Advantages of Deep Bed Filters - Original

Deep Bed Filters and
High Rate Service

R. Rhodes Trussell, Ph.D, P.E.
http://www.trusselltech.com
Ca-Nv AWWA, Sacramento Oct 14, 2004

Outline
 1.Understanding why filtration rate is an
important design consideration
 2. Understanding the relationship between
filter performance, filter rate and filter media
design
 3. A little bit about the technical constraints
to high rate filtration
The Bottom Line
 Deep filters can be operated at substantially
higher rates than those customarily used in
design
 The most important risk in a well-operated
high rate filter plant is not poor water quality,
but difficulties managing recycled flows
But first: the importance of chemical
conditioning
Why the chemistry is important
 Rapid filtration is accomplished by attachment of
the particles to the media, not “filtration” (i.e. rapid
filters do not work by straining or size exclusion)
 Virtually all particles targeted for removal by
filtration are negatively charged and so is the filter
media itself
 Thus the particles and the media are not attracted
to each other, in fact they are repelled by each
other
 Thus, for rapid filtration to succeed, the surface
chemistry of these target particles must be
modified
Why make an issue out of the
chemistry?
 Because it’s important to remember that filter rate
is not the most important aspect of filter design or
operation
 It’s the chemistry
 It’s important to keep in mind that no rapid filter will
perform well in removing particles if the chemistry
is wrong
 One bad thing about high rate filters is that, when
the chemistry is wrong, they produce the same
bad water faster
Why is filter rate important?
Why is filter rate important?
The answer is $$$

The impact of filter rate on the active filter
surface that must be built for a 100 mgd plant
18,000
16,000
14,000
Filter area, sf
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
0 5 10 15 20
Filter Rate, gpm/sf
18,000
16,000
14,000
Filter area, sf
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
0 5 10 15 20
Filter Rate, gpm/sf
18,000
16,000
Filter area, sf
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
0 5 10 15 20
Filter Rate, gpm/sf
18,000 Chicago
16,000
14,000
Filter area, sf
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
0 5 10 15 20
Filter Rate, gpm/sf
18,000 Chicago
16,000
14,000
Filter area, sf
Most in CA
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
0 5 10 15 20
Filter Rate, gpm/sf
18,000 Chicago
16,000
14,000
Filter area, sf
Most in CA
12,000
10,000
8,000 Prospect, Sydney
6,000
4,000
0 5 10 15 20
Filter Rate, gpm/sf
18,000 Chicago
16,000
14,000
Filter area, sf
Most in CA
12,000
10,000
6,000 LAAFP
4,000
0 5 10 15 20
Filter Rate, gpm/sf
18,000 Chicago
16,000
14,000
Filter area, sf
Most in CA
12,000
10,000
6,000 LAAFP
4,000
0 5 10 15 20
Filter Rate, gpm/sf
Between the rates used at Chicago and Los Angeles, the
required filter area changes by more than 3X
18,000 Chicago
16,000
14,000
Filter area, sf
Most in CA
12,000
10,000
6,000 LAAFP
4,000
0 5 10 15 20
Filter Rate, gpm/sf
And filter area is the most expensive part of a conventional
water treatment plant
The relationship between filter
performance, filter rate and filter
media design
Characterizing a Filter Run
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
NTU
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Filter run time
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
NTU
0.5
0.4 Maturation time, tm
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Operating Turbidity, TO
NTU
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1
0.9
0.8 Time to breakthrough, tb
0.7
0.6
NTU
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1
0.9
0.7
0.6
NTU
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
80
70
Headloss, inches
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Run Time, hours
1
0.9
0.7
0.6
NTU
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
80
70
Headloss, inches
60
50
40 ΔHo
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Run Time, hours
1
0.9
0.7
0.6
NTU
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
80
70
Time to design headloss, th
Headloss, inches
60
50
40 ΔHo
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Run Time, hours
1
0.9
0.7
0.6
NTU
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
80
70
Time to design headloss, th
Headloss, inches
60
50
40 ΔHo
30
20
10
Time to breakthrough, tb
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Run Time, hours
Plot of Mintz’ Concept
10 10
9 Optimum 9
8 Depth 8
7 7
Time to
6 6
Time to
t
Turbidity b
5 5
th Design
Breakthru
4 4
3 3 Headloss
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Depth of Filter Media

