Misganaw - Thesis Work - After Defense Correction

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF
PILOT SCALE SLOW SAND FILTER FOR HIGHLY TURBID SURFACE

WATER TREATMENT FOR DRINKING PURPOSE
MSC. THESIS
BY
MISGANAW ALEHEGN
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY
ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA
DECEMBER, 2019
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF
PILOT SCALE SLOW SAND FILTER FOR HIGHLY TURBID SURFACE
WATER TREATMENT FOR DRINKING PURPOSE
BY
MISGANAW ALEHEGN
A THEIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF HYDRAULIC AND

WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERING
ARBA MINCH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING
DECEMBER, 2019
DECLARATION
I declare that “Design, construction and performance evaluation of pilot scale slow sand filter
for highly turbid surface water treatment for drinking purpose” is my own original work and
that all the sources that I have used is indicated sand acknowledged by means of complete
reference.
Misganaw Alehegn
Signature-------------------
Date ----------------------
EXAMINERS’ APPROVAL
We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of the final open defense by
Misganaw Alehegn Yetayal have read and evaluated his thesis entitled “Design, construction
and performance evaluation of pilot scale slow sand filter for highly turbid surface water
treatment for drinking purpose”, and examined the candidate. This is, therefore, to certify that
the thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for Degree of Master of
Science in Hydraulic Engineering.
Approved By:
Dr.Bhupender Singh Sandher ----------- ----
Chairman Signature Date
Dr.Mihret Dananto --------- ---
External Examiner Signature Date
Dr.Tamru Tesseme . ------------ -----
Internal Examiner Signature Date
Dr.Beshah Mogesse ---------- -----
Principal Supervisor Signature Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First, I Would like to praise the Almighty GOD who allow and gave ability to complete this
research paper.
My sincere gratitude goes to my advisor Dr.Beshah Mogesse for his professional guidance,
valuable advice, encouragement and support form starting to end of this new work.
I would like to tanks all the staff of soil mechanics, material strength and soil chemistry, water
quality sections at Amhara design and supervision works enterprise laboratory service who
give a strong support to accomplish this work.
In addition, I would like to thank for all organization and individuals who supported me by
giving the required material and instrument, specially Gonji Kolela woreda water, irrigation
and energy development bureau and Amhara design and supervision works enterprise.
Finally, I would like tanks to all my family and friends who give me the constructive idea to
accomplish this research paper.
i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADSWE Amhara design and Supervision Works Enterprise

AWWA American Water Work Association
CES Compulsory Ethiopian Standard
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Ethiopian Standard Agency
ES Effective Size
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
IRC International Reference Center
HLR Hydraulic Loading Rate
MSF Multi Stage Filtration
SSF Slow sand filter
TDS Total Dissolved Solid
TSS Total Suspended Solid
UC Uniformity Coefficient
WEDC Water Engineering Development Center
WHO World Health Organization
NDWCH National Drinking Water Clearing House
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii
LIST OF TABLES----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------vi
LIST OF FIGURES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vii
ABSTRACT -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ix
1. INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

1.2 Statement of the problem --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
1.3 Objectives of the study ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
1.3.1 General objective ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
1.3.2 Specific objectives ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
1.4 Scope of the study ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

1.5 Significant of the study ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.1 Water sources ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

2.1.1 Groundwater ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5
2.1.2 Surface water ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.1.3 Rain-water --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.2 Choice of raw water sources ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5

2.3 Selecting the appropriate water treatment filtration system ----------------------------- 6
2.4 Pilot plant studies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
2.5 Slow sand filter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
2.5.1 Basic design parameter and component of slow sand filter ------------------------ 8
iii
2.5.2 Design features of a slow sand filter -------------------------------------------------- 9
2.5.3 Hydraulics of filtration ----------------------------------------------------------------- 12
2.5.4 Mechanism of filtration ---------------------------------------------------------------- 14
2.5.5 Impurities removal by filtration ------------------------------------------------------- 15
2.5.6 Filter media ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16
2.5.7 Operational factors affecting removal in slow sand filtration -------------------- 17
2.6 Pre-treatment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 20
3.1 Description of the study area ---------------------------------------------------------------- 20

3.2 Pilot plant design and Construction -------------------------------------------------------- 19
3.2.1 Pilot plant design ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19
3.2.2 Pilot plant construction ----------------------------------------------------------------- 20
3.2.1 Pilot plant set up ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20
3.2.2 Pilot plant filter components----------------------------------------------------------- 20
3.3 Sand and gravel preparation----------------------------------------------------------------- 22

3.3.1 Characterizing sand samples ---------------------------------------------------------- 23
3.4 Installing the sand on the filter column ---------------------------------------------------- 25

3.5 Pilot plant filtration system testing operation--------------------------------------------- 26
3.6 Filtration rate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
3.7 Water sampling and measuring procedures ----------------------------------------------- 28
3.7.1 Test for TDS in natural river water and treated water ----------------------------- 29
3.7.2 Test for turbidity in natural river water and treated water------------------------- 29
3.7.3 Test for suspended solid in natural river water and treated water ---------------- 30
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
4.1 Sieve analysis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
4.2 Flow rate analysis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32

4.3 Water quality analysis at different sand bed depth--------------------------------------- 32
iv
4.3.1 Raw river water turbidity characteristics -------------------------------------------- 33
4.3.2 Treated river water turbidity characteristics ----------------------------------------- 34
4.3.3 Raw river water TDS characteristics ------------------------------------------------- 45
4.3.4 Treated River water TDS characteristics -------------------------------------------- 46
4.3.5 Raw river water TSS characteristics-------------------------------------------------- 51
4.3.6 Treated river water TSS characteristics ---------------------------------------------- 51
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ------------------------------------------------- 56
5.1 Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56

