Research

Design and Operation the lip of wash-water troughs. The extra head generally is re
quired to maintain a constant backwash rate during entire
backwash cycle. This is discussed in a later section.
of High-Rate Filters- Hydraulics on Backwash System
Part 3 The total head loss during backwashing may be expressed as
follows:
H = Aft + Aft0 + Aftu + h, (48)
where Aft head loss through expanded bed [Eq (26) ]
Susumu Kawamura A/to head loss through gravel bed [Eq (49) ]
Aft. head loss caused by underdrain system [Eq (50) ]
ht head loss caused by pipeline, valves, flow rate
controller [Eq (51)]
Now
A paper contributed to and selected by the JOURNAL, authored by (I-/)'
Susumu Kawamura (Active Member, AWWA), div. engr., Water Afte = 200/c (49)"
Treatment Div., James M. Montgomery, Consult. Engrs., Inc. (Con
sultant Member, AWWA), Pasadena, Calif.
Aft» =- (50)

(51)
This concluding part of a three-part article, discussing
filter design and operation, deals specifically with back where la = depth of gravel layer
wash systems. d = size of gravel
<t> = shape factor
a ~ orifice coefficient
/3 = ratio of orifice area and filter bed area
Required head for backwash involves piezometric studies on (0.2 - 0.7 per cent)
conventional-type gravity filters and proprietary type mono- vt — backwash rate
valve or valveless filters, such as Green-Leaf filters. They in / = porosity ratio
dicate that the necessary net head required to backwash a filter L = equivalent length of backwash pipeline
bed is in the range of 1.2-2 m (4-7 ft) (which is dimension P (excluding flow control valve)
D = diameter of pipe
in Fig. 18). However, filtration plants that have elevated wash- A ~ filter bed area
water tanks usually provide at least 10 m (33 ft) of static above F = friction factor
DECEMBER 1975 S, KAWAMURA 705
Now Eq (48) can be written as a function of backwash
rate v6 :
H •=. Aft + C,vt + (Cu + Cr) v? (52)
in which
C, = 2<W. * - (1 ~ fr

Example 1: Evaluate Eq (52) using a typical rapid-sand

filter which is washed by an elevated wash-water tank.
(1) Head loss through filter sand
Assume 0.7 m as the depth of filter media, / = 0.48,
specific gravity of sand is 2.65
Aft = 0.7 (1 - 0.48) (2.65 - 1) = 0.6 m (2 ft)
(2) Head loss through gravel bed
dm por^t = 3 mm (0.003 m), la — 0.45 m, / = 0.4, <f> — 0.8,
/j. =10- s kg/m s, p = 1 000 kg/ms, v t = 0.0125 m/s (0.75 m/min)
C -200X0 45 ( 10' 8 \.a-0-4) 2
'- X V 10s X 9.8 X 0.82 X 0.0032 / 0.4s
= 8.97, or approximately 9 s
A/7e = C, • vt
= 9 X 0.0125
= 0.11 m (0.36ft)
(3) Head loss through underdrainage system
a = 0.6, /3 = 0.6 per cent, vt = 0.0125 m/s
1 Fig. 18. Head Requirement for Backwash
" ~ 19.6 X 0.63 X (6 X 10"3) 2
=: 3 937 s'/m
Aft» = 0.01253 X 3 937
= 0.615 m (2 ft)
(4) Head loss through pipeline
L r= 250 m (820 ft)
ft),, D = 0.75 m ((30 in.),, F = 0.02, A
30 in.) 100 m3
(1 076 ft2)
4X1
0.75/ 3 -! 4 X 0.75V
= 17 421 sVm
h f — 0.01252 = 17421
= 2.73 m (9 ft)
By Eq (52) , the total head loss in a typical backwash system
as described can be expressed as:
H — 0.6 + 9vt + (3 937 + 17 421) v*2
= 4.06 m (13.3 ft)
The foregoing example shows that total head loss for the
selected backwash system is on the order of 4 m excluding a
head loss by flow rate controller or flow control valves. The
balance of head loss which is more than 5m (16.5 ft) in the
example is generally created by flow rate controllers or flow
control valves in order to minimize variation of backwash rate.