10 10
9 Optimum 9
8 Depth 8
7 7
Time to
6 6
Time to
t
Turbidity b
5 5
th Design
Breakthru
4 4
3 3 Headloss
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10 10
9 Optimum 9
8 Depth 8
7 7
Time to
6 6
Time to
t
Turbidity b
5 5
th Design
Breakthru
4 4
3 3 Headloss
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10 10
9 Optimum 9
8 Depth 8
7 7
Time to
6 6
Time to
t
Turbidity b
5 5
th Design
Breakthru
4 4
3 3 Headloss
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10 10
9 Optimum 9
8 Depth 8
7 7
Time to
6 6
Time to
t
Turbidity b
5 5
th Design
Breakthru
4 4
3 3 Headloss
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10 10
9 Optimum 9
8 Depth 8
7 7
Time to
6 6
Time to
t
Turbidity b
5 5
th Design
Breakthru
4 4
3 3 Headloss
2
Region of 2
1
Possible Operation 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Let’s look at some real data to
verify Mintz’ concept
Pilot Data on Owens River Water
[Stolarik, et al, 1977; V∞ = 13.5 gpm/sf; 1.55 mm anthracite]
20 20
15 15
Time to th Time to
Turbidity tb, h 10 10 th, h Design
Breakthru Headloss
5 tb 5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Depth of Media, m
20 20
15 15
Time to th Time to
Breakthru Headloss
5 tb 5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Depth of Media, m
20 20
15 15
Time to th Time to
Breakthru Headloss
5
tb Mintz’ 5
Optimum
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Depth of Media, m
8100
20 20
15 15
Time to th Time to
Breakthru Headloss
5
tb Design of 5
LAAFP
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Depth of Media, m
8100
Pilot Data on Bull Run Water
[Kreft, 1991; 10 gpm/sf, 1.5 mm anthracite]
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Time to Time to
50 50
Breakthru 30 30 Headloss
20 20
10 10
0 0
60 80 100 120 140
Depth of Media, in.

90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Time to Time to
50 50
20 20
10 10
0 0
60 80 100 120 140
Depth of Media, in.

90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Time to Time to
50 50
Turbidity tb, h 40 Lopt 40 th, h Design
20 123 in. 20
10 10
0 0
60 80 100 120 140
Depth of Media, in.

38000
80 80
70 70
60 60
Time to 50 50 Time to
20 20
10 10
0 0
60 80 100 120 140
Depth of Media, in.

80 80
70 70
60 60
Time to 50 50 Time to
Breakthru 30 Lopt 30 Headloss
20 20
105 in.
10 10
0 0
60 80 100 120 140
Depth of Media, in.

40500
[Kreft, 1991; 10 & 15 gpm/sf, 1.5 mm anthracite]
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Time to Time to
50 50
20 20
10 10
0 0
60 80 100 120 140
z
Depth of Media, in.
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Time to Time to
50 50
20 20
10 10
0 0
Increasing the60filter rate:
80 100 120 140
z
1) Modestly reduces the time to breakthrough
Depth of Media, in.
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Time to Time to
50 50
20 20
10 10
0 0
80 100 120 140
z
1) Modestly reduces the time to breakthrough and
Depth of Media, in.
2) Substantially reduces the time to headloss
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Time to Time to
50 50
20 20
10 10
0 0
80 100 120 140
z
1) Modestly reduces the time to breakthrough and
Depth of Media, in.
2) Substantially reduces the time to headloss
3) Resulting in a lower optimum depth and shorter runs
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Time to Time to
50 50
Turbidity t,h
b 40 t,h
40 h
Design
20 20
10 10
0 0
But this comparison
60
based
80
on
100
filter120run time
140
isn’t really
an accurate
z portrayal of efficiency because the filter
Depth of Media, in.
running at 15 gpm/sf produces 50% more water in the
same time period. What happens if we compare both
filters on the basis of gallons/sf-run?`
70,000 70,000
60,000 60,000
50,000 50,000
Filter Run Filter Run
FRVb 40,000 40,000 FRV
h
Volume gal/sf 30,000 Volume
30,000 gal/sf
to Brkthru to Hdloss
20,000 20,000
10,000 10,000
0 0
60 80 100 120 140
z
Depth of Media, in.
Here are the same data replotted with run time converted
to filter run volume (FRV), expressed as gallons/sf.
70,000 70,000
60,000 60,000
50,000 50,000
FRVb 40,000 40,000 FRV
h
30,000 gal/sf
20,000 20,000
10,000 10,000
0 0
60 80 100 120 140
Depth of Media, in.

