TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction
II. Objectives of the Project
III. Area Description of the Project Site
a. Location of the Project Site and its Topographic Features
b. Climatic Features and Hydrology
c. Land use, Slope Map and Risk Maps
IV. Flood Analysis
a. Catchment Delineation and Basin Physical Properties
b. Basin Parameter Computations
i. Curve Number and Runoff Coefficient
ii. Lag time and Time Concentration (Tc)
1. SCS Lag
2. Kirpich
iii. Statistical Analysis of Tc values
c. Design Hyetograph (2, 10, 50 and 100 year ARI)
d. HEC-HMS Model Development
e. Hydrograph from Actual Storms
f. Comparison of Hydrograph from Actual and Synthetic Storms
g. Statistical Analysis of Outlet Peak Flows
h. Validation using the Rational Method

V. Conclusion and Recommendation

VI. References
VII. Appendices
I. INTRODUCTION

Water is one of the most important necessity in the world because it is needed for life
to exist. Studying its properties and learn how to utilize it greatly affects our lives. It can be
used for industrial, environmental and mainly agricultural activities. According to Science
Daily, 70% of world-wide water is used for irrigation and only 2.5% of water on the Earth is
fresh water. With increasing population and limited sources of water, a shortage in water
supply is expected with negative implications on health, livelihood and security (Mogelgaard,
2011). With this, learning more about water and finding how it can help or harm humans is
very important.
Hydrology is the science of water that is concerned with the occurrence, movement in
relation to land, distribution, physical and chemical properties of water of the earth ( “What
is hydrology and what do hydrologist do”, 2016). Hydrologist is a scientist responsible for
studying the said parameters and the process that govern the hydrologic cycle. The water or
hydrologic cycle describes the movement of water around the earth that includes evaporation,
condensation and precipitation. With the knowledge about hydrology, water related problems
in the society can be solved in terms of its quantity, quality and availability. It also helps
engineers in designing damns, farms, spillways and other infrastructures related to water
(“Importance of Hydrology”, 2003).
Watershed is the basic unit of hydrology and is the land area that channels water
from precipitation and snowmelts to an outlet such as oceans, bays and reservoirs. Watershed
can be small or can be thousands of square miles which encompasses streams, reservoir or
any underlying underground water. Watershed may contain smaller watersheds that are
called sub – basins that drains with the same outlet of the bigger watershed. Water in the
watershed mainly comes from precipitations and these precipitates may either evaporate,
infiltrate the soil or become runoff (“What is a watershed”, 2018). Watershed is important
because it is connected to other bodies of water which means it has an impact to it.
Downstream impacts should be determined because it is essential in developing water quality
protection and restoration actions. The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve can be considered as
one of the few unused areas in the country. It is well protected and also the location of
Molawin Creek outlet within the Makiling Botanic Gardens which is the focus of the study.
Runoff is the quantity of water that discharged in surface streams commonly
generated by rainstorms. It is basically the difference between total precipitation and
evapotranspiration with the addition of other abstractions. There are several factors that
affects runoff such as soil type, vegetation, slope and catchment size. In terms of soil type,
loose and sandy soils have the highest infiltration capacities while lower infiltration
capacities are observed in loamy soils ( “Rainfall – Runoff Analysis”, n.d). Vegetation basically
reduce runoff and erosion to a safe level and increasing the slope length and catchment size
also decreases the quantity of runoff. Runoff can be measured by estimation or by using
runoff measuring devices. Estimation of runoff uses Rational Formula, Curve number
method, Remote sensing and GIS. Runoff measuring device can be divided into two: Direct
Discharge Methods which uses weirs, orifices, flumes and Velocity – Area methods such as
float method and the use of current meter (Sethi, n.d.). Estimating peak rate runoff, time
distribution of flow and runoff volume greatly helps in designing, planning and constructing
drainage facilities. Without the knowledge of it, infrastructures that are built might be
undersize, oversized or out of hydraulic balance. It might also cause for a not fully functional
drainage system that will cause more damage such as flood.

II. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

The Philippines is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world when it comes to
occurrence of natural disasters especially typhoons and flood. According to the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), it was ranked fourth among countries
based on the most number of disasters experienced for about last two decades.
In order to minimize the risk of the calamities, local government agencies under
mostly of Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of
Agriculture (DA) and Department of Science and Technology (DOST) are tasked to conduct
different programs and studies on risk reduction and disaster management. These programs
and studies mainly focused on effects of the disasters to the communities and different sectors
especially in agriculture in order to provide them some recommendations on building
properties and structures and minimizing life loss.
With these, the project aims to analyze the relationship of the physical and climatic
features of the area to the runoff flow by conducting different activities related to hydrology
as follows:
 a) To identify the existing structures and natural boundaries and delineate the
Molawin watershed
b) To obtain the elevation profile of the sub – basins inside the delineated
watershed
c) To compute the time concentration and the lag time using Kirpich and SCS Lag
and compare its results
d) To establish design hyetographs for the given return periods using the PAGASA
Generated RIDF curve and Huff Types 1, 2, 3 and 4
e) To generate hydrographs using SCS – CN Method
f) To determine the peak flow, volume of flood, total runoff depth and time to peak
at the outlet of the watershed
g) To compare the synthetically designed data to the three given actual storms that
are experience in the Philippines.

III. AREA DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT SITE

In describing the current situation of the area, especially variable factors such as the
latest land use, both the physical and climatic characteristics of the project location were
considered. In this project, the proponents used different software such Google Earth Pro and
QGIS in generating the basic topographic features of the site. Furthermore, intensive
research was done in obtaining secondary data for the determination of climatic features and
risk level description of the project site.

Location of project site and its topographic features

The selected location site for this project was the Molawin Watershed which is
considered as one of the many low volume flowing rocky streams. It is flowing through the
campus of the University of the Philippines Los Baños and some areas of the town of Los
Baños. Within the Makiling Botanic Gardens, the Molawin creek outlet lies at exactly
14.1564°N, 121.234°E (ASTI). The area of the Molawin Watershed is 2,466,592 m 2 while its
watershed perimeter is 7,367 m2 and main streamflow length is 3,312 m.
 Figure 1. Molawin Watershed Project Site

The topography of the site is slightly sloping and lies at the foot of Mount Makiling.
The vegetation of the Molawin watershed is a gradient from lowland vegetation at the base,
to a typical tall forest on lower elevations, to a crooked and mossy forest at its peaks
(Combalicer, et. al., 2010).

Climatic Features and Hydrology

The annual rainfall and temperature of the Molawin Watershed ranges from 1645 to
2299 mm and 25 to 29.6 °C, respectively. Based on the modified Corona classification of the
Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA),
the climate type that prevails in the Molawin Watershed is Type I, since it experiences
tropical monsoons with a short dry season. This is supported by the 2011 year- length plot of
rainfall in the area which shows pronounced wet and dry seasons and the maximum rainfall
occurring within June to September as shown in Figure 2.
 Figure 2. Rainfall time series in the Molawin Watershed for 2011
generated using the software Rainfall Runoff Library
(Source: Combalicer, et. al., 2010)

Land use, slope map and risks map

Using Google Earth Pro, it was observed that the current land use within the project
site are mostly forested land as seen in Figure 1. Moreover, according to Combalicer, et. al.
(2010), Molawin watershed is a mountain landscape with fully vegetated areas and covering
of about 377 ha. The drainage pattern of the watershed is almost dentritic in appearance, in
which most tributaries drain to the Laguna de Bay which is the largest lake in the
Philippines.

Figure 3. Molawin Watershed Topographic Features

As for the slope mapping, topographic features of the project site were obtained, as
shown in Figure 3, which aid for recognizing the changes in elevation from one point to
another. Ridges and valleys are used as patterns where streamlines and sub-basins can be
found. This map accurately represents all phenomena on the surface of the earth such current
land use and natural monuments and landmarks. It is the most important tools used by
geologists, agriculturists and engineers for comprehensive studies on geological aspects of
specific area.

IV. FLOOD ANALYSIS

Catchment Delineation and Basin Physical Properties

In obtaining the delineation of the Molawin Watershed, Google Earth Pro and QGIS
applications were used. A topographic map from Komoot has been used as an overlay into
Google Earth for the identification of peaks, ridges, and valleys. The Los Baños digital
elevation model (DEM) file has also been provided to determine channel flows and other basin
parameters using QGIS.

