Printsdsd

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department
CE 509
CE Design Projects 2
DESIGN OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM

IN BARANGAY LAOG, ANGAT, BULACAN
PREPARED BY:
FLORES, ALBERT ANDREW
DOLLENTE, MATT JEROME G.
EPE, JUDE
LLAVORE, NEIL
TIAMZON, CARLO RONIEL M.
CE52FB1
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO
Instructor
FEBRUARY 15, 2019

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background...........................................................................................................................1
1.2 The Project........................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Location................................................................................................................................1
1.4 Project Perspective...........................................................................................................................3
1.5 Project Client.....................................................................................................................................3
1.6 Project Objectives.............................................................................................................................3
1.6.1 General Objective.....................................................................................................................3
1.6.2 Specific Objectives...................................................................................................................3
1.7 Scope and Limitation........................................................................................................................3
1.7.1 Scope........................................................................................................................................3
1.7.2 Limitation...................................................................................................................................4
1.8 Project Development........................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2 DESIGN CRITERIA.........................................................................................................................6
2.1 Design Data......................................................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Soil type....................................................................................................................................6
2.1.2 Land Topography......................................................................................................................6
2.1.3 Crop Water Demand.................................................................................................................7
2.1.4 Water Demand Duration...........................................................................................................8
2.1.5 Irrigation System Layout...........................................................................................................8
2.2 Related Literature...........................................................................................................................10
2.2.1 Local Literature.......................................................................................................................10
2.2.2 Foreign Literature....................................................................................................................11
CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS, AND STANDARDS.....................................................................................14
3.1 Design Constraints..........................................................................................................................14
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints.........................................................................................................14
3.2 Tradeoffs.........................................................................................................................................15
3.2.1 Tradeoff 1................................................................................................................................15
3.2.2 Tradeoff 2................................................................................................................................16
3.2.3 Tradeoff 3................................................................................................................................18
1
3.2.4 Tradeoff 4................................................................................................................................19
3.3 Raw Designer’s Ranking................................................................................................................21
3.3.1 Computation of ranking for the Economic Constraint............................................................26
3.3.2 Computation of ranking for the Sustainability Constraint.......................................................28
3.3.3 Computation of ranking for the Constructability Constraint....................................................30
3.3.4 Computation of ranking for the Environmental Constraint.....................................................32
3.4 Trade-Off Assessment....................................................................................................................32
3.4.1 Economic Assessment...........................................................................................................32
3.4.2 Sustainability Constraint Assessment....................................................................................32
3.4.3 Constructability Assessment...................................................................................................33
3.4.4 Environmental Constraint Assessment...................................................................................33
3.4.5 Over-all Assessment of Trade-Offs.........................................................................................33
3.5 Risk Assessment.............................................................................................................................33
Design Process..............................................................................................................................................35
4.1 Methodology...................................................................................................................................35
4.2 General Design Process.................................................................................................................36
4.2.1 Site Investigation....................................................................................................................36
4.2.2 Consideration of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards.........................................36
4.2.3 Preparation of Design and Analysis for Specific Facilities.....................................................36
4.2.4 Finalize Project Design...........................................................................................................36
4.2.5 Design Parameters.................................................................................................................36
4.3 Design Analysis of Irrigation System..............................................................................................37
4.3.1 Total Design Discharge...........................................................................................................38
4.4 Pump Design..................................................................................................................................39
4.4.1 Design of Centrifugal Pump....................................................................................................40
4.5 Irrigation Canal Design...................................................................................................................42
4.5.1 Design of Main Canal.............................................................................................................42
4.5.2 Design of Lateral Canal..........................................................................................................46
4.5.3 Design of Culvert....................................................................................................................50
4.6 Validation of Multiple Constraints, trade-offs and Standards.........................................................52
4.6.1 Economic Constraint...............................................................................................................54
2
4.6.2 Sustainability Constraint.........................................................................................................56
4.6.3 Constructability Constraint......................................................................................................58
4.6.4 Environmental Constraint.......................................................................................................59
4.7 Bar Chart Comparison....................................................................................................................60
4.8 Sensitivity Analysis..........................................................................................................................63
4.8.1 Economic Constraint as Variable............................................................................................63
4.8.2 Sustainability Constraint as Variable......................................................................................66
4.8.3 Constructability Constraint as Variable...................................................................................70
4.8.4 Environmental Constraint as Variable....................................................................................75
Final Design...................................................................................................................................................79
5.1 Final Design Project........................................................................................................................79
5.1.1 Centrifugal Pump....................................................................................................................79
5.1.2 Unlined Canal.........................................................................................................................80
5.1.3 Concrete Pipe Culvert.............................................................................................................82
Appendix A.....................................................................................................................................................84
6.1 Computation for Irrigation Canal.....................................................................................................84
6.1.1 For Unlined Main Canal..........................................................................................................84
6.1.2 For Lined Concrete Main Canal..............................................................................................93
6.1.3 For Unlined Lateral Canal.....................................................................................................102
6.1.4 Computation for Concrete lined Lateral Canal......................................................................111
Appendix B...................................................................................................................................................120
7.1 Computation for Concrete Pipe Culvert........................................................................................120
Appendix C...................................................................................................................................................138
8.1 Initial Estimates.............................................................................................................................138
8.1.1 Centrifugal Pump..................................................................................................................138
8.1.2 Reciprocating Pump.............................................................................................................139
8.1.3 Unlined canal........................................................................................................................140
8.1.4 Lined canal...........................................................................................................................141
8.1.5 Culvert...................................................................................................................................142
Appendix D...................................................................................................................................................143
9.1 Final Estimates.............................................................................................................................143
3
9.1.1 Centrifugal Pump..................................................................................................................143
9.1.2 Reciprocating Pump.............................................................................................................144
9.1.3 Unlined Canal.......................................................................................................................145
9.1.4 Lined Canal...........................................................................................................................146
9.1.5 Culvert...................................................................................................................................147
LIST OF FIGUR
FIGURE 1. 1 SATELLITE VIEW OF BARANGAY LAOG, ANGAT BULACAN 2
FIGURE 1. 2 PROJECT LOCATION 2
FIGURE 1. 3 PERSPECTIVE VIEW IRRIGATION SYSTEM 3
FIGURE 1. 4 DESIGN PROCEDURE FLOW CHART 5
Y
FIGURE 2. 1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF LAOG, ANGAT BULACAN 7

FIGURE 2. 2 IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT 9
FIGURE 3. 1 RANKING SCALE VALUE 22

FIGURE 3. 2 SUBORDINATE RANK OF TRADE-OFF 2 PLOTTED IN A RANK LINE 26
FIGURE 4. 1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY OF TRADE-OFFS 35
FIGURE 4. 2 ANALYSIS OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM 37
FIGURE 4. 3 FLOW CHART OF PUMP DESIGN 39
FIGURE 4. 4 PUMP LAY OUT 40
FIGURE 4. 5 FLOW CHART FOR THE DESIGN OF MAIN CANAL 42
FIGURE 4. 6 MAIN CANAL LAY OUT 43
FIGURE 4. 7 FLOW CHART FOR THE DESIGN OF LATERAL CANAL 46
FIGURE 4. 8 LATERAL CANALS LAYOUT 47
FIGURE 4. 9 FLOW CHART FOR THE DESIGN OF CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT 50
FIGURE 4. 10 SUBORDINATE RANK OF TRADE-OFF 2 UNDER ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT 54
4
FIGURE 4. 13 SUBORDINATE RANK OF TRADE-OFF 1 UNDER SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT 56
FIGURE 4. 16 SUBORDINATE RANK OF TRADE-OFF 3 UNDER CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 58
FIGURE 4. 17 SUBORDINATE RANK OF TRADE-OFF 4 UNDER CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 59
FIGURE 4. 18 COMPARISON OF TOTAL COST 61
FIGURE 4. 19 COMPARISON OF DESIGN LIFE 61
FIGURE 4. 20 COMPARISON OF CONSTRUCTION DURATION 62
FIGURE 4. 21 COMPARISON OF CONSTRUCTION DURATION 62
FIGURE 4. 22 ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT SENSITIVITY GRAPH 66
FIGURE 4. 23 SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT SENSITIVITY GRAPH 70
FIGURE 4. 24 CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT SENSITIVITY GRAPH 74
FIGURE 4. 25 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SENSITIVITY GRAPH 78
Y
FIGURE 5. 1 CENTRIFUGAL PUMP 79

FIGURE 5. 2 UNLINED CANAL CROSS SECTION 80
FIGURE 5. 3 CULVERT CROSS SECTION 82
LIST OF TABL
TABLE 2. 1 SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION 6

TABLE 2. 2 CROP WATER DEMAND 7
TABLE 2. 3 CROP WATER DEMAND 8
Y
TABLE 3. 1 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS

15
TABLE 3. 2 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF UNLINED CANAL 15
TABLE 3. 3 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CULVERT 16
TABLE 3. 4 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CULVERT MATERIALS 16
TABLE 3. 5 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF RECIPROCATING
PUMPS 16
TABLE 3. 6 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF UNLINED CANAL 17
TABLE 3. 8 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CULVERT MATERIALS 17
TABLE 3. 9 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS
18
TABLE 3. 10 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LINED CANALS 18
TABLE 3. 11 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LINED CANAL
MATERIALS 18
5
TABLE 3. 13 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CULVERT MATERIALS
19
TABLE 3. 14 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF RECIPROCATING
PUMPS 19
TABLE 3. 15 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LINED CANAL 20
TABLE 3. 16 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LINED CANAL
MATERIALS 20
TABLE 3. 18 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CULVERT MATERIALS
21
TABLE 3. 19 DESIGNER’S RANKING 22
TABLE 3. 20 SUMMARY OF INITIAL DESIGN OUTPUT 23
TABLE 3. 21 SUMMARY OF ITEMS FOR TRADE-OFF 1 24
TABLE 3. 25 TRADE-OFF QUANTITATIVE INITIAL ESTIMATE 25
TABLE 3. 26 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM 32
TABLE 3. 27 CONSEQUENCE AND POSSIBLE SOURCE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS 33
TABLE 3. 28 HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS CONSEQUENCES RATINGS 34
TABLE 4. 1 DESIGN PARAMETERS.............................................................................................................36

TABLE 4. 2 BEST HYDRAULIC SECTION FOR RECTANGULAR CANAL..................................................43
TABLE 4. 3 DESIGN OF RECTANGULAR UNLINED MAIN CANAL.............................................................44
TABLE 4. 4 DESIGN OF RECTANGULAR CONCRETE LINED MAIN CANAL............................................45
TABLE 4. 5 BEST HYDRAULIC SECTION FOR RECTANGULAR CANAL.................................................47
TABLE 4. 6 DESIGN OF UNLINED LATERAL CANAL..................................................................................48
TABLE 4. 7 DESIGN OF CONCRETE LINED LATERAL CANAL..................................................................49
TABLE 4. 8 DESIGN OF CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT.................................................................................51
TABLE 4. 9 SUMMARY OF ITEMS FOR TRADE-OFF 1...............................................................................52
TABLE 4. 10 SUMMARY OF ITEMS FOR TRADE-OFF 2.............................................................................53
TABLE 4. 13 FINAL COMPARISON OF ESTIMATE BASED ON CONSTRAINTS.......................................53
TABLE 4. 14 SUMMARY OF FINAL DESIGNER’S RAW RANKING.............................................................60
TABLE 4. 15 DESIGNERS’ RANKING HAVING AN IMPORTANCE OF “0” FOR ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT
................................................................................................................................................................63
................................................................................................................................................................63
6
................................................................................................................................................................63
................................................................................................................................................................64
................................................................................................................................................................64
................................................................................................................................................................64
................................................................................................................................................................64
................................................................................................................................................................65
................................................................................................................................................................65
................................................................................................................................................................65
TABLE 4. 25 DESIGNERS’ RANKING HAVING AN IMPORTANCE OF “10” FOR ECONOMIC
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................65
TABLE 4. 26 DESIGNER’S RANKING HAVING AN IMPORTANCE OF “0” FOR SUSTAINABILITY
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................66
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................66
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................67
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................67
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................67
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................68
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................68
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................68
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................69
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................69
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................69
7
TABLE 4. 37 DESIGNER’S RANKING HAVING AN IMPORTANCE OF “0” FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................70
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................71
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................71
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................71
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................72
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................72
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................72
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................73
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................73
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................73
TABLE 4. 47 DESIGNERS’ RANKING HAVING AN IMPORTANCE OF “0” FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................75
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................75
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................75
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................75
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................76
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................76
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................76
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................76
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................77
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................77
8
CONSTRAINT........................................................................................................................................77
TABLE 5. 1 DESIGN OF UNLINED MAIN CANAL.........................................................................................80

TABLE 5. 2 DESIGN OF UNLINED LATERAL CANAL..................................................................................82
TABLE 5. 3 DESIGN OF CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT.................................................................................83
TABLE C. 1 INITIAL ESTIMATE OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMP.......................................................................138

TABLE C. 2 INITIAL ESTIMATE OF RECIPROCATING PUMP...................................................................139
TABLE C. 3 INITIAL ESTIMATE OF UNLINED CANAL...............................................................................140
TABLE C. 4 INITIAL ESTIMATE OF LINED CANAL....................................................................................141
TABLE C. 5 INITIAL ESTIMATE OF CULVERT............................................................................................142
TABLE D. 1 DETAILED ESTIMATE OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMP..................................................................143

TABLE D. 2 DETAILED ESTIMATE OF RECIPROCATING PUMP.............................................................144
TABLE D. 3 DETAILED ESTIMATE OF UNLINED CANAL..........................................................................145
TABLE D. 4 DETAILED ESTIMATE OF LINED CANAL...............................................................................146
TABLE D. 5 DETAILED ESTIMATE OF CULVERT......................................................................................147
9
1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
Angat, officially the Municipality of Angat, is a 1st class municipality in the province of Bulacan and has a
land area of 7,400 hectares. It has a hilly and mountainous landscape that nestles Angat River which
snakes around eleven provinces in the Central Luzon Region. Angat River's main basin of water source is
from Dona Remedios Trinidad the longest mountain range in the Philippines
The province's total land area indicates that its topography ranges from level to rugged terrain. The western
portion of Bulacan for instance has been classified in the Landscape Map as belonging to the lowland
category with an approximate coverage of close to 50 percent of the provincial land area. On the other
hand, the eastern part of the province covers those areas that are hilly to mountainous. This is where the
province interfaces with the southeastern part of Luzon. In the middle of these two major landforms are the
piedmont landscapes, which have elevation of about 50 to 100 meters above sea level. Over one half of
Bulacan's overall land area have been classified as having slopes less than 8 percent or those considered
as having level to gently sloping terrain and this is found on the western part of Bulacan.
Laog is a small barangay in Angat Bulacan situated at approximately 14.9300, 121.0739, in the island of
Luzon. Elevation at these coordinates is estimated at 76.4 meters or 250.7 feet above mean sea level. Its
main industry are farming, poultry, food processing and quarrying. The geographic nature of the town is
diversified and multi-faceted, rich in nature's beauty like waterfall, rivers, caves, few mountains, hilly areas
and springs. The mainland are plain agricultural lands, some part of which was substantially eroded due to
commercialization and urbanization
1.2 The Project
Irrigation is the process through which controlled amount of water can be supplied through artificial means
such as pipes, ditches, sprinklers etc. the main objectives of irrigation systems is to help agricultural crop
growth, landscape maintenance, reduce the effect of inadequate rainfall etc. Therefore, the importance of
irrigation systems is very high.
In line with this, our group will design an Irrigation System wherein it will serve as the main source of water
for crops and allows them to irrigate their crops and increase their yields.
1.3 Project Location
The location of the project will be along Barangay Laog, Angat, Bulacan having the coordinates of 14.9300°
N, 121.0739° E.
1
Figure 1. 1 Satellite View of Barangay Laog, Angat Bulacan
Figure 1. 2 Project Location
2
1.4 Project Perspective
Figure 1. 3 Perspective view Irrigation System
1.5 Project Client
The client of the project will be the Local Government of Angat Bulacan.
1.6 Project Objectives
1.6.1 General Objective