5.2 Recommendation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57
REFERENCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58
APPENDICES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: The selection consideration for surface water treatment system in rural areas. ...... 7
Table 2-2 :Design parameter and recommendations level for slow sand filters ..................... 10
Table 2-3 :Performance of slow sand filter (Visscher et al 1987and 1990) ........................... 16
Table 4-1 Average flow rates of slaw sand filter at different sand bed depth and season ...... 32
Table 4-2: Percent removal of turbidity for subsequently depth at April ,2019 ..................... 40
Table 4-3 : Percent removal of turbidity for subsequently depth at July,2019. ...................... 43
Table 4-4 Percent removal of TDS at sequential depth filter at April ,2019. ......................... 49
Table 4-5 : Percent removal of TSS for subsequent depth at April,2019 ............................... 54
Table E-1: Filtration rate analysis result ................................................................................. 65
Table F-1: Turbidity of raw and treated river water at sequential filter sand bed result ........ 67
Table G-1: TSS of raw and treated river water at sequential filter sand bed result ................ 69
Table H-1: TDS of raw and treated river water at sequential filter sand bed result ............... 71
Table I-1: Sieve analysis result ............................................................................................... 73
Table J-1: Drinking water standards (WHO, 2006 and ESA,2013) ....................................... 73
Table K-1 : Initial and final concentration of TSS at different depth and sampling time ..... 74
Table K-2 : Percent removal at each depth and time .............................................................. 74
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Basic components of slow sand filtration. ............................................................. 8

Figure 2-2 : The relationship of the variables defined by Darcy law ..................................... 12
Figure 2-3 :Head loss measurement using piezometers .......................................................... 13
Figure 2-4 : Basic transport mechanisms in sand filtration as cited in (Pachocka, 2010) ..... 14
Figure 2-5 : Slow sand filter, sand placement work for water supply project in Ethiopia ..... 17
Figure 3-1 : Location map of study area. ................................................................................ 20
Figure 3-2: pilot plant construction and material used ........................................................... 20
Figure 3-3: Photo of pilot scale slow sand filter plant set up.................................................. 21
Figure 3-4: Schematic diagram of the pilot scale slow sand filter plant set up. .............. Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3-5 : Cross-sectional view of pilot scale slow sand filter column. (not scale) ............ 21
Figure 3-6: Fine sand .............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 3-7 : Courser gravel ..................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3-8: Medium gravel ..................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3-9: Sand size analysis................................................................................................. 25
Figure 3-10: Different sand size placement on the filter column. .......................................... 26
Figure 3-11 :Flow rate measurement ...................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-12: River water sampling during middle April,2019 and last July ,2019 ............... 29
Figure 3-13 : Filtered water sampling at different sand bed depth ......................................... 29
Figure 4-1:Logarithmic scale plot of grain size vs percent of passing. .................................. 31
Figure 4-2: Comparation of raw river water and filtered water through 1.4 m sand bed ....... 33
Figure 4-3 : Raw river water turbidity characteristics during April and July,2019 ............... 34
Figure 4-4 :Treated river water turbidity characteristics at 10 cm sand bed depth................. 35
Figure 4-5 :Treated river water turbidity characteristics at 30 cm sand bed depth................. 36
Figure 4-6: Treated river water turbidity characteristics at 50 cm sand bed depth................. 36
Figure 4-7: Treated river water turbidity characteristics at 80 cm sand bed depth................. 37
Figure 4-8: Treated river water turbidity characteristics at 110 cm sand bed depth............... 37
Figure 4-9: Treated river water turbidity characteristics at 140 cm sand bed depth............... 38
Figure 4-10 :Relationship between the depth of filter and the percent removal of turbidity.. 39
Figure 4-11: Relationship between depth of filter and average % removal of turbidity. ....... 41
vii
Figure 4-12 : Relationship between depth of filter and percent removal of turbidity ............ 42
Figure 4-13 : Relationship between depth of filter and average percent removal of turbidity 44
Figure 4-14 : Raw river water TDS characteristics ................................................................ 45
Figure 4-15: Treated river water TDS characteristics at different sand bed depth ................. 47
Figure 4-16: Relationship between the depth of filter and the percent removal TDS ............ 48
Figure 4-17 : Relationship between depth of filter and the average % removal of TDS ....... 50
Figure 4-18 :Raw river water TSS characteristics .................................................................. 51
Figure 4-19: Treated river water TSS characteristics at different sand bed depth .................. 52
Figure 4-20 :Relationship between the depth of filter and percent removal of TSS .............. 53
Figure 4-21 Relation between the depth of filter and the average percent removal of TSS . 55
Figure A-1: The failure slow sand filter treatment plant ........................................................ 61
Figure B-1: TDS measuring instrument and procedures ........................................................ 62
Figure C-1: Turbidity measuring instrument and procedures ................................................. 63
Figure K-1: Iso removal line from settling analysis ............................................................... 75
viii
ABSTRACT
Slow sand filtration is a simple technology to purify water. Despite being a well-known
technique, the basic design parameters of slow sand filter and its potential applications in water
treatment has not critically been reviewed in Ethiopia. Due to this, one of the designs and
operational aspect problem of slow sand filter which is clogging occur on this treatment plant.
For this study, the small scale slow sand filter treatment plant design and constructed form
sheet metal was used to answer some question that failed a full scale slow sand filter built in
Gonji Kolela Woreda for Addis Alem Town water supply project .The sand with different size
is installed on constructed filter column and made filtration of river water through the sand
filter with 1.4-meter bed depth . The results show that, the effective sand size 0.46 mm was not
the cause of filter clogging. At dry season of experimentation time; the turbidity, total
suspended solid and total dissolved solid concentration of river water was very low and was
not affecting the slow sand filter performance. But the turbidity of river water during rainy
season averagely above 200 NTU, which was lager (above 50 NTU) and cannot be reduce to
the require limit of drinking water up to 1.4 m sand bed depth. High turbidity water was the
major factor in acceleration clogging in the filter, since the filtration rate decrease for higher
turbidity of water. Turbidity, total suspended solid, total dissolved solid removal efficiency of
slow sand filtration system increase as the depth of the sand filter increase. Averagely 84 % of
the removal of turbidity and 49 % of total dissolved solid occurred at 80 cm sand bed depth,
and 64 % removal of suspended solid occurred at depth 50cm. The removal of suspended solid
is effective at 50cm sand bed depth and for turbidity and total dissolved solid are effective at
80 cm sand bed depth. Slow sand filter has an effective water treatment method for low
turbidity (below 65 NTU) surface water.
Keywords: Pilot scale slow sand filter, sand bed depth, rainy season, river water; Turbidity
ix
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In nature water is not absolutely pure (Fauzi, 2010). No matter how isolated from source of
contamination, it always has some impurities in the forms of liquid, solid and gas that can be
pollute water. Currently due to population, urbanization and industrial development,
contamination of water systems often occurred (Fauzi, 2010). Construction areas also contain
substantial impurities and runoff from this site carries sediment into drainage networks and
then to water bodies. Water resource is the key part of any water project that needs to be
studying in detail so as to make the system dependable and sustainable throughout the project
life period (ADSWE , 2013). In rural and urban areas of developing countries where,
groundwater resources are scarce due to the natural geology of the area, lack of rainwater
infiltration in overdeveloped area and overuse groundwater resources, many communities rely
on surface water as an alternative source for drinking water. Small communities do not have
the power to protect water source from the contaminator come from the watersheds and the
communities forced to use unsafe water sources.
Unsafe drinking water may result in fatal diseases. Statistics shows that, these diseases resulted
in 90 % of all deaths of children under five years old in developing countries (Jena and Jha,
2013) .Therefore, surface water and some groundwater require treatment before supplying to
public for their domestics and other consumption (ADSWE, 2013).
The choice of a particular treatment option for a particular project is dependent on the treatment
objectives and some other consideration (ADSWE, 2013). An appropriate water treatment
technology should include design with fully engineering concepts and capacity to build
(Reddy, 1997). Multi stage filtration can provide a robust treatment alternative for surface
water sources of variable water quality in rural communities at low operation and maintenance
costs (Mushila et al., 2016) .
For rural and urban area in Amhara region, where the groundwater resource is not reliable, the
source of water supply is surface water and the slow sand filtration (SSF) together with
sedimentation is selected to be used as a water treatment options (ADSWE, 2013). This is
because , a simple technology that is capable of achieving high standards of treatment without
1
the use of costly chemicals, energy ,could be constructed with the available local materials,
labor intensive operations and maintenance (Cleary et al., 2004).
Huisman and Wood, 1974, review the history of SSF. It seems as though the first instance of
filtration as a means of water treatment dates from 1804, when John Gibb designed and built
an experimental slow sand filter for his bleachery in Paisley, Scotland. However, the current
model for slow sand filtration originated from a one-acre slow sand filter designed by James
Simpson for the Chelsea Water Company in London in 1829, which treated surface water from
the Thames River (Barrett et al., 1991). Proof of the effectiveness of water filtration was
provided in 1892 by the experience gained in two neighbouring German cities, Hamburg and
Altona, which drew their drinking-water from the River Elbe (Huisman and Wood, 1974).
The first slow sand filter in the United States was designed by James Kirkwood and completed
in 1872 as cited in (Cleary et al., 2004). This was followed by many more installations.
However, due to dramatically reduced filter run times when treating high turbidity surface
water, slow sand filtration has since been largely replaced by rapid filtration.
The SSF technique finds applicability for different kinds of water and wastewater treatment.
Drinking and wastewater treatment efficiencies of SSF have been about 99% for removal of
turbidity, suspended solids and waterborne pathogens (Verma et.al., 2017).Despite being a
well-known technique, the basic design parameters of SSF and its potential applications in
water treatment has not critically been reviewed in Ethiopia for such kind of water treatment
plant. In this study, pilot scale SSF is use to evaluate the performance of slow sand filtration
for highly turbid river water treatment. The raw water is sample from river around Addis Alem
town slow sand filter treatment plant and at six different sand bed depths are used for filtered
water sample.
1.2 Statement of the problem

