One Day PMP

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA
Poblacion II, Malinta, Valenzuela City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

________________________________________________________
One Day Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and Isohyetal Map for National
Capital Region (NCR) & Region III, Philippines
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Presented to the Faculty of the
College of Engineering
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela
Authors’ name:
Castillo, Mc. Lorenz M.
Matorres, John Paul A.
Mondero, Crissalyn Joyce V.
Ngo, Celene Pia J.
March 2018
i
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research study would not be possible without the help of the following persons:
First and foremost, our Heavenly Father, Almighty God for giving the researchers
patience, wisdom and good health to finish the study on time and to compile this
manuscript.
To Engr. Kevin Lawrence De Jesus, for being our external thesis adviser and for
giving us direct criticisms and suggestions that made our study on tract, well and refined.
To Engr. Jordan Velasco, dean of College of Engineering, for encouraging us to
finish this study.
To the staffs of the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical Astronomical Services
Administration (PAGASA) by providing all the meteorological data needed by the
researchers and responding to all the question they have to understand what is implied in
the study.
To the admins, staffs, and all of the people committed to Pamantasan ng Lungsod
ng Valenzuela (PLV) for providing outstanding and high quality facilities needed for fast
fulfillment of the study.
Lastly, to their loving parents and colleagues that never stopped from encouraging
and motivating the researchers physically, mentally, and financially in order to accomplish
this study. It would have been more difficult without them.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS ix
LIST OF EQUATIONS x
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ITS MEANING xii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xv
LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX xvi
LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDIX xx
ABSTRACT xxi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 Background of the Study 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem 4
1.2 Objective 5
1.3 Significance of the Study 5
1.4 Scope and Limitations 5
1.5 Conceptual Framework 6
1.6 Definition of Terms 8
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11
2.0 Description of the Study Area 11
2.0.1 Geography and Its Feature 11
iv
2.0.2 Population 14
2.0.3 Climate and Weather 14
2.1 Meteorological Condition and Global Nature of Heavy Precipitation 15
2.2 Concepts of Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) 16
2.3 Methods of PMP Estimation 17
2.3.1 Local Method 17
2.3.2 Transposition Method 17
2.3.3 Combination Method 18
2.3.4 Inferential Method 18
2.3.5 Generalized Method 19
2.3.6 Statistical Method 20
2.4 Data & Statistical Methods of PMP Estimations 20
2.4.1 Sample Size 20
2.4.2 Reconstruction and Estimation of Data 21
2.4.2.1 Station-Average Method 21
2.4.2.2 Normal-Ratio Method 22
2.4.2.3 Isohyetal Method 23
2.4.2.4 Quadrant Method 23
2.4.3 Analysis for Consistency of Records 24
2.4.3.1 Double Mass Curve Analysis 24
2.5 Hershfield Approach for PMP Analysis 25
2.6 Frequency Distribution and Statistical Model Analysis 25
2.6.1 Gumbel Distribution 26
v
2.6.2 Normal Distribution 26
2.6.3 Log Normal Distribution 27
2.6.4 Log Pearson Type III Distribution 27
2.7 Goodness of Fit and Probability Plotting 28
2.7.1 Chi-Square Test 29
2.7.2 Coefficient of Determination 30
2.7.3 Correlation Coefficient 30
2.7.4 Derivation of Return Period 31
2.7.5 Techniques for the Derivations of PMP Contours 31
2.7.5.1 Inverse Distance Weighting 32
2.8 Past Research Work of PMP 32
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 36
3.0 Research Methodology 36
3.1 Data Collection 37
3.2 PMP Estimation 38
3.3 Fitting Data to the Probability Distribution Functions 39
3.3.1 Normal Distribution 39
3.3.2 Log Normal Distribution 40
3.3.3 Log Pearson Type-III Distribution 41
3.3.4 Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I Distribution 42
3.4 Testing the Goodness of Fit of Data to Probability 42
Distribution Functions
3.5 Estimation of Return Period Values for PMP 43
vi
3.6 Construction of PMP Isohyetal Map 44
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 51
4.0 Rainfall Weather Stations 51
4.1 Average Annual Total and Annual Daily Maximum 53
4.2 Consistency Test 54
4.3 Estimation of Maximum Frequency Factor 54
4.4 Estimation of PMP 55
4.5 PMP to Highest Observed Rainfall Ratio 56
4.6 Comparison of the Probability Distribution Functions 57
4.6.1 Normal Probability Distribution Function 57
4.6.2 Log Normal Probability Distribution Function 59
4.6.3 Log Pearson Type-III Probability Distribution Function 59
4.6.4 Gumbel/Evi Probability Function 61
4.7 Testing the Goodness of Fitting of Data to Probability 62
Distribution Functions
4.7.1 Chi-Square Test 62
4.7.2 Correlation Coefficient Test 62
4.7.3 Coefficient of Determination Test 63
4.8 Computation of Pmp Return Period 64
4.8.1 Pmp Return Period Values 64
4.8.2 Estimation of PMP and Depth of Various Years 65
Return Period
4.8.3 Ratios of PMP to Factor of Safety 67
vii
4.9 Construction of PMP Isohyetal Map 68
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION 73
CHAPTER 6. RECOMMENDATIONS 75
REFERENCES 76
APPENDICES 83
Appendix Table 83
Appendix Figure 134
Procedures using Excel 137
LETTER 149
RESUME 150
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AGROMET Agrometereogical Station
CV Coefficient of Variation
CDF Cumulative Distribution Function
GEV Generalized Extreme Values
GOF Goodness of Fit
FOS Factor of Safety
HOR Highest Observed Rainfall
IDW Inverse Distance Weighting
LPT-III Log Pearson type III
NCR National Capital Region
PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
PMP Probable Maximum Precipitation
PSA Philippine Statistics Authority
QGIS Quantum Geographical Information System
SYNOP Surface Synoptic Station
WMO World Meteorological Organization
ix
LIST OF EQUATIONS
Equation 2.10 22
Equation 2.11 23
Equation 2.12 23
Equation 2.13 27
Equation 3.10 38
Equation 3.11 38
Equation 3.12 38
Equation 3.13 39
Equation 3.14 39
Equation 3.15 40
Equation 3.16 40
Equation 3.17 40
Equation 3.18 40
Equation 3.19 40
Equation 3.20 41
Equation 3.21 41
Equation 3.22 41
Equation 3.23 41
Equation 3.24 41
Equation 3.25 42
Equation 3.26 42
Equation 3.27 42
Equation 3.28 43
Equation 3.29 43
Equation 3.30 43
Equation 3.31 44
x
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ITS MEANING
X2 Chi-square test
ν Degree of Freedom
α Critical Level
R2 Coefficient of Determination
Oi Observed Rainfall Values
Pi Predicted Rainfall Values
𝑂̅ Mean of Observed Rainfall data
𝑃̅ Mean of Predicted Rainfall data
r Correlation Coefficient
𝐾𝑚 Maximum Frequency Factor
𝑋𝑃𝑀𝑃 PMP Estimation
𝑥̅𝑛 Mean of the Annual Extreme Series
𝑆𝑛 (𝜎) Standard Deviation
𝑋̅ Mean for the Random Variable
𝑌̅ Mean for the Random Variable
𝑥1 Highest Observed Annual Maximum Rainfall
Z Standard Normal Deviate
XT Extreme Value
W Intermediate Variable
𝐶𝑠 Standardized Skew or Coefficient of Skewness
𝑦̅𝑛 Reduced mean of 𝑦𝑛
xi
𝑌𝑇 Reduced Variate
T Return Period
F Cumulative Distributive Function
P Plotting Probability
Fx Log Normal Cumulative Distributive Function
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Different Plotting Positions Formula 28
Table 2. Expressions Used to Estimated Parameters of Log Normal Probability 40
Distribution
Table 3. Types of Rainfall Weather Stations in the Philippines 51
Table 4. Listing of PAGASA Synoptic Stations as of July 2017 52
Table 5. Average Annual Total and Annual Daily Maximum 54
Table 6. Derivation of Maximum Frequency Factor (Km) 55
Table 7. Frequency Factor Table for Km 55
Table 8. Derivation of Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) 56
Table 9. Ratio of PMP to HOR 57
Table 10. Standard Normal Deviate (Z) and Its Extreme Values Derived 58
By Normal Distribution for Port Area (MCO), Manila
By Log Normal Distribution for Port Area (MCO), Manila
By Log Pearson Distribution for Port Area (MCO), Manila
Table 13. Computation of Extreme Values Using Gumbel 61
for Port Area (MCO), Manila
Table 14. Results of Testing the Good of Fit of Data to Probability 63
Distribution Functions for Port Area (MCO), Manila
Table 15. Summary of GOF for Stations 64
xiii
Table 16. Annual Exceedence and Return Periods 65
Table 17. Rainfall Depths (mm) for Various Years of Return Period 66
Table 18. Ratio of PMP to Various Years of Return Period (FOS) 67
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework 7
Figure 2. Boundaries of NCR 12
Figure 3. Boundaries of Region III 13
Figure 4. Distribution of Selected Rainfall Weather
Stations in NCR & Region III 53
Figure 5. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for
NCR and Region III (30 mm contour interval) 69
Figure 6. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for
NCR and Region III (5mm contour interval) 70
Figure 7. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for Region III 71
Figure 8. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for NCR 72
xv
LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX
Appendix Table 1. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2001) 83
Appendix Table 11. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2001) 88
Appendix Table 21. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2001) 93
xvi
Appendix Table 31. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2001) 98
Appendix Table 41. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2001) 103
xvii
Appendix Table 51. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2001) 108
Appendix Table 61. Normal Distribution of Iba Zambales Station 113
Appendix Table 62. Normal Distribution of Science Garden Station 113
Appendix Table 63. Normal Distribution of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station 114
Appendix Table 64. Normal Distribution of CIAC Station 114
Appendix Table 65. Normal Distribution of Cabanatuan Station 115
Appendix Table 66. Log Normal Distribution of Iba Zambales Station 115
Appendix Table 67. Log Normal Distribution of Science Garden Station 116
Appendix Table 68. Log Normal Distribution of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station 116
xviii
Appendix Table 69. Log Normal Distribution of CIAC Station 117
Appendix Table 70. Log Normal Distribution of Cabanatuan Station 117
Appendix Table 71. Log Pearson Type III of Iba Zambales Station 118
Appendix Table 72. Log Pearson Type III of Science Garden Station 118
Appendix Table 73. Log Pearson Type III of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station 119
Appendix Table 74. Log Pearson Type III of CIAC Station 119
Appendix Table 75. Log Pearson Type III of Cabanatuan Station 120
Appendix Table 76. Gumbel of Iba Zambales Station 120
Appendix Table 77. Gumbel of Science Garden Station 121
Appendix Table 78. Gumbel of Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station 121
Appendix Table 79. Gumbel of CIAC Station 122
Appendix Table 80. Gumbel of Cabanatuan Station 122
Appendix Table 81. Goodness of Fit Probability for Iba Zambales Station 123
Appendix Table 82. Goodness of Fit Probability for Science Garden Station 124
Appendix Table 83. Goodness of Fit Probability for Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station 125
Appendix Table 84. Goodness of Fit Probability for CIAC Station 126
Appendix Table 85. Goodness of Fit Probability for Cabanatuan Station 127
Appendix Table 86. Double Mass Curve for Iba Zambales Station 128
Appendix Table 87. Double Mass Curve for Science Garden Station 129
Appendix Table 88. Double Mass Curve for Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station 130
Appendix Table 89. Double Mass Curve for CIAC Station 131
Appendix Table 90. Double Mass Curve for Cabanatuan Station 132
Appendix Table 91. Double Mass Curve for Port Area Station 133
xix
LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDIX
Appendix Figure 1. Double Mass Curve for Iba, Zambales 134
Appendix Figure 2. Double Mass Curve for Science Garden 134
Appendix Figure 3. Double Mass Curve for Cubi Pt., Subic Bay 135
Appendix Figure 4. Double Mass Curve for CIAC 135
Appendix Figure 5. Double Mass Curve for Cabanatuan 136
Appendix Figure 6. Double Mass Curve for Port Area 136
xx
ABSTRACT
Philippines had severely suffered from natural disasters such as floods, landslides
and earthquakes and most common of them is flood. Because of extensive variety of
precipitation, and extreme floods, the study of one day Probable Maximum Precipitation
(PMP) for the regions of NCR & Region III is necessary. The objectives of this study were
to develop one day PMP and their return periods for selected stations, to identify best fit
probability distribution function for the stations and to develop one day PMP isohyetal map
for the study area. The researchers had only selected one type of rainfall weather station
for this study wherein the synoptic weather station.
The annual daily extreme rainfall series of 6 stations (2 from NCR and 4 from
Region III) were subjected to statistical analysis using Hershfield technique adapted
version of Chow. Double mass curve was used to check the consistency of the data, in
accordance, there were a little slope changes that were not significant. Maximum frequency
factor (Km) of each station were computed and station at Science Garden got the extremely
high Km value of 7.36. It was found that the PMP vary from 170.98 mm (Nueva Ecija
station) to 957.62 mm (Science Garden station) with an average of 370.40mm and the ratio
of one-day PMP to highest observed rainfall varied from 1.54 (Zambales station) to 2.10
(Science Garden station) with an average of 1.26. Different probability distribution
functions were used to predict extreme daily rainfall for each station. Normal, log normal,
log Pearson type III and Gumbel probability distribution functions were used and the
predicted values were subjected to three goodness of fit tests such as chi-square (x2),
correlation coefficient (r) and coefficient of determination (R2) tests to assess how best the
fits had been. It is concluded that the log normal distribution is the best fit for this series of
data (66.67%) and Gumbel performed second (33.33%). PMP estimates for one-day
durations using Log Normal had an average return period 17 years. The depth of one-day
PMP to rainfall depth for frequencies return period of 5, 10, 50, 100, 1000 and 10000 year
floods had been estimated and found to vary from 135.33 mm to 817.43 mm. The predicted
PMP value to depths of various years return period ratios were computed and found to vary
from 0.4755 (at 10000 years) to 4.2145 (at 5 years). Accordingly, estimated PMP values
for the 100, 1000 and 10000 years are uncertain, but reasonable for return periods of 10
and 50 years for designing of hydraulic structures. However, the use of PMP for 5 years of
return periods for hydraulic structures will be stable but costly.
Isohyetal map over the regions was generated by the use of QGIS software, IDW
interpolation approach and the PMP isohyetal lines were varying from 331 mm to 496mm,
at contour interval of 30 mm. The PMP Isohyetal Map generated shows that area along the
Science Garden station in Quezon City accumulated the highest observed rainfall with a
value of 957.62 mm and decreasing both North-East and South-West direction.
xxi
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Water is an essential part of our planet's biosphere, but it is possible to have too
much of a good thing. Too much water in same place and same time will spell disaster for
millions of people living or having a property far from high ground. Due to this, analyzing
hydrologic design and risk requires enough assessment on extreme weather events that is
essential to the said task (Macklin, et al., 1999).
In the past years, Philippines has been facing extreme typhoons that has been
causing huge amount of precipitation resulting to flood especially in the affected areas.
Natural phenomena that usually occurs are floods, rainstorms, droughts, and high winds
that have immediate impact that includes loss of human life, damage to property,
destruction of crops, loss of livestock, and deterioration of human health. As the
infrastructures are concerned, disruptions to communication, supplies of electricity and
clean water, damaged roads and bridges, and huge loss in agriculture and ecology took
place (What Are the Consequences of Floods? | Office of the Queensland Chief Scientist.
Retrieved from www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-floods/flood-
consequences). Thus, the key on having an effective planning approach of constructing
engineering structures, pollution control, reservoir management and insurance relies on
risk calculation based on the amount of frequencies of the said events (Einfait, et al., 1998).
Philippine climate is tropical and maritime. It is characterized by relatively high
temperature, high humidity and abundant rainfall. It is similar in many aspects to the
1
climate in Central America. Temperature, humidity, and rainfall has been regularly
monitored and forecasted by the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical
Services Administration (PAGASA) (Climatology and Agrometeorology. Retrieved from
www1.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/index.php/27-climatology-and-agrometeorology).
Using temperature and rainfall bases, Philippines rainy season happens from June
to November where kind of flood like flash flood and river floods are usually present.
Several factors such as rainfall intensity and duration plays an important role in having a
flash flood (Richards, 1999). These floods that happen with such great force can create
catastrophic damages to human life and properties (Greenough et al, 2001). Flashflood
occurs in the different parts of the Philippines at all times. As a sample of these kind of
events, the Philippines encountered a two week stretch of 1972 heavy rain in Luzon known
as “Great Flood in 1972.” Flood waters of Pampanga and Agno River submerged most part
of Central Luzon (PDC, 1975), cities in Pasig, Pateros, Marikina, and Napindan (Taguig)
by flood after continuous rains making more than 900 families and 26 secondary roads
swamped. Another event according to PAGASA, the typhoon with international name
“Ketsana” known as “Bagyong Ondoy” in the Philippines, happened last September 26,
2009 poured about 455 mm of rain in Manila for six hours straight that left massive flood
in the said area and the amount of rainfall it poured were determined to be equivalent to
months of average rainfall in Manila. In addition, flood made by super typhoon “Reming”
affected 3.5 million people in Bicol area that left more than 700 people killed, 700
misplaced, and 2600 injured (NDRRMC, 2017). Because of such events stated, it led
various studies to prioritize mitigation of flood in each region.
2
National Capital Region (NCR) known as Metro Manila, one of the three defined
metropolitan areas as defined by the National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA), and Region III known as Central Luzon, the most abundant source of water in
the Luzon, both show the need of mitigation of flood.
With the Philippine economy on a sustained growth track, pushing development
outside the capital has become a national priority as Metro Manila is now bursting at the
seams that makes development on Central Luzon becomes necessary.
For future developments and advancement of these regions, studies of one-day
Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) over a region or a catchment area are essential.
The estimation of PMP, together with its spatial and temporal distributions, is essential for
calculating Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for the safe design of dams, and for planning
flood disaster mitigation and preparedness measures. Specifically, it is used in the design
of spillway of dams that will minimize the risk of overtopping of a dam, which generally
leads to loss of life and damage to property. Hence, knowledge on extreme rainfall events
and PMP would be the basis in engineering practices for designing hydraulic structures and
set up measures for reducing the impact of the disaster (Chow, V. T., 1952).
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO, 1986) defines the probable
maximum precipitation PMP as “the greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration
that is physically possible over a given size storm area at a particular geographical location
at a certain time of year.” There are different methods that can be used to estimate PMP
but as for the researchers, statistical analysis of extreme rainfalls was made.
Considering the importance of the issue, an attempt will be made to estimate one
point PMP and to generate the corresponding Isohyetal Map that is often needed for proper
3
planning, management, assessment and designing of different types of water resource
structures and conservation projects.
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Philippines throughout the years encountering various storms and flash floods as
the outcome, development and assessment of hydraulic structures are important. Research
of one-day PMP over a district or a catchment territory are fundamental for the arranging
and outlining of hydraulic structures. Thus, information on outrageous precipitation
occasions and PMP would be the premise for designing hydraulic structures in engineering
practices and set up measures for decreasing the effect of the catastrophe. In this way, to
conquer the restrictions of frequency based storm in the local state, estimation of one-day
PMP and the comparing Isohyetal Map for the design rainfall inputs for figuring PMF were
made.
The data obtained may give preparatory premise to planning of hydrologic
structures to limit the harms of hydraulic structures and the resulting loss of properties
because of the deterioration or overtopping of the structures under surge conditions. This
study may also be useful in the assessment of the existing structures.
Understanding the significance of the issue in the regions, an attempt will be made
to evaluate one point PMP and to generate an Isohyetal Map of the regions, which is
frequently required for appropriate arranging, administration, and planning of various sorts
of water asset and conservation projects.
4
1.2 OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study is to construct a one day PMP and Isohyetal Map for
NCR and Region III, Philippines. The following objectives were set in order to achieve the
aim of the study:
i. To estimate one day point PMP and their return periods for selected rainfall
weather stations
ii. To identify best fit probability distribution function for NCR and Region III
iii. To construct one day PMP Isohyetal Map for NCR & Region III
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to serve as an initial basis for the improvement of
different engineering practices in terms of designing and assessing hydraulic structures
such as dams, reservoir, basis and catchments to minimize damages and the collateral loss
of properties considering the weather and flood conditions in the Philippines by means of
formulating a one-day PMP and to generate an Isohyetal Map in order to estimate the
possible maximum rainfall in the cities of NCR and Region III (Central Luzon Region) at
a certain time or for a stated period.
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
This research’s objective is to construct a one day PMP and Isohyetal Map of NCR
and Region III of the Philippines. It may be noted that an estimate of PMP for any location
in the Philippines is not yet available and is limited to the regions stated. It is the purpose
5
of this paper to present such an estimate in the future. Hence, the researchers will not be
discussing the full usage of PMP but rather estimating PMP for future references.
The researchers will only select one type of rainfall weather station for the study.
Available data given by the PAGASA will be utilized for the completion of this study.
Rainfall data from the year 2001 until 2010 were analyzed by the researchers due to the
availability of the said data. Daily maximum rainfall was selected for each station and an
array of annual daily maximum values of rainfall was formed.
1.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
A conceptual framework serves as an organizing device with flow charts and
context in order to formulate a conceptual variation and organize objectives that will be
used as a guide to be followed throughout the study. It is also used as an abstract
representation connected to the collection and analysis of data that will help the readers to
understand more about the significance and research problem of the study.
6
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
A. Selection of rainfall weather
A. List of ff. stations to be analyzed
information for B. Computation of Average Annual
rainfall weather Total and Annual Daily
stations within Maximum of every station
NCR & Region C. Consistency Test on data
III D. Estimation of Maximum
i. Number of Frequency Factor (Km) 1.Probable Maximum
rainfall weather E. PMP Estimation Precipitation
stations F. Comparison of the Probability
ii.Weather Station Distribution Functions 2.Ratio of PMP to
Profile i. Normal HOR
 Elevations ii. Log Normal
and iii. Log Pearson Type-III
3.PMP Return Period
coordinates iv. Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I
 Years of G. Testing the Goodness of Fit
(GOF) of Data to Probability 4.Isohyetal Map of 24
record
Distribution Functions hr PMP for NCR &
B. Rainfall Data i. Chi-square Test Region III
i. Daily ii. Correlation Coefficient test
Maximum iii. Coefficient of Determination
Rainfall Test
ii.Annual H. Computation of PMP Return
Maximum Period
Rainfall I. Construction of PMP Isohyetal
Map
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
7
1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS
 Annual Daily Maximum - the amount of highest observed rainfall for 24 hrs in a
whole year. (Chow, 1988)
 Catastrophic - is a phenomenon that can occur due to continuous rainfall that is
very harmful or disastrous. (Merriam Dictionary, 2018)
 Catchment area - an area characterized by all runoff being conveyed to the same
outlet. (Webster Dictionary, 2018)
 Contour line - a line on a map joining points of equal height above or below sea
level. (Merriam Dictionary, 2018)
 Disaster Mitigation - the action of lessening the severity or intensity and
probability of disaster. (Public Safety Canada, 2015)
 Duration - the period of time that a storm or rainfall last. (Merriam Dictionary,
2018)
 Elevation - distance of something above a reference point (such as sea level).
(Merriam Dictionary, 2018)
 Flood - the overflowing of rain water in a particular area due to continuous rainfall.
(Webster Dictionary, 2018)
 Forecast - a prediction about how something (as the weather) will develop.
(Merriam Dictionary, 2018)
 Geocoding - is the process of converting addresses (like a street address) into
geographic coordinates (like latitude and longitude), which you can use to place
markers on a map, or position the map. (GISLounge, 2015)
8
 High humidity - define as a high percentage of moisture in the air. (Webster
Dictionary, 2018)
 Isohyetal Map - is a map depicting contours of equal precipitation amounts
recorded during a specific time period. (Glossary of Meteorological Terms, 2015)
 Precipitation - the quantity of water falling to earth at a specific place within a
specified period of time. (Webster Dictionary, 2018)
 Probability distribution - a function of a discrete variable who’s integral over
any interval is the probability that the random variable specified by it will lie
within that interval. (Webster Dictionary, 2018)
 Probability of exceedence - The probability of a given rainfall total accumulated
over a given duration will be exceeded in any one year. (LGAM, 2018)
 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) - define as the greatest depth of
precipitation for a given duration meteorologically possible for a given size storm
area at a particular location at a particular time of year, with no allowance made for
long-time climatic trends. (Hurstville LGA Overland Flood Study, 2018)
 Rainfall Intensity - is a value expressing rainfall in terms of inches per hour used
in hydraulic calculations. The term “one inch per hour of rainfall” equals
approximately one cubic foot per second per acre. (Texas Department of
Transportation Glossary, 2013)
 Return Period - also known as a recurrence interval (sometimes repeat interval)
is an estimate of the likelihood of an event, such as an earthquake, flood,
landslide, or a river discharge flow to occur. (Merriam Dictionary, 2018)
9
 Spatial Analysis - The process of examining the locations, attributes, and
relationships of features in spatial data through overlay and other analytical
techniques in order to address a question or gain useful knowledge. (Esri, 2018)
10
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The significance of literature review was to establish a theoretical framework for
the Construction of One Day Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and Isohyetal Map
through journals, references, internet and articles. The information provided was related to
the aim and objectives of this study. This chapter discusses on the description of the study
area, weather stations, probable maximum precipitation and other related studies that is
useful in the completion of this research.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The following presents a description of the study area characteristics in terms of
geography, population, climate and weather.
2.0.1 GEOGRAPHY AND ITS FEATURE
Standing about N 14O 33’ 41.7298” latitude and E 121O 2’ 0.636” longitude and
comprising of 16 cities and one municipality, the National Capital Region is the only region
in the country that has no province. Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas, Valenzuela, Quezon
City, Marikina, Pasig, Taguig, Makati, Manila, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Pasay, Parañaque,
Las Piñas and Muntinlupa are the 16 cities included in this region, while Pateros is the only
lone municipality in the region. Governed by the Mayor of each cities it has 17 Local
Government Unit (LGU’s) and one municipality in Metro Manila. The extends of the
boundaries of Metro Manila lies in Bulacan in the North, Rizal to the east, Cavite to the
11
south-west and Laguna to the South while Manila Bay lies to the west and Laguna de Bay
to the south-east.
Figure 2. Boundaries of NCR
Metro Manila are subdivided into four zones: Coastal Margin (including reclaimed
areas in Manila Bay), the Guadalupe Plateau, the Marikina Valley, and the Laguna
Lowlands based on geographical features. 69% of the region rests on Guadalupe Plateau
and Marikina Valley which lies on high elevation and solid geographical foundations. The
remaining 31% are flood-prone areas that rests on so-called Coastal Margin and Laguna
Lowlands. Manila, Navotas, Malabon and parts of Caloocan are cities that are prone to
floods. Land subsidence and rising sea levels are some cause of floods in the following
areas particularly in Navotas and Malabon City. The eastern part experiences heavy flood
damage like in towns in Pasig City, Marikina City, Municipality of Pateros and Taguig
City caused by overflow of Pasig and Marikina rivers.
12
Figure 3. Boundaries of Region III
The Central Luzon also known as the Rice Granary of the Philippines comprised of
mountains, dormant and active volcanoes, lush, verdant farmlands and natural sea harbors.
It lies between North Luzon and Metro Manila. It has seven (7) provinces, twelve (12)
cities, one hundred eighteen (118) municipalities. The seven of which includes Aurora,
Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales while the twelve cities are
Balanga, Bataan; Malolos and San Jose del Monte from Bulacan; Cabanatuan, Gapan,
Munoz, and San Jose from Nueva Ecija; Angeles and San Fernando from Pampanga;
Tarlac, Tarlac; and Olongapo, Zambales. It bounds all area of Manila Bay to the north
down to the tip of Bataan Peninsula to the west and to the east are the lands north of
Caraballo Mountain. It is the longest contiguous area of lowlands so it otherwise known as
the Central Plain of Luzon.
13
2.0.2 POPULATION
According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), Population Censuses, the
total population of NCR is 11.86 Million with an average growth rate of 1.78. The NCR
itself contributes about 13% of the entire country population.
The seven (7) most populated barangay mostly lie in Quezon City (Commonwealth,
Batasan Hills, Payatas and Holy Spirit) while Barangay 176 in Caloocan with almost 244
thousand people rank number one.
On the other hand, the Central Luzon has the highest urban population ratio of
(60.3%) to the total population, approximately 9,793,184.
There are three areas of urban population concentration: (a) areas in Bulacan along
highways leading from Metro Manila; (b) San Fernando-Angeles City-Mabalacat corridor
area; (c) Subic-Dinalupihan area. The total urban population in these areas is over 2
million, over half of the total urban population in Central Luzon.
Human resources in the region are better prepared in terms of a higher participation
rate at the primary and secondary levels of education. The participation rate of Central
Luzon is 94.2% and 86.1%, respectively, as compared to the national average of 85.7%
and 66.1% in SY 1992-93. There are comparatively more non-government organizations,
cooperatives and people’s organizations in the region.
2.0.3 CLIMATE AND WEATHER
NCR includes a tropical wet and dry climate that outskirts on a tropical monsoon
climate. Together with the rest of the Philippines, Manila lies entirely within the tropics.
Its vicinity to the equator implies that the temperature extend is little, rarely going lower
14
than 20oC and going higher than 38oC. Be that as it may, dampness levels are typically
high which influences it to feel significantly hotter. It has a particular, yet generally short
dry season from January through April, and moderately lengthy wet season from May
through December.
For the Region III November to April is generally dry while wet for the rest of the
year. The northeast monsoon ‘amihan’ prevails from October to January bringing in
moderated and light rains. From May to September the southwest monsoon ‘habagat’. The
hottest month is May having an average temperature of 29.7 C (85.5 F) while the coldest
is February with an average temperature of 25.1 C (77.2 F).
2.1 METEOROLOGICAL CONDITION AND GLOBAL NATURE OF HEAVY
PRECIPITATION
Modern meteorological research on extreme precipitation and flash floods is
closely tied to specific deadly and destructive events. Extreme precipitation resulting to
high trends of rainfall intensities are caused by complex and complimentary scale
interaction that turn out to be a major problem for estimating rainfall forecast (Dairaku et
al., 2004). The occurrences of rain of heavy rainfall events and zones is established by
rainfall durations and rate that varies in nature spatially and temporally and also rainfall
properties that are associated with broadly distinct climate. Topography, characteristics of
the land surface, and human changes to the landscape all of which predict whether a flood
happens with a given amount of rain are highly variable, even over a limited geographic
region (Schumacher 2017). Also several factors that can identified rainfall factors and
intensities, likewise rapid inflows of moisture-laden air, large rate of decrease of cloud
15
moisture content and small intra-storm evaporative losses during droplet descent to the
surface that will be further inclined by meteorological and regional variation such as local
land surface properties including topography (Smith et al., 2001).
Various research studies have different description for rainfall rates. For instance,
the description of Pawlina (2002), Laakso et al. (2003) and Dairaku et al. (2004) defines
that the rainfall greater than 5mm/hr. are ‘strong’, like in accordance, to the study made by
Tokay and Short (1996) describe exceeding values of rainfall rates of 5mm are denoted as
‘heavy’ and rainfall rates of above 20mm/hr. as ‘extreme’. Also the dividing line for strati
form to convective rains are termed as “heavy rains” are about 5-10mm/hr. rain rates then
rain rates of 5-2mm/hr., 2-1mm/hr. and less than 1mm/hr are termed as ‘moderate’, ‘light’
and ‘very light’ accordingly hence the global average rainfall lies in between 2-3 mm/hr.
(Chui and Chang, 2001). The average depth in individual event may be 20-50 times as
global mean daily rainfall amount. Thus, the major challenge faced is not just estimating
the occurrence of rainfall but also forecasting the quantitative precipitation of rainfall
duration and intensity.
2.2 CONCEPTS OF PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION (PMP)
PMP is one of the conceptual paradigm that used various hydrological practices
and derives the magnitude of extreme precipitation and storm. There are six currently
existing methods in computing PMP in accordance to Manual Estimation of Probable
Maximum Precipitation (WMO, 2009). The six methods includes: Empirical relationships
between variables in a particular valley, Statistical methods, Storm model approach,
16
Maximization and transposition of actual storms, Use of generalized data and theoretical
or empirical methods derived from maximum depth, duration, and area observations.
2.3 METHODS OF PMP ESTIMATION
According to Manual on Estimation of Probable Maximum Precipitation (WMO,
2009), there are six methods of PMP estimation currently used named as follows:
(a) The local method (local storm maximization or local model);
(b) The transposition method (storm transposition or transposition model);
(c) The combination method (temporal and spatial maximization of storm or storm
combination or combination model);
(d) The inferential method (theoretical model or ratiocination model);
(e) The generalized method (generalized estimation);
(f) The statistical method (statistical estimation).
2.3.1 LOCAL METHOD
PMP is estimated according to the maximum storm of the observed data in the
design watershed or specific location. This method is applicable where there are several
years of observed data. (WMO, 2009)
2.3.2 TRANSPOSITION METHOD
In this method an extraordinarily large storm in the adjacent area is transposed to
the design area or the location to be studied. The work focuses on two aspects. The first is
to ascertain the storm transposition probability, which can be done in three ways:
17
(a) By determining the meteorologically homogeneous zone, studying the possible
transposition range of the storm and carrying out a detailed analysis of the design watershed
conditions;
(b) By making a variety of adjustments for the transposed storm, based on the
differences in geographic and topographic conditions between the original storm
occurrence area and the design area. This method, which is widely applied, is used for
design areas where high efficiency storms are rare. (WMO, 2009)
2.3.3 COMBINATION METHOD
This method reasonably combines two or more storms in a local area, based on
principles of synoptic meteorology and experience of synoptic forecasting, in order to form
a sequence of artificial storms with a long duration. The work focuses on selection of
combinations, determination of combination schemes and reasonable demonstration of
combination sequences. This method is applicable for deriving PMP/PMF in large
watersheds with long durations, and requires strong meteorological knowledge. (WMO,
2009)
2.3.4 INFERENTIAL METHOD
The inferential method generalizes the 3-D spatial structure of a storm weather
system in the design area to create a simplified physical storm equation for the main
physical factor that influences the storms. According to the available wind field data, the
method uses either a convergence model or a laminar model. In the convergence model, it
is assumed that the inflow of storm moisture converges to the centre from all sides and
18
rises to create an event. In the laminar model, it is assumed that the inflow of storm
moisture crawls along an inclining surface in a laminar fashion and rises to create an event.
This method, requiring strong available observation data of upper meteorology in the
design area, is applicable for watersheds with an area of hundreds to thousands of square
kilometres. (WMO, 2009)
2.3.5 GENERALIZED METHOD
The generalized method is used to estimate PMP for a large, meteorologically
homogeneous zone. The procedure involves grouping the observed rainfall of a storm into
convergence and orographic rainfall. Convergence rain, which is the rainfall created
through atmospheric convergence and rising induced by a passing weather system, is
assumed to occur anywhere in meteorologically homogeneous zones. Orographic rain is
the rainfall created through orographic rising. The generalization method uses convergence
rainfall and the main results are as follows:
(a) PMP depth, which is shown as a generalized depth– area–duration (DAD) curve
(produced via storm transposition);
(b) PMP spatial distribution, which is a group of concentric ellipses generalized
from isohyets;
(c) PMP temporal distribution, which is a single peak map of a generalized
hyetograph. This method requires a large amount of long-term data obtained by rainfall
self-recorders in the study area. This is a time-consuming and expensive process. However,
the method can lead to high accuracy and easy application of PMP results. This method is
19
applicable to watersheds under 13 000 km2 in orographic regions and 52 000 km2 in
non‑orographic regions, and rainfall durations of 72 hours or less. (WMO, 2009)
2.3.6 STATISTICAL METHOD
The statistical method was proposed by Hershfield of the United States. PMP is
derived from data from numerous gauge stations in a meteorologically homogeneous zone,
using the hydrological frequency analysis method together with the regional generalized
method. The procedure differs from the traditional frequency analysis method, resulting in
different physical connotations (Wang G., 2004). This method is mainly applicable for
watersheds with a collecting area under 1 000 square km. (WMO, 2009)
2.4 DATA & STATISTICAL METHODS OF PMP ESTIMATIONS
Utilizing of sufficient example and complete homogeneous information is desirable
for better exactness and precision of results in a statistical analysis. Before grasping on
statistical analysis, one should first consider the quality, adequacy and homogeneity of the
sample. Issues of fulfillment and homogeneity of the example in extreme precipitation
investigation can be fill first by separating the daily annual extreme arrangement and
recognizing and evaluating the missed year's information, and testing the consistency of
record lastly recreating the data for any gaps and irregularity of records (Chow et al., 1988).
2.4.1 SAMPLE SIZE
Hypothetically the example measure as little as ten years have no significant in
estimation of the probability of exceedence of a variate when contrasted with the parent
20
distribution, however in actual cases this little size (few of ten years) can't give adequate
experimental way to deal with inclining toward the best fit appropriation (Koutsoyiannis,
2004).
The annual maximum would be separate from day by day spans if no less than 50%
of the months in the allotted wet season and no less than half of the data for the aggregated
period were available. The highest value every year is remove as the annual maximum for
that specific year. Furthermore, for one-day if all the days in the month were missing or if
over 10 days of the month missing and the extreme precipitation for that month were zero
that month would be set to missing. On the other hand, if over 15 days were missing and
the most extreme for the 10 month was under 30% of the normal one-day greatest
precipitation for that month over the time of record at that station, that month would be
likewise set to missing (NOAA, 2006).
2.4.2 RECONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATION OF DATA
According to (Chow et al., 1988) there are some number of methods that can be
used in order to determine the gaps and missing data of the following stations, such as
station average method, the normal ratio method, the isohyetal method and the quadrant
method that is significant in creating the daily annual extreme rainfall data especially for
the irregularities of the stations.
2.4.2.1 STATION-AVERAGE METHOD
The station-average method is considered as one of the simplest method in
approximating average rainfall in order to determine the missing data by calculating the
21
arithmetic mean of the recorded rainfall and the overall number of gauges. Station-average
method is quite conceptually simple but may not be that accurate because it is only suitable
for uniform rainfall only.
(2.10)
Where,
Pi – the rainfall catching at gauge station i
ni – number of stations
2.4.2.2 NORMAL-RATIO METHOD
The station-average method and normal-ratio method both conceptually simple, but
according to (Chow et al., 1988) the normal-ratio method calculate the average annual
catch with the use of the amount of rainfall depth for every stations using the general
formula below. Both methods will provide a nearly similar value of missing data if the
value of normal annual precipitation of the index stations is measured less than 10%,
however, there are some factors that causes the difference of missing data between the two
methods such as the huge difference between elevations or the annual variability of the
region was high while the average annual rainfall is low or vice-versa that leads the value
of normal annual precipitation to exceeds more than 10%, that is when the normal-ratio
method shall govern and be used in the computation of missing data (Viessman and Lewis,
1996).
22
(2.11)
Pi – rainfall at gauge i
Wi – the weight factor for the rainfall depth Pi
(2.12)
Where,
Ai – the average annual normal catch at gauge i
Ax – the average annual catch at station x
n – the number of stations
2.4.2.3 ISOHYETAL METHOD
According to (Chow et al., 1988) the coordinates of the gauges will be used in order
to plotted the gauge locations on the map. The catch will be estimated by interpolating the
amount of rainfall measured between every stations at a selected interval, and finally,
compute the amount of aerial rainfall using the area bounded by the connecting lines of
every gauges.
2.4.2.4 QUADRANT METHOD
The quadrant method is another method that can be used to determine the missing
rainfall data recorded. The coordinates of the station with missing data serves as a center
point for the quadrant method where the region is divided into four quadrants using north,
23
south, and east-west lines that will intersect in the center point of the station with missing
data. The distances between other stations that is closest to the station with missing data
and the center point of the quadrant is computed with the use of Cartesian plane coordinate
system to estimate an independent value of rainfall. The quadrant method uses the function
of the reciprocal of the square of the distances between the closest stations and the center
point of the quadrant in order to estimate the weight of the rainfall depth which are not that
reliable and accurate and consumes a lot of time and effort (Chow et al,. 1988).
2.4.3 ANALYSIS FOR CONSISTENCY OF RECORDS
Mass curve analysis and the graphical regression are some of the simplest and
common methods available to test for the homogeneity of records.
2.4.3.1 DOUBLE MASS CURVE ANALYSIS
The strategies for applying the double-mass curve technique to hydrologic data and
the way the outcomes are used vary somewhat with the type of data being analyze. In this
way, the use of the double-mass curve to records of precipitation, runoff, sediment, and
precipitation-runoff are treated separately in this manual despite the fact that this requires
some redundancy. (Searchy and Hardison, 1960)
In double mass curve analysis the data is plotted with y-axis is accumulated total
for the station to be considered and the x-axis is an accumulated average total based on all
the stations which presumed to be homogenous. By adding progressive values, it is
accepted that the arbitrary mistake will tend to cancel each other while the straight
relationship is fortified by redundancy. Noteworthy change in the slope or pattern the
24
subsequent line is a sign as to breaks in homogeneity (Shahn, 2002). An adjustment in
slope may happen simply by chance, in this way, it is prudent corroborate apparent breaks
by persistent well- defined period of at least five years and by historical authentic proof of
progress. It ought to be noted too that proportionality changes may happen more than once
during the time of record and holds on for important time (Hamed, 2000).
2.5 HERSHFIELD APPROACH FOR PMP ANALYSIS
According to Dhar (1969), Kamt (1971) and Rakhecha et al. (1992) Hershfield
approach is widely used in India leading the estimation of one day PMP for stations
throughout the country. The method is considered as one of the most common statistical
approach in estimating PMP which requires a set of maximum annual daily and highest
observed rainfall data together with the coordinates of every stations in order to calculate
the frequency factor (Km) and its rainfall return period.
2.6 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AND STATISTICAL MODEL ANALYSIS
Because rainfall are unpredictable and varies with time space, one of the best tool
that can estimate the return period is by using several probability distributions (Bhaka et
al., 2006). Hydrologic variables, parameters or data requires uses statistical analysis that
are distinct observations or data points be independent of each other, and that the data be
representative of a large and unbiased population of hydrologic data.
Knowing the appropriate and suitable probability distribution is the first step to
analyze frequency of precipitation for demonstrating depth for inspecting extremes
(Gerezihier, 2013). Rainfall frequency analysis has several probability distribution some
25
of the commonly used distribution includes: Gumbel distribution, log-Pearson type-III
distributions, Log Normal distribution and Normal distribution (Pathak, 2001).
2.6.1 GUMBEL DISTRIBUTION
In probability theory and statistics, the Gumbel distribution (Generalized Extreme
Value distribution Type-I) is used to model the distribution of the maximum (or the
minimum) of a number of samples of various distributions. This distribution might be used
to represent the distribution of the maximum level of a river in a particular year if there
was a list of maximum values for the past ten years. It is useful in predicting the chance
that an extreme earthquake, flood or other natural disaster will occur. The potential
applicability of the Gumbel distribution to represent the distribution of maxima relates
to extreme value theory, which indicates that it is likely to be useful if the distribution of
the underlying sample data is of the normal or exponential type.
2.6.2 NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
Normal distribution is sometimes called as a Gaussian distribution that is
considered as one of the most common statistical approach together with a probability
density function that is described in a symmetrical or bell-shaped graph showing the
maximum value at the midpoint of the curve where the mean, median and mode lies. The
left side of the curve represent the –α or the values that is less than the mean while the right
side of the graph shows +α or the values that is greater than the mean of the following
series of data.
26
2.6.3 LOG NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
Lognormal distribution has been generally connected in a wide range of parts of
life sciences, including science, nature, geography, and meteorology and in addition in
financial aspects, and risk analysis. On a fundamental level, the lognormal distribution is
characterized as the circulation of an arbitrary variable whose logarithm is typically
distributed, and more often it is figured with two parameters. Besides, log-uniform and log-
laplace distributions can be comparatively characterized with applications in finance.
(Toulias and Kitsos, 2013)
Log normal distribution has two parameters (the mean and the standard deviation)
of log normal distribution have been once in a while use for rainfall intensity duration
analysis. It is also the transformed normal distribution with an advantage that is bounded
as x>0 and the log change has tendency to diminish the positive skewness. (Haan, 1977)
2.6.4 LOG PEARSON TYPE III DISTRIBUTION
Most of the problem in evaluating hydrologic data is that the mean above and below
does not have equal spread. Because of the lower bound is restricted only from 0 to mean
while the upper bound has no limitation, skewed distribution was introduced. Skew was
presented to take account that it may occur in the data so that the Log Pearson type III
distribution for fitness development. (Osadolor et al., 2013).
The three parameters includes (mean, standard deviation and coefficient of
skewness) made the distribution differ from most of the distribution function and necessary
for describing the said function.
27
2.7 GOODNESS OF FIT AND PROBABILITY PLOTTING
GOF are test made for compatibility of a random sample. These test shows how
well the distribution of the acquired data fits the certain data. The most common test
comprised of Chi-Square Test (x2 test), Correlation coefficient (r-test) and Coefficient of
Determination (R2 test). As described by Gaeg (2005), by computing the plotting
probability for a given length of record to obtain relation between the magnitude of point
and the occurrence probability the probability of distribution of hydrologic data can be
obtained. A number of different formula are used to estimate the plotting probability of a
given data, with no unanimity on the preferred method.
Table 1. Different Plotting Positions Formula
Plotting Position Formula
𝑚 − 0.5
Hazen (1930)
𝑛
𝑚
Weibull (1939)
𝑛+1
(𝑚 − 0.375)
Gringorton (1963)
𝑛 + 0.25
(𝑚 − 0.4)
Cunnane (1978)
𝑛 + 0.2
𝑚
California (1923)
𝑛
(𝑚 − 0.44)
Blom (1958)
𝑛 + 0.12
(𝑚 − 0.3)
Chegodajev (1955)
𝑛 + 0.2
28
The easiest method is by arranging the event series in decreasing order and
assigning the magnitude (m) for each event. The severest event will be on top and will be
ranked as ‘1’while the lightest event will be placed on bottom and will be denoted as (n)
of the series. The following is the general form on calculating most of plotting position
formulas (Al-Weshah, 2000).