Figure 4. Map overlay on Molawin Watershed

The main streamflow has been delineated with the help of the map overlay in Google
Earth. This can also be confirmed by following the main valley of the watershed which then
solely leads to the outlet. Figure 5 shows the main streamflow which starts from the
Southwest-end of the watershed down to the outlet at Northeast.
 Figure 5. Molawin Watershed with Main Streamflow

The watershed is then sub-divided into 4 sub-basins (Figure 6) with the existing
ridges, valleys, and peaks present within it. Topography, slope, land-use, and tributaries
were considered upon delineation of these sub-basins. Moreover, with the elevation profiles
available in Google Earth Pro, the tributaries for each sub-basin were then obtained.
Corresponding profiles are shown in Figures 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6d.

Figure 6. Molawin Watershed with tributaries and Sub-basins

Figure 6a. Sub-basin 1 (Orange) Profile

Figure 6b. Sub-basin 2 (Yellow) Profile

Figure 6c. Sub-basin 3 (Green) Profile

 Figure 6d. Sub-basin 4 (Magenta) Profile

Most of the sub-basins are mainly composed of forest covers, with sub-basins 1 and 2
(orange and yellow) containing small patches of paved areas, particularly for residential use.
Each tributary is connected to the mainstream flow, with tributaries from sub-basins 3 and
4 forming a junction before flowing unto another junction formed by sub-basins 1 and 2; all
of which flows into the outlet. Sub-basin areas, tributary slopes, and tributary lengths were
obtained using Google Earth Pro.

Table 1. Sub-basin Parameters

Tributary Length
Sub-basins Sub-basin Area (m2) Tributary Slope (%)
(m)
1 (Orange) 652,948 1,891 14.6
2 (Yellow) 311,506 1,228 12.9
3 (Green) 880,597 1,565 16.0
4 (Magenta) 623,985 1,1115 18.5

Computation of Basin Parameters

Curve Number

Curve number (CN) is used to characterize the run off properties for a particular soil
and ground cover. The major factors that determine CN are the hydrologic soil group (HSG),
cover type, treatment, hydrologic condition, and antecedent runoff condition (ARC)
(Szold,1994). Figure 7 shows that the watershed was in two soil type. These are Macolod
(undifferentiated) and Macolod clay loam both are under hydrologic soil group D. The
watershed is composed of different cover type each has its own CN value from USDA. With
the assumption of good hydrologic condition, weighted CN was computed per sub-basin as
tabulated in Table 2.

Figure 7. Soil Map of Molawin Watershed from PhilGIS

Table 2. Curve Number for each sub-basin

SUB-BASIN PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AREA (m2) CN Ave CN
Paved driveways, roofs, lots,
46641 98
1 etc. 80.3572
Woods 606307 79
Residential 13763 92
2 Roads 9259 98 85.21124
Woods 308484 79
3 Woods 880597 79 79
4 Woods 623985 79 79

Time of Concentration and Lag Time

Time of concentration (tc) is the required time for a water particle to flow hydraulically
from the most distant point in the watershed to the outlet. Lag time on the other hand, is the
delay between the time runoff from a rainfall event over a watershed begins until runoff
reaches its maximum peak. With average natural watershed conditions and an
approximately uniform distribution of runoff, the lag time is equivalent to 0.6 of the value of
time of concentration. Various methods can be used to estimate the time of concentration;
SCS method and Kirpich equation are some of these.

SCS Method

To calculate the time of concentration in each sub-basin of the watershed using SCS
method,
tc = 0.0134L0.8(1000/𝐶𝑁 − 10)0.7 S-0.05
where:
tc is the time of concentration
L is the length of the stream flow in m
CN is the curve number
S is the watershed gradient in m/m

Kirpich Equation

Another method used in determining the time of concentration is Kirpich Formula,

given by the equation:
tc = 0.02L0.77S-0.385
where:
tc is the time of concentration
L is the length of the stream flow in m
S is the watershed gradient in m/m

SCS method takes into consideration the type of the soil and the land use of area thus
it is more accurate than Kirpich equation which only considers length of the stream flow and
the watershed gradient. Though it may not be as accurate as SCS, it can still be used as a
comparison for the values computed. Both methods were used to obtain the time of
concentration as tabulated in Table 3 Difference between both methods can be better
visualize in Figure 8.
 Table 3. Time of concentration of each sub-basin using SCS and Kirpich methods
Sub basin SCS (mins) KIRPICH (mins)
1 11.5336152 13.63990166
2 6.464550096 10.25983356
3 10.45493733 11.30104039
4 7.921011581 8.290393484