As geological surveyed, the occurrence and dependability of groundwater resource in some
rural and urban area of Ethiopia is not reliable and an alternative surface water resource use as
the main source of water supply. The surface water source might have health problem due to
natural and anthropogenic contamination (Cleary, 2005).The combination of both naturally
occurring influences with human activity, which compound to have the largest impact on
surface water quality. Hence, appropriate water treatment plant, namely, sedimentation as
2
pretreatment followed by slow sand filtration was designed to treat the surface water. However,
that was design and used, an experimental base understanding of about theory of slow sand
filter performance and knowledge of the pre-condition of slow sand filter still limited. Due to
this, one of the designs and operational aspect problem of slow sand filter clogging is occur on
this treatment plant. When clogging occurs, head loss through the filter increases and beyond
certain point maintenance of flow rate becomes so difficult that the filter run is aborted (Verma
et.al., 2017). Once clogged, resting period even under reduced loading conditions cannot bring
back the filter to its original condition. The slow sand filter that was built in Amhara region,
Gonji Kolela for Addis Alem town water supply have not given service at least one-year due
clogging problem of the filter (see appendix A). Now time the treatment plant is complete fail
due to highly turbid raw water clog the filter and the community forced to use unprotected
water source.
1.3 Objectives of the study

1.3.1 General objective
The general objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the designed and
constructed pilot scale slow sand filtration for surface water treatment for drinking purpose.
1.3.2 Specific objectives

I. To determine sand characteristics (effective size and uniformity coefficient).
II. To identify the relationship between the sand bed depth and percent of total suspended
solid, total dissolved solid and turbidity removal efficiency of pilot scale SSF.
III. To examine the effects of raw water characteristics on the performance of slow sand filter.
1.4 Scope of the study

This study involves the testing of slow sand filtration systems performance by design and
construct pilot scale slow sand filtration. The raw surface water source use for this study is
from Yita River in Amhara Region, Gonji Kolela Woreda. The laboratory tests are conduct on
filter media size (ES) raw and filter water TDS, TSS and turbidity characteristics.
1.5 Significant of the study