𝑚−𝑎
𝑃(𝑋 ≥ 𝑋𝑚 ) = 𝑛+1−2𝑎 (2.13)
Where ‘m’ is the rank (1 is being the highest data in the series), ‘n’ is the sample
size and ‘a’ is the constant characteristic particular per plotting position formula. The
plotting position for the following are as follows: 0.4 for Cunnane formula, 0 for Weibull
formula, 0.375 for Blom Formula, 0.44 for Gringorten and 0.5 for Hazen Formula (Granata
2006).
2.7.1 CHI-SQUARE TEST (𝒙𝟐 )
The chi-square test is utilized to test if an example originates from a populace with
specific distribution and applies to information that put in to classes. The subsequent
computed estimations of chi-square (𝑥 2 𝑐) can be contrasted and the organized estimations
of chi-square (𝑥 2 𝑣, 1 − 𝑎). The degree of freedom (ν) is given by ν = m-p-1, where 'm' is
the quantity of intervals and 'p' is the quantity of parameters utilized as a part of fitting the
proposed dissemination. A confidence level which is regularly communicated as 1-α
where, 'α' is named as the critical level. The typcal value for confidence level is 95 %. The
invalid theory for the test is that the proposed probability distribution fits the information
enough and rejected if the estimation of 𝑥 2 𝑐 is bigger than a constraining worth 𝑥 2 𝑣, 1 − 𝑎
29
which is resolved from the x 2 distribution with ν degree of freedom at 5 % level of
significance, else it is acknowledged (Bhaka et al., 2006).
2.7.2 COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION (𝑹𝟐 )
The coefficient of determination is the measure of the distinction between the
difference of the observed values and the variance of the values determined for given
estimations of Pi by the utilization of linear regression line. This test is utilized as a part of
statistical model examination to evaluate how well a model clarifies and predicts future
results. It is characteristic of the level of clarified changeability in the model, and utilized
as a rule to quantify the precision of the model.
According to Krause and Flugel (2005), the coefficient of determination (R2) is
calculated by the observed rainfall values (Oi), predicted rainfall values (Pi), mean of the
observed rainfall data (𝑂̅) and mean of predicted rainfall data (𝑃̅). Hence, the range in
possible values for R2 is from zero to one. The closer R2 is to one, the better the regression
equation fits the data.
2.7.3 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (r)
In correlation coefficient the greater, the absolute value of r, the greater is the linear
relationship. The correlation coefficient of a set of observations. It is the most usually
utilized factual parameter for estimating the level of relationship between two linearly
dependent variables. If there is no linear relationship, r=0, if there r=±1, all estimations of
r between these points of confinement depict the different degrees of correlative affiliation.
30
The greater the absolute value of r, the more prominent is the linear relationship. (Haan,
1977)
2.7.4 DERIVATION OF RETURN PERIOD
In designing engineering structures there are factors that needs to be considered
which contain safety, economy and efficiency. Hence, this structured must be tolerant to
withstand such pressures for their estimated economic life which vary from less than 10
year to more than 1000 years or so (Hersfield, 1962). Thus, design of water control
structures relies on predicting runoff when intense events occurs. This requires computing
the rainfall duration and intensity of a certain time for analysis of project cost and for
adequacy of structures. Consequently, the return period of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 500
and 1000 years for duration of 1, 2 and 3-day duration of rainfall are commonly used in the
world for designing and planning the hydraulic structure (Deshpande et al., 2008).
2.7.5 TECHNIQUES FOR THE DERIVATIONS OF PMP CONTOURS
There are so many different methods for the estimation of rainfall, one of them was
the development of isohyetal map which is commonly used for spatial analysis and
estimation of aerial precipitation that shows the different rainfall intensities for every
individual stations plotted in the map. The values of rainfall data can vary throughout the
world depending on the duration or return period of the storm, the climate of particular
region or country, the depth and elevation of the stations and its location (Houze, 1997).
The computation of probable precipitation for those particular remote areas without a
31
gauge or recording station is possible by means of calculating the missing data together
with the spatial analysis of the available rainfall data near the missing data (WMO, 1986).
The development of isohyetal map can be possible with the help of Geographical
Information System (GIS) software in order to produce a shape file of a particular area with
a rainfall value in a form of contours of different intervals depending on the choice of the
user.
2.7.5.1 INVERSE DISTANCE WEIGHTING (IDW)
Inverse distance weighting is a surface mapping software technique that is mostly
used for fitting series of rainfall data to estimate the aerial precipitation in a form of
rectangular cell throughout the particular region varying based on the latitude, longitude or
rectangular coordinates and elevation of the rainfall stations (NOA A, 2006). According to
Wackernagel, (2003) the IDW is also a technique incorporated with interpolation where
grid points and the center point of the stations are interpolated and weighted in an inverse
function from the distance of grid points.
2.8 PAST RESEARCH WORK ON PMP
The use of PMP approach for designing water structures is a century old technique
(Linsley et al., 1982). In the Philippines, there is just a little information pertaining to the
importance of PMP.
The development of Isohyetal maps for one duration, annual daily extreme rainfall
of one day duration in the selected weather station in NCR and Region III are subjected to
32
statistical analysis by the use of Hersfield formula based on the appropriate maximum
frequency factor.
According to Koutsoyiannis (1999) Hershfield method of Probable Maximum
Precipitation is a useful tool, widespread and reliable tool for hydrologic design because it
can analyze huge amount of rainfall information (2 645 data records throughout the world
containing 95,000 station-years) nevertheless the analysis performed on the said method
doesn’t have evidence that an upper bound of precipitation amount exist and, besides,
suggested that a simple alternative formulation of the method is possible.
Mulualem in (2010) for Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State (Ethiopia) had been
considered based on the actual maximum daily rainfall data, the highest value of frequency
factors was found 8.1, one-day PMP values varied from 170 mm to 284 mm, and the mean
ratio of PMP to HOR was about 1.8. Extreme Value Type-I distribution was fitted to one-
day extreme rainfall series and depths of rainfall for various return periods were estimated
and found with a return period of 4.9 *103 years.
The mean value of one-day annual maximum rainfall at Dharamshala Region
located in India is found to be 142.9 mm with standard deviation and coefficient of
variation of 54.8 and 51.34 respectively. The coefficient of skewness is 1.1. And observed
that all distribution are fitted in the function significantly (Sharma, Kumar, Ganguly 2016).
The study in Poland calculated the highest value of PMP to be 219.9mm, whereas
the correlation between the value of PMP and the mean maximum sum of the precipitation
obtained a regression factor on alfa=0.05. (Suligowski, 2007)
In 2012 Mulugeta had attempted to develop PMP isohyetal map for one-day
duration in West Shewa Zone Oromia Region, (Ethiopia) subjected to statistical analysis
33
using Hershfield formula. Based on the actual maximum daily rainfall data of varying
record length of the stations, the highest value of frequency factor was found as 6.80 and
PMP varying between 105 to 243 mm and the ratio PMP to HOR varied from 1.50 to 2.30
with average of 1.75.
Koutsoyiannis (2006) denotes that probabilistic analysis on the annual daily
maximum rainfall depths, the hypothetical upper limit of the PMP method corresponds to
a small, although not negligible, exceedence probability. For example, this probability for
the Athens area is 0.27%, a value that would not be acceptable for the design of a major
hydraulic structure. A probabilistic approach, based on the GEV model, seems to be a more
consistent tool for studying hydrological extremes. In the study it showed that estimation
of PMP can be obtained by generalized extreme values (GEV) distribution with linear
function of average annual maximum precipitation and for return period of about 60,000
years in Athens, Greece.
Based on the actual rainfall data of the stations, the highest value of this frequency
factor was found to be 8.7. The frequency factor of 8.7 was subsequently used to estimate
24-h PMP values for the 33 stations. The estimated PMP for Selangor Region in Malaysia
varied between 375 to 500 mm and the average ratio of the 24-h PMP to the highest
observed 1-day rainfall was found to be about 2.0. (Desa, Noriah, Rakhecha, 2001).
Another study by (Ghahraman, 2008) use Hersfield formula to obtain the PMP of
Atrak Watershed in Iran and other places and where results obtained showed that of 30
stations considered in the study the highest frequency factor of the stations is 9.63 for one
day duration and the estimated PMP values obtained over the Atrak Watershed is 97mm to
265mm, where the Mean Ratio was about 2.51. The PMP maps (Isohyetal Maps) are said
34
to be an important tool in determining reliable and consistent estimates of precipitation for
hydraulic structure designs in the said location.
The updating study in Johor, Malaysia have concluded that 24-h PMP varied from
400 mm to over 1000 mm while the average ration of 24-Hr PMP to HOR is 2.0 for the 39
stations considered along the study area. (Desa and Rakhecha, 2007).
Based on the research work of (Rakhecha and Clark, 1999) the figured PMP values
a generalized map in Indian Region was produced and was found out that one-day PMP
lies in between of 70cm to 170cm. Which the results are considerably higher than the
statistical analysis done by Hersfield method that leads to serious implications for dam
safety over much in the region.
Daily rainfall data of Gujjar khan for a period of 30 years (1961-1990) were
collected from Pakistan meteorological department (PMD), Lahore using Hershfield
technique and Gumble distribution of extreme values the estimation of 1-day probable
maximum precipitation are determined result see that the PMP for Gujjar khan was
estimated to be 357.39 mm and the ratio of the 1-day and PMP to highest 1-day
precipitation was 1.19. (Boota et al., 2015).
35
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter features the sequential order of methods that will be conducted in order
to achieve the objectives of the study. It is also imperative in getting essential data from
reliable sources. From that point, an analysis is conducted for the completion of the study.
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The following methodology conducted in this study serves as a guide in order to
achieve the desired objectives of the study. Research methodology can be divided into
stages as listed below in a consecutive order:
1. Selection of rainfall weather stations to be analyzed.
2. Data collection for selected rainfall weather stations’ profile including its
daily maximum and annual maximum rainfall acquired from PAGASA Weather
Forecast for the years of 2001 to 2010.
3. Data consistency test using Double Mass Curve.
4. Analysis of data using Hershfield equation to obtain maximum frequency
factor for each of the following selected rainfall weather stations.
5. Estimation of PMP.
6. Fitting data to the probability distribution functions such as:
 Normal Distribution
 Log Normal Distribution
 Log Pearson Type-III Distribution
36
 Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I Distribution
7. Testing the goodness of fit of data to probability distribution functions such
as:
 Chi-square Test
 Correlation Coefficient Test
 Coefficient of Determination Test
8. Estimation of return period values for PMP.
9. Development of PMP Isohyetal Map using QGIS.
10. Formulating conclusion and recommendation from the accumulated results
of the study.
3.1 DATA COLLECTION
The collection of principal information such as the list of rainfall weather stations
available, with its profile such as number of operating years, elevation, altitude correction,
status and station coordinates were made. Only one type of rainfall weather station is
selected by the researchers. Data collected includes, daily annual rainfall, daily extreme
rainfalls (which were extracted from the daily annual data of rainfall) and annual totals
rainfall. Data collected undergone consistency test for homogeneity of data.
Due to the availability of the data given to the researchers, rainfall data from 2001
until 2010 were collected and analyzed. In addition to this, two out three stations from NCR
and four out of nine stations from Region III were selected to be analyzed.
37
3.2 PMP ESTIMATION
PMP computation were done through the Hershfield (1961, 1965) technique, an
adapted version of Chow (1952), for the frequency analysis of rainfall. Using equation
(3.10), one-day annual maximum rainfall values of all stations were analyzed to extract the
station based PMP estimates. The values of 𝑥̅ , 𝑥̅𝑛−1, σ, and σ𝑛−1 were estimated using
equation (3.11 and 3.12). The maximum frequency factor (𝐾𝑚 ) was estimated for each
station using equation (3.13). After which a frequency table for 𝐾𝑚 was formed. Then,
upper limit of the estimated 𝐾𝑚 was chosen from the extremely high values. The estimated
PMP where then compared to the highest observed rainfall of each station for analysis. It
can be seen in Table 7.
𝑋𝑃𝑀𝑃 = 𝑥̅𝑛 + 𝑆𝑛 𝐾𝑚 (3.10)
where,
𝑋𝑃𝑀𝑃 - PMP estimate for a station
𝑥̅𝑛 - mean of the annual extreme series
𝑆𝑛 - standard deviation of the annual extreme series
𝐾𝑚 - maximum frequency factor
The sample mean(𝑋̅) and standard deviation (𝑆𝑛 ) could be computed by:
1
𝑋̅ = ∑ni=1 𝑥𝑖 (3.11)
𝑛
∑𝑛 ̅ 2
𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 −𝑋)
𝑆𝑛 = √ (3.12)
𝑛−1
where,
𝑋̅ - mean for the random variable
𝑥𝑖 - the ith value of the random variable
38
𝑆𝑛 – sample standard deviation
According to Hershfield (1961, 1965), the maximum frequency factor (𝐾𝑚 ) can be
calculated as
𝑥1 −𝑥̅ 𝑛−1
𝐾𝑚 = (3.13)
σ𝑛−1
where,
𝑥1 - highest observed annual maximum rainfall in the series
𝑥̅𝑛−1 - mean of the annual maximum, excluding the highest value
σ𝑛−1 - standard deviation of the annual maximum, excluding the highest value
3.3 FITTING DATA TO THE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS
Frequency analysis usually involves the fitting of a theoretical frequency
distribution using a selected fitting method, although empirical graphical methods can also
be applied.
Four different probability distribution functions (Normal Distribution, Log Normal
Distribution, Log Pearson Type-III Distribution and Gumbel Extreme Value Type-I
Distribution) were used to analyze the given data and after which will be compared to each
other to know what is the best fit probability distribution function for the region of NCR
and Region III.
3.3.1 NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
It is one of the most common statistical approach used in continuous probability
distribution in order to determine the unknown distribution of random values which is also
known as the normal deviate (Z). In this study, the Weibull method (Table 1) for plotting
39
probability was used to estimate the extreme value (XT) and the standard normal deviate
(Z) using the equation (3.14 and 3.15), where XT is the variate, X̄ is the mean, and Sn is
the standard deviation of the following set of data.
𝑋𝑇 = 𝑋̅ + 𝜎𝐾𝑇 (3.14)
𝑋𝑇 + 𝑋̅
𝐾𝑇 = (3.15)
𝑆𝑛
3.3.2 LOG NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
The values of the ‘Z’ and ‘W’ were evaluated using equations (3.16) and (3.17)
respectively and the other parameters were estimated using equations (3.18) and (3.19)
given in Table 2, where w is the intermediate variable. The annual daily maximum values
were organized in the descending order of magnitude and assigned a rank m with 1 for the
highest value.
(2.516+0.8028𝑤÷0.0103𝑤 2 )
𝑍 = 𝐾𝑇 = 𝑤 − ⌊(1÷1.4328𝑤+0.1893𝑤2 +0.0013𝑤3 )⌋ (3.16)
1
1 2
𝑤 = [ln 𝑝2 ] (0 < 𝑝 ≤ 0.5) (3.17)
Where p is the probability of exceedence
Table 2. Expressions Used to Estimated Parameters of Log Normal Probability
Distribution
Parameter Formula
𝑌𝑇 𝑌̅𝑛 + 𝐾𝑇 𝑆𝑦 (3.18)
𝑋𝑇 10𝑌𝑇 (3.19)
40
3.3.3 LOG PEARSON TYPE-III DISTRIBUTION
The procedure for fitting the LPT-III distribution is similar to normal and log
normal. For this distribution, the following steps are given by Raghunath (2006) as;
 Take the logarithmic transformation of the series of hydrologic data
(𝑌𝑖 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑋𝑖 )
 The probability plotting positions uses Hazen formula to calculate P (Table
1)
 Mean 𝑌̅, standard deviation (Sn), and standardized skewness (𝐶𝑠 ) of the
logarithmic were computed by equation (3.20), (3.21) and (3.22)
respectively, and
∑𝑦
𝑦̅ = (3.20)
𝑛
∑(𝑦−𝑦̿)2
𝑆𝑦 = √ (3.21)
𝑛−1
The coefficient of skewness (𝐶𝑠 ) is estimated given by Kite (1977) as:
𝑛 ∑(𝑦−𝑦̅)3
𝐶𝑠 = [(𝑛−1)(𝑛−2)𝑆3 ] (3.22)
𝑦
 𝐾𝑇 and K were calculated using equation (3.23) and (3.24)
accordingly
1 1
𝐾𝑇 = 𝑧 + (𝑧 2 − 1)𝑘 + 3 (𝑧 3 − 6𝑧)𝑘 2 (𝑧 2 − 1)𝑘 3 + 𝑧𝑘 4 + 3 𝑘 5 (3.23)
𝐶𝑠
Where, 𝑘= (3.24)
6
41
3.3.4 GUMBEL EXTREME VALUE TYPE-I DISTRIBUTION
This distribution was done by plotting the ranked annual maximum rainfall values.
In addition to this, exceedence probability was also estimated.
According to Subramanya (1996), frequency factor of this distribution is given by:
𝑌𝑇 −𝑦̅𝑛
𝐾𝑇 = (3.25)
S𝑛
where,
𝑦̅𝑛 - reduced mean of 𝑦𝑛 (a function of sample size n values of which are given in
concerned table, maximum value is 0.577 at n=∞)
𝑆𝑛 - reduced standard deviation (a function of sample size n, values of which are given in
concerned table, maximum value is 1.2825 at n=∞)
𝑌𝑇 – reduced variate which is estimated as
𝑇
𝑌𝑇 = −ln[ln (𝑇−1 )] (3.26)
where T is the return period
Weibull method was used to estimate the value of return period by taking the
inverses of probability plotting position.
Finally, equation (3.27) is used to compute the extreme value
𝑋𝑇 = 𝑥̅ + 𝐾𝑡 ∗ 𝑆 (3.27)
3.4 TESTING THE GOODNESS OF FIT OF DATA TO PROBABILITY
DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS
The best-fit model for each of the station were determined by subjecting the
probability distribution into a three Goodness of Fit tests (GOF) namely the chi-square test
(X2), coefficient of correlation (r) and coefficient of determination (R2). From the goodness
42
of fit tests, a set of total test scores were obtained and tabulated ranging from one to four
(1-4) for each of the distribution model of every station resulting to the selection of the
probability distribution method with the highest total score for a particular station. A score
of four will be awarded for the distribution method that satisfies the following criteria of
the three goodness of fit test. For chi-square test, the distribution method that has a chi-
square value closest to 1 will received the score of four while the distribution method with
the highest extreme value will be awarded the score of four for the coefficient of correlation
and coefficient of determination.
3.5 ESTIMATION OF RETURN PERIOD VALUES FOR PMP
Equations (3.28) along with the estimated parameters of equations (3.30) and (3.31)
for shape and locations were used for the computation of return period values
corresponding to estimated PMP value for duration of one day for all stations.
1
𝑇 = 1−𝐹 (3.28)
Where,
T - Return period
F - Cummulative distributive function
𝑙𝑛𝑥−𝜇𝑙𝑛𝑥 2
1 −0.5( )
𝐹 = 𝑓(𝑥) = {𝑥𝜎 𝑒 𝜎𝑙𝑛𝑥
− ∞ < 𝜇 < ∞} (3.29)
𝑙𝑛𝑥 √2𝜋
Where 𝜎𝑙𝑛𝑥 and 𝜇𝑙𝑛𝑥 are the location and shape parameters of Lognormal Distribution
respectively and estimated as follows;
𝜎2
𝜎𝑙𝑛𝑥 = √𝑙𝑛 (1 + 𝜇𝑥2 ) (3.30)
𝑥
43
1 2
𝜇𝑙𝑛𝑥 = 𝑙𝑛𝜇𝑥 − 2 𝜎𝑙𝑛𝑥 (3.31)
3.6 CONSTRUCTION OF PMP ISOHYETAL MAP
The coordinates of the stations were plotted in the base map of NCR and Region
III with the use of open layer plugin in Quantum Geographic Information System (QGIS)
software that will be used in order to construct a PMP Isohyetal Map. After using the open
layer plugin, a shape file was used to create a vector map by isolating the base map of NCR
and Region III with points, polylines and polygons. Finally, contour lines and elevations
of the map were generated with the use of vector point layer located in the contour plugin
together with the Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) for the elevation data and Inverse
Distance Weighting (IDW) for interpolating other types of data such as rainfall data,
populations and etc.
1. Download the following QGIS Plugins such as OpenLayer, Interpolation, and

