Optimization of Roadside Drainage Systems A Comparative Analysis of Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain Systems Using RCP

Optimization of Roadside Drainage Systems: A
Comparative Analysis of Rectangular Lined Ditch and

Underdrain System using RCP
by
Jefferson Bill G. Bisnar

Kierwin S. De Dios
Patricia B. Profitana
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Mapua Institute of Technology

September 2014
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, the group would like to show their gratitude to their thesis adviser, and the
School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering's department coordinator, Engr.
Juan Paulo Nazareno and Engr. Divina Gonzales for the guidance that they have provided during
the duration of the study. During the group's data gathering process, important figures have
provided means for use to be able to come up with sound results. The people who made the
aforementioned feat possible are Engr. Rodolfo Mendoza Jr. from Maynila Water Services Inc.,
Department of Public Works and Highways' information center contact, Ms. Pilori, and NCR's
Regional Director, Reynaldo G. Tagudando. Finally, we would like to thank our parents for their
unending support and God Almighty for the life that He has given us.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
APPROVAL PAGE i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
ABSTRACT vi
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3
Chapter 3: Comparison between Rectangular 13

Lined Ditch and Underdrain System using RCP
Abstact 13
Introduction 13
Methodology 14
Results and Discussion 24
Conclusion 57
References 57
Chapter 4: CONCLUSION 58
Chapter 5: RECOMMENDATION 61
REFERENCES 62
APPENDICES 64
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.a RIDF of NAIA, Philppines using 17

Improved Sherman Formula
Table 2.b Methodology of Japan using Scaling 18
Method
Table 2.c RIDF of NAIA, Philippines using 18
Log-Normal
Table 2.d RIDF Curve of Philippines using 19
Pearson type III
Table 2.e Rainfall intensity (mm/hr) for 10-min 20
duration by Pearson - III
Table 3.1 Cross-sectional Area and Hydraulic 33
Radius Data
Table 3.2 Cross-sectional Area and Velocity 36
based from Chezy Formula using Bazin's
Constant Data
based from Chezy Formula using Kutter's
Constant data
using Manning's Formula data
using Crimp and Burge's Formula data
Table 3.6 Cross-sectional Area and the 47
respective dimensions data
Table 3.7 Summary of Velocities for 50
Rectangular Lined Ditch
Table 3.8 Summary of Velocities for 51
Table 3.9 Cross-sectional Area and Peak 53
Velocity data
Table 3.10 Cost Comparison Data 55
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1.1 Planning and Designing Chart 24

Figure 3.1.2 Manufacturing/ Materials Source 26
Chart
Figure 3.1.3 Construction Procedure Chart 27
Figure 3.1.4 Time of Construction Chart 29
Figure 3.1.5 Manpower Required Chart 30
Figure 3.1.6 Maintenance Chart 32
Figure 3.2.1 Cross-Sectional Area vs Hyrdaulic 33
Radius
Figure 3.2.2 Cross-Sectional Area vs Velocity 36
Based from Chezy Formula using Bazin's
Constant
Based from Chezy Formula using Kutter's
Constant
Based from Manning's Formula
Based from Crimp and Burge's Formula
Figure 3.2.6 Cross-Sectional Area vs Peak 49
Velocity
Figure 3.2.7 Cost Analysis Comparison 55
v
ABSTRACT
Flooding during the rainy season along roadsides speaks to the inefficiency and inadequacy of
the existing drainage system. In order to become part of the solution, the researchers explored
methods from the engineering field to evaluate Rectangular Lined Ditches and Underdrain
Systems using RCP. The researchers shall dig into various parameters, such as hydrological
concepts, empirical formulas, planning, construction methods, manufacturing and resources, and
costing in order to ascertain a specific type of channel and determine an optimized choice.
Surveys from professionals in the field in both private and public sectors show that ease in
planning, manufacturing, constructing and maintaining a drainage network is really dependent on
the scale of the project. As for the correlation aspect of the research, it appears that the values
vary depending on the cross-sectional area. This also goes for the comparisons done for the cost
aspect of the research. Finally, it must be noted that despite the computations done, the
applicability of a certain type of drainage network remain a significant factor to consider.
Keywords: Correlation, Rectangular Line Ditch, Underdrain Systems
7
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The Philippines and flood waters have always had this longstanding affair. In the past, this
problem was only confined to a limited number of areas but as years passed, it has become a
much bigger problem; one that cannot be ignored anymore. The effects of flooding have
expanded from a simple inconvenience to loss of lives, livelihood, and lifelines. The researchers
would like to take a look at the engineering point of view of the matter and explore other
solutions. This entails determining whether the pipe system and pipe capacity are adequate in
operating efficiently during the wet season considering the fact that recently, rainfall is more
intense and spaced between short periods of time. It also implies comparing different types of
channels, both open and closed. In addition, the researchers would also like to ascertain whether
it can mitigate the amount of inflow to the said drainage system.
The main objective of this research is to contrast two types of drainage system, the
Rectangular Lined Ditch, a type of open channel system, and the Underdrain Systems using
Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), which is a type of closed channel system. The researchers shall
explore three (3) avenues for comparison; cost-related aspects, theoretical aspects, and a
correlation of all important parameters related to designing a certain drainage network, which
shall be expounded in the following chapters.
The resulting comparisons made also aims to determine a better system of drainage
network in order to mitigate, if not alleviate flooding in a cheaper and smarter way.
Furthermore, this study aims to mitigate flooding in order to reduce the damage on
property, inconvenience, loss and endangerment of lives through civil engineering solutions.
8
The significance of this study lies in its technical and social impacts. Since Cavite is seen to
be heavily urbanized in the coming years, providing a sustainable and effective drainage network
is proved to be advantageous. Decreasing the possibility of flooding can cause positive impact on
the lives, livelihood and lifeline of the people residing in a certain area. Transportation and
communication will not be interrupted by the negative effects of flooding. In the long run, flood
mitigation can limit disasters from happening which in turn, can limit damage to property. This
can also serve as a reference on which type of channel to be used when designing and
constructing a drainage system based on various factors and different parameters. Moreover, with
the correlation of the parameters, one can set another variable and be able to use this study for
other places that call and require for a better drainage system.
This study shall only cover comparison between Rectangular Lined Ditch (for open) and
Underdrain Systems using RCP (for closed). The parameters that the researchers will explore
shall cover the ease in planning, the resources to be considered, the construction procedure, time
of completion, manpower required and maintenance. It shall also compare the cost difference
between the two types of channels as well as the applicability of the drainage network. Moreover,
the researchers shall create a correlation graph in which the parameters in designing a drainage
network, such as wetted perimeter, critical discharge and the like. Finally, the researchers shall
only consider the drainage network applicable and suitable for Niog Road, Bacoor City, Cavite.
9
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The Review of Related Literature focuses on the concepts that will be used on this study.
It will tackle important points from Drainage Design, Rainfall Intensity, Storm and Weather
effects that are relevant to the completion of the study. The following points were also supported
with necessary statements from various articles.
2.1 Drainage System Design and its Background
Drainage system is an important aspect of urban and rural systems in all kinds of places.
Drainage system has unprecedented number of uses ranging from collecting sewage to storm
water runoffs. Urbanization is undoubtedly the main reason behind it all. According to Grigg,
Hiller & Riordan (1978), urbanization has a huge impact on the modernization of a specific area
by turning it from a natural and agricultural environment to a residential and commercial
environment. The transition will cause the alteration in the storm water runoff nature of the said
urbanizing watershed that will lead to increased storm water damages such as floods.
Due to excessive change in surroundings, some of the existing sewer and drainages
become left behind. Some of the old drainages may risk contaminating the water supply due to
reasons such as infiltration and excessive inflow. Because of this, the wastewater collection
system might be compromised and there is a need of evaluation whether the existing sewer pipes
are still capable of doing the job that it was designed to do. According to a document from
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007), there is a need to treat excessive
infiltration and inflow to prevent backups and system overflows as well as challenging peak-flow
treatment at wastewater pants. Another problem that will arise is the deterioration of wastewater
10
collection that will cause infiltration of groundwater and export recharge of groundwater from
watersheds if not taken into focus. Thus, a good combination of well-designed drainages and
impervious roads will be the key in reducing the excessive flood flow during rainy season.
Designing drainage systems considers multiple factors that tackle basic hydrological
aspects with a touch on road factors. It must satisfy criteria such as allowing of minimum
disturbance of the natural drainage pattern and draining of the surface from water in order to
prevent the excessive collection of water which will cause problems such as floods and erosion.
Marsalek & Watt (1984) stated that designing drainage system will be dependent on the location
of the area where the drainage system will be constructed. It is recommended that there be a
study on the region by looking on the respective data such as rainfall data, hydrograph models,
supplemented by specifications of the computational procedure and normal antecedent conditions.
Cimorelli et al. (2013) also implied that optimal design of rural drainage networks must be based
on the coupling of a genetic algorithm with suitable hydrologic and hydraulic models that further
look on the evaluation of water depth and discharge through the network, rainfall-runoff
transformation and flood wave propagation through channels. In the Philippines, there are
multiple regions with varying data regarding rainfall intensities.
In designing and constructing of drainages, the weather aspect must have a great focus.
Since the whole word is undergoing Climate Change, perhaps there is a need to consider
exaggerated weather scenarios in the design of new drainage system. Duchesne & Mailhot,
(2010) reported that the effects of climate changes must be included into the design consideration
of drainage systems. These projections for the design must be provided by the various climate
models with the emphasis that intense rainfall will increase in the near future because of the
acceleration on greenhouse gas concentrations. There is a need to look into the rainfall
11
projections of a certain area and expected level of lifetime and performance of the drainage
system. As stated on Abdellatif, Atherton, Alkhaddar & Osman (2013), it is good to have long-
lasting urban drainage plans for future management of urban drainage system. It is very helpful to
design systems using this kind of approach.
2.2 Weather Effects and Climate Change
Excessive floods can be traced on high volume of rainfall coming from huge storms.
These storms happen due to disturbance in the climate. Since the Philippines is near the Pacific
Ocean, there will always be the possibility that the country will encounter many storms,
especially during the rainy season (June - September). But as of late, the number of storms as
well as their strength is being observed to increase and one can assume climate change is a factor.
As reported by Abdellatif, Atherton, Alkhaddar & Osman (2013), the issue of climate change has
been increasing and its effects have already been observed around the world with further changes
in climate being projected to take place in the future. König, Linde, Mark, & Svensson, (2008)
concluded that the Climate Change may affect the change the precipitation of some countries. In
addition to that, having an extreme summer condition will have a payoff during the rainy season
because there will be an increase in the rainfall events and its intensities. This will be the primary
reason for overflowing sewers that will cause floods in urban areas. According to Berggren
(2008), the sudden changes in the climatic conditions will drastically affect the urban drainage
systems because of the fact that the drainage system is related to the weather phenomenon and
were built for the purpose of coping up with the weather occurring. On the other hand,
Teegavarapu (2012) implied that extreme flood conditions are not necessarily brought by the
short-duration extreme rainfall events. The long-duration rainfall event shall still be held
responsible for extreme flooding events.
12
During the past years the country has been ravaged by various weather phenomena such as
Ondoy in 2009 and two Habagat cases in 2012 and 2013. These phenomena brought massive
rainfall that caused floods all over Metro Manila and neighboring provinces including Cavite.
Analyzing the data from these three weather phenomena, the highest accumulated rainfall ranges
from 550 to 1120 mm of rain in a 3 to 5 day period. These phenomena caused huge problems on
property and lives. The damages were massive especially in Ondoy that caused an 11 billion peso
loss on the country‟s property. Extreme damages to property can also be seen on other countries
that experienced similar weather phenomena in nature just like Hurricane Katrina and Sandy from
the United States. Since Bacoor City is located just outside Metro Manila, it is also subjected to
these damages as it is known it is a flood prone area in the province of Cavite. Damages to
property were mostly caused by floods thus, the flooding must be mitigated via drainage systems.
Habagat 2013
Habagat 2012
Tropical Storm (enhanced by
(enhanced by
Ondoy (Ketsana) Tropical Storm
Typhoon Haikui)
Maring)
Dates Sept 24-27, 2009 Aug 6-8, 2012 Aug 17-21, 2013
556.1 mm of rain 1,007.4 mm of rain 1,120.2 mm of rain
(4-day period) (3-day period) (5-day period)
measured in Science measured in Science measured in Sangley
Garden, Garden, Point, Cavite
13
Highest Measured Quezon City Quezon City
Accumulated Rainfall
934,285 families or
993,227 families or 689,527 families or
4,236,151
4,901,763 persons in 3,096,392 persons in
persons in
2,018 barangays, 2,124 barangays,
2,634 barangays,
172 municipalities, 160 municipalities,
175 municipalities,
16 cities, and 37 cities, and
36 cities, and
26 provinces in 18 provinces in
Affected Population 17 provinces in
12 regions 6 regions
6 regions
Table 1: Data for Tropical Storm Ondoy, Habagat 2012 and Habagat 2013
Source: http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/39948-by-the-numbers-ondoy-habagat-2012-2013
2.3 Rainfall Intensity and Return Period
Rainfall is one of the main contributors of floods. According to the article form
Environment Solutions (2014), floods are not only the most frequent natural disaster but also the
disaster that produces the greatest economic and humanitarian impact such as number of people
and number of infrastructure affected. Floods are synonymous with the amount of rainfall on a
specific area. Meaning, the larger the rainfall on an area, the higher the tendency of extreme
floods. Blendermann (1979) stated that before designing the storm-water drainage or control
system it is required to consider the nature of the incoming rainfall on the chosen area of interest.
This data is called the Rainfall Intensity. Rainfall Intensity refers to the measurement of the
14
amount of rain that falls over time. The intensity of rain is measured in the height of the water
layer covering the ground in a period of time thus it implies that if the rain stays where it falls, it
would form a layer of a certain height. Usually every country has the means to measure the
rainfall intensity of a specific area. In the case of our country, the PAGASA is the foundation that
provides it. Blendermann also added that, since there are many rainfall intensity data available, it
is challenging on the part of engineers to design the storm-water drainages.
Floods are also described in terms of “return period”. Return Period is commonly known
as an estimate of the likelihood of a natural calamity. Clarke, Hultstrand & Parzybok, (2011)
reported that describing floods in return periods is the more frequent approach in contrast to the
usage of rainfall intensity data. In computing the “return period”, multiple data must be
considered such as pre-existing flood frequency statistics and peak discharge of a flood in a
specific area of location. Sometimes flood frequency statistics is used as an approach into these
kind of situation. But, the main setback of this approach is that it is only applicable in places near
the rivers and streams while the rainfall intensity approach is applicable in every places as long
the data of rainfall intensity is available.
Storm Drainage Hydraulics
Introduction
A storm drainage system is basically composed of the following elements: street inlets,
storm sewers, natural and man-made channels, culverts, detention basins and outlet structures.
These networks are designed to provide a discharge capacity that will be able to carry the design
flow at self-cleaning velocities while protecting the integrity of the drainage elements. However,
15
for storm sewers, calculations regarding the hydraulic grade line, normal and critical depth, total
energy grade line and location of hydraulic jumps, surcharge or out-of-bunk flows.
In the design and analysis of a storm sewer network, one must go about it according to the
fundamental principles of natural movement in open channels, closed conduits and other special
hydraulic structure.
Flow and Classification
Flow in a storm drainage system can be classified in a number of ways:
 Laminar vs. Turbulent
 Steady vs. Unsteady
 Uniform vs. Non-uniform
 Gradually Varied vs. Rapidly Varied
 Open Channel vs. Closed Conduit
Uniform vs. Non-uniform Flow
For uniform flow, the velocity, depth and discharge are constant with distance along the
channel or conduit. Parameters such as channel slope, energy or friction slope and water surface
must all be equal in magnitude. Uniform flow occurs as non-pressure or free surface flow in a
prismatic conduit flowing partially full. It can also occur in a storm sewer flowing full if minor
losses due to contractions, expansions and bends are considered negligible. It is usually applied
over short distances within a gradually varied flow, which includes gutter flow, flow in storm
chains and flood ways.
16
Non-uniform flow, by contrast, is characterized by changing depth and velocity with
distance along the channel or sewer.
Open Channel vs. Closed Conduit Flow
Like that of a natural stream, or man-made channel, open channel flow has a free surface.
The slope of the channel will be classified as hydraulically mild, critical or steep, depending on
whether this slope is less than, equal to or greater than the critical slope computed for the channel
on the basis of its critical depth, discharge and roughness.
A closed conduit, on the other hand, may flow full or partially full. It is dependent on whether the
runoff event is larger or smaller than the design values. Storm sewers, nevertheless, are designed
to flow full or partially full. However, in specific instances, where ground elevations are adequate,
a limited surcharge above the pipe crown may be permitted. Full flow in a conduit is confined
without a free surface and is sometimes referred to as pipe flow or pressure.
Gravity forces still govern, but the additional pressure head of any surcharge above the pipe
crown must be taken into account.
17
CHAPTER 3
COMPARISON OF RECTANGULAR LINED DITCH AND UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
USING RCP
Abstract
Climate change is becoming more and more apparent due to the frequency of the extreme
weather condition the country has been forced to face. One of the implications of this
phenomenon is the aggravating effect it has: flooding. The country has seen strong storms such
as Ondoy, Habagat 2012 and Habagat 2013 and has lost many lives and millions of property. In
order to alleviate these circumstances, the researchers shall investigate two kinds of channels,
namely, Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain Systems using Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)
.With hydrology and hydraulics being the main aspect of the study, the researchers shall identify
whether which channel system is more efficient and effective. The study shall also explore and
use different parameters to expand the comparison and to determine which type of drainage
network is suitable and better. The results of this study can be used for future rehabilitation and
improvement purposes as well as disaster prevention planning.
Introduction
In the industry, hydrological studies are often performed in order to evaluate whether a
certain area is prone to flooding because of its implications to property as well as various aspects
of daily living. Since the Philippines is a tropical country, the wet season is unavoidable; hence,
flooding is expected in some parts of the country. This study is more of a comparative one. It
shall inquire on the planning process, resources, construction procedure, time of completion,
manpower required and maintenance of a certain type channel when used in a drainage network.
18
The study shall also cover hydraulic concepts, such as the use of empirical formulas in order to
evaluate the pipe‟s capacity and discharge. Finally, this study will also tackle the different cost
implications when it comes to using either type of channel and social impacts and application.
Methodology
Analytical Framework
Data
Gathering
Analytical Cost
Computat Analysi Survey
ion
s
Rainfal
l
Intensi
ty Analysis Tabulati
of on of
velocity Results
obtained
from RLD
Conclusion
Figure 3.1 Analytical Framework
19
Research Design
This research entitled „Optimization of Roadside Drainage Systems: A Comparative
Analysis of Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain System using RCP‟ will be approached as a
qualitative research that will endeavor to amass data in relation to the economic, theoretical and
technical aspects of drainage systems. The information that shall be gathered will include the
advantages and disadvantages of either a Rectangular Line Ditch or Underdrain System using
RCP. Data shall also include a topographic survey of the area, identifying elevations. Moreover,
hydrological parameters will also be considered in this research and correlated. In addition, the
researchers chose the qualitative approach in order to verify and compare whether which type of
channel is capable of handling a significant amount of storm water and is efficient in transporting
water towards a respective outfall.
This study will make use of a descriptive and exploratory research design because it aims
to accumulate data regarding the current situation where they take in consideration the present
practices used in the industry in planning, constructing and maintaining a drainage system. Also,
it aims to make a comparative analysis and assess the Rectangular Line Ditch and Underdrain
System using RCP in terms of adequacy and its efficiency of as well as its efficiency during the
typhoon season and extreme weather conditions with heavy rainfall and storms with long
duration. Finally, the researchers shall make use of the recent data for unit cost in constructing a
20
specific type of drainage network and work with the differentiation and interpretation of that data.
Figure 3.1.a. Rectangular Line Ditch
Figure 3.1.b. Underdrain Pipe Using RCP
21
Data Collection
The comparative analysis between open channel and pipes will use different hydrological
factors and site parameters. Hydraulic factors of the channel such as discharge, channel type, type
of flow breadth of surface of water, depth of channel, and energy gradient will take part in this
study. The cost and efficiency of these two types of channels will also be assessed for further
comparison. Other parameters such as the ease of planning, the availability of resources, the
construction procedure, time of completion, manpower required and maintenance shall also play a
pivotal role in the assessment of which type of channel for a drainage system is better and more
advantageous.
In order to gather information, the researchers shall avail of the services and data provided
by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for the cost estimates as well as the
information about various procedures for planning and construction. A survey was made in order
to gather firsthand information to be used in this study from both the public and private sector.
Data and services from National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) such
as maps were also used in this study.
The researchers gathered the data of analyses of Philippine rainfall intensity duration
frequency with respect to different methodology of different countries such as methodology
People‟s Republic of China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Philippines and Vietnam through
UNESCO. The participating countries provided their country‟s rainfall data to the study done by
UNESCO. The group considered three return periods, specifically two year, five year and, 10 year
return period.
22
China preferred the method of Improved Sherman Formula for calculating rainfall
intensity duration data. The Philippines provided data from eight sites from the country, including
data from NAIA, Philippines. This data was considered for it is the nearest to Bacoor, Cavite. The
considered “p” were 0.5, 0.2, and 0.1 for two year, five year, and 10 year-return period. There was
a sudden change in the slope at T=180 min, thus there are 2 scaling method with the given data.
Table 2.a. RIDF of NAIA, Philppines using Improved Sherman Formula
23
In the case of Japan, one of the methods they use for analyzing the RIDF of Philippines Is
scaling method. This is the only setback in this data is that the data used for Philippines is from
Puerto because it is the nearest site from Bacoor, Cavite.
Table 2.b. Methodology of Japan using Scaling Method
The methodology of Republic of Korea for the rainfall data of Philippines is Log-Normal.
Table 2.c. RIDF of NAIA, Philippines using Log-Normal
24
Table 2.d. RIDF Curve of Philippines using Pearson type III
25
Table 2.e. Rainfall intensity (mm/hr) for 10-min duration by Pearson – III.
26
27
Rainfall Intensity of 10 year Return
Period
Vietnam- Log-Pearson III
Vietnam-Pearson III
Republic of Korea
Japan
People’s Republic of China
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

