost per linear meter in DPWH Atlas of a PSC GIRDER BRIDGE WITH R.C. PILE
FOUNDATION is 454,017.74. The length of the the proposed bridge in trial scheme 1 is 232 meters.
The researchers adapted the costing of the DPWH and the proposed bridge costed 105332116. The
demolition works of the bridge is 15% to the New Construction of Bridge in accordance with the DPWH
Atlas. In this trial scheme the demolition works costed 16110041.38 pesos.
With the Excavation works, Embankment works, Slope protection works, Bridge costs
and Demolition works the trial scheme 1 with the Proposed PSC GIRDER BRIDGE WITH R.C. PILE
FOUNDATION, 232 meters in length costed 123510317.24 pesos
46
TRIAL SCHEME 2

Cost of Bridge With Channel Modification
TRIAL 2( Ar ea Excavat i on Embankment Ri pr ap Br i dge

SCHEME TOTAL COST
Lef t Ri ght Vol ume Cos t Tot al Vol ume Cos t Tot al L/ R L Cos t Tot al L Cos t
2)
St a.
0+200 14.135 52.382 831.45 300.00 249435.00 1640 249435.00
St a. Left 152 3818.63 580431.76
0+175 9.6793 28.435 476.43 300.00 142929.38 1640 142929.38
St a.
0+150 28.088 26.675 1369.1 300.00 410715.00 1640 410715.00
85.11 38641450
St a.
0+100 2.0973 47.068 614.57 300.00 184369.88 2072.24 1640 3398474 3582843.48
St a. Right 135 3818.63 515515.05
0+075 4.1199 13.26 217.25 300.00 65173.88 1640 65173.88
St a.
0+050 6.5937 82.421 300.00 24726.38 1640 24726.38
1077349.50 1095946.81
TOTAL 44213219.76
NEW ROAD CONSTUCTION LENGTH PRICE PER KM COST TOTAL COST

0.1332054 21888466.73 2915661.966 1432959.118
44213219.76
COST OF TRIAL SCHEME 2 45646178.88
COST OF TRIAL SCHEME 2 WITH DEMOLITION 52493105.71
The trial scheme 2 represents the estimates of the Proposed PSC GIRDER BRIDGE
WITH R.C. PILE FOUNDATION with channel modification along the bridge with a length of 85.11
meters. The researchers based their pricing to the Estimated cost of bridge structure per linear meter
(pesos) as of December 2015 and in the cost estimates for work item of projects (pesos) as of October
2015 in DPWH ATLAS. The water surface elevation that the researchers used as a basis to determine
the length of the proposed bridge is 10.31 meters with the clearance of 1.5 meters to the bridge. The
researchers set different station that will be excavated, dumped and compacted. There are 6 stations
which are Sta 0+200, Sta 0+175, Sta 0+150, Sta 0+100, Sta 0+075, and Sta. 0+050.
47
In terms of excavation works, the Sta 0+200 has a volume of 831.45 cubic meter to be
cut which costed 249435 pesos. Sta 0+175 has a volume of 476.43 cubic meter to be cut which costed
In terms of the embankment works, Sta 0+100 has a volume of 2072.24 cubic meter to
be cut which costed 3398474 with the adaptation of the DPWH atlas cost estimates for work item of
projects.
The rip rap pricing that the researcher used is based on the the cost estimates for work
item of projects of DPWH ATLAS which is the Slope Protection per linear meter for Region III that
costed 3818.63 pesos. The left bank slope protection is in 152 meters in length which costed
580,431.76 pesos. The right bank slope protection is in 135 meters in length which costed 515515.06.
In summation the Slope Protection Works costed 1095946.81.
The Bridge cost per linear meter in DPWH Atlas of a PSC GIRDER BRIDGE WITH
R.C. PILE FOUNDATION is 454,017.74. The length of the the proposed bridge in trial scheme 2 is
85.11 meters. The researchers adapted the costing of the DPWH and the proposed bridge costed
38641450. The demolition works of the bridge is 15% to the New Construction of Bridge in accordance
with the DPWH Atlas. In this trial scheme the demolition works costed 6846926.83 pesos. Lastly,the
New Road Construction which is 0.1332054 km in length which costed 2915661.966 pesos that is
computed with the adaptation of the DPWH Atlas cost estimates for work item of projects.
48
With the Excavation works, Embankment works, Slope protection works, Bridge costs,
New Road Construction and the Demolition works the trial scheme 2 with the Proposed PSC GIRDER
BRIDGE WITH R.C. PILE FOUNDATION, 85.11 meters in length costed 52493105.71 pesos
TRIAL SCHEME 3