GeoCoding Plugin.
44
45
2. Select Web > OpenLayer Plugin > Google Map > Google Physical
46
3. Click the Add Vector Layer then Browse the following shapefiles of the
selected stations then click Open.
47
4. On the Plugins Toolbar, select Geocoding then input the coordinates of the
selected stations.
48
5. Add field and enter “rainfall data” values
49
6. Select Raster > Interpolation > Interpolation for the contours.
7. Then Raster > Extraction > Contour
50
Chapter 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the results and the significance of the findings of the research
by interpreting and discussing the outcome made by undergoing the methods stated on the
last chapter.
4.0 RAINFALL WEATHER STATIONS
According to PAGASA there were three class/type of rainfall weather stations in
the Philippines, namely synoptic, radar and agromet. Table 3 shows the types of rainfall
weather stations that is used in the Philippines. Indicated in the table are each type’s number
of station, its percentage and its description.
Table 3. Types of Rainfall Weather Stations in the Philippines

No. of
Types of Station % Description of Stations
Stations
A station where observation of almost all meteorological elements are made at fixed observation
SYNOP (Surface times and are transmitted to the Central Office. It is responsible for the dissemination of public
56 70
Sypnotic Station) weather forecast, tropical cyclones bulletins, warning and advisories and other related information to
protect the lives and property of the general populace.
A station where doppler weather radar is installed. It could be a combined sypnotic-radar station or an
independent (purely) radar stations. Radar stations conduct regular observations twice a day at 2:00
AM and 2:00 PM. However, if there is an existing tropical cyclone within the Philippine Area of
Radar Station 6 7.5
Responsibility all radar station may be required to observe on a 24-hour basis, dependent on the
proximity of the stations to the tropical cyclone or the effective range of the radar itself, and transmit
their radar report every hour or every 30 minutes, if possible, to Central Office
Agromet This type of station gathers and provides on routine basis simultaneous meteorogical and biological
(Agrometereogical 18 22.5 information. It is also responsible for the dissemination of agricultural meteorogical advice, warning,
Station) forecast, bulletin and other important information needed by farmers.
Total 80 100
As for this study, the researchers had selected one type of rainfall weather station
to be analyzed which is the SYNOP (Surface Synoptic Station). Synoptic weather
stations were selected for it has the most number of stations (as seen in the table) and as
51
per suggested by PAGASA itself for it has the most precise data that is needed in the
study.
Table 4. Listing of PAGASA Synoptic Stations as of July 2017
YEARS
STN ALT
STATION NAME LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELEV. OF STATUS
CODE # COR.
RECORD
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR)
NAIA (MIA),
429 14.506011 121.004731 21.0 2.4 Jan. 1949 - Closed
Pasay City
Port Area (MCO), Jan. 1949 -
425 14.587628 120.967958 15.0 1.7 Operational
Manila Present
Science Garden, Apr. 1961 -
430 14.643847 121.044525 42.0 4.9 Operational
Quezon City Present
REGION III
Baler, Aurora Jan. 1951 -
333 15.7620 121.5620 6.0 0.7 Closed
(Synop) 1994
Baler, Aurora Jan. 1995 -
334 15.750 121.630 173.0 SPL Operational
(Radar & Synop) Present
Cabanatuan, Nueva Jan. 1951 -
330 15.470572 120.95125 32.0 3.6 Closed
Ecija 1981
Cabanatuan, Jan. 1989 -
330 15.470572 120.95125 32.0 3.6 Operational
Nueva Ecija Present
Jan. 1951 -
336 Casiguran, Aurora 16.265333 122.128756 4.0 0.5 Operational
Present
Clark Airport, May 1997 -
327 15.1717 120.5616667 151.6 SPL Operational
Pampanga Present
CLSU Muñoz,
329 15°43'00''N 120°54'06''E 76.0 8.6 Jan. 1982- Closed
Nueva Ecija
Cubi Pt., Subic Sep. 1994 -
426 14.791889 120.270831 19.1 2.2 Operational
Olongapo Present
Jan. 1951 -
324 Iba, Zambales 15.326211 119.969167 5.5 0.6 Operational
Present
Table 4 presents the list of synoptic stations in the study area (NCR & Region III)
with the profile of each station. There were 3 synoptic weather stations in NCR and 9 in
Region III, a total of 12 stations in the regions. Due to the availability of the data that is
given, the researchers had only analyzed 2 out of 3 synoptic stations in NCR and 4 of the
9 synoptic stations in Region III, with a total of 6 stations.
52
Figure 4. Distribution of Selected Rainfall Weather Stations in NCR & Region III
The distribution of selected synoptic rainfall weather stations in NCR and Region
III is presented in Figure 4. The selected stations were as follows: Cabanatuan, Nueva
Ecija; Iba, Zambales; Clark Airport, Pampanga; Cubi Pt., Subic Olongapo; Port Area
(MCO), Manila and Science Garden, Quezon City.
4.1 AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL AND ANNUAL DAILY MAXIMUM
Rainfall data collected from year 2001 to 2010 of six different synoptic weather
stations within NCR and Region III were analyzed. The average annual total and annual
daily maximum vary from place to place as shown in Table 5. The highest rainfall data
observed was located at Iba, Zambales of Region III with 4266.84 mm.
53
Table 5. Average Annual Total and Annual Daily Maximum
Average annual total Annual daily maximum