16

14
Time of concentartion, mins

12

10

0
Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 Subbasin 3 Subbasin 4

SCS Kirpich

Figure 8. Time of concentration of each sub-basin using SCS and Kirpich methods

Statistical analyses such as F-test and t-test were also done to compare the values
obtained. The F-test compares the variances of the values obtained from the two different
methods. F-test was done first since it will be used to find the appropriate t-test to use in
comparison. The null hypothesis states that the variance of each method is equal. Otherwise,
it has a significant difference.
 Table 4. Statistical Parameters for F-test (SCS and Kirpich)

SCS Kirpich
Mean 9.093528553 10.87279227
Variance 5.364593497 4.961597561
Observations 4 4
df 3 3
F 1.08122302
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.475161215
F Critical one-tail 9.276628153

Since the probability value > alpha = 0.05, we accept the null hypothesis. Therefore,
the variances of the two variables have no significant difference and can be assumed to be
equal. With this the T-test for equal variances will be used to compare the mean values of
the two methods used. The t-test compares the means of the values obtained by both the SCS
and Kirpich formula. The null hypothesis used in this analysis is the assumption that the
means of each method have no significant difference. Otherwise, there is a significant
difference between their values.

Table 5. Statistical Parameters for T-test (SCS and Kirpich)

SCS Kirpich
Mean 9.093528553 10.87279227
Variance 5.364593497 4.961597561
Observations 4 4
Pooled Variance 5.163095529
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
df 6
t Stat -1.10738909
P(T<=t)one-tail 0.155267168
t Critical one-tail 1.943180281
P (T<=t) two-tail 0.310534337
t Critical two-tail 2.446911851

Using a significance level of 0.05, the two-tailed probability value = 0.41 > 0.05, the
null hypothesis is accepted. Hence, at a 95% level of confidence, there is no significant
difference between the time of concentration using Kirpich and SCS Lag formula. This means
that either formula can be used for the calculation of both the time of concentration and the
lag time. For this site, the SCS formula was used since it provides a more accurate estimate.

Table 6. Lag time of each sub-basin using SCS formula

Sub-basin SCS (mins) Lag time (mins)

1 11.5336152 6.920169
2 6.464550096 3.87873
3 10.45493733 6.272962
4 7.921011581 4.752607

Design Hyetographs

Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration

(PAGASA) provided a design hyetograph of PAGASA RIDF using the alternative block
method for UPLB with four return periods (e.g. 2-Year, 10-Year, 50-Year and 100-Year return
period) as shown in the figure below.

Figure 9. Design Hyetographs from the PAGASA RIDF for 4 Return Periods

Along with the PAGASA RIDF hyetographs, 4 other synthetic hyetographs were
provided for the report namely Huff Type 1, 2, 3, and 4 that were used for runoff analysis
along with the PAGASA RIDF hyetograph using HEC-HMS. All of the hyetographs were
evaluated individually for every return period (2,10, 50, 100-Year). Shown in Figure 10 are
the design hyetographs of the Huff Type in four return periods in which the peak discharge
is varying depending in the return period.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 10. Design Hyetographs for (a) Huff Type 1, (b) Huff Type 2, (c) Huff Type 3, (d)
Huff Type 4

Application of HEC -HMS

The Hydrologic Engineering Station – Hydrologic Modelling System (HEC-HMS) is

computer program in which it performs simulations regarding on the hydrologic processes
occurring in a watershed. It able to generate a delineated watershed along with its sub-basins
to obtaining hydrologic properties such as the peak discharge, runoff depth, volume of rainfall
and time to peak. Figure 11 shows the basic representation of the Molawin Watershed upon
using the HEC-HMS.
 Figure 11. Basin Model (Molawin Watershed) using HEC-HMS

Generation of Unit Hydrographs

As shown in Figures 12-16, twenty-unit hydrographs were generated using HEC-HMS

along with the rainfall values that were provided and the design hyetographs. For each type
of design hyetograph, the unit hydrographs were divided according to the four-return period.
It is observed that for each return period, the peak discharge in the outlet is varying. Along
with the varying peak runoffs, it may be influenced by possible conditions of the watershed.

