Cainta River Final

8/13/2019 Cainta River Final

1/26

Cainta River

Figure 1.Aerial View of Cainta River from Google Map

The Cainta River has a length of 4.38 kilometers and is located near at Pasig City, Metro Manila. The cainta river is

connected to manggahan floodway which is artificially constructed waterway built to reduce the flooding along the

Metro Manila area, by diverting the water from the Marikina River to the Laguna de Bay. It should have been

constructed side by side with the Paranaque Spillway to counteract the negative effects of the waterway. However,

due to lack of budget and opposition from the middle class communities that will be affected and relocated, only the

floodway was constructed. The Cainta River can also reverse the flow if in case the water level on the lake is higher

than the Marikina River.

The Cainta River was designed of a approximately width of 20 meters but some are illegal settlers situated along the

floodways bank resulting to reduced its effective width to 17 meters, it has a capacity to hold 2,400 cubic meters per

second of water flow. Since the construction of the floodway, nearby towns in Taguig, Rizal and Laguna are highly

affected by the diverted floodwaters. Not only are the nearby towns affected but also the Laguna de Bay which is

highly at risk due to sediment deposits and the polluted floodwater brought by the floodway.

From the source until its mouth, the Cainta river has the following tributaries:, Bulao River, Hakbangan River and

Munting Dilao Creek..


2/26


3/26

Figure 3. The Cainta River as the Commission on Audit (COA) gave budget for Pasig River Rehabilitation

Commission (PRRC) for cleaning Pasig River and its tributaries.

Figure 4 Side Photograph of Manggahan Floodway from West Bank Road where Cainta River is a tributary.


4/26

Figure 4.Manggahan Flood Gate

DATA GATHERING

The data, cross section, length, and discharge and rainfall intensity of Cainta River, were gathered from the Manila

Metropolitan Development Authority (MMDA) - Effective Flood Control Operation System (EFCOS) Department,

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical

Services Administration Department of Science and Technology (PAGASA - DOST). Google earth where aerial

photos has been gathered and Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HECRAS) software were

also used to generate a model that assesses the water level and stream flow of a natural channel based on adjacent

basin rainfall intensity. HECRAS is free software that renders one-dimensional steady flow hydraulic model designedfor channel flow analysis and floodplain determination.


5/26


6/26


7/26


8/26

Rainfall Intensity

The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services AdministrationDepartment of Science and Technology (PAGASADOST) gave the two

month rainfall intensity, July and August, in which the IDF Curve was interpolated.

RAINFALL DATA (2013)

day January February March April May June July August September October November December

1 0.3 1

2 5.4 0

3 0.6 38.8

4 1.8 5

5 1.7 17.5

6 0 0.7

7 0 2.8

8 0 1.5

9 0 2.5

10 0.2 0

11 0.5 26.6

12 0.3 35.8

13 5.4 0

14 2.3 0

15 0.5 0

16 87.9 0


9/26

17 4.2 63

18 0 279.5

19 1 290

20 0 119.2

21 3 70.5

22 1 10

23 47 0

24 0.2 57.5

25 0 20

26 30.4 9.7

27 35.6 4.9

28 57 0

29 1 0

30 0.5 0

31 30.6 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 318.4 1056.5 0 0 0 0

Interpolated Return Period (from the Rainfall Data)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

3 1 0 38.8 5 17.5 0.7 2.8 1.5 2.5 0 26.6 35.8 0 0 0

1.5 0.3 5.4 0.6 1.8 1.7 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.5 0.3 5.4 2.3 0.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

5 11.57 1.61 1.67 3 1.81 12.21 4.18 6.5 4.5 -34.5 1.76 1.7 1.61 -0.2609 -12

10 22.29 0.2222 1.87 5.34 2.29 22.93 6.86 11.5 7.5 -72 2.05 1.91 0.2222 -3.52 -27

25 54.43 -3.94 2.46 12.38 3.71 55.07 14.89 26.5 16.5 -184.5 2.91 2.54 -3.94 -13.3 -72

Return Period

RA

Return PeriodRA


10/26

Return Period

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

0 63 279.5 290 119.2 70.5 10 T 57.5 20 9.7 4.9 0 0 0 0

87.9 4.2 0 1 0 3 1 47 0.2 0 30.4 35.6 57 1 0.5 30.6

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

2 2.91 1.52 1.53 1.52 1.56 1.54 2.17 2.84 1.63 1.88 3.34 3 2.87 -4.5 -12 2.75

2.83 1.65 1.55 1.55 1.63 1.66 3 2.68 1.76 2.25 2.98 2.75 2.74 -12 -27 2.51

2 2.57 2.03 1.63 1.62 1.81 1.99 5.5 2.2 2.15 3.38 1.89 2.02 2.34 -34.5 -72 1.77

AINFALL DATA

AINFALL DATA

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

0 10 20 30 40Rainfall Intensity

(mm/day)

Duration (per day)

5 Years Return Period



11/26

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

0 10 20 30 40Rainfall

Intensity

(mm/day)

Duration (per day)



-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

0 10 20 30 40Rainfall

Intensity

(mm/day)

Duration (per day)




12/26


13/26

Time of Concentration (tc) and Discharge (Q)

From Intersection of Concepcion Creek and Balanti Creek to Marcos Highway

L = 1.013 km = 1013 mH = 4 m

C = 0.60 Run-off Coefficient

()

()

()()()

()()()

()()()