Station Name
rainfall (mm) (mm)
Port Area (MCO), Manila 2083.49 151.1
Science Garden, Quezon City 2560.67 174.36
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija 1783.78 115.61
Clark Airport, Pampanga 2001.88 124.43
Cubi Pt., Subic Olongapo 3705.77 194.1
Iba, Zambales 4266.84 195.64
4.2 CONSISTENCY TEST
Using double mass curve analysis, it resulted that there were a little slope changes
that were not persistence significant period change in the double mass curves (see
Appendices), therefore the little change in slope might have occurred by chance or due to
micrometeorological and climate properties. In addition to this, the data obtained from
Science Garden station has a higher slope compare to other stations in the graph because
of the its extreme precipitation and climate variability for example, the Typhoon Ondoy
that hit Metro Manila on 2009. But there were no historical evidences for Science Garden
station that it change from their original position or first established place. Therefore, the
changes were not significant for the existence of inconsistency of records and relative
homogeneity of records was observed for the precipitation.
4.3 ESTIMATION OF MAXIMUM FREQUENCY FACTOR (𝑲𝒎 )
Table 6 presents the values computed in the derivation of the maximum frequency
factor for the 6 stations. The values vary from 1.53 in Iba, Zambales to 7.36 in Science
Garden, Quezon City having an average value of 2.98, standard deviation of 2.17 and CV
54
of 72.93%. The coefficient of variation (CV) shows the large variability or dispersion of
the frequency distribution.
Table 6. Derivation of Maximum Frequency Factor (𝐾𝑚 )
Station Name HOR ̅𝒏−𝟏

𝒙 𝝈𝒏−𝟏 𝑲𝒎
Port Area (MCO), Manila 258.5 139.17 49.22 2.42
Science Garden, Quezon City 455 143.18 42.35 7.36
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija 157.8 110.92 20.84 2.25
Clark Airport, Pampanga 186.8 117.50 35.01 1.98
Cubi Pt., Subic Olongapo 287.6 183.71 44.72 2.32
Iba, Zambales 264.4 188.00 49.97 1.53
Mean 2.98
Sn 2.17
CV 72.93
As shown in Table 7, the greatest number of stations had the values of K m lies
between 1.50 and 3.00. Only one station has a value greater than 6.00 which is the station
of Science Garden, Quezon City that got 7.36. This was chosen as the extremely high K m
value.
Table 7. Frequency Factor Table for 𝐾𝑚
No. Quintile interval Frequency Frequency (%)

1 1.50 ≤ Km ≤ 3.00 5 83.33
2 3.00 < Km ≤ 4.50 0 0.00
3 4.50 < Km ≤ 6.00 0 0.00
4 Km > 6.00 1 16.67
4.4 ESTIMATION OF PMP
The derivation of the estimation of PMP of every station is shown in Table 8. The
station in Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija got the lowest estimated PMP of 170.98 mm while the
highest was at Science Garden, Quezon City. Hence, the lowest estimated PMP was located
55
at Region III while the greatest PMP lies at NCR. The stations got a mean PMP of 370.40
mm, standard deviation of 293.16 and CV of 79.15%.
Table 8. Derivation of Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)
Annual daily
Station Name maximum 𝝈𝒏 HOR ̅𝒏−𝟏
𝒙 𝝈𝒏−𝟏 PMP(mm)
(mm)
Port Area (MCO),
151.10 59.81 258.5 139.17 49.22 296.11
Manila
Science Garden,
174.36 106.38 455 143.18 42.35 957.62
Quezon City
Cabanatuan, Nueva
115.61 24.61 157.8 110.92 20.84 170.98
Ecija
Clark Airport,
124.43 39.62 186.8 117.50 35.01 202.85
Pampanga
Cubi Pt., Subic
194.10 53.45 287.6 183.71 44.72 318.27
Olongapo
Iba, Zambales 195.64 52.95 264.4 188.00 49.97 276.59
Mean 370.40
Sn 293.16
CV 79.15
4.5 PMP TO HIGHEST OBSERVED RAINFALL (HOR) RATIO
The ratio of PMP and HOR is tabulated in Table 9. The value calculated varies
from 1.05 (Iba, Zambales) to 2.10 (Science Garden, Quezon City) with an average value
of 1.26, standard deviation of 0.41 and CV of 32.81.
The values calculated confirmed the statement of Hershfield (1962) that the
magnitude of PMP should not exceed three times the HOR at an individual station. For that
reason, the PMP predicted values were neither overestimated nor underestimated. But it
must be taken note that the values calculated only represented the best estimation with the
available knowledge, data and techniques. It does not give the exact suggestion for the
56
predicted PMP value for it keeps on changing over time and with the new record of heavy
storms.
Table 9. Ratio of PMP to HOR
Station Name HOR PMP(mm) PMP:HOR

Port Area (MCO), Manila 258.5 296.11 1.15
Science Garden, Quezon City 455 957.62 2.10
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija 157.8 170.98 1.08
Clark Airport, Pampanga 186.8 202.85 1.09
Cubi Pt., Subic Olongapo 287.6 318.27 1.11
Iba, Zambales 264.4 276.59 1.05
Mean 370.40 1.26
Sn 293.16 0.41
CV 79.15 32.81
4.6 COMPARISON OF THE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS
Stated in this chapter are the comparison of the different probability distribution
functions used in this study.
4.6.1 NORMAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION
The annual maximum rainfall data were used to calculate the exceedence
probability of standard normal deviate value (Z) of each stations. The standard normal
deviate of the other stations are shown in the Appendices. Based on the maximum values
derived by normal probability distribution, the increasing of rainfall probability to occur
tends to give a decreasing value of standard normal deviate that gives also extreme value
(XT) in decreasing order so, the plotting probability is inversely proportional to the standard
normal value while the standard normal value is linearly proportional to the extreme value
of records of all station.
57
Table 10. Standard Normal Deviate (Z) and Its Extreme Values Derived By Normal
Distribution for Port Area (MCO), Manila (mm)
Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P (%) Z X̄ Sn Z*Sn Xt=X̄ + Z*Sn
2001 178 258.5 1 0.09 1.34 151.10 59.81 79.86 230.96
2002 248.2 248.2 2 0.18 0.91 151.10 59.81 54.34 205.44
2003 123.6 178 3 0.27 0.60 151.10 59.81 36.16 187.26
2004 111.4 154 4 0.36 0.35 151.10 59.81 20.86 171.96
2005 91 131.4 5 0.45 0.11 151.10 59.81 6.83 157.93
2006 94 123.6 6 0.55 0.00 151.10 59.81 0.00 151.10
2007 154 120.9 7 0.64 0.00 151.10 59.81 0.00 151.10
2008 120.9 111.4 8 0.73 0.00 151.10 59.81 0.00 151.10
2009 258.5 94 9 0.82 0.00 151.10 59.81 0.00 151.10
2010 131.4 91 10 0.91 0.00 151.10 59.81 0.00 151.10
Mean 151.1
Sn 59.81
CV (%) 39.59
Using the normal probability distribution, the mean, standard deviation and
coefficient of variation for the Port Area (MCO), Manila were computed together with the
percentage of rainfall probability, standard normal deviate (Z) and extreme values (XT)
tabulated and presented on a table showing the different extreme values for every year from
2001 up to 2010 as shown in Table 10 above. Other results for each station is shown in the
Appendices.
The highest extreme value (XT) for the Port Area (MCO), Manila is 230.96 mm
recorded last 2001 with a mean of 151.1, a standard deviation of 59.81 and a 39.59% of
coefficient of variation.
58
4.6.2 LOG NORMAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION
The computed standard deviation and mean are tabulated and presented on a table
for the following stations as follows. The standard normal variate value (Z) for exceedence
probability for the annual maximum rainfall data of the stations were estimated and
presented in tables. It demonstrates that the standard normal variable of all stations records
decrease with decrease in repeat interval and extreme value got indicates straight
proportionality with the standard normal variable.
Table 11. Standard Normal Variable (Z) and Its Extreme Values Derived By Log Normal
Record years Rainfall RF. Order Log RF. Rank P W Z YT XT

2001 178 258.5 2.41 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.41 254.39
2002 248.2 248.2 2.39 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.31 205.96
2003 123.6 178 2.25 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.26 180.93
2004 111.4 154 2.19 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.21 163.01
2005 91 131.4 2.12 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.17 148.41
2006 94 123.6 2.09 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.13 135.55
2007 154 120.9 2.08 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.09 123.49
2008 120.9 111.4 2.05 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 2.05 111.47
2009 258.5 94 1.97 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 1.99 98.42
2010 131.4 91 1.96 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 1.91 81.44
Mean 2.15
Sn 0.16
4.7.3 LOG PEARSON TYPE-III PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION
The computed values of mean, standard deviation and coefficient of skewness are
tabulated and presented on Table 12 for Port Area, MCO, Manila Station. Other results can
be seen in the Appendices. The standard normal variate (Z) for exceedence probability for
59
the annual maximum rainfall data of the station were derived and also presented in the
table. It shows the standard normal deviate has an inverse proportionality with the plotting
probability and the extreme values obtained shown increasing trend as the value of standard
normal deviate increases.
Table 12. The Standard Variable (Z) and Its Extreme Values Derived By Log Pearson
Record RF. Log 𝟑

years
Rainfall
Order R.F.
Rank (𝒚 − ȳ) P W Z KT YT XT
2001 178 258.5 2.41 1 0.01772 0.05 2.45 1.65 3.33 2.68 480.545
2002 248.2 248.2 2.39 2 0.01436 0.15 1.95 1.04 1.09 2.33 211.559
2003 123.6 178 2.25 3 0.00096 0.25 1.67 0.67 0.12 2.17 147.933
2004 111.4 154 2.19 4 0.00005 0.35 1.45 0.39 -0.48 2.08 119.177
2005 91 131.4 2.12 5 -0.00004 0.45 1.26 0.13 -0.86 2.01 103.454
2006 94 123.6 2.09 6 -0.00021 0.55 1.09 -0.12 -1.11 1.98 94.574
2007 154 120.9 2.08 7 -0.00033 0.65 0.93 -0.38 -1.23 1.96 90.468
2008 120.9 111.4 2.05 8 -0.00115 0.75 0.76 -0.67 -1.21 1.96 91.116
2009 258.5 94 1.97 9 -0.00570 0.85 0.57 -1.01 -0.97 2.00 99.549
2010 131.4 91 1.96 10 -0.00715 0.95 0.32 -1.56 -0.11 2.13 136.025
ȳ 2.15
Sn 0.16
Cs 0.64
K 0.11
For Port Area MCO, Manila, the mean, standard deviation and skew coefficient
were estimated 2.15, 0.16 and 0.64 correspondingly while the highest extreme value for
this station is 480.545 mm.
60
4.6.4 GUMBEL/EVI PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION
Table 13 shows the computed extreme values using Gumbel distribution function
of station Port Area (MCO), Manila. Computation of extreme values of each station using
Gumbel can be seen in the Appendices.
The result shows that the reduced variate (YT )value of all stations records decreases
with increase in plotting probability (P) (decrease in recurrence interval, T), and extreme
value (XT)obtained shows linear proportionality with the reduced variate (YT). Generally,
the comparison of probability distribution function stations shows, as the variate of stations
records decrease the plotting probability increase (recurrence interval decrease) and
extreme value obtained shows linear proportionality with the standard normal variable (KT).
Table 13. Computation of Extreme Values Using Gumbel for Port Area (MCO), Manila
Record years Rainfall RF. Order Rank P T YT KT XT

2001 178 258.5 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 267.97
2002 248.2 248.2 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 221.07
2003 123.6 178 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 191.98
2004 111.4 154 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 169.93
2005 91 131.4 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 151.44
2006 94 123.6 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 134.88
2007 154 120.9 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 119.18
2008 120.9 111.4 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 103.42
2009 258.5 94 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 86.31
2010 131.4 91 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 64.82
ȳ 151.1 Yn 0.50
Sn 59.81 Sn 0.95
The mean of data shown is 151.1 having a standard deviation of 59.81. The standard
normal variable got a mean of 0.50 and a standard deviation of 0.95. The extreme value
ranges from 64.82 mm to 267.97 mm.
61
4.7 TESTING THE GOODNESS OF FITTING OF DATA TO PROBABILITY
DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS
The results of the following tests conducted for the goodness of fitting hydrological
data by probability distribution functions is shown below.
4.7.1 CHI-SQUARE TEST
Using chi-square test the values computed by each probability distribution of a
certain station is being compared by calculating x2 and tabulated x2 at the 5% significance
level with the degrees of freedom of 10 for this case. Having the least value of x2 was
determined to be the best fit probability distribution. Log normal having the least x 2 at the
stations of Science Garden (94.28), Cubi Pt. Subic Bay (5.04), Port Area (13.65) and Iba
Zambales (122.69) and Gumbel for Cabanatuan (1.10) and Clark Airport, Pampanga
(2.88), on the other hand LPT III have the weak model according to all stations. For full
table and result of goodness of fit see Table 12 and 13.
4.7.2 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT TEST
In the correlation coefficient test the observed and predicted rainfall for 10 years in
each station are linearly compared. Probability distribution having r value closest to 1 was
determined to be the best fit probability. For this test, normal distribution of Port Area have
the closest r of 0.969 to 1. LPT III for Science Garden (0.9743) and Gumbel for Cabanatuan
(0.9905), Clark International Airport (0.9877), Cubi Pt. Subic Bay (0.9823), and Iba
Zambales (0.7552). The weak probability for the applied test is LPT III except for Port
62
Area that has weak probability in Normal Distribution. For complete result of correlation
test in NCR and Region III see Table 12 and 13.
4.7.3 COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION TEST
Using coefficient of determination the value of R2 closer to 1 is the best fit
probability. Port Area having the best fit for Log Normal Distribution has R 2 value of
0.9962 and also the Science Garden (0.9908), Cabanatuan (0.9990), Clark Airport
(0.9973), Cubi Pt. Subic Bay (0.9991), and Iba, Zambales (0.9962). The weakest
probability distribution for the stations is LPT III except for Iba, Zambales. See Appendices
for necessary computed result for coefficient determination test of other stations.
Table 14. Results of Testing the Good of Fit of Data to Probability Distribution
Functions for Port Area (MCO), Manila
S.N Observed Gumbel EVI Log Normal Log Pearson type III Normal
1 258.5 267.97 254.39 480.55 230.96
2 248.2 221.07 205.96 211.56 205.44
3 178 191.98 180.93 147.93 187.26
4 154 169.93 163.01 119.18 171.96
5 131.4 151.44 148.41 103.45 157.93
6 123.6 134.88 135.55 94.57 151.10
7 120.9 119.18 123.49 90.47 151.10
8 111.4 103.42 111.47 91.12 151.10
9 94 86.31 98.42 99.55 151.10
10 91 64.82 81.44 136.03 151.10
Mean 151.10 151.10 150.31 157.44 170.91
Sn 59.81 63.05 52.61 119.46 28.28
Sum 1511.00 1511.00 1503.06 1574.40 1709.06
CV (%) 39.59 41.73 35.00 75.88 16.55
𝟐
𝒙 value 21.6732 13.6533 171.6549 85.9287
𝒙𝟐 tab 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.9629 0.9653 0.8028 0.9690
𝑹𝟐 value 0.9271 0.9962 0.6540 0.8023
*Port Area uses Log-Normal Distribution as best fit for its rainfall data
63
Table 15. Summary of GOF for Stations
Distribution Log Normal Gumbel LPT III Normal

Port Area (MCO),
Manila Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija
Science Garden,
Station Name Quezon City Clark Airport, Pampanga
Cubi Pt., Subic
Olongapo
Iba, Zambales
in number 4 2 0 0
in % 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00
The table above shows the summary of GOF for all synoptic stations in NCR and
Region III, from the results calculated by frequency analysis Log Normal Distribution
accumulated a total of 66.67% followed by Gumbel gathering a percent score of 33.33
while the LPT III and Normal Distribution shows no fit for rainfall data collected.
4.8 COMPUTATION FOR PMP RETURN PERIOD
The following are the results in the computation of PMP return period of various
years.
4.8.1 PMP RETURN PERIOD VALUES
Log Normal distribution function was fitted to daily annual maximum rainfall.
Based on sample mean and standard deviation, the respective parameters of distribution
function are location and shape and corresponding Log Normal Cumulative Distributive
Function (fx) was then estimated. The annual exceedence for the predicted one-day PMP
depths P (X≥Xo) were computed from the Log Normal distribution of each station
64
respectively and the probability of exceedence of a specific value variaties usually
expressed in terms of return period.
Table 16. Annual Exceedence and Return Periods
Station name P(X≥X∞) T

Port Area (MCO), Manila 0.939293884 16.47
Science Garden, Quezon City 0.937243938 15.93
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija 0.946419537 18.66
Clark Airport, Pampanga 0.939924636 16.65
Cubi Pt., Subic Olongapo 0.941758472 17.17
Iba, Zambales 0.941656605 17.14
Mean 17.00
CV (%) 5.49
Table 16 shows the annual exceedence and return period computed. Science Garden
station with the lowest value of return period (15.93) and Cabanatuan station with the
maximum value (18.66). The PMP return period varies between 15 to 20 year's occurrence
interval, with a coefficient of variability of 5.49% and an average value of 17. Accordingly,
the predicted return period is nearly in order of 17 years and observed variability in return
period (T) is less than 20% thus the mean value could justly represent the overall T value
for comparisons.
4.8.2 ESTIMATION OF PMP AND DEPTH OF VARIOUS YEARS RETURN
PERIOD
Using Log Normal as fit for the data evaluated the computated rainfall intensity and
durations for 2- years, 5- years, 10- years, 25- years, 50- years, 100- years and 200- years
return period are presented in the table below (Table 17).
65
Table 17. Rainfall Depths (mm) for Various Years of Return Period
24-Hr 100- 200- 500- 1000- 10000-

Stations 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year
PMP Year Year Year Year Year
Port Area
(MCO), 296.11 193.01 226.77 269.30 300.91 332.49 364.29 406.92 439.77 553.58
Manila
Science
Garden,
957.62 227.22 276.38 340.57 389.73 439.98 491.62 562.39 618.02 817.43
Quezon
City
Cabanatuan
, Nueva 170.98 135.33 148.50 163.96 174.79 185.14 195.15 208.00 217.52 248.37
Ecija
Clark
Airport, 202.85 158.16 184.09 216.44 240.29 263.97 287.68 319.28 343.50 426.65
Pampanga
Cubi Pt.,
Subic 318.27 237.81 269.39 307.68 335.26 362.16 388.67 423.41 449.61 537.20
Olongapo
Iba,
276.59 240.26 272.54 311.75 340.01 367.61 394.83 430.52 457.47 547.68
Zambales
max 957.62 240.26 276.38 340.57 389.73 439.98 491.62 562.39 618.02 817.43
min 170.98 135.33 148.50 163.96 174.79 185.14 195.15 208.00 217.52 248.37
mean 370.40 198.63 229.62 268.28 296.83 325.23 353.71 391.75 420.98 521.82
Sn 293.16 44.19 53.43 66.69 77.56 89.17 101.53 119.05 133.21 186.08
The maximum intensity for 5-year rainfall duration is 240.26 mm comes from Iba,
Zambales station, while the rest of the highest intensities of 10- year, 25- year, 50- year,
100- year, 200- year, 1000- year and 10,000- year duration appears in Science Garden
station with 276.38 mm, 340.57 mm, 389.73 mm, 439.61 mm, 562.39mm, 618.02mm and
817.43 mm accordingly, while all the minimum duration comes from Cabanatuan, Nueva
Ecija station.
66
4.8.3 RATIOS OF PMP TO FACTOR OF SAFETY (FOS)
Table 18. Ratio of PMP to Various Years of Return Period (FOS)
24-Hr 100- 200- 500- 1000- 10000-

Stations 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year
PMP Year Year Year Year Year
Port Area
(MCO), 296.11 1.5342 1.3057 1.0996 0.9841 0.8906 0.8128 0.7277 0.6733 0.5349
Manila
Science
Garden, 957.62 4.2145 3.4648 2.8119 2.4571 2.1765 1.9479 1.7028 1.5495 1.1715
Quezon City
Cabanatuan,
170.98 1.2634 1.1513 1.0428 0.9782 0.9235 0.8761 0.8220 0.7860 0.6884
Nueva Ecija
Clark Airport,
202.85 1.2826 1.1019 0.9372 0.8442 0.7685 0.7051 0.6353 0.5905 0.4755
Pampanga
Cubi Pt., Subic