(a) (b)
 (c) (d)

Figure 12. Unit Hydrographs of PAGASA RIDF with (a) 2-Year, (b) 10-Year, (c) 50-Year,
and (d) 100-Year return period

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 13. Unit Hydrographs of Huff Type 1 with (a) 2-Year, (b) 10-Year, (c) 50-Year, and
(d) 100-Year return period
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 14. Unit Hydrographs of Huff Type 2 with (a) 2-Year, (b) 10-Year, (c) 50-Year, and
(d) 100-Year return period

(a) (b)
 (c) (d)

Figure 15. Unit Hydrographs of Huff Type 3 with (a) 2-Year, (b) 10-Year, (c) 50-Year, and
(d) 100-Year return period

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 16. Unit Hydrographs of Huff Type 4 with (a) 2-Year, (b) 10-Year, (c) 50-Year, and
(d) 100-Year return period
Hydrographs of Actual Storms

After obtaining the unit hydrographs of the 5 types of rainfall data, the unit
hydrographs from three of the major typhoons that affected Los Baños, Laguna were obtained
using the HEC-HMS as shown in Figure 17. The three typhoons were Typhoon Milenyo
(2006), Typhoon Ondoy (2009) and Typhoon Glenda (2014) in which the rainfall data were
obtained from the National Agromet Station using the tipping bucket rain gauge.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 17. Unit Hydrographs of the three typhoon which are (a) Milenyo, (b) Ondoy,
(c) Glenda
Comparison of Hydrograph from Actual and Synthetic Storms

The resulting unit hydrographs of the major typhoons were obtained as shown in
Figure 17. These typhoons were compared to the 5 sets of synthetic unit hydrographs along
with their respective return periods. Based on the hydrographs, Typhoon Milenyo resembles
the unit hydrograph of the PAGASA RIDF with a return period of 2 years. Also, for Typhoon
Ondoy, it has a similar unit hydrograph of the PAGASA RIDF with a return period of 2 years.
And as for Typhoon Glenda, it resembles a Huff Type 4- unit hydrograph with a return period
of 2 years.

Statistical Analysis

Upon obtaining the unit hydrograph of the synthetic rainfall values, HEC-HMS can
also obtain the peak discharge, volume of rain, time to peak and runoff depth of the outlet of
the Molawin watershed.
The peak discharge of the 5 different unit hydrographs were obtained from HEC-HMS
in which is used for statistical analysis using Two-way ANOVA without replication with a
level of significance of 5%.

Table 7. Peak Discharge of the 5 types of unit hydrographs (m 3/s)

Peak Discharge (m3/s)

2-Year 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year

PAGASA RIDF 29.648 56.431 79.699 89.394
Huff Type 1 14.941 24.905 35.144 39.668
Huff Type 2 8.697 13.612 18.519 20.641
Huff Type 3 19.393 29.932 40.353 44.813
Huff Type 4 11.271 17.302 23.262 25.813

ANOVA
Source of
SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 5838.048 4 1459.512 20.09687 2.99E-05 3.259167
Columns 2221.003 3 740.3344 10.1941 0.001279 3.490295
Error 871.486 12 72.62383

Total 8930.537 19
 Based on the results of the statistical analysis, values of the rows (type of synthetic
unit hydrograph) has a value of P = 0.0000299 is relatively less than the level of significance
of 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected. It states that the peak discharge has a significant
difference between the different hydrographs.

Table 8. Outlet Volume of the 5 types of unit hydrographs (m 3)

Volume (m3)
2-Year 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year
PAGASA RIDF 231008 456232 659205 747044
Huff Type 1 345501 559005 776930 871511
Huff Type 2 341400 552900 768800 862500
Huff Type 3 328784 533897 743518 834538
Huff Type 4 314641 512619 717178 803172

ANOVA: Two-Factor Without Replication (Peak

Discharge)

SUMMARY Count Sum Average Variance

PAGASA
4 255.172 63.793 709.4974
RIDF
Huff 1 4 114.658 28.6645 121.8431
Huff 2 4 61.469 15.36725 28.4397
Huff 3 4 134.491 33.62275 128.8751
Huff 4 4 77.648 19.412 42.17443

2-Year 5 83.95 16.79 67.86965

10-Year 5 142.182 28.4364 285.5357
50-Year 5 196.977 39.3954 584.8706
100-Year 5 220.329 44.0658 739.1077
 ANOVA: Two-Factor Without Replication (Volume)
SUMMARY Count Sum Average Variance
PAGASA
RIDF 4 2093489 523372.3 5.28E+10
Huff 1 4 2552947 638236.8 5.52E+10
Huff 2 4 2525600 631400 5.42E+10
Huff 3 4 2440737 610184.3 5.1E+10
Huff 4 4 2347610 586902.5 4.78E+10