People’s
Republic of Vietnam- Vietnam- Log-
Republic of Japan
Korea Pearson III Pearson III
China
10 min 130.94 167.92 252.93 227.7 229
30 min 140 84.07 134.62 148.4 144.8
60 min 98 54.329 90.43 98.1 107.7
Rainfall Intensity of 2 Year Return Period

Vietnam-Pearson III
Philippines
Republic of Korea
Japan
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

People’s Vietnam-
Republic of Vietnam-
Republic of Japan Philippines Log-Pearson
Korea Pearson III
China III
10 min 135 104.22 168.87 60 120.3 128.1
30 min 67 52.18 89.88 42 76.9 80.7
60 min 44 33.72 60.38 30 51.8 56.8
28
Rainfall Instensity of 5 year return period
Vietnam-Pearson III
Republic of Korea
Japan
Australia
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

People’s
Republic of Vietnam- Vietnam- Log-
Australia Republic of Japan
Korea Pearson III Pearson III
China
10 min 35.84 190 142.55 252.93 227.7 229
30 min 70.95 110 71.36 134.62 148.4 144.8
60 min 95.83 77 46.12 90.43 98.1 107.7
29
Results and Discussion
Theoretical Aspect
This aspect of the research aims to contrast the Rectangular Lined Ditch and Circular
Underdrain system using RCP (Reinforced Concrete Pipes). This comparison observes multiple
aspects such as Planning, Manufacturing/Resources, Construction Procedure, Time of
Construction, Manpower required and Maintenance.
The researchers conducted a survey with a questionnaire concentrating on the six
parameters that were stated earlier. There were a set of questions for each of the parameter in
which there is a main question whose results were illustrated on the pie charts that will be shown
on the later parts. The other questions served as supporting components needed in order to
support the result shown by the main questions. Please see the appendix for the content of the
questionnaire.
Table 2: Questionnaire Results
Results
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
1 a a a a A a a b b b
2 b a a a A others a b b b
3 a b b b A others a b b b
4 a b b b A others b b b b
5 b a b b A b b b b b
30
6 a b a a A a a b b a
7 a a a a A a a a a a
and a and a and
8 c c c c NA a c c c a
9 a a a a A a a b a b
II
a and
1 a a b a A a b a a a
2 b b b b B b a b b b
3 a b b a A a a b NA b
III
General
1 a a b a A a a b b b
2 a b a others NA others a a a a
3 NA NA b b A b b a a a
4 c c c c C c c c c c
5 b b b b A b b b b b
6 b b b b B b b b b b
RLD
7 c c a c C c others a a a
8 a a,b c,d b,a a,b b,a b,a a,b a,b a,b,c
9 b b b a A b a c c c
31
10 b b a b A b b b b b
UDS
11 e e,f,g e,f,g e,f NA e,f,g others c,d,e c,d,e c,d,e
12 a a b b A a others b b a
13 c a NA a NA others others a a a
14 b,a a,b c,d b,a a,b a,b a,b a,b b,c a,b
15 a b b a A b a c c c
IV
1 a b NA others NA c c c c b
2 a a a a A a a a a a
3 NA NA NA NA others others a,b,c d,c,b NA a,b,c
4 NA NA NA NA NA others c,d,e d,c,b NA a,b,c
1 a a b a A others b b b b
3 others NA NA a,b NA others NA b,c,d NA b,c,d
VI
1 a a a a A a a b a a
2 a a b a A a a b b a
3 a b b b A b NA a b b
4 a NA a b A b a b b b
32
This is the result of the questionnaire from the survey that the group conducted. It shows
the breakdown of answers from each of the sample. The results were divided into six parts
represented by the Roman numeral and the answers that can be found include; a, b, c and
others/NA. The rows colored with green represents the main questions that were interpreted in the
pie charts while the rows colored with yellow represents the questions whose answers involved
ranking of the choices.
Table 3: Summary of the Questionnaire Results
Summary
I a b c Others/NA
1 7 3
2 5 4 1
3 3 6 1
4 2 7 1
5 2 8
6 7 3
7 10
8 5 4 1
9 8 2
II
1 9 1
2 1 9
3 5 4 1
33
III
General
1 6 4
2 6 1 3
3 4 4 2
4 10
5 1 9
6 10
RLD
7 4 5 1
8 a,b
9 3 4 3
10 2 8
UDS
11 e,f,g
12 5 4 1
13 5 1 4
14 a,b,c
15 4 3 3
16 1 9
IV
1 1 2 4 3
2 10
34
3 a,b,c 7
4 c,d 7
1 4 5 1
2 1 9
3 b,c,d 7
VI
1 9 1
2 7 3
3 3 6 1
4 4 5 1
This table shows the summary of the results of the survey. For the respective numbers, the
table shows a tally of the results based on the choices available. The choices include a, b, c and
others/NA. The row with a green colored numbering represents the row whose results were
represented by a pie chart. The blue colored portions represents the highest results of the choices
while the yellow colored portions represents the summary of results for questions whose answers
involved a ranking.
Planning Aspect
The following chart shows the comparison of Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain
Systems using RCP in terms of Planning/Designing Aspect particularly the system which is easier
to design;
35
Planning/Designing
30%

70%
Figure 1: Planning/Designing Chart
Ten engineers responded on the survey that the group conducted. Based on the results,
70% of the respondents answered that Rectangular Lined Ditch is easier to design compared to
the 30% that answered Underdrain Systems. The answers came by considering various aspects
such as runoff capacity and cross-sectional area.
In terms of Planning Aspect, the Open Channel Ditches in general are the easiest to design
because of the simplicity of it. Since Rectangular Lined Ditch falls in this category, it is
considered that it is easy to plan and design which only involves dimension. In addition to that,
Rectangular Lined Ditch offers a large volume of intake which is a contributor on the designing
process.
On the other hand, the Underdrain Systems are harder to design. The Underdrain system
usually uses RCP or Reinforced Concrete Pipes in which its dimensions are considered in
36
designing of the system. Also, additional data such as elevation and slope are needed to consider.
Aside from the dimensions, there is also a need of designing the Inlets, Catch Basins, Cross Drain
Systems involved. Basically, the designing process involves the design of the dimensions and
other appurtenances or the whole pipe system in general. According to the data acquired,
Underdrain Systems are the good choice for urban setting.
When designing Drainage Systems, aside from AutoCAD, most of the agencies use
program such as HECRAS, Civil 3D and SewerCAD. According to them, they conduct seminars
in the field of design. For designing, the common practice, involves inspection of the site for data
gathering of dimensions and field conditions.
Materials/Resources
Systems using RCP in terms of the simplicity of materials used for constructing the system;
Manufacturing/Materials
13%

48% Underdrain System using RCP
Other/No Anwer
39%
37
Figure 2: Manufacturing/Materials Source chart
48% of the respondents answered that Rectangular Lined Ditch has simpler materials, 38% that
answered Underdrain Systems and 14% answered other concept or they cannot answer at all.
Rectangular Lined Ditch is basically an Open Ditch with reinforcement in order to protect
the trench from collapsing during extreme weather conditions. The Rectangular Lined Ditch is
classified into two namely: Concrete Lined Ditch and Masonry Lined Ditch. Basically the whole
system uses a cast-in-place approach meaning the whole components were constructed on site.
Underdrain Systems uses Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) which is pre-cast concrete pipe
that comes in different sizes. Side drains are usually smaller compared to cross drains. Aside from
the pipes, this system needs to complete the remaining parts of the system such as catch basins,
covers, manholes and other appurtenances. The appurtenances are usually constructed in site thus,
cast in place.
Construction Procedure
Systems using RCP in terms of the simplicity of the construction procedure used of the system;
38
Construction Procedure
40%
60%
Figure 3: Construction Procedure chart
Ten engineers responded to the survey that the group conducted. Based on the results,
60% of the respondents answered that Rectangular Lined Ditch has simpler construction
procedure compared to the 40% that answered Underdrain Systems.
Rectangular Lined Ditch construction procedure involves the following steps; 1)
Plotting/Staking 2) Road Construction 3) Excavation and Construction of side drains 4)
Strengthening 5) Finishing. It should be noted that the road construction must be executed first
because the drainage elevation will depend on the elevation of the road constructed. In general,
Rectangular Lined Ditches have a simple construction procedure because the formworks are easy
to construct and to shape. According to the results of the survey, the Rectangular Lined Ditch uses
10 mm Ф and 12 mm Ф rebars for reinforcements and Class A concrete mix for concrete.
On the contrary, construction of Underdrain Systems includes the following procedures;
1) Excavate 2) Preparation of gradient and bedding 3) Laying out of pipes 4) Backfill 5)

39
Construction of Appurtenances 6) Finishing. Constructing Underdrain Systems have a complex
procedure because aside of the laying out of pipes there is additional construction work in for the
appurtenances such as catch basins, manhole covers and inlets. According to the results of the
survey, the construction of Underdrain Systems uses RCP of 36, 42 and 48 inch Ф in size. The
results also show that Fine Sand Bedding are usually used as the bedding material and the slope
used ranges from 4% to 8%. The system typically uses 10 mm Ф and 12 mm Ф rebars for
reinforcements and Class A concrete mix for concrete.
Time of Construction
Systems using RCP in terms of the shorter time duration of the construction of the system;
Time of Construction
10%
30% Rectangular Lined Ditch
20%
Depending on the dimension
Other/No Answer
40%
Figure 4: Time of Construction chart
40
10% of the respondents answered that Rectangular Lined Ditch has shorter construction time,
20% answered Underdrain Systems, 40% of the respondents answered that it depends on the
specifications of the project and lastly, 30% answered other things such as explanation of other
concepts or they cannot answer the question given.
The time of construction depends on the plan or the coverage of the project. At first, the
group assumed that Rectangular Lined Ditch have relatively faster construction time because of
the simplicity of the construction procedure and Underdrain System using RCP has longer
construction time because of the aside from the laying out of pipes, appurtenances are also
constructed. But it doesn‟t seem to be the case. The nature of the project such as the dimensions
plays an impact on determining which of the systems has shorter construction time. In order to
properly and effectively compare the two systems, the dimension of the cross section as well as
length of the drainage system must be given.
Because of this fact, there is no way to determine the exact timeframe of construction of
both systems. The questionnaire originally asked for that kind of data but almost everyone who
answered the survey cannot answer the question citing that the dimension and specifications must
be given first in order for them to give an answer. Majority of the respondents answer summer as
the ideal time for construction because there are no obstacles such as rain which can negatively
impact the construction of the project.
Manpower Required
Systems using RCP in terms of lesser manpower involved in the construction of the system;
41
Manpower Required
13%
39% Rectangular Lined Ditch

