CLEANING FILTERS.
When a filter has become so far clogged that it will no longer pass
a satisfactory quantity of water with the allowable head it must be
cleaned by scraping off and removing the upper layer of dirty sand.
To do this without unnecessary loss of time the unfiltered water
standing upon the filter is removed by a drain above the sand provided
for that purpose. The water in the sand must then be lowered below the
surface of the sand by drawing water from the underdrains until the
sand is firm enough to bear the weight of the workmen. By the time
that this is accomplished the last water on the surface should have
soaked away, and the filter is ready to be scraped. This is done by
workmen with wide, sharp shovels, and the sand removed is taken to
the sand-washing apparatus to be washed and used again. Special pains
are given to securing rapid and cheap transportation of the sand. In
some cases it is wheeled out of the filter on an inclined plane to the
washer. In other cases a movable crane is provided which lifts the sand
in special receptacles and allows it to fall into cars on a tram-line
on which the crane also moves. The cars as filled are run to the washer
and also serve to bring back the washed sand. When the dirty sand has
been removed, the surface of the sand is carefully smoothed and raked.
This is especially necessary to remove the effects of the workmen’s
boots.
It is customary in the most carefully managed works to fill the sand
with filtered water from below, introduced through the underdrains. In
case the ordinary level of the water in the pure-water canal is higher
than the surface of the sand in the filters, this is accomplished
by simply opening a gate provided for the purpose, which allows the
water to pass around the regulating apparatus. Otherwise filters can
be filled from a special pipe taking its water from any filter which
at that time can deliver its effluent high enough for that purpose.
The quantity of water required for filling the sand from below is
ordinarily but a fraction of one per cent of the quantity filtered.
Formerly, instead of filling from below, after cleaning, the raw water
was brought directly onto the surface of the filter. This was said to
only imperfectly fill the sand-pores, which still contained much air.
If, however, the water is not brought on too rapidly it will sink into
the sand near the point where it is applied, pass laterally through the
sand or underlying gravel to other parts of the filter, and then rise,
so that even in this case all but a little of the filter will be really
filled from below. This is, however, open to the objection that however
slowly the water is introduced, the sand which absorbs it around the
inlet filters it at a very high rate and presumably imperfectly, so
that the water in the underdrains at the start will be poor quality
and the sand around the inlet will be unduly clogged. The practice of
filling from below is therefore well founded.
As soon as the surface of the sand is covered with the water from
below, raw water is introduced from above, filling the filter to
the standard height, care being taken at first that no currents
are produced which might wash the surface of the sand. It has been
recommended by Piefke and others that this water should be allowed
to stand for a time up to twenty-four hours before starting the
filtration, to allow the formation of a sediment layer, and in some
places, especially at Berlin and the works of some of the London
companies, this is done; but varying importance is attached to the
procedure, and it is invariably omitted, so far as I can learn, when
the demand for water is heavy.
The depth of sand removed by scraping must at least equal the
depth of the discolored layer, but there is no sharp dividing line,
the impurities gradually decreasing from the surface downward.
Fig. 12 shows the relative number of bacteria found in the sand at
various depths in one of the Lawrence experimental filters, and is a
representative result, although the actual numbers vary at different
times. In general it may be said that the bulk of the sediment is
retained in the upper quarter inch, but it is desirable to remove also
the less dirty sand below and, in fact, it is apparently impossible
with the method of scraping in use to remove so thin a layer as one
fourth inch. Practically the depth to which sand is removed is stated
to be from 0.40 to 1.20 inch. Exact statistics are not easily obtained,
but I think that 2 centimeters or 0.79 inch may be safely taken as
about the average depth usually removed in European filters, and it is
this depth which is indicated on Fig. 12.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.—DIAGRAM SHOWING ACCUMULATION OF BACTERIA NEAR
THE SURFACE OF THE SAND.]
At the Lawrence Experiment Station, the depth removed is often much
less than this, and depends upon the size of grain of the sand
employed, the coarser sands requiring to be more deeply scraped than
the finer ones. The method of scraping, however, which allows the
removal of very thin sand layers, is only possible because of the
small size of the filters, and as it is incapable of application on a
large scale, the depths thus removed are only interesting as showing
the results which might be obtained in practice with a more perfect
method of scraping.