To have an experimental base understanding of sand filter and River water as an alternative
source of water for drinking purpose after treating the raw water through slow sand filter that
3
refers to drinking water quality standard. This pilot plant study is used to answering same
question about full- scale operation of slow sand filter. It is also crucial for the future to
promote proper water treatment process with low cost of investment at household level.
4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Water sources
Ground , surface and sometimes rain water are used as a water source for a community water
supply project (Visscher et al., 1987).
2.1.1 Groundwater
Groundwater is the preferred choice for community water supplies, because it generally does
not require extensive treatment and operation is limited to pumping and possibly chlorination
(Reddy, 1997). It does not have a high mineral content, which makes it unpleasant or even
harmful to drink. Deep groundwater is bacteriologically safe, but shallow groundwater may
contain bacterial and viral pollution from nearby pit latrines, septic tanks or cattle ponds
(Visscher et al., 1987)
2.1.2 Surface water

Surface water require treatment to be safe for human consumption unless the drainage area is
uncultivated, unpopulated and well protected .Seasonal and even daily variation in the quality
of surface water is the common observation , for instance, turbidity may become very high in
streams and rivers during rainy periods (Visscher et al., 1987).
2.1.3 Rain-water
In most community water supply project cannot rely on the collection of rainwater as its main
source, it is because rainfall is often erratic. Reliability can be improved through the provision
of storage facilities, Rain-water is only is appropriate as a source of supply in areas where
surface water or ground water is scare or of poor quality (Visscher et al., 1987) . Rain water
usually contains very few impurities, but when it is reach on the surface, from as surface water
which it is not clean and require treatment before drinks.
2.2 Choice of raw water sources

When alternative source of water is available for use as a public supply the overruling condition
for selection should be the quality of the raw water (Huisman and Wood ,1974). Although
there is some foundation for this assertion, it is not always true; reliability may be more
important, since technically it is often more feasible to improve the quality than to increase
quantity of a supply of raw water (Huisman and Wood ,1974).
5
The value of the water source depends on the quality and quantity of the water to be abstracted,
careful selection is essential and must be based on a sufficient detailed survey to ensure that it
is reliable in quantity and provides water of satisfactory quality (Huisman and Wood, 1974)
.Therefore, the raw water source of highest water quality should be selected provided that its
capacity is adequate to deliver the water supply needs of the community.
2.3 Selecting the appropriate water treatment filtration system

By defining treatment objective, selecting method involve eight considerations (EPA,
1990):(1) Effluent requirements, (2) Influent characteristics, (3) Existing system confirmation,
(4) Cost, (5) Operating requirement. (6) Pretreatment and post treatment component, (7) Waste
management, (8) Future need of services area.
The water supply designer, have decided on the quality standard for the purpose to used
(Huisman and Wood, 1974).If he fortunate enough to have access to an underground source
with a safe level of chemical constituents, he may be able to dispense with purification entirely
or use simple chlorination alone as a safety measure. If the source is a surface the designer will
probably design a system that operates in MSF (Huisman and Wood, 1974).
6
Table 2-1: The selection consideration for surface water treatment system in rural areas.
Average raw water quality Treatment required

Turbidity: O-5 NTU - No treatment
Faecal coilform MPN*: 0
Guinea worm or schistosirmiasis not endemic
Turbidity: O-5 NTU - Slow sand filtration
Faecal coilform MPN *:0
Guinea worm or schistosomiasis cndcmic
Turbidity: O-20 NTU - Slow sand filtration
Faecal coilform MPN *: l-500 -Chlorination, if possible
Turbidity: 20-30 NTU - Pre-treatment advantageous;

(30 NTU for a few days) - Slow sand filtration;
Faecal coilform MPN*: l-500 - Chlorination, if possible
Turbidity: 30- 150 NTU - Pre-treatment:
Faecal coilform MPN*: 500-5000 - Slow sand filtration:
- Chlorination. if possible
Turbidity: 30-150 NT U -Pre-treatment:
Faecal coilform MPN*: > 5000 - Slow sand filtration;
- Chlorination
Turbidity: > 150 NTU - Detailed investigation and
possible pilot
plant study required
* Facial coliform counts per 100 ml
Source: Visscher et al., 1987
2.4 Pilot plant studies

A pilot plant studies used to answering question about full- scale operation (Barrett et al.,
1991) .The question related most often to ( 1) the treatability of raw water ,(2) design
criteria,(3) operating cost ,and (4) whether pretreatment is needed. Pilot test can be relatively
short or very long in duration (EPA,1990). Pilot investigations are common tools for assessing
the performance of a particular filter design (Streicher ,1974).
7
2.5 Slow sand filter
Using sand filter for water treatment offers unique advantage for solving water shortage
problem (Bagundol et al., 2014). A simple, low cost water treatment system is essential for
wide spread application in developing countries (Pescod et al.,1986).
Slow sand filtration is a water purification process in which water is passed through a porous
bed of sand that contain a biological film that traps and metabolizes the organic compounds in
water (Nancy et al., 2014).
2.5.1 Basic design parameter and component of slow sand filter

Basically, slow sand filter consists of a tank constructed from reinforced concrete, stone or
brickwork masonry, plastics or even metal which contains supernatant layer of raw water, a
bed of fine sand ,a system of under drain , inlet and outlet structure and a set of filter regulation
control devices (Tanner and Ongerth, 1990 ).
Figure 2-1 Basic components of slow sand filtration.