Other Answers
48%
Figure 5: Manpower required chart
38% of the respondents answered that Rectangular Lined Ditch has requires less manpower
required, 48% that answered Underdrain Systems and 14% answered other answers or no answer
at all.
At first glance, the group assumed that Rectangular Lined Ditch uses less manpower and
more equipment because of the fact that ditches can be constructed by excavating trenches. At the
same time, the group assumed that Underdrain Systems uses more manpower because aside from
the laying out of pipes, the construction of appurtenances requires more manpower. But this
assumption is not always the case. Comparing the two systems, Underdrain System uses heavy
equipment in contrast with manpower which is supported with the chart above. Heavy equipment
such as trucks and mobile cranes are used during the construction procedure.
42
The survey originally plans to ask the projected manpower required in order to construct a
specific project. But the samples cannot answer the question citing that the dimensions and the
extent of the project must be determined in order to answer that question.
Maintenance
Systems using RCP in terms of the easier maintenance of the system;
Maintenance
10%

90%
Figure 6: Maintenance chart
Ten engineers responded to the survey that the group conducted. Based on the results,
90% of the respondents answered that Rectangular Lined Ditch is easier to maintain compared to
the 10% that answered Underdrain Systems.
In terms of Maintenance, Rectangular Lined Ditch or Open Channel in general have an
easy maintenance procedure. It involves the removal of the wastes and obstructions by manual
43
means such as the use of shovel of heavy equipment. According to the survey, manual shoveling
is the more commonly used method for maintenance of Rectangular Lined Ditches.
On the other hand, Underdrain Systems or Closed Channel Drains in general are harder to
maintain because it is covered or installed underneath the road. It involves cleaning the systems
through the manholes constructed or using a cleaning apparatus. According to the survey, pump
equipment is the more commonly used method for maintenance of Underdrain System using
RCP.
Analysis of Velocity with the use of different parameters
Comparison of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Hydraulic Radius
Comparison of Hydraulic Radius

1.2
Hydraulic Radius for
y = 0.0717x + 0.2054 Underdrain System
1
R² = 0.9458
Hydraulic RAdius
0.8
Hydraulic Radius for
0.6 Rectangular Line Ditch
0.4
y = 0.0243x + 0.27 Linear (Hydraulic
0.2 R² = 0.5432 Radius for Underdrain
0 System)
0 5 10 15 Linear (Hydraulic
Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area Radius for Rectangular
Line Ditch)
Figure 1: Cross-Sectional Area versus Hydraulic Radius comparison graph
This graph shows the result of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Hydraulic Radius. In this
graph, the coefficient of determination is computed and shown. The coefficient of determination or R
squared is a number that is used to indicate how well the data is fit for a statistical model. According to the
graph shown, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows an R squared of 0.5432 while the Underdrain System
44
shows an R squared of 0.9458. Analyzing the results, the Underdrain System shows a strong correlation
meaning that Hydraulic Radius of the data is highly dependent on the Cross-Sectional Area. On the other
hand, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows a weak correlation meaning the Hydraulic Radius is not highly
dependent on the Cross-Sectional Area and might be highly dependent on other parameters.
Table 4: Cross-sectional Area and Hydraulic Radius Data
Equivalent Cross- sectional Hydraulic Radius for Hydraulic Radius for Rectangular Line
Area Underdrain System Ditch
0.0314159 0.05 0.029558675
0.070685775 0.075 0.061930556
0.1256636 0.1 0.100424254
0.196349375 0.125 0.140984815
0.2827431 0.15 0.180610407
0.384844775 0.175 0.217464569
0.5026544 0.2 0.250661843
0.636171975 0.225 0.279962888
0.7853975 0.25 0.305507635
0.950330975 0.275 0.327625553
1.1309724 0.3 0.34671721
1.327321775 0.325 0.363187752
45
1.5393791 0.35 0.37741367
1.767144375 0.375 0.389729122
2.0106176 0.4 0.400422908
2.269798775 0.425 0.409740736
2.5446879 0.45 0.417889778
2.835284975 0.475 0.425043886
3.14159 0.5 0.431348669
3.463602975 0.525 0.436926074
3.8013239 0.55 0.44187836
4.154752775 0.575 0.446291455
4.5238896 0.6 0.45023776
4.908734375 0.625 0.453778466
5.3092871 0.65 0.45696546
5.725547775 0.675 0.459842891
6.1575164 0.7 0.462448459
6.605192975 0.725 0.464814467
7.0685775 0.75 0.466968694
7.547669975 0.775 0.468935108
46
8.0424704 0.8 0.470734461
8.552978775 0.825 0.47238478
9.0791951 0.85 0.473901774
9.621119375 0.875 0.475299175
10.1787516 0.9 0.476589024
10.75209178 0.925 0.477781909
11.3411399 0.95 0.478887168
11.94589598 0.975 0.479913057
12.56636 1 0.480866898
This is the data that shows the Hydraulic Radius of the Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain
System using RCP obtained from an equivalent Cross-Sectional Area. It shows that the cross sectional area
came from the pipe diameter which was already given. After obtaining the respective Hydraulic Radius for
the two systems, the group obtained the peak result of the two. Analyzing the results, the cross-sectional
area of 0.125 to 2.010, from 0.4 to 1.6 m Ф respectively, shows that the Rectangular Lined Ditch has a
higher Hydraulic Radius thus, the Rectangular Lined Ditch is the effective system to use when the
Hydraulic Radius is the parameter to be considered. On the other hand, the rest of the cross-sectional area
shows that Underdrain system using RCP have the higher Hydraulic Radius thus, it is the effective system
to use when the Hydraulic Radius is to be considered.
47
Comparison of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Chezy Formula using
Bazin’s Constant
Comparison of Velocity based from

Chezy Formula using Bazin's Constant
5
Velocity from
4 y = 0.2387x + 1.6265
Underdrain Pipe
R² = 0.864
Velocity
3 Velocity from
y = 0.1018x + 1.8181
2 Rectangular Line Ditch
R² = 0.4627
1 Linear (Velocity from
0 Underdrain Pipe)
0 5 10 15 Linear (Velocity from
Equivalent Cross-sectional Area Rectangular Line Ditch)
Figure 2: Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Chezy Formula using Bazin’s Constant comparison graph
This graph shows the result of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Chezy
formula using Bazin‟s constant. In this graph, the coefficient of determination is computed and shown. The
coefficient of determination or R squared is a number that is used to indicate how well the data is fit for a
statistical model. According to the graph shown, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows an R squared of
0.4627 while the Underdrain System shows an R squared of 0.864. Analyzing the results, the Underdrain
System shows a strong correlation meaning that Hydraulic Radius of the data is highly dependent on the
Cross-sectional Area. On the other hand, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows a weak correlation meaning
the Velocity is not highly dependent on the Cross-Sectional Area and might be highly dependent on other
parameters.
48
Table 5: Cross-sectional Area and Velocity based from Chezy Formula using Bazin's Constant Data
Equivalent Cross- sectional Velocity from Underdrain Pipe based Velocity from Rectangular
Area from Chezy Formula using Bazin's Line Ditch based from Chezy
Constant Formula using Bazin's
Constant
0.0314159 0.621257797 0.424416663
0.070685775 0.824000506 0.721997226
0.1256636 1.000972311 1.003807183
0.196349375 1.160314797 1.25512968
0.2827431 1.306562138 1.471885003
0.384844775 1.442562572 1.655273191
0.5026544 1.570249784 1.808848975
0.636171975 1.691010413 1.936902022
0.7853975 1.805880231 2.043629708
0.950330975 1.915657834 2.132775116
1.1309724 2.020974761 2.207516875
1.327321775 2.122340923 2.270481735
1.5393791 2.220175226 2.323808057
1.767144375 2.314826911 2.369223484
49
2.0106176 2.40659084 2.408119818
2.269798775 2.495718706 2.441618487
2.5446879 2.582427431 2.470624993
2.835284975 2.666905568 2.495872979
3.14159 2.749318253 2.517959356
3.463602975 2.829811102 2.537372069
3.8013239 2.908513307 2.554511979
4.154752775 2.985540124 2.56971008
4.5238896 3.0609949 2.583241079
4.908734375 3.134970732 2.595334119
5.3092871 3.207551837 2.606181288
5.725547775 3.278814703 2.615944388
6.1575164 3.348829046 2.624760349
6.605192975 3.417658624 2.632745579
7.0685775 3.48536193 2.639999465
7.547669975 3.551992777 2.646607224
8.0424704 3.617600815 2.652642211
8.552978775 3.682231964 2.658167819
50
9.0791951 3.745928796 2.663239029
9.621119375 3.808730872 2.667903702
10.1787516 3.870675027 2.672203636
10.75209178 3.931795631 2.676175458
11.3411399 3.992124811 2.67985136
11.94589598 4.051692655 2.683259725
12.56636 4.110527384 2.686425646
This is the data that shows the Velocities based on Chezy Formula using Bazin‟s constant of the
Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain System using RCP obtained from an equivalent Cross-Sectional
Area. It shows that the cross sectional area came from the pipe diameter. After obtaining the respective
Velocities for the two systems, the group obtained the peak result of the two. Analyzing the results, the
cross-sectional area of 0.125 to 2.010, from 0.4 to 1.6 m Ф respectively, shows that Rectangular Lined
Ditch a higher velocity thus, this system is the effective system to use when the Velocity based on Chezy
Formula using Bazin‟s constant is the parameter to be considered. On the other hand, the rest of the cross-
sectional area shows that Underdrain system using RCP has the higher velocity thus, it is the effective
system to use when the Velocity based on Chezy Formula using Bazin‟s constant is to be considered.
51
Comparison of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Chezy Formula using
Kutter’s Constant
Comparison of Velocity based from Chezy

Formula using Kutter's Constant
5
4.5 y = 0.257x + 1.523
R² = 0.875
4
3.5 Velocity from Underdrain
y = 0.107x + 1.7327 Pipe
3 R² = 0.4745
Velocity
2.5 Velocity from Rectangular

Line Ditch
2
Linear (Velocity from
1.5
Underdrain Pipe)
1
Linear (Velocity from
0.5 Rectangular Line Ditch)
0
0 5 10 15
Equivalent Cross-sectional Area
Figure 3: Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Chezy Formula using Kutter’s Constant comparison graph
This graph shows the result of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Chezy
formula using Kutter‟s constant. In this graph, the coefficient of determination is computed and shown.
The coefficient of determination or R squared is a number that is used to indicate how well the data is fit
for a statistical model. According to the graph shown, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows an R squared of
System shows a strong correlation meaning that the Velocity based from Chezy formula using Kutter‟s
constant of the data is highly dependent on the Cross-sectional Area. On the other hand, the Rectangular
Lined Ditch shows a weak correlation meaning that the Velocity based from Chezy formula using Kutter‟s
constant is not highly dependent on the Cross-Sectional Area and might be highly dependent on other
parameters.
52
Table 6: Cross-sectional Area and Velocity based from Chezy Formula using Kutter's Constant data
Equivalent Cross- sectional Velocity from Underdrain Pipe Velocity from Rectangular Line
Area based from Chezy Formula Ditch based from Chezy Formula
using Kutter's Constant using Kutter's Constant
0.0314159 0.519654965 0.340445613
0.070685775 0.711894496 0.61434281
0.1256636 0.884534218 0.88733086
0.196349375 1.04306863 1.138587467
0.2827431 1.190734251 1.35978481
0.384844775 1.329651124 1.549567988
0.5026544 1.461307003 1.710077299
0.636171975 1.586798093 1.844878088
0.7853975 1.706962122 1.957835783
0.950330975 1.822457748 2.052573754
1.1309724 1.933814793 2.132259644
1.327321775 2.041467504 2.199560634
1.5393791 2.145777422 2.256676254
1.767144375 2.247049596 2.305400284
53
2.0106176 2.345544381 2.347188004
2.269798775 2.44148622 2.383218374
2.5446879 2.535070298 2.414447449
2.835284975 2.626467687 2.441652514
3.14159 2.715829365 2.465467786
3.463602975 2.803289412 2.486412926
3.8013239 2.88896757 2.504915694
4.154752775 2.972971327 2.52132989
4.5238896 3.055397619 2.535949569
4.908734375 3.136334242 2.549020319
5.3092871 3.215861026 2.560748235
5.725547775 3.294050818 2.571307084
6.1575164 3.370970319 2.580844043
6.605192975 3.446680794 2.589484321
7.0685775 3.521238672 2.597334895
7.547669975 3.594696076 2.60448754
8.0424704 3.667101265 2.611021298
8.552978775 3.738499035 2.61700451
54
9.0791951 3.808931055 2.622496475
9.621119375 3.878436165 2.62754883
10.1787516 3.947050646 2.632206689
10.75209178 4.014808445 2.636509597
11.3411399 4.081741387 2.640492322
11.94589598 4.147879351 2.644185525
12.56636 4.213250442 2.64761632
This is the data that shows the Velocities based on Chezy Formula using Kutter‟s constant of the
Ditch has the higher velocity thus, it is the effective system to use when the Velocity based on Chezy
Formula using Kutter‟s constant is the parameter to be considered. On the other hand, the rest of the cross-
sectional area shows that Underdrain system using RCP has a higher velocity thus, it is the effective
system to use when the Velocity based on Chezy Formula using Kutter‟s constant is to be considered.
Comparison of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Manning’s Formula
55
Manning's Formula
5
4 Velocity from
y = 0.2568x + 1.4913
R² = 0.8913 Underdrain Pipe using
Velocity
3
Manning's Formula
2 y = 0.1028x + 1.7046
R² = 0.4842 Velocity from
1
Rectangular Ditch
0 using Manning's
0 5 10 15 Formula
Figure 4: Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Manning’s Formula comparison graph
This graph shows the result of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from
Manning‟s Formula. In this graph, the coefficient of determination is computed and shown. The coefficient
of determination or R squared is a number that is used to indicate how well the data is fit for a statistical
model. According to the graph shown, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows an R squared of 0.4842 while
the Underdrain System shows an R squared of 0.8913. Analyzing the results, the Underdrain System
shows a strong correlation meaning that Velocity based from Manning‟s Formula of the data is highly
dependent on the Cross-sectional Area. On the other hand, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows a weak
correlation meaning that the Velocity based from Manning‟s Formula is not highly dependent on the
Cross-Sectional Area and might be highly dependent on other parameters.
Table 7: Cross-sectional Area and Velocity using Manning's Formula data
Equivalent Cross- Velocity from Underdrain Pipe using Velocity from Rectangular Ditch using
sectional Area Manning's Formula Manning's Formula
0.0314159 0.571826061 0.402785584
56
0.070685775 0.749304114 0.659508801
0.1256636 0.907717291 0.910282828
0.196349375 1.053312611 1.141297414
0.2827431 1.189446139 1.346208896
0.384844775 1.318183813 1.523618652
0.5026544 1.440911383 1.674979236
0.636171975 1.558615367 1.803090749
0.7853975 1.672029546 1.91116707
0.950330975 1.781718424 2.002330609
1.1309724 1.888128053 2.079381653
1.327321775 1.99161864 2.144723964
1.5393791 2.092486371 2.200369885
1.767144375 2.190978522 2.247980371
2.0106176 2.287304245 2.288916159
2.269798775 2.381642446 2.324288519
2.5446879 2.474147673 2.355004675
2.835284975 2.564954594 2.381806398
3.14159 2.65418146 2.405301839
57
3.463602975 2.741932824 2.425991362
3.8013239 2.828301701 2.444288309
4.154752775 2.913371304 2.460535617
4.5238896 2.997216458 2.475019083
4.908734375 3.079904757 2.487977968
5.3092871 3.161497525 2.49961348
5.725547775 3.242050611 2.510095584
6.1575164 3.321615066 2.519568477
6.605192975 3.400237709 2.528155017
7.0685775 3.477961611 2.535960311
7.547669975 3.554826508 2.543074641
8.0424704 3.630869164 2.549575851
8.552978775 3.706123672 2.555531309
9.0791951 3.780621724 2.560999525
9.621119375 3.85439285 2.566031492
10.1787516 3.927464619 2.570671794
10.75209178 3.999862819 2.574959539
11.3411399 4.071611621 2.578929134
58
11.94589598 4.142733716 2.582610937
12.56636 4.213250442 2.586031812
This is the data that shows the Velocities based on Manning‟s Formula of the Rectangular Lined
Ditch and Underdrain System using RCP obtained from an equivalent Cross-Sectional Area. It shows that
the cross sectional area came from the pipe diameter. After obtaining the respective Velocities for the two
systems, the group obtained the peak result of the two. Analyzing the results, the cross-sectional area of
0.125 to 2.010, from 0.4 to 1.6 m Ф respectively, shows that Rectangular Lined Ditch has the higher
velocity thus, it is the effective system to use when the Velocity based on Manning‟s Formula is the
parameter to be considered. On the other hand, the rest of the cross-sectional area shows that Underdrain
system using RCP has the higher velocity thus, it is the effective system to use when the Velocity based
Manning‟s Formula is to be considered.
59
Comparison of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Crimp and
Burge’s Formula