The replacing of the washed sand is usually delayed until the filter
has been scraped quite a number of times—commonly for a year. The last
scraping before refilling is much deeper than usual, because the sand
below the depth of the ordinary scraping is somewhat dirty, and might
cause trouble if left below the clean sand.
In England it is the usual if not the universal practice to replace the
washed sand at the bottom between the old sand and the gravel. This is
done by digging up the entire filter in sections about six feet wide.
The old sand in the first section is removed clear down to the gravel,
and the depth of washed sand which is to be replaced is put in its
place. The old sand from the next six-foot section is then shovelled
upon the first section of clean sand, and its place is in turn filled
with fresh sand. With this practice the workmen’s boots are likely to
disturb the gravel each year, necessitating a thicker layer of the
upper and finest grade than would otherwise be required.
In Germany this is also sometimes done, but more frequently the upper
layer of slightly clogged sand below the regular scraping is removed
as far as the slightest discoloration can be seen, perhaps 6 inches
deep. The sand below is loosened for another 6 inches and allowed to
stand dry, if possible, for some days; afterwards the washed sand is
brought on and placed above. The washed sand is never replaced without
some such treatment, because the slightly clogged sand below the layer
removed would act as if finer than the freshly washed sand,[19] and
there would be a tendency to sub-surface clogging.
FREQUENCY OF SCRAPING.
The frequency of scraping depends upon the character of the raw water,
the thoroughness of the preliminary sedimentation, the grain-size of
the filter sand, the rate of filtration, and the maximum loss of head
allowed. With suitable conditions the period between scrapings should
never be less than one week, and will but rarely exceed two months.
Under exceptional conditions, however, periods have been recorded as
low as one day and as high as one hundred and ten days. Periods of less
than a week’s duration are almost conclusive evidence that something
is radically wrong, and the periods of one day mentioned were actually
accompanied by very inadequate filtration. In 1892 the average periods
at the German works varied from 9.5 days at Stettin (with an excessive
rate) to 40 days at Brunswick, the average of all being 25 days.[20]
The quantity of water per acre filtered between scrapings forms the
most convenient basis for calculation. The effect of rate (page
49), loss of head (page 65), and size of sand grain (page 32) have
already been discussed, and it will suffice to say here that the total
quantity filtered between scrapings is apparently independent of the
rate of filtration, but varies with the maximum loss of head and with
the grain-size of the sand, and apparently nearly in proportion to
them. Eleven German filter-works in 1892, drawing their waters from
rivers, filtered on an average 51 million gallons of water per acre
between scrapings, the single results ranging from 28 at Bremen to 71
at Stuttgart, while Zürich, drawing its water from a lake which is
but very rarely turbid, filtered 260 million gallons per acre between
scrapings. Unfortunately, the quantities at Berlin, where (in 1892 two
thirds and now all) the water is drawn from comparatively large ponds
on the rivers, are not available for comparison.
At London, in 1884, the average quantities of water filtered
between scrapings varied from 43 to 136 million gallons per acre with
the different companies, averaging 85, and in 1892 the quantities
ranged from 73 to 157, averaging 90 million gallons per acre. The
greater quantity filtered at London may be due to the greater sizes of
the sedimentation-basins, which for all the companies together hold a
nine days’ supply at London against probably less than one day’s supply
for the German works.
There is little information available in regard to the frequency
of scraping with water drawn from impounding reservoirs. In some
experiments made by Mr. FitzGerald at the Chestnut Hill reservoir,
Boston, the results of which are as yet unpublished, a filter with
sand of an effective size of only .09 mm. averaged 58 million gallons
per acre between scrapings for nine periods, the rate of filtration
being 1.50 million gallons per acre daily, while another filter, with
sand of an effective size of .18 mm., passed an average of 93 million
gallons per acre for ten periods at the same rate. These experiments
extended through all seasons of the year, and taking into account the
comparative fineness of the sands they show rather high quantities of
water filtered between scrapings.
The quantity of water filtered between scrapings is usually greatest
in winter, owing to the smaller quantity of sediment in the raw water
at this season, and is lowest in times of flood, regardless of season.
In summer the quantity is often reduced to a very low figure in waters
supporting algæ growths, especially when the filters are not covered.