Fig. 19. Height and Spacing of Troughs
Effect of backwash head change on backwash rate. Back
wash water is generally supplied by an elevated tank or by Criteria: height of trough—(0.75 1m x P) < H 0 < (1m + P);
spacing of troughs—1.5 H 0 < S < 2 H 0
direct pumping. Low-head backwash systems, such as valve-
less or monovalve filters, utilize filtered water from other
filters that are in the filter cycle. A change of water level in
the wash-water source during the backwash cycle will affect
706 RESEARCH JOURNAL AWWA
the backwash rate in varying degrees depending upon the
system design. In case of an elevated tank system, the water
level in the tank generally lowers 2 m (6.5 ft) or more from
the start of wash to the end of wash, and the change of back
wash rate may be significant if there is no flow control unit.
To minimize such changes, a large head loss normally is pro
vided in the wash-water piping.
For direct pump-wash systems, changes of water level in the
pump well may change wash rates depending on the extent of
the level changes. Such changes would be significant if piping
does not create sufficient head loss or if there is no flow control
valve. Also, pump-performance curves for direct pump back
wash systems should be steep, and the pump suction should
take water from a large volume of water, possibly from a
clear well. Axial or mixed-flow-type pumps generally have
much steeper performance curves than centrifugal-type pumps.
In the case of low-head backwash systems, a slight water
level change of the weir-controlled common filtered water
channel, or extra head loss caused by underdrainage system, or
other factors, may result in a low backwash rate. Also, in such
systems it generally is difficult to adjust backwash rates to
provide for seasonal temperature changes. Therefore, it is
better to provide at least 0.5 m extra head for backwash over
the design backwash head, and installation of a wash-rate con
trol device and backwash-rate-indicating mechanism is recom
mended.
Variation of backwash flow change caused by backwash
head change can be evaluated by the total differential of Eq
(52):
AH = C, Avi, + 2 (C« + CP) v» Av&
= Av» JCC + 2 (C» + Cf) v»j (53)
Eq (53) does not include the effect of flow control unit. Var
iation of backwash rate change caused by a change of back
wash head can be expressed as:
AH __
Av» = -r-
' C, + 2 (C. + C,) Vi
Example 2: Evaluate the variation of backwash rate for the
filter system shown in Example 1 when water level drops 1 m
(3.3 ft) in the elevated tank, assuming the whole system is
operating and replacing the long pipeline with a very short,
large-diameter backwash line.
1. Backwash-rate variation for the total system
1 wash water.
~ 9 + [2(3 937 + 17 421) X 0.0125]
= 0.00184 m/s (or 0.11 m/min)
0.11
per cent variation = X 100 = 14.7 per cent
2. Backwash rate variation for practically no pipeline head loss
Av» =
9+ [(2 X 3 937) X 0.0125]
= 0.0093 m/s (or 0.56 m/min)
0.56
X 100 = 74.6 per cent (serious variation)
variation:
0.75
Example 3: The backwash rate is controlled by a plug valve
in the backwash main as a flow control valve without a flow
controller. Required per cent variation of backwash rate (0.75
m/min for design) is 5 per cent at 1 m water-level change in
the elevated tank. The filter system is assumed as described in
Example 1.
Find how much pipe resistance, Ct, should be provided, and
DECEMBER 1975
what is the required minimum static head for backwash.
1. In general, the head losses through gravel layers and
through underdrainage system are rather small and they are
negligible compared with the head loss through the backwash
piping system. Therefore, Cr can be simplified, for approxi
mation purposes, as follows:
Cti by Eq (53)
Since AVI, to be 5 per cent of 0.75 m/min (0.0125 m/s) or 6.25
X 10-* m/s.
1
C,
2(1.25 X 10~2) (6.25 X 10*4)
= 64 000 sVm
Since the C, of the pipeline is 17 421 sVm, an extra 46 579
sVm of CP or 7.28 m (24 ft) of head loss (h, — 0.01252 X
46 579 = 7.28) should be provided by throttling a flow con
trol valve.