The main objective of the project is to provide a more efficient irrigation system in Barangay Laog, Angat,
Bulacan. The designers will deliberate ideas to come up with different trade-offs and constraints to identify
engineering methods and applications that will be helpful throughout the entire project, to design an
efficient irrigation system and optionally gather data for future references.
1.6.2 Specific Objectives
1. To study and analyze different types irrigation system
2. To survey the location and analyze the best type of irrigation system fitted to the location
3. To design and provide an efficient cost and estimate of the irrigation system
4. To weigh-in the trade-offs based on the limitations in order to differentiate what is the most effective
design choice.
1.7 Scope and Limitation
1.7.1 Scope
The following were the scope of the design project
3
1. Provide an efficient cost and estimate of irrigation system
2. Provide an effective irrigation system that are most suited for the chosen location.
3. Design of irrigation system in in Barangay Laog, Angat, Bulacan considering three (3) trade-
offs.
1.7.2 Limitation
The following were the limitation of the design project
1. This only focuses on designing a sustainable irrigation system in Barangay Laog, Angat,
Bulacan.
2. The design project will not comprise the maintenance, analysis and alterations of the system
after the installation of the project.
3. The design project is a communal irrigation system with a total land area of 125 ha.
4. The design of the canal will be the main and lateral canal.
5. Rainfall intensity is not included since it is a communal irrigation system.
1.8 Project Development
1. Identifying the Problems - identifying the existing problem that the designers intend to
address in order for the designers to share pieces of idea and formulate solutions on the
existing problem.
2. Conceptualization - the designer conceptualized design of irrigation system in Laog, Angat,

Bulacan considering different inputs such as strengthening design process, materials and
construction techniques, purpose, ground characteristics and set of standards provided in the
Philippines.
3. Data Gathering- After conceptualization, available data are gathered on the said topic and
review of related concepts take place in order to begin the project with its problems and
possible solutions.
4. Constraints and Standards- the designer identifies and select hindrances that affect the
formulation of the design so that in the early stage the constraints will be lessen. Each
conceivable constraints and standards are considered in order to formulate solutions.
5. Trade-offs – considering different types of irrigation system and rainfall capture system that
might be the most suited for the project considering different constraint and data that have
gathered.
6. Design of Trade-offs – There will be a provide design for each tradeoff to properly explain
each of its capabilities and advantages.
7. Evaluation of Results – After presenting each tradeoff with their specific aspects; results will
be compared and evaluated in order to come up with the most efficient alternative.
4
8. Final Design – Final design will be now based on the chosen trade-off and alternative.
STARTT
IDENTIFYING
THE PROBLEMS
CONCEPTUALIZATION
CONCEPTUALIZATION
DATA GATHERING
PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
AND STANDARDS
TRADE-OFF
TRADE-OFF B
B TRADE-OFF
TRADE-OFF C
C
TRADE-OFF
TRADE-OFF A
A
DESIGN OF TRADE-OFF A DESIGN

DESIGN OF
OF TRADE-OFF
TRADE-OFF B
B
DESIGN OF TRADE-OFF C
ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRAINTS ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRAINTS ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRAINTS
RANKING RANKING RANKING
EVALUATION
EVALUATION OF
OF RESULT
RESULT
FINAL
FINAL DESIGN
DESIGN
END
Figure 1. 4 Design Procedure Flow Chart
2 Chapter 2 DESIGN CRITERIA
2.1 Design Data
To be able to properly design an irrigation system in Barangay Laog, Angat, Bulacan that will serve as
water supply for crops, the following data are gathered to serve as the design basis.
2.1.1 Soil type
The type of soil in an area can affect not only the type irrigation method used but also the irrigation run
times. Sandy soils typically require frequent applications of water at a high rate to keep moisture in the root
zone. Tighter clay soils can hold moisture longer that sandy soils, but may require frequent applications at a
lower rate to prevent runoff.
Table 2. 1 Soil type description
Depth (cm) Description

0-20 Dark yellowish and brown moist clay loam weak medium granular friable sticky
and non-plastic few fine and many medium tubular pores few medium and very
few coarse and many very fine roots wavy gradual boundary
20-40 Strong brown moist clay moderate medium platy firm slightly sticky and slightly
plastic very few coarse and medium tubular pores many medium and many fine
very fine roots irregular gradual boundary
40-120 Strong brown moist sandy clay loam moderate medium blocky friable slightly
sticky and slightly plastic few coarse and many medium tubular pores many fine
and many medium roots presence of medium gravels wavy diffuse boundary
120 below Strong brown moist gravelly clay weak medium blocky friable sticky and non-
plastic few coarse and few medium tubular pores very few fine and medium roots
presence of slightly weathered gravels wavy diffuse boundary
6
2.1.2 Land Topography
Irrigation works well if the laterals can be run along topographic lines. System run times may need
to be adjusted to prevent runoff. The project site is located in the rural areas of Laog, Angat,
Bulacan.
Figure 2. 1 Topographic map of Laog, Angat Bulacan

2.1.3 Crop Water Demand
7
Table 2. 2 Crop Water Demand
2.1.4 Water Demand Duration
Table 2. 3 Crop Water Demand
2.1.5 Irrigation System Layout

The figure below shows the layout of Irrigation System in Laog, Angat, Bulacan. It shows the layout of Main
Canal, Lateral Canals, and Culverts.
8
9
Figure 2. 2 Irrigation System Layout
2.2 Related Literature
Changes in agriculture over the last century have led to substantial increases in food security
through higher and more stable food production. However, the way that water has been managed in
agriculture has caused wide scale changes in land cover with watercourses, contributed to ecosystem
degradation, and undermined the processes that support ecosystems and the provision of a wide range of
ecosystem services essential for human well-being.
Among other natural resources, water resources have a unique position. Water is the main
extensively distributed substance across the world. It contributes to a key role in the human life and
surrounding environment. Fresh water is the most important among them, which is essential for human
beings’ life and activity. About 1.4 billion km^3 water is available on earth. Among them, approximately 35
million km^3 freshwater resources are present (nearly 2.5% of total volume).
On one hand, water resources tend to deplete due to exceeding demand and consumption ratio.
As a result of over pumping and demanding human activity, water quality is worsening in the sources. By
considering worldwide population of 8 billion and with a raise of 2 billion dollars and as a common situation
of business-as-usual, with enhance in water exploring of 22% over 1995 levels is predicted by 2025. It
means irrigation demand raise up to 17%, including 20% demand for industrial water and 70% demand for
municipalities’ water. On the other hand, Global warming further spells out such water shortage. Due to
global warming, snow and ice in the Himalayas, which give huge quantity of water for agriculture in Asia, is
estimated to reduce 20% by the year 2030. At present Irrigated agriculture contributes 40% worldwide food
production. Irrigation increases crops yields from 100 to 400% but poor drainage and irrigation practices
have led to water logging and salinization of about 10% of irrigated land over the world
2.2.1 Local Literature
According to[CITATION NIA18 \l 1033 ] in pump projects, water is lifted from underground or from
rivers and streams. Pump systems are also common in some storage or diversion schemes to lift water to
irrigate areas on higher elevation or pump groundwater to su`pplement available supply from the river.
Environmental protection and conservation is a key consideration in the design of these various schemes.
According to[CITATION Nat15 \l 1033 ], the main goal of rehabilitating irrigation systems is to close
the gap between the irrigated areas and the service areas. Rehabilitation work generally focuses only on
maintaining original canals and headwork. Canal lining, which is the most common improvement work, has
been identified as one big water waster because it involves a lot of waste seepage. An irrigation system, to
be effective, should take into consideration the structure and underlying factors that may affect efficient use,
such as water supply, areas that can actually be serviced, and a monitoring and evaluation system that will
make people accountable for the rehabilitation work.
According to [ CITATION Nat15 \l 1033 ], to assume high water use efficiency presupposes that
there is cooperation between and among farmers and operators so that losses are minimized. However,
irrigation systems should be built under the assumption of maximum use with inefficiencies caused by
10
losses during distribution properly addressed. Canal Lining according to NIA is still not as efficient as
drainage catchment facilities in controlling water wastage. This leads farmers either to lessen the use of
water or to find other ways of efficiently reusing wastewater. The design should also provide for reuse and
drainage catchment facilities so that farmers can capture these water losses and use them to irrigate their
crops.
According to [CITATION Del17 \l 1033 ], there was a spatial variation in the availability of irrigation
water supply within the service area of Balanac River Irrigation System (BRIS). The upstream farms had
greater advantage in securing their water supply than the downstream farms. Most upstream Turnout
Service Area(TSA) and those along the main canal can divert their irrigation water practically anytime they
want since the irrigation is continuous. This “quality” irrigation service to them was at the expense of the
downstream farmers who had to wait for enough water to reach their canal before starting their farming
activities for the season. The high dependence of water availability downstream to irrigation practice of
upstream farmers was one of the perennial issues affecting farms at tail-end of the canal network. The start
of cropping are about three months behind of that upstream farms. Such late starts result to the latter part
of the crop growing period coinciding with the onset of unfavourable weather conditions- either well within
the driest months or the typhoon season.
The two major creeks (Biñan and Saladsad) traversing the service areas were tapped for irrigation
purposed by installing check gates along their stretches. They are fed by drainage water from upstream
farms, hence, are also dependent on diverted water by the dams, especially during the dry season.
2.2.2 Foreign Literature

According [ CITATION WuS \l 1033 ]In the system of centrifugal pump state monitoring and
analysis, the flow rate is an important physical parameter. In view of the advantages of turbine flowmeter in
measurement such as high accuracy, good repeatability, simple structure, few moving parts, high pressure
resistant, wide measuring range, small size, light weight, little pressure loss, convenient maintenance, etc.,
it is employed as the flow rate sensor of the centrifugal pump in this measuring system. Referring to related
criterion and provision, the type LWGY-50A turbine flow sensor coming from Shanghai automatic instrument
Co. Ltd., ninth branch is selected. The related parameters are as follows: nominal pressure: 2.5MPa, rate
range: 6m3/h—40m3/h, accuracy class: 0.5, power source: DC12V, output signal: pulse signal. As long as
the torque and revolution speed of the centrifugal pump are measured, the shaft power can be obtained by
formula. For this reason, the measurement of the shaft power is actually the measurement of the torque
and the revolution speed. According to the measurement requirements of the shaft power and the
revolution speed, referring to relative standard and provision, the JC1A torque-speed transducer produced
by Xiangyi Power Testing Instrument Co., Ltd is selected. The performance parameters of the torque-speed
transducer are as follows: rated torque: 100N·m, speed range: 0-6000r/min, accuracy class: 0.1.For the
performance test of the centrifugal pump, according to the provision of the Chinese standard, the test starts
with zero delivery and ends with exceeding 15 percent points of the maximum discharge. In the processing
of test, fifteen flow points distributing evenly on the performance curve are taken. The performance
11
parameters of the centrifugal pump can be acquired from these flow points. After the acquisition of the
parameters, the data will be analyzed and processed and then the changeful curves followed head, power
and efficiency are drawn. The system of state monitoring and analysis of the centrifugal pump employs
LabVIEW as the development platform. The test items and test content can be selected through user-
friendly interfaces. In the processing of testing, the system monitors the full operating state of the
centrifugal pump on the basis of received instructions, and can select the time-domain analysis, amplitude-
domain analysis, frequency domain analysis of the signal, and meanwhile can acquire data and real-time
display the corresponding parameters and curvesand the conclusion on this studies base of the hardware
selection and software design of state monitoring and system analysis of the marine centrifugal pump, the
corresponding measuring tests are proceeding and the performance parameters under working condition of
the centrifugal pump are acquired. Centering on virtual instrument technology, the hardware design of state
monitoring and system analysis are achieved by employing computer-aided test technology. Extensive
testing is proceeding by applying LabVIEW produced by NI Corporation of USA to program the software
parts of the state monitoring and analysis system. The testing results prove that this system can realize the
operating performance monitoring of the centrifugal pump and can transit performance data through
network.
According to [ CITATION Sax14 \l 1033 ] the importance of including canal lining in the original
Construction plans and designs of an irrigation project, provided studies have demonstrated its economic
feasibility, It is only during the planning and designing stages that full advantage can be taken of the many
benefits of the installation of a canal lining. When lining is included in the original plans and designs, the
cost of the lining might be justified in consideration of decrease the storage and diversion requirements,
smaller canal sections, smaller and possibly fewer canal structures, reduction of pumping costs where
pumping is necessary, and a possible reduction in the right-of-way requirements. Seepage losses from
canals and laterals represent a loss to the intended user not only of value able irrigation water, but also a
considerable loss in the costs of additional construction from which no return is received on the investment.
Storage reservoirs and dams must be constructed of sufficient size to impound not only the useful water but
also the water that will be diverted in transit by seepage from the canals. Reduction of the loss of water
from a canal may be economically important when the water supply available at the head of the canal is
limited or when all of the water has to be pumped. And there conclusion on this study mainly fuscous on the
detail of life cycle on the deferent type of lining and its durability, compare cement concrete lining and tile
lining. According to analysis of thesis topic “economics of canal lining” concrete lining is more suitable then
the tile lining. Cost analysis of the topic Cement concrete lining more cost effective then other types of
lining methods. In Indian scenario and resultant of the study shows that we can save and evolve new
methodology of lining (Concrete & tile) So that we can reduce estimating cost of lining project on urban &
rural level lining.
12
[CITATION Nav95 \l 1033 ] stated in the article on ‘Waterlogging - Problems and Solutions’ that
drainage is a measure to remove excess water from the soil or from the soil surface. It is known that canal
irrigation upon overuse often leads to rise of water table and drainage is essential but even today adequate
attentions is not being paid to this while designing and planning of canal irrigation projects. Owing to this
neglect, many irrigation projects in the arid and semi-arid areas have created serious problems of water
logging and of salinity and alkalinity.
According to[CITATION Fou15 \l 1033 ], the semiarid region just north of the Black Hills in western
South Dakota has vast stretches of tablelands with agricultural potential. Carefully monitored irrigation is
necessary for this region to thrive due to its differing needs. The land north of the Belle Fourche River
comprises mainly sticky gumbo soil that retains water. Without proper drainage, excess water seeps into
the subsoils, salts rise to the surface, and the area is no longer able to be irrigated. The land south of the
Belle Fourche River, on the other hand, has thirsty sandy loam that requires frequent watering. In
recognition of this region’s complex irrigation needs, the Bureau of Reclamation established the Belle
Fourche Irrigation District (BFID). BFID is responsible for the care, operation, and maintenance of an
irrigation system that delivers water to over 202 km2 (50,000 acres) of cropland, using 94 miles of main
canal, 450 miles of open lateral ditches, and several dams. Because this region faces recurring drought,
water conservation is critical to ensuring a sufficient, available supply for irrigation needs throughout the
district. BFID wanted to reduce their canal water-level fluctuations, thereby reducing water loss and
increasing delivery efficiency. To accomplish this, it was necessary to automate the BFID’s canal check
structures. BFID contracted with RESPEC, an integrated consulting and services firm, to assist with the
project coordination, installation, advising, system configuration, and troubleshooting. In 2006, RESPEC
began automating the BFID canal check structures. RESPEC installed water level sensors, gate height
sensors, and gate actuators in combination with Campbell Scientific dataloggers (CR1000, CR850, and
CR200X models). RESPEC has facilitated several automation campaigns over the past 10 years for BFID.
RESPEC partnered with Intermountain Environmental (IEI) in 2008 to install about half of the current
automated sites and repeater stations. RESPEC continues to maintain and update the automation system.
According to (White, 1996), a regression equation is needed for determining the extent of low
velocity zones suitable for juvenile fish passage in countersunk culverts. The equation generally
underestimated the amount of low velocity area present. Consequently, the equation would be useful for
culvert design because it provides a conservative estimate of the amount of low velocity area available for
fish utilization. Additionally, he found the countersunk culverts that he investigated to be resistant to erosion
and capable of conveying high discharges. Several high gradient (2 to 7.6 percent) culverts were
investigated, and all retained their bedload during 5-year to 10-year flood events. Unfortunately for the
analysis of bedload stability, the steepest culverts were not subjected to flows greater than 5-year floods.
13
3 CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS, AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints
Constraint is defined as a constraining condition, agency, or force that limits the systems’ performance
in a given context/ environment. Constraint describes the relationships between objects and processes.
Constraints have to be managed. Practically, in all cases the constraints’ limiting impact can be reduced or
eliminated.
The project, in order to meet and achieve the requirements of the client must be design in line with the
needs and necessities given by the client and also the judgement of the designer. These factors, often
divided into Quantitative Constraints - are those constraints that can be measured using engineering
methods (estimation). Outlined and discussed on the following are the constraints faced by the designers in
the “Design of Irrigation System in Barangay Laog, Angat, Bulacan.
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints

3.1.1.1 Economic Constraint (Cost)
Economic constraint can have significant effect on the design outcome of the project. This constraint
accords with the fact that in creating a project, quantity and quality of the materials must be acknowledged,
which are also dependent to the cost of the entire project. As designers, it is a requirement to create a
project that will meet the desired design strength and durability of the design outcome, economically.
Regardless of the fact that irrigation was known to have a high initial cost, for this project, the designers will
assess the total costs of the project to come up with the best and most economical design.
3.1.1.2 Environmental Constraint (Penalty Cost)

There are various legal implications when it comes to potentially damaging the environment. Whether it’s
wildlife preservation zones, laws on the usage of hazardous materials, or restrictions on a few pollutants,
construction projects must abide by the laws and codes of where they are building. Failure to abide by
these regulations can result in delays, financial penalties, and possible lawsuits.
3.1.1.3 Constructability Constraint (Construction Duration)
One of the factors that highly contribute to the costs of a project is the duration of the construction due to its
mountainous region and rough terrains. Topography is also the most common problem in designing and
installing of an irrigation system. Longer project duration corresponds to higher amount of cost that will be
added to the total cost of the project which will make the project expensive.
14
3.1.1.4 Sustainability Constraint (Lifespan)
Due to unpredicted weather condition, volume of water that are collected for irrigation varies from time to
time. Irrigation for agriculture traditionally consumes large amounts of water and energy, resources that are
becoming increasingly scarce. There is a strong need for irrigation methods that can provide adequate
hydration for crops even with a limited supply of water, without requiring significant energy input.
3.2 Tradeoffs
Tradeoffs is a technique or method of decision making that compromises different designs by balancing
their factors and analyzing which gives more return or has a better effectiveness given certain
circumstances or cases.
The designers came up with three different trade-offs. These trade-offs are Types of Pump, Types of
Irrigation Canal, and types of culvert. It will be measured through its different quality and aspects to come
up with the best resolution for the design of irrigation system.
3.2.1 Tradeoff 1
Centrifugal Pumps - Centrifugal pumps are used to pump from reservoirs, lakes, streams and shallow
wells. They also are used as booster pumps in irrigation pipelines. These pumps must have water in the
intake pipe and the casing before starting the pump. It is imperative that you prime these pumps before the
first use. This is done by filling the case with water, then quickly turning the pump on.
Table 3. 1 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Centrifugal Pumps
Advantages Disadvantages
 It requires minimum space for installation as it  The pump will not work, if the chamber is not
is compact in design. full of water. So, the priming should always be
 It can be installed for high speed driving done before starting the pump.
mechanism.  The pump will not work of there is any leakage
 The working is simple and there is no valve in in the suction side.
the pump, hence it is reliable and durable.
Unlined Canals - An unlined canal is the one which as it bed and banks made of natural soil through
which it is constructed and not provided with a lining of impervious material. They are inexpensive, but
require high maintenance expenditure.
 Easy to construct  The low velocity of flow maintained to prevent
 Low cost type of construction erosion necessitates larger cross-section of
 It takes less time to complete the project work channels
15
 risk of the side slopes collapsing and the
water loss due to seepage
 Requires continuous maintenance
Favorable conditions for weed growth which further
retards the velocity.
Table 3. 2 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Unlined Canal
Culvert - Culverts are commonly used both as cross-drains for ditch relief, and to pass water under a road
at natural drainage and stream crossings. A culvert may be a bridge-like structure designed to allow vehicle
or pedestrian traffic to cross over the waterway while allowing adequate passage for the water.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Culvert
 Prevent Erosion  If poorly sized or installed, can restrict aquatic
 Prevent Flooding organisms from freely moving between
 Allow Water to Flow Unobstructed upstream and downstream habitat.
 Divert Water for Farming/Engineering  If designed or installed incorrectly, can cause
Purposes severe scouring and erosion.
 Requires more structural maintenance and
rehabilitation over design life than do culverts
Table 3. 3 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Culvert
Advantages and Disadvantages of Culvert Materials
Material Tradeoff Advantages Disadvantages

 Long Lifespan  High form cost
Concrete Pipe  Durability
Table 3. 4 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Culvert Materials
3.2.2 Tradeoff 2
Reciprocating Pumps - Displacement pumps force the water to move by displacement. Displacement
pumps are used for moving very thick liquids, creating very precise flow volumes, or creating very high
pressures.
Table 3. 5 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Reciprocating Pumps
16
 It is suitable for large pumping units.  It requires large space for installation.
 It gives constant discharge.  It is suitable for pumping water containing
high sediment.
Unlined Canals - An unlined canal is the one which as it bed and banks made of natural soil through
which it is constructed and not provided with a lining of impervious material. They are inexpensive, but
require high maintenance expenditure.
Table 3. 6 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Unlined Canal
 Easy to construct  The low velocity of flow maintained to prevent
 Low cost type of construction erosion necessitates larger cross-section of
 It takes less time to complete the project work channels
 risk of the side slopes collapsing and the
water loss due to seepage
 Requires continuous maintenance
Favorable conditions for weed growth which further
retards the velocity.
17

3.2.3 Tradeoff 3
Centrifugal Pumps - Centrifugal pumps are used to pump from reservoirs, lakes, streams and shallow
wells. They also are used as booster pumps in irrigation pipelines. These pumps must have water in the
intake pipe and the casing before starting the pump. It is imperative that you prime these pumps before the
first use. This is done by filling the case with water, then quickly turning the pump on.
Table 3. 9 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Centrifugal Pumps
 It requires minimum space for installation as it  The pump will not work, if the chamber is not
is compact in design. full of water. So, the priming should always be
 It can be installed for high speed driving done before starting the pump.
mechanism.  The pump will not work of there is any leakage
 The working is simple and there is no valve in in the suction side.
the pump, hence it is reliable and durable.
Lined Canals - Earthen canals can be lined with impermeable materials to prevent excessive seepage
and growth of weeds. Lining canals is also an effective way to control canal bottom and bank erosion. The
materials mostly used for canal lining are brick or rock masonry and asphaltic concrete.
Table 3. 10 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Lined Canals
 Maintenance is reduced for lined canals.  Construction cost is much higher than for
 It reduces the loss of water due to seepage earthen canals.
and hence the duty is enhanced  It takes too much time to complete the project
 It eliminates the effect of scouring in the canal work
bed  It involves many difficulties for repairing the
 It controls the growth of weeds along the damaged section of lining
canal sides and bed.
18
Advantages and Disadvantages of Lined Canal Materials
Table 3. 11 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Lined Canal Materials

 Long Lifespan  Longer construction
 Durability period
 impermeable and hydraulically  High form cost
efficient
Cement Concrete
 requires least maintenance
 The smooth surface of the
lining increases the
conveyance of the channel

19
3.2.4 Tradeoff 4
Reciprocating Pumps - Displacement pumps force the water to move by displacement. Displacement
pumps are used for moving very thick liquids, creating very precise flow volumes, or creating very high
pressures.
Table 3. 14 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Reciprocating Pumps
 It is suitable for large pumping units.  It requires large space for installation.
 It gives constant discharge.  It is suitable for pumping water containing
high sediment.
Lined Canals - Earthen canals can be lined with impermeable materials to prevent excessive seepage
and growth of weeds. Lining canals is also an effective way to control canal bottom and bank erosion. The
materials mostly used for canal lining are brick or rock masonry and asphaltic concrete.
 Maintenance is reduced for lined canals.  Construction cost is much higher than for
 It reduces the loss of water due to seepage earthen canals.
and hence the duty is enhanced  It takes too much time to complete the project
 It eliminates the effect of scouring in the canal work
bed  It involves many difficulties for repairing the
 It controls the growth of weeds along the damaged section of lining
canal sides and bed.
Table 3. 15 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Lined Canal
Advantages and Disadvantages of Lined Canal Materials
20
 Long Lifespan  Longer construction
 Durability period
 impermeable and hydraulically  High form cost
efficient
Cement Concrete
 requires least maintenance
 The smooth surface of the
lining increases the
conveyance of the channel
Table 3. 16 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Lined Canal Materials
21
3.3 Raw Designer’s Ranking
In order to deliberate the two systems with accuracy parallel to the constraints given, analysis techniques
such as described below were used. Trade-offs to be selected must have capability to satisfy the demand
of constraints. Each trade-off must be designed in accordance with codes and standard so that selection of
scheme to be adapted in the design is accurate.
To come up in selection of the trade-off, the designers used the model on trade-offs strategies in
engineering design by Otto and Antonson (1991) where in the importance of each criterion (on a scale of 0
to 5, 5 with the highest importance) was assigned and each design methodology’s ability to satisfy the
criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5, 5 with the highest ability to satisfy the criterion) which was tabulated
below.
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:
Higher value−Lower value

difference= x 10 Equation 3.1
Higher value
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛� = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛� − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒) Equation 3.2
The governing rank is the subjective value set by the designers. It depends on the designers own
discrepancy on ranking the importance of each constraint. The subordinate rank in Equation 3-2 is a
variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank along the ranking scale.
Figure 3. 1 Ranking Scale Value

As equation 3.1 and equation 3.2 provided, the range is determined by the product of the percentage
difference and by the number of scale that is 10. The result will be the number of interval from the
governing value. After discussing the design constraints, the designers came up with the raw ranking on
the said trade-offs. The discussion on how the designers arise with the raw rankings values are shown and
computed below.
22
Table 3. 19 Designer’s Ranking
Decision Criterion’s Importance

Criteria (on a scale of 1 to 10)
Economic 10
Environmental 9
Constructabilit 9
y
Sustainability 10
In the tabulation of the initial ranking for sections shown above, the economic constraint criterion’s
importance is ranked as ten (10) because the client specified the amount of budget and it must be enough
for the given area. An importance value of nine (9) was given in environmental constraint, which signifies
that the water supply must be safe for the plants and that the system will not cause any relevant damage
on the environment. Constructability constraint was ranked nine (9) as well since the budget provided by
the client will also be consumed in man-hour labor. Sustainability constraint was given an importance value
of ten (10), which signifies that the client and designer gives priority.
Table 3. 20 Summary of Initial Design Output
DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
Economic Sustainabilit Constructability Environment
Trade- Irrigation Material y al
offs Components Cost- Php Lifespan - Construction Penalty Cost
years Duration - days - Php
Trade- Pump Centrifugal 1,500,000. 15 15 500,000

off 1 Pump 00
Unlined Soil 169,842.30 30 45
Canal 2
Culvert Concrete 38,160.00 75 25

Pipe (per ton)
Trade- Pump Reciprocating 1,665,000. 20 15 500,000
off 2 Pump 00
Unlined Soil 169,842.30 30 45
Canal 2
23
Pipe (per ton)
Trade- Pump Centrifugal 1,500,000. 15 15 500,000
off 3 Pump 00
Lined Canal Concrete 465,857.27 50 55

Pipe (per ton)
Trade- Pump Reciprocating 1,665,000. 20 15 500,000
off 4 Pump 00
Lined Canal Concrete 5,000.00 50 55
(per meter)
Pipe (per ton)
The designers had discussed to set the corresponding importance rank in every criterion that must
be measured. The economic importance is set to five (5) since one of the objectives of this project is to
create a design outcome that would be economical for the client and the budget provided would be enough
for the area. The designer set it as one of the highest possible ranking in all of the constraints listed. The
environmental importance was ranked as four (4) because the water supply for the irrigation is one of the
priority of the client and the designers. Water which will be used for irrigation must be free from chemicals
that may have relevant effects on the crops. The constructability importance was ranked as four (4) as well
since the client insists that the project must be done as soon as possible, because the duration of the
project would affect the production of crops. The sustainability importance was ranked as five (5) since one
of the objectives of this project was to have a design outcome that will be useful to the client for a longer
span. It can correlate to economic because if the project needs high maintenance, the cost of maintenance
will also rise.
Designer’s System Raw Ranking
The designers provide and tabulate the initial estimates of the Irrigation System design. After
tabulating the estimated material cost, Design life, Construction duration, and Penalty cost, the rankings are
made for the ability to satisfy the criterion were also computed using the equation 3-1 and equation 3-2
from the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design by Otto and Antonson (1998)
Table 3. 21 Summary of items for Trade-off 1
TRADE-OFF 1
Design Constraint Centrifugal Unlined Canal Concrete Pipe TOTAL
Pump Culvert
Economic 1,500,000.00 169,842.302 48,230.00 (per 1,718,072.302
ton)
24
Sustainability 15 30 75 120
Constructability 15 45 25 85
Environmental 500,000.00 500,000.00
TRADE-OFF 2
Design Constraint Reciprocating Unlined Canal Concrete Pipe TOTAL
Pump Culvert
Economic 1,665,000.00 169,842.302 48,230.00 (per 1,883,072.302
ton)
Environmental 500,000.00 500,000.00
TRADE-OFF 3
Design Constraint Centrifugal Concrete lined Concrete Pipe TOTAL
Pump Canal Culvert
Economic 1,500,000.00 465,857.27 48,230.00 (per 2,014,087.27
ton)
Environmental 500,000.00 500,000.00
TRADE-OFF 4
Design Constraint Reciprocating Concrete lined Concrete Pipe TOTAL
Pump Canal Culvert
Economic 1,665,000.00 5,000.00 (per 48,230.00 (per 2,179,087.27
meter ton)
Environmental 500,000.00 500,000.00
25
Table 3. 25 Trade-off Quantitative Initial Estimate
Design Constraint TRADE-OFFS

Trade-off 1 Trade-off 2 Trade-off 3 Trade-off 4
Economic 1,718,072.302 1,883,072.302 2,014,087.27 2,179,087.27

Environmental 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00
3.3.1 Computation of ranking for the Economic Constraint

Since Trade-off 1 is the one having the lowest amount, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
Trade-Off 1 VS. Trade-Off 2
Using equation’s 3.1 and 3.2;
Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value
1,883,072.302−1,718,072.302
¿ x 10
1,883,072.302
Difference=0.88
Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference
¿ 10.0−0.88 Subordinate Rank=9.12
Figure 3. 2 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 plotted in a rank line
26
Difference= x 10
Higher Value
2,014,087.27−1,718,072.302
¿ x 10
2,014,087.27
Difference=1.5
¿ 10−1.5 Subordinate Rank=8.5

Difference= x 10
Higher Value
2,179,087.27−1,718,072.302
¿ x 10
2,179,087.27
Difference=2.1
27
3.3.2 Computation of ranking for the Sustainability Constraint
Since Trade-off 4 is the one having the largest value, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).