Thus at Stralau in 1893 during the algæ period the quantity was reduced
to 14 million gallons per acre for open filters,[21] but this was quite
exceptional, the much-polluted, though comparatively clear, Spree water
furnishing unusually favorable conditions for the algæ.
QUANTITY OF SAND TO BE REMOVED.
In regard to the quantity of sand to be removed and washed, if we
take the average result given above for the German works filtering
river-waters of 51,000,000 gallons per acre filtered between scrapings,
and the depth of sand removed at two centimeters or 0.79 inch, we
find that one volume of sand is required for every 2375 volumes of
water filtered, or 2.10 cubic yards per million gallons. At Bremen,
the highest average result, the quantity would be 3.80 yards, and at
Stralau during the algæ season 7.70 yards. At Zürich, on the other
hand, the quantity is only 0.41 yard, and at London, with 87,000,000
gallons per acre filtered between scrapings, the quantity of sand
washed would be 1.24 yards per million gallons; assuming always that
the layer removed is 0.79 inch thick.
These estimates are for the regular scrapings only, and do not include
the annual deeper scraping before replacing the sand, which would
increase them by about one third.
WASTING THE EFFLUENTS AFTER SCRAPING.
It has already been stated that an important part of the filtration
takes place in the sediment layer deposited on top of the sand from
the water. When this layer is removed by scraping its influence is
temporarily removed, and reduced efficiency of filtration may result.
The significance of this reduced efficiency became apparent when the
bacteria in the water were studied in their relations to disease, and
Piefke suggested[22] that the first effluent after scraping should
be rejected for one day after ordinary scrapings and for one week
after replacing the sand. In a more recent paper[23] he reduces these
estimates to the first million gallons of water per acre filtered after
scraping
for open and twice as great a quantity for covered filters, and to six
days after replacing the sand, which last he estimates will occur only
once a year. Taking the quantity of water filtered between scrapings at
13.9 million gallons per acre, the quantity observed at Stralau in the
summer of 1893, he finds that it is necessary to waste 9 per cent of
the total quantity of effluent from open and 13.8 per cent of that from
covered filters.
The eleven German water-works[24] filtering river-waters, however,
filtered on an average 51.0 instead of 13.9 million gallons per acre
between scrapings, and applying Piefke’s figures to them the quantities
of water to be wasted would be only about one fourth of his estimates
for Stralau.
The rules of the Imperial Board of Health[25] require that every German
filter shall be so constructed “that when an inferior effluent results
it can be disconnected from the pure-water pipes and the filtrate
allowed to be wasted.” The drain-pipe for removing the rejected water
should be connected below the apparatus for regulating the rate and
loss of head, so that the filter can be operated exactly as usual,
and the effluent can be turned back to the pure-water pipes without
stopping or changing the rate. The works at Berlin and at Hamburg
conform to this requirement, and most of the older German works have
been or are being built over to make them do so.
In regard to the extent of deterioration after scraping, Piefke’s
experiments have always shown much larger numbers of bacteria both of
the ordinary forms and of special applied forms on the first day after
scraping, the numbers frequently being many times as high as at other
times.
At the Lawrence Experiment Station it was found in 1892 that on an
average the number of water bacteria was increased by 70 per cent
(continuous filters only) for the three days following scraping, while
_B. prodigiosus_ when applied was increased 140 per
cent, the increase being most marked where the depth of sand was
least, and with the highest rate of filtration.
The same tendency was found in 1893, when the increase in the water
bacteria on the first day after scraping was only 19 per cent and _B.
prodigiosus_ 64 per cent, but for a portion of the year the difference
was greater, averaging 132 and 262 per cent, respectively. These
differences are much less than those recorded by Piefke, and with the
high efficiencies regularly obtained at Lawrence they would hardly
justify the expensive practice of wasting the effluent.
The reduction in efficiency following scraping is much less at low
rates, and if a filter is started at much less than its normal rate
after scraping, and then gradually increased to the standard after
the sediment layer is formed, the poor work will be largely avoided.
Practically this is done at Berlin and at Hamburg. The filters are
started at a fourth or less of the usual rates and are gradually
increased, as past experience with bacterial results has shown it can
be safely done, and the effluent is then even at first so well purified
that it need not be wasted.
