<<

10/23/2015

Presentation Outline

Filter Design, • Definition of Operation and • Filter types and selection Treatment • Filter design Optimization • Filter operation New Jersey Water Association Annual Conference‐ 10/22/15 • Filter (plant) optimization PSI Process and Equipment • Filter troubleshooting case study David J. Silverman, P.E.

Definition of filtration Filter types and selection An array of options • Filtration is defined as “the • vs. Pressure separation of colloidal and • Filtration rate is measured in gpm/sf larger particles from water by – “Slow” sand filters 0.015‐0.15 gpm/sf passage through a porous – Rapid sand filters 2‐8 gpm/sf, typically medium, usually sand, 3‐5 gpm/sf granular coal, or granular – High rate up to 16 gpm/sf (requires activated carbon”. energy) – A low rate does not guarantee better • The suspended particles water removed during filtration – Rate depends on water quality, range from 0.001 to 50 pretreatment microns and larger. • Upflow vs. downflow

Filter types and selection Gravity Filters A complex decision • Filter selection will depend upon: • Advantages – Water quality – Low energy requirements – Flow capacity, variability – Cost effective, especially for large plants (>7 MGD) – Site conditions (available space) – Accessible for visual – Hydraulics (available head) inspection, maintenance – Operator preference/skills • Disadvantages – Other treatment needs – Require relatively large area • Disinfection byproducts – May be sensitive to • Seasonal algae taste/odor variation in flow rates • Fe/Mn, reservoir turnover – Pretreatment is critical

1 10/23/2015

“Slow” sand filters Rapid Sand Filters

• Oldest type of large‐scale filter • Filtration rate: 2‐10 gal/min‐ft2 • Water passes first through about 36 inches of • Media depth: 2‐3 ft sand, then through a layer of gravel, before • Basin depth: 10 ft entering the underdrain. • Square tank • The sand removes particles from the water • Surface area: <2,100 ft2 through adsorption and straining. • flow through filter: 350‐3,500 gpm • Also removes contaminants through • Backwash frequency: every 24 hours biodegradation in the “schmutzdecke”, a layer • Backwash rate: 8‐20 gal/min‐ft2 which breaks down organics and improves • Backwash period: 5‐10 minutes straining. • Backwash water: 1‐5% of filtered water • Maintenance consists of raking the sand • Filter rise rate: 12‐36 in/min periodically, removing the top two inches of • Bed expansion: 50% sand • Backwash trough 3 ft above media • Due to the large area requirements, not • Backwash water piped to raw water intake considered economical in most cases

Pressure Filters Filtration mechanisms

• Flow capacity from 20‐2000 gpm • Mechanical straining accounts for a minor part of the filter’s action. A filter is able to remove • Fabricated steel vessel particles much smaller than the spaces between • Small footprint the media grains • Can be fitted with a variety of media for various • Adsorption‐ particles in the water stick either to the applications (Fe, Mn, As, ion exchange) media or to previously deposited contaminants • Cost competitive with gravity filtration for small • Attachment‐ magnetic forces causes particles in the plants water to stick to previously removed particles. Coagulants and polymers can neutralize the surface charge, facilitating attachment • Transport‐ the processes of interception, sedimentation and diffusion bring water particles into contact with media or previously removed particles

Pretreatment for filtration Filter Media

• Traditional‐ gravel, sand and anthracite • When particles in water have the same surface charge, they are • Others – activated carbon, greensand, garnet sand, pyrolucite “stable”, meaning they will not attract each other • Washed, sized, naturally occurring silica rock • Coagulant is added to destabilize particles • Rounded shape stones in various sizes • The repulsive layer is neutralized • Required Filter Media Properties by counterions in the coagulant, – Inertness in water destabilizing the particles – Attrition resistance in a filter application • (gentle mixing) – Proper size and compatibility facilitates transport and – Particle shape attachment, forming floc particles – Particle Density

2 10/23/2015

Filter Media Properties Media Properties‐ Hydraulic Size

• Filter media is specified by grain • The hydraulic size of a size distribution which is based on a sieve analysis filter media can be • Effective size d10 is the size calculated directly sieve that 10% of the grains will from the sieve pass analysis. • Uniformity Coefficient or UC is d60/d10 (Max 1.5) • The result gives an • Media is sometimes specified by averaged area size and top size (d95), bottom size (d5), is used in the Carman over size (% grain size >d95) and under size (% grain size

Filter Gravel and Sand Round vs. Angular Sand

• Gravel • Round sand has larger pore – Commonly used as support media spaces and less compaction – Purpose is to retain the fluidizable filter media • Angular sand has a smaller above it (sand and/or anthracite) surface area to volume ratio, – Provide diffusion of backwash flow but rougher texture, rough – Should remain level to prevent filter channeling – Gravel depth may range from 6 to 24 inches surface and microporous void • Sand spaces – Naturally occurring silica sand • The angularity of the granules – Washed and sized for filter applications and the tapered internal pore – Hydraulically leveled during backwash spaces allow for increased – Specific Gravity 2.65 removal of dirt, silt and organic – Shape – round to angular matter suspended in water by – Polishing Zone bridging, straining and – Depth – process dependent adhesion.