(Source: Heisman and Wood, 1974 and Fischer et al., 1987)
A. Raw water inlet E. Under drainage I. Weir
B. Supernatant layer F. Venturi meter J. Clean water reservoir
C. Filter or sand bed G. Regulating valve K. Clean water outlet
D. Supporting gravel H. Ventilator
8
2.5.2 Design features of a slow sand filter
For small water system, slow sand ﬁlters have been traditionally designed with a bed of sand
initially about 1 m in depth with about 1 m of supernatant water (Logsdon et al., 2002) . The
literature reveals some variation in the recommended design parameters for slow sand filters.
Compile summary of the recommended design parameters collected from various authors were
shown below in table
9
Table 2-2 :Design parameter and recommendations level for slow sand filters
Design parameter Recommendations

Khosrowpanah et al Visscher ,1987 and Barrett et.al, Stephen.et al Pescod et al.
,2003 1990 ,1991 ,1990 ,1986
Design period Not reported 10-15years Not reported Not reported Not reported
Period of operation Not reported 24 hr/d Not reported Not reported Not reported
Freeboard above water level Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0.2-0.3m
Initial filter bed depth 0.8-0.9m, modified 0.8-0.9m 0.61-1.22m 1.2-1.4m 0.8-1.4
1-1.3m
Minimum(final) filter Bed 0.5 -0.6 m 0.5-0.6m 0.30-0.61m 0.6-1.2m
depth (requires resending at
this bedb
Filter bed area 200m2(max area), 5-200m2per filter, Calculated as 100 m2 (min) Not reported
min of 2 unit minimum of 2unit A=Q/HLR per filter should
be at least 2 bed
Effective Sand size (d10) 0.15 -0.30 mm 0.15 -0.30 mm 0.18-0.44mm 0.15-0.35mm 0.15-0.3mm
Uniformity Coefficient (UC) < 5 (preferably <3) <5(preferably<3) 1.5-4.7 1.5-3.0 2-5
10
Design parameter Recommendations
Khosrowpanah et al Visscher ,1987 and Barrett et.al, Stephen al.et (Pescod et al.
,2003 1990 ,1991 ,1990) ,1986
Depth of gravel support 0.3 -0.5 m 0.3-0.5m 0.61m Not reported 0.3-0.5m
Size of gravel Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 25-50mm
Depth of supernatant 1m 1m 0.91-1.22m 1.0-1.5m 1-1.5m
(headwater)
Filtration Rate (Hydraulics 0.2 m/hr. 0.1-0.2m/h 0.06-0.3m/hr 0.1- 0.1-0.2

loading rate) 0.4m3/m2/hr
Operating head Not reported Not reported Not reported 1.0-1.5m Not reported
Spacing of laterals Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 1-2m
Size of holes in laterals Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 2-4mm
Spacing of holes in laterals Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0.1-0.3m
Effluent weir level above Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 30-40mm
sand
Cover recommended Not reported Not reported Yes, for cold Not reported Not reported
climate
11
2.5.3 Hydraulics of filtration
Several authors have attempted to model the hydraulic behavior of SSF. Darcy's (Huisman ,
Wood, 1974 and Spellman, 2013) is often used as a basis for a hydraulic model. The flow rate
through a slow sand filter bed is very low and laminar flow can therefore be assumed. Figure
2-2, show the Darcy’s law terms, the sand bed is orientated horizontally to shown the clear
hydraulic head, h, associated with flow distance, z, in the sand bed. For a given sand media
and superficial velocity (vf) or HLR (m/hr), the head loss (hl) determined by equation (1)
below.
Eve2
Head water
hl
Hydraulic grade line Eve1
Tailwater
Sand bed
vf
Figure 2-2 : The relationship of the variables defined by Darcy law

The head loss (hl) or resistance due to the filter can be calculated from Darcy’s law.
Vf∗Z
hl = ----------------------------------------------(1)
K
where z is the thickness of the filter bed, Vf is the filtration rate (the volume passing per hour
divided by the surface area) and k is the coefficient of permeability. The value of k is best
determined experimentally, however a value can be estimated from the following formula as
set in (Huisman and Wood, 1974) .
12
P3
K = 150 ∗ (0.72 + 0.028T((1−p)2) ∗ φ2 ds 2 (m/h) ---------(2) (Huisman and Wood, 1974) .
Where
T = the temperature in °C,
p = porosity (volume of pores / the total volume of the filter medium),
φ=shape factor
ds= specific diameter of sand grains in millimeters.
Factors which affect the coefficient of permeability are shape factor of sand particles,
coefficient of uniformity, porosity, effective sand particle diameter and specific sand particle
diameter (Huisman and Wood, 1974) .
Figure 2-3, show the head loss as measured by Piezo meter reading. The piezo meters are
installed on the fitter box. When the water level within the filter box maximum height (at
elevation 1in Figure 2-2 and at point 1 in Figure 2-3), the filter needs skimming at the top
surface of the sand bed.
Head loss =H1-H2
Supernatant 2
Supernatant
Vf
H1
H2
Sand
Figure 2-3 :Head loss measurement using piezometers
13
2.5.4 Mechanism of filtration
The theories that quantitatively predict impurities removal performance with sufficient
precision and versatility to be of use in practical filter design have met with relatively little
success (Streicher, 1974).Sand media filtration techniques, impurities removal occurs
primarily as a two-step process. During the initial transport step, particles are moved to the
surfaces of media grains or previously captured floc. Transport is believed to be caused largely
by hydrodynamic forces, with contact occurring as stream lines converge in pore restrictions.
The second step is particles' attachment to either grain or floc surfaces. Electro kinetic and
molecular forces are probably responsible for the adherence of particles on surfaces within the
bed as cited in (Kiky, 2018).Physical straining through the surface layer of solids and
biological growth (schmutzdecke) is the principal filtration mechanism of a slow sand filter.
Figure 2-4 : Basic transport mechanisms in sand filtration as cited in (Pachocka, 2010)
As cited in (Pachocka, 2010) , the model used for estimating particle deposition by physical
removal processes has been proposed . In this model a filter bed is seen as an assembly of
collectors (sand grains) with which particles come in contact by interception, sedimentation,
or diffusion as cited in (Pachocka, 2010).The equations for single collector efficiencies, that
14
is a fraction of particles that will strike the collector by a given transport mechanism, are
presented below:
3 𝑑𝑝 2
𝜂𝐼 = ( ) ------------------------------------------------(3)
2 𝑑 𝑐
(𝑝𝑝 −𝑝𝑤 )𝑔𝑑𝑝 2