Practically in building new filters the provision of a suitable
connection for wasting the effluents into the drain which is necessary
for emptying them involves no serious expense and should be provided,
but it may be questioned how often it should be used for wasting the
effluents. If the raw water is so bad that a good effluent cannot be
obtained by careful manipulation even just after scraping, the course
of the Berlin authorities in closing the Stralau works and seeking a
less polluted supply would seem to be the only really safe procedure.
SAND-WASHING.
[Illustration: CLEANING A FILTER, EAST LONDON.]
[Illustration: WASHING DIRTY SAND WITH HOSE, ANTWERP.]
[_To face page 76._]
The sand-washing apparatus is an important part of most European
filtering plants. It seldom happens that a natural sand can be found
clean enough and sufficiently free from fine particles although such
a sand was found and used for the Lawrence filter. Most of the sand in
use for filtration in Europe was originally washed. In the operation of
the filters also, sand-washing is used for the dirty sand, which can
then be used over and over at a much lower cost than would be the case
if fresh sand was used for refilling. The methods used for washing sand
at the different works present a great variety both in their details
and in the underlying principles. Formerly boxes with double perforated
bottoms in which the sand was placed and stirred by a man as water from
below rose through them, and other similar arrangements were commonly
used, but they are at present only retained, so far as I know, in some
of the smaller English works. The cleansing obtained is apparently
considerably less thorough than with some of the modern devices.
[Illustration: FIG. 13.—HOSE-WASHING FOR DIRTY SAND.]
Hose-washing is used in London by the Southwark and Vauxhall, Lambeth
and Chelsea companies, and also at Antwerp. For this a platform is
constructed about 15 feet long by 8 feet wide, with a pitch lengthwise
of 6 to 8 inches (Fig. 13). The platform is surrounded by a wall
rising from one foot at the bottom to three feet high at the top,
except the lower end, which is closed by a removable plank weir 5 or 6
inches high. From two to four cubic yards of the sand are placed upon
this platform and a stream of water from a hose with a 3/4 or 7/8-inch
nozzle is played upon it, moving it about from place to place. The sand
itself is always kept toward the upper end of the platform, while the
water with the dirt removed flows down into the pond made by the weir,
where the sand settles out and the dirt overflows with the water. When
the water comes off clear, which is usually after an hour or a little
less, the weir is removed, and, after draining, the sand is removed.
These arrangements are built in pairs so that the hose can be used in
one while the sand is being changed in the other. They are usually
built of brick laid in cement, but plank and iron are also used. The
corners are sometimes carried out square as in the figure, but are more
often rounded. The washing is apparently fairly well done.
In Germany the so-called “drum” washing-machine, drawings of which have
been several times published,[26] has come to be almost universally
used. It consists of a large revolving cylinder, on the bottom of the
inside of which the sand is slowly pushed up toward the higher end by
endless screw-blades attached to the cylinder, while water is freely
played upon it all the way. The machine requires a special house for
its accommodation and from 2 to 4 horse-power for its operation. It
washes from 2.5 to 4 yards of sand per hour most thoroughly, with a
consumption of from 11 to 14 times as large a volume of water. The
apparatus is not patented or made for sale, but full plans can be
easily secured.
A machine made by Samuel Pegg & Sons, Leicester, Eng., pushes the
sand up a slight incline down which water flows. It is very heavy and
requires power to operate it. The patent has
expired. A machine much like it but lighter and more convenient and
moved by water-power derived from the water used for washing instead of
steam-power is used at Zürich with good results.
In Greenway’s machine the sand is forced by a screw through a long
narrow cylinder in which there is a current of water in the opposite
direction. The power required is furnished by a water-motor, as with
the machine at Zürich. The apparatus is mounted on wheels and is
portable; it has an appliance for piling up the washed sand or loading
it onto cars. It is patented and is manufactured by James Gibb & Co.,
London.
Several of the London water companies are now using ejector washers,
and such an apparatus has been placed by the side of the “drum” washers
at Hamburg. This apparatus was made by Körting Brothers in Hannover,
and combines the ejectors long made by that firm with hoppers from
designs by Mr. Bryan, engineer of the East London Water Company. An
apparatus differing from this only in the shape of the ejectors and
some minor details has been patented in England, and is for sale by
Messrs. Hunter, Frazer & Goodman, Bow, London.