Crimp and Burge's Formula
6
5 y = 0.2787x + 1.6182
4 Underdrain using
Velocity
3 Crimp and Burge's

Formula
2 y = 0.1116x + 1.8497
1 Rectangular Ditch
0 using Crimp and
0 5 10 15 Burge's Formula
Figure 5: Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Crimp and Burge’s Formula comparison graph
This graph shows the result of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Crimp
and Burge‟s Formula. In this graph, the coefficient of determination is computed and shown. The
coefficient of determination or R squared is a number that is used to indicate how well the data is fit for a
statistical model. According to the graph shown, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows an R squared of
System shows a strong correlation meaning that the Velocity based from Crimp and Burge‟s Formula of
the data is highly dependent on the Cross-sectional Area. On the other hand, the Rectangular Lined Ditch
shows a weak correlation meaning that the Velocity based from Crimp and Burge‟s Formula is not highly
dependent on the Cross-Sectional Area and might be highly dependent on other parameters.
60
Table 8: Cross-sectional Area and Velocity using Crimp and Burge's Formula data
Equivalent Cross- Velocity from Underdrain using Velocity from Rectangular Ditch using
sectional Area Crimp and Burge's Formula Crimp and Burge's Formula
0.0314159 0.620494177 0.437066666
0.070685775 0.813077388 0.715639595
0.1256636 0.98497311 0.987756999
0.196349375 1.142960047 1.238433237
0.2827431 1.2906799 1.460784735
0.384844775 1.430374437 1.653293835
0.5026544 1.563547351 1.817536719
0.636171975 1.691269121 1.956551802
0.7853975 1.814335981 2.073826499
0.950330975 1.933360479 2.172748967
1.1309724 2.048826632 2.256357826
1.327321775 2.161125303 2.327261421
1.5393791 2.270577886 2.387643366
1.767144375 2.377452704 2.43930598
2.0106176 2.481976709 2.483725813
61
2.269798775 2.584344034 2.522108714
2.5446879 2.684722382 2.555439123
2.835284975 2.78325788 2.584521941
3.14159 2.880078844 2.610017079
3.463602975 2.975298727 2.632467487
3.8013239 3.069018459 2.652321687
4.154752775 3.161328335 2.669951803
4.5238896 3.25230955 2.685667957
4.908734375 3.342035451 2.699729772
5.3092871 3.430572579 2.712355584
5.725547775 3.517981539 2.723729819
6.1575164 3.604317725 2.73400895
6.605192975 3.68963194 2.74332629
7.0685775 3.773970923 2.751795893
7.547669975 3.857377793 2.759515724
8.0424704 3.939892439 2.766570252
8.552978775 4.021551857 2.773032578
9.0791951 4.102390439 2.778966195
62
9.621119375 4.182440226 2.784426432
10.1787516 4.261731133 2.78946167
10.75209178 4.340291144 2.794114345
11.3411399 4.418146486 2.798421792
11.94589598 4.495321782 2.802416954
12.56636 4.571840187 2.806128979
This is the data that shows the Velocities based from Crimp and Burge‟s Formula of the
Ditch has the higher velocity thus, it is the effective system to use when the Velocity based from Crimp
and Burge‟s Formula is the parameter to be considered. On the other hand, the rest of the cross-sectional
area shows that Underdrain system using RCP has the higher velocity thus, it is the effective system to use
when the Velocity based from Crimp and Burge‟s Formula is to be considered.
Dimensions of Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain Systems
Table 9: Cross-sectional Area and the respective dimensions data
Equivalent Cross- Diameter for Underdrain Height for Rectangular Lined Ditch (Considering that
sectional Area Pipe base is 1 m constant)
0.0314159 0.2 0.0314159
63
0.070685775 0.3 0.070685775
0.1256636 0.4 0.1256636
0.196349375 0.5 0.196349375
0.2827431 0.6 0.2827431
0.384844775 0.7 0.384844775
0.5026544 0.8 0.5026544
0.636171975 0.9 0.636171975
0.7853975 1 0.7853975
0.950330975 1.1 0.950330975
1.1309724 1.2 1.1309724
1.327321775 1.3 1.327321775
1.5393791 1.4 1.5393791
1.767144375 1.5 1.767144375
2.0106176 1.6 2.0106176
2.269798775 1.7 2.269798775
2.5446879 1.8 2.5446879
2.835284975 1.9 2.835284975
3.14159 2 3.14159
64
3.463602975 2.1 3.463602975
3.8013239 2.2 3.8013239
4.154752775 2.3 4.154752775
4.5238896 2.4 4.5238896
4.908734375 2.5 4.908734375
5.3092871 2.6 5.3092871
5.725547775 2.7 5.725547775
6.1575164 2.8 6.1575164
6.605192975 2.9 6.605192975
7.0685775 3 7.0685775
7.547669975 3.1 7.547669975
8.0424704 3.2 8.0424704
8.552978775 3.3 8.552978775
9.0791951 3.4 9.0791951
9.621119375 3.5 9.621119375
10.1787516 3.6 10.1787516
10.75209178 3.7 10.75209178
11.3411399 3.8 11.3411399
65
11.94589598 3.9 11.94589598
12.56636 4 12.56636
This is the data that shows the respective cross-sectional area along with the respective dimension
for Underdrain System using RCP and Rectangular Lined Ditch. For Underdrain systems, the diameter is
shown while the height is shown for Rectangular Lined Ditch. The diameter of Underdrain system is the
basis for the other data. The diameter given are the usual sizes used in the industry for designing storm
drainages. The Equivalent Cross-sectional Area was obtained from the said diameter list while the Height
of the Rectangular Lined Ditch was obtained from the computed Cross-Sectional Area. The group obtained
the peak dimension between the two sets meaning, the peak dimension must be used in designing the
respective system.
Comparison of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Velocity based from Crimp and Burge’s
Formula
Comparison of Optimum Velocity
6
y = 0.2781x + 1.6229
5
R² = 0.8923 Peak Velocity of
PEak Velocity
4 Rectangular Line Ditch
3 Peak Veloocity of
Underdrain Pipe
2 y = 0.1112x + 1.8528
Linear (Peak Velocity of
R² = 0.4848
1 Rectangular Line Ditch)
0 Linear (Peak Veloocity of

0 5 10 15 Underdrain Pipe)
Cross-sectional Area
Figure 6: Cross-sectional Area versus Peak Velocity comparison graph
66
This graph shows the result of Equivalent Cross-Sectional Area versus Peak Velocity obtained
from the different methods discussed earlier. The group obtained the peak velocity of Rectangular Lined
Ditch from the given procedure and the same method was done to obtain the Peak Velocity of the
Underdrain System using RCP. The two velocities were compared and then the peak velocity was
obtained. In this graph, the coefficient of determination is computed and shown. The coefficient of
determination or R squared is a number that is used to indicate how well the data is fit for a statistical
model. According to the graph shown, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows an R squared of 0.4848 while
the Underdrain System shows an R squared of 0.8923. Analyzing the results, the Underdrain System
shows a strong correlation meaning that the Peak of the data is highly dependent on the Cross-sectional
Area. On the other hand, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows a weak correlation meaning that the Peak
Velocity is not highly dependent on the Cross-Sectional Area and might be highly dependent on other
parameters.
Table 10: Summary of Velocities for Rectangular Lined Ditch
Equivalent Equivalent height Velocity for Velocity for Velocity Velocity from
Cross- for Rectangular Chezy from Chezy from From Crimp and
sectional Line Ditch (base is kutter's Bazin's Manning's Burge's
Area 1m constant) Constant Constant Formula Formula
0.0314159 0.0314159 0.340445613 0.424416663 0.402786 0.437067
0.070685775 0.070685775 0.61434281 0.721997226 0.659509 0.71564
0.1256636 0.1256636 0.88733086 1.003807183 0.910283 0.987757
0.196349375 0.196349375 1.138587467 1.25512968 1.141297 1.238433
0.2827431 0.2827431 1.35978481 1.471885003 1.346209 1.460785
67
0.384844775 0.384844775 1.549567988 1.655273191 1.523619 1.653294
0.5026544 0.5026544 1.710077299 1.808848975 1.674979 1.817537
0.636171975 0.636171975 1.844878088 1.936902022 1.803091 1.956552
0.7853975 0.7853975 1.957835783 2.043629708 1.911167 2.073826
0.950330975 0.950330975 2.052573754 2.132775116 2.002331 2.172749
1.1309724 1.1309724 2.132259644 2.207516875 2.079382 2.256358
1.327321775 1.327321775 2.199560634 2.270481735 2.144724 2.327261
1.5393791 1.5393791 2.256676254 2.323808057 2.20037 2.387643
1.767144375 1.767144375 2.305400284 2.369223484 2.24798 2.439306
2.0106176 2.0106176 2.347188004 2.408119818 2.288916 2.483726
2.269798775 2.269798775 2.383218374 2.441618487 2.324289 2.522109
2.5446879 2.5446879 2.414447449 2.470624993 2.355005 2.555439
2.835284975 2.835284975 2.441652514 2.495872979 2.381806 2.584522
3.14159 3.14159 2.465467786 2.517959356 2.405302 2.610017
3.463602975 3.463602975 2.486412926 2.537372069 2.425991 2.632467
3.8013239 3.8013239 2.504915694 2.554511979 2.444288 2.652322
4.154752775 4.154752775 2.52132989 2.56971008 2.460536 2.669952
4.5238896 4.5238896 2.535949569 2.583241079 2.475019 2.685668
68
4.908734375 4.908734375 2.549020319 2.595334119 2.487978 2.69973
5.3092871 5.3092871 2.560748235 2.606181288 2.499613 2.712356
5.725547775 5.725547775 2.571307084 2.615944388 2.510096 2.72373
6.1575164 6.1575164 2.580844043 2.624760349 2.519568 2.734009
6.605192975 6.605192975 2.589484321 2.632745579 2.528155 2.743326
7.0685775 7.0685775 2.597334895 2.639999465 2.53596 2.751796
7.547669975 7.547669975 2.60448754 2.646607224 2.543075 2.759516
8.0424704 8.0424704 2.611021298 2.652642211 2.549576 2.76657
8.552978775 8.552978775 2.61700451 2.658167819 2.555531 2.773033
9.0791951 9.0791951 2.622496475 2.663239029 2.561 2.778966
9.621119375 9.621119375 2.62754883 2.667903702 2.566031 2.784426
10.1787516 10.1787516 2.632206689 2.672203636 2.570672 2.789462
10.75209178 10.75209178 2.636509597 2.676175458 2.57496 2.794114
11.3411399 11.3411399 2.640492322 2.67985136 2.578929 2.798422
11.94589598 11.94589598 2.644185525 2.683259725 2.582611 2.802417
12.56636 12.56636 2.64761632 2.686425646 2.586032 2.806129
69
Table 11: Summary of Velocities for Underdrain System using RCP
Diamete Velocity for Chezy from Velocity for Chezy Velocity From Velocity from
r (m) kutter's Constant from Bazin's Constant Mannings Crimp and
Bruge's Formula
0.1 0.296515146 0.374536416 0.360227846 0.390886838
0.2 0.519654965 0.621257797 0.571826061 0.620494177
0.3 0.711894496 0.824000506 0.749304114 0.813077388
0.4 0.884534218 1.000972311 0.907717291 0.98497311
0.5 1.04306863 1.160314797 1.053312611 1.142960047
0.6 1.190734251 1.306562138 1.189446139 1.2906799
0.7 1.329651124 1.442562572 1.318183813 1.430374437
0.8 1.461307003 1.570249784 1.440911383 1.563547351
0.9 1.586798093 1.691010413 1.558615367 1.691269121
1 1.706962122 1.805880231 1.672029546 1.814335981
1.1 1.822457748 1.915657834 1.781718424 1.933360479
1.2 1.933814793 2.020974761 1.888128053 2.048826632
1.3 2.041467504 2.122340923 1.99161864 2.161125303
1.4 2.145777422 2.220175226 2.092486371 2.270577886
70
1.5 2.247049596 2.314826911 2.190978522 2.377452704
1.6 2.345544381 2.40659084 2.287304245 2.481976709
1.7 2.44148622 2.495718706 2.381642446 2.584344034
1.8 2.535070298 2.582427431 2.474147673 2.684722382
1.9 2.626467687 2.666905568 2.564954594 2.78325788
2 2.715829365 2.749318253 2.65418146 2.880078844
2.1 2.803289412 2.829811102 2.741932824 2.975298727
2.2 2.88896757 2.908513307 2.828301701 3.069018459
2.3 2.972971327 2.985540124 2.913371304 3.161328335
2.4 3.055397619 3.0609949 2.997216458 3.25230955
2.5 3.136334242 3.134970732 3.079904757 3.342035451
2.6 3.215861026 3.207551837 3.161497525 3.430572579
2.7 3.294050818 3.278814703 3.242050611 3.517981539
2.8 3.370970319 3.348829046 3.321615066 3.604317725
2.9 3.446680794 3.417658624 3.400237709 3.68963194
3 3.521238672 3.48536193 3.477961611 3.773970923
3.1 3.594696076 3.551992777 3.554826508 3.857377793
3.2 3.667101265 3.617600815 3.630869164 3.939892439
71
3.3 3.738499035 3.682231964 3.706123672 4.021551857
3.4 3.808931055 3.745928796 3.780621724 4.102390439
3.5 3.878436165 3.808730872 3.85439285 4.182440226
3.6 3.947050646 3.870675027 3.927464619 4.261731133
3.7 4.014808445 3.931795631 3.999862819 4.340291144
3.8 4.081741387 3.992124811 4.071611621 4.418146486
3.9 4.147879351 4.051692655 4.142733716 4.495321782
4 4.213250442 4.110527384 4.213250442 4.571840187
Table 12: Cross-sectional Area and Peak Velocity data
Peak Velocity of Rectangular Lined
Equivalent Area Ditch Peak Velocity of Underdrain Pipe
0.0314159 0.437066666 0.621257797
0.070685775 0.721997226 0.824000506
0.1256636 1.003807183 1.000972311
0.196349375 1.25512968 1.160314797
0.2827431 1.471885003 1.306562138
0.384844775 1.655273191 1.442562572
0.5026544 1.817536719 1.570249784
0.636171975 1.956551802 1.691269121
0.7853975 2.073826499 1.814335981
72
0.950330975 2.172748967 1.933360479
1.1309724 2.256357826 2.048826632
1.327321775 2.327261421 2.161125303
1.5393791 2.387643366 2.270577886
1.767144375 2.43930598 2.377452704
2.0106176 2.483725813 2.481976709
2.269798775 2.522108714 2.584344034
2.5446879 2.555439123 2.684722382
2.835284975 2.584521941 2.78325788
3.14159 2.610017079 2.880078844
3.463602975 2.632467487 2.975298727
3.8013239 2.652321687 3.069018459
4.154752775 2.669951803 3.161328335
4.5238896 2.685667957 3.25230955
4.908734375 2.699729772 3.342035451
5.3092871 2.712355584 3.430572579
5.725547775 2.723729819 3.517981539
6.1575164 2.73400895 3.604317725
6.605192975 2.74332629 3.68963194
7.0685775 2.751795893 3.773970923
7.547669975 2.759515724 3.857377793
8.0424704 2.766570252 3.939892439
8.552978775 2.773032578 4.021551857
9.0791951 2.778966195 4.102390439
9.621119375 2.784426432 4.182440226
73
10.1787516 2.78946167 4.261731133
10.75209178 2.794114345 4.340291144
11.3411399 2.798421792 4.418146486
11.94589598 2.802416954 4.495321782
12.56636 2.806128979 4.571840187
This table is shows the Peak Velocity of the Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain System
using RCP obtained from the respective Cross-sectional Area. As explained earlier, the Peak Velocity were
obtained using the different methods discussed earlier namely; 1) Chezy Formula using Bazin‟s constant 2)
Chezy Formula using Kutter‟s constant 3) Manning‟s Formula 4) Crimp and Burge‟s Formula. There is a
different set for Rectangular Lined Ditch and there is a different set for Underdrain System using RCP. As
shown in the data, the Equivalent Area value of 0.125 to 2.010 shows that Rectangular Lined Ditch is the
effective system to be used when the peak velocity is to be considered. Meanwhile, the rest of the data
shows that Underdrain System is the best fit when the peak velocity is to be considered.
74
Cost Analysis
This is the component of the study in which the Rectangular Lined Ditch and the Underdrain
System using RCP will be compared with the method of Cost Analysis. The data of Unit Cost
came from the DPWH Bureau of Design NCR Office.
Cost Analysis of Rectangular Line Ditch

and Underdrain Pipe
20000
Direct Cost from differetnt factors
18000 y = 1372.8x + 1199.6