318.27 1.3383 1.1815 1.0344 0.9493 0.8788 0.8189 0.7517 0.7079 0.5925
Olongapo
Iba, Zambales 276.59 1.1512 1.0148 0.8872 0.8135 0.7524 0.7005 0.6424 0.6046 0.5050
max 957.62 4.2145 3.4648 2.8119 2.4571 2.1765 1.9479 1.7028 1.5495 1.1715
min 170.98 1.1512 1.0148 0.8872 0.8135 0.7524 0.7005 0.6353 0.5905 0.4755
mean 370.40 1.7974 1.5367 1.3022 1.1711 1.0650 0.9769 0.8803 0.8187 0.6613
Sn 293.16 1.1908 0.9494 0.7436 0.6340 0.5488 0.4806 0.4090 0.3651 0.2610
The forecasted PMP values are compared to various duration with their respective
depths and the resulting ratios were calculated and presented in Table 18. The ratios varies
from 0.4755 (at 10000 years) and 4.2145 (at 5 years).
The ratio introduced can be used as Factor of Safety (FOS) (Al-mamu and Hashim,
2004). PMP values are reasonable for designing hydraulic structures or not, usually the
accepted FOS value for engineering practices in Structural Engineering is between 1.4 and
1.7 and for Geotechnical design between 1.5 and 2.0. Consequently, it can be determined
that the derived PMP, is very indeterminate for 100 and 200 years and practical for
67
designing of hydraulic structures for return periods in the orders of 10 and 50 years.
However, the use of PMP for 2 and 5 years of return periods for hydraulic structures will
be stable but comparatively expensive. Therefore, PMP method could solve the limitations
of common probabilistic approach.
4.9 CONSTRUCTION OF PMP ISOHYETAL MAP
The purpose of Isohyetal Map was to serve as a simplified model of a region
subjected into a specific amount of rainfall in order to fully understand the distribution of
one-day PMP values in a region particularly in National Capital Region (NCR) and Region
III. The PMP Isohyetal Map were generated with the use of Quantum Geographical
Information System (QGIS) software based on the surface mapping software technique
called Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) which shows the estimated spatial distribution
and aerial precipitation throughout the region in a form of rectangular cell showing the
values of PMP designed in a form of contour lines varying between 150 mm up to 960 mm
at a contour interval of 30 mm and 5 mm. The PMP Isohyetal Map generated in Figure 5
and 6 shows that area along the Science Garden station in Quezon City accumulated the
highest observed rainfall with a value of 957.62 mm and decreasing both North-East and
South-West direction.
68
69
Figure 5. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for NCR and Region III (30 mm contour interval)
Figure 6. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for NCR and Region III (5mm contour interval)
70
71
Figure 7. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for Region III
72
Figure 8. Isohyetal Map of 24hr PMP for NCR
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
The consequences of precipitation variability, droughts and extreme floods were
exhibiting great influence in human life. The estimation of probable maximum
precipitation (PMP) with respective return periods has great value to solve many problems.
Hydrologists use PMP together with its spatial and temporal distributions for the
catchments to estimate the probable maximum flood (PMF). The objectives of this research
were to estimate one-day PMP and their return periods, to identify best fit frequency
distribution model for each rainfall weather station in particular PMP and to generate the
corresponding Isohyetal Map, for quick estimation of PMPs for ungauged catchments in
NCR and Region III for purpose of planning, management, assessing and designing of
different water resources projects.
In order to estimate the PMP, annual total rainfall and daily maximum rainfall was
collected for the selected rainfall weather stations which is the synoptic stations from
PAGASA. A total of 6 stations were analyzed, 2 from NCR and 4 from Region III. After
checking the data’s consistency, Hershfield (1961, 1965) technique for estimating PMP,
an adapted version of Chow (1952) for frequency analysis of rainfall was used for PMP
computation. Daily annual extreme rainfall data was applied to derive maximum frequency
factors (Km) and the corresponding one-day PMP estimation values.
The maximum frequency factors (Km) of individual rainfall stations were found to
vary from 1.53 to 7.36 at an average value of 2.98 and CV 72.93. As PMP deals with
unusual rainfall values, the corresponding Km used was chosen from the extremely high
73
values i.e. 7.36. The PMP values were found to vary from 170.98 mm to 957.62 mm at an
average value of 370.40 mm and CV 79.15%. The ratio one-day PMP to highest observed
rainfall (HOR) varied from 1.05 to 2.10 with average of 1.26.
The best frequency distribution obtained for the extreme daily rainfall in the regions
was the Log Normal distribution, which accounted 66.67%, followed by the Gumbel
distribution 33.33%. The outcome was relied on the results of three goodness-of-fit tests,
Chi-square, correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination. The PMP return period
values were derived using Log Normal distribution and found to vary from 16.47 and 18.66
at an average value of 17 years and the observed variability was found as 5.49%.
The ratios of daily PMP to the design rainfall varying from 5 year to 10000 year
return period were worked out and found to vary from 135.33 mm to 817.43 mm. The
predicted PMP value to depths of various years return period ratios were found to vary
from 0.4755 to 4.2145.
Isohyetal map were generated by means of QGIS software based on the IDW
interpolation technique. Accordingly, PMP grid values were varying between 150 mm and
960 mm at a contour interval of 30 mm and 5 mm. The PMP Isohyetal Map generated
shows that area along the Science Garden station in Quezon City accumulated the highest
observed rainfall with a value of 957.62 mm and decreasing both North-East and South-
West direction.
74
Chapter 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for the construction of one day PMP Isohyetal Map is
included in this chapter for future study and for the improvement of One day Probable
Precipitation based on the objectives of the study.
From the research of One-day Probable Maximum Precipitation, in order to achieve
such accurate and precise results the collection of hydrologic data plays an important role.
The researchers suggest to study the whole region of Luzon to be analyzed, all the
characteristic of gauging stations must be considered and long recorded rainfall data must
be collected. Hence, higher enveloping Km factor may be found in effect higher PMP
values may be derived and to obtained more verified best fit probability distribution
function for the region.
Philippines is a country where mostly extreme rainfalls mostly occur since it is a
tropical country and lies near the Pacific Ocean where typhoons are usually produced, so
the researchers recommend to make an update on PMP estimation if a certain climate
variability happens.
Maps developed in isohyetal only provides point PMP estimations. Thus, in order
to get reliable area estimation, areal reduction factors needs to be considered.
75
REFERENCES
Al-Mamun, A. and A. Hashim. 2004. General long duration probable maximum
precipitation isohyetal map for Peninsula, Malaysia. Journal of Spatial Hydrology,
4(1):156-179.
Al-Weshah, R.A. 2000. Rainfall-Runoff Analysis and Modeling in Wadi Systems.
University of Jordan. Amman, Jordan.
Bhaka S. R., A.K. Bansal, N. Chhajed and R. C. Purohit, 2006. Frequency analysis of
Consecutive day’s maximum rainfall at Banswara Rajasthan, Indi. ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, 1(3): 1819-6608.
Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., & Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill,
USA.
Dairaku K., S. Emori and T. Oki, 2004. Rainfall amount, intensity, duration and frequency
relationships in the Mae-Chaem watershed in Southeast Asia. Journal of
Hydrometeorology 5:458–470.
Desa M, M.N., Noriah, A.B., & Rakhecha, P.R Probable maximum precipitation for 24 h
duration over southeast Asian monsoon region – Selangor, Malaysia. Atmospheric Region
Research, 58(1), 41-54.
76
Desa, M.M. and P.R. Rakhecha, 2006. Probable maximum precipitation for 24-hr duration
over an equatorial region: Part 2-Johor, Malaysia. Humid Tropics Centre (HTC) Kuala
Lumpur, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia.
Eliason, J. (1997). A statistical model for extreme precipitation. Water Resources
Research, 33(3), 449-455.
Gaeg, 2005. Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulics Structures, Khanna Publisher.New
Delhi.
Ghahraman .B., 2008. The estimation of one-day duration probable maximum precipitation
over atrak watershed in Iran. Iranian Journal of Science & Technology, Transaction B,
Engineering, Vol. 32, No. B2, pp 175-179, Printed in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Greenough G., M. McGeehin, S. Bernard, J. Trtanj, J. Riad and D. Engelberg, 2001. The
Potential Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Health Impacts of Extreme
Weather Events in the United States. Environmental Health Perspective, 109(2).
Haan C.T., 1977. Statistical methods in hydrology. The Iowa University Press, Iowa,
U.S.A.
Hansen E.M., D.D. Fenn, L.C. Schriner, R.W. Stodt and J.F. Miller, 1988. Probable
maximum precipitation estimates United States between the continental divide and the
77
103rd meridian. Hydro meteorological Report no. 55, national Weather Service, Silver
Springs. 59.
Hansen E.M., L.C. Schreiner and J.F. Miller, 1982. Application of probable maximum
Precipitation estimates, United States east of the 105th meridian Hydro meteorological
Report No. 52, National Weather Service, Washington D.C.
Hansen, E.M., 1987. Probable maximum precipitation for design floods in the United
States. Journal of Hydrology 96 (1-4).
Hershfield D.M., 1962. Rainfall frequency atlas of the United State for durations from 30
mints to 24 hours and return periods from 1 year to 100 years. Tech. Paper no. 40, U.S.
Depart. Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Hershfield D.M., 1961. Estimating probable maximum precipitation, proceedings ASCE.
Journal of Hydraulics, Division 87: 99-106.
Hershfield D.M., 1965. Methods of estimating probable maximum precipitation. Journal
of American Water Works Association 57: 965-972.
Hershfield D.M., 1975. Some small scale characteristics of extreme storm rainfalls in small
basins. Hydraulic Science Bulletin XX, 1, 3, 77-85.
78
Hershfiled, 1981. The magnitude of the hydrological frequency factor in maximum rainfall
estimation. Hydrological science Bulletin 26.
Koutsoyiannis, D., 1999. A probabilistic view of Hershfield’s method for estimating
probable maximum precipitation. Water Resources Research 35(4):1313-1322.
Koutsoyiannis D., 2004. Statistics of extremes and estimating extreme rainfall part-I
theoretical investigation. Hydrological Science Journal 49(4.).
NOAA, 2006. Frequency Alas of the United State, 1 (4).
Osadolor Christopher Izinyon and Henry Nwanne Ajumuka, 2013. Paper on Civil and
Environmental Research Part II, Probability distribution models for flood prediction in
Upper Benue River Basin.
Pathak C.S., 2001. Frequency analysis of daily rainfall maxima for central and south
Florida. Technical publication EMA (390), Hydro Information Systems & Assessment
Department, Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Division, West Palm Beach,
Florida.
Pawlina, A.A., 2002. No rain intervals within rain events: some statistics based on Milano
radar and rain gauge data. Proceedings of COST 280, First International Workshop on
79
propagation impairment mitigation for millimeter wave radio systems, 1–3 July 2002,
Malvern, UK.
Raghunath H.M., 2006. Hydrology Principles, Analysis and Design. New Age
International (P) Limited, Publishers, NewDelhi.
Rakhecha P.R., N.R. Deshpande and M.K. Soma, 1992. Probable maximum precipitation
for 2 day duration over the Indian Peninsula. Theoretical and applied climatology
Subramanya M.A., 1996. Goodness of fittest for extreme value distribution. Biometrika
84.
Tewelde Yideg, 2012. Assessing the potential of geonetcast earth observation and in-situ
data for drought early and monitoring in Tigray, Ethiopia, Enscheda, and the Netherlands.
Tokay .A and A.D. Short, 1996. Evidence from tropical raindrop spectra of the origin of
rain from stratiform versus convective clouds. Journal of Applied Meteorology 35.
USAID, 2009. Tigray regional overview and livelihood zone summaries.
Viessman W. and G.L. Lewis, 1996. Introduction Hydrology, Happer Collins College
Publishers.
80
Wanielista M.P., R. Kersten and R. Eaglin, 1996. Hydrology: Water Quantity and Quality
Control. 2nd Edn, Wiley, New York, ISBN-10: 0471072591
Meeker W. Q., and Escobar L. A., 2017. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. A Guide
for Practitioners and Researchers.
WMO, 1969. Estimation of Maximum Flood. Tech Note 98, WMO 233, Geneva,
Switzerland.
WMO, 1973. Manual for estimation of probable maximum precipitation. WMO 332,
Geneva.
WMO, 1986. Manual for estimation of probable maximum precipitation. Operational
Hydrologic Rep 1, paper 332, Geneva, Switzerland.
WMO, 1994. Guide to Hydrological Practices. Data Acquisition, Processing and Analysis.
WMO, 2009. Manual on Estimation of Probable Maximum Precipitation.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (1986). Manual for Estimation if Probable
Maximum precipitation: Summary 2nd, WMO 332, 1.
81
Article form the typhoon Ketsana and its effect on the Philippines retrieved from:
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2009/h2009_Ketsana.html
Climate and Population status of the Philippines (2010) an article retrieved from:
http://r3.denr.gov.ph/index.php/about-us/regional-profile
List of different weather station in the Philippines from: www.pag-
asa.dost.gov.ph/inex.php/engineering/111-meteorological-facilities
Geographical features of National Capital Region Philippines retrieved from:
http://nnc.gov.ph/regional/offices/national-capital-region/57-region-ncr-profile/244-ncr-
profile
Geographical features of Central Luzon Region (Region III) retrieved from:
http://nnc.gov.ph/regional/offices/national-capital-region/57-region-regionIII-profile/244-
regionIII-profile
List of the different devastating typhoon that hit the Philippines (1980-2010) retrieved
from: https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/watlinpsu99.pdf
Typhoon consequences and its impact to Queensland Australia retrieved from:
www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-flood-consequences
82
APPENDICES
Appendix Table
Appendix Table 1. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Iba Zambales Station (2001)
24-Hr Day of
Standard No. of Greatest Highest
Month Mean Normal Deviation Rainy Day Rainfall Rainfall
January - 2.5 - - - -
February 86 4.1 10.5 8 47.6 23
March 57.3 13 5.6 7 28.2 27
April 44.8 26.2 5.3 8 28.2 13
May 388.2 330.9 24.5 14 116.2 10
June 558.8 635.4 22.5 23 72.4 22
July 733.2 829.2 35.4 27 127.8 27
August 1044.4 1116.2 48 28 224.4 23
September 531.1 575.8 49.5 22 264.4 23
October 70.3 258.4 5.2 11 23.4 2
November 2 92.7 0.4 1 2 8
December 11.8 35.1 1.4 4 6 6
SUM 3527.9
24-Hr Day of
January - 2.5 - - - -
February 2.6 4.1 0.4 2 1.6 2
March 0.3 13 0.1 1 0.3 23
April 43.6 26.2 4.6 4 22 18
May 232.4 330.9 11.5 15 36.2 27
June 542.7 635.4 25.1 20 90.4 5
July 2104.8 829.2 73 26 250.9 25
August 416.7 1116.2 22.5 25 83.2 2
September 457.3 575.8 21.3 20 71.8 10
October 137.6 258.4 10 13 48 9
November 41.4 92.7 6.2 6 34 22
December -1 35.1 - NONE - -
SUM 3978.4
83
24-Hr Day of
January - 2.5 - - - -
February -1 4.1 - - - -
March 3.2 13 0.3 4 1.4 21
April -1 26.2 - - - -
May 834.4 330.9 44 18 153.2 26
June 299.6 635.4 21 13 81.1 18
July 448.8 829.2 37.6 21 201.6 22
August 1539.7 1116.2 57.6 28 194.6 7
September 625.1 575.8 37 21 180 2
October 113.3 258.4 10.7 7 41.6 17
November 46.3 92.7 4.2 5 17.7 14
December - 35.1 - - - -
SUM 3908.4
24-Hr Day of
January -1 2.5 - - - -
February 11.2 4.1 1.3 4 6.6 22
March -1 13 - - - -
April 8.8 26.2 1.6 1 8.8 9
May 484.98 330.9 30.6 15 115 20
June 967.3 635.4 45.7 25 221.4 6
July 548 829.2 35.2 24 183 25
August 761.1 1116.2 30.3 31 136.4 4
September 111.9 575.8 83 13 36.6 1
October 54.1 258.4 5.9 6 26.4 6
November 59.4 92.7 10.2 3 55.8 29
December 93.2 35.1 15.6 2 86.8 2
SUM 3098.0
84
24-Hr Day of
January 0.1 2.5 - 1 0.1 12

February - 4.1 - - - -
March 0.4 1.3 0.1 1 0.4 27
April 16.8 26.2 1.6 4 6.2 15
May 82.7 330.9 7.1 11 36.6 20
June 507.1 635.4 20.8 22 79.4 4
July 549.1 829.2 28.1 19 110 28
August 849.5 1116.2 41.9 23 145.6 5
September 238 575.8 16.6 22 85.6 16
October 241.1 258.4 19.2 13 88 7
November 30 92.7 3.7 5 18.8 12
December 32 35.1 3.1 7 16 4
SUM 2546.8
24-Hr Day of
January 34.1 2.5 3.5 7 15.2 25

February 5.8 4.1 0.7 3 3.6 21
March 25.5 13 3.1 4 15.9 14
April 15.4 26.2 2.8 1 15.4 30
May 56.6 330.9 3.9 10 14.1 21
June 244.3 635.4 19 23 81.8 13
July 1593.5 829.2 56 28 184.6 26
August 896.2 1116.2 43.4 28 200.6 14
September 315.5 575.8 15.5 19 56.8 10
October 511.1 258.4 42.2 13 217.3 30
November 73.7 902.7 11.3 7 62 11
December 23.4 35.1 2.4 5 11.6 10
SUM 3795.1
85
24-Hr Day of
January 5.5 2.5 0.9 3 5 27

February 0.4 4.1 0.1 1 0.4 26
March 39.6 13 4.9 4 20.8 22
April 7.4 26.2 1.3 2 7 4
May 125.8 330.9 7.2 18 26.8 10
June 35.8 635.4 2.3 14 7.4 1
July 529.9 829.2 36.7 19 179.6 13
August 1056.8 1116.2 54.4 27 247.2 8
September 752.1 575.58 45.5 21 18.7 1
October 296.5 258.4 17.4 17 63.8 3
November 217.8 92.7 15.9 10 65.4 26
December 2 35.1 0.4 1 2 10
SUM 3069.6
24-Hr Day of
January 14.8 2.5 1.6 4 8.2 22

February 23.4 4.1 3.8 3 20.4 27
March 16.3 13 1.7 3 8 31
April 35.2 26.2 2.5 10 10.6 27
May 309.1 330.9 1.3 19 65.2 17
June 366.5 635.4 23.1 18 107.6 22
July 490.1 829.2 22 20 77.8 15
August 651.2 1116.2 32.1 24 131.8 4
September 871.02 575.8 44.5 19 16.4 9
October 91.9 258.4 4.2 1.9 16.4 9
November 174.6 92.7 22.6 3 119.4 10
December 10 35.1 1.6 2 8.8 13
SUM 3054.1
86
24-Hr Day of
January 3 2.5 0.4 2 1.6 23

February 21.2 4.1 2.5 5 12.6 18
March 20 13 2.6 2 13.2 31
April 180 26.2 13 11 51.6 22
May 257.7 330.9 15.9 16 71 7
June 1006.5 635.4 37.7 24 136.4 5
July 981.3 829.2 40.7 2.9 152.6 18
August 323.6 1116.2 21.3 23 92 6
September 1269.2 263.6 258.4 21.3 14 99.8
October 263.6 258.4 21.3 14 99.8 3
November 2.4 92.7 0.4 2 2 4
December - 35.1 - - - -
SUM 4328.5
24-Hr Day of
January 0.4 2.5 0.1 1 0.4 18

February - 4.1 - - - -
March 6.4 13 0.8 3 4 13
April 27.4 26.2 3.5 2 15.2 30
May 10.7 330.9 9.1 6 35 10
June 315.6 635.4 15.7 14 49.8 4
July 284.7 829.2 17.2 22 68 29
August 787.4 1116.2 32.4 27 123.6 28
September 356.3 575.8 23.6 16 109.6 2
October 461.2 258.4 29.9 18 112.8 19
November 112.5 92.7 8.2 12 27.7 10
December -1 35.1 - - - -
SUM 2361.6
87
Appendix Table 11. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Science Garden Station (2001)
24-Hr Day of
January 21.1 19.0 3.6 4 19.8 17

February 105.3 7.2 8.3 8 35.8 20
March 12.3 17.2 1.1 6 5.3 26
April 31.3 30.6 3.2 8 17.2 15
May 261.1 143.6 13.7 18 48.8 10
June 248.5 350.7 12.5 20 44.5 27
July 518.5 467.7 22.9 25 107.4 19
August 549.2 504.2 23.8 27 110.4 17
September 183.1 389.6 9.9 20 34.0 30
October 191.0 272.6 11.9 17 57.8 13
November 73.1 149.7 8.0 7 39.0 8
December 96.9 55.7 8.2 10 30.2 6
SUM 2291.4
24-Hr Day of
January 8.4 19.0 1.5 1 8.4 31

February 13.4 7.2 1.7 5 8.6 1
March 21.6 17.2 2.9 3 15.4 23
April 20.4 30.6 2.1 5 10.0 22
May 49.7 143.6 4.4 9 18.8 26
June 184.2 350.7 8.4 17 36.0 26
July 1310.4 467.7 64.9 25 246.4 7
August 444.5 504.2 22.3 27 99.7 13
September 426.3 389.6 17.1 24 64.6 6
October 241.5 272.6 16.1 17 76.0 9
November 235.0 149.7 17.3 15 76.5 4
December 37.4 55.7 4.1 5 18.4 31
SUM 2992.8
88
24-Hr Day of
January 1.6 19.0 0.7 2 1.4 8

February 9.6 7.2 1.7 3 5.2 22
March 21.1 17.2 3.5 3 20.6 24
April 22.1 30.6 3.8 4 20.6 24
May 465.8 143.6 36.8 14 137.4 27
June 231.8 350.7 13.5 14 55.6 17
July 268.3 467.7 11.2 25 38.4 22
August 380.5 504.2 20.0 25 100.2 19
September 497.6 389.6 29.2 25 120.2 2
October 184.9 272.6 11.9 18 52.2 12
November 118.2 149.7 7.4 14 30.4 17
December 6.8 55.7 1.0 2 5.4 13
SUM 2208.3
24-Hr Day of
January 6.0 19.0 0.7 3 3.6 6

February 10.0 25.0 23.0 13 36.5 29
March - 17.2 - - - -
April 88.4 30.6 8.1 9 33.4 8
May 206.6 143.6 14.4 11 61.2 22
June 214.6 350.7 7.3 24 23.6 20
July 335.6 467.7 17.2 21 39.0 22
August 686.0 504.2 33.2 23 135.6 24
September 308.3 389.6 16.2 21 79.0 1
October 86.6 272.6 6.8 11 32.2 1
November 204.5 149.7 13.1 17 126.7 29
December 60 55.7 8.3 4 45.4 2
SUM 2206.6
89
24-Hr Day of
January 12.7 19.0 1.6 4 8.4 20

February 12.0 7.2 1.6 2 7.0 9
March 16.0 17.2 1.9 6 9.8 18
April 35.8 30.6 3.9 3 16.8 25
May 137.9 143.6 13.4 12 65.2 28
June 528.9 350.7 20.5 22 85.3 4
July 221.2 467.7 12.3 19 54.6 5
August 342.4 504.2 16.3 23 59.6 1
September 413.6 389.6 20.4 25 86.9 15
October 487.8 272.6 24.2 20 104.6 27
November 76.6 149.7 6.7 11 34.6 29
December 86.6 55.7 4.6 14 12.9 14
SUM 2371.5
24-Hr Day of
January 56.3 19.0 4.9 10 24.2 25

February 6.8 7.2 0.6 7 2.4 7
March 78.5 17.2 5.7 10 26.8 13
April - 30.6 - - - -
May 172.8 143.6 12.2 11 54.8 24
June 333.6 350.7 19.0 17 69.4 2
July 662.6 467.7 31.6 24 116.4 23
August 310.1 504.2 13.9 21 58.9 6
September 667.6 389.6 33.2 21 159.6 9
October 212.2 272.6 10.8 17 36.5 29
November 88.7 149.7 6.9 10 30.4 30
December 76.8 55.7 9.6 8 53 10
SUM 2666.0
90
24-Hr Day of
January 2.2 19.0 0.3 4 1.4 11

February 24.1 7.2 4.6 1 24.1 26
March 21.9 17.2 2.9 5 15.3 19
April 25.8 30.6 3.0 4 14.6 11
May 258.3 143.6 19.8 15 107.0 29
June 99.4 350.7 4.7 22 21.0 10
July 205.9 467.7 10.2 21 42.4 10
August 669.9 504.2 38.9 25 147.0 17
September 437.6 389.6 13.9 25 53.5 28
October 220.2 272.6 15.9 20 78.6 2
November 284.6 149.7 16.0 18 65.4 21
December 52.2 55.7 5 9 26.3 26
SUM 2302.1
24-Hr Day of
January 47.1 19.0 5.4 10 30.2 12

February 23.9 7.2 1.9 10 8.0 25
March 38.9 17.2 4.3 5 19.4 2
April 35.5 30.6 2.2 11 7.1 14
May 261.8 143.6 12.2 25 41.8 23
June 361.4 350.7 27.5 14 125.6 22
July 225.3 467.7 11.1 24 38.6 27
August 430.4 504.2 15.4 21 52.4 20
September 447.7 389.6 21.8 24 74.4 24
October 249.4 272.6 17.4 21 91.4 27
November 187.9 149.7 12.9 15 61.4 9
December 70 55.7 5.1 9 25 4
SUM 2379.3
91
24-Hr Day of
January 43.1 19.0 4.5 6 22.0 23

February 10.2 7.2 1.5 3 7.8 6
March 93.7 17.2 9.0 8 37.1 27
April 138.5 30.6 9.3 14 40.4 19
May 264.8 143.6 18.1 16 86.9 7
June 438.1 350.7 19.5 20 75.7 3
July 660.8 467.7 33.8 25 153.5 16
August 408.1 504.2 23.0 21 93.0 21
September 1123.5 389.6 83.1 24 455.0 26
October 272.3 272.6 18.5 19 79.0 30
November 54.1 149.7 3.7 14 15.5 13
December 6.6 55.6 1.1 3 6 11
SUM 3513.8
24-Hr Day of
January 5.1 19.0 0.6 3 3.0 18

February - 7.2 - - - -
March 2.4 17.2 0.4 1 2.4 12
April 20.1 30.6 2.8 4 15.2 30
May 62.0 143.6 9.5 7 52.8 28
June 355.5 350.7 15.3 24 56.5 28
July 410.4 467.7 24.7 20 105.9 25
August 628.1 504.2 15.3 22 122.0 5
September 386.6 389.6 25.6 17 120.6 2
October 413.3 272.6 21.8 20 88.2 27
November 254.5 149.7 13.5 21 45.0 9
December 136.9 55.7 12.9 12 67 16
SUM 2674.9
92
Appendix Table 21. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Port Area Station (2001)
24-Hr Day of
January 34.0 16.5 6.0 2 33.2 13