2. Total head loss requirement is
H = 0.6 + 9vs + (3.937 + 64 000) i/62
= 11.32m (or 37.1ft)
Wash-water troughs. There are two basic types of filter
washing. One is the fluidization backwash which is a common
system in the US, and another is the partial fluidized back
wash which is mainly associated with air-scour.
As far as wash troughs are concerned, spacing and height of
troughs for fluidization washing should be carefully deter
mined so that (1) dislodged suspended matter will be washed
away efficiently and (2) filter media will not be carried out.
Partial fluidization wash, however, is a little different; the
height of troughs should be determined carefully, but spacing
is generally quite arbitrary, and filters are designed to have
either a single overflow wall on one side of the filter cell or two
(541
overflow walls, one on each side of the filter cell, eliminating
all finger troughs. The reason for this trough arrangement is
partially because of flow characteristics for each type of filter
washing. For the partial fluidization wash, uprising backwash
flow is considered to be close to laminar flow or plug-flow
condition, and dirty water will be removed from the filter cell
quite smoothly without too much intermixing. In the fluidiza
tion wash, on the other hand, dirty water above the media
becomes clean because of the dilution effect of incoming
Since the fluidization backwash is the most common back
wash practice in the US, consideration is given only to this
type of wash. In respect to the cross-section of wash troughs,
there are two basic types: a shallow but wide section with a
slight V-shape bottom, and a U-shaped section. V-type troughs
speed the upward flow velocity when flow is above the
trough-bottom elevation. Consequently, the number of troughs
and filter depth can be reduced a little because of the shallow
troughs and greater spacing. The latter type of trough can be
thinner in wall section and can provide a satisfactory alterna
tive.
In either case, the troughs should be large enough to carry
maximum expected wash rate with 5-10 cm (2-4 in.) free
fall into the trough at the upper end and high enough to avoid
media wash-out and provide a free fall to the main collection-
outlet gullet at the lower end. The bottom of the trough may
be flat or sloping. The height of the trough can be established
by hydraulic computations and the distance between the bot
tom of the trough and the top of media (at rest) should be close
S. KAWAMURA 707
to the total depth of media (see Fig. 20). Ten states' stand
ards50 recommend that the top elevation above the filter media
surface should not exceed 76 cm (30 in.); however, the recom
mended height may be too low for coal-sand dual media. As it
is mentioned before, sand expansion generally does not exceed
50 per cent, and coal expansion is on the order of 25 per cent.
However, troughs are better located too high than too low be
cause media can be washed out by causes such as air bubbles
caused by air-binding phenomena, disturbance of media by
surface wash jets, and temperature effects, sand-expansion rate.
Design criteria can be computed by methods similar to that
of Tesarik51 who determined the space of parallel launder
troughs in clarifiers, and by the analysis made by Fujita" for
filters. A relationship between space of trough and height of
trough is as follows:
V. < ~ < vt'
(55)
vHf
Therefore,
Vt
(56)
where: U, — terminal velocity of suspended matter (m/s)
S space of trough (m)
vt — backwash rate including surface wash rate
(m/s)
Ht — distance between top of fluidized bed and
water surface (m)
The upper limit of the spacing-height ratio is set to avoid
media carry-out, and the lower limit is set by the condition in
which dislodged suspended matter will be carried out. Partial
fluidization wash generally provides no chance for the media
to be carried out during the backwash cycle, hence no upper
limit of spacing-high ratio exists. This means an upper limit
of trough spacing does not exist, which is probably the main
reason that finger troughs are not provided for most air-scour
wash type filters in Europe.
Spacing of wash-water troughs for fluidizing wash system
filters should be in a range of 1.5 H» < S < 2 H, (see Fig. 19 as
reference).
Underdrainage system. Underdrainage systems differ basi
cally with respect to the type of filter washing system, and often
the gravel layer is eliminated in the air-scour washing system.