16000 R² = 0.9996
14000 Underdrain Pipe
12000
10000 Rectanguar Iine Ditch
8000
6000 y = 747.78x + 2570.2 Linear (Underdrain Pipe)
4000 R² = 0.9458
2000 Linear (Rectanguar Iine
0 Ditch)
0 5 10 15
Figure 7: Cost Analysis comparison graph
This graph shows the Cost Analysis of Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain System
using RCP by showing the result of the Equivalent Cross-sectional Area versus Direct Cost. In
this graph, the coefficient of determination is computed and shown. The coefficient of
determination or R squared is a number that is used to indicate how well the data is fit for a
statistical model. In order for the R squared to have a “strong” correlation, the value must be
greater than 0.8 while the “weak” correlation shows a value of less than 0.5.
75
According to the graph shown, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows an R squared of 0.9996
while the Underdrain System shows an R squared of 0.9458. Analyzing the results, both system
has a strong correlation for having values nearing 1. Thus, it obviously states that as the
dimensions increase, the cost increases as well.
Table 13: Cost Comparison Data
Underdrain System Using RCP Rectangular Lined Ditch (in

Equivalent Area
(in Philippine Peso) Philippine Peso)
0.0314159 948.7705377 1342.890302
0.070685775 1209.581407 1394.827775
0.1256636 1470.392276 1467.540237
0.196349375 1731.203145 1561.027687
0.2827431 1992.014014 1675.290127
0.384844775 2252.824883 1810.327557
0.5026544 2513.635753 1966.139975
0.636171975 2774.446622 2142.727382
0.7853975 3035.257491 2340.089779
0.950330975 3296.06836 2558.227164
1.1309724 3556.879229 2797.139539
1.327321775 3817.690098 3056.826902
1.5393791 4078.500967 3337.289255
1.767144375 4339.311837 3638.526597
2.0106176 4600.122706 3960.538928
76
2.269798775 4860.933575 4303.326248
2.5446879 5121.744444 4666.888557
2.835284975 5382.555313 5051.225855
3.14159 5643.366182 5456.338143
3.463602975 5904.177051 5882.225419
3.8013239 6164.987921 6328.887685
4.154752775 6425.79879 6796.324939
4.5238896 6686.609659 7284.537183
4.908734375 6947.420528 7793.524416
5.3092871 7208.231397 8323.286638
5.725547775 7469.042266 8873.823849
6.1575164 7729.853135 9463.267762
6.605192975 7990.664005 10106.887
7.0685775 8251.474874 10773.08937
7.547669975 8512.285743 11461.87487
8.0424704 8773.096612 12173.24351
8.552978775 9033.907481 12907.19527
9.0791951 9294.71835 13663.73017
9.621119375 9555.529219 14442.8482
10.1787516 9816.340089 15244.54935
10.75209178 10077.15096 16068.83364
11.3411399 10337.96183 16915.70106
11.94589598 10598.7727 17785.15162
77
12.56636 10859.58357 18677.1853
This table shows the Comparison of Cost between the Rectangular Lined Ditch and
Underdrain System using RCP. The equivalent area starting from 0.125 to 3.463 shows that
Rectangular Lined Ditch has the lesser cost between the two systems, thus Rectangular Lined
Ditch is the best system to be used. On the other hand, the rest of the data shows that the
Underdrain System using RCP has the lesser cost, thus, that system is best to use for that range.
78
In order to further the research, the group has conducted interviews from different, yet
relevant divisions from the Department of Public Works and Highways‟ main office. From the
Bureau of Design- Water Projects Division, the researchers were able to interview 2 engineers:
Engr. Crissa Rica V. Espiritu and Engr. Matthew G. Velasco. From the Bureau of Design –
Highways Division: Engr. Edwin G.Azurin. According to the results of the interview, it is easier
to design a Rectangular Lined Ditch, however, it must be noted that Underdrain Systems using
RCP are more efficient. Each type of network has their own set of advantages.
Advantages Disadvantages
Less Transportation Cost – Easy Maintenance Requires more time to construct
Construction errors and mistakes can easily be May meet problems due to acquisition of right
detected of way
There are a variety of bed linings that can be
used
Underdrain Systems using RCP
Dimensions are readily available in the market Leakages are difficult to manage
Easy to install High maintenance cost
Less time to install Joining RCP‟s take exert effort
Quantities on site may not be the same as per
plan since it is concealed underneath
79
The planning process involves identifying the topography of the area, estimating the amount of
flow, and accounting for the future development in the area. A hydrologic analysis which consists
of (a) delineation of catchment area and (b) use of either Rational Method or Unit Hydrograph
Method is also used. Finally, a hydraulic analysis is performed by use of either Manning‟s
formula or Chezy‟s equation. Unknown topography and a mountainous terrain are factors
considered to make the planning process more challenging. More difficulties arise as one
considers financial matters, availability of materials, political intervention, site conditions and
acquisition of right- of-way. The DPWH uses what they call the “Blue Book” which contains
planning and designing flood control structure and the Design Guide, Criteria Standards Vol II.
Underdrain Systems using RCP usually uses pre-cast concrete and the Rectangular Lined Ditch
uses the conventional cast-in-place concrete. Again, the standards used for these materials can be
found in the Blue Book. In terms of construction, it is easier to construct a Rectangular Line Ditch
because it only involves an excavation, and from there one can start the construction of the actual
ditch. Factors that make the construction coincide with those in factors considered in planning:
irregular topography, and the location of the site. Other factors to be considered are the
availability of the materials going to be used in construction, and the existing pipelines (e.g. gas,
sewer and water supply) .
Rectangular Line Ditches commonly use 10mm Φ bars for rebars, class A concrete mix, a
concrete mixer, a backhoe, a rebar cutter, and a plate compactor. However, it must be noted that
the diameter for the rebars vary depending on the structural capacity of the ditch. Underdrain
Systems using RCP, on the other hand, commonly uses 0.60 m, 0. 90m, 1.12m and 1.50m Φ
Reinforced Concrete Pipe diameter and 10mm Φ, 12mm Φ and 18mm Φ rebar dimensions. It
utilizes a concrete mixer and a plate compactor, and uses early strength concrete. A Rectangular
80
Lined Ditch can be constructed in 5 days per linear meter while the RCP can be constructed in 10
days per linear meter.
In terms of manpower, the Rectangular Lined Ditch uses less manpower as it has lesser
excavation works. The two systems rely heavily on equipment. When asked to give an estimate
number of manpower required for the two systems, it appears that the Lined Ditch uses at least 4
laborers/ linear meter and the RCP uses 7 laborers/linear meter.
As for the maintenance of the systems, the Lined Ditch has an advantage because of its
accessibility. Drainage networks are usually maintained through de-clogging. One factor to be
considered when maintaining drainage networks is where to put all the silts and waste.
Finally, from the interviews conducted, most engineers say that the Lined Ditch is more
applicable for rural settings and the RCP for urban settings. As Niog, Bacoor, Cavite is seen to be
heavily urbanized in the future, the researches therefore consider the RCP fitting for it.
81
Chapter 4
CONCLUSION
For this study, „Optimization of Roadside Drainage Systems: A Comparative Analysis of
Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain System using RCP‟, the researchers have attempted to
explore the question: “Are open channels better than closed conduits?” In search of a sound
answer that is backed by meticulous research, the group has explored various avenues in
determination of proper and relevant parameters. In view of the objective of this research, this
was to determine the most efficient drainage network between Rectangular Lined Ditch (for open)
and Underdrain Systems using RCP (for closed) with flood mitigation in mind. The parameters
used included the velocity, planning, and the unit cost for every possible item and equipment
needed during construction, the ease of construction, the time required for completion, manpower
required and the applicability of the network due to the geography of the area in question. In this
study, the researchers have considered Niog Road in Bacoor City, Cavite. As time goes by and the
economy booms, Cavite is seen to be heavily urbanized in the coming years, what with its land
value increasing, land use and space is becoming more and more crucial. The aforementioned
issue was also addressed in this study.
In order to achieve the required results for this study, the group has conducted surveys and
interviews with various departments in both private and public sectors such as the Department of
Public Works and Highways and Maynilad Water Services Incorporated. Furthermore, the
researchers did a correlation of different relevant parameters and plotted them in order to
represent the data better. Finally, this research has also obtained unit costs from different agencies
to better compare the two drainage networks.
82
From the survey and interview conducted, the following data have been concluded: In terms of
planning, it appears that the Rectangular Lined Ditch is more advantageous due to its simplicity
and because it uses lesser land area than the Underdrain System. However, rhe Underdrain
System using RCP has more runoff capacity and its cross sectional dimensions are more suitable
and advantageous. Also, when it comes to the applicability depending on the geography and land
use, it seems that Underdrain Systems using RCP are more beneficial especially for urban area.
In designing drainage systems, most of the respondents use company and agency standards as
their common practice when it comes to the standards. They inspect the site for data gathering for
the dimensions and the field conditions. During the designing process most respondents use
AutoCAD as their software. In addition, companies and agencies provide seminars and
workshops on designing roadside drainages.
For the resources and manufacturing of materials, Rectangular Line Ditches uses simpler
materials through conventional cast-in-place components while the Underdrain System using
RCP use pre-cast components.
On construction and installation procedures, generally, Rectangular Lined Ditches have simpler
construction methodology. However, it must be noted that despite the ease in procedure, the
dimension still matters when it comes to the time needed to complete the construction. As for the
manpower required, it can be concluded that construction needs 20-60 people depending on the
scale of project. Finally, when it comes to maintaining these drainage networks, it appears that the
Rectangular Lined Ditches are much easier to preserve.
83
On to the results from the correlation of various parameters and the usage of different empirical
formulas, it can be ascertained that for the cross-sectional area of 0.125 to 2.010 shows that
Rectangular Lined Ditch is the effective system to use. On the other hand, the rest of the cross-
sectional area shows that Underdrain system using RCP is the effective system to use. The results
are the same for all the comparisons and correlations made. Finally, The equivalent area starting
from 0.125 to 3.463 shows that Rectangular Lined Ditch has the lesser cost between the two
systems, thus Rectangular Lined Ditch is the best system to be used. On the other hand, the rest of
data shows that the Underdrain System using RCP has the lesser cost, thus, that system is best to
use for that range.
84
Chapter 5
RECOMMENDATION
In the pursuit of having compared two different types of channels, open channels and closed
conduit in terms of various formulas for flow, diameter and cost, the group has arrived to a
conclusion. Rectangular Lined Ditch is better when one compares and contrasts a number of
parameters to come up with an optimized option. It also recommended exploring other
parameters, such as rainfall intensity using various methodologies and considering a certain
amount of flow. The researchers advocate for the exploration of a different type of open channel
and closed conduit. One example for the open channel would be a trapezoidal line ditch which is
rarely utilized due to its level of difficulty when to it comes to design and construction. For the
Closed Conduit, a line ditch with cover can be considered as well as it is accessible. However,
one must consider the applicability, which depends on the location (urban or rural). Finally, a
different angle on the determination of results might be viewed when the concepts are applied
using experimentation.
85
REFERENCES
Abdellatif, Atherton, Alkhaddar & Osman (2013). Linking Climate Change to Water Sector: A
Case Study of Urban Drainage System. Retrieved from http://www.climate-impacts-
2013.org/files/cwi_abdellatif.pdf
A. König, J. J. Linde, O. Mark, & G. Svensson, (2008). Analyses and Adaptation of Climate
Change Impacts on Urban Drainage Systems. 11th International Conference on Urban
Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008
B. Clarke, D. M. Hultstrand & T.W. Parzybok, (2011). Average Recurrence Interval of
Extreme Rainfall in Real-time. Retrieved from http://www.earthzine.org/2011/04/19/average-
recurrence-interval-of-extreme-rainfall-in-real-time/
Blendermann (1979). Controlled Storm Water Drainage. 200 Madison Avenue New York:
Industrial Press Inc.
T. Daniell & G. Tabios III (2008). Asian Pacific FRIEND Rainfall Intensity Duration
Frequency (IDF) Analysis for the Asia Pacific Region. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001802/180223E.pdf
Cimorelli et al (2013). Optimal Design of Rural Drainage Networks. J. Irrig. Drain
Eng., 139(2), 137–144. Retrieved from http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-
4774.0000526
86
Environment Solutions (2014). Complete Confidence in One Solution Unmatched Protection
Unparalleled Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.solterraph.com/Environment%20Solutions%20Brochure.pdf
Grigg, Hiller & Riordan (1978). Development of a Drainage and Flood Control Management
Program for Urbanizing Communities-Part II. Retrieved from
http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/publications/cr/86.pdf
J. Marsalek & W. E. Watt (1984). Design storms for urban drainage design. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, 1984, 11(3): 574-584, 10.1139/l84-075. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/l84-075
K. Berggren (2008). Indicators for urban drainage system-assessment of climate change
impacts. 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008
R.S.V Teegavarapu (2012). Floods in a Changing Climate: Extreme Precipitation. Retrieved
from
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=KJa6tEGMzwQC&pg=PA3&dq=floods+rainfall&hl=en&s
a=X&ei=AtkOU4jHAoqjigedsYDwAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=floods%20rainf
all&f=false
87
S. Duchesne & A. Mailhot, (2010). Design Criteria of Urban Drainage Infrastructures under
Climate Change. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 136(2), 201–208.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Condition Assessment of Collection
Systems. Science BRIEF. Retrieved from http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/60000GYY.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Condition Assessment of Collection
88
APPENDICES
89
APPENDIX A
DPWH GENERAL NOTES AND UNIT COST
90
GENERAL NOTES
1. STANDARD SPECIFICATION
All works shall comply with DPWH standard specification for highways, bridges, and airports
revised 2013 special provision and supplemental specifications pertaining to this project.
Conditions of contract (Int‟l) for works of civil engineers construction, 2nd Edition, prepared by
F.I.D.I.C. shall also govern.
2. DIMENSIONS
Unless otherwise specified, all dimensions which include stationing, distances between control
points and elevations are measured in meters.
3. ALIGNMENT AND GRADE
No alteration or change in alignment and grade shall be made unless existing field condition so
warrant and only upon written order by the engineers and approved by the proper authority
concerned.
4. REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS

a. All works shall comply with clause 39 “Requirements and Conditions of Contracts”,
Volume-1 of the standard specifications for public works and highways, 2004.
b. Portion of existing utilities, such as water mains, irrigation channels, telephone post and
trunk line etc., that may cause obstructions to the construction of this project shall be
relocated by the entity or owner concerned, extreme precaution must be exercised.
Damaged thereof shall be the account of the contractor.
5. SUB-GRADE, SUB-BASE AND BASE
a. Unsuitable sub – grade material shall be excavated below the ground surface to the
required width and depth, the area to be excavated shall be backfilled with approved
material.
b. No embankment materials shall be placed until the foundation is stable.
6. CONCRETE AND CONCRETE PAVEMENT
a. All concrete to be used in this project shall be class “A” unless otherwise indicated.
b. No admixtures or additives will be allowed for all concrete works without prior approval
from the secretary of department of public works and highways or his duly representative.
c. Traffic shall be required to reduce speed when passing the vicinity of the newly laid
concrete pavement until such time that it has obtained the fourteen (14) days required
strength.
7. DRAINAGE
a. Exact location, slope, out falls and invert elevations of drainage structures shall be
checked in the field by the engineer, minor adjustment may be made by the approval of the
engineer to suit actual field condition.
b. Existing drainage structure, or part thereof removed by the contractor that are still
serviceable shall be unread over to the government and shall be deposited at a place within
91
the project site designated by the engineer without any extra compensation, extreme
precaution shall be exercised by the contractor not to damage these materials during the
removal and handling.
8. CONSTRUCTION STAKES
a. The contractor will be responsible for the true and proper setting-out of the work or
improvement and for correctness of position, level, slope and continuous profile grade in
road work. He will set construction stakes, establishing lines, slope and continuous profile
work and other line and bench mark for bridge work, grade in road protective and
necessary structures and appurtenances culvert work, as are deemed necessary from the
reference date to be furnished by the engineer in writing.
b. The checking of construction stakes by the engineer shall not in any way relieve the
contractor of his responsibility for the correctness thereof and the contractor shall carefully
protect and preserve all bench mark, pegs and other things used in setting out the work.
c. In the case of “change or change in condition” which involves any changes in stake out,
the contractor shall cooperate with the engineer and facilitate the prompt re-establishment
of the field for the alternative or adjusted work.
9. STANDARD DRAWING
The necessary drawing contained in the DPWH Standard Drawing for road shall be utilized for the
project unless otherwise a more detailed structural drawing.
10. QUANTITY
Quantity of various work items involved are subject to decrease or increase depending on the
actual field condition.
92
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENT AND COST
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Unit Description
4 Dumptruck
1 Payloader (1.50 cu. m.)
3 Backhoe (0.80 cu. m.)
1 Backhoe w/ Pavement Breaker ((0.80 cu. m.)
2 Water truck (1000 gal)
2 Submersible Pump
1 Road Roller
1 Road Grader
1 Crane (45T)
1 Vibro Hammer
1 Generator Set (876-1000KVA)
1 Plate Compactor
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
1 – Project Engineer
1 – Project Inspector
1 – Materials Engineer
1 – Safety Officer
ESTIMATED DIRECT COST (EST)