February 54.5 5.3 4.0 9 14.6 4
March 26.3 10.1 2.6 6 10.0 9
April 39.0 17.9 5.0 6 27.0 11
May 174.2 142.1 10.6 16 43.1 10
June 182.1 303.2 9.9 18 38.6 16
July 388.6 407.7 33.5 17 178.0 19
August 465.4 452.3 22.2 23 77.8 17
September 121.4 356.5 5.8 18 21.0 30
October 183.4 240.1 12.2 19 47.8 2
November 74.6 121.1 8.9 5 46.8 8
December 88.7 49.7 7.9 6 34.8 10
SUM 1832.2
24-Hr Day of
January 7.5 16.5 1.3 2 7.3 31

February 11.3 5.3 1.4 5 7.0 1
March 7.8 10.1 0.9 4 4.4 23
April 15.4 17.9 1.7 3 7.4 14
May 71.2 142.1 6.2 9 31.2 30
June 37.4 303.2 2.5 11 10.3 7
July 1468.8 407.7 70.4 25 248.2 20
August 363.3 452.3 16.5 22 78.8 13
September 277.7 356.5 14.4 22 58.8 6
October 212.4 240.1 13.0 17 64.2 10
November 140.1 121.1 9.8 13 39.6 4
December 29.3 49.7 2.4 8 9 6
SUM 2642.2
93
24-Hr Day of
January 8.5 16.5 1.3 2 7.0 15

February 8.3 5.3 1.5 2 7.9 11
March 1.2 10.1 0.2 2 0.8 8
April 18.4 17.9 2.9 4 15.8 5
May 408.1 142.1 31.8 11 119.1 27
June 232.1 303.2 15.1 13 58.4 17
July 334.1 407.7 21.0 22 111.7 27
August 425.5 452.3 23.9 24 117.2 19
September 366.7 356.5 26.5 19 123.6 2
October 97.9 240.1 7.3 13 26.0 13
November 129.6 121.1 10.7 13 42.0 8
December 11.4 49.7 1.9 2 10.4 13
SUM 2041.8
24-Hr Day of
January 1.2 16.5 0.2 2 1.0 6

February 40.5 5.3 5.3 4 25.5 23
March - 10.1 - - - -
April - 17.9 - - - -
May 225.3 142.1 16.8 13 79.8 22
June 260.2 303.2 10.3 23 31.0 13
July 150.6 407.7 6.7 18 21.0 26
August 426.3 452.3 24.1 21 97.6 24
September 173.3 356.5 11.8 15 51.8 1
October 75.6 240.1 5.7 9 24.2 1
November 152.8 121.1 20.3 15 111.4 29
December 41.3 49.7 5.5 4 29 2
SUM 1547.1
94
24-Hr Day of
January 9.8 16.5 0.9 5 3.6 20

February 8.9 5.3 1.2 3 6.1 10
March 15.8 10.1 2.5 3 14.0 18
April - 17.9 - - - -
May 60.1 142.1 4.1 11 18.0 31
June 312.9 303.2 14.8 20 54.0 9
July 175.1 407.7 11.4 18 45.2 12
August 262.4 452.3 14.1 18 52.2 12
September 328.8 356.5 16.5 26 65.2 15
October 296.0 240.1 18.9 20 91.0 27
November 33.8 121.1 2.2 13 9.3 5
December 87.2 49.7 5.3 12 19 10
SUM 1590.8
24-Hr Day of
January 56.1 16.5 5.3 7 28.0 25

February 17.4 5.3 1.8 4 8.4 2
March 79.9 10.1 7.9 5 37.2 1
April - 17.9 - - - -
May 50.6 142.1 3.3 9 13.8 12
June 191.5 303.2 12.5 14 62.5 3
July 569.3 407.7 24.0 24 94.0 23
August 246.4 452.3 11.7 18 53.0 14
September 515.4 356.5 21.4 21 69.2 9
October 199.0 240.1 10.2 16 38.0 2
November 63.7 121.1 7.6 8 40.0 30
December 105.9 49.7 14.4 7 80.3 10
SUM 2095.2
95
24-Hr Day of
January 1.2 16.5 0.1 2 0.6 4 & 11

February 15.0 5.3 2.1 2 10.5 26
March 28.0 10.1 4.5 3 25.0 19
April 27.2 17.9 3.3 5 17.4 11
May 107.3 142.1 7.6 12 30.5 29
June 41.4 303.2 3.1 9 10.4 30
July 186.6 407.7 12.3 15 56.8 10
August 620.2 452.3 36.3 22 154.0 17
September 400.8 356.5 14.1 21 43.0 28
October 212.1 240.1 12.1 19 51.0 2
November 289.5 121.1 18.4 17 63.8 15
December 48.2 49.7 5.1 6 27.4 26
SUM 1977.5
24-Hr Day of
January 58.5 16.5 6.4 5 32.4 12

February 20.7 5.3 1.9 5 6.6 3
March 19.9 10.1 2.5 3 13.6 23
April 40.1 17.9 3.6 7 17.8 28
May 218.4 142.1 9.2 20 24.9 11
June 233.4 303.2 23.9 10 120.9 22
July 365.0 407.7 18.5 17 63.2 31
August 547.3 452.3 26.7 20 80.5 15
September 388.9 356.5 23.5 17 91.5 8
October 125.1 240.1 8.0 17 43.0 4
November 127.8 121.1 9.9 12 46.0 11
December 54.6 49.7 3.9 9 18.3 4
SUM 2199.7
96
24-Hr Day of
January 10.3 16.5 1.5 4 8.0 8

February 26.1 5.3 2.8 6 13.0 16
March 60.9 10.1 8.5 7 47.0 25
April 111.6 17.9 7.8 10 27.4 22
May 294.6 142.1 19.3 14 89.0 7
June 386.9 303.2 20.1 16 67.8 3
July 598.8 407.7 34.9 23 148.5 16
August 307.4 452.3 21.2 21 107.2 21
September 839.2 356.5 49.3 21 258.5 26
October 243.4 240.1 17.2 19 85.0 30
November 64.8 121.1 5.4 8 25.5 13
December 2.2 49.7 0.4 1 2.2 22
SUM 2946.2
24-Hr Day of
January 6.0 16.5 0.9 2 5.0 18

February - 5.3 - - - -
March 6.2 10.1 0.8 2 4.3 12
April 13.7 17.9 1.4 4 6.3 29
May 13.8 142.1 1.9 4 10.2 28
June 348.1 303.2 21.3 18 99.0 11
July 347.3 407.7 26.4 19 131.4 13
August 312.6 452.3 16.8 15 49.7 23
September 362.1 356.5 16.8 17 52.4 16
October 289.4 240.1 15.5 19 67.8 18
November 197.8 121.1 11.1 16 42.0 22
December 65.2 49.7 7.1 9 30.5 19
SUM 1962.2
97
Appendix Table 31. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station (2001)
24-Hr Day of
January - - - - - -
February 27.2 - 2.4 5 9.4 23
March 43.7 - 6.4 4 35.6 26
April 22.6 - 2.0 6 8.1 22
May 687.2 - 36.2 17 112.6 10
June 505.3 - 22.1 24 94.3 23
July 514.9 - 20.7 27 81.5 27
August 1251.0 - 49.6 29 147.6 23
September 451.3 - 24.1 21 112.0 23
October 106.3 - 8.3 11 41.9 9
November 30.9 - 5.2 4 28.8 8
December 16.9 - 1.5 5 6.5 6
SUM 3657.3
24-Hr Day of
January 1.6 - 0.3 1 1.6 31

February 5.1 - 1.0 1 5.1 1
March 20.6 - 2.7 3 13.0 7
April 4.1 - 0.7 1 4.1 15
May 259.8 - 16.9 14 68.9 27
June 398.4 - 20.4 18 73.4 3
July 2195.2 - 86.9 27 287.6 13
August 409.9 - 19.1 24 54.4 2
September 702.9 - 35.6 19 135.4 9
October 37.5 - 3.6 7 18.2 18
November 7.9 - 0.7 5 2.8 10
December 1 - 0.2 1 1 17
SUM 4044.0
98
24-Hr Day of
January 7.6 - 1.3 2 7.2 7

February 0.4 - 0.1 1 0.4 11
March 20.9 - 3.8 1 20.9 8
April 0.0 - 0.0 - - -
May 618.2 - 37.8 13 147.5 27
June 320.4 - 20.9 13 63.8 16
July 198.7 - 13.7 17 67.2 22
August 925.2 - 33.2 26 118.4 22
September 589.8 - 34.8 19 168.0 2
October 26.0 - 3.0 4 15.0 16
November 56.9 - 5.3 9 19.8 17
December 3.4 - 0.5 2 2.4 13
SUM 2767.5
24-Hr Day of
January 1013.3 - 1.7 1 0.5 7

February 1012.4 - 1.5 - - -
March 1011.1 - 2.2 1 0.3 17
April 1010.5 - 1.4 2 16.0 4
May 661.4 - 38.1 13 148.4 22
June 834.6 - 44.9 26 230.0 6
July 411.4 - 20.0 22 75.0 26
August 722.1 - 26.7 29 112.8 4
September 82.6 - 8.5 11 40.2 6
October 39.8 - 3.1 10 13.0 7
November 76.4 - 12.1 8 66.6 29
December 38 - 5.1 3 26.4 2
SUM 6913.6
99
24-Hr Day of
January 0.6 - 0.1 2 0.4 9

February 4.4 - 0.6 3 2.8 9
March 18.6 - 2.0 3 8.6 28
April 2.0 - 0.4 1 2.0 3
May 72.1 - 5.9 7 27.0 31
June 471.9 - 20.2 23 65.3 6
July 759.5 - 32.5 24 119.7 27
August 795.4 - 42.1 21 152.0 12
September 402.9 - 20.9 22 89.2 16
October 111.2 - 33.6 12 33.6 16
November 58.3 - 28.0 6 28.0 16
December 17.1 - 3.6 11 3.6 9
SUM 2714.0
24-Hr Day of
January 23.4 - 2.7 7 14.8 25

February 0.4 - 0.1 2 0.2 21
March 25.8 - 4.2 4 23.5 13
April 1010.6 - 0.8 0 0.0 0
May 103.3 - 8.5 11 43.8 13
June 266.7 - 19.6 14 75.0 27
July 1308.3 - 46.9 25 146.4 6
August 943.7 - 41.3 27 207.0 14
September 394.2 - 18.6 23 79.8 28
October 168.9 - 18.4 11 98.6 29
November 11.9 - 1.4 4 6.8 30
December 61.5 - 8.6 6 47.6 10
SUM 4318.7
100
24-Hr Day of
January 6.2 - 0.7 5 4.0 4

February 0.3 - 0.1 1 0.3 7
March 0.7 - 0.1 2 0.6 22
April 0.0 - 0.0 0 0.0 0
May 212.9 - 15.1 12 57.0 22
June 33.4 - 2.2 9 8.2 26
July 416.9 - 26.1 19 95.2 13
August 1162.7 - 57.1 28 228.0 15
September 997.1 - 50.8 20 199.3 21
October 292.7 - 25.9 15 118.1 2
November 143.7 - 10.3 11 37.1 26
December 8.4 - 1.1 4 5.8 30
SUM 3275.0
24-Hr Day of
January 28.7 - 3.0 3 11.2 22

February 21.5 - 2.6 6 13.0 6
March 25.5 - 4.6 2 25.4 3
April 14.6 - 2.3 2 12.4 28
May 374.0 - 19.1 17 64.6 12
June 350.1 - 33.1 14 179.6 22
July 502.7 - 26.3 25 120.6 15
August 566.5 - 28.5 25 124.1 5
September 1165.8 - 58.3 22 242.9 23
October 88.2 - 4.5 14 16.5 10
November 241.3 - 25.4 7 100.7 10
December 0 - 0 0 0 0
SUM 3378.9
101
24-Hr Day of
January 0.5 - 0.1 1 0.5 8

February 4.2 - 0.6 2 2.6 8
March 17.3 - 2.3 5 12.6 27
April 210.6 - 17.2 11 84.4 21
May 331.4 - 23.0 12 93.0 7
June 925.2 - 37.4 25 132.6 2
July 812.9 - 39.3 26 164.3 16
August 277.5 - 14.7 20 59.8 4
September 1259.2 - 48.6 23 163.8 8
October 208.2 - 17.2 14 92.6 3
November 23.5 - 2.4 7 12.3 2
December 0 - 0 0 0 0
SUM 4070.5
24-Hr Day of
January 2.1 - 0.3 3 1.8 18

February 0.0 - - - - -
March 4.2 - 0.8 1 4.2 12
April 9.5 - 1.4 2 7.5 29
May 84.6 - 10.2 3 46.2 26
June 216.5 - 10.2 18 35.7 4
July 347.0 - 16.0 20 64.2 25
August 474.8 - 19.1 24 60.4 28
September 277.1 - 18.5 14 70.3 1
October 401.6 - 25.6 15 113.6 19
November 59.6 - 4.5 10 16.6 11
December 41.2 - 5.9 4 32 16
SUM 1918.2
102
Appendix Table 41. Synoptic Rainfall Data at CIAC Station (2001)
24-Hr Day of
January 1.8 - 0.3 2 1.6 7

February 42.4 - 3.3 9 12.0 1
March 41.0 - 5.4 5 29.6 26
April 153.4 - 11.1 10 48.0 22
May 113.1 - 7.1 15 35.6 10
June 225.4 - 10.3 21 41.0 26
July 590.0 - 22.6 29 29.6 5
August 467.1 - 20.3 28 62.2 23
September 277,9 - 13.4 22 42.0 13
October 74.1 - 8.2 10 42.1 9
November 29.9 - 3.9 5 20.6 8
December 35.5 - 2.8 8 12.8 6
SUM 1773.7
24-Hr Day of
January 6.4 - 0.8 2 3.4 15

February 1.5 - 2.0 3 1.2 8
March 9.1 - 1.1 4 5.0 13
April 4.4 - 0.5 4 2.8 6
May 148.9 - 7.7 17 26.4 22
June 115.5 - 10.0 19 41.3 7
July 945.0 - 41.4 24 170.7 12
August 308.6 - 11.2 26 39.2 20
September 301.1 - 14.2 19 50.0 9
October 73.6 - 5.3 13 22.0 7
November 31.7 - 2.6 7 11.3 3
December 4.8 - 0.5 3 2.6 17
SUM 1950.6
103
24-Hr Day of
January 0.2 - 0.0 1 0.2 14

February 5.2 - 0.8 2 4.2 11
March 1.6 - 0.3 1 1.6 20
April 16.7 - 1.8 6 9.5 25
May 400.8 - 23.2 15 91.0 15
June 291.2 - 14.3 19 50.2 26
July 323.0 - 21.6 17 108.0 22
August 664.0 - 32.3 23 123.5 6
September 328.8 - 20.3 20 103.8 2
October 56.0 - 8.8 3 49.0 11
November 39.4 - 6.2 7 34.0 14
December 0.5 - 0.1 1 0.5 6
SUM 2127.4
24-Hr Day of
January 0.0 - 0.0 NONE - 22

February 35.3 - 5.5 4 29.5 26
March 20.0 - 3.6 1 20.0 3
April 88.2 - 10.6 8 54.0 25
May 351.6 - 23.0 15 85.3 16
June 495.3 - 27.9 25 135.0 22
July 618.1 - 32.2 21 130.0 28
August 604.3 - 29.7 23 125.5 27
September 83.1 - 5.6 11 19.4 23
October 46.2 - 2.6 12 9.4 28
November 117.9 - 17.3 5 94.0 10
December 37.7 - 3.9 7 20.5 13
SUM 2497.7
104
24-Hr Day of
January 0.0 - 0.0 NONE - -

February 21.9 - 4.1 2 21.5 20
March 9.0 - 1.0 4 5.5 17
April 15.8 - 1.7 3 6.3 25
May 197.7 - 16.3 10 79.5 28
June 160.3 - 10.6 16 40.2 23
July 312.7 - 16.2 22 75.8 31
August 221.9 - 9.3 18 29.0 12
September 268.8 - 12.5 20 45.0 16
October 128.6 - 11.2 13 59.4 27
November 49.8 - 4.9 11 25.5 16
December 27.8 - 2.8 7 13.2 10
SUM 1414.3
24-Hr Day of
January 91.7 - 13.5 7 75.2 22

February 1.2 - 0.2 2 1.0 26
March 33.1 - 3.1 5 13.1 3
April 20.0 - 3.7 1 20.0 25
May 88.1 - 4.8 12 18.2 16
June 154.4 - 8.4 17 32.2 22
July 760.4 - 36.8 23 107.2 28
August 351.1 - 12.9 28 56.4 27
September 201.5 - 11.0 18 39.0 23
October 104.4 - 8.7 8 37.4 28
November 30.2 - 3.3 4 16.0 10
December 57.8 - 5.6 6 27.8 13
SUM 1893.9
105
24-Hr Day of
January 3.8 - 0.7 1 3.8 24

February 8.0 - 1.1 3 4.8 25
March 40.8 - 5.4 4 29.4 24
April 18.8 - 2.9 4 15.6 3
May 213.4 - 10.7 16 36.0 10
June 179.7 - 13.8 14 59.0 21
July 219.3 - 13.7 20 57.5 5
August 637.8 - 39.1 25 186.8 8
September 435.5 - 18.3 26 79.4 13
October 141.3 - 11.9 16 59.2 1
November 146.6 - 12.0 13 64.0 15
December 7.9 - 0.9 5 4.2 10
SUM 2052.9
24-Hr Day of
January 25.4 - 2.6 5 13.0 22

February 4.6 - 0.5 4 2.6 26
March 57.0 - 5.0 5 21.0 3
April 9.4 - 1.4 2 7.6 25
May 279.3 - 11.5 25 42.8 16
June 270.3 - 10.9 16 95.4 22
July 292.8 - 11.3 24 37.6 28
August 358.4 - 16.8 20 68.6 27
September 297.0 - 19.0 19 69.8 23
October 115.3 - 6.7 14 25.3 28
November 131.3 - 11.2 11 56.2 10
December 2.4 - 3 3 1.2 13
SUM 1843.2
106
24-Hr Day of
January 0 - - - - -
February 21.4 - 13.0 4 10.2 25
March - - - - - -
April 126.5 - 8.7 13 39.2 26
May 507.6 - 30.9 18 129.0 7
June 621.2 - 26.9 24 115.2 18
July 343.5 - 19.3 23 70.8 17
August 318.6 - 21.0 21 109.8 6
September 547.6 - 29.5 22 109.9 26
October 219.7 - 2.9 14 57.5 3
November 40.1 - 4.8 4 21.1 2
December 5.2 - 0.8 2 4.2 22
SUM 2751.4
24-Hr Day of
January 18.8 - 2.3 4 11.2 17

February 0.0 - 0.0 - - -
March 3.6 - 0.6 1 3.6 12
April 36.8 - 5.6 4 30.4 29
May 27.6 - 2.8 8 15.0 25
June 214.6 - 11.7 21 43.4 28
July 265.0 - 13.8 26 60.2 6
August 284.6 - 13.0 26 50.4 26
September 179.5 - 10.1 17 41.4 1
October 356.8 - 30.6 14 155.0 19
November 206.2 - 22.2 13 119.6 10
December 120.2 - 2.9 4 16 13
SUM 1713.7
107
Appendix Table 51. Synoptic Rainfall Data at Cabanatuan Station (2001)
24-Hr Day of
January 3.8 8.4 0.6 3 3.4 15

February 11.8 3.8 2 2 10.4 8
March - 15.2 - - - -
April 3.2 23.9 0.6 1 3.2 25
May 151.6 181.5 11.8 14 63.6 14
June 101.4 302.4 1 15 16 29
July 573.6 358.9 25.9 27 112.8 7
August 379.5 392.3 24.3 25 111.4 9
September 324.3 300.4 14.7 21 50.8 11
October 0 185.6 -2 7 19.8 8
November 0 1010.8 -2 1 0.1 13
December 7.4 35.7 1 2 5.2 3.1
SUM 1556.6
24-Hr Day of
January 1.2 8.4 0.2 1 1.2 7

February 49.3 3.8 3.5 8 11.8 24
March 27.7 15.2 2.9 5 14.5 26
April 3 23.9 0.4 2 1.8 1
May 185.6 181.5 11.1 17 33.8 23
June 124.5 302.4 7.2 15 31.8 28
July 401.4 358.9 21.7 23 107.5 4
August 265.2 392.3 11.2 25 40.6 11
September 168.7 300.4 8.5 22 30.4 16
October 210 185.6 12.4 12 47.8 6
November 21.4 120.8 3.5 5 19.4 8
December 68.6 35.7 6.2 7 31.4 7
SUM 1526.6
108
24-Hr Day of
January - 8.4 - - - -
February 3.1 3.8 0.6 1 3.1 11
March 2.8 15.2 0.5 1 2.8 8
April 11.9 23.9 1.5 3 6.8 21
May 350.8 181.5 28 16 144.6 27
June 144.1 302.4 8.5 16 32.8 16
July 378 358.9 26.9 18 133 22
August 676.8 392.3 23.2 27 79.5 17
September 395.7 300.4 18.5 20 78 18
October 52.2 185.6 8.8 5 49 16
November 121.9 120.8 11 8 53.2 14
December - 35.7 - - - -
SUM 2137.3
24-Hr Day of
January - 8.4 - - - -
February 36.8 3.8 6.6 4 35.4 9
March 0.8 15.2 0.1 1 0.8 22
April 10.2 23.9 1.3 3 6.6 14
May 162 181.5 12.7 15 64.4 22
June 430 302.4 17.6 23 58.8 30
July 204.4 358.9 11.9 17 55.4 24
August 690.5 392.3 35.8 25 150.6 26
September 119.5 300.4 7.6 15 30 1
October 68.2 185.6 5.8 8 24.4 7
November 239.9 120.8 31 8 157.8 29
December 100.8 35.7 2.9 4 86.3 2
SUM 2063.1
109
24-Hr Day of
January 0.5 8.4 0.1 2 0.4 12

February - 3.8 - - - -
March 12.9 15.2 1.8 4 10.1 17
April 3.6 23.9 0.7 1 3.6 3
May 240.7 181.5 13.1 14 41.5 28
June 242 302.4 17.3 15 85 23
July 93.8 358.9 6.2 18 31.2 5
August 198.8 392.3 10.1 20 33 11
September 292.6 300.4 13.9 24 46.2 16
October 160.2 185.6 13.4 12 53.6 27
November 32 120.8 2.3 11 8 27
December 61.1 35.7 5.2 14 25.4 27
SUM 1338.2
24-Hr Day of
January 196 8.4 25.6 6 137.2 25

February 0.1 3.8 0 1 0.1 8
March 14.6 15.2 1.6 3 10 31
April 88.4 23.9 16.1 1 88.4 28
May 97.6 181.5 9 6 40 20
June 5 6 1.5 12 67.5 3
July 7 6 1.5 25 128 31
August 333.6 392.3 16.7 24 78.4 26
September 216.4 300.4 11.6 21 40 7
October 82.8 185.6 7.5 10 34.8 29
November 81.1 120.8 7.5 7 37 11
December 54.4 35.7 4.4 6 14.2 1
SUM 1177.0
110
24-Hr Day of
January 0.2 8.4 - 1 0.2 15

February 0 3.8 - - - -
March 44 15.2 5.2 4 23.6 22
April 29.4 23.9 4.5 4 24.6 11
May 151.6 181.5 13.3 14 72.4 26
June 97.8 302.4 7.4 13 32.4 8
July 256.7 358.7 12.6 21 49.4 26
August 403 392.3 23.4 27 121.8 8
September 408 300.4 23.7 18 106 13
October 171 185.6 13 12 52 1
November 303.8 120.8 26.9 14 119.9 15
December 11.3 35.7 1.4 3 7.7 10
SUM 1876.8
24-Hr Day of
January 85.8 8.4 8.7 6 33.6 13