TRIAL ( Ar ea Excavat i on Embankment Ri pr ap Br i dge
SCHEME TOTAL COST
3)
St a.
0+200 14.135 52.382 831.45 300.00 249435.00 1640 249435.00
St a. Left 152 2863.97 435323.82
0+175 9.6793 28.435 476.43 300.00 142929.38 1640 142929.38
St a.
0+150 28.088 26.675 1369.1 300.00 410715.00 1640 410715.00
86 39045526
St a.
0+100 1.3029 10.547 148.12 300.00 44435.63 1875.26 1640 3075426 3119862.03
St a. Right 135 2863.97 386636.29
0+075 4.1199 13.26 217.25 300.00 65173.88 1640 65173.88
St a.
0+050 6.5937 82.421 300.00 24726.38 1640 24726.38
937415.25 821960.11
TOTAL 43880327.40
0.1351426 21888466.73 2958064.304 2958064.304
43880327.40
WITH R.C. PILE FOUNDATION with channel modification along the bridge with a length of 86 meters.
The researchers based their pricing to the Estimated cost of bridge structure per linear meter (pesos)
as of December 2015 and in the cost estimates for work item of projects (pesos) as of October 2015 in
DPWH ATLAS. The water surface elevation that the researchers used as a basis to determine the
length of the proposed bridge is 10.31 meters with the clearance of 1.5 meters to the bridge. The
49
cut which costed 249435 pesos. Sta 0+175 has a volume of 476.43 cubic meter to be cut which costed
In terms of the embankment works, Sta 0+100 has a volume of 1875.26 cubic meter to
be cut which costed 3075426 with the adaptation of the DPWH atlas cost estimates for work item of
projects.
R.C. PILE FOUNDATION is 454,017.74. The length of the the proposed bridge in trial scheme 3 is 86
meters. The researchers adapted the costing of the DPWH and the proposed bridge costed 39045526.
The demolition works of the bridge is 15% to the New Construction of Bridge in accordance with the
DPWH Atlas. In this trial scheme the demolition works costed 7025758.76 pesos. Lastly,the New Road
Construction which is 0.1351426 km in length which costed 2958064.304 pesos that is computed with
the adaptation of the DPWH Atlas cost estimates for work item of projects.
50
BRIDGE WITH R.C. PILE FOUNDATION, 86 meters in length costed 53864150.46 pesos
TRIAL SCHEME 4

TRIAL ( Ar ea Excavat i on Embankment Ri pr ap Br i dge
SCHEME TOTAL COST
4)
St a.
0+200 24.876 64.991 1123.3 300.00 336999.38 1640 336999.38
St a. Left 152 2863.97 435323.82
0+175 23.367 40.67 800.46 300.00 240138.75 1640 240138.75
St a.
0+150 43.071 40.473 2088.6 300.00 626580.00 1640 626580.00
90 40861597
St a.
0+100 28.848 67.535 1204.8 300.00 361434.38 2156.16 1640 3536099 3897533.50
St a. Right 135 2863.97 386636.29
0+075 35.43 442.88 300.00 132862.50 1640 132862.50
St a.
0+050 12.097 151.21 300.00 45362.25 1640 45362.25
1743377.25 821960.11
TOTAL 46963033.08
0.13197 21888466.73 2888620.954 2958064.304
43880327.40
WITH R.C. PILE FOUNDATION without any channel modification along the bridge with a length of 90
meters. The researchers based their pricing to the Estimated cost of bridge structure per linear meter
(pesos) as of December 2015 and in the cost estimates for work item of projects (pesos) as of October
51
2015 in DPWH ATLAS. The water surface elevation that the researchers used as a basis to determine
the length of the proposed bridge is 10.31 meters with the clearance of 1.5 meters to the bridge. The
cut which costed 336999.38 pesos. Sta 0+175 has a volume of 800.46 cubic meter to be cut which
costed 240138.75 pesos. Sta 0+150 has a volume of 2088.6 cubic meter to be cut which costed
626580 pesos. Sta 0+100 has a volume of 1204.8 cubic meter to be cut which costed 361434.38
0+050 has a volume of 151.21 cubic meter to be cut which costed 45362.25 pesos. The summation for
all the excavation works is 1743377.25 pesos.
In terms of the embankment works, Sta 0+100 has a volume of 2156.16 cubic meter
to be cut which costed 3536099 with the adaptation of the DPWH atlas cost estimates for work item of
projects.
R.C. PILE FOUNDATION is 454,017.74. The length of the the proposed bridge in trial scheme 4 is 90
meters. The researchers adapted the costing of the DPWH and the proposed bridge costed 40861597.
The demolition works of the bridge is 15% to the New Construction of Bridge in accordance with the
DPWH Atlas. In this trial scheme the demolition works costed 7025758.76 pesos.
52
BRIDGE WITH R.C. PILE FOUNDATION, 90 meters in length costed 53864150.46 pesos.
Among all the Trial Scheme the second trial has the most economical design of bridge
which is 85.11 in length costing 52493105.71 pesos.
53