Sand Properties Filter coal (Anthracite)

Media properties vary considerably Media uniformity (high Uniformity Coefficient • Anthracite generic term for coal on left, low UC on right) used in filters • Typically referred to as Filter anthracite • First used over filter sand in 1911, referred to as dual‐media Agglomerated media (left) vs. whole • Functions: grain media (right) – Roughing filter – Flocculating zone – Solids holding layer – Depth – process dependent

3 10/23/2015

Filter coal (Anthracite) Backwash Considerations • Backwash Rate – a function of media size, specific • Color: black gravity and water temperature – 50% bed expansion • Bulk Density: 50 lbs./cu. ft. • Filter Media compatibility • Specific Gravity: 1.3‐1.7 • Backwash duration, 15‐20 min typ. • Effective Size: .60 – 2.30 mm • Backwash frequency • Uniformity Coefficient: 1.3 – 1.7 • Backwash Rate‐sand 12‐15 gpm/sf, anthracite 8‐12 • Hardness: 3.0 – 3.8 (Mohs scale) gpm/sf • Bed depth: 24 – 36 in., 10 – 18 in. for • Air scouring with low‐rate backwashing can break up multimedia filters the surface crust without producing random • Freeboard: 50% of bed depth (min.) currents, if the underdrain system is designed to • Service flow rate: 5 gpm/sq. ft. or higher distribute air uniformly. depending upon local conditions – Solids removed from the media collect in the layer of water • Backwash flow rate: 12 – 25 gpm/sq. ft. between the media surface and wash channels. depending upon mesh size – After the air stops, the dirty water is normally flushed out by increased backwash water flow rate or by surface draining. • Backwash expansion rate: 20 – 40% of bed – Wash water consumption is approximately the same whether depth water‐only or air/water backwashing is employed.

Backwash Rates Effect of Density on Backwash Rates

Media Selection and L/D Filter Media and L/D

• No ideal media configuration applies to all water • A coarser top size is needed to accommodate higher sources and pretreatment schemes. solids load and algae blooms for direct filtration without sedimentation. • There is a growing acceptance of some minimum • A tri‐media for a conventional plant may use 16 summation of the ratio L/D [depth (L)/diameter (D)] inches of anthracite 1 mm ES, 9 inches of sand with as a guideline. 0.5 mm ES and 3 to 4.5 inches of garnet with 0.24 mm ES. This would provide an L/D ratio summation • A summation L/D ratio of 1200 (dimensionless L/D from 1180 to 1339. using ES for D) has been a common guide. • It is important to select a top size appropriate to the • For conventional pretreatment with sedimentation, source water so that Unit Filter Run Volume a common dual media uses 18 to 24 inches of production goals are achieved. anthracite of 0.90 mm effective size over 9 to 12 • The choice of the grain size of the media at the top, where the water enters the filter bed, influences the inches of sand of 0.45 mm effective size. depth of penetration of solids into the bed. The • Granular activated carbon (GAC) can remove bigger the grain size, the better the solids organics and DBP Precursors penetration and thereby the better the bed utilization.

4 10/23/2015

Filter design Filter underdrain types

• Evaluate regulatory requirements for pathogen • Conventional underdrain removal/inactivation – HDPE Plastic modules snap together • Evaluate raw water quality and water quality – Grouted at bottom of filter and in goals between modules • Compare alternative processes and filter – Furnished with caps or plates to configurations support media and prevent media • Develop list of media configurations intrusion • Perform pilot testing – Most types require support gravel • Select media that provides best performance – Mass produced for minimum capital and meets Unit Filter Run Volume (UFRV) cost criteria • Wheeler type underdrains • Select appropriate filter components‐ • Clay tile underdrains underdrains, troughs, weirs etc.