𝜂𝑠 = -------------------------------------------(4)
18𝜇𝑣
𝐾𝑇
𝜂𝐷 = (0.9
µ𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑐 𝑉
) 2/3----------------------------------- (5)
Where
ρp -particle mass density ηs -the single collector efficiency

sedimentation
ρw -water mass density
T-absolute temperature for sedimentation
dp -the particle diameter
K -Boltzmann’s constant
g- gravity acceleration constant
η D -single collector efficiency for
μ -Absolute viscosity diffusion
V- approach velocity ηI -the single collector efficiency for
dc-collector diameter interception
Slow sand filter may run for weeks or even months without cleaning. The suspended solids
and colloidal matter are deposited at the very top of the bed from which they can be removed
by scraping off the surface layer to a depth of one or two centimeters (Huisman and Wood,
1974). This infrequent operation may be carried out by unskilled laborers using hand tools or
by mechanical equipment.
2.5.5 Impurities removal by filtration

Effective slow sand filtration can perform, 91 to 100 % and 100 % of virus and Giardia
respectively (EPA, 1990). An indication of the purification effect of a mature filter, that is a
filter with a fully developed filter skin, is summarized in Table 2.3.
15
Table 2-3 :Performance of slow sand filter (Visscher et al 1987and 1990)
Parameter of water quality (Impurities removal by Performance of slow sand filtration

filtration)
Colour 30-100% reduction

Physical Impurities Turbidity Turbidity is generally reduced to less
than 1 NTU
Chemical Impurities Organic matter 60-75% reduction in COD
Iron and Largely removed
manganese
Heavy metals 30-95% reduction
Biological Impurities Fecal coliforms Between 95-100% and often 99-
100% reduction in the level of
fecal coliforms
Viruses Virtually complete removal
2.5.6 Filter media

Different materials have been used for the filter medium in slow sand filters. Crushed coral
and volcanic ash has been employed in Ethiopia (Wood, 1985). Consequently, filter media
selection is often an empirical process.
a) Fine sand
The sand used for filtration usually characterized by its effectives size (ES), and its uniformity
coefficient (UC) and it is determined by experiment.
Ideally the effective size should be just small enough to ensure a good quality outflow and
prevent from clogging matter to such depth that it cannot be removed by surface scraping
(Carty and Bourke, 1995). Both finer and coarser sand, careful selection will be made based
on the available materials. It is possible to combine two or more types of stock sand to bring
the effective size of the mixture closer to the ideal, Mixing must be carried out by concrete
mixer. The desirable characteristics for all filter sand are good hydraulic characteristics
16
(permeable); does not react with substances in the water (inert and easy to clean); hard and
durable; free of impurities and insoluble in water (Carty and Bourke, 1995).
b) Gravel
Gravel for slow sand filters should conform to similar specifications to those applied to the
filtering medium itself. Gravel is used to support the filter sand and to permit uniform drainage
of the overlying sand and the gravel support must be graded, with finer material at the top and
coarser material at the bottom (Carty and Bourke, 1995). The top layer of the gravel support
should not permit migration of sand from the sand bed, nor permit entry of gravel to the
undertrain orifices (Huisman and Wood, 1974).The gravel layers must be carefully placed (
see Figure 2-5 ),since subsequent movement may disturb the filter sand above and either lead
to choking of the under-drainage system or produce cavities through which the water may pass
with insufficient treatment.
Figure 2-5 : Slow sand filter, sand placement work for water supply project in Ethiopia
2.5.7 Operational factors affecting removal in slow sand filtration

Filtration performance depends on many factors such as the desired treatment rate, the quality
of the water resource and the physical characteristics of the media as cited in (Nassar and
Hajjaj, 2013)
Muhammad et al., 1996 , investigated that, the influence of sand thickness of 400 mm and 730
mm on the effectiveness of the filter. The result showed that the thickness of sand bed is not
the key parameter for bacteria removal., related to the turbidity and color removal, filter
17
column with thicker bed depth performed slightly better. On the other hand, he analysis the
average percentage removal of fecal coliform, total coliform, turbidity and color for filters
containing sands of effective size of 0.20, 0.35 and 0.45mm was investigated, the results show
that the treatment efficiency of SSF is not very sensitive to sand size up to 0.45mm. A slight
increase in treatment efficiency was observed with decreasing sand size.
Generally, there are similarities in the findings of many authors, who report a decrease in filter
efficiency with increased media size, increased filtration rate, decreased bed depth, and
decreased biological maturity of the sand bed.
2.6 Pre-treatment
Most surface waters may reach a turbidity of 30-50 NTU, will occasional peaks of 200 NTU
after heavy runoff events (Barrett et al., 1991) It is suggested that slow sand filtration operates
best with raw water turbidity below 10 NTU, and can manage peaks up to 50 NTU for one or
two days without incurring major increases in head loss. However, if the turbidity is
consistently as high as 50 NTU, the filter will clog and require frequent cleaning, resulting in
inadequate filter run times between cleanings as cited in (Cleary et al., 2004). Furthermore,
frequent cleaning of the filter disrupts the biological equilibrium in the filter media and does
not allow enough time for biological maturation between cleanings as cited in (Cleary et al.,
2004).
When slow sand filters are used with surface waters that have widely varying turbidity levels,
infiltration galleries or rough filters such as up flow gravel filters may be used to reduce
turbidity (NDWCH, 2000). Waters with average turbidity in excess of 25 NTU cannot be
applied to slow sand filters because the length of the filter run would be unacceptably short
(Pescod et al, 1986) . This problem limited the application of slow sand filters in developing
countries until suitable pretreatment systems were developed. Now days, if the range of
turbidity in the raw water is known, a combination of processes can be designed to prepare the
raw water for final application to the slow sand filter.
Plain sedimentation tanks are most useful during periods of peak floods whereby they
significantly reduce the suspended solids by simple detention (Shenkut, 1999). The process of
plain sedimentation allows for the removal of suspended solids in the raw water by gravity and
18
the natural aggregation of the particles in a tank, without the use of coagulants. Sedimentation
is most effective when followed by use of a roughing filter or other type of pre filtration
(Donison et al., 2004).
19
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Description of the study area
The study was carried out at the Addis Alem Town water supply project slow sand filter
treatment plant that is found in West gojjam administrative zone of the Amhara National
Regional State. It is the capital town for Gonji Kolela woreda which was located south of Bahir
Dar at a road distance of about 72 kms and 27 kms from Adet town on the Bahir Dar-Motta-
Addis Ababa road 9.6 km to the east direction from Korie kebele. The Gonji Kolela Woreda
was established in 1999 E.C. The town Addis Alem also established in the same year for the
capital of the Woreda. It is sited on an undulated landscape at a geographical coordinate of
11013’06’’ N and 37040’24” E. The average elevation of the town is 2260 m.a.s.l. Addis Alem
town is situated in woina dega region of Ethiopia. The average temperature values of the town
are 18.1oc and the average annual rainfall of the town is recorded to be 1066 mm.
Figure 3-1 : Location map of study area.
20
3.2 Pilot plant design and Construction
Both design and construction of pilot plant for experimental purpose.
3.2.1 Pilot plant design
Pilot plant was design by considering the quality of filtered water not the quantity of filtered
water.
a) Design parameters
Length of Pilot filter column tank=0.25m
Width of Pilot filter column tank=0.25m
Filtration rate (Vf) =0.06-0.4m/hr. form design criteria
Depth of supernatant=0.5m
Filter bed depth =1.4 m
Depth of system under drain =0.05m
Effective sand size (ES) =0.4mm from sieve analysis result
Uniformity coefficient of sand =2.2 from sieve analysis result
Total height of filter column tank =Free board + Supernatant +Filter bed +Under drain
=0.05+0.5+1.4+0.05
=2m
b) Design calculation
Filter bed area (A) =0.25m *0.25 m
=0.0625m2
Discharge (Qmin)=A* Vf , for vf =0.06m/hr.
=0.0625m2* 0.06m/hr.
=0.001042 l/s
Discharge (Q max) =A* Vf, for vf =0.4 m/hr.
=0.0625 m2*0.4 m /hr.
=0.025m3/hr.
=0.00694 l/s
19
3.2.2 Pilot plant construction
This plant is constructed from locally available 1.5 mm think sheet metal at general metal work
shop.
Figure 3-2: pilot plant construction and material used