Item No. Unit Unit Cost
101(3a) Removal of Existing sq. m. 119.28
Concrete Pavement
103(1a) Structure Excavation cu. m. 115.11
(Ordinary Soil)
104(a) Embankment (Sand) cu. m. 831.65
104(b) Embankment (Selected cu. m. 609.15
Borrow)
200 Aggregate Subbase cu. m. 636.15
Course
311 (3)a.4 PCCP (t=0.23m; 14 days sq.m. 940.06
– 3500 psi)
404a Reinforcing Steel Bar, kg 46.67
Grade 60
405a Stuctural Concrete Class cu. m. 5,207.00
“A”
502(3) RCMH (Utility pcs. 56,702.00
Manhole)
SPL-1 Dewatering/Sandbagging l.s. 149,651.85
SPL-2 Structural Steel Sheet l.m. 784.92
Pile, Driven
SPL-3 Structural Steel Sheet l.m. 383.83
Pile, Extract
93
SPL-4 Rental of Structural Steel kg 10.00
Sheet Pile
SPL-5 Construction Safety and l.s. 288,176.46
Health
SPL-6 Traffic Management l.s. 429,905.60
SPL-7 Temporary Work l.s. 200,000.00
Closure
SPL-8 Rental of Field Office mo. 20,750.00
for Engineers
SPL-9 Mobilization/ l.s. 178,984.00
Demobilization
DETAILED UNIT PRICE ANALYSIS (DUPA)
Item No. / Description: 101(3a) Removal of Existing Concrete Pavement

Unit of Measurement: sq. m.
Output per Hour: 40.00
Designation No. of Person No. of Hourly Amount
Hours Rate
A. Labor
a. Construction Foreman 1 1 122.45 122.45
b. Laborer 2 1 69.33 138.66
Subtotal for A 261.11
Name and Capacity No. of Units No. of Hourly Amount
Hours Rate
Equipment
B. a. Backhoe w/ Pavement Breaker (0.80 1 1 2,074.95 2,074.95
cu.m.)
b. Payloader(1.50 cu.m.), LX80-2C 1 1 1,733.00 1,733.00
c. Dump Truck (10 cu.m.) 1 0.445 1,352.00 601.91
Minor Tools (10% of Labor) 26.11 26.11
Subtotal for B 4,435.97
C. Total (A+B) 4,697.08

D. Output per Hour = 40.00 sq.m.
E. Direct Unit Cost (C+D) 117.43
F. Name and Specification

Materials
G. Direct Unit Cost (E+F) 117.43

H. Overhead, Contingencies & of G 10.57
94
Miscellaneous (OCM)
I. Contractor's Profit (CP) of G 9.39
J. Value Added Tax (VAT) of (G+H+I) 16.49
K. Total Unit Cost (G + H + I 153.88

+J)
Item No. / Description: 104(a) Embankment (Filling Materials, Sand)

Unit of Measurement: cu. m.
Hours Rate
A. Labor
a. Construction Foreman 1 0.9 122.45 110.21
b. Laborer 2 0.8 69.33 110.93
Hours Rate
Equipment
B. a. Water Truck (1000 gal.) 1 0.3 1,065.00 332.70
b. Vibrator Roller 1 0.82 1,507.00 1,235.74
c. Motorized Grader 1 0.82 2,173.00 1,781.86
C. Total (A+B) 3,561.43

D. Output per Hour = 50.00 cu.m.
F. Name and Specification Unit Quantity Unit Amount

Cost
Materials
a. Fine Aggregates (Filling Materials) cu.m. 1.15 650 747.5
Subtotal for F 747.5

Miscellaneous (OCM)
K. Total Unit Cost (G + H + I 1,072.86

+J)
95
Item No. / Description: 104(b) Embankment (Selected Borrow)
Unit of Measurement: cu. m.
Hours Rate
A. Labor
b. Laborer 2 0.85 69.33 117.86
Hours Rate
Equipment
B. a. Water Truck (1000 gal.) 1 0.25 1,065.00 266.25
b. Vibrator Roller (10 m.t.) 1 0.79 1,507.00 1,190.53
c. Motorized Grader, G107A 1 0.79 2,173.00 1,716.67
C. Total (A+B) 3,413.76

F. Name and Specification Unit Quantity Unit Amount

Cost
Materials
a. Selected Borrow (w/ 25% Shrinkage cu.m. 1.25 420 525
Factor)
Subtotal for F 525

H. Overhead, Contingencies & Miscellaneous of G 53.97
(OCM)
K. Total Unit Cost (G + H + I +J) 779.41
96
Item No. / Description: 311(3)a.4 PCCP, t=230 mm. thk. (3500 psi, 14 days)
Unit of Measurement: sq. m.
Hours Rate
A. Labor
a. Construction Foreman 1 0.75 122.45 91.84
b. Laborer 12 0.406 69.33 337.78
c. Skilled Laborer 6 0.75 82.97 373.37

B. Name and Capacity No. of Units No. of Hourly Amount
Hours Rate
Equipment
a. Concrete Vibrator 2 0.25 148.88 74.44
b. Concrete Screeder (5.5 Hp) 1 0.8 545.00 436.00
c. Concrete Saw, Blade φ 14" (7.5Hp) 1 0.8 167.38 133.90
d. Bar Cutter, Single Phase, 25mm 1 0.8 219.75 175.80
e. Water Truck 1000 gals (All Makes) 1 0.35 1,065.00 372.75
C. Subtotal for B 1,192.89

D. 70
E. Total (A+B) 1,995.87
Output per Hour = 50.00 cu.m.
F. Direct Unit Cost (C+D) 28.51
Name and Specification Unit Quantity Unit Amount

Cost
Materials
a. Reinforcing Steel Bar kg. 0.39 36 14.04
b. Curing Compound lit. 0.29 70 20.30
c. Asphalt Sealant lit. 0.12 55 6.60
d. Steel Forms Rental l.m. 0.46 100 46

e. Ready Mix Concrete cu.m. 0.23 3,500 805
f. Concrete Saw (Diamond Blade) pc. 0.00015 8,000 1.2
g. Pipe Sleeve, 2" dia. l.m. 0.007 237.5 1.66
h. Grease/Tar lit. 0.01 245 2.45

97
(OCM)
K. Total Unit Cost (G + H + I +J) 1,213.03
98
Item No. / Description: 4-04a Reinforcing Steel Bar, Grade 60
Unit of Measurement: kg.
Hours Rate
A. Labor
a. Construction Foreman 1 1 0 0.00
b. Laborer 4 0.9 69.33 249.59
c. Skilled Laborer 2 1 82.97 165.94

Hours Rate
Equipment
a.Cargo Truck (10 T, 2740 Hp) All Models 1 0.17 1,012.00 172.04
b. Bar Cutter 1 0.5 219.75 109.88
c. Bar Bender 1 0.5 351.50 175.75
C. Subtotal for B 457.67
D. 70
E. Total (A+B) 873.19
Output per Hour = 50.00 cu.m.
F. Direct Unit Cost (C+D) 4.85
D.
E. Name and Specification Unit Quantity Unit Amount
Cost
Materials
F. a. Tie Wire (2% of RSB) kg. 0.021 57 1.20
b. Reinforcing Steel Bar, Grade 60 kg. 1.05 38 39.90

(OCM)
99
Item No. / Description: 4-05a Structural Concrete Class “A”
Unit of Measurement: cu.m.
Hours Rate
A. Labor
b. Laborer 4 1 69.33 277.32
Installation / Removal of Formworks
a. Skilled Laborer 2 1 82.97 165.94
b. Laborer 4 1 69.33 277.32
Hours Rate
Equipment
a. Concrete Vibrator 1 1 148.88 148.88
b. Water Truck (1000 gal.) All Makes 1 0.144 1,065.00 153.36
c. One Bagger Mixer 1 0.5 172.00 86.00
Subtotal for B 388.24
C. Total (A+B) 1,397.21
E. Direct Unit Cost (C/D) 981.3
F.
Name and Specification Unit Quantity Unit Amount
Cost
Materials
a. Lumber, Good - 4 uses bd.ft. 70 40.00 700.00
b. Plywood (1/2" x 4' x8') - 4 uses pc. 1.6 750.00 300.00

c. Assorted CWN (1kg./100 bd. ft. of kg. 0.7 70.00 49.00
Lumber)
d. Cement bags 9.5 218.00 2071.00
e. Sand cu.m. 0.5 650.00 325.00
f. Gravel cu.m. 1 700.00 700.00
(OCM)
100
Item No. / Description: 502(3a) RC Manhole (Utility Manhole)
Unit of Measurement: each
Hours Rate
A. Labor
b. Laborer 4 9.7 69.33 2690.00
Hours Rate
Equipment
a. One Bagger Mixer 1 0.757 172.00 130.20
b. Water Truck (1000 gal) 1 0.45 1,065.00 479.25
c. Bar Cutter 1 0.45 219.75 98.89
d. Bar Bender 1 0.45 351.50 158.18
e. Concrete Vibrator 1 0.73 148.88 108.68
f. Welding Machine 1 0.73 391.00 285.43
Minor Tools (10% Labor) 551.84 551.84
C. Total (A+B) 7,386.37
D. Output = 1 each/day
E. Direct Unit Cost (C/D) 7,386.37
F.
Name and Specification Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount
Materials
a. Cement bags 29 218.00 6322.00
b. Sand cu.m. 1.582 650.00 1028.30
c. Gravel cu.m. 3.164 700.00 2214.80
d. Reinforcing Steel Bar kg 385.9 36.00 13892.40
e. #16 GI Tie Wire (2% RSB) kg 7.72 70.00 540.40
f. Steel Casing (Angle Bar) kg 57.08 46.00 2625.68

g. Welding Rod (1kg/2000 kg of Steel) kg 0.029 90 2.61
h. 1/4" Ordinary Plywood - 2 uses pc 9.16 330 1511.40
i. Coco Lumber - 2 uses bd. Ft. 129.63 20 1296.30
j. Assorted CWN (1kg. / 1000 bd. ft. of kg 1.296 70 45.36
Lumber)
k. Steel Grating (Webforge) pc 1 18,053.20 18053.20
l. U-bolt ( 20mm dia. X 800mm) pc 2 430 860.00
101
Miscellaneous (OCM)
102
Item No. / Description: SPL – 1 Dewatering/Sandbagging
Unit of Measurement: l.s.
Hours Rate
A. Labor
for dewatering
b. Laborer 2 59 69.33 8180.94
for sandbagging
b. Laborer 4 30 69.33 8319.60
Hours Rate
Equipment
a. Submersible Pump (Diesel Model, 2 52.019 216.88 22,563.24
1200 lpm, 5Hp)
Minor Tools (5% Labor) 1 1 1,369.93 1,369.93
Vol. of concrete = 1,079.00 cu. m. / 1.40
cu.m.
C. Total (A+B) 51,331.76
D. Output per hr. = 1.00 sq.m.
F.
Materials
a. Sand cu.m. 120 650.00 78000.00
b. Sand (0.10 cu.m. / sack) pcs. 1200 15.00 18000.00

Miscellaneous (OCM)
103
Item No. / Description: SPL – 2 Structural Steel Sheet Pile, Driven
Unit of Measurement: l.m.
Hours Rate
A. Labor
a. Construction Foreman 1 1 0 0.00
b. Laborer 6 1 69.33 415.98
Hours Rate
Equipment
a. Crane (45T) 1 1 1,772.00 1,772.00
b. Vibro Hammer 1 1 3,069.00 3,069.00
c. Generator Set (876-1000 KVA) 1 1 1,296.67 1,296.67
d. Welding Machine 1 1 391.00 391.00
e. Cutting Outfit 1 0.514 45.45 23.36
C. Total (A+B) 7,465.83
F.
Materials
a. Welding Rod kg. 0.024 90.00 2.16
b. Oxy/Acetylene set 0.0096 2500.00 24.00

Miscellaneous (OCM)
104
Item No. / Description: SPL –3 Structural Steel Sheet Pile, Extract
Unit of Measurement: l.m.
Hours Rate
A. Labor
b. Laborer 6 0.9 69.33 374.38
c. Skilled Laborer 6 0.9 82.97 448.04
Hours Rate
Equipment
a. Crane (45T) 1 1 1,772.00 1,772.00
b. Vibro Hammer 1 1 3,069.00 3,069.00
c. Generator Set (876-1000 KVA) 1 0.96 1,296.67 1,244.80
d. Cutting Outfit 1 1 45.45 45.45
C. Total (A+B) 7,076.12
F.
Materials
a. Oxy/Acetylene set 0.0096 2500.00 24.00
Miscellaneous (OCM)

105
Item No. / Description: SPL –4 Rental of Structural Steel Sheet Pile
Unit of Measurement: kg
Hours Rate
A. Labor
Subtotal for A 0.00

Hours Rate
Equipment
Subtotal for B 0.00

C. Total (A+B) 0.00
F.
Materials
a. Structural Steel Sheet Pile (Rental) l.m. 1 10.00 10.00
Miscellaneous (OCM)

106
Item No. / Description: SPL –5 Construction Safety and Health
Output per Hour:

Hours Rate
A. Labor
a. Safety Officer 1 304.664 122.45 37306.11
b. First Aider 1 1205 82.97 99978.85

Hours Rate
Equipment
Subtotal for B 0.00

C. Total (A+B) 137,284.96
D.
F.
Materials
a. Safety Shoes (Different Sizes) man-days 3900 2.77 10803.00
b. Safety Helmet/ Hard Hat (Free Size) man-days 3900 0.25 975.00
c. Working Gloves (free size) man-days 3900 7.67 29913.00
d. Rubber Boots man-days 1950 2.77 5401.50
e. Rain Coats man-days 1950 0.34 663.00
f. Safety Dust Mask man-days 1560 63.25 98670.00
H. Overhead, Contingencies & of G 0
Miscellaneous (OCM)
J. Value Added Tax (VAT) of (G+H+I) 36,768.88
107
Item No. / Description: SPL –6 Traffic Management
Hours Rate
A. Labor
a. Traffic Aide (3 shifts) 3 1407.9711 69.33 292843.91
Hours Rate
Equipment
Subtotal for B 0.00

C. Total (A+B) 292,843.91
D.
F.
Materials
Accessories for the Traffic Enforcer
a. Yellow Vest w/ Reflectorized pc 3 1500.00 4500.00
Markings
b. Raincoats pc 3 300.00 900.00
c. Sign Paddles (Red & Green) pc 3 2000.00 6000.00
d. Red Light pc 3 3000.00 9000.00
Traffic Signs and Barricades/Barrier

a.Construction Signs - 0.80mx0.60m GI pc 2 8000.00 16000.00
Plate G16, Mounted on GI Pipe and
Concrete Base
b. Regulatory Signs - 12"x40" pc 2 5000.00 10000.00
c. Regulatory Signs - 16"x40" pc 2 5000.00 10000.00
d. Notice/Advisory Signs pc 2 5000.00 10000.00