Custom fabricated underdrains Filter Control

• Complete, custom underdrain • Constant Rate system; panels or laterals – Each filter is equipped with a rate‐of‐flow control valve. – The valve maintains a constant rate of water flow through the filter. • Self cleaning design – As filter clogs the valve slowly opens to maintain the flow rate. • Guaranteed uniform distribution • Declining Rate – The filter controller maintains a constant level of water above the • Rapid, low cost installation media – Filtration rate declines as filter clogs • Integral air scour chamber – A loss of head gauge on a filter is used to measure the drop in • Optimizes filter performance pressure through a filter bed • Durable stainless steel construction • Long service life

Filter operation Filter performance measures

• Stages of the filtration cycle: • Run length‐ length of time – Ripening • Turbidity breakthrough between backwashes • Filter to waste • Hydraulic loading rate‐ flow in – Production gpm divided by area in sf • Headloss increases as solids build up in the filter gpm/sf • Turbidity decreases and particles are captured • Variation in flow rates will cause shearing of flocs • Unit filter run volume (UFRV)‐ – Termination flow per cycle divided by filter • Cycles can be terminated based on head loss or area gal/sf (7,500‐10,000) time • Filter should not exhibit turbidity breakthrough at • Unit backwash waste volume end of run backwash flow divided by – Backwash filter area gal/sf (<100) • Monitor turbidity, do not overwash filter, it wastes water and lengthens ripening time • Washwater consumption (<5%)

5 10/23/2015

Treatment plant optimization Treatment plant optimization • Sedimentation • Carefully monitor data – Settled water turbidity is less than 1.0 ntu 95 • Learn to think of the individual percent of the time when daily average raw plant COMPONENTS as a SYSTEM water turbidity is less than or equal to 10.0 ntu during the same period • Consider the effect that a – Settled water turbidity is less than 2.0 ntu. 95 modification to COMPONENT percent of the time when daily average raw operation could have on the entire water turbidity is greater than 10.0 ntu. SYSTEM during the same period • Recognize that COMPONENT optimization and SYSTEM • Filtration: – Filtered water turbidity is less than 0.1 ntu 95 optimization may be mutually percent of the time based on the maximum exclusive values recorded during 2‐hour time • Optimizing COMPONENT and increments SYSTEM is a never ending process – Maximum turbidity of any filtered water measurement is never greater than 0.2 ntu

Treatment Plant Optimization Common filtration problems

• Monitoring Requirements • Mudballs‐ high rate backwash pulls – Daily raw water turbidity is determined at 2 hour surface crust solids down into the filter increments • – Settled water turbidity is determined at 2 hour Short runs increments from each sedimentation basin – improper coagulation, polymer type or – Filtered water turbidity is determined at 2 hour dosage causes blinding of the filter increments from each filter – insufficient backwashing leaves filter dirty – One filter backwash turbidity profile is performed each month for each filter – excessive biological growth in filter • Recommended Instrumentation: • Turbidity breakthrough – Each filter effluent is equipped such that turbidity is – improper flocculation or flow changes continuously monitored and recorded causing shearing of floc particles – The pH of raw and filtered water is continuously monitored and recorded • Mounting, craters or channeling in – Plant is equipped with an adequately sized PC for media recording and electronically transmitting raw, settled – these are usually equipment‐related and filtered water data, and for generating turbidity vs. time graphs issues

Filter evaluation techniques Backwash Evaluation

• Filter inspections • Backwashing – Media‐ look for • Bed expansion measurement mounding, cracking, media pulling away from • Water temperature (density) walls, inconsistent flow correction distribution, backwash turbulence or “boiling” • Backwash turbidity analysis – Monitor backwash – Measure every 30 seconds pressures – Avoid over‐ or under‐washing media – Media bed depth measurement • Solids retention analysis – Media grain size – Take samples at 0‐2 inches, 2‐6, 6‐12, 12‐ distribution 18,18‐24, etc. until all strata are sampled • Compare with original – Sample before and after washing the bed specifications

6 10/23/2015

Floc retention profile Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study

• New England Location • Surface Water • Conventional Treatment • Avg. 5.5 MGD – Peak 13.3 MGD • Temp. 33 – 55 deg. F • Limited Finished Water Storage • 2 Shifts (14 – 24 hr/day) • Phase III Directors Cert. (6 yrs)

Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study

• Optimization problem ‐ filters • Filter Maintenance – First filters installed in 1906 Program – One Filter Rebuilt Each Year – Filters replaced in 1936 – Remove Media and Gravel • 6 filters – Flush Sand From – Underdrains replaced in 1970 Underdrain – Re‐screen and Re‐install – Converted to dual media 1970 Gravel – Noted sand infiltration into the – Re‐Install Media underdrains in late 1970’s – Add Top‐up Anthracite as Req. – Began a filter maintenance – Minimized Sand Infiltration program about 1980

Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study

• Began using Partnership for Filter gravel mounding Safe Water (PSW) software and continuous monitoring on individual filters in mid‐1990’s • PSW software shows filter performance problems prior to scheduled maintenance • Inspections of problem filters show gravel migration followed by infiltration of sand into underdrains