From Marcos Highway to the Intersection of Munting Dilao Creek

L = 1.762 km = 1762 mH = 4 m

()

()

()()()

()()()

()()()

From Munting Dilao Intersection to Hakbangan River


14/26

L = 0.700 km = 700 m

H = 4 m

()

()

()()()

()()()

()()()

From Hakbangan River to Bulao River

L = 2.270 km = 2270 m

H = 4 m

()

()

()()()

()()()

()()()

From Bulao River to Ortigas Avenue

L = 1.860 km = 1860 m

H = 4 m


15/26

()

()

()()()

()()()

()()()

From Bulao River to Manggahan Floodway Project (Ditch Canal)

L = 4.200 km = 4200 m

H = 4 m

()

()

()()()

()()()

()()()


16/26

Input Data Process

HECRAS Working Table

Create File


17/26

Input geometric data


18/26

Enter cross section data


19/26

Input of the computed discharge flow

Slope

Compute


20/26

Model Generation Process

Run Model


21/26


22/26

Validation of Model Generation

Difference of elevation for every station has to be extended vertically for the computation of the water surface. Theslope of the river, if less than 0.7 and greater than 1.4, may indicate the need for additional cross sections.

Rationale of the Model

Formula where the program is based upon:

Energy Grade Line


23/26

where;

y1, y2 = Water depths cross sections

z1, z2 = Elevation of bed above project datum (e.g., NAVD)

V1, V2 = Average velocities (total discharge/total flow area)

1, 2 = Velocity weighting coefficients

g = Gravitational acceleration

he = Energy head loss

Time of Concentration

()

where;

Discharge

where;

discharge

run-off coefficient

A = area of catch basin

Return Period

where;

return period


24/26

Conclusion

After the assessment of Cainta River, the cross section of the river from the beginning of the design is predictably

shows that will fail in the future due to the cross sections are too small and it is not enough to carry the discharge.

The cross section of Cainta River is not totally sufficient to hold the rainfall depth after 25 years, the water level will

surpasses the natural bank of the river.

Recommendation

Looking back on the interpretation of the gathered data, it is advisable to enlarge the width and depth of the river

based on the rainfall intensity and duration of the rainfall to avoid disaster that will occur such as river overflow.

The evaluator recommends the future students who will conduct such assessment to any river to gather complete

data needed to produce a much realistic evaluation. Furthermore, studying of river assessment related program such

as Civil 3d and HEC RAS should give more attention on studying.


25/26

WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING CE 003MIDTERM EXAMINATION

ARRIOLA, IAN B.

EVANGELISTA, JOSEPH T.IBALLA, MICHELLE C.TOLOP, PATRICK JAY B.

September 27, 2013


26/26

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

RUBRIC FOR COURSEWORK OUTPUT

Coursework :MIDTERM EXAMINATION Section : CE51FB2Group No. : Date : September 27, 2013

Members:ARRIOLA, IAN B.EVANGELISTA, JOSEPH T.IBALLA, MICHELLE C.TOLOP, PATRICK JAY B.

Outcome(s) : Students will be able to submit and present a sound paper work as a part of their weekly deliverablesfor the purpose of completion of their design project.

CRITERIABEGINNER1

ACCEPTABLE2

PROFICIENT3

EXEMPLARY4

SCORE

Introduction

There is no clearintroduction of main topicand the structure of thepaper is missing.

The introduction states themain topic but does notadequately preview thestructure of the paper.

The introduction states themain topic and previews thestructure of the paper.

The introduction is engaging,states the main topic andpreviews the structure of thepaper.

Content

Central purpose orargument is not clearlyidentified. Analysis isvague or not evident.Reader is confused ormay be misinformed.

Information supports acentral purpose orargument at times. Analysisis basic or general. Readergains few insights.

Information providesreasonable support for acentral purpose orargument and displaysevidence of a basic analysisof a significant topic.Reader gains someinsights.

Balanced presentation ofrelevant and legitimateinformation that clearlysupports a central purpose orargument and shows athoughtful, in-depth analysisof a significant topic. Readergains important insights.

Organization

The writing is notlogically organized.Frequently, ideas fail tomake sense together.The reader cannotidentify a line of

reasoning and lossesinterest.

In general, writing isarranged logically, althoughoccasionally ideas fail tomake sense together. Thereader is fairly clear aboutwhat writer intends.

The ideas are arrangedlogically to support thecentral purpose orargument. They are usuallylinked to each other. For themost part, the reader can

follow the line of reasoning.

The ideas are arrangedlogically to support thecentral purpose or argument.they flow smoothly from oneto another and are clearlylinked to each other. The

reader can follow the line ofreasoning.

Grammar,Spelling,WritingMechanics(punctuation,italics,capitalization,etc.)

There are so manyerrors that meaning isobscured. The reader isconfused and stopsreading.

The writing has manyerrors, and the reader isdistracted by them.

There are occasionalerrors, but they dontrepresent a majordistraction or obscuremeaning.

The writing is free or almostfree of errors.

Tone

The tone isunprofessional. It is notappropriate for anacademic researchpaper.

The tone is not consistentlyprofessional or appropriatefor an academic researchpaper.

The tone is generallyprofessional. For most part,it is appropriate for anacademic research paper.

The tone is consistentlyprofessional and appropriatefor an academic researchpaper.

Other comments/Observations: Total Score

Evaluated by:

________________________________________ Date:___________________Printed Name and Signature of Faculty Member

Documents

Cainta River Final