ECW 341 Water Engineering Laboratory Program: Diploma in Civil Engineering (EC110)

University Teknologi MARA Academic Session: March 2020 – July 2020

Laboratory
Level LEVEL 2 Team Student’s ID Student’s Name Group

Laboratory Title JAR TEST – MEASUREMENT OF WATER 1. Group Leader 2019260792 MUHAMMAD SYAHAMUDDIN BIN MAT BASRI EC1105M
TURBIDITY
Date 17/12/2021 2. Member 2019413252 MUHAMMAD SYAHAMUDDIN BIN MAT BASRI EC1105M
Lecturer’s TS. DR. DURATUL AIN BINTI 2019807248 MUHAMMAD HILMAN BIN NAZRI EC1105M
Name 3. Member
THOLIBON
4. Member 2019232514 MUHAMMAD ZHARFAN BIN SARUDIN EC1105M
Verification

CO2 : Demonstrate leadership skills in task related to water engineering.

PO6 : Demonstrate knowledge of the societal, health, safety, legal and cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities relevant to engineering technician practice and solutions to well-defined
engineering problems.
A. LABORATORY REPORT ASSESSMENT
RUBRICS/Marks Marks
NO DOMAIN ELEMENT
2 4 6 8 10
Not able to explain, design and Not able to explain the Able to design, conduct and Able to design, conduct, testing Able to design, conduct, testing,
Knowledge on the open-
1 A2 (Responding) conduct the experimental work experiment and the work explain the data obtained but and explain the data obtained interpret and explain the data and
ended laboratory
in the lab assigned not the work assigned and the work assigned the work assigned
Able to control, lead and Able to control, lead and Able to control, lead and delivering
Unable to control, lead, fail to Able to control, lead the group
delivering the task to the group delivering the task to the group the task to the group efficiently and
deliver the task to the group but fail to deliver the task and
members and occasionally efficiently and usually does what serves as a leader in managing
2 A2 (Responding) Leadership skill and does not compromise to does not compromise towards
helps the group to achieve the is the best interest of the group individual ideas towards the
achieve the objectives of the achieveme5nt objectives of
objectives of the experiments towards the achievement of the achievement of the objectives
experiments (Reports) the experiments (Reports) (Reports) objectives (Reports) (Reports)
Team showed good cohesion, Team showed great cohesion,
Team demonstrated some interaction respect. Team interaction respect. Team Team showed great cohesion,
Team showed poor cohesion,
cohesion, interaction respect. member did not share the tasks member did not share the tasks interaction respect. Team shared
poor interaction and poor
Most work was done by only 1 equally and did not utilize equally and did not utilize the tasks equally and utilizes
3 A4 (Organization) Organization respect. Only one person does
member team. Reports were abilities of each team abilities of each team members. abilities of each team members.
all the reports. Reports were
completed on time but with members. Reports were Reports were completed on time Reports were completed on time
not completed.
unsatisfactory compilations. completed on time but with but with satisfactory with satisfactory compilations.
unsatisfactory compilations compilations.
B. LABORATORY REPORT ASSESSMENT
The team is able to collect The team is able to collect The team is able to collect relevant
The team is able to collect
The team is unable to collect some relevant data, related to relevant data, related to the data, related to the objectives, with
4 A4 (Organizing) Result and analysis some data but unable to
any data, insufficient to analyze the objectives, with fair analysis objectives, with good analysis excellent analysis and
analyze and interpret
and interpret and interpretation. and interpretation. interpretation.

5 A4 (Organizing)
The team is able to relate some The team is able to relate all The team is able to relate all
The team is unable to discuss The team is able to discuss
Discussion of the findings with the problem findings with the problem with findings with the problem with
the findings some of the findings
with fair discussion good discussion excellent discussion

The team is able to provide The team is able to derive fair The team is able to derive good The team is able to derive accurate
6 A5 (Characterization) Conclusion The team is unable to conclude conclusion without answering conclusion based on findings to conclusion based on findings to conclusion based on findings to
the objective answer the objective answer the objective answer the objective

TOTAL

60
 CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY
UITM PAHANG, KAMPUS JENGKA

WATER ENGINEERING LABORATORY

ECW341
OPEN-ENDED LAB
OCTOBER 2021 – FEBRUARY 2022

TITLE OF EXPERIMENT : JAR TEST – MEASUREMENT OF WATER TURBIDITY.