Difference= x 10
Higher Value
145−120
¿ x 10
145
Difference=1.72

Difference= x 10
Higher Value
145−125
¿ x 10
145
Difference=1.38
28

Difference= x 10
Higher Value
145−140
¿ x 10
145
Difference=0.34
3.3.3 Computation of ranking for the Constructability Constraint

Since Trade-off 1 is the one having the lowest value, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).

Difference= x 10
Higher Value
85−70
¿ x 10
85
29
Difference=1.76

Difference= x 10
Higher Value
95−70
¿ x 10
95
Difference=2.63

30
Difference= x 10
Higher Value
100−70
¿ x 10
100
Difference=3.0
3.3.4 Computation of ranking for the Environmental Constraint
Since all of the trade-offs has a penalty cost equivalent to 500,000, there subordinate rank will be
equivalent to its governing rank which is 10
Summary:
Table 3. 26 Summary of Results for Irrigation System
Criterion's Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
Trade-off 1 Trade-off 3 Trade-off 4
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10.0 9.12 8.5 7.9
Sustainability 10 8.28 8.62 9.66 10.0
Constructability 9 10.0 8.24 7.37 7.0
Environmental 9 10 10 10 10
Over-all Rank 362.8 341.6 337.9 332
Since Trade-off 1 has the greatest over-all rank therefore it is the most efficient design for the Irrigation
System.
31
3.4 Trade-Off Assessment
3.4.1 Economic Assessment

The Economic Assessment of trade-off yields the result of using Trade-off 1for the System
in Barangay Laog, Angat, Bulacan. Components for Trade-off 1 have the cheapest materials that will be
used for the Irrigation system.
3.4.2 Sustainability Constraint Assessment

The sustainability Assessment of Trade-off yields the result of using Trade-off 4. The strength and
long design life of Reciprocating Pump, Concrete Lined, Canal and Concrete Pipe Culvert greatly
influenced the outcome of the sustainability constraint assessment.
3.4.3 Constructability Assessment

The Constructability Assessment of Trade-off yields the result of using Trade-off 1. This will result
to less man-hours compared to other trade-offs.
3.4.4 Environmental Constraint Assessment

The 4 Trade-offs have the same value of Penalty cost for the Environmental Constraint so the
designers gave it a subordinate rank of 10.
3.4.5 Over-all Assessment of Trade-Offs
The over-all assessment of trade-offs lead to the Trade-off 1 as the highest-ranking trade-off having
been the best option when it comes to Economic and Constructability aspect of the design. This yields that
components of Trade-off 1such as Centrifugal Pump, Unlined Canal, and Concrete Pipe Culvert will
be used for the design of Irrigation System in Barangay Laog, Angat, Bulacan.
3.5 Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment is a systematic process of evaluating the potential risks that may be involved in a
projected activity or undertaking. It is used for identifying risk factors and hazards that may potentially
cause harm, analyzing and evaluating the risk with association to hazard, and eliminating the hazard or
controlling the risk when the hazard cannot be eliminated. The aim of the risk assessment is to evaluate
hazards, then remove that hazard or minimize the level of its risk by adding control measures, as
necessary. Risk assessments are very important as they form an integral part of an occupational health and
safety management plan.
Table 3. 27 Consequence and Possible Source of Health and Safety Hazards
Possible Source of
Types of Hazards Hazards Consequence Health and Safety
Hazard Consequence
1. Environmental Excavation work adjacent to natural water might • Improper
32
lead to contamination of the water implementation of risk
control measures
• Lack of training and
proper monitoring of
officials
• Unsafe work practices
2. Machine and Pump and other equipment operating in a wet or • Carelessness of the
Equipment damp environment increases the chance of workers
equipment failure if parts become wet and might • Not using of Personal
cause to serious injuries or death Protective Equipment
(PPE)
3. Vehicles Construction vehicles can be a major safety • Brake Failure
hazard on the jobsite, leading to serious injury or • Improper maintenance
even death or repair
• Vehicle overturning
4. Weather Weather hazards to outdoor workers may • Not using of Personal
include extreme, extreme cold, lightning, and Protective Equipment
ultraviolet (UV) (PPE)
• Unsafe and
unprotected workplace
5. Chemicals Exposure to hazardous chemicals at • Carelessness of the
construction sites is one of the biggest risks workers
faced by construction workers • Not using of Personal
Protective Equipment
(PPE)
• Unsafe and
unprotected workplace
Table 3.28 presents the sources of common health and safety hazards in a construction site. The table
indicates that health and safety hazard consider animals, chemicals, confined spaces, electricity, heights,
noise pollution, vehicles, and weather.
The hazard consequence from table 3.28 were then ranked from 1 to 10 to the probability of occurrence.
Table 3. 28 Health and Safety Hazards Consequences Ratings
Types of Health and Safety Hazards Consequences Rankin

g
1. Major Injuries 9
2. Exposure to hazardous chemical 9
3. Environmental Pollution 8
4. Destruction to properties 7
5. Exposure to harmful weathers 6
33
4 Design Process
4.1 Methodology
In order to come up with the best option on the “Design of Irrigation System in Barangay Laog, Angat
Bualcan, the designers came up with criteria and parameters govern by design constraints defined by the
designers
34
Design of Irrigation System
Design Input
Pump Irrigation Canal culvert
Sensitivity Analysis: Evaluation Of the

resulting Trade offs set by Multiple
Constraints
Validation of Trade offs based on

Designer's Final Raw Ranking
Design Output
Finish
Figure 4. 1 Design Methodology of Trade-offs
4.2 General Design Process
4.2.1 Site Investigation

Site investigation is the first stage of our design analysis to determine all necessary data and information
about the chosen location of the project in relation with the design parameters and criteria defined. Before
the designers come up with the final design, the designers done through investigation in that area. The
necessary data were gathered and analyzed. These includes topographic survey on the location,
35
determination of the area for the irrigation system design, kind of crops grown, soil type and also the main
source of water.
4.2.2 Consideration of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards

The designer set multiple set of trade-offs for the benefit of the decision making they will have at the end of
the design, a sensitivity analysis was made in order to satisfy this part of the project. In addition, all possible
design was made.
4.2.3 Preparation of Design and Analysis for Specific Facilities
This includes the design and calculation of the proposed system; Pump, Irrigation Canal, and Culvert by
manual computations using Manning’s Equation and and taking into consideration the equation for best
hydraulic section of Rectangular shape canal. After designing the system, the designers will then proceed
to the final validation to know the most efficient and reliable design of irrigation system.
4.2.4 Finalize Project Design

The finalization of the design, was to be made possible after the client choose the best possible design they
wanted for the given location, it was made in order that the client will have an interface to the given project
as explained and proper introduced by the designers to properly deliberate the best design made. Within
this stage a final detailed design will be made for the proposed project we will have.
4.2.5 Design Parameters

Table 4. 1 Design Parameters
DESCRIPTION PARAMETERS
Total Area 125 ha
Total Design Discharge .105 m3/s
Type of Crops Rice and Corn
Roughness Coefficient .020 (Unlined Canal)
.018 (Lined Canal)
.013 (concrete pipe culvert)
Design parameters are very important in every design, as an engineer we let this parameter govern
the project. In designing an Irrigation System, it is important to consider the type of crop, area to be
supplied and also the required discharge to be used in the canals. As shown in the table (parameters in the
design of Irrigation System), the project was design for 125 hectares with a total design discharge of 0.105
m3/s. The type of crops that the designers took into consideration are rice and corn. Water Duty for each
crop is important to determine the required discharge in the area. Since the corn has a higher discharge
compared to rice, then the design discharge will be the required discharge for the corn with a total land
36
area of 125 ha. The roughness coefficient (Chow, 1959) for an excavated open channel will be then used in
the design of main and lateral canal.
4.3 Design Analysis of Irrigation System
Start
Determine the total area to be

served by the Irrigation System
Determine the type of Crops grown

in the area
Compute the Water Duty of each

crop
Compute the Total Discharge needed in the area with respect to

the type of Crops grown in the area
Compare the Discharge of the Crops and use the discharge of crop
with higher value
End
Figure 4. 2 Analysis of Irrigation System

As for the design analysis of Irrigation System shown, the consideration of various requirements such as
type of crop, Water Duty, and required outlet discharge are computed by the designers. These
requirements are important especially when designing the cross section of the canal.
4.3.1 Total Design Discharge

If the type of crop is Rice:
37
A farm = 125 ha
Demand mm = 700 mm
Duration days = 150 days
8.64( Duration days )

Water Duty =
Demand mm
8.64(150 days) ha
= 1851.429
0.7 m m3 / s
Total Area 125

Outlet Discharge = = = 0.068 m3 /s
Water Duty 1851.429
Qtotal = 0.068 m3 /s
If the type of crop is Corn:
A farm = 125 ha
Demand mm = 800 mm
Duration days = 110 mm
8.64(Duration days) 8.64(110 days) ha

Water Duty = = = 1188
Demand mm 0.8 m m3 / s
8.64(110 days) ha
= 1188 3
0.8 m m /s
Total Area 125

Outlet discharge = = = 0.105 m3 /s
Water Duty 1188
Qtotal = 0.105 m3 /s
Total Design Discharge = .105 m 3/s
38
4.4 Pump Design
The designers used a pump because the area to be served is elevated compared to the elevation of the
river. The Pump design will be based on the discharge needed for the whole area to be supplied.
Start
set desired length for the pipe
Consider pipe diameter of 10 inches
Use Friction Factor = .01
Consider discharge of .105 m33/s
Calculate the friction losses in the pipe using Darcy-

Weishbach formula
Caculate hpp using Energy Equation due to introduction of energy

head output by pump
Calculate the required Horse Power of the pump
End
39
Figure 4. 3 Flow chart of Pump Design
4.4.1 Design of Centrifugal Pump

Computation for the design of Centrifugal Pump
Figure 4. 4 Pump lay out

Given Data:
m3
Q=¿ 0.105
s
Pipe Diameter=¿ 10 inches=0.254 meter
Friction Factor=¿ 0.01
Using Energy Equation due to introduction of energy head output by pump:
2 2
V 1 P1 V P
+ + z1 +h p= 2 + 2 + z 2+ hf
2g γ 2g γ
0.105
Q m
For V 1= = π 2 = 2.0722
A (0.254) s
4
40
m
2.0722 m
V s 3.7676
V 2= 1 = =¿ s
55 55
fL V
2
( 0.01 )( 4 ) (2.0722)2
Friction Loss(hf 1)=¿ = = =¿ 0.03447 m
2 gD 2 ( 9.81 ) (0.254)
2.0722
¿
Friction Loss(hf 2)=¿ = fL V 2 ¿
= ¿ 2 0.02585 m
2 gD
( 0.01 ) ( 3 ) ¿
¿
fL V
2
( 0.01 )( 150 ) (2.0722)2
Friction Loss( hf 3)=¿ = = =¿ 1.2925 m
2 gD 2 ( 9.81 ) ( 0.254)
Friction Loss ( hf total ) =hf 3 +hf 3 +hf 3 =
0.03447 m+ 0.02585 m+1.2925 m=¿ 1.5295 m
P1=P2=0
z 1=0
z 2=18 m
2 2
2.0722 3.7676
+0+0+ h p= + 0+1.5295
2( 9.81) 2(9.81)
Using the given equation of Bernoulli, h p=20.0341m
P= yQ h p
KN m3
P=9.81 x 0.12 x 0.82794 m
m3 s
41
0.97465 kWx 1 hp
P=23.5842 kW P= horse power required =31.6566 HP
1.30650 kW
4.5 Irrigation Canal Design
4.5.1 Design of Main Canal
Start
Identify the discharge to be use for the design of cross

section per station
Calculate the Bed slope
use roughness coefficient = .020 for unlined canal and .

018 for lined canal
Use the formula for best Hydraulic Section

(Rectangular,Trapezoidal, and Triangular section)
Calculate the depth of flow using

Manning's Equation
Calculate the velocity per

stration
calculate Froude number and determine whether

the flow is subcritical, critical, and supercritical
Calculate the Freeboard
End
42
Figure 4. 5 Flow Chart for the Design of Main Canal
For the design of main canal, the discharge per station should be identify because it will have an impact
when it comes to designing the cross section. For the determination of discharge per station, the total
discharge should be subtracted by the discharge needed in each lateral canal. After the discharge have
been determined per station, the cross section was then computed using the best hydraulic section. Froude
number was then computed and identified if it was subcritical flow (F r<1.0), critical flow ((Fr=1.0), and
supercritical flow (Fr>1.0), Freeboard per station was also determined.
4.5.1.1 For Best Hydraulic Section:

Table 4. 2 Best Hydraulic Section for Rectangular Canal
Shape Area Perimeter Total Width
2
Rectangle 2y 4y 2y
The table above shows the equation for best hydraulic section for rectangular section where y is the depth
of flow. Manning’s Equation will be used to calculate the cross section of the canal. After the designers
calculated the cross section per section, it will be then evaluated and will choose the best section fitted in
the location.
Figure 4. 6 Main Canal Lay out
43
4.5.1.2 Design of Unlined Main Canal
Rectangular section
Table 4. 3 Design of Rectangular Unlined Main Canal
Depth Top Froude

Statio Discharg n S of Width Area Velocity Number Freeboar
n e flow d
(m)
Sta.
0+000 0.105 0.02 0.0065 0.23 0.46 0.1058 0.99 m/s 0.66 < 1, 0.32 m
to m3 /s m m m2 Subcritical
0+110
Sta.
0+110 0.092 0.020 0.0065 0.22 0.44 0.0968 0.95 m/s 0.65 < 1, 0.31 m
0+165
Sta.
0+165 0.0836 0.02 0.0065 0.21 0.42 0.0882 0.95 m/s 0.66 < 1, 0.31 m
0+380
Sta.
0+380 0.0666 0.02 0.0065 0.20 0.40 0.08 0.83 m/s 0.59 < 1, 0.30 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
Subcritical
0+395
Sta.
0+395 0.0496 0.02 0.0065 0.18 0.36 0.0648 0.77 m/s 0.58 < 1, 0.28 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
Subcritical
0+415
Sta.
0+415 0.0366 0.02 0.0065 0.16 0.32 0.0512 0.71 0.57 < 1, 0.27 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
m/s Subcritical
0+980
Sta.
0+980 0.0236 0.02 0.0065 0.13 0.26 0.0338 0.70 m/s 062 < 1, 0.24 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
Subcritical
1+520
Sta.
1+520 0.0106 0.02 0.0065 0.10 0.2 m 0.02 0.53 0.54 < 1, 0.21 m
to m3 /s m m2 m/s Subcritical
1+860
The Table above shows the rectangular cross section of unlined main canal per station. It also shows the
discharge and dimensions per station.
44
4.5.1.3 Design of Concrete Lined Canal
Rectangular Section
Table 4. 4 Design of Rectangular Concrete lined Main Canal
Depth Base Froude