(9120x1200mm plywood)
e. Plastic Traffic Barriers (Rental) pc 10 1000.00 10000.00
f. Concrete New Jersey Barriers pc 10 1500.00 15000.00
(Rental)
g. Traffic Rope Light (Rental) pc 10 400.00 4000.00
h. Traffic Safety Cones (Rental) pc 10 500.00 5000.00
i. Flashing Arrow Signs (Rental) pc 2 15000.00 30000.00
108
Miscellaneous (OCM)
+J)
109
Item No. / Description: SPL –7 Temporary Work Enclosure

Hours Rate
A. Labor
Subtotal for A 0.00

Hours Rate
Equipment
Subtotal for B 0.00

C. Total (A+B) 0.00
D.
F. Name and Specification Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount
Materials
a. Temporary Vertical Enclosure (Blue l.s. 1 196900.13 196900.13
Sheet) (Rental)
Miscellaneous (OCM)
+J)
110
APPENDIX B
ARTICLE TYPE PAPER
111
Optimization of Roadside Drainage Systems: A Comparative
Analysis of Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain System
using RCP
Jefferson Bill G. Bisnar, Kierwin S. De Dios, Patricia B. Profitana
Adviser: Engr. Juan Paulo Nazareno
MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering
bisnar_jeff@yahoo.com
dedioskierwin_06@yahoo.com
patriciaprofitana@yahoo.com
(+ 63) 9274644682
(+ 63) 9055828547
(+ 63) 9065444308
September 2014
112
Abstract
Flooding during the rainy season along roadsides speaks to the inefficiency and inadequacy of the
existing drainage system. In order to become part of the solution, the researchers explored
methods from the engineering field to evaluate Rectangular Lined Ditches and Underdrain
Systems using RCP. The researchers shall dig into various parameters, such as hydrological
concepts, empirical formulas, planning, construction methods, manufacturing and resources, and
costing in order to ascertain a specific type of channel and determine an optimized choice.
Surveys from professionals in the field in both private and public sectors show that ease in
planning, manufacturing, constructing and maintaining a drainage network is really dependent on
the scale of the project. As for the correlation aspect of the research, it appears that the values
vary depending on the cross-sectional area. This also goes for the comparisons done for the cost
aspect of the research. Finally, it must be noted that despite the computations done, the
applicability of a certain type of drainage network remain a significant factor to consider.
Keywords: Rectangular Lined Ditches, Underdrain Systems
Acronyms/Abbreviations
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
113
1 Introduction
The Philippines and flood waters have always had this longstanding affair. In the past, this
problem was only confined to a limited number of areas but as years passed, it has become a
much bigger problem; one that cannot be ignored anymore. The effects of flooding have
expanded from a simple inconvenience to loss of lives, livelihood, and lifelines.
1.1 Background and problem motivation
The researchers would like to take a look at the engineering point of view of the matter and
explore other solutions. This entails determining whether the pipe system and pipe capacity are
adequate in operating efficiently during the wet season considering the fact that recently, rainfall
is more intense and spaced between short periods of time. It also implies comparing different
types of channels, both open and closed. In addition, the researchers would also like to ascertain
whether it can mitigate the amount of inflow to the said drainage system.
1.2 Overall aim

The main objective of this research is to contrast two types of drainage system, the Rectangular
Lined Ditch, a type of open channel system, and the Underdrain Systems using Reinforced
Concrete Pipe (RCP), which is a type of closed channel system. The researchers shall explore
three (3) avenues for comparison; cost-related aspects, theoretical aspects, and a correlation of all
important parameters related to designing a certain drainage network, which shall be expounded
in the following chapters.
1.3 Scope
This study shall only cover comparison between Rectangular Lined Ditch (for open) and
Underdrain Systems using RCP (for closed). The parameters that the researchers will explore
shall cover the ease in planning, the resources to be considered, the construction procedure, time
of completion, manpower required and maintenance. It shall also compare the cost difference
between the two types of channels as well as the applicability of the drainage network. Moreover,
the researchers shall create a correlation graph in which the parameters in designing a drainage
network, such as wetted perimeter, critical discharge and the like. Finally, the researchers shall
only consider the drainage network applicable and suitable for Niog Road, Bacoor City, Cavite.
1.4 Concrete and verifiable goals
The specific goals of the study are to:
1. Identify a more efficient drainage network using different empirical formulas.

2. Identify a more cost effective drainage network using cost analyses from the
Department of Public Works and Highways as basis
3. Identify a more efficient drainage work using planning, materials and resources,
construction, time of completion and manpower as parameters for comparison.
114
2 Review of Related work
This section presents some significant past related works which would aid in the
comparison of parameters regarding the study.
2.1 Drainage System Design and its Background
Drainage system is an important aspect of urban and rural systems in all kinds of places.
Drainage system has unprecedented number of uses ranging from collecting sewage to storm
water runoffs. Urbanization is undoubtedly the main reason behind it all. Urbanization has a
huge impact on the modernization of a specific area by turning it from a natural and agricultural
environment to a residential and commercial environment.1 The transition will cause the alteration
in the storm water runoff nature of the said urbanizing watershed that will lead to increased storm
water damages such as floods.
2.2 Weather Effects and Climate Change
Excessive floods can be traced on high volume of rainfall coming from huge storms.
These storms happen due to disturbance in the climate. Since the Philippines is near the Pacific
Ocean, there will always be the possibility that the country will encounter many storms,
especially during the rainy season (June - September). But as of late, the number of storms as
well as their strength is being observed to increase and one can assume climate change is a factor.
The issue of climate change has been increasing and its effects have already been observed
around the world with further changes in climate being projected to take place in the future.2
Also, it is concluded that the Climate Change may affect the change the precipitation of some
countries.3 In addition to that, having an extreme summer condition will have a payoff during the
rainy season because there will be an increase in the rainfall events and its intensities. This will
be the primary reason for overflowing sewers that will cause floods in urban areas. The sudden
changes in the climatic conditions will drastically affect the urban drainage systems because of
the fact that the drainage system is related to the weather phenomenon and were built for the
1
2
3
Change Impacts on Urban Drainage Systems. 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008
115
purpose of coping up with the weather occurring.4 On the other hand, it was implied that extreme
flood conditions are not necessarily brought by the short-duration extreme rainfall events. The
long-duration rainfall event shall still be held responsible for extreme flooding events.5
2.3 Rainfall Intensity and Return Period
Rainfall is one of the main contributors of floods. Floods are not only the most frequent
natural disaster but also the disaster that produces the greatest economic and humanitarian impact
such as number of people and number of infrastructure affected.6 Floods are synonymous with
the amount of rainfall on a specific area. Meaning, the larger the rainfall on an area, the higher
the tendency of extreme floods. It is stated that before designing the storm-water drainage or
control system it is required to consider the nature of the incoming rainfall on the chosen area of
interest. 7 This data is called the Rainfall Intensity. Rainfall Intensity refers to the measurement
of the amount of rain that falls over time. The intensity of rain is measured in the height of the
water layer covering the ground in a period of time thus it implies that if the rain stays where it
falls, it would form a layer of a certain height. Usually every country has the means to measure
the rainfall intensity of a specific area. In the case of our country, the PAGASA is the foundation
that provides it. Since there are many rainfall intensity data available, it is challenging on the part
of engineers to design the storm-water drainages.
3 Methodology
This research entitled „Optimization of Roadside Drainage Systems: A Comparative Analysis of
Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain System using RCP‟ will be approached as a qualitative
4
K. Berggren (2008). Indicators for urban drainage system-assessment of climate change impacts.
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008
5
R.S.V Teegavarapu (2012). Floods in a Changing Climate: Extreme Precipitation. Retrieved
from
all&f=false
6
7
116
research that will endeavor to amass data in relation to the economic, theoretical and technical
aspects of drainage systems. The information that shall be gathered will include the advantages
and disadvantages of either a Rectangular Line Ditch or Underdrain System using RCP. Data
shall also include a topographic survey of the area, identifying elevations. Moreover, hydrological
parameters will also be considered in this research and correlated. In addition, the researchers
chose the qualitative approach in order to verify and compare whether which type of channel is
capable of handling a significant amount of storm water and is efficient in transporting water
towards a respective outfall.
Data Gathering
Cost
Analytical
Analysis Survey
Computation
Rainfall
Intensity
Analysis of
Tabulation
velocity
of Results
obtained
from RLD
and UDS
Conclusion
8 Analytical Framework
4Results
and Discussion
117
This is the result of the questionnaire from the survey that the group conducted. It shows the
breakdown of answers from each of the sample. The results were divided into six parts
represented by the Roman numeral and the answers that can be found include; a, b, c and
others/NA. The rows colored with green represents the main questions that were interpreted in the
pie charts while the rows colored with yellow represents the questions whose answers involved
ranking of the choices.
Table 14: Summary of the Questionnaire Results
Summary
I a b c Others/NA
1 7 3
2 5 4 1
3 3 6 1
4 2 7 1
5 2 8
6 7 3
7 10
8 5 4 1
9 8 2
II
1 9 1
2 1 9
3 5 4 1
118
III
General
1 6 4
2 6 1 3
3 4 4 2
4 10
5 1 9
6 10
RLD
7 4 5 1
8 a,b
9 3 4 3
10 2 8
UDS
11 e,f,g
12 5 4 1
13 5 1 4
14 a,b,c
15 4 3 3
16 1 9
IV
1 1 2 4 3
2 10
119
3 a,b,c 7
4 c,d 7
1 4 5 1
2 1 9
3 b,c,d 7
VI
1 9 1
2 7 3
3 3 6 1
4 4 5 1
This table shows the summary of the results of the survey. For the respective numbers, the
table shows a tally of the results based on the choices available. The choices include a, b, c and
others/NA. The row with a green colored numbering represents the row whose results were
represented by a pie chart. The blue colored portions represents the highest results of the choices
while the yellow colored portions represents the summary of results for questions whose answers
involved a ranking.
Cost Analysis
This is the component of the study in which the Rectangular Lined Ditch and the Underdrain
System using RCP will be compared with the method of Cost Analysis. The data of Unit Cost
120
came from the DPWH Bureau of Design NCR Office.
Cost Analysis of Rectangular Line Ditch

and Underdrain Pipe
20000
Direct Cost from differetnt factors
18000 y = 1372.8x + 1199.6

16000 R² = 0.9996
14000 Underdrain Pipe
12000
10000 Rectanguar Iine Ditch
8000
6000 y = 747.78x + 2570.2 Linear (Underdrain Pipe)
4000 R² = 0.9458
2000 Linear (Rectanguar Iine
0 Ditch)
0 5 10 15
Figure 9: Cost Analysis comparison graph
This graph shows the Cost Analysis of Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain System using
RCP by showing the result of the Equivalent Cross-sectional Area versus Direct Cost. In this
graph, the coefficient of determination is computed and shown. The coefficient of determination
or R squared is a number that is used to indicate how well the data is fit for a statistical model. In
order for the R squared to have a “strong” correlation, the value must be greater than 0.8 while the
“weak” correlation shows a value of less than 0.5.
According to the graph shown, the Rectangular Lined Ditch shows an R squared of 0.9996 while
the Underdrain System shows an R squared of 0.9458. Analyzing the results, both system has a
strong correlation for having values nearing 1. Thus, it obviously states that as the dimensions
increase, the cost increases as well.
Table 15: Cost Comparison Data
Underdrain System Using RCP Rectangular Lined Ditch (in

Equivalent Area
(in Philippine Peso) Philippine Peso)
0.0314159 948.7705377 1342.890302
0.070685775 1209.581407 1394.827775
121
0.1256636 1470.392276 1467.540237
0.196349375 1731.203145 1561.027687
0.2827431 1992.014014 1675.290127
0.384844775 2252.824883 1810.327557
0.5026544 2513.635753 1966.139975
0.636171975 2774.446622 2142.727382
0.7853975 3035.257491 2340.089779
0.950330975 3296.06836 2558.227164
1.1309724 3556.879229 2797.139539
1.327321775 3817.690098 3056.826902
1.5393791 4078.500967 3337.289255
1.767144375 4339.311837 3638.526597
2.0106176 4600.122706 3960.538928
2.269798775 4860.933575 4303.326248
2.5446879 5121.744444 4666.888557
2.835284975 5382.555313 5051.225855
3.14159 5643.366182 5456.338143
3.463602975 5904.177051 5882.225419
3.8013239 6164.987921 6328.887685
4.154752775 6425.79879 6796.324939
4.5238896 6686.609659 7284.537183
4.908734375 6947.420528 7793.524416
5.3092871 7208.231397 8323.286638
5.725547775 7469.042266 8873.823849
122
6.1575164 7729.853135 9463.267762
6.605192975 7990.664005 10106.887
7.0685775 8251.474874 10773.08937
7.547669975 8512.285743 11461.87487
8.0424704 8773.096612 12173.24351
8.552978775 9033.907481 12907.19527
9.0791951 9294.71835 13663.73017
9.621119375 9555.529219 14442.8482
10.1787516 9816.340089 15244.54935
10.75209178 10077.15096 16068.83364
11.3411399 10337.96183 16915.70106
11.94589598 10598.7727 17785.15162
12.56636 10859.58357 18677.1853
This table shows the Comparison of Cost between the Rectangular Lined Ditch and
Underdrain System using RCP. The equivalent area starting from 0.125 to 3.463 shows that
Rectangular Lined Ditch has the lesser cost between the two systems, thus Rectangular Lined
Ditch is the best system to be used. On the other hand, the rest of the data shows that the
Underdrain System using RCP has the lesser cost, thus, that system is best to use for that range.
In order to further the research, the group has conducted interviews from different, yet relevant
divisions from the Department of Public Works and Highways‟ main office. From the Bureau of
Design- Water Projects Division, the researchers were able to interview 2 engineers: Engr. Crissa
Rica V. Espiritu and Engr. Matthew G. Velasco. From the Bureau of Design – Highways
Division: Engr. Edwin G.Azurin. According to the results of the interview, it is easier to design a
Rectangular Lined Ditch, however, it must be noted that Underdrain Systems using RCP are more
efficient. Each type of network has their own set of advantages.
123
Less Transportation Cost – Easy Maintenance Requires more time to construct
Construction errors and mistakes can easily be May meet problems due to acquisition of right
detected of way
There are a variety of bed linings that can be

used
Underdrain Systems using RCP
Dimensions are readily available in the market Leakages are difficult to manage
Easy to install High maintenance cost
Less time to install Joining RCP‟s take exert effort
Quantities on site may not be the same as per