DATE OF EXPERIMENT
: 17.12.2021
GROUP
: EC1105M
GROUP MEMBERS
1. MUHAMMAD SYAHAMUDDIN BIN MAT BASRI (2019260792)

2. MUHAMMAD IRFAN BIN NAZARUDDIN (2019413252)

3. MUHAMMAD HILMAN BIN NAZRI (2019807248)

4. MUHAMMAD ZHARFAN BIN SARUDIN (2019232514)

LECTURER : TS. DR. DURATUL AIN BINTI THOLIBON

LEVEL OF OPENESS : 2

NO ELEMENT COPO Marks COMMENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

2 BASIC CONCEPT

SUMMARY OF 2 4 6 8 10
3
PROCEDURES/METHOD
ANALYSIS AND 2 4 6 8 10
4
INTERPETATION OF DATA
2 4 6 8 10
5 DISCUSSION OF RESULT
2 4 6 8 10
6 CONCLUSIONS

TOTAL MARKS /40

1. INTRODUCTION

Jar testing is a method of simulating a full-scale water treatment process in order to provide
system operators a good sense of how a treatment chemical will react and operate with a certain type
of raw water. Jar testing can help system operators discover which chemical will perform best with
their system's raw water because it simulates full-scale operation. Jar testing is one of the most
effective instruments available to surface water plant operators for determining the optimum
coagulant dosage. The right application of chemical to the raw water entering the treatment plant
determines the quality of the finished water, the cost of production, the duration of filter runs, and the
overall filter life.

Jar testing approach was utilized in this experiment, which involved mixing varying
concentrations of aluminum sulphate, Al2(SO4)3, into the beakers of water samples. After some time,
the clarity of the water was checked to determine the appropriate alum content for efficient
coagulation.

2. OBJECTIVE

• To determine the initial and final turbidity of water sample for solids removal from water
using Jar test experiment.

3. APPARATUS
1. Water bottle (10,000 mL)
2. Analytical balance
3. Alum stock solution 2g/L of Al2(SO4)3
4. Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
5. Kaolin powder
6. A stirring machine with six paddles capable of variable speeds from 0 to 100 revolutions per
minute (RPM)
7. Beakers (1,000 mL)
8. Turbidity meter and sample tubes
4. PROCEDURE

1. The waste water from the treatment plant was prepared. The sodium was use to stability the
PH of the waste water to the neutral.
2. The pH and turbidity of the synthetic water sample were measured.
3. 600ml was filled each of the prepared synthetic water suspension into six different beakers
(Plexiglas beakers)
4. The prescribed dose of coagulant was added to each jar by using a pipette. One jar has no
coagulant since a control sample was required.
5. If a coagulant aid is required, it is added to each jar (except for control sample) during the last
15 seconds of the rapid mix stage.
6. Start stirring rapidly (60 to 80 rpm) for 3 minutes (Rapid mix stage).
7. After the rapid mix stage, reduce the speed to 30 rpm for 20 minutes.
8. Floc formation were recorded by referring to the chart of particle sizes in final 10minutes.
9. After the stirring period was over, stop the stirrer and the flocs was allowed to settle for about
5 minutes.
10. Then, pH and turbidity of the clarified water were determined.
11. A graph of turbidity versus coagulant dose (mg/L) was plotted. The most effective dose of
coagulant (or with the present of coagulant aid) that gives the least turbid results also
determined.
12. The qualitative characteristics of floc as fine, very fine, coarse, very coarse and moderate fine.
Cloudy samples indicate bad coagulation while good coagulation refers to rapid floc formation
resulting in clear water formation on the upper portion of the beaker.
13. The following graph, pH versus coagulant dose were plotted. These graphs will assist students
in the interpretation of the coagulation-flocculation process
 5. DATA
Raw water: Pond water