Note that now we do a bit better at 15 gpm/sf (yellow)
than we did at 10 gpm/sf (white)
70,000 70,000
60,000 60,000
50,000 50,000
FRVb 40,000 40,000 FRV
h
30,000 gal/sf
20,000 20,000
10,000 10,000
0 0
60 80 100 120 140
z
Depth of Media, in.
Note that now we do a bit better at 15 gpm/sf (yellow)
than we did at 10 gpm/sf (white)
So we get more through the
filter at higher rates even
though the run time is shorter
Is there anything we can do to get
a longer run time if we want that?
Remember the runtime decreases at
the higher rate because the time to
design headloss decreases
Can we do anything about the headloss?
 The higher headloss at higher rates is

almost all a result of increased clean bed
headloss
 Clean bed headloss is very sensitive to
media diameter
 Thus increasing media diameter will result in
a longer time to design headloss
But increasing media diameter
might affect turbidity
What is the impact of media
diameter and filter rate on effluent
turbidity?
Data from the Cedar River
three diameters, three filter rates
[L/d = 1300 in all cases]
0.12
0.1
0.08
d=1.0
ntu
0.06 d=1.5
d=2.0
0.04
0.02
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Filter rate, gpm/sf
Here are data from work done on the Cedar River (the water
supply for Seattle) that show the effect of media diameter and
filter rate.
0.12
0.1
0.08
d=1.0
ntu
0.06 d=1.5
d=2.0
0.04
0.02
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Filter rate, gpm/sf
Diameters of 1 to 2 mm and rates of 5 to 15 gpm/sf are shown
0.12
0.1
0.08
d=1.0
ntu
0.06 d=1.5
d=2.0
0.04
0.02
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Filter rate, gpm/sf
Conclusion: Increasing either the rate or the media diameter
does result in some degradation in effluent turbidity
Can we compensate by making
the filter media deeper?
The Iwasaki Equation suggests it
should be pretty easy
 Ln[CL /Co] = -λL

 Where λ = filter coefficient
0
-1
-2
Turbidity
Removal -3
Ln[CL/Co]
-4
-5 Iwasaki:
Ln[CL/Co] = !"L
-6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Media Depth, Ft
Data Gathered by DWP
[Owens River, Co = 11 ntu, V∞ = 15 gpm/sf, dm = 1.55 mm]
-1
-2
Turbidity
Removal -3
Ln[CL/Co]
-4
-5 Iwasaki:
Ln[CL/Co] = !"L
-6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Media Depth, Ft
The data gathered by DWP show an improvement with depth.
But the improvement achieved has diminishing returns
Let’s look at some other data
Data Gathered at Seattle:Effect
of Filter Rate and Media Depth
[Cedar River, Co = 0.2 to 0.3 ntu, monomedia dm = 1.25 mm]
0.20
0.18 V=8
0.16 V=12
0.14 V=16
V=20
Effluent 0.12
Turbidity 0.10
ntu 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Media Depth, in.
Data Gathered at Seattle:Effect
0.20
0.18 V=8
0.16 V=12
0.14 V=16
V=20
Effluent 0.12
Turbidity 0.10
ntu 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Media Depth, in.
Depth does make a difference. At a depth of 120 inches the
performance at 20 gpm/sf is about the same as the performance
At 8 gpm/sf
Data Gathered at Seattle :Effect
0.20
0.18 V=8
0.16 V=12
0.14 V=16
V=20
Effluent 0.12
Turbidity 0.10
ntu 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Media Depth, in.
[Cedar River, Co = 0.2 to 0.3 ntu, dual media dm = 2/1 mm]
0.20
0.18 V=8
0.16 V=12
0.14 V=16
V=20
Effluent 0.12
Turbidity 0.10
ntu 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Media Depth, in.
[Cedar River, Co = 0.2 to 0.3 ntu, dual media dm = 2/1 mm]
0.20
0.18 V=8
0.16 V=12
0.14 V=16
V=20
Effluent 0.12
Turbidity 0.10
ntu 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Conclusion:
20 40 60
increasing
80 100
media
120 140 160 180
depth compensates well in.
Media Depth, for
increases in filter rate
Data Gathered at Seattle:
Comparing all 3 Media at 20 gpm/sf
[Cedar River, Co = 0.2 to 0.3 ntu, various media, V∞ = 20 gpm/sf]
0.20
0.18
1.25 mm
0.16
1.5 mm
0.14 2/1 mm
Effluent 0.12
Turbidity 0.10
ntu 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Media Depth, in.
Focusing on media diameter

