RATE OF FILTRATION AND LOSS OF HEAD.
The rate of filtration recommended and used has been gradually reduced
during the past thirty years. In 1866 Kirkwood found that 12 vertical
feet per day, or 3.90 million gallons per acre daily, was recommended
by the best engineers, and was commonly followed as an average rate.
In 1868 the London filters averaged a yield of 2.18 million gallons[8]
per acre daily, including areas temporarily out of use, while in 1885
the quantity had been reduced to 1.61. Since that time the rate has
apparently been slightly increased.
The Berlin filters at Stralau constructed in 1874 were built to filter
at a rate of 3.21 million gallons per acre daily. The first filters at
Tegel were built for a corresponding rate, but have been used only at
a rate of 2.57, while the more recent filters were calculated for this
rate. The new Hamburg filters, 1892-3, were only intended to filter
at a rate of 1.60 million gallons per acre daily. These in each case
(except the London figures) are the standard rates for the filter-beds
actually in service.
In practice the area of filters is larger than is calculated from
these figures, as filters must be built to meet maximum instead of
average daily consumptions, and a portion of the filtering area usually
estimated at from 5 to 15 per cent, but in extreme cases reaching 50
per cent, is usually being cleaned, and so is for the time out of
service. In some works also the rate of filtration on starting a filter
is kept lower than the standard rate for a day or two, or the first
portion of the effluent, supposed to be of inferior quality, is
wasted, the amount so lost reaching in an extreme case 9 to 14 per
cent of the total quantity of water filtered.[9] In many of the older
works also, there is not storage capacity enough for filtered water to
balance the hourly fluctuations in consumption, and the filters must be
large enough to meet the maximum hourly as well as the maximum daily
requirements. For these reasons the actual quantity of water filtered
in a year is only from 50 to 75 per cent of what would be the case if
the entire area of the filters worked constantly at the full rate. A
statement of the actual yields of a number of filter plants is given in
Appendix IV. The figures for the average annual yields can be taken as
quite reliable. The figures given for rate, in many cases, have little
value, owing to the different ways in which they are calculated at
different places. In addition most of the old works have no adequate
means of determining what the rate at any particular time and for a
single filter really is, and statements of average rates have only
limited value. The filters at Hamburg are not allowed to filter faster
than 1.60 or those at Berlin faster than 2.57 million gallons per acre
daily, and adequate means are provided to secure this condition. Other
German works aim to keep within the latter limit. Beyond this, unless
detailed information in regard to methods is presented, statements of
rate must be taken with some allowance.
EFFECT OF RATE UPON COST OF FILTRATION.
The size of the filters required, and consequently the first cost,
depends upon the rate of filtration, but with increasing rates the cost
is not reduced in the same proportion as the increase in rate, since
the allowance for area out of use is sensibly the same for high and low
rates, and in addition the operating expenses depend upon the quantity
filtered and not upon the filtering area. Thus, to supply 10 million
gallons at a maximum rate of 2 million gallons per acre daily we should
require 10 ÷ 2 = 5 acres + 1 acre reserve for cleaning = 6 acres, while
with a rate twice
as great, and with the same reserve (since the same amount of cleaning
must be done, as will be shown below), we should require 10 ÷ 4 + 1
= 3.5 acres, or 58 per cent of the area required for the lower rate.
Thus beyond a certain point increasing the rate does not effect a
corresponding reduction in the first cost.
The operating cost for the same quantity of water filtered does not
appear to be appreciably affected by the rate. It is obvious that
at high rates filters will became clogged more rapidly, and will
so require to be scraped oftener than at low rates, and it might
naturally be supposed that the clogging would increase more rapidly
than the rates, but this does not seem to be the case. At the Lawrence
Experiment Station, under strictly parallel conditions and with
identically the same water, filters running at various rates became
clogged with a rapidity directly proportional to the rates, so that
the quantities of water filtered between scrapings under any given
conditions are the same whether the rate is high or low.