No. Jar 1 2 3 4 5 6
Initial pH 7.23 7.23 7.23 7.23 7.23 7.23
Coagulant Dose 0 2 4 6 8 10
(mg/L)
Agitate 20 20 20 20 20 20
(minute)
Fast (rpm) 80 80 80 80 80 80
Slow (rpm) 30 30 30 30 30 30
Final pH 5.65 5.60 5.48 5.41 5.36 5.34
Turbidity 31.2 3.29 1.58 5.07 5.08 5.10
(NTU)

***Time for floc formation = Did not taken.

Final pH vs Coagulant Dose

5.7
5.65
5.65
5.6
5.6

5.55

5.5 5.48

5.45
5.41
5.4
5.36
5.34
5.35

5.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 1: Final pH vs Coagulant Dose

 Turbidity VS Coagulant Dose
35
31.2

30

25

20

15

10
5.07 5.08 5.1
5 3.29
1.58

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 2: Turbidity vs Coagulant Dose

6. DISCUSSION

Jar test have been used to determine the effectiveness of chemical coagulation of pond water.
Alum served as a chemical coagulant in this experiment. Chemical coagulation with the best results
produces fast floc production, rapid settling, and clear supernatant. The process of adding a chemical
to a stable charged particle to destabilize it is known as coagulation. Meanwhile, flocculation is a
method of slow mixing that promotes agglomeration and helps particles settle. In this experiment, in
early formation of flocculation, we did an error which is we did not record the starter time of the
flocculation formation.

The results of the tests are presented in two graphs. The first graph shows the final pH of water
samples versus the alum dose. The graph begins with a pH of 5.65 in the jar and no alum concentration
at all. As the amount of alum in the jar is increased, the pH readings gradually decrease. This proves
that the presence of alum has an effect on the pH of the water samples.

The second graph shows the relationship between turbidity and alum dose. The graph began
with a turbidity value of 31.2 NTU, which was considered high. When the alum was added to the
water, the value plummeted to 3.29 NTU and continued to drop until it reached 1.58 NTU after 2
doses of alum. Following this, the value began to rise once more. This is due to the fact that increasing
the alum dosage after the optimum value caused colloids to destabilize.
 The presence of a large number of suspended particles in the water was demonstrated by the
high turbidity rating. The lowest turbidity results with 2 doses of alum indicate that the water is the
clearest of all the samples. The sediment has mostly coagulated and settled to the bottom of the
beaker. When the negative particle from the flocculation process turns positive and starts repelling
against each other again, the colloids are restabilized. During the slow mix, the optimum dosage value
also exhibits the best coagulation process.

LIABILITIES
1. The volume of alum is not accurate due to parallax error.
2. The alum is not spread evenly because it is pipetted by a human. Every human has a different
reaction time, hence the alum affecting the dispersion of the alum in the water samples.
3. The sample cells are not properly cleaned. There might be dust particles or water droplets
that affect the reading of turbidity meter.

MODIFICATION
1. The person that are responsible for pipetting the alum must make sure that their eye level is
parallel to the calibration.
2. Pick only one person responsible for pipetting process do that human reaction time can be
avoided
3. Make sure to wipe the surface of the sample bottle to ensure that it is clean from dust,
fingerprint and water droplet to avoid error in the reading of spectrophotometer

7. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this experiment was completed effectively since the objective of this experiment,
which was to test the effectiveness of chemical coagulation of water or waste water, was achieved.
Jar testing is an experimental method for determining optimal conditions that is based on real data
rather than theory. The circumstances and procedures that occur in the clarifying section of water and
wastewater treatment plants are replicated in jar tests. The ideal dosage for the coagulation process
was determined to be 4 doses of alum after the experiment since it produced the lowest final turbidity
reading. Three issues with liabilities were also discovered, as well as their solutions.
8. APPENDIX