2-Year 5 1561334 312266.8 2.21E+09

10-year 5 2614653 522930.6 1.72E+09
50-Year 5 3665631 733126.2 2.25E+09
100-Year 5 4118765 823753 2.55E+09

ANOVA
Source of P-
SS df MS F F crit
Variation value
2.42E-
Rows 3.43E+10 4 8.58E+09 162.8115 3.259167
10
8.1E-
Columns 7.83E+11 3 2.61E+11 4952.187 3.490295
19
Error 6.32E+08 12 52671134

Total 8.17E+11 19

Based on the results of the statistical analysis, values of the rows (type of synthetic
unit hydrograph) has a value of P = 0.000000000242 is relatively less than the level of
significance of 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected. It states that the outlet volume has
a significant difference between the different hydrographs.

Table 9. Runoff Depth of the 5 types of unit hydrographs (mm)

Runoff Depth (mm)

2-Year 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year

PAGASA
93.56 184.78 266.99 302.57
RIDF
Huff Type 1 139.93 226.4 314.66 352.96
Huff Type 2 138.29 240.9 311.39 349.35
Huff Type 3 133.16 216.24 301.14 338
Huff Type 4 127.43 207.62 289.66 325.3
 ANOVA: Two-Factor Without Replication (Runoff
Depth)

SUMMARY Count Sum Average Variance

PAGASA
RIDF 4 847.9 211.975 8665.261
Huff 1 4 1033.95 258.4875 9055.297
Huff 2 4 1039.93 259.9825 8600.829
Huff 3 4 988.54 247.135 8372.597
Huff 4 4 950.01 237.5025 7812.575

2-Year 5 632.37 126.474 362.4074

10-Year 5 1075.94 215.188 442.4609
50-Year 5 1483.84 296.768 372.5735
100-Year 5 1668.18 333.636 418.4941

ANOVA
Source of P-
Variation SS df MS F value F crit
1.53E-
Rows 6152.552 4 1538.138 79.83692 08 3.259167
1.04E-
Columns 127288.5 3 42429.5 2202.299 16 3.490295
Error 231.192 12 19.266

Total 133672.2 19

Based on the results of the statistical analysis, values of the rows (type of synthetic
unit hydrograph) has a value of P = 0.0000000153 is relatively less than the level of
significance of 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected. It states that the runoff depth has a
significant difference between the different hydrographs.

Table 10. Time to Peak of the 5 types of unit hydrographs (hr.)

Time to peak (hr)
2-Year 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year
PAGASA
12 12 12 12
RIDF
Huff Type 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Huff Type 2 10 9.5 9.5 9.5
Huff Type 3 15 15 15 15
Huff Type 4 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5
 ANOVA: Two-Factor Without Replication (Time
to peak)

SUMMARY Count Sum Average Variance

PAGASA
RIDF 4 48 12 0
Huff 1 4 18 4.5 0
Huff 2 4 38.5 9.625 0.0625
Huff 3 4 60 15 0
Huff 4 4 82 20.5 0

2-Year 5 62 12.4 35.175

10-Year 5 61.5 12.3 35.825
50-Year 5 61.5 12.3 35.825
100-Year 5 61.5 12.3 35.825

ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 570.45 4 142.6125 11409 2.31E-21 3.259167
Columns 0.0375 3 0.0125 1 0.426221 3.490295
Error 0.15 12 0.0125

Total 570.6375 19

Based on the results of the statistical analysis, values of the rows (type of synthetic
unit hydrograph) has a value of P = 2.31 E-21 is relatively less than the level of significance
of 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected. It states that the time to peak has a significant
difference between the different hydrographs.