February 18 3.8 1.9 5 9.2 26
March 36.2 15.2 4.5 4 22.2 3
April 43.5 23.9 4.2 5 18.8 25
May 372.8 181.5 16.1 26 73.2 22
June 199 302.4 16.1 13 85.2 22
July 322.6 358.9 16.2 22 53.6 14
August 430.4 392.3 20.1 22 86.6 2
September 296.4 300.4 15 19 56.6 30
October 200.1 185.6 17.8 15 94.8 4
November 138.7 120.8 9.8 11 45.2 10
December 9 35.7 1.4 2 8 13
SUM 2152.5
111
24-Hr Day of
January - 8.4 - - - -
February 13.2 3.8 2.1 3 10.8 18
March 16.2 15.2 2.9 2 16 25
April 236.3 23.9 18.1 11 72 20
May 172 181.5 14 18 73.8 7
June 510.9 302.4 22.3 23 102.8 12
July 454.2 358.9 19.2 26 79.4 10
August 344.5 392.3 17.8 22 81 6
September 527.1 300.4 24.1 23 107.6 20
October 352.5 185.6 22.5 15 96.2 8
November 44.8 120.8 4.8 6 21 4
December 1 35.7 0.2 1 1 23
SUM 2672.7
24-Hr Day of
January 0.2 8.4 - 1 0.2 18

February - 3.8 - - - -
March 6 15.2 0.8 2 3.2 12
April 75.8 23.9 8.1 5 37.8 28
May 9.4 181.5 0.9 4 3.2 28
June 170.8 302.4 12 16 63.2 13
July 355.8 358.9 18.4 22 87 28
August 241.6 392.3 10.1 23 40.8 7
September 162.5 300.4 8.9 17 38.2 1
October 169.2 185.6 14.8 11 65.3 18
November 122.5 120.8 9.1 13 39 11
December 23.2 35.7 4.1 2 23 14
SUM 1337.0
112
Appendix Table 61. Normal Distribution of Iba Zambales Station
2001 264.4 264.4 1 0.09 1.34 195.64 52.95 70.69 266.33
2002 250.9 250.9 2 0.18 0.91 195.64 52.95 48.10 243.74
2003 201.6 247.2 3 0.27 0.60 195.64 52.95 32.01 227.65
2004 221.4 221.4 4 0.36 0.35 195.64 52.95 18.47 214.11
2005 145.6 217.3 5 0.45 0.11 195.64 52.95 6.05 201.69
2006 217.3 201.6 6 0.55 0.00 195.64 52.95 0.00 195.64
2007 247.2 152.6 7 0.64 0.00 195.64 52.95 0.00 195.64
2008 131.8 145.6 8 0.73 0.00 195.64 52.95 0.00 195.64
2009 152.6 131.8 9 0.82 0.00 195.64 52.95 0.00 195.64
2010 123.6 123.6 10 0.91 0.00 195.64 52.95 0.00 195.64
Mean 195.64
Sn 52.95
CV (%) 27.06
Appendix Table 62. Normal Distribution of Science Garden Station
2001 110.4 455 1 0.09 1.34 174.36 106.38 142.04 316.40
2002 246.4 246.4 2 0.18 0.91 174.36 106.38 96.65 271.01
2003 137.4 159.6 3 0.27 0.60 174.36 106.38 64.32 238.68
2004 135.6 147 4 0.36 0.35 174.36 106.38 37.10 211.46
2005 104.6 137.4 5 0.45 0.11 174.36 106.38 12.15 186.51
2006 159.6 135.6 6 0.55 0.00 174.36 106.38 0.00 174.36
2007 147 125.6 7 0.64 0.00 174.36 106.38 0.00 174.36
2008 125.6 122 8 0.73 0.00 174.36 106.38 0.00 174.36
2009 455 110.4 9 0.82 0.00 174.36 106.38 0.00 174.36
2010 122 104.6 10 0.91 0.00 174.36 106.38 0.00 174.36
Mean 174.36
Sn 106.38
CV (%) 61.01
113
Appendix Table 63. Normal Distribution of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station
2001 147.6 287.6 1 0.09 1.34 194.10 53.45 71.37 265.47
2002 287.6 242.9 2 0.18 0.91 194.10 53.45 48.56 242.66
2003 168 230 3 0.27 0.60 194.10 53.45 32.32 226.42
2004 230 228 4 0.36 0.35 194.10 53.45 18.64 212.74
2005 152 207 5 0.45 0.11 194.10 53.45 6.10 200.20
2006 207 168 6 0.55 0.00 194.10 53.45 0.00 194.10
2007 228 164.3 7 0.64 0.00 194.10 53.45 0.00 194.10
2008 242.9 152 8 0.73 0.00 194.10 53.45 0.00 194.10
2009 164.3 147.6 9 0.82 0.00 194.10 53.45 0.00 194.10
2010 113.6 113.6 10 0.91 0.00 194.10 53.45 0.00 194.10
Mean 194.1
Sn 53.45
CV (%) 27.54
Appendix Table 64. Normal Distribution of CIAC Station
2001 62.2 186.8 1 0.09 1.34 124.43 39.62 52.90 177.33
2002 170.7 170.7 2 0.18 0.91 124.43 39.62 36.00 160.43
2003 123.5 155 3 0.27 0.60 124.43 39.62 23.96 148.39
2004 135 135 4 0.36 0.35 124.43 39.62 13.82 138.25
2005 79.5 129 5 0.45 0.11 124.43 39.62 4.52 128.95
2006 107.2 123.5 6 0.55 0.00 124.43 39.62 0.00 124.43
2007 186.8 107.2 7 0.64 0.00 124.43 39.62 0.00 124.43
2008 95.4 95.4 8 0.73 0.00 124.43 39.62 0.00 124.43
2009 129 79.5 9 0.82 0.00 124.43 39.62 0.00 124.43
2010 155 62.2 10 0.91 0.00 124.43 39.62 0.00 124.43
Mean 124.43
Sn 39.62
CV (%) 31.84
114
Appendix Table 65. Normal Distribution of Cabanatuan Station
2001 112.8 157.8 1 0.09 1.34 115.61 24.61 32.86 148.47
2002 107.5 144.6 2 0.18 0.91 115.61 24.61 22.36 137.97
2003 144.6 137.2 3 0.27 0.60 115.61 24.61 14.88 130.49
2004 157.8 121.8 4 0.36 0.35 115.61 24.61 8.58 124.19
2005 85 112.8 5 0.45 0.11 115.61 24.61 2.81 118.42
2006 137.2 107.6 6 0.55 0.00 115.61 24.61 0.00 115.61
2007 121.8 107.5 7 0.64 0.00 115.61 24.61 0.00 115.61
2008 94.8 94.8 8 0.73 0.00 115.61 24.61 0.00 115.61
2009 107.6 87 9 0.82 0.00 115.61 24.61 0.00 115.61
2010 87 85 10 0.91 0.00 115.61 24.61 0.00 115.61
Mean 115.61
Sn 24.61
CV (%) 21.29
Appendix Table 66. Log Normal Distribution of Iba Zambales Station

2001 264.4 264.4 2.42 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.47 298.17
2002 250.9 250.9 2.40 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.40 252.78
2003 201.6 247.2 2.39 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.36 228.42
2004 221.4 221.4 2.35 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.32 210.53
2005 145.6 217.3 2.34 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.29 195.64
2006 217.3 201.6 2.30 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.26 182.25
2007 247.2 152.6 2.18 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.23 169.45
2008 131.8 145.6 2.16 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 2.19 156.40
2009 152.6 131.8 2.12 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 2.15 141.89
2010 123.6 123.6 2.09 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 2.09 122.36
Mean 2.28
Sn 0.12
115
Appendix Table 67. Log Normal Distribution of Science Garden Station

2001 110.4 455 2.66 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.50 317.79
2002 246.4 246.4 2.39 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.39 245.87
2003 137.4 159.6 2.20 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.32 210.05
2004 135.6 147 2.17 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.27 185.05
2005 104.6 137.4 2.14 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.22 165.12
2006 159.6 135.6 2.13 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.17 147.89
2007 147 125.6 2.10 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.12 132.07
2008 125.6 122 2.09 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 2.07 116.61
2009 455 110.4 2.04 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 2.00 100.24
2010 122 104.6 2.02 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 1.90 79.64
Mean 2.19
Sn 0.19
Appendix Table 68. Log Normal Distribution of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station

2001 147.6 287.6 2.46 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.47 294.42
2002 287.6 242.9 2.39 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.40 250.06
2003 168 230 2.36 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.35 226.21
2004 230 228 2.36 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.32 208.68
2005 152 207 2.32 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.29 194.08
2006 207 168 2.23 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.26 180.94
2007 228 164.3 2.22 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.23 168.36
2008 242.9 152 2.18 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 2.19 155.54
2009 164.3 147.6 2.17 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 2.15 141.26
2010 113.6 113.6 2.06 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 2.09 122.01
Mean 2.27
Sn 0.12
116
Appendix Table 69. Log Normal Distribution of CIAC Station

2001 62.2 186.8 2.27 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.31 205.13
2002 170.7 170.7 2.23 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.23 168.14
2003 123.5 155 2.19 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.17 148.82
2004 135 135 2.13 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.13 134.90
2005 79.5 129 2.11 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.09 123.49
2006 107.2 123.5 2.09 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.05 113.38
2007 186.8 107.2 2.03 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.02 103.86
2008 95.4 95.4 1.98 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 1.97 94.31
2009 129 79.5 1.90 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 1.92 83.87
2010 155 62.2 1.79 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 1.85 70.17
Mean 2.07
Sn 0.15
Appendix Table 70. Log Normal Distribution of Cabanatuan Station

2001 112.8 157.8 2.20 1 0.06 2.41 1.60 2.20 158.67
2002 107.5 144.6 2.16 2 0.15 1.93 1.02 2.15 140.49
2003 144.6 137.2 2.14 3 0.25 1.66 0.67 2.12 130.38
2004 157.8 121.8 2.09 4 0.35 1.45 0.38 2.09 122.77
2005 85 112.8 2.05 5 0.45 1.26 0.12 2.07 116.31
2006 137.2 107.6 2.03 6 0.55 1.09 -0.12 2.04 110.39
2007 121.8 107.5 2.03 7 0.65 0.93 -0.38 2.02 104.62
2008 94.8 94.8 1.98 8 0.75 0.76 -0.66 1.99 98.63
2009 107.6 87 1.94 9 0.85 0.58 -1.00 1.96 91.80
2010 87 85 1.93 10 0.94 0.34 -1.51 1.92 82.31
Mean 2.05
Sn 0.09
117
Appendix Table 71. Log Pearson Type III of Iba Zambales Station
Record RF. Log

Rainfall ̅ )𝟑
Rank (𝒚 − 𝒚 P W Z KT YT XT
years Order RF.
2001 264.4 264.4 2.42 1 0.003 0.05 2.45 1.65 3.35 2.69 492.23
2002 250.9 250.9 2.40 2 0.002 0.15 1.95 1.04 1.11 2.41 259.09
2003 201.6 247.2 2.39 3 0.002 0.25 1.67 0.67 0.12 2.29 195.67
2004 221.4 221.4 2.35 4 0.000 0.35 1.45 0.39 -0.47 2.22 165.07
2005 145.6 217.3 2.34 5 0.000 0.45 1.26 0.13 -0.86 2.17 147.62
2006 217.3 201.6 2.30 6 0.000 0.55 1.09 -0.12 -1.11 2.14 137.46
2007 247.2 152.6 2.18 7 -0.001 0.65 0.93 -0.38 -1.23 2.12 132.63
2008 131.8 145.6 2.16 8 -0.001 0.75 0.76 -0.67 -1.22 2.12 133.23
2009 152.6 131.8 2.12 9 -0.004 0.85 0.57 -1.01 -0.98 2.15 142.64
2010 123.6 123.6 2.09 10 -0.006 0.95 0.32 -1.56 -0.13 2.26 182.02
ȳ 2.28
Sn 0.12
Cs -0.37
k -0.06
Appendix Table 72. Log Pearson Type III of Science Garden Station
Record RF. Log XT

Rainfall ̅ )𝟑
Rank (𝒚 − 𝒚 P W Z KT YT
years Order RF.
2001 110.4 455 2.66 1 0.1000 0.05 2.45 1.65 3.20 2.81 647.65
2002 246.4 246.4 2.39 2 0.0077 0.15 1.95 1.04 0.96 2.38 239.35
2003 137.4 159.6 2.20 3 0.0000 0.25 1.67 0.67 0.02 2.20 157.42
2004 135.6 147 2.17 4 0.0000 0.35 1.45 0.39 -0.53 2.09 123.20
2005 104.6 137.4 2.14 5 0.000 0.45 1.26 0.13 -0.88 2.02 105.60
2006 159.6 135.6 2.13 6 0.000 0.55 1.09 -0.12 -1.09 1.98 96.395
2007 147 125.6 2.10 7 -0.001 0.65 0.93 -0.38 -1.17 1.97 92.962
2008 125.6 122 2.09 8 -0.001 0.75 0.76 -0.67 -1.11 1.98 95.402
2009 455 110.4 2.04 9 -0.003 0.85 0.57 -1.01 -0.83 2.03 107.88
2010 122 104.6 2.02 10 -0.005 0.95 0.32 -1.56 0.03 2.20 158.35
ȳ 2.19
Sn 0.19
Cs 1.86
K 0.31
118
Appendix Table 73. Log Pearson Type III of Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station
Record RF. Log

Rainfall ̅ )𝟑
years Order RF.
2001 147.6 287.6 2.46 1 0.0064 0.05 2.45 1.65 3.35 2.68 483.92
2002 287.6 242.9 2.39 2 0.0014 0.15 1.95 1.04 1.11 2.41 256.50
2003 168 230 2.36 3 0.0007 0.25 1.67 0.67 0.13 2.29 194.26
2004 230 228 2.36 4 0.0006 0.35 1.45 0.39 -0.47 2.22 164.13
2005 152 207 2.32 5 0.0001 0.45 1.26 0.13 -0.86 2.17 146.92
2006 207 168 2.23 6 0.000 0.55 1.09 -0.12 -1.11 2.14 136.88
2007 228 164.3 2.22 7 0.000 0.65 0.93 -0.38 -1.24 2.12 132.07
2008 242.9 152 2.18 8 -0.001 0.75 0.76 -0.67 -1.22 2.12 132.63
2009 164.3 147.6 2.17 9 -0.001 0.85 0.57 -1.01 -0.98 2.15 141.85
2010 113.6 113.6 2.06 10 -0.010 0.95 0.32 -1.56 -0.13 2.26 180.50
ȳ 2.27
Sn 0.12
Cs -0.23
K -0.04
Appendix Table 74. Log Pearson Type III of CIAC Station
Record RF. Log

Rainfall ̅ )𝟑
years Order RF.
2001 62.2 186.8 2.27 1 0.0078 0.05 2.45 1.6 3.3 2.57 373.85
2002 170.7 170.7 2.23 2 0.0040 0.15 1.95 1.0 1.1 2.24 172.63
2003 123.5 155 2.19 3 0.0016 0.25 1.67 0.7 0.1 2.09 123.21
2004 135 135 2.13 4 0.0002 0.35 1.45 0.4 -0.5 2.00 100.49
2005 79.5 129 2.11 5 0.0001 0.45 1.26 0.1 -0.9 1.94 87.923
2006 107.2 123.5 2.09 6 0.0000 0.55 1.09 -0.1 -1.1 1.91 80.772
2007 186.8 107.2 2.03 7 0.000 0.65 0.93 -0.4 -1.2 1.89 77.439
2008 95.4 95.4 1.98 8 -0.001 0.75 0.76 -0.7 -1.2 1.89 77.938
2009 129 79.5 1.90 9 -0.005 0.85 0.57 -1.0 -1.0 1.93 84.690
2010 155 62.2 1.79 10 -0.022 0.95 0.32 -1.6 -0.1 2.06 113.62
ȳ 2.07
Sn 0.15
Cs -0.58
k -0.10
119
Appendix Table 75. Log Pearson Type III of Cabanatuan Station
Record RF. Log

Rainfall ̅ )𝟑
years Order RF.
2001 112.8 157.8 2.20 1 0.0030 0.05 2.45 1.65 3.35 2.36 229.85
2002 107.5 144.6 2.16 2 0.0012 0.15 1.95 1.04 1.11 2.16 143.23
2003 144.6 137.2 2.14 3 0.0006 0.25 1.67 0.67 0.13 2.07 116.42
2004 157.8 121.8 2.09 4 0.0000 0.35 1.45 0.39 -0.47 2.01 102.67
2005 85 112.8 2.05 5 0.0000 0.45 1.26 0.13 -0.86 1.98 94.53
2006 137.2 107.6 2.03 6 0.0000 0.55 1.09 -0.12 -1.11 1.95 89.66
2007 121.8 107.5 2.03 7 0.0000 0.65 0.93 -0.38 -1.24 1.94 87.30
2008 94.8 94.8 1.98 8 0.000 0.75 0.76 -0.67 -1.22 1.94 87.56
2009 107.6 87 1.94 9 -0.002 0.85 0.57 -1.01 -0.98 1.96 92.05
2010 87 85 1.93 10 -0.002 0.95 0.32 -1.56 -0.13 2.04 110.16
ȳ 2.05
Sn 0.09
Cs 0.15
K 0.02
Appendix Table 76. Gumbel of Iba Zambales Station

2001 264.4 264.4 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 299.09
2002 250.9 250.9 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 257.58
2003 201.6 247.2 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 231.83
2004 221.4 221.4 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 212.31
2005 145.6 217.3 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 195.94
2006 217.3 201.6 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 181.28
2007 247.2 152.6 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 167.39
2008 131.8 145.6 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 153.43
2009 152.6 131.8 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 138.29
2010 123.6 123.6 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 119.26
ȳ 195.64 Yn 0.50
Sn 52.95 Sn 0.95
120
Appendix Table 77. Gumbel of Science Garden Station

2001 110.4 455 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 382.23
2002 246.4 246.4 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 298.81
2003 137.4 159.6 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 247.08
2004 135.6 147 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 207.85
2005 104.6 137.4 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 174.97
2006 159.6 135.6 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 145.51
2007 147 125.6 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 117.59
2008 125.6 122 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 89.55
2009 455 110.4 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 59.12
2010 122 104.6 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 20.90
ȳ 174.36 Yn 0.50
Sn 106.38 Sn 0.95
Appendix Table 78. Gumbel of Cubi Pt Subic Bay Station

2001 147.6 287.6 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 298.54
2002 287.6 242.9 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 256.63
2003 168 230 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 230.63
2004 230 228 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 210.92
2005 152 207 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 194.41
2006 207 168 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 179.60
2007 228 164.3 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 165.58
2008 242.9 152 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 151.49
2009 164.3 147.6 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 136.20
2010 113.6 113.6 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 117.00
ȳ 194.1 Yn 0.50
Sn 53.45 Sn 0.95
121
Appendix Table 79. Gumbel of CIAC Station

2001 62.2 186.8 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 201.85
2002 170.7 170.7 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 170.78
2003 123.5 155 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 151.51
2004 135 135 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 136.90
2005 79.5 129 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 124.66
2006 107.2 123.5 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 113.68
2007 186.8 107.2 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 103.29
2008 95.4 95.4 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 92.84
2009 129 79.5 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 81.51
2010 155 62.2 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 67.27
ȳ 124.43 Yn 0.50
Sn 39.62 Sn 0.95
Appendix Table 80. Gumbel of Cabanatuan Station

2001 112.8 157.8 1 0.09 11.00 2.35 1.95 163.70
2002 107.5 144.6 2 0.18 5.50 1.61 1.17 144.40
2003 144.6 137.2 3 0.27 3.67 1.14 0.68 132.43
2004 157.8 121.8 4 0.36 2.75 0.79 0.31 123.36
2005 85 112.8 5 0.45 2.20 0.50 0.01 115.75
2006 137.2 107.6 6 0.55 1.83 0.24 -0.27 108.94
2007 121.8 107.5 7 0.64 1.57 -0.01 -0.53 102.48
2008 94.8 94.8 8 0.73 1.38 -0.26 -0.80 95.99
2009 107.6 87 9 0.82 1.22 -0.53 -1.08 88.95
2010 87 85 10 0.91 1.10 -0.87 -1.44 80.11
ȳ 115.61 Yn 0.50
Sn 24.61 Sn 0.95
122
Appendix Table 81. Goodness of Fit Probability for Iba Zambales Station
Gumbel Log Pearson

S.N Observed EVI Log Normal type III Normal
1 264.4 598.94 298.17 492.23 266.33
2 250.9 568.43 252.78 259.09 243.74
3 201.6 457.02 228.42 195.67 227.65
4 221.4 501.76 210.53 165.07 214.11
5 145.6 330.46 195.64 147.62 201.69
6 217.3 492.50 182.25 137.46 195.64
7 247.2 560.07 169.45 132.63 195.64
8 131.8 299.27 156.40 133.23 195.64
9 152.6 346.28 141.89 142.64 195.64
10 123.6 280.74 122.36 182.02 195.64
Mean 195.64 443.55 195.79 198.77 213.17
Sn 52.95 119.66 53.47 110.24 25.03
Sum 1956.40 4435.46 1957.88 1987.66 2131.71
CV (%) 27.06 26.98 27.31 55.46 11.74
𝑿𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒍 1072.72 122.69 183.68 252.63
𝑿𝟐 𝒕𝒂𝒃 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.2135 0.7552 0.5378 0.6608
value 𝑹𝟐 0.0456 0.0396 0.6356 0.8292
123
Appendix Table 82. Goodness of Fit Probability for Science Garden Station
Gumbel Log Pearson

1 455 382.23 317.79 647.65 316.40
2 246.4 298.81 245.87 239.35 271.01
3 159.6 247.08 210.05 157.42 238.68
4 147 207.85 185.05 123.20 211.46
5 137.4 174.97 165.12 105.60 186.51
6 135.6 145.51 147.89 96.39 174.36
7 125.6 117.59 132.07 92.96 174.36
8 122 89.55 116.61 95.40 174.36
9 110.4 59.12 100.24 107.88 174.36
10 104.6 20.90 79.64 158.35 174.36
Mean 174.36 174.36 170.03 182.42 209.59
Sn 106.38 112.14 72.47 169.58 50.30
Sum 1743.60 1743.61 1700.34 1824.21 2095.86
CV (%) 61.01 64.32 42.62 92.96 24.00
𝑿𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒍 472.54 94.28 124.83 211.07
𝑿𝟐 𝒕𝒂𝒃 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.8358 0.8976 0.2637 0.6808
value 𝑹𝟐 0.7292 0.9908 0.6457 0.7582
124
Appendix Table 83. Goodness of Fit Probability for Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station
Gumbel Log Pearson

1 287.6 298.54 294.42 483.92 265.47
2 242.9 256.63 250.06 256.50 242.66
3 230 230.63 226.21 194.26 226.42
4 228 210.92 208.68 164.13 212.74
5 207 194.41 194.08 146.92 200.20
6 168 179.60 180.94 136.88 194.10
7 164.3 165.58 168.36 132.07 194.10
8 152 151.49 155.54 132.63 194.10
9 147.6 136.20 141.26 141.85 194.10
10 113.6 117.00 122.01 180.50 194.10
Mean 194.10 194.10 194.16 196.97 211.80
Sn 53.45 56.34 52.44 107.88 25.27
Sum 1941.00 1941.00 1941.55 1969.66 2117.98
CV (%) 27.54 29.03 27.01 54.77 11.93
𝑿𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒍 5.15 5.04 179.17 64.97
𝑿𝟐 𝒕𝒂𝒃 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.9823 0.9812 0.7318 0.8977
value 𝑹𝟐 0.9648 0.9991 0.6357 0.8308
125
Appendix Table 84. Goodness of Fit Probability for CIAC Station
Gumbel Log Pearson