The statistics bearing upon this point are interesting, if not entirely
conclusive. There were eleven places in Germany filtering river waters,
from which statistics were available for the year 1891-92. Of these
there were four places with high rates, Lübeck, Stettin, Stuttgart, and
Magdeburg, yielding 3.70 million gallons per acre daily, which filtered
on an average 59 million gallons per acre between scrapings. Three
other places, Breslau, Altona, and Frankfurt, yielding 1.85, passed
on an average 55 million gallons per acre between scrapings, and four
other places, Bremen, Königsberg, Brunswick and Posen, yielding 1.34
million gallons per acre daily, passed only 40 million gallons per
acre between scrapings. The works filtering at the highest rates thus
filtered more water in proportion to the sand clogged than did those
filtering more slowly, but I cannot think that this was the result of
the rate. It is more likely that some of the places have clearer waters
than others, and that this both allows the higher rate and causes less
clogging than the more turbid waters.
EFFECT OF RATE UPON EFFICIENCY OF FILTRATION.
The effect of the rate of filtration upon the quality of the effluent
has been repeatedly investigated. The efficiency almost uniformly
decreases rapidly with increasing rate. Fränkel and Piefke[10] first
found that with the high rates the number of bacteria passing some
experimental filters was greatly increased. Piefke[11] afterward
repeated these experiments, eliminating some of the features of the
first series to which objection was made, and confirmed the first
results. The results were so marked that Piefke was led to recommend
the extremely low limit of 1.28 million gallons per acre daily as the
safe maximum rate of filtration, but he has since repeatedly used 2.57
million gallons.
Kümmel,[12] on the other hand, in a somewhat limited series of
experiments, was unable to find any marked connection between the rate
and the efficiency, a rate of 2.57 giving slightly better results than
rates of either 1.28 or 5.14.
The admirably executed experiments made at Zürich in 1886-8 upon this
point, which gave throughout negative results, have but little value in
this connection, owing to the extremely low number of bacteria in the
original water.
At Lawrence in 1892 the following percentages of bacteria (_B.
prodigiosus_) passed at the respective rates:
--------+--------+-----------+---------------------------------------
No. of | Depth. | Effective | Rate. Millions gallons per acre daily.
Filter. | | Size of +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
| | Sand. | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 3.0
--------+--------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
| | | | | | |
33A | 60 | 0.14 | 0.002 | | | 0.040 |
34A | 60 | 0.09 | 0.001 | 0.005 | | 0.020 |
36A | 60 | 0.20 | | | 0.050 | | 0.050
37 | 60 | 0.20 | | | 0.010 | 0.130 |
38 | 24 | 0.20 | 0.018 | | 0.140 | 0.110 | 0.310
39 | 12 | 0.20 | 0.014 | 0.070 | | 0.080 | 0.520
40 | 12 | 0.20 | | 0.070 | | 0.090 |
42 | 12 | 0.20 | 0.016 | | | 0.150 | 0.550
--------+--------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
Average | 0.010 | 0.048 | 0.067 | 0.088 | 0.356
-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
These results show a very marked decrease in efficiency with
increasing rates, the number of bacteria passing increasing in general
as rapidly as the square of the rate. The 1893 results also showed
decreased efficiency with high rates, but the range in the rates
under comparable conditions was less than in 1892, and the bacterial
differences were less sharply marked.
While the average results at Lawrence, as well as most of the European
experiments, show greatly decreased efficiency with high rates, there
are many single cases, particularly with deep layers of not too coarse
sand, where, as in Kümmel’s experiments, there seems to be little
connection between the rate and efficiency. An explanation of these
apparently abnormal results will be given in Chapter VI.
It is commonly stated[13] that every water has its own special rate of
filtration, which must be determined by local experiments, and that
this rate may vary widely in different cases. Thus it is possible that
the rate of 1.60 adopted at Hamburg for the turbid Elbe water, the rate
of 2.57 used at Berlin, and about the same at London for much clearer
river-waters, and the rate of 7.50 used at Zürich for the almost
perfectly clear lake-water are in each case the most suitable for the
respective waters. In other cases however, where rates much above 2.57
are used for river-waters, as at Lübeck and Stettin, there is a decided
opinion that these rates are excessive, and in these instances steps
are now being taken to so increase the filtering areas as to bring the
rates within the limit of 2.57 million gallons per acre daily.
From the trend of European practice it would seem that for American
river-waters the rate of filtration should not exceed 2.57 in place of
the 3.90 million gallons per acre daily recommended by Kirkwood, or
even that a somewhat lower rate might be desirable in some cases. Of
course, in addition to the area
necessary to give this rate, a reserve for fluctuating rates and for
cleaning should be provided, reducing the average yield to 2.00, 1.50,
or even less. In the case of water from clear lakes, ponds, or storage
reservoirs, especially when they are not subject to excessive sewage
pollution or to strong algæ growths, it would seem that rates somewhat
and perhaps in some cases very much higher (as at Zürich) could be
satisfactorily used.