7 10/23/2015

Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study

• Plant staff decide to replace • Filter Replacement Project existing underdrains with new • Project begins in March ones that do not require support • One filter to be replaced at a gravel time • Filter media is scheduled for • Single filter rehab takes 2 weeks replacement with underdrains • Project must be completed by • Replacement of filter effluent end of May valves included in project • Halfway through project, rebuilt • Project starts early 2002 filters exhibit short runs and reduced flow

Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study

• State the problem clearly and concisely • List Assumptions – Upgraded filters operating short filter runs, – Effluent flow meters working properly reduced flow capacity. Run time is less than – Build loss of head instrument for all 50% of filters waiting for upgrade. filters – Operating headloss data not available – no – Turbidity instrument working headloss gauges. – Operators recording data correctly • Review existing data • Ask questions – What’s different? – Both original and rebuilt filters producing equal – Underdrains (fine screens for direct water quality retention of fine media) – Turbidity breakthrough not occurring in any – Filter media old (24” sand, 7” anthracite) filters vs. new (11” sand, 20” anthracite) – Significantly greater quantity of solids – appearing on the surface of the rebuilt filters Filter effluent valves – – Similar surface solids had been seen on old Develop hypothesis filters when polymer addition was increased – New gravel‐less underdrains are plugging

Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study

• Get Input from Others • Collect Data – Consult with contractor – Collect media core samples from old and rebuilt filters – Consult with engineer – Run sieve analysis and floc – Consult with underdrain supplier retention tests on media – Consult with media supplier samples • Develop Alternative Hypotheses – Inspect screens on new underdrains – Media blinding quicker ‐ sand not – Review headloss data for old properly skimmed and rebuilt filters (Build – Media blinding quicker ‐ headloss gauges first) anthracite fines present

8 10/23/2015

Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study • Review all data • Sieve analyses show anthracite fines on all – Inspection shows underdrain screens three rebuilt filters are not plugged • Sieve analysis show ES of anthracite to be – Headloss data show same clean bed significantly smaller for rebuilt filters headloss and backwash headloss for • Sieve analysis for new media matches ES for specification and specification of media both old and rebuilt filters installed in 1970 – New gravel‐less underdrains plugging? • Anthracite in old filters ES larger ES than NO specification – Sieve analyses show no fines in first • Floc retention tests show most solids rebuilt filter removed in top 6” of filter media of rebuilt filters – Second and third rebuilt filter have • Media blinding quicker anthracite fines similar headloss profile to first filter present? – Media blinding quicker – sand not – SORT OF properly skimmed? NO

Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study • Obervations: • Data does not match any of the – Sieve analyses show anthracite fines on all hypotheses three rebuilt filters • However, the data do point to – Floc retention tests show most solids problems with excess solids collection removed in top 6” of filter media of rebuilt in the top layers of the media bed filters – Similar surface solids had been seen on old • Go back to Step 2, Review Existing filters when polymer addition was increased Data • Develop Alternative Hypotheses – Both original and rebuilt filters – Media in old filters has gotten larger over producing equal water quality time – Turbidity breakthrough not – Plant adjusted treatment chemicals for occurring in any filters larger media size – Significantly greater quantity of – Finer replacement media is blinding more solids appearing on the surface of quickly – no depth filtration the rebuilt filters – Anthracite fines at very top layer causing rapid blinding

Filter Troubleshooting‐ Case Study Conclusions

• Collect Data • There are many different types of – Skim anthracite in one of the rebuilt filtration systems‐ there is no such thing filters and review operating data as “one size fits all” – Reduce polymer addition and monitor • Optimize your treatment process and it operation of rebuilt and old filters will take good care of you in good times • Review all Data and bad – Performance of rebuilt filter with • Develop a filter surveillance program and skimmed anthracite and rebuilt filters perform regular filter evaluations without skimming identical – Reduced polymer addition greatly • Consult with manufacturers, engineers extend run times of rebuilt filters and your operations professional cohorts – Rebuilt filters take now take 30% greater on your treatment issues load than old filters without • Every filtration application is different, compromising performance select your components carefully, invest – Old filters perform well with reduced in good equipment, and do not try to polymer addition however they require “keep up with the Joneses” a 15% reduction in capacity

9 10/23/2015

Questions and Answers Thank You

1. Name three types of granular filter media – Sand, anthracite, garnet, gravel, perlite 2. Names three types of filters David J. Silverman, P.E. – Pressure, gravity, slow sand, upflow 3. Name three types of filter underdrains PSI Process and Equipment – Pipe lateral, block, Wheeler, panel, fabricated 4. Name three filter evaluation techniques [email protected] – Filter inspection, media grain size analysis, backwash turbidity analysis, floc retention profile (347) 563‐0766 5. Explain how to optimize a filter – Trick question, you cannot optimize only one component of a plant, it must be viewed as a complete system www.psiprocess.com

10