3.2.1 Pilot plant set up
Pilot plant set up is shown in photographing and sketching (Figures 3-3 and 3-4).
20
Storage tank
HDPE pipe 3/4 “
Filter column
Filtered
Water
Outlets
Supporting leg
Figure 3-3: Photo of pilot scale slow Figure 3-4: Schematic diagram of the pilot
scale slow sand filter plant set up. slow sand filter plant set up
21
3.2.2 Pilot plant filter components
The dimensions of the filter components use in this study are mainly experimental with the
objective to pilot plant studies for the filtration system of slow sand filter as shown in Figure
3-4. The main components of the filter unit have: 2-meter height rectangular tank filter with
filled by courser, medium and fine sand filter media to depth of 1.45 m,0.05m free board and
0.5m supernatant layer. The filter tank contains a number of filtered water outlets with control
valves at varying distances from the upper surface of the media; at 10 cm, 30cm, 50cm, 80cm,
110 cm, and 140 cm respectively to analysis filtered water quality at different sand bed depth
. Other components of this pilot plant are:
➢ HDPE pipe with a diameter of OD 18.75 mm to connect between the component’s

storage tank and filter plant.
➢ Wire mesh is use between filter material and each outlet pipe.
➢ Water tank (25 liter) to store water for continuity of the filtration system 24 hour per day
➢ Water tank (200 liter) to collect raw water.
➢ Ladder for up and down to the inlet component of pilot plant
The detail design component is shown in Figure 3-5
20
0.25m
Max. water level
0.05 m free board
Supernatant water
0.5m
0.5 m Height
0.10m
0.2m
0.2m
Fine sand D=0.46mm
1.4 m thick
2m 0.3m
0.3m
0.3m
Courser gravel to support and underdrain

0.05m
0.05m thick Flow Control valves
Figure 3-3 : Cross-sectional view of pilot scale slow sand filter column. (not scale)
21
3.3 Sand and gravel preparation
Selecting and preparing the sand filter and gravel is critical for the treatment efficiency of the
sand filter. Sometime crushed rock is used for filtration sand since it has less chance of being
contaminated with pathogens or organic material (Sharath et al , 2017) .
a. Sand
The sand should have rounded, rather than jagged grains and be free from clay. Hence, sand
from streams and rivers is better suited to slow sand filters than sand from pits (Shishaye,
2017).The filter sand used in this study as shown in Figure 3-5 is fine sand with minimal clay,
loam and organic matter contents is obtained from sand company (manufacturer and sand
supplier) in Dear Dewar, Ethiopia and for this study the sample sand was taken from the
remain during construction of failure treatment plant that was built for Addis Alem Town
water supply project .The ES and UC of this sample sand is described in result and discussion
section .
Figure 3-4: Fine sand

b. Gravel
Gravel for this study collect from zema river is use as support of the sand filter or to prevent it
from down ward displacement during filtration process. Gravel with different sizes, are place
at the bottom of the tank. Before placing in the filter set-up, gravel is washed again thoroughly
with clean water to assure that both materials are free of any foreign matter. The washed gravel
is sun-dried and graded according to the required specification.
22
Figure 3-5 : Courser gravel
Figure 3-6: Medium gravel

3.3.1 Characterizing sand samples
Sieve analysis was use to characterized the sand samples. The washed and dried sand was sieve
using a set of sieves with different mesh size. The different mesh sizes use to determine the
effective size and uniformity coefficient of the filter media. The procedures to characterize the
sand are summarized as follows:
1. Thake sand sample form quarry site