THE LOSS OF HEAD.
The loss of head is the difference between the heads of the waters
above and below the sand layer, and represents the frictional
resistance of that layer. When a filter is quite free from clogging
this frictional resistance is small, but gradually increases with the
deposit of a sediment layer from the water filtered until it becomes so
great that the clogging must be removed by scraping before the process
can be continued. After scraping the loss of head is reduced to, or
nearly to, its original amount. With any given amount of clogging the
loss of head is directly proportional to the rate of filtration; that
is, if a filter partially clogged, filtering at a rate of 1.0, has a
frictional resistance of 0.5 ft., the resistance will be doubled by
increasing the rate to 2.00 million gallons per acre daily, provided
no disturbance of the sediment layer is allowed. This law for the
frictional resistance of water in sand alone also applies to the
sediment layer, as I have found by repeated tests, although in so
violent a change as that mentioned above, the utmost care is required
to make the change gradually and prevent compression or breaking of the
sediment layer. From this relation between the rate of filtration and
the loss of head it is seen that the regulation of either involves the
regulation of the other, and it is a matter of indifference which is
directly and which indirectly controlled.
REGULATION OF THE RATE AND LOSS OF HEAD IN THE OLDER FILTERS.
In the older works, and in fact in all but a few of the newest works,
the underdrains of the filters connect directly through a pipe with a
single gate with the pure-water reservoir or pump-well, which is so
built that the water in it may rise nearly or quite as high as that
standing upon the filter.
[Illustration: FIG. 5.—SIMPLEST FORM OF REGULATION: STRALAU FILTERS AT
BERLIN.]
A typical arrangement of this sort was used at the Stralau works at
Berlin (now discontinued), Fig. 5. With this arrangement the rate of
filtration is dependent upon the height of water in the reservoir or
pump-well, and so upon the varying consumption. When the water in the
receptacle falls with increasing consumption the head is increased,
and with it the rate of filtration, while, on the other hand, with
decreasing draft and rising water in the reservoir, the rate of
filtration decreases and would eventually be stopped if no water were
used. This very simple arrangement thus automatically, within limits,
adjusts the rate of filtration to the consumption, and at the same time
always gives the highest possible level of water in the pump-well, thus
also economizing the coal required for pumping.
In plants of this type the loss of head may be measured by floats
on little reservoirs built for that purpose, connected with the
underdrains; but more often there is no means of determining it,
although the maximum loss of head at any time is the difference between
the levels of the water on the filter and in the reservoir, or the
outlet of the drain-pipe, in case the latter is above the water-line
in the reservoir. The rate of filtration can only be measured with this
arrangement by shutting off the incoming water for a definite interval,
and observing the distance that the water on the filter sinks. The
incoming water is regulated simply by a gate, which a workman opens or
closes from time to time to hold the required height of water on the
filter.
The only possible regulation of the rate and loss of head is effected
by a partial closing of the gate on the outlet-pipe, by which the
freshly-cleaned filters with nearly-closed gates are kept from
filtering more rapidly than the clogged filters, the gates of which
are opened wide. Often, however, this is not done, and then the fresh
filters filter many times as rapidly as those which are partially
clogged.
A majority of the filters now in use are built more or less upon this
plan, including most of those in London and also the Altona works,
which had such a favorable record with cholera in 1892.
The invention and application of methods of bacterial examination in
the last years have led to different ideas of filtration from those
which influenced the construction of the earlier plants. As a result
it is now regarded as essential by most German engineers[14] that
each filter shall be provided with devices for measuring accurately
and at any time both the rate of filtration and the loss of head, and
for controlling them, and also for making the rate independent of
consumption by reservoirs for filtered water large enough to balance
hourly variations (capacity 1/4 to 1/3 maximum daily quantity) and low
enough so that they can never limit the rate of filtration by causing
back-water on the filters. These points are now insisted upon by the
German Imperial Board of Health,[15] and all new filters are built in
accordance with them, while most of the old works are being built over
to conform to the requirements.
APPARATUS FOR REGULATING THE RATE AND LOSS of HEAD.