Validation using the Rational Method

Rational method is the simplest to use in determining peak discharges, more

particularly in the design of storm sewers and prediction of storm peak flows (Karamouz,
2013). It relates the discharge as a function of slope, type of cover, land-use, rainfall intensity,
watershed area, etc. It is given by the equation of:

𝐶𝑖𝐴
𝑄=
360
where Q is the peak discharge in m3/s, C is the runoff coefficient, 𝑖 is the rainfall intensity in
mm/hr, and A is the watershed area in hectares (ha).
Although as stated by Karamouz, this method follows certain assumptions which
leads to limitations in the applicability of the equation. Assumptions such as uniformity of
precipitation over the entire basin, duration of precipitation is equal to the time of
concentration, and negligible basin storage effects are considered upon the use of this method.
This leads to a limitation in which the method can only be used for watersheds not having an
area larger than 2.5 km2 (Karamouz, 2013). Since the delineated Molawin watershed has an
area of 2.47 km2, rational method is applicable.
The runoff coefficient, C, is the given as a function of land use which considers
drainage area losses. In application to a basin with varying land uses, such as the Molawin
watershed, the weighted runoff coefficient must be used. It is given by:

𝐶1 𝐴1 +. . +𝐶𝑛 𝐴𝑛
𝐶=
∑ 𝐴𝑇

where 𝐶𝑛 is the runoff coefficient of each sub-basin, An is

the area covered by a specific land-use, and AT is the total
covered area of the basin

The Los Baños intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curve is used in order to derive the
rainfall intensities at return periods 2, 10, 50, and 100 years, with consideration of the
computed time of concentration for the whole basin. Note that the rainfall intensity values
were obtained through interpolation since the computed tc is not found within the Los Baños
IDF. The parameters for the rational method are then summarized in Table 11.

Table 11. Summarized Parameters for the Rational Method.

Weighted Rainfall
Return Period Runoff Intensity (i) Area (ha) Q (m3/s)
Coefficient (C) (mm/hr)
2-year 0.1605597589 82.17115408 246.9036 9.04859219
10-year 0.1605597589 130.8625831 246.9036 14.4104359
50-year 0.2011195178 173.504649 246.9036 23.9326206
100-year 0.2011195178 191.4903979 246.9036 26.4135115
 The computed peak discharges from rational method are then compared with those
obtained from PAGASA RIDF and Huff Types 1 to 4. Comparison is done by computing the
average percent difference of all return periods per type. The summarized comparison is
shown in the table below.

Table 12. Average Percent Differences of each type from the Rational Method
Average Percent Difference (%)
PAGASA RIDF 110.3727
Huff Type 1 16.8090
Huff Type 2 93.8668
Huff Type 3 1.7285
Huff Type 4 8.7423

From the results, PAGASA RIDF data deviated the most from the rational method
while Huff Type 4 data obtained the nearest values. Hence, Huff Type 3 is the most preferred
hyetograph for the watershed.

Table 13. Percent Difference between Rational and PAGASA RIDF

Return Q (Rational) Q (PAGASA Percent
Period (m3/s) RIDF) (m3/s) Difference (%)
2-year 9.0486 29.6480 106.4663
10-year 14.4104 56.4310 118.6327
50-year 23.9326 79.6990 107.6243
100-year 26.4135 89.3940 108.7675

Table 14. Percent Difference between Rational and Huff Type 1

Q (Huff Percent
Return Q (Rational)
Type 1) Difference
Period (m3/s)
(m3/s) (%)
2-year 9.0486 7.9200 49.1247
10-year 14.4104 13.2820 53.3865
50-year 23.9326 18.7880 37.9554
100-year 26.4135 21.2430 40.1156
 Table 15. Percent Difference between Rational and Huff Type 2
Return Q (Rational) Q (Huff Type Percent
Period (m3/s) 2) (m3/s) Difference (%)
2-year 9.0486 3.6090 -3.9626
10-year 14.4104 5.7030 -5.6985
50-year 23.9326 7.7790 -25.5049
100-year 26.4135 8.6810 -24.5354

Table 16. Percent Difference between Rational and Huff Type 3.

Return Q (Rational) Q (Huff Type Percent
Period (m3/s) 3) (m3/s) Difference (%)
2-year 9.0486 10.3980 72.7414
10-year 14.4104 16.1210 70.0077
50-year 23.9326 21.7790 51.0857
100-year 26.4135 24.2000 51.6647

Table 17. Percent Difference between Rational and Huff Type 4.

Return Q (Rational) Q (Huff Type Percent
Period (m3/s) 4) (m3/s) Difference (%)
2-year 9.0486 11.2710 21.8745
10-year 14.4104 17.3020 18.2362
50-year 23.9326 23.2620 -2.8419
100-year 26.4135 25.8130 -2.2996

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

With the given delineation and basin physical properties of the watershed from QGIS
and Google Earth Pro, synthetic and actual rainfalls are modelled with the help of HEC-
HMS. First, it can be characterized that the Molawin watershed lies mostly on Macolod soil,
in which is classified under hydrologic soil group D. Under the assumption of good hydrologic
conditions, the weighted curve numbers for each sub-basin are obtained and used to
determine runoff.