Statio Discharg n s of Width Area Velocit Number Freeboar
n e flow y d
Sta
0+000 0.105 0.018 0.0065 0.22 0.44 0.0968 1.08 0.74 < 1, 0.31 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
m/s Subcritical
0+110
Sta
0+110 0.092 0.018 0.0065 0.21 0.42 0.0722 1.043 0.73 < 1, 0.31 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
m/s Subcritical
0+165
Sta
0+165 0.0836 0.018 0.0065 0.21 0.42 0.0882 0.95 0.66 < 1, 0.31 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
m/s Subcritical
0+380
Sta
0+380 0.0666 0.018 0.0065 0.19 0.38 0.0722 0.92 0.67 < 1, 0.29 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
m/s Subcritical
0+395
Sta
0+395 0.0496 0.018 0.0065 0.17 0.34 0.0578 0.86 0.67 < 1, 0.28 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
m/s Subcritical
0+415
Sta
0+415 0.0366 0.018 0.0065 0.15 0.30 0.0450 0.81 0.67 < 1, 0.26 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
m/s Subcritical
0+980
Sta
0+980 0.0236 0.018 0.0065 0.13 0.26 0.0338 0.70 0.62 < 1, 0.24 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
m/s Subcritical
1+520
Sta
1+520 0.0106 0.018 0.0065 0.09 0.18 0.0162 0.65 0.69 < 1, 0.20 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
m/s Subcritical
1+860
The Table above shows the rectangular cross section of concrete lined main canal per station. It also
shows the discharge and dimensions per station.
45
4.5.2 Design of Lateral Canal
Start
identify the area to be supplied by each Lateral

Canal
Calculate the discharge per lateral

Canal
identify the Canal Bed Slope per

Lateral Canal
use roughness coefficient = .020 for unlined canal

and .018 for concrete lined canal
Use the formula for best Hydraulic Section

(Rectangular,Trapezoidal, and Triangular section)
Calculate the depth of flow

using Manning's Equation
Calculate the velocity for

each lateral Canal
calculate Froude number and determine

whether the flow is subcritical, critical, and
supercritical
Calculate the Freeboard
End
Figure 4. 7 Flow Chart for the design of Lateral Canal
46
For the design of lateral canal, the discharge should be identify for designing the cross section using the
best hydraulic section. Froude number was then computed and identified if it was subcritical flow (F r<1.0),
critical flow ((Fr=1.0), and supercritical flow (Fr>1.0), Freeboard per station was also determined.
4.5.2.1 For Best Hydraulic Section:

Table 4. 5 Best Hydraulic Section for Rectangular Canal
Shape Area Perimeter Total Width

Rectangle 2y2 4y 2y
The table above shows the equation for best hydraulic section for trapezoidal, rectangular and triangular
section where y is the depth of flow. Manning’s Equation will be used to calculate the cross section of the
canal. After the designers calculated the cross section per section, it will be then evaluated and will choose
the best section fitted in the location.
Figure 4. 8 Lateral Canals Layout
47
4.5.2.2 Design of Unlined Lateral Canal
Latera Area Discharge n S Depth width Area Velocity Froude Freeb
l canal of number oard
flow
1 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.02 0.00072 0.16m 0.32m 0.0512m2 0.25m/s 0.20<1 0.27m
Subcritical
2 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.02 0.00048 0.17m 0.34m 0.0578m2 0.22m/s 0.17<1 0.28m

Subcritical
3 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.02 0.0016 0.14m 0.28m 0.0392m2 0.33m/s 0.28<1 0.25m

Subcritical
4 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.02 0.0016 0.14m 0.28m 0.0392m2 0.33m/s 0.28<1 0.25m

Subcritical
5 20 ha 0.017m3/s 0.02 0.0043 0.13m 0.26m 0.0338m2 0.50m/s 0.44<1 0.24m

Subcritical
6 15 ha 0.016m3/s 0.02 0.016 0.09m 0.18m 0.0162m2 0.80m/s 0.85<1 0.20m

Subcritical
7 10 ha 0.0084m3/s 0.02 0.017 0.08m 0.16m 0.0128m2 0.66m/s 0.75<1 0.19m

Subcritical
8 20 ha 0.017m3/s 0.02 0.0338 0.13m 0.26m 0.338m2 0.50m/s 0.44<1 0.24m

Subcritical
Rectangular Section
Table 4. 6 Design of Unlined Lateral Canal
The table above shows the triangular cross section per unlined later canal. It also shows area to be
supplied, required discharge, and also the dimensions in each lateral canal.
48
4.5.2.3 Design of Concrete Lined Lateral Canal
Latera Area Discharge n S Dept Base Area Velocity Froude Freeboar
l canal h of width number d
flow
1 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.018 0.00072 0.15m 0.30m 0.0450m2 0.290m/s 0.24<1, 0.26m
Subcritical
2 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.018 0.00048 0.17m 0.34m 0.0578m2 0.22m/s 0.17<1, 0.28m

Subcritical
3 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.018 0.0016 0.13m 0.26m 0.0338m2 0.380m/s 0.34<1, 0.24nm
Subcritical
4 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.018 0.0016 0.13m 0.26m 0.0338m2 0.380m/s 0.34<1, 0.24m
Subcritical
5 20 ha 0.017m3/s 0.018 0.0043 0.12m 0.24m 0.0288m2 0.590m/s 0.54<1, 0.23m
Subcritical
6 15 ha 0.016m3/s 0.018 0.016 0.09m 0.18m 0.0162m2 0.800m/s 0.85<1, 0.20m
Subcritical
7 10 ha 0.0084m3/s 0.018 0.017 0.08m 0.16m 0.0128m2 0.656m/s 0.74<1, 0.19m
Subcritical
8 20 ha 0.017m3/s 0.018 0.0038 0.13m 0.26m 0.0338m2 0.500m/s 0.44<1, 0.24m
Subcritical
Rectangular Section
Table 4. 7 Design of Concrete lined Lateral Canal
The table above shows the rectangular cross section per concrete lined later canal. It also shows area to
be supplied, required discharge, and dimensions in each lateral canal
49
4.5.3 Design of Culvert
Start
Determine the discharge

in the canal
Consider roughness coefficient - 0.013

(concrete, precast)
Determine the bed slope for each canal that

needs a cross-drainage structure
use θ= 57.6 since the culvert will have a

maximum discharge.
Calculate the culvert diameter using

Manning's Equation
calculate the depth of flow= .

938(culvert diameter)
solve for the velocity
Calculte the froude number and check if iits is

subcritical, critical, and supercritical flow.
End
Figure 4. 9 Flow Chart for the design of Concrete Pipe Culvert
The discharge for a certain lateral canal that needs to have cross-drainage structure must be determine.
For the Design of Concrete pipe culvert, the designers assumed that it will have its maximum discharge
50
when the depth of flow is 93.8% of the diameter so the θ will be equal to 57.6. Manning’s Equation will be
used throughout the design of the entire culvert. Froude number was then computed and identified if it was
subcritical flow (Fr<1.0), critical flow ((Fr=1.0), and supercritical flow (Fr>1.0).
4.5.3.1 Design of Concrete Pipe Culvert

The table below shows the design of concrete pipe culvert. The discharge in a certain canal was then
determined to calculate the culvert diameter using Manning’s Equation. The designers used roughness
coefficient of .013 for concrete pipe culvert.
Table 4. 8 Design of Concrete Pipe Culvert
CULVERT Discharge n s Culvert Depth T Velocity Froude

Diamete of flow number
r
3
1 .105 m /s .013 .0065 .15 m .1407 m .07 m .66 m/s .15<1
subcritical
3
2 .0084 m /s .013 .017 .05 m .0469 m .024 m .475 m/s .18<1
subcritical
3 .017 m3/s .013 .0038 .08 m .075 m .039 m .37 m/s .11<1 subcritical
4 .017 m3/s .013 .0043 .08 m ..075 m .039 m .37 m/s .11<1 subcritical
5 .013 m3/s .013 .0016 .09 m .0844 m .043 m .023 m/s .002<1
subcritical
6 .0366 m3/s .013 .0065 .10 m .0938 m .048 m .516 m/s .14<1
subcritical
7 .013 m3/s .013 .0016 .09 m .084 m .044 m .23 m/s .066<1
subcritical
3
8 .013m /s .013 .0048 .07 m .0657 m .034 m .374 m/s .012<1
subcritical
3
9 .0256 m /s .013 .0065 .09 m .084 m .045 m .45 m/s .13<1
subcritical
10 .013 m3/s .013 .00072 .10 m .0938 m .048 m .18 m/s .05<1
subcritical
3
11 .013 m /s .013 .0048 .07 m .0657 m .034 m .37 m/s .012<1
subcritical
3
12 .013 m /s .013 .0016 .09 m .084 m .044 m .23 m/s .066<1
subcritical
13 .017 m3/s .013 .0038 .08 m .075 m .039 m .37 m/s .11<1 subcritical
51
4.6 Validation of Multiple Constraints, trade-offs and Standards
In Chapter 3, the designers showed the preliminary ranking of the specified main trade-offs
and based on the result obtained it showed that trade-off 1 is the most efficient and effective composition of
Irrigation System. In this section of the design, the designers will able to determine if the chosen trade-off is
the best among all trade-offs. A deeper estimate was made and all these results will rank according to its
criterion importance. Through this, the designers will now arrive to their final design that will be used in the
scheme project.
TRADE-OFF 1
Design Constraint Centrifugal Unlined Canal Concrete Pipe TOTAL
Pump Culvert
Economic 805,521.60 102,437.20 38,438.08 946,396.88
Environmental 500,000.00 500,000.00
TRADE-OFF 2
Design Constraint Reciprocating Unlined Canal Concrete Pipe TOTAL
Pump Culvert
Economic 855,537.60 102,437.20 38,438.08 996,412.88
Environmental 500,000.00 500,000.00
52
TRADE-OFF 3
Design Constraint Centrifugal Concrete lined Concrete Pipe TOTAL
Pump Canal Culvert
Economic 805,521.60 247,273.6854 38,438.08 1,091,233.365
Environmental 500,000.00 500,000.00
TRADE-OFF 4
Design Constraint Reciprocating Concrete lined Concrete Pipe TOTAL
Pump Canal Culvert
Economic 855,537.60 247,273.6854 38,438.08 1,141,249.365
Environmental 500,000.00 500,000.00
Table 4. 13 Final Comparison of Estimate Based on Constraints
Design Constraint TRADE-OFFS

Trade-off 1 Trade-off 2 Trade-off 3 Trade-off 4
Economic 946,396.88 996,412.88 1,091,233.365 1,141,249.365

Environmental 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00
Table 4.13 Shows the summary of comparison of estimates for each trade-offs. Detailed estimates
for each trade-offs are shown in Appendix D (Final Estimates).
For the computation of the importance of each trade-off to its corresponding criterion, the designers
will use equation 3.1 for percent difference and equation 3.2 for subordinate rank of the trade-offs for each
constraint.
4.6.1 Economic Constraint

For Trade-off 2:
53
Difference= x 10
Higher Value
996,412.88−946,396.88
¿ x 10
996,412.88
Difference=.502
¿ 10−.502 Subordinate Rank=9.498
Figure 4. 10 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 under Economic Constraint
For Trade-off 3:
Difference= x 10
Higher Value
1,091,233.365−946,396.88
¿ x 10
1,091,233.365
Difference=1.33
54
For Trade-off 4:
Difference= x 10
Higher Value
1,141,249.365−946,396.88
¿ x 10
1,141,249.365
Difference=1.71
4.6.2 Sustainability Constraint

For Trade-off 1:
Difference= x 10
Higher Value
110−90
¿ x 10
110
Difference=1.82
55
Figure 4. 13 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 1 under sustainability Constraint
For Trade-off 2:
Difference= x 10
Higher Value
110−87
¿ x 10
110
Difference=2.09
Figure 4. 14 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 under Sustainability Constraint
For Trade-off 4:
Difference= x 10
Higher Value
110−107
¿ x 10
110
56
Difference=.27
¿ 10−.27 Subordinate Rank=9.73
Figure 4. 15 Subordinate rank of Trade-off 4 under Sustainability Constraint
4.6.3 Constructability Constraint

Since trade-off 1 and trade-off 2 has a construction duration of 29 days, there subordinate rank will be
equivalent to its governing rank which is 10.
For Trade-off 3:
Difference= x 10
Higher Value
44−29
¿ x 10
44
Difference=3.41
Figure 4. 16 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 under Constructability Constraint
57
For Trade-off 4:
Difference= x 10
Higher Value
44−29
¿ x 10
44
Difference=3.41
Figure 4. 17 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 4 under Constructability Constraint
4.6.4 Environmental Constraint

Since all of the trade-offs has the same penalty cost, there subordinate rank will be equivalent to its
governing rank which is 10. Republic Act no. 9275 under civil liability/penal Provisions which states that any
result in irreversible water contamination of surface round, marine water and marine life then a penalty cost
of 500,000 shall be imposed.
Table 4. 14 Summary of Final Designer’s Raw Ranking
Decision Criteria Criterion's Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Importance
58
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Sustainability 10 8.18 7.91 10 9.73
Constructability 9 10 10 6.59 6.59
Over-all Rank 361.8 354.08 336.01 329.51
The table above showed that Trade-off 1is the most efficient and effective among all trade-offs, and
the result will be further analysed through sensitivity analysis wherein the designers will set variety of
choices prior to client’s perception.
4.7 Bar Chart Comparison
Below are the figures that shows the difference between the trade-offs based on the final estimate
initiated by the designers, it includes the total cost of the trade-off, duration of the construction phase,
design life of the structure.
59
Total Cost (Php)
₱1,200,000.00
₱800,000.00
₱400,000.00
₱0.00
Tra de-off 1 Tra de-off 2 Tra de-off 3 Tra de-off 4
Figure 4. 18 Comparison of Total Cost

The figure above shows the comparison of the total price of the trade-offs, Trade-off 1 costs around
₱946,396.00, Trade-off 2 costs ₱996,412.88, Trade-off 3 costs ₱1,091,233.365 Trade-off 4 costs
₱1,141,249.365; from this the client will see that Trade-off 1 is the cheapest among the trade-offs.
Design Life (Years)

120
60
0
Figure 4. 19 Comparison of Design Life

The figure shows the comparison of design life of the trade-offs, from this the client will see that Trade-off 3
has the longest design life of 110 years, Trade-off 4 has design life of 107 years, Trade-off 1 has design life
of 90 years and Trade-off 2 has design life of 87 years.
60
Constructi on Durati on (Days)
50
25
0
Figure 4. 20 Comparison of Construction Duration

The figure shows the comparison of the total construction duration of the trade-offs, from this the client will
see that both Trade-off 1 and 2 have the shortest period of construction of 29 days while both Trade-off 3
and 4 have the longest period construction of 44 days,
Penalty Cost (Php)

500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
Figure 4. 21 Comparison of Construction Duration
61
The Figure shows that the 4 trade-offs has the same amount of penalty cost as written in Republic Act no.
Republic Act no. 9275 under civil liability/penal Provisions which states that any result in irreversible water
contamination of surface round, marine water and marine life then a penalty cost of 500,000 shall be
imposed.
4.8 Sensitivity Analysis
The Sensitivity Analysis is a process wherein the Importance factor are altered consequently showing how
it affects the final overall ranking of each trade off. Each constraint is evaluated having their corresponding
Importance factor vary from the lowest value of "0" to the highest score of "10". The analysis is presented in
graphs for a vivid and visual representation of the trend.
4.8.1 Economic Constraint as Variable

Table 4. 15 Designers’ Ranking Having an Importance of “0” for Economic Constraint
Design Criterion TRADE-OFFS

Constraint Importance (scale Trade-off 1 Trade-off 2 Trade-off 3 Trade-off 4
0 to 10)
Economic 0 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Constructabilit 9 10 10 6.59 6.59
y
Overall Rank 261.8 259.1 249.31 246.61