Many appliances have been invented for the regulation of the rate and
loss of head. In the apparatus designed by Gill and used at both Tegel
and Müggel at Berlin the regulation is effected by partially closing
a gate through which the effluent passes into a chamber in which the
water-level is practically constant (Fig. 6). The rate is measured
by the height of water on the weir which serves as the outlet for
this second chamber into a third connecting with the main reservoir,
while the loss of head is shown by the difference in height of floats
upon water in the first chamber, representing the pressure in the
underdrains, and upon water in connection with the raw water on the
filter. From the respective heights of the three floats the attendant
can at any time see the rate of filtration and the loss of head, and
when a change is required it is effected by moving the gate.
[Illustration: FIG. 6.—REGULATION APPARATUS AT BERLIN (TEGEL).]
In the apparatus designed in 1866 by Kirkwood for St. Louis and never
built (Fig. 7) the loss of head was directly, and the rate indirectly,
regulated by a movable weir, which was to have been lowered from time
to time by the attendant to secure the required results. This plan is
especially remarkable as it meets the modern requirements of a regular
rate independent of rate of consumption and of the water-level in the
reservoir, and also allows continual measurements of both rate (height
of water on the weir) and head (difference in water-levels on filter
and in effluent chamber) to be made, and control of the same by the
position of the weir. Mr. Kirkwood found no filters in Europe with such
appliances, and it was many years after his report was published before
similar devices were used, but they are now regarded as essential.
[Illustration: FIG. 7.—REGULATION APPARATUS AND SECTION OF FILTER
RECOMMENDED FOR ST. LOUIS BY KIRKWOOD IN 1866.]
[Illustration: FIG. 8.—REGULATION APPARATUS USED AT HAMBURG.]
The regulators for new filters at Hamburg (Fig. 8) are built upon the
principle of Kirkwood’s device, but provision is made for a second
measurement of the water if desired by the loss of head in passing a
submerged orifice. Both the rate and loss of head are indicated by a
float on the first chamber connecting directly with the underdrain,
which at the same time indicates the head on a fixed scale, the zero of
which corresponds to the height of the water above the filter, and the
rate upon a scale moving with the weir, the zero of which corresponds
with the edge of the weir. The water on the filter is held at a
perfectly constant level.
The regulators in use at Worms and those recently introduced at
Magdeburg act upon the same principle, but the levels of the water on
the filters are allowed to fluctuate, and the weirs and in fact, the
whole regulating appliances are mounted on big floats in surrounding
chambers of water connecting with the unfiltered water on the filters.
I am unable to find any advantages in these appliances, and they are
much more complicated than the forms shown by the cuts.
APPARATUS FOR REGULATING THE RATE DIRECTLY.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.—LINDLEY’S REGULATION APPARATUS AT WARSAW,
RUSSIA.]
The above-mentioned regulators control directly the loss of head,
and only indirectly the rate of filtration. The regulators at Warsaw
were designed by Lindley to regulate the rate directly and make it
independent of the loss of head. The quantity of water flowing away
is regulated by a float upon the water in the effluent chamber,
which holds the top of the telescope outlet-pipe a constant distance
below the surface and so secures a constant rate. As the friction of
the filter increases the float sinks with the water until it reaches
bottom, when the filter must be scraped. A counter-weight reduces the
weight on the float, and at the same time allows a change in the rate
when desired. This apparatus is automatic. All of the other forms
described require to be occasionally adjusted by the attendant, but
the attention they require is very slight, and watchmen are always on
duty at large plants, who can easily watch the regulators. The Warsaw
apparatus is reported to work very satisfactorily, no trouble being
experienced either by leaking or sticking of the telescope-joint,
which is obviously the weakest point of the device, but fortunately a
perfectly tight joint is not essential to the success of the apparatus.
Regulators acting upon the same principle have recently been installed
at Zürich, where they are operating successfully.
Burton[16] has described an ingenious device designed by him for the
filters at Tokyo, Japan. It consists of a double acting valve of gun
metal (similar to that shown by Fig. 11), through which the effluent
must pass. This valve is opened and closed by a rod connecting with
a piston in a cylinder, the opposite sides of which connect with the
effluent pipe above and below a point where the latter is partially
closed, so that the valve is opened and closed according as the loss
of head in passing this obstruction is below or above the amount
corresponding to the desired rate of filtration.