Comparing all 3 Media at 20 gpm/sf:
Looking at L/d Ratio
0.20
0.18
1.25 mm
0.16
1.5 mm
0.14 2/1 mm
Effluent 0.12
Turbidity 0.10
ntu 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Media L/d Ratio
Comparing all 3 Media at 20 gpm/sf:
Looking at L/d Ratio
0.20
0.18
1.25 mm
0.16
1.5 mm
0.14 2/1 mm
Effluent 0.12
Turbidity 0.10
ntu 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Media L/d Ratio
Conclusion: increasing media depth compensates well for

increases in media diameter, provided if we keep L/d constant
Conclusion from this data
Higher rates can be achieved by using

deeper filters and larger diameter
media
Limits of high rate filtration
 What is the upper limit in media depth?
 Don’t know.
 Max. used in full-scale design so far is ~100 in.
 Max. used in pilot is ~ 170 in. (14 ft.)
 Above 48 in., recommend both air/water and surface
wash
 What is the upper limit in media size?
 Again, don’t know
 Upper limit tested in pilots is 2 mm
 Required depth increases roughly in proportion to the
diameter
 What is the upper limit for filtration rate?
 Depends on media design
 The highest rate plant in service is LAAFP
 600 mgd
 13.5 gpm/sf
 1,5 mm, 60 in. depth
 Next highest I’ve worked on is Prospect in Sydney
 900 mgd
 10 gpm/sf
 1.55 mm, 60 in. depth
 Highest rate in pilot test ~ 40 gpm/sf (LADWP)
 Several successful tests at 15 to 20 gpm/sf
 Success with high rates requires the use of deeper
media and often larger diameter media as well
 To have a reasonable chance of success I
recommend both pilot studies and studies with a
large-scale prototype.
 I don’t know what DHS will say before me, but I
suspect they’ll want to see testing as well
 This was done in both Los Angeles and Sydney
ﬁnis
Treatment of Bull Run Water O3=1.5, 8100=1, ferric 2.5 mg/L
10000 0.07
9000
0.06
8000
7000 0.05
Turbidity, ntu
UFRV, gal/sf
6000
0.04
5000
0.03
4000
3000 0.02
2000
0.01
1000
0 0
20 min. flocculation 5 min + In Line In Line

Advantages of Deep Bed Filters - Original

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Advantages of Deep Bed Filters - Original

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Deep Bed Filters and

High Rate Service

Ca-Nv AWWA, Sacramento Oct 14, 2004

The answer is $$$

Depth of Filter Media

Depth of Filter Media

Depth of Filter Media

Depth of Filter Media

Depth of Filter Media

Depth of Filter Media

Depth of Media, in.

Depth of Media, in.

Depth of Media, in.

Depth of Media, in.

Depth of Media, in.

Depth of Media, in.

 The higher headloss at higher rates is

 Ln[CL /Co] = -λL

Focusing on media diameter

Conclusion: increasing media depth compensates well for

Higher rates can be achieved by using

Potrebbero piacerti anche