0 to 10)
Economic 1 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 271.8 268.598 257.98 254.9

0 to 10)
Economic 2 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 281.8 278.096 266.65 263.19
62

0 to 10)
Economic 3 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 291.8 287.594 275.32 271.48

0 to 10)
Economic 4 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 301.8 297.092 283.99 279.77

0 to 10)
Economic 5 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 311.8 306.59 292.66 288.06

0 to 10)
63
Economic 6 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 321.8 316.088 301.33 296.35

0 to 10)
Economic 7 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 331.8 325.586 310 304.64

0 to 10)
Economic 8 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 341.8 335.084 318.67 312.93
0 to 10)
Economic 9 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 351.8 344.582 327.34 321.22
64
0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 361.8 354.08 336.01 329.511
Sensitivity Analysis for Economic Coinstraint

400
350
300
Overall Ranking
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Importance Factor
Trade-off 1 Trade-off 2 Tra de-off 3 Tra de-off 4
Figure 4. 22 Economic Constraint Sensitivity Graph

In the sensitivity analysis of Economic Constraint, Trade-off 1 (Centrifugal Pump, Unlined Canal, and
Concrete Pipe Culvert) will be the governing design having the highest over-all rank.
4.8.2 Sustainability Constraint as Variable
Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 280 274.98 236.01 232.21
65
Table 4. 26 Designer’s ranking having an importance of “0” for sustainability Constraint

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 288.18 282.89 242.6 241.94

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 296.36 290.8 256.01 251.67

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 304.54 298.71 266.01 261.4
66
Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 312.72 306.62 276.01 271.13

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 320.9 314.53 286.01 280.86

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 329.08 322.44 296.01 290.59

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
67
Over-all Rank 337.26 330.35 306.01 300.32

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 345.44 338.26 316.01 310.05

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 353.62 346.17 326.01 319.78

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 361.8 354.08 336.01 329.51
68
Sensitivity Analysis for Sustainability Constraint
400
350
300
Over-all Ranking
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Importance Factor
Tra de-off 1 Trade-off 2 Trade-off 3 Tra de-off 4
Figure 4. 23 Sustainability Constraint Sensitivity Graph

In the sensitivity analysis of Sustainability Constraint, Trade-off 1 (Centrifugal Pump, Unlined Canal, and
4.8.3 Constructability Constraint as Variable

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 271.8 264.08 276.7 270.2
Table 4. 37 Designer’s ranking having an importance of “0” for Constructability Constraint
69

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 281.8 274.08 283.29 276.79

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 291.8 284.08 289.88 283.38

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 301.8 294.08 296.47 289.97

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
70
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 311.8 304.08 303.06 296.56

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 321.8 314.08 309.65 303.15

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 331.8 324.08 316.24 309.74

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
71
Over-all Rank 341.8 334.08 322.83 316.33

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 351.8 344.08 329.42 322.92

Importance
Decision Criteria
(Scale of Trade-off
0 to 10) 2
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
Over-all Rank 361.8 354.08 336.01 329.51
72
Sensitivity Analysis for Constructability Constraint
400
350
300
Over-all Ranking
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Importance Factor
Tra de-off 1 Trade-off 2 trade-off 3 Trade-off 4
Figure 4. 24 Constructability Constraint Sensitivity Graph
In the sensitivity analysis of Constructability Constraint, Trade-off 3 govern the design when the importance
factor is 0 a1 but the Trade-off 1 govern the design when the importance factor is from 2 to 10.
73
4.8.4 Environmental Constraint as Variable
Table 4. 47 Designers’ Ranking Having an Importance of “0” for Environmental Constraint

0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 271.8 264.08 246.01 239.51

0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 281.8 274.08 256.01 249.51

0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 291.8 284.08 266.01 259.51

0 to 10)
74
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 301.8 294.08 276.01 269.51

0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 311.8 304.08 286.01 279.51

0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 321.8 314.08 296.01 289.51

0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 331.8 324.08 306.01 299.51
75

0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 341.8 334.08 316.01 309.51

0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 351.8 344.08 326.01 319.51

0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
y
Overall Rank 361.8 354.08 336.01 329.51

0 to 10)
Economic 10 10 9.498 8.67 8.29
76
y
Overall Rank 371.8 364.08 346.01 339.51
Sensitivity Analysis for Environmental Constraint

400
350
300
Overall Ranking
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Importance Factor
Tra de-off 1 Tra de-off 2 Trade-off 3 Tra de-off 4
Figure 4. 25 Environmental Constraint Sensitivity Graph
In the sensitivity analysis of Environmental Constraint, Trade-off 1 (Centrifugal Pump, Unlined Canal, and
77
5 Final Design
5.1 Final Design Project
Based on the evaluation and further investigation obtained in Chapter 4, the designers will show in this
section much more detailed illustration and tables of the chosen Trade-off which is compose of Centrifugal
Pump, Unlined Canal, and Concrete pipe Culvert. It cost 946,396.88 and it will take 2 days for the
installation of Pump, 20 days for the construction duration of Canal and 7 days for the excavation and
installation of Culvert.
5.1.1 Centrifugal Pump
The designers calculated the required horsepower of the pump using the total design discharge for the
whole area and that is equivalent to 31.6566HP.
Figure 5. 1 Centrifugal Pump
78
5.1.2 Unlined Canal
For the final design, detailed cross-sectional dimensions of Unlined Main Canal and Unlined Lateral Canal,
with discharge per station of Main Canal and discharge of lateral canal. The table also shows the type of
flow which is subcritical flow.
Figure 5. 2 Unlined Canal cross section
5.1.2.1 For Unlined Main Canal:

Table 5. 1 Design of Unlined Main Canal
Depth Top Froude
Statio Discharg n S of Width Area Velocity Number Freeboar
n e flow d
(m)
Sta.
0+000 0.105 0.02 0.0065 0.23 0.46 0.1058 0.99 m/s 0.66 < 1, 0.32 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
Subcritical
0+110
Sta.
0+110 0.092 0.020 0.0065 0.22 0.44 0.0968 0.95 m/s 0.65 < 1, 0.31 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
Subcritical
0+165
Sta.
0+165 0.0836 0.02 0.0065 0.21 0.42 0.0882 0.95 m/s 0.66 < 1, 0.31 m
to 3
m /s m m m
2
Subcritical
0+380
79
Sta.
0+380 0.0666 0.02 0.0065 0.20 0.40 0.08 0.83 m/s 0.59 < 1, 0.30 m
0+395
Sta.
0+395 0.0496 0.02 0.0065 0.18 0.36 0.0648 0.77 m/s 0.58 < 1, 0.28 m
0+415
Sta.
0+415 0.0366 0.02 0.0065 0.16 0.32 0.0512 0.71 0.57 < 1, 0.27 m
to m3 /s m m m2 m/s Subcritical
0+980
Sta.
0+980 0.0236 0.02 0.0065 0.13 0.26 0.0338 0.70 m/s 062 < 1, 0.24 m
1+520
Sta.
1+520 0.0106 0.02 0.0065 0.10 0.2 m 0.02 0.53 0.54 < 1, 0.21 m
to m3 /s m m2 m/s Subcritical
1+860
5.1.2.2 For Unlined Lateral Canal:

Latera Area Discharge n S Depth width Area Velocity Froude Freeb
l canal of number oard
flow
1 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.02 0.00072 0.16m 0.32m 0.0512m2 0.25m/s 0.20<1 0.27m
Subcritical
2 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.02 0.00048 0.17m 0.34m 0.0578m2 0.22m/s 0.17<1 0.28m

Subcritical
3 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.02 0.0016 0.14m 0.28m 0.0392m2 0.33m/s 0.28<1 0.25m

Subcritical
4 15 ha 0.013m3/s 0.02 0.0016 0.14m 0.28m 0.0392m2 0.33m/s 0.28<1 0.25m

Subcritical
5 20 ha 0.017m3/s 0.02 0.0043 0.13m 0.26m 0.0338m2 0.50m/s 0.44<1 0.24m

Subcritical
6 15 ha 0.016m3/s 0.02 0.016 0.09m 0.18m 0.0162m2 0.80m/s 0.85<1 0.20m

Subcritical
7 10 ha 0.0084m3/s 0.02 0.017 0.08m 0.16m 0.0128m2 0.66m/s 0.75<1 0.19m

Subcritical
80
8 20 ha 0.017m3/s 0.02 0.0338 0.13m 0.26m 0.338m2 0.50m/s 0.44<1 0.24m
Subcritical
Table 5. 2 Design of Unlined Lateral Canal
5.1.3 Concrete Pipe Culvert

The table below shows the required culvert diameter with corresponding discharge for every culvert.
Figure 5. 3 Culvert cross section
Table 5. 3 Design of Concrete Pipe Culvert
81
CULVERT Discharge n s Culvert Depth T Velocity Froude
Diamete of flow number
r
1 .105 m3/s .013 .0065 .15 m .1407 m .07 m .66 m/s .15<1
subcritical
3
2 .0084 m /s .013 .017 .05 m .0469 m .024 m .475 m/s .18<1
subcritical
3
3 .017 m /s .013 .0038 .08 m .075 m .039 m .37 m/s .11<1 subcritical
4 .017 m3/s .013 .0043 .08 m ..075 m .039 m .37 m/s .11<1 subcritical
5 .013 m3/s .013 .0016 .09 m .0844 m .043 m .023 m/s .002<1
subcritical
3
6 .0366 m /s .013 .0065 .10 m .0938 m .048 m .516 m/s .14<1
subcritical
3
7 .013 m /s .013 .0016 .09 m .084 m .044 m .23 m/s .066<1
subcritical
8 .013m3/s .013 .0048 .07 m .0657 m .034 m .374 m/s .012<1
subcritical
3
9 .0256 m /s .013 .0065 .09 m .084 m .045 m .45 m/s .13<1
subcritical
3
10 .013 m /s .013 .00072 .10 m .0938 m .048 m .18 m/s .05<1
subcritical
11 .013 m3/s .013 .0048 .07 m .0657 m .034 m .37 m/s .012<1
subcritical
12 .013 m3/s .013 .0016 .09 m .084 m .044 m .23 m/s .066<1
subcritical
3
13 .017 m /s .013 .0038 .08 m .075 m .039 m .37 m/s .11<1 subcritical
6 Appendix A
6.1 Computation for Irrigation Canal
6.1.1 For Unlined Main Canal

Sta. 0+000 to 0+110
82
Given Data:
Discharge (Q) = 0.105 m3/s
Roughness Coefficient (Earth, straight and uniform: clean, recently completed ) = 0.020
44−32
Canal bed slope (s) = =..006 5
1860
Best Hydraulic Section:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
Using Manning’s Equation:
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
2 2 1
1 2 2 y 3
0.105 = (2 y )( ) (0.0065)2
0.02 4y
Depth of flow = 0.23 m

0.23
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.1058 m2
¿
b = 2(0.23) ≈ 0.46 m
A 0.1058
D= = ≈ 0.23 m
b 0.46
Q 0.105 m
V= = ≈ 0.99
A 0.1058 s
V 0.99
Fr = = ≈ 0.66 < 1∴ Subcritical Flow
√ gD √9.81(0.23)
Freeboard = 0.55 √ cy
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .105
2.5 85
83
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.23)
Freeboard = 0.32 m
Sta. 0+110 to 0+165

Given Data:
Canal bed slope (s) = 0.
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
2 2 1
1 2 2 y 3
0.092 = (2 y )( ) (0.0065)2
0.02 4y

0.22
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0968 m2
¿
b = 2(0.22) ≈ 0.44 m
A 0.0968
D= = ≈ 0.22 m
b 0.44
Q 0.092 m
V= = ≈ 0.95
A 0.0968 s
V 0.95
√ gD √9.81(0.22)
84
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .092
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.22)

Freeboard = 0.31 m
Sta. 0+165 to 0+380
Given Data:
Canal bed slope (s) = 0.65%
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.0836 = (2 y 2)( ) (0.0065)2
0.02 4y
0.21
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0882 m2
¿
b = 2(0.21) ≈ 0.42 m
85
A 0.0882
D= = ≈ 0.21 m
b 0.42
Q 0.0836 m
V= = ≈ 0.95
A 0.0882 s
V 0.95
√ gD √9.81(0.21)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0836
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.21)

Freeboard = 0.31 m
Sta. 0+380 to 0+395
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
86
2 2 1
1 2 2 y 3
0.0666 = (2 y )( ) (0.0065)2
0.02 4y

0.20
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.08 m2
¿
b = 2(0.20) ≈ 0.40 m
A 0.08
D= = ≈ 0.20 m
b 0.40
Q 0.0666 m
V= = ≈ 0.83
A 0.08 s
V 0.83
√ gD √9.81(0.20)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0666
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.20) +
Freeboard = 0.30 m
Sta. 0+395 to 0+415
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
87
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.0496 = (2 y 2)( ) (0.0065)2
0.02 4y
0.18
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0648 m2
¿
b = 2(0.18) ≈ 0.36 m
A 0.0648
D= = ≈ 0.18 m
b 0.36
Q 0.0496 m
V= = ≈ 0.77
A 0.0648 s
V 0.77
√ gD √9.81(0.18)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0496
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.18)

Freeboard = 0.28 m
Sta. 0+415 to 0+980
Given Data:
88
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y

1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.0366 = (2 y 2)( ) (0.0065)2
0.02 4y

0.16
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0512 m2
¿
b = 2(0.16) ≈ 0.32 m
A 0.0512
D= = ≈ 0.16 m
b 0.32
Q 0.0366 m
V= = ≈ 0.71
A 0.0512 s
V 0.71
√ gD √9.81(0.16)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0366
2.5 85
89
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.16)
Freeboard = 0.27 m
Sta. 0+980 to 1+520
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
2 2 1
1 2 2 y 3
0.0236 = (2 y )( ) (0.0065)2
0.02 4y

0.13
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0338 m2
¿
b = 2(0.13) ≈ 0.26 m
A 0.0338
D= = ≈ 0.13 m
b 0.26
Q 0.0236 m
V= = ≈ 0.70
A 0.0338 s
V 0.70
√ gD √9.81(0.13)
90
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0236
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.13)

Freeboard = 0.24 m
Sta. 1+520 to 1+860
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.0106 = (2 y 2)( ) (0.0065)2
0.02 4y
91
0.10
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.02 m2
¿
b = 2(0.10) ≈ 0.20 m
A 0.02
D= = ≈ 0.10 m
b 0.2
Q 0.0106 m
V= = ≈ 0.53
A 0.02 s
V 0.53
√ gD √9.81(0.10)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0106
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.10)

Freeboard = 0.21 m
6.1.2 For Lined Concrete Main Canal
Sta. 0+000 to 0+110
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
92
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.105 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.0065) 2
0.018 4y

0.22
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0968 m2
¿
b = 2(0.22) ≈ 0.44 m
A 0.0968
D= = ≈ 0.22 m
b 0.44
Q 0.105 m
V= = ≈ 1.08
A 0.0968 s
V 1.08
√ gD √9.81(0.22)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .105
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.22)

Freeboard = 0.45 m
Sta. 0+110 to 0+165

Given Data:
93
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.092 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.0065) 2
0.018 4y

0.21
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0882 m2
¿
b = 2(0.21) ≈ 0.42 m
A 0.0882
D= = ≈ 0.21 m
b 0.42
Q 0.092 m
V= = ≈ 1.043
A 0.0882 s
V 1.043
√ gD √9.81(0.21)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .092
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.21)