In obtaining runoff, SCS Lag is the most preferred method since it takes soil types
and land use of area as functions, which make it more accurate than of Kirpich equation.
Moreover, through statistical analyses of F-test and T-test, it has been found out that there
exists no significant difference between the time of concentration in using Kirpich and SCS
Lag formulas.

PAGASA RIDF and Huff Types 1, 2, 3, and 4 hyetographs were provided for the runoff
analysis, in which all were evaluated for every return period of 2, 10, 50, and 100-years. 20-
unit hydrographs were then obtained in HEC-HMS, using the provided data. Unit
hydrographs from three typhoons, namely, Milenyo, Ondoy, and Glenda were also generated
for storm analysis in the watershed. It has been found out that typhoons Milenyo and Ondoy
resembles the unit hydrograph of the PAGASA RIDF data with a return period of 2 years.
Typhoon Glenda, on the otherhand, resembled a Huff Type 4-unit hydrograph with a return
period of 2 years. Generally, this means that flood generated by typhoons Milenyo and Ondoy
have a likelihood of 50% recurrence in any given year with basis on PAGASA RIDF data.
Typhoon Glenda recurs at the same probability of 50%, but with basis on Huff Type 4 data.

Using the Rational method, runoff analysis has been validated through comparison
by percent differences. It is concluded that Huff Type 4 hyetograph is the most preferred data
for the watershed, since it gives the lowest deviation from the peak flow obtained from the
rational method.

It is recommended for this project to obtain a more accurate delineation using

calibrated and specialized hydrologic programs more suitable for delineation. Also, the visit
of the selected site is recommended in order to validate or confirm the data obtained from
using the Google Earth Pro.

VI. REFERENCES

Combalicer, E.A., et. al. (2010). Modelling hydrologic processes distribution in a tropical
forest watershed in the Philippines. Retrieved on December 5, 2018 from
https://www.frim.gov.my/v1/JTFSOnline/jtfs/v22n2/155-169.pdf

“Importance of Hydrology” (2003). Retrieved on December 3, 2013 from http://sanuja.com

Karamouz, M. et. al. (2013). Hydrology and Hydroclimatology: Principles and

Applications. USA: CRC Press
 Mogelgaard, K. (2011). Why population matters to water resources.
Retrieved from http://pai.org

“Rainfall – runoff Analysis” (n.d). Retrieved on December 3, 2018 from http://www.fao.org

Sethi, R. (n.d). Method and estimation of excess rainfall (runoff) - Theory and Practical.
Retrieved on December 3, 2018 from http://www.dowrorissa.gov.in

Szold, H. (1994). National Engineering Handbook: Hydrology . Retrieved December 2,

2018, from www.citationmachine.net/apa/cite-a-
book/search?utf8=✓&q=https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.asp
x?content=27002.wba&commit=Search Books

Urban hydrology for small watersheds (2nd edition). (1986). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division

“What is hydrology and what do hydrologist do” (2016). Retrieved on December 3, 2018
Retrieved from https://water.usgs.gov

“What is a Watershed” (2018). Retrieved on December 3, 2018 from https://

oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/watershed

VII. APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

Runoff Coefficients

Figure 1. Runoff Coefficients for Rational Method

Executive Summary

Runoff characterization using different design storms was conducted on the Molawin
Watershed in Los Banos, Laguna. QGIS and Google Earth Pro were used to obtain the
preliminary parameters such as the determination of elevations, slopes, and uses of the
project site. Also, these parameters served as the guideline to create a watershed in the
project location and afterwards delineating the sub-basins within the area. For each sub-
basin, runoff at 2-, 10-, 50-, and 100- return year periods were estimated using the Curve
Number (CN) obtained from the preliminary parameters. The simulation of complete
hydrological process of the selected watershed system was performed using the Hydrologic
Engineering Center – Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC HMS). Finally, areas with high CN
(85.21, residential, roads, woods) obtained tend to have the most rainfall as runoff. Some
parts having low CN (79, woods) obtained on the other hand, have soils with the high ability
to absorb rainfall and will produce less runoff.

Keyword (s): Hydrological Modeling System (HMS), runoff, watershed, Curve Number,
Return Period