1 186.8 201.85 205.13 373.85 177.33
2 170.7 170.78 168.14 172.63 160.43
3 155 151.51 148.82 123.21 148.39
4 135 136.90 134.90 100.49 138.25
5 129 124.66 123.49 87.92 128.95
6 123.5 113.68 113.38 80.77 124.43
7 107.2 103.29 103.86 77.44 124.43
8 95.4 92.84 94.31 77.94 124.43
9 79.5 81.51 83.87 84.69 124.43
10 62.2 67.27 70.17 113.62 124.43
Mean 124.43 124.43 124.61 129.26 137.55
Sn 39.62 41.77 41.05 90.79 18.73
Sum 1244.30 1244.30 1246.08 1292.56 1375.50
CV (%) 31.84 33.57 32.95 70.24 13.62
𝑿𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒍 2.88 4.34 194.40 58.05
𝑿𝟐 𝒕𝒂𝒃 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.9877 0.9799 0.6791 0.8778
value 𝑹𝟐 0.9755 0.9973 0.6492 0.8095
126
Appendix Table 85. Goodness of Fit Probability for Cabanatuan Station
Gumbel Log Pearson

1 157.8 163.70 158.67 229.85 148.47
2 144.6 144.40 140.49 143.23 137.97
3 137.2 132.43 130.38 116.42 130.49
4 121.8 123.36 122.77 102.67 124.19
5 112.8 115.75 116.31 94.53 118.42
6 107.6 108.94 110.39 89.66 115.61
7 107.5 102.48 104.62 87.30 115.61
8 94.8 95.99 98.63 87.56 115.61
9 87 88.95 91.80 92.05 115.61
10 85 80.11 82.31 110.16 115.61
Mean 115.61 115.61 115.64 115.34 123.76
Sn 24.61 25.94 23.23 43.81 11.64
Sum 1156.10 1156.10 1156.37 1153.44 1237.59
CV (%) 21.29 22.44 20.09 37.98 9.40
𝑿𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒍 1.10 1.23 48.28 21.62
𝑿𝟐 𝒕𝒂𝒃 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190 16.9190
r-value 0.9905 0.9882 0.7708 0.9316
value 𝑹𝟐 0.9811 0.9990 0.6141 0.8522
127
Appendix Table 86. Double Mass Curve for Iba Zambales Station
Average Cummulative
Annual Annual rainfall at the other stations rainfall Rainfall
Year Rainfall of the
at Iba Cubi Pt. Port Science other
Cabanatuan CIAC Subic Bay Area Garden stations Iba Others
2001 264.4 112.8 62.2 147.6 178 110.4 611 264.4 611
2002 250.9 107.5 170.7 287.6 248.2 246.4 1060.4 515.3 1671.4
2003 201.6 144.6 123.5 168 123.6 137.4 697.1 716.9 2368.5
2004 221.4 157.8 135 230 111.4 135.6 769.8 938.3 3138.3
2005 145.6 85 79.5 152 91 104.6 512.1 1083.9 3650.4
2006 217.3 137.2 107.2 207 94 159.6 705 1301.2 4355.4
2007 247.2 121.8 186.8 228 154 147 837.6 1548.4 5193
2008 131.8 94.8 95.4 242.9 120.9 125.6 679.6 1680.2 5872.6
2009 152.6 107.6 129 164.3 258.5 455 1114.4 1832.8 6987
2010 123.6 87 155 113.6 131.4 122 609 1956.4 7596
128
Appendix Table 87. Double Mass Curve for Science Garden Station
Annual Average Cummulative

Rainfall Annual rainfall at the other stations rainfall Rainfall
Year at Cubi Pt. of the
Science Subic Port other Science
Garden Cabanatuan CIAC Bay Iba Area stations Garden Others
2001 110.4 112.8 62.2 147.6 264.4 178 765 110.4 765
2002 246.4 107.5 170.7 287.6 250.9 248.2 1064.9 356.8 1829.9
2003 137.4 144.6 123.5 168 201.6 123.6 761.3 494.2 2591.2
2004 135.6 157.8 135 230 221.4 111.4 855.6 629.8 3446.8
2005 104.6 85 79.5 152 145.6 91 553.1 734.4 3999.9
2006 159.6 137.2 107.2 207 217.3 94 762.7 894 4762.6
2007 147 121.8 186.8 228 247.2 154 937.8 1041 5700.4
2008 125.6 94.8 95.4 242.9 131.8 120.9 685.8 1166.6 6386.2
2009 455 107.6 129 164.3 152.6 258.5 812 1621.6 7198.2
2010 122 87 155 113.6 123.6 131.4 610.6 1743.6 7808.8
129
Appendix Table 88. Double Mass Curve for Cubi Pt. Subic Bay Station
Annual Cummulative
Rainfall Annual rainfall at the other stations Average Rainfall
at Cubi rainfall
Year
Pt. of the
Subic Port Science other Cubi Pt.
Bay Cabanatuan CIAC Iba Area Garden stations subic Bay Others
2001 147.6 112.8 62.2 264.4 178 110.4 727.8 147.6 727.8
2002 287.6 107.5 170.7 250.9 248.2 246.4 1023.7 435.2 1751.5
2003 168 144.6 123.5 201.6 123.6 137.4 730.7 603.2 2482.2
2004 230 157.8 135 221.4 111.4 135.6 761.2 833.2 3243.4
2005 152 85 79.5 145.6 91 104.6 505.7 985.2 3749.1
2006 207 137.2 107.2 217.3 94 159.6 715.3 1192.2 4464.4
2007 228 121.8 186.8 247.2 154 147 856.8 1420.2 5321.2
2008 242.9 94.8 95.4 131.8 120.9 125.6 568.5 1663.1 5889.7
2009 164.3 107.6 129 152.6 258.5 455 1102.7 1827.4 6992.4
2010 113.6 87 155 123.6 131.4 122 619 1941 7611.4
130
Appendix Table 89. Double Mass Curve for CIAC Station
Average Cummulative
Year Rainfall Cubi Pt. of the
at Subic Port Science other
CIAC Cabanatuan Bay Iba Area Garden stations CIAC Others
2001 62.2 112.8 147.6 264.4 178 110.4 813.2 62.2 813.2
2002 170.7 107.5 287.6 250.9 248.2 246.4 1140.6 232.9 1953.8
2003 123.5 144.6 168 201.6 123.6 137.4 775.2 356.4 2729
2004 135 157.8 230 221.4 111.4 135.6 856.2 491.4 3585.2
2005 79.5 85 152 145.6 91 104.6 578.2 570.9 4163.4
2006 107.2 137.2 207 217.3 94 159.6 815.1 678.1 4978.5
2007 186.8 121.8 228 247.2 154 147 898 864.9 5876.5
2008 95.4 94.8 242.9 131.8 120.9 125.6 716 960.3 6592.5
2009 129 107.6 164.3 152.6 258.5 455 1138 1089.3 7730.5
2010 155 87 113.6 123.6 131.4 122 577.6 1244.3 8308.1
131
Appendix Table 90. Double Mass Curve for Cabanatuan Station
Average C4ummulative
Annual rainfall at the other stations rainfall Rainfall
Year Annual of the
Rainfall at Cubi Port Science other
Cabanatuan CIAC Pt. Iba Area Garden stations Cabanatuan Others
2001 112.8 62.2 147.6 264.4 178 110.4 762.6 112.8 762.6
2002 107.5 170.7 287.6 250.9 248.2 246.4 1203.8 220.3 1966.4
2003 144.6 123.5 168 201.6 123.6 137.4 754.1 364.9 2720.5
2004 157.8 135 230 221.4 111.4 135.6 833.4 522.7 3553.9
2005 85 79.5 152 145.6 91 104.6 572.7 607.7 4126.6
2006 137.2 107.2 207 217.3 94 159.6 785.1 744.9 4911.7
2007 121.8 186.8 228 247.2 154 147 963 866.7 5874.7
2008 94.8 95.4 242.9 131.8 120.9 125.6 716.6 961.5 6591.3
2009 107.6 129 164.3 152.6 258.5 455 1159.4 1069.1 7750.7
2010 87 155 113.6 123.6 131.4 122 645.6 1156.1 8396.3
132
Appendix Table 91. Double Mass Curve for Port Area Station
Average Cummulative
Year Rainfall of the
at Port Cubi Pt. Science other Port
Area Cabanatuan CIAC Subic Bay Iba Garden stations area Others
2001 178 112.8 62.2 147.6 264.4 110.4 697.4 178 697.4
2002 248.2 107.5 170.7 287.6 250.9 246.4 1063.1 426.2 1760.5
2003 123.6 144.6 123.5 168 201.6 137.4 775.1 549.8 2535.6
2004 111.4 157.8 135 230 221.4 135.6 879.8 661.2 3415.4
2005 91 85 79.5 152 145.6 104.6 566.7 752.2 3982.1
2006 94 137.2 107.2 207 217.3 159.6 828.3 846.2 4810.4
2007 154 121.8 186.8 228 247.2 147 930.8 1000.2 5741.2
2008 120.9 94.8 95.4 242.9 131.8 125.6 690.5 1121.1 6431.7
2009 258.5 107.6 129 164.3 152.6 455 1008.5 1379.6 7440.2
2010 131.4 87 155 113.6 123.6 122 601.2 1511 8041.4
133
Appendix Figure
Appendix Figure 1. Double Mass Curve for Iba, Zambales
8000
RAINFALL AT IBA ZAMBALES
7000
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL RAINFALL AT THE OTHER STATIONS
Appendix Figure 2. Double Mass Curve for Science Garden

CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL
9000
RAINFALL AT SCIENCE
8000
7000
GARDEN
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
134
Appendix Figure 3. Double Mass Curve for Cubi Pt., Subic Bay
8000
RAINFALL AT CUBI PT., SUBIC

CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL 7000
6000
5000
4000
BAY
3000
2000
1000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Appendix Figure 4. Double Mass Curve for CIAC
9000
8000
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL
7000
RAINFALL AT CIAC
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
135
Appendix Figure 5. Double Mass Curve for Cabanatuan
9000
RAINFALL AT CABANATUAN
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL 8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
CUMMULUTATIVE ANNUAL RAINFALL AT THE OTHER STATIONS
Appendix Figure 6. Double Mass Curve for Port Area
9000
RAINFALL AT PORT AREA
CUMMULATIVE ANNUAL
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
136
Normal Distribution using Microsoft Excel Software
137
138
Log Normal Distribution using Microsoft Excel Software
139
140
Log Pearson Distribution using Microsoft Excel Software
141
142
143
144
Gumbel Distribution using Microsoft Excel Software
145
146
Chi Square Test using Microsoft Excel Software
147
Correlation Coefficient Test using Microsoft Excel Software
Coefficient of Determination Test using Microsoft Excel Software
148
LETTER

POBLACION II, MALINTA, VALENZUELA CITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
January 22, 2018

DR. VICENTE B. MALANO
Acting Administrator, PAGASA
Good day!
We are the students of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela currently taking
up Civil Engineering Project. In line with this, our thesis is entitled “Construction of One
Day Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and Isohyetal Map for NCR, Philippines.”
We are asking your permission if we can gather data regarding stations profiling,
daily annual precipitation and annual total rainfall data of synoptic weather stations in
NCR.
Attached in this document is the thesis proposal.
Hoping for your kind approval and positive feedback. Kindly inform us with your
most convenient date and time for your assistance. You may contact us through
09754975154 or e-mail us through celene_pia@yahoo.com.
Respectfully Yours,
Celene Pia J. Ngo

Crissalyn Joyce V. Mondero
John Paul A. Matorres
Mc. Lorenz M. Castillo
Noted by:
Engr. Jordan N. Velasco

Dean, College of Engineering and Information Technology
149
RESUME
150
CASTILLO, MC. LORENZ M.
.8 lt. 13 blk. 7 Northville 1A Phase 2B, Bignay Valenzuela City, Metro Manila
(+63) 9777180042 email: coco23t@gmail.com
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
 Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela

 Dalandanan National High School

G. Lazaro St. Dalandanan, Valenzuela City
Fifth Honorable Mention
Batch 2012-2013
 Pasolo Elementary School

Pasolo Rd., Pasolo, Valenzuela City
First Honorable Mention
Batch 2008-2009
ORGANIZATIONS
 Association of Civil Engineering Students (PLV-ACES)

Member
2013-Present
AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
 CEIT Compendium Sport Writer Head

2017
 1st Runner Up 2017 KACEYAHAN QUIZ BEE 2.0
2017
 Finalist in 2017 Dance Battle
2017
 Finalist in Bridge Making Contest
2017
 Participant in National Civil Engineering Quiz Bee (School Elimination)
2017
 Contributor in Uhay: A Journal for Social Sciences
2016
 1st Runner up 2016 Dance Battle
2016
 Finalist General Information Quiz Bee
2016
 Participant in Hataw Sayaw
2015
 Participant in Cheer dance Competition (2015 PLV- Intramurals)
2015
 Semi Finalist in Hataw Sayaw
2014
 Participant in Cheer dance Competition (2014 PLV- Intramurals)
2014
 Participant in 1st KACEYAHAN QUIZ BEE
Pamantasan ngt Lungsod ng Valenzuela
2013
 Honor Student
Dalandanan National High School
2010-2013
 3rd Place in Science Investigatory Project (MaGaLeaCoilBurner)
Marulas Elementary School
2013
 9th Place in 2013 Sports Writing Competition and Sports Commentator
Vicente P. Trinidad National High School
2013
 1st Place in Essay Writing Contest in English and Social Studies
2013
 5th Place in 2012 Sport Writing Competition
Valenzuela National High School
2012
 DNHS Oxyllibrium Newsletter Sports Contributor
2012-2013
 Honor Student
Pasolo Elementary School
2003-2009
SEMINARS AND TRAININGS
 Personality Development Seminar

Social Hall Valenzuela City
Poblacion II, Valenzuela City
2017
 2017 National Civil Engineering Summit: Reconstruct: Defining Service

through Innovation
UP- ACES Institute of Civil Engineering
UP Diliman, Quezon City
 2017 AdvanCE: Six Fields of Civil Engineering
Institute of Civil Engineering
2017
 2016 Junior Philippine of Civil Engineering Student Convention: Ground
Zero PH
JPICE-Manila Chapter
SM Sta. Mesa, Manila City
2016
 2016 National Civil Engineering Summit: Civil Engineers of the Nation
UP-ACES Institute of Civil Engineering
2016
 2015 National Civil Engineering Summit: Streamlining Civil Engineering in
an Advancing Nation
UP-ACES Institute of Civil Engineering
2015
 2013 Annual CE Talk: Shake It up
UP Aggregates Institute of Civil Engineering
2013
ON-THE-JOB TRAININGS
 Quality Control
FreyPhil Corporation, Calumpit Branch
Brgy. 57 Pungo, Calumpit Bulacan
2017
 Assistant Engineer
Solomonic Builders
Las Veras Maysan, Valenzuela City
2017
PUBLISHED PAPER
 “Pagtaya sa Buhay: Ang Aborsyon ayon sa isang Dating Abortista”

Author/Contributor
Uhay: A journal of the Social Sciences Volume 1 Number 1
ISNN 2467-7167
RESEARCH PAPERS
 “A study of Construction Waste Management Practices in Construction

firms in Valenzuela” College of Civil Engineering and Information Technology,
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela, Valenzuela City, March 2017
 “Evaluating Value Management for Selected Low Cost-Housing Projects
within Metro Manila” College of Civil Engineering and Information
Technology, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela, Valenzuela City, October
2017
THESIS PAPER
“One Day Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and Isohyetal Map for
National Capital Region (NCR) & Region III, Philippines”
The study serves as an initial basis for the improvement of different practices in the
field of planning and designing of hydraulic structures such as dams, reservoir and
earthen dams to lessen the collateral damage of properties considering weather and
flood condition in the Philippines.
SKILL AND INTERESTS

A competitive, hardworking and goal-oriented person. Knowledgeable in Autocadd,
C++ programming, SketchUp, Microsoft office, ArcGIS and Staad software and
program. Interest in puzzle, athletics and travelling. Fluent in Filipino and proficient
in English speaking.
REFERENCE
 Engr. Mark Ondac

Faculty, Civil Engineering and Information Technology Department
0945-120-5186
 Engr. Jordan Velasco
Dean, Civil Engineering and Information Technology Department
0906-595-9484
 Ms. John Paula Alba
Sales, Guanzon Company
Dalandanan, Valenzuela City
0909-608-9854
I hereby certify that all information written above is true and correct
Mc. Lorenz M. Castillo

Applicant
JOHN PAUL A. MATORRES
Contact #: 09050774069
Address: 6057 Matimyas St. Gen. T. De Leon Valenzuela City
Email: jpmatorres@yahoo.com
GOAL AND OBJECTIVE

To find a suitable on-the-job training where I could practice my knowledge and
developed my personality as a career person while enhancing and improving my skills.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
College PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA 2013 – Present

High School ST. BERNADETTE COLLEGE OF VALENZUELA 2009 – 2013

6121 Tullahan Rd, Valenzuela, 1442 Metro Manila
Elementary ST. BERNADETTE COLLEGE OF VALENZUELA 2003 - 2009

6121 Tullahan Rd, Valenzuela, 1442 Metro Manila
SKILLS
- Computer literate in Microsoft office particularly in:

 Microsoft Word
 Microsoft Excel
 Microsoft Powerpoint
- Abobe Photoshop
- AutoCAD
- SketchUp
PERSONAL DATA
Age: 19 years old
Birthdate: April 29, 1997
Birthplace: Valenzuela City
Height: 5`5''
Weight: 80 kg
Civil Status: Single
Citizenship: Filipino
Religion: Roman Catholic
Language Spoken: Tagalog, English
SEMINARS ATTENDED
Calculator Techniques
Valenzuela City Auditorium
CE Talk 2013, INTENCETY

(Seismic Risk Assessment in the Philippines through Civil Engineering)
UP Film Center
Osmeña Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, 1101 Metro Manila
July 20, 2013
UP NCES 2016
(Accelerate. Gearing up as Civil Engineers for the Nation)
UP Film Center
Osmeña Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, 1101 Metro Manila
September 16, 2016
REFERENCES
ENGR. Joe Louise Lee Garcia

Chairperson, Engineering Department
09773168216
I hereby certify that the information above given is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
John Paul A. Matorres

Valenzuela City, 1441
09498156045
crissajoyce36@gmail.com
CRISSALYN JOYCE V. MONDERO
OBJECTIVE To enhance and improve the skills I have in our university and
allowing me to utilize my education while gaining valuable work
experience.
SKILLS &  Skilled in CAD, MS office and Sketch-up

ABILITIES  Knowledgeable in Civil Engineering Sciences:
Strength of Materials, Fluid Mechanics and
Hydraulics, Theory of Structures, Steel Design,
Timber Design and Concrete design.
 Fast learner and independent with strong leadership
and critical thinking skills.
PERSONAL BIRTHDAY: November 17, 1997

INFORMATION AGE: 20 years old
GENDER: Female
MARITAL STATUS: Single
CITIZENSHIP: Filipino
RELIGION: Christian
HEIGHT: 5’0’”
WEIGHT: 45 kg
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY EDUCATION:

Caruhatan West Elementary School (2003-2009)
Karuhatan, Valenzuela City
SECONDARY EDUCATION:
St. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela (2009-2013)
Karuhatan, Valenzuela City
COLLEGE EDUCATION:
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela (2013-Present)
Poblacion II, Malinta Valenzuela City
SEMINARS National Civil Engineering Summit 2015
Next Top Civil Engineer: Discipline. Excellence. Commitment.
Integrity. Relevance.
University of the Philippines Diliman
National Civil Engineering Summit 2016

Accelerate: Gearing up as Civil Engineers for the Nation
Calculator Techniques
Esplana Review Center

Geotechnical Engineering
Personality Development Seminar

City Hall of Valenzuela City
National Civil Engineering Summit 2017

Reconstruct: Defining Service through Innovation
AFFILIATIONS Association of Civil Engineering Student

Member
REFERENCES ENGR. JORDAN VELASCO

Dean, Civil Engineering and Information Technology Department
Contact Number: 09065959484
CELENE PIA J. NGO
47 A. PABLO ST. KARUHATAN, VALENZUELA CITY
292-32-32 ▪ 09335061401 ▪ 09754975154 ▪ celene_pia@yahoo.com ▪ celenepia28@gmail.com
Objectives
Seeking a summer internship that will enhance and utilize my skills and knowledge in the field of
engineering.
Personal Information
Age: 20 yrs. old
Birthday: October 23, 1996
Gender: Female
Height: 5’3”
Weight: 45 kgs.
Citizenship: Filipino
Religion: Born-Again Christian
Skills/Qualifications
 Computer literate in Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint, e-mail and social media
 Demonstrated experience in leadership through active role/participation in clubs and
organizations
 Can operate Autocad, SketchUp, STAAD, GRASP, Adobe Photoshop
Education
Malinta, Valenzuela City
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, June 2013
 Member of Association of Civil Engineering Students (ACES)
Seminars Attended
 CE Talk 2013 – Shake It Up
 3rd JPICE – LNM Students’ Convention: Ground Zero
 NCES 2015 – Next Top Civil Engineer: Discipline.Excellence.Commitment.Integrity.Relevance
 NCES 2016 – Accelerate.Gearing up as Civil Engineers for the Nation
 Calculator Techniques Tutorial
 Profiles: Inspirational Talks from the Pillars of Civil Engineering in the Philippines
 Civil Engineering Laboratory Tour
 Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics Review
 Mathematics Proficiency & Advanced Calculator Techniques
Affiliations
 Association of Civil Engineering Students – Secretary (S.Y. Present)
 Peer Facilitators Organization – Auditor (S.Y. 2015-2016)
 Association of Civil Engineering Students – 1st year representative (S.Y. 2013-2014)
References
ENGR. JOE LOUISE GARCIA
Chairman, Engineering Department
09773168216
I hereby certify that the information above given is true and correct to the best of my
abilities and beliefs
CELENE PIA J. NGO
CELENE PIA J. NGO Page 2

One Day PMP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

One Day PMP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA

Poblacion II, Malinta, Valenzuela City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Capital Region (NCR) & Region III, Philippines

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Presented to the Faculty of the

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela

Castillo, Mc. Lorenz M.

Matorres, John Paul A.

Mondero, Crissalyn Joyce V.

Ngo, Celene Pia J.

To Engr. Jordan Velasco, dean of College of Engineering, for encouraging us to

finish this study.

To the staffs of the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical Astronomical Services

Administration (PAGASA) by providing all the meteorological data needed by the

fulfillment of the study.

this study. It would have been more difficult without them.

LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS ix

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ITS MEANING xii

LIST OF TABLES xiii

LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX xvi

LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDIX xx

1.0 Background of the Study 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem 4

1.3 Significance of the Study 5

1.4 Scope and Limitations 5

1.5 Conceptual Framework 6

1.6 Definition of Terms 8

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11

2.0 Description of the Study Area 11

2.0.1 Geography and Its Feature 11

2.0.3 Climate and Weather 14

2.1 Meteorological Condition and Global Nature of Heavy Precipitation 15

2.2 Concepts of Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) 16

2.3 Methods of PMP Estimation 17

2.3.1 Local Method 17

2.3.2 Transposition Method 17

2.3.3 Combination Method 18

2.3.4 Inferential Method 18

2.3.5 Generalized Method 19

2.3.6 Statistical Method 20

2.4 Data & Statistical Methods of PMP Estimations 20

2.4.1 Sample Size 20

2.4.2 Reconstruction and Estimation of Data 21

2.4.2.1 Station-Average Method 21

2.4.2.2 Normal-Ratio Method 22

2.4.2.3 Isohyetal Method 23

2.4.2.4 Quadrant Method 23

2.4.3 Analysis for Consistency of Records 24

2.4.3.1 Double Mass Curve Analysis 24

2.5 Hershfield Approach for PMP Analysis 25

2.6 Frequency Distribution and Statistical Model Analysis 25

2.6.1 Gumbel Distribution 26

2.6.3 Log Normal Distribution 27

2.6.4 Log Pearson Type III Distribution 27

2.7 Goodness of Fit and Probability Plotting 28

2.7.1 Chi-Square Test 29

2.7.2 Coefficient of Determination 30

2.7.3 Correlation Coefficient 30

2.7.4 Derivation of Return Period 31

2.7.5 Techniques for the Derivations of PMP Contours 31

2.7.5.1 Inverse Distance Weighting 32