plan since it is concealed underneath
The planning process involves identifying the topography of the area, estimating the amount of
flow, and accounting for the future development in the area. A hydrologic analysis which consists
of (a) delineation of catchment area and (b) use of either Rational Method or Unit Hydrograph
Method is also used. Finally, a hydraulic analysis is performed by use of either Manning‟s
formula or Chezy‟s equation. Unknown topography and a mountainous terrain are factors
considered to make the planning process more challenging. More difficulties arise as one
considers financial matters, availability of materials, political intervention, site conditions and
acquisition of right- of-way. The DPWH uses what they call the “Blue Book” which contains
planning and designing flood control structure and the Design Guide, Criteria Standards Vol II.
Underdrain Systems using RCP usually uses pre-cast concrete and the Rectangular Lined Ditch
uses the conventional cast-in-place concrete. Again, the standards used for these materials can be
found in the Blue Book. In terms of construction, it is easier to construct a Rectangular Line Ditch
because it only involves an excavation, and from there one can start the construction of the actual
ditch. Factors that make the construction coincide with those in factors considered in planning:
irregular topography, and the location of the site. Other factors to be considered are the
124
availability of the materials going to be used in construction, and the existing pipelines (e.g. gas,
sewer and water supply) .
Rectangular Line Ditches commonly use 10mm Φ bars for rebars, class A concrete mix, a
concrete mixer, a backhoe, a rebar cutter, and a plate compactor. However, it must be noted that
the diameter for the rebars vary depending on the structural capacity of the ditch. Underdrain
Systems using RCP, on the other hand, commonly uses 0.60 m, 0. 90m, 1.12m and 1.50m Φ
Reinforced Concrete Pipe diameter and 10mm Φ, 12mm Φ and 18mm Φ rebar dimensions. It
utilizes a concrete mixer and a plate compactor, and uses early strength concrete. A Rectangular
Lined Ditch can be constructed in 5 days per linear meter while the RCP can be constructed in 10
days per linear meter.
In terms of manpower, the Rectangular Lined Ditch uses less manpower as it has lesser
excavation works. The two systems rely heavily on equipment. When asked to give an estimate
number of manpower required for the two systems, it appears that the Lined Ditch uses at least 4
laborers/ linear meter and the RCP uses 7 laborers/linear meter.
As for the maintenance of the systems, the Lined Ditch has an advantage because of its
accessibility. Drainage networks are usually maintained through de-clogging. One factor to be
considered when maintaining drainage networks is where to put all the silts and waste.
Finally, from the interviews conducted, most engineers say that the Lined Ditch is more
applicable for rural settings and the RCP for urban settings. As Niog, Bacoor, Cavite is seen to be
heavily urbanized in the future, the researches therefore consider the RCP fitting for it.
5 Conclusions
1. From the survey and interview conducted, the following data have been concluded: In
terms of planning, it appears that the Rectangular Lined Ditch is more advantageous due
to its simplicity and because it uses lesser land area than the Underdrain System.
However, rhe Underdrain System using RCP has more runoff capacity and its cross
sectional dimensions are more suitable and advantageous. Also, when it comes to the
applicability depending on the geography and land use, it seems that Underdrain Systems
using RCP are more beneficial especially for urban area.
125
On construction and installation procedures, generally, Rectangular Lined Ditches have
simpler construction methodology. However, it must be noted that despite the ease in
procedure, the dimension still matters when it comes to the time needed to complete the
construction. As for the manpower required, it can be concluded that construction needs
20-60 people depending on the scale of project. Finally, when it comes to maintaining
these drainage networks, it appears that the Rectangular Lined Ditches are much easier to
preserve.
2. On to the results from the correlation of various parameters and the usage of different
empirical formulas, it can be ascertained that for the cross-sectional area of 0.125 to 2.010
shows that Rectangular Lined Ditch is the effective system to use. On the other hand, the
rest of the cross-sectional area shows that Underdrain system using RCP is the effective
system to use. The results are the same for all the comparisons and correlations made.
3. Finally, The equivalent area starting from 0.125 to 3.463 shows that Rectangular Lined
Ditch has the lesser cost between the two systems, thus Rectangular Lined Ditch is the
best system to be used. On the other hand, the rest of data shows that the Underdrain
System using RCP has the lesser cost, thus, that system is best to use for that range.
References
Change Impacts on Urban Drainage Systems. 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008
B. Clarke, D. M. Hultstrand & T.W. Parzybok, (2011). Average Recurrence Interval of Extreme
Rainfall in Real-time. Retrieved from http://www.earthzine.org/2011/04/19/average-recurrence-
interval-of-extreme-rainfall-in-real-time/
126
T. Daniell & G. Tabios III (2008). Asian Pacific FRIEND Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency
(IDF) Analysis for the Asia Pacific Region. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001802/180223E.pdf
Cimorelli et al (2013). Optimal Design of Rural Drainage Networks. J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 139(2),
137–144. Retrieved from http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000526

J. Marsalek & W. E. Watt (1984). Design storms for urban drainage design. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 1984, 11(3): 574-584, 10.1139/l84-075. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/l84-075
K. Berggren (2008). Indicators for urban drainage system-assessment of climate change impacts.
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008
R.S.V Teegavarapu (2012). Floods in a Changing Climate: Extreme Precipitation. Retrieved from
all&f=false
S. Duchesne & A. Mailhot, (2010). Design Criteria of Urban Drainage Infrastructures under
Climate Change. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 136(2), 201–208.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Condition Assessment of Collection

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Condition Assessment of Collection

127
APPENDIX C
PANEL MEMBER ASSESMENT
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
APPENDIX D
ENGLISH EDITOR ASSESSMENT
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
APPENDIX E
RECEIPTS
165
166
167
APPENDIX F
POSTER
168
169
APPENDIX G
OTHER FORMS
170
171
172
APPENDIX H
STUDENT REFLECTION
RESUME
173
BISNAR, Jefferson Bill G.,
CE-5/2010105831
Reflection
Our Thesis entitled, Optimization of Roadside Drainage System: A Comparative Analysis
of Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain system using RCP, is one of the most difficult
requirements that I needed to complete in order to finish my student life here in this Institute. I
have experienced a lot of things in order to finish the whole thesis ranging from the interactions
with professionals to the creation of various media involved for the thesis. There is so much
brainstorming of various fields in order to find a good topic in order to study. There are various
ups and downs during the creation of the thesis. I can say that it is a mixed of internal factors such
as lack of vigor, lack of time and external factors such as difficulty in data gathering. But despite
all of that, I and my thesis mates finally reached the end. I learned that you can finish something
even though you are doing it in a slow rate as long as it is effective. I also learned that the key for
completing these kinds of works is to have a good working relationship with your thesis mates.
You must remember that all of you must be on the same page in order to come up with
something. I think that I and my thesis mates managed to achieve these conditions.
As we reached the end of this thesis, I would like to thank my thesis mates first for helping
in not only in the technical side of this study but as well as the light side of it. I would also like to
thank the people who helped us to complete this study, starting from the faculty, the advisers and
the professionals outside the Mapua Institute of Technology. And lastly, I would like to thank god
for helping us finish this study and giving me this opportunity to work with my current thesis
mates who I have so much fun working with.
174
De Dios, Kierwin S.
CE-5/2010102145
Reflection Paper
After finishing our thesis, I was able to gain new knowledge and understand a lot of things
in applying the theories we learned in Mapua Institute of Technology, especially in the field of
hydraulics, and hydrology. It is very challenging to finish our thesis while we are taking our
correlation subject (mock board). Our Thesis entitled, “Optimization of Roadside Drainage
Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Rectangular Lind Ditch and Underdrain System using
RCP”, is quite different compared to other thesis of our colleagues because the thesis of the
groups is a qualitative research. At first, it very hard to choose which parameters the group will
correlate, so, the group seek the advice of Prof. Nazareno and Prof. Gonzales, for she is one of the
potential panel for our thesis. I have experienced a lot of things in order to finish the whole thesis
ranging from the interactions with professionals to the creation of various media involved for the
thesis. The group gathered different data from different government departments and offices.
With that, the group gained knowledge on how the departments and offices conduct their work
with respect to drainages.
I am grateful to the persons who helped the group in conducting the thesis, especially Prof.
Nazareno, Prof. Gonzales and the engineers in DPWH. I would also like to express my gratitude
to my groupmates for all the things they have done for the thesis. The group had different
problems as the group conduct the thesis but the group managed to finish the thesis.
175
Profitana, Patricia B.
CE-5/ 2010170318
Student Reflection
As a Batch 2010 student, we were the first ones to encounter the research type of thesis,
which is different from the design-based that we were expecting. On our first day of thesis class,
imagine our surprise when we were told that batch 2010 will be working with their own batch and
that our thesis will no longer be comprised of the design-based we were preparing for terms prior.
We had to rethink thesis topics in a matter of one week. Compared to our previous ideas, these
shotgun ideas are nothing. Nevertheless, we had to work from there and be able to come up with a
sound thesis. It was hard work and it cost a lot of money. Most times, our group was lost with
what step we were going to take next. We are usually unsure of our actions and whether the steps
we will be taking are going to be included in the final thesis. I just wish there were more eco-
friendly ways to conduct the defense proper. With the amount of paper that are being turned in,
and being thrown away once the revisions are in order, it just breaks my heart and wallet to see
them all go to waste. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who have
helped us achieve this feat, especially to the professors who took the time and actually read our
thesis before asking us to do a revision. I appreciate the effort to make our paper better. I hope
more professors take the time to read the paper and actually point out what is there to improve. I
also hope that the advisers take the time to sit down with us and do a writeshop of sorts, like what
professors and thesis advisers of other universities. If the faculty wants to see better theses, they
have to work with the students somehow and encourage them to think and actually pursue a topic
they are interested in.
176
JEFFERSON BILL G. BISNAR
Blk. 10 Lt. 4 Kamagong St. Narra Homes Subd. Pag-asa I
Imus, Cavite
Cellphone No.: 09274644682
Emial: bisnar_jeff@yahoo.com
OBJECTIVES
To able to work as an intern as a Civil Engineering student in a career oriented and challenging
environment where I can utilize my skills and knowledge on the field.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
College
Mapua Institute of Technology 2010-present
Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila
BS Civil Engineering
High School
Imus Institute 2006-2010
Imus, Cavite
Elementary
Cachapero Learning School 2000-2006
Imus, Cavite
PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Place of Birth: Makati City
Birthday: July 17, 1993
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Citizenship: Filipino
Civil Status: Single
Religion: Roman Catholic
AFFLIATIONS
 American Concrete Institute of the Philippines – Mapua Institute of Technology Student
Chapter
Business Manager
July 2013 – July 2014
 Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers – Mapua Institute of Technology Student Chapter
Member
May 2013 - Present
177
EXTRA – CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
 Bridge Building Competition
Mapua Institute of Technology
3rd Place
March 2014
SKILLS
 Proficient in English and Tagalog
 Computer Literacy (AutoCAD, STAAD, Microsoft Office Applications)
 Fast Learner
 Trained to work under pressure
 Highly motivated and works positively towards task
EXPERIENCE
 Avida Towers 34th Street BGC – Makati Development Corporation
On the Job Trainee
August 04, 2014 – September 13, 2014
SEMINARS AND CONFERENCES

 NSCP Orientation and Concrete Technology
October 29, 2012
 Mapua Institute of Technology Buildings for Tomorrow: Designing and Constructing
Sustainable Buildings
July 17, 2013
Mapua Insitute of Technology
 National Civil Engineering Symposium 2013
September 2013
University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City
 Building Information Modelling (BIM)
October 23, 2013
Mapua Institute of Technology, Intramuros, Manila
 NSCP Orientation
December 5, 2013 (12:00P.M. – 6:00 P.M.)
Mapua Insititute of Technology, Intramuros, Manila
 SPACE: International Conference on Resilient Structures
April 2014
SMX Convention Center, SM Aura, Taguig City
 SHIMIZU: Discovering New Solutions Towards Disaster Resilient and Sustainabity-
Oriented Philippine Built Infrastructures
July 18, 2914
Mapua Institute of Technology Gymnasium Intramuros, Manila
178
KIERWIN S. DE DIOS
Blk 13 Lot22 Phase4 Soldiers Hills 4 Molino, Bacoor, Cavite
Telephone: +639055828547 (mobile)
Email: dediokierwin_06@yahoo.com
Objective: .
To be able be a Civil Engineer. Seek exposure to commercial development projects, including all phases
of construction, (i.e. planning, cost analysis, construction management, etc.) and take challenging,
creative and diversified projects.
Education: .
2010 – 2014 Mapua Institute of Technology

Muralla St. Intramuros, Manila
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
2006 – 2010 St. Joseph’s Academy

Padre Diego Cera Las Piñas
Secondary Education
Skills: .
 Efficient in using Microsoft Office applications such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.
 Fluent in English and Filipino language.
 Skillful in conducting presentations and reports
 Knowledgeable in using design programs such as STAAD, ETABS, and AutoCAD
 Has good interpersonal communication skills and has the ability to work effectively in a
team environment as well as independently.
 Good leadership skills
 Highly motivated and works positively towards task.
 Can manage multi-tasking and usually works ahead of time.
 Mentoring/Teaching Skills
Work Experience: .
August 2014 – September 2014 ON THE JOB TRAINING

Department Of Public Works And Highways - South Manila
Engineering District
Mac Arthur Highway Km. 16+322 to Km. 17+011
179
July 2014 – August 2014 ON THE JOB TRAINING
Ironcon Builders and Development Corporation
Aspen Tower
May 2014 - July 2014 ON THE JOB TRAINING

Alpa Plumbing Works, Inc.
Avida Towers Centera
Affiliations: .
 School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering Student Council

Internal Vice President
2013-2014
 Center for Student Advising

Peer Adviser for Mathematics and Physics
2012-2014
 Honor Society of Mapua

Member
2013 – 2014
 American Concrete Institute -Philippines (Mapua Student Chapter)

Member
2012 – 2014
 Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers- Mapua Student Chapter

Member
2013-2014
 Mapua Judo Club

Member
2012-2014
Attainment: .
 August 2014 Delegate

9th Aboitiz Future Leaders Business Summit
Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Inc.
 March 2014 Champion

Bridge Building Competition 2014
Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers-MIT Student Chapter
References are available upon request .
180
PLACE AND DATE OF BIRTH: Manila | 04 October 1993
ADDRESS: 11 Buliran St., Concepcion, Marikina City
PHONE: 09065444308
EMAIL: patriciaprofitana@yahoo.com
2014 Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, Mapua Institute of Technology,

Manila
2010 High School, Philippine School Doha, Qatar

Third Honorable Mention
Third Yr – Fourth Yr
2008 High School, Marikina Science High School, Marikina City

First Yr – Second Yr
2013-2014 President: School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering

Student Council
Member: Philippine Institute Of Civil Engineers – Mapua Institute of

Technology Student Chapter
Member: The Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies -

Transportation Science Society of the Philippines - Mapua Student
Chapter
Member: Honor Society of Mapua
181
2012-2013 Internal Vice President: American Concrete Institute Philippines –
Mapua Student Chapter
2011-2012 Business Manager: Speech Communication Organization of the

Philippines
2013 Building Information Modeling, November 27, 2013

(American Concrete Institute – Mapua Student Chapter)
2014 Student Conference on Transportation Research,

January 27-30, 2014
(EASTS-TSSP – Mapua Student Chapter)
IDEA Global Entrepreneurship Symposium, March 14-17, 2014

(PHILDEV INC.)
May-
August 2014 Practicum
Manila Bay Resorts Project
Paranaque
Hilmarc’s Construction Corporation
August-
September 2014 Practicum
Rehabilitation of Roxas Blvd., Manila
Manila
Department of Public Works and Highways - NCR
Engr. Rodolfo Mendoza Civil Engineer / Professor
182
+639175816215
Engr. Juan Paulo Nazareno Civil Engineer/ Professor

+639172594805
183

Optimization of Roadside Drainage Systems A Comparative Analysis of Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain Systems Using RCP

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Optimization of Roadside Drainage Systems A Comparative Analysis of Rectangular Lined Ditch and Underdrain Systems Using RCP

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Optimization of Roadside Drainage Systems: A

Comparative Analysis of Rectangular Lined Ditch and

Jefferson Bill G. Bisnar

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Mapua Institute of Technology

School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering's department coordinator, Engr.

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

Chapter 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3

Chapter 3: Comparison between Rectangular 13

Results and Discussion 24

Table 2.a RIDF of NAIA, Philppines using 17

Figure 3.1.1 Planning and Designing Chart 24

Keywords: Correlation, Rectangular Line Ditch, Underdrain Systems

it can mitigate the amount of inflow to the said drainage system.

shall be expounded in the following chapters.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

with necessary statements from various articles.

2.1 Drainage System Design and its Background

by turning it from a natural and agricultural environment to a residential and commercial

supplemented by specifications of the computational procedure and normal antecedent conditions.

multiple regions with varying data regarding rainfall intensities.

design systems using this kind of approach.

2.2 Weather Effects and Climate Change

responsible for extreme flooding events.

556.1 mm of rain 1,007.4 mm of rain 1,120.2 mm of rain

(4-day period) (3-day period) (5-day period)

measured in Science measured in Science measured in Sangley

Garden, Garden, Point, Cavite

2.3 Rainfall Intensity and Return Period

is challenging on the part of engineers to design the storm-water drainages.

the data of rainfall intensity is available.

Storm Drainage Hydraulics

Flow and Classification

Flow in a storm drainage system can be classified in a number of ways:

 Laminar vs. Turbulent

 Steady vs. Unsteady

 Uniform vs. Non-uniform

 Gradually Varied vs. Rapidly Varied

 Open Channel vs. Closed Conduit

Uniform vs. Non-uniform Flow

chains and flood ways.

distance along the channel or sewer.

Open Channel vs. Closed Conduit Flow

on the basis of its critical depth, discharge and roughness.

without a free surface and is sometimes referred to as pipe flow or pressure.

crown must be taken into account.

COMPARISON OF RECTANGULAR LINED DITCH AND UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM

improvement purposes as well as disaster prevention planning.

Figure 3.1 Analytical Framework

This research entitled „Optimization of Roadside Drainage Systems: A Comparative

water towards a respective outfall.

Figure 3.1.a. Rectangular Line Ditch

Figure 3.1.b. Underdrain Pipe Using RCP

as maps were also used in this study.

frequency with respect to different methodology of different countries such as methodology

Table 2.a. RIDF of NAIA, Philppines using Improved Sherman Formula

Puerto because it is the nearest site from Bacoor, Cavite.

Table 2.b. Methodology of Japan using Scaling Method

Table 2.c. RIDF of NAIA, Philippines using Log-Normal

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Rainfall Intensity of 2 Year Return Period

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

People’s Republic of China