Selection of the proper filter Underdrainage system is a
rather difficult problem. For air-scour washing filters, false
bottoms with strainers, (each with approximately a 10-20 cm
(4 8 in.) leg and a small hole on upper part of the leg for air
passage) have been extensively used. However, there is a
danger of clogging strainers during backwash with the debris,
fine sand or coal that finds its way into the underdrain sys
tem. Air flow rates during air-scour are generally 50 m'/ hr/m2
(2.8 cfm/sq ft), and the backwash rate after air-scour usually
falls in the 0.25-0.6 m/min (10-24 ipm) range. Common
fluidizing backwash filters have used a variety of filter under-
drainage systems but not all of them have been satisfactory,9
especially for today's high rate dual-media-type filters. One
way to verify the effectiveness of a filter bottom is by ex
perimental study. The author developed a new type of bot
tom,52 experimentally, and it was then applied to an 8.7 m'/s
(200 mgd) capacity plant. In most cases, however, there is little
opportunity for experimental studies, and the selection of filter
Underdrainage systems is dependent on the judgment of design
engineers. One item which the designer should keep in mind is
head loss through the Underdrainage system during filtration
in high rate dual-media-type filters. The hydraulic capacity of
these filters may be designed for 600 m'/d/m* (10 gpm/sq
ft) ,49 and certain types of Underdrainage systems will create
excessive head losses during filter runs and significantly re
duce the available head for filtration.
Acknowledgment
Grateful acknowledgment is given to Brian G. Stone, vice-
pres., James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engrs., Inc., through
whose cooperation and assistance this article was made
possible. Furthermore, the author wishes to express his appre
ciation to William A. Aultman, chairman of James M. Mont
gomery, Consulting Engrs., Inc., for his advice and encourage
ment; to Kenji Fujita for his opinions and cooperation; to John
L. Cleasby and John R. Anderson for their suggestions; to
George S. Leopold for his editorial assistance; and Roberta
Bullock for typing the manuscript. The author further wishes
to extend his appreciation to the reviewers of AWWA Journal
for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions.
References
50. Recommended Standards for Water Works, Committee of the
Great Lakes ' Upper Mississippi River Bd. of State San.
Engrs. (1968 Ed.).
51. TESARIK, I. Flow in Sludge Blanket Clarifiers. Proc. ASCE,
San. Div., (Dec. 1967) p. 105.
52. KAWAMURA, S. An Experimental Study on Both Filter Media
and Underdrainage System. Proc. 14th Ann. Conf., four.
JWWA (May 1963).

(Continued from page 704)
the scale-shifting attachment. The authors
have found applications where the asym
metry (standardization) control provides
sufficient scale-shift flexibility so that the
auxiliary attachment (Fig. 1) was not
needed.
In applying this unit for fluoride determi
nation, the authors recorded numerical
scale values of 0-140 from the pH scale. A
value of 70 (midscale) was selected for
standardization with a solution 1 mg/1 in
fluoride. Comparative determinations using
the second pH meter with the scale expan
sion and auxiliary unit were made with
another pH meter,$ which has built-in
expanded scale features. Readings using the
previous pH meter with the in-house fabri
cated meter were compared with the read
ings taken with the thirdj pH meter. These
yielded results that agreed with the pre-
708 NOTES AND COMMENTS
scribed limits for the measurement of fluo
ride concentration in municipal water
supplies.
Other commercially available pH meters
feature automatic temperature compensa
tion that can be adapted for use of a specific
ion electrode. The availability of ion-selec
tive electrodes for the determination of
fluoride, chloride, and water hardness need
not be ignored by managers of water-
quality laboratories because of the expense
of an expanded-scale meter when many
existing meters may be economically
adapted for electrode analyses.
References
1. KEEGAN J. & MATSUYAMA, G. Increasing the
Sensitivity of the Beckman Zeromatic pH
Meter. Anal. Chem., 33:1292 (1961).
2. PARSONS, P. Inexpensive Scale Expansion for
Ion Selective Electrodes. Jour. Chem. Educ.,
50:175(1973).
Polyelectrolyte
Update ERA
James M. Symons
A contribution submitted to and selected
by the JOURNAL, authored by James M.
Symons, (Active Member, AWWA), ch.,
Physical and Chemical Removal Br.,
WSRL, EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
This comment pertains to an article
that appeared in the Nov. 1975
JOURNAL AWWA authored by James
M. Symons et al and entitled "National
Orqanics Reconnaissance Survey for
Halogenated Organics."
JOURNAL AWWA