Chapter 4 - Sept25.

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chapter 4 - Sept25.

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PRESENTATION OF DATA, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

interpretation are presented as follows:

General Profi le of the Resident Respondents

Figure 4. Location Distribution of the Resident Respondents

Tumana Macaiban Patag Poblacion

Figure 5. Period of Residency of the Resident Respondents

Years of Residency 1-10 years 11-20 years

the 41-50 years residency class.

Figure 6. Occupational Distribution of the Resident Respondents

Figure 7. Gender Profile of Motorist Respondents

which is 86% and 14% respectively.

Figure 8. Location Distribution of Motorist Respondents

Location Distributi on of Motorist Respondents

Figure 9. Occupational Distribution of the Motorist Respondents

Occupational Distribution of the Motorist Respondents

Office Worker and Student compost the remaining 6% being 2% each.

Survey Result for Type A Respondents (Nearby Residents)

Figure 10. Flooding Experience

Figure 11. Flood Frequency

Only when the

two which is 4% of the totality said the opposite.

Figure 12. Rainfall Intensity

LIGHT (CONTINUOUS) MODERATE HEAVY VERY HEAVY

affecting their area.

Figure 13. Usual Flood Level Experienced/Observed

Usual Flood Level Experienced/Observed

LEG LEVEL WAIST LEVEL CHEST LEVEL EYE LEVEL

Figure 14. Maximum Flood Level Experienced/Observed

Figure 15. Maximum Flood Level Occurence

MAXIMUM FLOOD LEVEL OCCURENCE

ONDOY LAST YEAR THIS YEAR (2018) HENRY

Figure 16. Cause of Flooding Excluding Local Isolated Rainfall

Cause of Flooding Excluding Local Isolated Rainfall

Mountain Dam Garbage and Wastes

Figure 17. Flooding Experience Without Local Isolated Rainfall

Figure 18. Hourly Rate of Flood Level Rise

Hourly Rate of Flood Level Rise

1-3 FT/HR 3-6 FT/HR

Figure 19. Visual Description of Flood Flow Velocity

Visual Description of Flood Flow Velocity

gentle slow and gentle slightly fast fast very fast

Figure 20. Observed Flood Subsidence Duration

Figure 21. Preparatory Measures Done

PREPARATORY MEASURES DONE

Figure 22. Bad Effects of Recurrent Flooding

BAD EFFECTS OF RECURRENT FLOODING

Figure 23. Favorability to Sta. Maria River Redevelopment

Figure 24. Suggested Flooding Solution

Survey Result for Type B Respondents (Motorists)

interpretation are presented as follows.

Figure 25. Frequency of Crossing the Macaiban Bridge

Frequency of Crossing the Macaiban Bridge

Everyday 2-5 times a week Once in a week

Figure 26. Benefits from Using the Macaiban Bridge

Figure 27. Flooding Experience

remaining one which is 36% of the totality said the opposite.

Figure 29. Usual Flood Level Observed/Experienced

Usual Flood Level Observed/Experienced

LEG LEVEL WAIST LEVEL CHEST LEVEL EYE LEVEL

Figure 30. Maximum Flood Level Experienced/Observed

Maximum Flood Level Experienced/Observed

MAXIMUM FLOOD LEVEL OCCURENCE