The use of the Venturi meter in connection with the regulation of
filters would make an interesting study, and has, I believe, never been
considered.
[Illustration: REGULATOR-HOUSE, SHOWING RATE OF FILTRATION AND LOSS OF
HEAD ON THE OUTSIDE, BREMEN.]
[Illustration: INLET FOR ADMISSION OF RAW WATER TO A FILTER, EAST
LONDON.
[_To face page 58._]
]
APPARATUS FOR REGULATING THE HEIGHT OF WATER UPON FILTERS.
It will be seen by reference to the diagrams of the Berlin and Hamburg
effluent regulators (Figs. 6 and 8) that their perfect operation
is dependent upon the maintenance of a constant water-level upon
the filters. The old-fashioned adjustment of the inlet-gate by the
attendant is hardly accurate enough.
The first apparatus for accurately and automatically regulating the
level of the water upon the filters was constructed at Leeuwarden,
Holland, by the engineer, Mr. Halbertsma, who has since used a similar
device at other places, and improved forms of which are now used at
Berlin and at Hamburg.
At Berlin (Müggel) the water-level is regulated by a float upon the
water in the filter which opens or shuts a balanced double valve on
the inlet-pipe directly beneath, as shown in Fig. 10. It is not at all
necessary that this valve should shut water-tight; it is only necessary
that it should prevent the continuous inflow from becoming so great as
to raise the water-level, and for this reason loose, easily-working
joints are employed. The apparatus is placed in a little pit next to
the side of the filter, and the overflowing water is prevented from
washing the sand by paving the sand around it for a few feet.
[Illustration: FIG. 10.—REGULATION OF INFLOW USED AT MÜGGEL, BERLIN.]
At Hamburg the same result is obtained by putting the valve in a
special chamber outside of the filter and connected with the float by a
walking-beam (Fig. 11).
[Illustration: FIG. 11.—REGULATION OF INFLOW USED AT HAMBURG.]
The various regulators require to be protected from cold and ice by
special houses, except in the case of covered filters, where they can
usually be arranged with advantage in the filter itself. In regard to
the choice of the form of regulator for both the inlets and outlets of
filters, so far as I have been able to ascertain, each of the modern
forms described as in use performs its functions satisfactorily, and in
special cases any of them could properly be selected which would in the
local conditions be the simplest in construction and operation.
LIMIT TO THE LOSS OF HEAD.
The extent to which the loss of head is allowed to go before filters
are cleaned differs widely in the different works, some of the newer
works limiting it sharply because it is believed that low bacterial
efficiency results when the pressure is too great, although the
frequency of cleaning and consequently the cost of operation are
thereby increased.
At Darlington, England, I believe as a result of the German theories,
the loss of head is limited to about 18 inches by a masonry weir built
within the last few years. At Berlin, both at Tegel and Müggel, the
limit is 24 inches, while at the new Hamburg works 28 inches are
allowed. At Stralau in 1893 an effort was made to not exceed a limit
of 40 inches, but previously heads up to 60 inches were used, which
corresponds with the 56 inches used at Altona; and, in the other old
works, while exact information is not easily obtained because of
imperfect records, I am convinced that heads of 60 or even 80 inches
are not uncommon. At the Lawrence Experiment Station heads of 70 inches
have generally been used, although some filters have been limited to 36
and 24 inches.
In 1866 Kirkwood became convinced that the loss of head should not go
much above 30 inches, first, because high heads would, by bringing
extra weight upon the sand, make it too compact, and, second, because
when the pressure became too great the sediment layer on the surface of
the sand, in which most of the loss of head occurs, would no longer be
able to support the weight and, becoming broken, would allow the water
to pour through the comparatively large resulting openings at greatly
increased rates and with reduced efficiency.
In regard to the first point, a straight, even pressure many times
that of the water on the filter is incapable of compressing the sand.
It is much more the effect of the boots of the workmen when scraping
that makes the sand compact. I have found sand in natural banks at
Lawrence 70 or 80 feet below the surface, where it had been subjected
to corresponding pressure for thousands of years, to be quite as porous
as when packed in water in experimental filters in the usual way.
The second reason mentioned, or, as I may call it, the breaking-through
theory, is very generally if not universally accepted by German
engineers, and this is the reason for the low limit commonly adopted by
them.
