0% found this document useful (0 votes)
7 views4 pages

Question3 Solution

The document provides a detailed analysis of filtration design solutions, focusing on backwash analysis and filter area design for Rapid Gravity Filters (RGF) and Slow Sand Filters (SSF). It includes calculations for filter surface area, average filtration rate, backwash water volume, and percentage of water used for backwashing, as well as design specifications for both filter types based on a population of 100,000. The comparison highlights the advantages of RGF in urban settings due to its smaller land requirement and operational efficiency, while SSF offers higher pathogen removal but requires significantly more land.

Uploaded by

rvftvtfq8y
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
7 views4 pages

Question3 Solution

The document provides a detailed analysis of filtration design solutions, focusing on backwash analysis and filter area design for Rapid Gravity Filters (RGF) and Slow Sand Filters (SSF). It includes calculations for filter surface area, average filtration rate, backwash water volume, and percentage of water used for backwashing, as well as design specifications for both filter types based on a population of 100,000. The comparison highlights the advantages of RGF in urban settings due to its smaller land requirement and operational efficiency, while SSF offers higher pathogen removal but requires significantly more land.

Uploaded by

rvftvtfq8y
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Question 3 — Filtration Design Solution

Part (a) — Backwash Analysis (6 marks)

Given Information:

Parameter Value
Filter dimensions 4m×8m
Total flow treated 8,000 m³/day
Operation period 24 hours/day
Backwash rate 0.01 m³/s/m²
Number of troughs 4

Step 1: Calculate Filter Surface Area


A = Length × Width

A = 4 m × 8 m = 32 m²

Step 2: Calculate Average Filtration Rate


The filtration rate is the flow per unit filter area:
Flow rate = 8,000 m³/day ÷ 24 h/day = 333.33 m³/h

Filtration rate = Flow rate ÷ Filter area

Filtration rate = 333.33 m³/h ÷ 32 m²

Average Filtration Rate = 10.42 m³/h/m² (or 2.89 × 10■³ m/s)

Step 3: Calculate Quantity of Backwash Water


Assumptions for backwash:
• Backwash duration = 10 minutes (standard practice)
• Backwash occurs once per day per filter

Backwash flow rate = Backwash rate × Filter area

Backwash flow rate = 0.01 m³/s/m² × 32 m² = 0.32 m³/s

Volume of backwash water per wash:

V = 0.32 m³/s × (10 × 60 s) = 0.32 × 600

Volume of backwash water = 192 m³ per backwash

Step 4: Calculate Percentage of Water Used in Backwashing


% Backwash = (Backwash volume ÷ Total daily flow) × 100

% Backwash = (192 ÷ 8,000) × 100


Percentage of water used in backwashing = 2.4%
(This is within the acceptable range of 1–5% for rapid sand filters)

Step 5: Rate of Wash Water Flow Through Each Trough


Total backwash flow rate = 0.32 m³/s

Number of troughs = 4

Flow per trough = Total backwash flow ÷ Number of troughs

Flow per trough = 0.32 m³/s ÷ 4

Flow rate per trough = 0.08 m³/s per trough

Part (b) — Filter Area and Size Design (9 marks)

Given Information:

Parameter Value
Population 100,000 people
Water consumption rate 160 L/capita/day

Step 1: Calculate Total Design Flow


Total daily demand = Population × Unit consumption

= 100,000 × 160 L/capita/day = 16,000,000 L/day

Total design flow = 16,000 m³/day = 185.2 m³/h = 0.0514 m³/s

Design Assumptions:

Parameter Rapid Gravity Filter (RGF) Slow Sand Filter (SSF)

Filtration rate 5 m³/h/m² (5 m/h) 0.1–0.4 m³/h/m² (use 0.2 m/h)

Typical unit size Up to 100 m² per filter Up to 200 m² per filter

Min. no. of filters 2 (N+1 recommended) 2 (N+1 recommended)

Step 2a: Rapid Gravity Filter (RGF) Design


Design filtration rate = 5 m³/h/m² (typical design criterion for RGF)

Total filter area required:

A_total = Total flow ÷ Filtration rate

A_total = 16,000 m³/day ÷ (5 m/h × 24 h/day)

A_total = 16,000 ÷ 120 = 133.3 m²

Using N+1 provision (one filter out of service for backwash), use 4 filters:
Area per filter = 133.3 m² ÷ 3 operating filters = 44.4 m² → use 50 m²
per filter

Filter dimensions: 7.1 m × 7.1 m ≈ 7 m × 7 m per filter

RGF Result: 4 filters, each 7 m × 7 m (49 m²), Total area = 196 m²

Step 2b: Slow Sand Filter (SSF) Design


Design filtration rate = 0.2 m³/h/m² (typical design criterion for SSF)

Total filter area required:

A_total = Total flow ÷ Filtration rate

A_total = 16,000 m³/day ÷ (0.2 m/h × 24 h/day)

A_total = 16,000 ÷ 4.8 = 3,333 m²

Using N+1 provision, use 4 filters:


Area per filter = 3,333 m² ÷ 3 = 1,111 m² → use 1,200 m² per filter

Filter dimensions: ≈ 30 m × 40 m per filter

SSF Result: 4 filters, each 30 m × 40 m (1,200 m²), Total area = 4,800 m²

Step 3: Comparison and Comment

Parameter Rapid Gravity Filter Slow Sand Filter

Design rate 5 m/h 0.2 m/h

Total area needed ~133 m² ~3,333 m²

No. of filters 4 4

Size per filter 7m×7m 30 m × 40 m

Total footprint ~196 m² ~4,800 m²

Land requirement Very small Very large (~25× more)

Pre-treatment needed Yes (coag/floc/sed) Minimal

Disinfection needed Yes Can reduce need

Pathogen removal Moderate (needs disinfection) High (biological layer)

Operational complexity High Low

Capital cost Higher per unit Lower per unit

Running cost Higher (backwash, chemicals) Lower

Comments:
1. The SSF requires approximately 25 times more land area than RGF for the same flow, making it
impractical in urban or land-scarce settings.

2. RGF is preferred for large urban supplies due to its compact footprint and ability to handle variable raw
water quality.

3. SSF produces biologically safer water through the schmutzdecke (biological layer) but requires stable,
low-turbidity raw water.
4. RGF must be followed by disinfection (chlorination/UV) to meet drinking water guidelines, whereas SSF
can sometimes reduce the disinfection demand.

5. For a city of 100,000 people, RGF is the more practical and cost-effective choice, provided adequate
pre-treatment and disinfection are included.

Summary of Assumptions Made:


• Backwash duration assumed as 10 minutes (industry standard for RSF)
• One backwash per filter per day
• RGF design filtration rate: 5 m/h (WHO and standard design guideline)
• SSF design filtration rate: 0.2 m/h (WHO guideline range: 0.1–0.4 m/h)
• N+1 filter provision adopted (one standby filter) → 4 filters total for both types
• Per capita demand of 160 L/capita/day taken as the design flow (no peak factor applied)

You might also like