Freeboard = 0.31 m
Sta. 0+165 to 0+380
94
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.0836 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.0065) 2
0.018 4y
0.21
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0882 m2
¿
b = 2(0.21) ≈ 0.42 m
A 0.0882
D= = ≈ 0.21 m
b 0.42
Q 0.0836 m
V= = ≈ 0.95
A 0.0882 s
V 0.95
√ gD √9.81(0.21)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0836
2.5 85
95
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.21)
Freeboard = 0.31 m
Sta. 0+380 to 0+165

Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
2 2 1
1 2 2 y 3
0.0666 = (2 y )( ) (0.0065) 2
0.018 4y

0.19
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0722 m2
¿
b = 2(0.19) ≈ 0.38 m
A 0.0722
D= = ≈ 0.19 m
b 0.38
Q 0.0666 m
V= = ≈ 0.92
A 0.0722 s
V 0.92
√ gD √9.81(0.19)
96
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0666
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.19)

Freeboard = 0.29 m
Sta. 0+395 to 0+415

Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.0496 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.0065) 2
0.018 4y
0.17
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0578 m2
¿
97
b = 2(0.17) ≈ 0.34 m
A 0.0578
D= = ≈ 0.17 m
b 0.34
Q 0.0496 m
V= = ≈ 0.86
A 0.0578 s
V 0.86
√ gD √9.81(0.17)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0496
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.17)

Freeboard = 0.28 m
Sta. 0+415 to 0+980

Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
98
2 2 1
1 2 2 y 3
0.0366 = (2 y )( ) (0.0065) 2
0.018 4y

0.15
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.045 m2
¿
b = 2(0.15) ≈ 0.30 m
A 0.045
D= = ≈ 0.15 m
b 0.30
Q 0.0336 m
V= = ≈ 0.75
A 0.045 s
V 0.75
√ gD √9.81(0.15)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0366
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.15)

Freeboard = 0.26 m
Sta. 0+980 to 1+520

Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
99
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.0236 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.0065) 2
0.018 4y
0.13
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0338 m2
¿
b = 2(0.13) ≈ 0.26 m
A 0.0338
D= = ≈ 0.13 m
b 0.26
Q 0.0236 m
V= = ≈ 0.70
A 0.0338 s
V 0.70
√ gD √9.81(0.13)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0236
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.13)

Freeboard = 0.24 m
Sta. 1+520 to 1+860

Given Data:
100
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.0106 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.0065) 2
0.018 4y
0.09
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0162 m2
¿
b = 2(0.09) ≈ 0.18 m
A 0.0162
D= = ≈ 0.09 m
b 0.18
Q 0.0106 m
V= = ≈ 0.65
A 0.0162 s
V 0.65
√ gD √9.81(0.09)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0106
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.09)

Freeboard = 0.20 m
101
6.1.3 For Unlined Lateral Canal
Lateral Canal 1
Given Data:
32−31.7
Canal bed slope (s) = =.00072
415
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.013 = (2 y 2)( ) (0.00072) 2
0.02 4y
0.16
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0512 m2
¿
b = 2(0.16) ≈ 0.32 m
A 0.0512
D= = ≈ 0.16 m
b 0.32
102
Q 0.013 m
V= = ≈ 0.25
A 0.0512 s
V 0.25
√ gD √9.81(0.16)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .013
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.16)

Freeboard = 0.27 m
Lateral Canal 2
Given Data:
32−31.7
Canal bed slope (s) = = .0048
625
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
103
2 2 1
1 2 2 y 3
0.013 = (2 y )( ) (0.00048)2
0.02 4y

0.17
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0578 m2
¿
b = 2(0.17) ≈ 0.34 m
A 0.0578
D= = ≈ 0.17 m
b 0.34
Q 0.013 m
V= = ≈ 0.22
A 0.0578 s
V 0.22
√ gD √9.81(0.17)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .013
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.17)

Freeboard = 0.28 m
Lateral Canal 3
Given Data:
33−32
625
Area = 2 y 2
104
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.013 = (2 y 2)( ) (0.0016) 2
0.02 4y
0.14
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0392 m2
¿
b = 2(0.14) ≈ 0.28 m
A 0.0392
D= = ≈ 0.14 m
b 0.28
Q 0.013 m
V= = ≈ 0.33
A 0.0392 s
V 0.33
√ gD √9.81( 0.14)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .013
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.14)

Freeboard = 0.25 m
Lateral Canal 4
Given Data:
105
34.33
620
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
2 2 1
1 2 2 y 3
0.013 = (2 y )( ) (0.0016) 2
0.02 4y

0.14
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0392 m2
¿
b = 2(0.14) ≈ 0.28 m
A 0.0392
D= = ≈ 0.14 m
b 0.28
Q 0.013 m
V= = ≈ 0.33
A 0.0392 s
V 0.33
√ gD √9.81( 0.14)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .013
2.5 85
106
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.14)
Freeboard = 0.25 m
Lateral Canal 5
Given Data:
35−32
675
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y

1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.017 = (2 y 2)( ) (0.0043)2
0.02 4y

0.13
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0338 m2
¿
b = 2(0.13) ≈ 0.26 m
A 0.0338
D= = ≈ 0.13 m
b 0.26
107
Q 0.017 m
V= = ≈ 0.50
A 0.0338 s
V 0.50
√ gD √9.81(0.13)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .017
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.13)

Freeboard = 0.24 m
Lateral Canal 6
Given Data:
44−34
615
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.013 = (2 y 2)( ) (0.016) 2
0.02 4y
108
0.09
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0162 m2
¿
b = 2(0.09) ≈ 0.18 m
A 0.0162
D= = ≈ 0.09 m
b 0.18
Q 0.013 m
V= = ≈ 0.80
A 0.0162 s
V 0.80
√ gD √9.81(0.09)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .013
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.09)

Freeboard = 0.20 m
Lateral Canal 7
Given Data:
43−38
295
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
109
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.0084 = (2 y 2)( ) (0.017) 2
0.02 4y
0.08
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0128 m2
¿
b = 2(0.08) ≈ 0.16 m
A 0.0128
D= = ≈ 0.08 m
b 0.16
Q 0.0084 m
V= = ≈ 0.66
A 0.0128 s
V 0.66
√ gD √9.81(0.08)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0084
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.08)

Freeboard = 0.19 m
Lateral Canal 8
Given Data:
110
35−31
1050
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
2 2 1
1 2 2 y 3
0.017 = (2 y )( ) (0.0038)2
0.02 4y

0.13
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0338 m2
¿
b = 2(0.13) ≈ 0.26 m
A 0.0338
D= = ≈ 0.13 m
b 0.26
Q 0.017 m
V= = ≈ 0.50
A 0.0338 s
V 0.50
√ gD √9.81(0.13)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .017
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.13)

Freeboard = 0.24 m
111
6.1.4 Computation for Concrete lined Lateral Canal
Lateral Canal 1
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.013 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.00072)2
0.018 4y

0.15
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0450 m2
¿
b = 2(0.15) ≈ 0.30 m
A 0.0450
D= = ≈ 0.15 m
b 0.30
Q 0.013 m
V= = ≈ 0.290
A 0.0450 s
V 0.29
√ gD √9.81(0.15)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
112
C .013
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.15)

Freeboard = 0.26 m
Lateral Canal 2
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y

1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.013 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.00048) 2
0.018 4y

0.11
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0242 m2
¿
b = 2(0.11) ≈ 0.22 m
A 0.0242
D= = ≈ 0.11 m
b 0.22
Q 0.013 m
V= = ≈ 0.540
A 0.0242 s
113
V 0.540
√ gD √9.81(0.11)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .013
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.11)

Freeboard = 0.22 m
Lateral Canal 3
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
2 2 1
1 2 2 y 3
0.013 = (2 y )( ) (0.0016) 2
0.018 4y
114
0.13
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0338 m2
¿
b = 2(0.13) ≈ 0.26 m
A 0.0338
D= = ≈ 0.13 m
b 0.26
Q 0.013 m
V= = ≈ 0.380
A 0.0338 s
V 0.380
√ gD √9.81(0.13)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .013
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.13)

Freeboard = 0.24 m
Lateral Canal 3
Given Data:
115
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.013 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.0016) 2
0.018 4y

0.13
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0338 m2
¿
b = 2(0.13) ≈ 0.26 m
A 0.0338
D= = ≈ 0.13 m
b 0.26
Q 0.013 m
V= = ≈ 0.380
A 0.0338 s
V 0.380
√ gD √9.81(0.13)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .013
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.13)
Freeboard = 0.24 m
Lateral Canal 5
Given Data:
116
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.017 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.0043) 2
0.018 4y

0.12
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0288 m2
¿
b = 2(0.12) ≈ 0.24 m
A 0.0288
D= = ≈ 0.12 m
b 0.24
Q 0.017 m
V= = ≈ 0.590
A 0.0288 s
V 0.590
√ gD √9.81(0.12)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .017
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.12)
Freeboard = 0.23 m
Lateral Canal 6
Given Data:
117
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.016 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.016) 2
0.018 4y

0.09
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0162 m2
¿
b = 2(0.09) ≈ 0.18 m
A 0.0162
D= = ≈ 0.09 m
b 0.18
Q 0.016 m
V= = ≈ 0.800
A 0.0162 s
V 0.800
√ gD √9.81(0.09)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .013
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.09)
Freeboard = 0.20 m
118
Lateral Canal 7
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.0084 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.017) 2
0.018 4y

0.08
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0128 m2
¿
b = 2(0.08) ≈ 0.16 m
A 0.0128
D= = ≈ 0.08 m
b 0.16
Q 0.0084 m
V= = ≈ 0.656
A 0.0128 s
V 0.656
√ gD √9.81(0.08)
C Q (m3/s)
1.5 .57
C .0084
119
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.08)
Freeboard = 0.19 m
Lateral Canal 8
Given Data:
Area = 2 y 2
Perimeter = 4y
Base width = 2y
1 2 1
Q= A R 3 S2
n
1
1 2 y 2 23
0.017 = (2 y 2 )( ) (0.0038) 2
0.018 4y

0.13
A = 2 (¿¿ 2) ≈ 0.0338 m2
¿
b = 2(0.13) ≈ 0.26 m
A 0.0338
D= = ≈ 0.13 m
b 0.26
Q 0.017 m
V= = ≈ 0.500
A 0.0338 s
V 0.500
√ gD √9.81(0.13)
C Q (m3/s)
120
1.5 .57
C .017
2.5 85
Freeboard = 0.55 √ ( 1.49 ) (0.13)
Freeboard = 0.24 m
7 Appendix B
7.1 Computation for Concrete Pipe Culvert
FORMULA:
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
2
d
A= (θ−sinθ )
8
dθ
P=
2
A
R=
P
121
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
F=V
√ T
gxAxcos( tan−1 (S ))
Q= AV
Culvert 1
3
m
Q=0.105
s
n=0.013
S=0.0065
θ=57.6 °
Solution:
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
2
d
(θ−sinθ)
8
dθ
2
¿
¿
2
1 d
Q= ( (θ−sinθ))¿
n 8
d2
(57.6° −sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.0065
¿
¿
3 2
m 1 d
0.105 = x ( (57.6 °−sin57.6 °)) x ¿
s 0.013 8
Inner pipe diamter =0.15 m
y
=0.938
d
122
Depth of flow =0.938 x 0.15
Depth of flow=0.1407 m
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.1407 (0.15−0.1407)
T =0.072347 m
Q= AV
2
0.15
0.105= (57.6−sin ⁡( 57.6))V
8
0.105=0.159625V
m
V =0.66
s
F=V
√ T
F=0.66
√ 0.072347 m
9.18 x 0.159625 xcos (tan−1 (0.0065))
F=0.1467 <1.0 Subcritical flow
Culvert 2
3
m
Q=0.0084
s
n=0.013
S=0.017
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
123
2
d
(θ−sinθ)
8
d
θ
2
¿
¿
2
1 d
n 8
d2
(57.6 °−sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.017
¿
¿
3
m 1 d2
0.0084 = x ( (57.6° −sin 57.6 °))x ¿
s 0.013 8
Inner pipe diameter=0.05 m
y
=0.938
d
y=0.938 x 0.05
depth of flow=0.0469 m
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.0469 (0.05−0.0469)
T =0.0241 m
Q= AV
0.052
0.0084= (57.6−sin ⁡( 57.6))V
8
0.0084=0.0177 V
m
V =0.475
s
F=V
√ T
124
F=0.475
√ 0.0241
9.18 x 0.0177 xcos( tan−1 (0.017))
Culvert 3
m3
Q=0.017
s
n=0.013
S=0.0038
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
d2
(θ−sinθ)
8
d
θ
2
¿
¿
1 d2
n 8
d2
(57.6 °−sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.0038
¿
¿
m3 1 d2
0.017 = x ( (57.6 ° −sin 57.6°)) x ¿
s 0.013 8
Inner pipe diameter =0.08 m
125
y
=0.938
d
y=0.938 x 0.08
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.075 (0.08−0.075)
T =0.0387 m
Q= AV
2
0.08
0.017= (57.6−sin ⁡( 57.6)) V
8
0.017=0.0454 V
m
V =0.37
s
F=V
√ T
F=0.37
√ 0.0387
9.18 x 0.0454 xcos( tan −1 (0.0038))
Culvert 4
m3
Q=0.017
s
n=0.013
S=0.0043
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
126
2
d
(θ−sinθ)
8
d
θ
2
¿
¿
2
1 d
n 8
d2
(57.6 °−sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.0043
¿
¿
3 2
m 1 d
0.017 = x ( (57.6 ° −sin 57.6°)) x ¿
s 0.013 8
y
=0.938
d
y=0.938 x 0.08
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.075 (0.08−0.075)
T =0.0387 m
Q= AV
0.08 2
0.017= (57.6−sin ⁡( 57.6)) V
8
0.017=0.0454 V
m
V =0.37
s
F=V
√ T
127
F=0.37
√ 0.0378
9.18 x 0.0454 xcos( tan −1 (0.0043))
Culvert 5
3
m
Q=0.013
s
n=0.013
S=0.0016
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
2
d
(θ−sinθ)
8
dθ
2
¿
¿
1 d2
n 8
d2
(57.6° −sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.0016
¿
¿
m3 1 d2
0.013 = x ( (57.6 °−sin57.6 °)) x ¿
s 0.013 8
inner pipediameter=0.09m
y
=0.938
d
128
y=0.938 x 0.09
y=0.08442 m
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.08442(0.12−0.08442)
T =0.04341 m
Q= AV
2
0.09
0.013= (57.6−sin ⁡( 57.6))V
8
0.013=0.575V
m
V =0.0226
s
F=V
√ T
F=0.0226
√ 0.04341
9.18 x 0.57465 xcos ( tan−1 (0.0016))
Culvert 6
3
m
Q=0.0366
s
n=0.013
S=0.0065
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
129
2
d
(θ−sinθ)
8
dθ
2
¿
¿
2
1 d
n 8
d2
(57.6 °−sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.0065
¿
¿
3
m 1 d2
0.0366 = x ( (57.6 ° −sin 57.6° ))x ¿
s 0.013 8
y
=0.938
d
y=0.938 x 0.10
Depth of flow =0.0938 m
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.0938 (0.10−0.0938)
T =0.04823 m
Q= AV
0.10 2
0.0366= (57.6−sin ⁡(57.6))V
8
0.0366=0.0709V
m
V =0.516
s
F=V
√ T
130
F=0.516
√ 0.048 m
9.18 x 0.0709 xcos (tan−1 (0.0065))
F=0.14 1.0 Subcritical flow
Culvert 7
m3
Q=0.013
s
n=0.013
S=0.0016
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
d2
(θ−sinθ)
8
dθ
2
¿
¿
1 d2
n 8
131
2
d
(57.6° −sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.0016
¿
¿
m3 1 d2
0.013 = x ( (57.6 °−sin57.6 °)) x ¿
s 0.013 8
y
=0.938
d
depth of flow=0.938 x 0.09
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.0844 (0.09−0.0844)
T =0.0435 m
Q= AV
0.092
0.013= (57.6−sin ⁡( 57.6))V
8
0.013=0.0575V
m
V =0.23
s
F=V
√ T
F=0.23
√ 0.0435
9.18 x 0.0575 xcos ( tan−1 (0.0016))
132
Culvert 8
m3
Q=0.013
s
n=0.013
S=0.0048
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
d2
(θ−sinθ)
8
dθ
2
¿
¿
2
1 d
n 8
2
d
(57.6° −sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.0048
¿
¿
3 2
m 1 d
0.013 = x ( (57.6 °−sin57.6 °)) x ¿
s 0.013 8
y
=0.938
d
y=0.938 x 0.07
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
133
T =2 √ 0.0657 (0.07−0.0657)
T =0.0336 m
Q= AV
0.07 2
0.013= (57.6−sin ⁡(57.6)) V
8
0.013=0.0348V
m
V =0.374
s
F=V
√ T
F=0.374
√ 0.0336
9.18 x 0.0348 xcos( tan −1 (0.0048))
Culvert 9
m3
Q=0.0256
s
n=0.013
S=0.0065
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
134
2
d
(θ−sinθ)
8
dθ
2
¿
¿
2
1 d
n 8
d2
(57.6 °−sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.0011
¿
¿
3
m 1 d2
0.0256 = x ( (57.6 ° −sin 57.6° ))x ¿
s 0.013 8
y
=0.938
d
y=0.938 x 0.09
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √0.084 (0.09−0.084)
T =0.045 m
Q= AV
0.092
0.0256= (57.6−sin ⁡( 57.6))V
8
0.0256=0.0575V
m
V =0.45
s
F=V
√ T
135
F=0.45
√ 0.045
9.18 x 0.0575 xcos ( tan−1 (0.0065))
F=0.13<¿ 1.0 Subcritical flow
Culvert 10
3
m
Q=0.013
s
n=0.013
S=0.00072
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
2
d
(θ−sinθ)
8
dθ
2
¿
¿
1 d2
n 8
136
2
d
(57.6° −sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.00072
¿
¿
m3 1 d2
0.013 = x ( (57.6 °−sin57.6 °)) x ¿
s 0.013 8
y
=0.938
d
y=0.938 x 0.10
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.0657 (0.07−0.0657)
T =0.048 m
Q= AV
0.102
0.013= (57.6−sin ⁡( 57.6))V
8
0.013=0.0709V
m
V =0.1834
s
F=V
√ T
F=0.1834
√ 0.048
9.18 x 0.0709 xcos (tan−1 (0.00072))
137
Culvert 11
m3
Q=0.0366
s
n=0.013
S=0.0065
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
d2
(θ−sinθ)
8
dθ
2
¿
¿
2
1 d
n 8
d2
(57.6 °−sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.0065
¿
¿
m3 1 d2
0.0366 = x ( (57.6 ° −sin 57.6° ))x ¿
s 0.013 8
y
=0.938
d
y=0.938 x 0.10
Depth of flow =0.0938 m
138
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.0938 (0.10−0.0938)
T =0.04823 m
Q= AV
0.10 2
0.0366= (57.6−sin ⁡(57.6))V
8
0.0366=0.0709V
m
V =0.516
s
F=V
√ T
F=0.516
√ 0.048 m
9.18 x 0.0709 xcos (tan−1 (0.0065))
F=0.14 1.0 Subcritical flow
Culvert 12
m3
Q=0.013
s
n=0.013
S=0.0016
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
139
2
d
(θ−sinθ)
8
dθ
2
¿
¿
2
1 d
n 8
d2
(57.6° −sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.0016
¿
¿
3 2
m 1 d
0.013 = x ( (57.6 °−sin57.6 °)) x ¿
s 0.013 8
inner pipediameter=0.09m
y
=0.938
d
y=0.938 x 0.09
y=0.08442 m
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.08442(0.12−0.08442)
T =0.04341 m
Q= AV
0.092
0.013= (57.6−sin ⁡( 57.6))V
8
0.013=0.575V
m
V =0.0226
s
F=V
√ T
140
F=0.0226
√ 0.04341
9.18 x 0.57465 xcos ( tan−1 (0.0016))
Culvert 13
3
m
Q=0.0084
s
n=0.013
S=0.017
θ=57.6 °
Solution
2 1
1
Q= A R 3 S 2
n
2
d
(θ−sinθ)
8
d
θ
2
¿
¿
1 d2
n 8
141
2
d
(57.6 °−sin 57.6 °)
8
d
x 57.6 °
2
¿
¿
0.017
¿
¿
m3 1 d2
0.0084 = x ( (57.6° −sin 57.6 °))x ¿
s 0.013 8
y
=0.938
d
y=0.938 x 0.05
T =2 √ y ( d− y )
T =2 √ 0.0469 (0.05−0.0469)
T =0.0241 m
Q= AV
0.052
0.0084= (57.6−sin ⁡( 57.6))V
8
0.0084=0.0177 V
m
V =0.475
s
F=V
√ T
F=0.475
√ 0.0241
9.18 x 0.0177 xcos( tan−1 (0.017))
142
8 Appendix C
8.1 Initial Estimates