Both of these forms consist of a series of conical hoppers, from the
bottom of each of which the sand and water are forced into the top of
the next by means of ejectors, the excess of dirty water overflowing
from the top of each hopper. The apparatus is compact and not likely
to get out of order, but is not portable. It can be easily arranged to
take the sand at the level of the ground, or even lower if desired, and
deliver it washed at some little elevation, thus minimizing hand-labor.
The washing is regular and thorough. The objection most frequently
raised against its use is the quantity of water required, but at
Hamburg I was informed that the volume of water required was only about
15 times that of the sand, while almost as much (13-14 volumes) were
required for the “drum” washers, and the saving in power much more
than offset the extra cost for water.
In addition to the above processes of sand-washing, Piefke’s method
of cleaning without scraping[27] might be mentioned, although as
yet it has hardly passed the experimental stage, and has only been
used on extremely small filters. The process consists of stirring
the surface sand of the filter with “waltzers” while a thin sheet of
water rapidly flows over the surface. This arrangement necessitates a
special construction of the filters, providing for rapidly removing
the unfiltered water from the surface, and for producing a regular and
rapid movement of a thin sheet of water over the surface. In the little
filters now in use, one of which I saw in a brewery in Berlin, the
cleaning is rapidly, cheaply, and apparently well done.
In washing dirty sand it is obvious that any small sand-grains will
be removed with the dirt, and in washing new sand the main object is
to remove the grains below a certain size. It is also apparent that
the sizes of grains which will and those which will not be removed
are dependent upon the mechanical arrangements of the washer, as, for
example, with the ejectors, upon the sizes of the hoppers, and the
quantity of water passing through them, and care should be taken to
make them correspond with the size of grain selected for the filter
sand. This can only be done by experiment, as no results are available
on this point.
In some places filtered water is used for sand-washing, although this
seems quite unnecessary, as ordinary river-water answers very well.
It is, however, often cheaper, especially in small works, to use the
filtered water from the mains rather than provide a separate supply for
the washers.
The quantity of water required for washing may be estimated at 15 times
the volume of the sand and the sand as 0.04 per cent of the volume of
the water filtered (page 74), so that
0.6 per cent of the total quantity of water filtered will be required
for sand-washing.
The cost of sand-washing in Germany with the “drum” washers is said
to be from 14 to 20 cents per cubic yard, including labor, power, and
water. In America the water would cost no more, but the labor would be
perhaps twice as dear. With an ejector apparatus I should estimate the
cost of washing dirty sand as follows: The sand would be brought and
dumped near to the washer, and one man could easily feed it in, as no
lifting is required. Two men would probably be required to shovel the
washed sand into barrows or carts with the present arrangements, but I
think with a little ingenuity this handling could be made easier.
ESTIMATED COST OF OPERATING EJECTOR WASHERS 9 HOURS.
Wages of 3 men at $2.00 $6.00
110,000 gals, water (15 times the volume of sand)
at 0.05 a thousand gals. 5.50
-----
Total cost of washing 36 cubic yards $11.50
or 32 cents a cubic yard.
The cost of washing new sand might be somewhat less. The other costs of
cleaning filters, scraping, transporting, and replacing the sand are
much greater than the washing itself. Lindley states that at Warsaw 29
days’ labor of 10 hours for one man are required to scrape an acre of
filter surface, and four times as much for the annual deep scraping,
digging up, and replacing the sand. The first expense occurs in general
monthly, and the second only once a year. At other places where I have
secured corresponding data the figures range from 19 to 40 days’ labor
to scrape one acre, and average about the same as Lindley estimates.
Under some conditions sand-washing does not pay, and in still others
it is almost impossible. No apparatus has yet been devised which will
wash the dirt out of the fine dune-sands used in Holland without
washing a large part of the sand itself away, and in these works fresh
sand, which is available in unlimited quantities and close to the
works, is always used. At Breslau the dirty sand is sold for building
purposes for one third of the price paid for new sand dredged from the
river, delivered at the works, and no sand is ever washed. Budapest,
Warsaw, and Rotterdam also use fresh river-sand without washing, except
a very crude washing to remove clay at Budapest.