A careful study of the results at Lawrence fails to show the slightest
deterioration of the effluents up to the limit used, 72 inches. Thus
in 1892, taking only the results of the continuous filters of full
height (Nos. 33A, 34A, 36A, and 37), we find that for the three days
before scraping, when the head was nearly 72 inches, the average
number of bacteria in the effluents was 31 per cc., while for the
three days after scraping, with very low heads, the number was 47. The
corresponding numbers of _B. prodigiosus_[17] were 1.1 and 2.7. This
shows better work with the highest heads, but is open to the objection
that the period just after scraping, owing to the disturbance of the
surface, is commonly supposed to be a period of low efficiency.
To avoid this criticism in calculating the corresponding results for
1893, the numbers of the bacteria for the intermediate days which could
not have been influenced either by scraping or by excessive head are
put side by side with the others. Taking these results as before for
continuous filters 72 inches high, and excluding those with extremely
fine sands and a filter which was only in operation a short time toward
the end of the year, we obtain the following results:
Water B.
Bacteria Prodigiosus
per cc. per cc.
Average 1st day after scraping, low heads 79 6.1
Average 2d day after scraping, low heads 44 4.1
Average 3d day after scraping, low heads 45 3.6
Intermediate days, medium heads 59 4.5
Second from last day, heads of nearly 72 inches 66 2.7
Next to the last day, heads of nearly 72 inches 56 3.2
Last day, heads of nearly 72 inches 83 2.5
These figures show a very slight increase of the water bacteria in the
effluent as the head approaches the limit, but no such increase as
might be expected from a breaking through of the sediment layer, and
the _B. prodigiosus_ which is believed to better indicate the removal
of the bacteria of the original water, actually shows a decrease, the
last day being the best day of the whole period.
The Lawrence results, then, uniformly and clearly point to a conclusion
directly opposite to the commonly accepted view, and I have thus
been led to examine somewhat closely the grounds upon which the
breaking-through theory rests.
The two works which have perhaps contributed most to the theories
of filtration are the Stralau and Altona works. After examining the
available records of these works, I am quite convinced that at these
places there has been, at times at least, decreased efficiency with
high heads. For the Stralau works this is well shown by Piefke’s
plates in the _Zeitschrift für Hygiene_, 1894, after page 188. In both
of these works, however, the apparatus (or lack of apparatus) for
regulating the rate is that shown by Fig. 5, page 49, and the rate
of filtration is thus dependent upon the rate of consumption and the
height of water in the reservoir. At the Stralau works, at the time
covered by the above-mentioned diagrams, the daily quantity of water
filtered was 27 times the capacity of the reservoir, and the rate
of filtration must consequently have adapted itself to the hourly
consumptions. The data which formed the basis of Kirkwood’s conclusions
are not given in detail, but it is quite safe to assume that they were
obtained from filters regulated as those at Altona and Stralau are
regulated, and what is said in regard to the latter will apply equally
to his results.
Piefke[18] shows that among the separate filters at Stralau, all
connected with the same pure-water reservoir, those connected through
the shorter pipes gave poorer effluents than the more remote filters,
and he attributes the difference to the frictional resistance of the
connecting pipes, which helped to prevent excessive rates in the
filters farthest away when the water in the reservoir became low, and
thus the fluctuations in the rates in these filters were less than in
those close to the reservoir. He
does not, however, notice, in speaking of the filters in which the
decreased efficiencies with high heads were specially marked, that they
follow in nearly the same order, and that of the four open filters
mentioned three were near the reservoir and only one was separated by
a comparatively long pipe, indicating that the deterioration with high
heads was only noticeable, or at least was much more conspicuous, in
those filters where the rates fluctuated most violently.
It requires no elaborate calculation to show that of two filters
connected with the same pure-water reservoir, as shown by Fig. 5,
with only simple gates on the connecting pipes, one of them clean and
throttled by a nearly closed gate, so that the normal pressure behind
the gate is above the highest level of water in the reservoir, and the
other clogged so that the normal pressure of the water in the drain is
considerably below the highest level of the water in the reservoir,
the latter will suffer much the more severe shocks with fluctuating
water-levels; and the fact being admitted that fluctuating levels are
unfavorable, we must go farther and conclude that the detrimental
action will increase with increasing loss of head. I am inclined to
think that this theory is adequate to explain the Stralau and Altona
results without resource to the breaking-through theory.