Initial Estimate for Centrifugal Pump
Table C. 1 Initial Estimate of Centrifugal Pump
Description Pump with Installation
143
Unit of Measurement HP No. of Day/s 15
Sustainability
Total Horsepower 40 15
(yrs)
No. of Amount
Designation No. of Hour/s Hourly Rate
Person/s (Php)
A.
Labor
a) Skilled Worker 10 8 95.10 7,608.00
Sub-total A 7,608.00
Amount
B. Materials Unit Qty. Unit Cost
(Php)
a). Centrifugal Pump Hp 1 390,000.00 895,435.20
b) HDPE Pipe 10``Ф Meter 200 2,070.00 596,956.80
Sub-total B 1,492,392.00
C
Total Direct Cost 1,500,000.00
.
F. TOTAL COST 1,500,000.00
8.1.2 Reciprocating Pump

Initial Estimate for Reciprocating Pump
Table C. 2 Initial Estimate of Reciprocating Pump
Total Horsepower 40 Sustainability 20
144
(yrs)
No. of Amount
Person/s (Php)
A.
Labor
a) Skilled Worker 15 8 95.10 11,412.00
Amount
(Php)
Sub-total B 1,653,588.00
C
Total Direct Cost 1,665,000.00
.
F. TOTAL COST 1,665,000.00
8.1.3 Unlined canal

Initial Estimate for Unlined canal
Table C. 3 Initial Estimate of Unlined canal
Description Removal of Existing Structure & Hauling Output (m 3/hour) 4.125
145
Total Length No. of Day/s 45
Unit of Measurement m3
Total Quantity 1500
No. of Amount
Person/s (Php)
A Labor
.
a) Foreman 3 8 129.43 3106.32
b) Unskilled Worker 30 8 62.50 15000
Sub-total A 18106.32
Amount
Name and Capacity No. of Unit/s No. of Hour/s Hourly Rate
(Php)
Equipment
B
. a) Excavator 4 8 1,998.10 63939.2
b) Dump Truck 5 8 1,420.00 56,800
c) Minor Tools 1810.632
Sub-total B 122549.832
C
Total Direct Cost 140,656.152
.
D
Overhead, Contingencies &Miscellaneous Expenses 21098.42
.
E
VAT 8087.73
.
F. TOTAL COST 169,842.302
8.1.4 Lined canal

Initial Estimate for Lined canal
146
Table C. 4 Initial Estimate of Lined canal
Description Removal of Existing Structure & Hauling Output (m 3/hour) 19.5
No. of Day/s 55
Unit of Measurement m3
Total Quantity 1800
Amount
Designation No. of Person/s No. of Hour/s Hourly Rate
(Php)
A Labor
.
a) Foreman 5 8 124.98 4,999.2
b) Unskilled Worker 40 8 62.50 20,000
Name and Amount

No. of Unit/s No. of Hour/s Hourly Rate
Capacity (Php)
Equipment
B
. a) Excavator 5 8 1,998.10 79924
b) Dump Truck 8 8 1,420.00 90880
Sub-total B 173303.92
C Amount
Materials Unit Qty. Unit Cost
. (Php)
Ready Mixed
Concrete @ M3 300 625.00 187,500.00
3000psi
Sub-total C 187,500.00
C
.
D
Overhead, Contingencies &Miscellaneous Expenses 57870.47
.
E
VAT 22,183.68
.
147
8.1.5 Culvert
Initial Estimate for Culvert
Table C. 5 Initial Estimate of Culvert
Description Earthworks and Construction
Sustainability
(yrs)
No. of Amount
Person/s (Php)
A.
Labor
a) Foreman 1 8 129.43 1,035.44
b) Skilled Worker 2 8 95.10 1,521.60
c) Unskilled Worker 6 8 62.50 3,000.00
Amount
(Php)
a) Dump Truck 1 8 3,056.84 24,454.70
b) Portable Breaker 1 8 129.38 1,035.04
Sub-total B 1,000,000
C
.
D
Overhead, Contingencies &Miscellaneous Expenses 4,740.37
.
E. VAT 1,817.14
148
9 Appendix D
9.1 Final Estimates

Final Estimate for Centrifugal Pump
Table D. 1 Detailed Estimate of Centrifugal Pump
Sustainability
(yrs)
No. of Amount
Person/s (Php)
A.
Labor
a) Skilled Worker 2 8 95.10 1,521.6
Sub-total A 1,521.6
Amount
(Php)
Sub-total B 804,000.00
C
.
D
TOTAL COST 805,521.60
.
149
9.1.2 Reciprocating Pump
Final Estimate for Reciprocating Pump
Table D. 2 Detailed Estimate of Reciprocating Pump
Unit of Measurement Hp No. of Day/s 2
Sustainability
(yrs)
No. of Amount
Person/s (Php)
A.
Labor
a) Skilled Worker 2 8 95.10 1,537.6
Sub-total A 1,537.6
Amount
(Php)
a). Reciprocating Pump Hp 1 440,000.00 440,000.00
b) HDPE Pipe Meter 200 2,070.00 414,000.00
C. Total Direct Cost 855,537.60
D. TOTAL COST 855,537.60
150
9.1.3 Unlined Canal
Final Estimate for Unlined Canal
Table D. 3 Detailed Estimate of Unlined Canal
Description Earthworks and Construction Output (m 3/hour) 5.63
Total Length 6780 m No. of Day/s 20
Productivity Ratio
3
Unit of Measurement m (manhour/volume 8
)
Total Quantity 744.171
No. of Amount
Person/s (Php)
Labor
A
. a) Foreman 5 8 129.43 5,177.20
b) Skilled Worker 10 8 95.10 7,608.00
Amount
(Php)
Equipment
B a) Dump Truck 3 8 1,420.00 34,080.00
.
c) Plate Compactor 10 8 123.00 9,840.00
d) Minor Tools 2,778.52
151
C
.
D
.
E
VAT 4,877.96
.
9.1.4 Lined Canal

Final Estimate for Lined Canal
Table D. 4 Detailed Estimate of Lined Canal
Description Earthworks and Construction Output (m 3/hour) 5.63
Total Length 6780 m No. of Day/s 35
Productivity Ratio
Unit of Measurement m3 (manhour/volume 8
)
No. of Amount
Person/s (Php)
Labor
A
. a) Foreman 5 8 129.43 5,177.20
b) Skilled Worker 10 8 95.10 7,608.00
B Amount
. (Php)
Equipment
a) Dump Truck 4 8 1,420.00 45,440.00
b) Concrete Mixer 2 8 1,318.00 21,088
c) Portable Breaker 10 8 129.38 10,350.4
152
d) Plate Compactor 10 8 123.00 9,840.00
e) Minor Tools 2,778.52
Materials Unit Quantity Unit Cost

C a). Ready Mixed
m3 140 625.00 87,500
Concrete @ 3000psi
Sub-total C 87,500
C
.
D
.
E
VAT 11,774.9374
.
F. TOTAL COST 247,273.6854
9.1.5 Culvert
Final Estimate for Culvert
Table D. 5 Detailed Estimate of Culvert
Description Earthworks and Construction Output (m 3/hour) 0..01
Total Length 71.4 m No. of Day/s 7
Productivity Ratio
3
Unit of Measurement m (manhour/volume 8
)
A No. of Amount
. Person/s (Php)
Labor
a) Foreman 1 8 129.43 1,035.44
b) Skilled Worker 2 8 95.10 1,521.60
153
Amount
(Php)
Equipment
B
. a) Dump Truck 1 8 1,420.00 11,360.00
Materials Unit Quantity Unit Cost

C a). RCCP 150mm OD
pc 68 150 10,200.00
x1m
b) RCCP 300mm OD
pd 5 625 3,125.00
x1m
Sub-total C
C
.
D
.
E
VAT 1,830.38
.
154
155

Printsdsd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Printsdsd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM

FEBRUARY 15, 2019

FIGURE 2. 1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF LAOG, ANGAT BULACAN 7

FIGURE 3. 1 RANKING SCALE VALUE 22

FIGURE 5. 1 CENTRIFUGAL PUMP 79

TABLE 2. 1 SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION 6

TABLE 3. 1 COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS

TABLE 4. 1 DESIGN PARAMETERS.............................................................................................................36

TABLE 5. 1 DESIGN OF UNLINED MAIN CANAL.........................................................................................80

TABLE C. 1 INITIAL ESTIMATE OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMP.......................................................................138

TABLE D. 1 DETAILED ESTIMATE OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMP..................................................................143

1.1 Project Background

1.2 The Project

1.3 Project Location

Figure 1. 2 Project Location

Figure 1. 3 Perspective view Irrigation System

1.5 Project Client

1.6 Project Objectives

1.6.1 General Objective

1.7 Scope and Limitation

1.8 Project Development

2. Conceptualization - the designer conceptualized design of irrigation system in Laog, Angat,

DESIGN OF TRADE-OFF A DESIGN

ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRAINTS ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRAINTS ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRAINTS

RANKING RANKING RANKING

2 Chapter 2 DESIGN CRITERIA

2.1 Design Data

Depth (cm) Description

Figure 2. 1 Topographic map of Laog, Angat Bulacan

Table 2. 3 Crop Water Demand

2.1.5 Irrigation System Layout

2.2 Related Literature

2.2.2 Foreign Literature

3.1 Design Constraints

3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints

3.1.1.2 Environmental Constraint (Penalty Cost)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Culvert

Advantages and Disadvantages of Culvert Materials

Material Tradeoff Advantages Disadvantages

Advantages and Disadvantages of Culvert

Table 3. 7 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Culvert

Material Tradeoff Advantages Disadvantages

Table 3. 11 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Lined Canal Materials

Material Tradeoff Advantages Disadvantages

Advantages and Disadvantages of Culvert

Table 3. 12 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Culvert

Advantages and Disadvantages of Culvert Materials

Material Tradeoff Advantages Disadvantages

Table 3. 15 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Lined Canal

Advantages and Disadvantages of Lined Canal Materials

Material Tradeoff Advantages Disadvantages

Advantages and Disadvantages of Culvert

Table 3. 17 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Culvert

Advantages and Disadvantages of Culvert Materials

Table 3. 18 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Culvert Materials

3.3 Raw Designer’s Ranking

Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

Higher value−Lower value

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛� = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛� − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒) Equation 3.2

Figure 3. 1 Ranking Scale Value