While the above does not at all prove the breaking-through theory to be
false, it explains the results upon which it rests in another way, and
can hardly fail to throw so much doubt upon it as to make us refuse to
allow its application to those works where a regular rate of filtration
is maintained regardless of variations in the consumption, until proof
is furnished that it is applicable to them.
I have been totally unable to find satisfactory European results in
regard to this point. The English works can furnish nothing, both on
account of the lack of regulating appliances and because the monthly
bacterial examinations are inadequate for a discussion of hourly or
daily changes. The results from the older Continental works are also
excluded for one or the other, or more often for both, of the above
reasons. The Hamburg, Tegel, and Müggel results, so far as they go,
show no deterioration with increased heads, but the heads are limited
to 24 or 28 inches by the construction of the filters, and the results
thus entirely fail to show what would be obtained with heads more than
twice as high.
I am thus forced to conclude that there is no adequate evidence of
inferior efficiency with high heads in filters where the rates are
independent of the water-level in the pure-water reservoir, the
only results directly to the point—the Lawrence results mentioned
above—indicating that the full efficiency is maintained with heads
reaching at least 72 inches.
The principal reason for desiring to allow a considerable loss of head
is an economical one; the period will then be lengthened, while the
frequency of scraping and the volume of sand to be washed and replaced
will be correspondingly reduced. There may be other advantages in long
periods, such as less trouble with scraping and better work in cold
winter weather, but the cost is the most important consideration.
It is the prevalent idea among the German engineers that the loss of
head after reaching 24 to 30 inches would increase very rapidly, so
that the quantity of water filtered, in case a much higher head was
allowed, would not be materially increased. No careful investigations,
however, have been made, and indeed they are hardly possible with
existing arrangements, as in the older filters the loss of head
fluctuates with varying rates of filtration in such a way that only
results of very doubtful value can be obtained, and in the newer works
the loss of head is too closely limited, and the curves which can be
drawn by extrapolation are evidently no safe indications of what would
actually happen if the process was carried farther.
On the other hand, I was told by the attendant at Darlington, England,
that since the building of the weir a few years ago, which now limits
the loss of head to about 18 inches instead of the 5 feet or more
formerly used, the quantity of sand to be removed has been three times
as great as formerly. No records are kept, and this can only be given
as the general impression of the man who superintends the work.
At Lawrence the average quantities of water filtered between scrapings
with sand of an effective size of 0.20 mm. have been as follows:
Maximum Loss of Million Gallons per Acre filtered
Head. between Scrapings.
1892. 1893. Average.
70 inches 58 88 73
34 foot 32 22 27
22 foot 17 16 16
With sand of an effective size of 0.29 mm. the results were:
1893.
70 inches 70
22 foot 29
These results indicate a great increase in the quantity of water
filtered between scrapings with increasing heads, the figures being
nearly proportional to the maximum heads used in the respective
cases. It is, of course, quite possible that the results would differ
in different places with the character of the raw water and of the
filtering material.
The depth of sand to be removed by scraping at one time is, within
limits, practically independent of the quantity of dirt which it has
accumulated, and any lengthening of the period means a corresponding
reduction in the quantity of sand to be removed, washed and replaced
and consequently an important reduction in the operating cost, as well
as a reduction in the area of filters out of use while being cleaned,
and so, in the capital cost.
Among the minor objections to an increased loss of head are the
greater head against which the water must be pumped, and the possible
increased difficulty of filling filters with filtered water from below
after scraping, but these would hardly have much weight against the
economy indicated by the Lawrence experiments for the higher heads.
High heads will also drive an increased quantity of water through any
cracks or passages in the filter. Such leaks have at last been found to
be the cause of the inferior work of the covered filters at Stralau,
the water going down unfiltered in certain corners, especially at high
heads; but with careful construction there should be no cracks, and
with the aid of bacteriology to find the possible leaks this ought not
to be a valid objection.
In conclusion: the trend of opinion is strongly in favor of limiting
the loss of head to about 24 to 30 inches as was suggested by Kirkwood,
but I am forced to conclude that there is reason to believe that
equally good results can be obtained with lower operating expenses by
allowing higher heads to be used, at least in the case of filters with
modern regulating appliances, and, I would suggest that filters should
be built so as not to exclude the use of moderately high heads, and
that the limit to be permanently used should be determined by actual
tests of efficiency and length of period with various losses of head
after starting the works.