2. Measuring the weight of sand sample before wash
3. Washing the sand sample to remove impurity
4. Oven dray the washed sand sample
5. Measuring the weight of sand sample after wash and oven dried.
23
6. The sand sieves were stacked with different mesh size and finally the catch pan on the
bottom.
7. The oven dried measured sand sample is poured from the container onto the top sand sieves.
8. The entire sieve set was shaking manually both sideways and up and down for about five
minutes.
9. The top lid sieve mesh was removed and measured the amount and recorded as cumulative
sand retained on the sieve.
10. The next sieve mesh sand was removed and measured, and recorded as cumulative sand
retained on the sieve.
11. Step 10 was repeated for the left sieve mesh’s, and finally the catch pan.
12. The percent retained on the sieve and the percent passing through the sieve for each sieve
were calculated and recorded.
13. The percent passing through the sieve value for each sieve size is plotted on the log graph.
14. Finally, the effective size and uniformity coefficient of the sand were computed.
The materials use in sand sieve analysis were sand sample, sand container, set of sieves,
sieve set lid and catch pan. Some procedures and material used to characterize the sand in
these studies is shown below in Figure 3-9.
24
set of sieves
Sand specimen on the sieves Measuring Weight of sand retain
Figure 3-7: Sand size analysis
3.4 Installing the sand on the filter column

Before installing sand, the filter column tank purely assembled vertical and then courser (0.1m
thick) and medium (0.05 thick) gravel is place in the bottom of the filters. Lastly fine sand is
added to the filter column as shown in the Figure 3-10. To be certain careful measurement of
thickness of media by hand meter were carried out.
25
1st Placement 2nd Placement Last Placement
a) Courser sand b) Medium sand c) Fine sand
Figure 3-8: Different sand size placement on the filter column.
3.5 Pilot plant filtration system testing operation

After placing the sand filter on the filter column, the system is operated first using clean water
so that to wash the sand filter media and to remove any impurities that may exist on it. This
step continued until reaching till water runs clean.at the end outlet (all valves are close except
the last outlet) and it made saturated condition in the sand filter column. The collector tank of
25 liters was filled with fetched river water and first closed all outlet valves. The valves are
close excepting the last down valve and enter raw river water into to the filter column. The
controlling of the influent river water sample flow was done through the tank valve as well for
all experimentation time.
In the first stage of the laboratory study, the raw water (influent) and filter water (effluent) at
different sand bed depth test was continuously conducted for seven days to analysis the raw
water and filtered water turbidity, TDS and TSS contents of raw water and filtered water for a
month of April,2019 experimentation period. The suspended solid removal, total dissolved
solid and turbidity removal, at each different depth specified above were measured and
calculated.
26
In the second stage of laboratory study, to analyze the effect of seasonally variation of river
water characteristics on the performance slow sand filter, the experimentation period of June
,2019 for a continuous seven days at different sand bed depth. It is an important to wash the
media after the first experiment stage and to remove the top layer of dirt on the surface of sand
filter so as to reflect the actual performance of the system and to ensure obtaining accurate
results for filtration and treatment performance.
a) Experimental Scenarios
This experimental study uses the following scenarios to study pilot scale analysis of the
impurity’s removal capabilities of slow sand filters from river water.
1. Continuous seven days at relatively (at the month of April,2019)

2. Continuous seven days at wet season (at the month of July,2019)
b) Testing Parameters
The following parameters were tested in the study at both raw water and filtered water:
1. Total suspended solids (TSS) in mg/l
2. Total dissolved Solid (TDS) in mg/l
3. Turbidity in NTU
3.6 Filtration rate

Filtration rate measurement is useful at both the sand selection stage and the operations stage.
At the sand selection stage, it indicates whether the sand in the filter is of an appropriate size.
At the operations stage, it indicates if the filter requires maintenance. Filter flow rates in this
study is measure at different depth of pilot scale SSF column. The raw River water is transfer
from temporary storage tank to filter column. When the water level is stabilized over the bed
of sand it is saturated and water is gently poured in to avoid unevenness in the sand. A valve
at the outlet open and close as per requirement. When the valve is open, a stopwatch is start
and the water is let flow free until fill the known volume container. After filling the known
volume, the valve was closed and stopwatch was stopped.
Discharged water is collected in a two-liter plastic bottle. The time required for 200ml of water
to flow through the filter is thus recorded with stop watch (see Figure 3-11), and the rate is
determined for each depth. The flow rate is therefore calculated using equation (6). The
27
filtration rate (m3/m2/h) is determine the known volume of water divided by the inner area (m2)
of the filter column and the time in hour, see equation (7).
𝑉
𝑄 = 𝑡 -------------------------------------------------------------------(6)
Where, Q is flow rate in l/s

V is volume in litter
t is time in second
𝑚3 Volume of water [m3 ]
Hydraulic loading rate⌈ ⌉ = ------------------------ (7)
𝑚2 ,ℎ Area of filter [m2 ] ∗Time[h]
Figure 3-9 :Flow rate measurement
3.7 Water sampling and measuring procedures

The water samples are analyzing for the selected parameters in the laboratory of Amhara design
sand supervision enterprise. 20-liter Jerikan use to fetch raw river water and Plastic bottles of
2-liter capacity are used for collecting samples. Each bottle was washed with distilled water.
The bottles are then preserved in a clean place. The bottles are filled leaving no air space, and
then sealed to prevent any leakage. Each container is clearly marked with the name and date
of sampling.
28
River water sampling during middle April,2019 River water sampling during last of July ,2019
Figure 3-10: River water sampling during middle April,2019 and last July ,2019
Figure 3-11 : Filtered water sampling at different sand bed depth

3.7.1 Test for TDS in natural river water and treated water
TDS may be considered as a salinity indicator for the classification of water samples. The TDS
in water is due to the presence of Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium, Bicarbonate,
Chloride and Sulphate ions (Shishaye, 2017). The TDS of the natural river water and treated
water, in experimentation period is measure by AD300 EC/TDS/Temperature Bench meter
instrument (See appendix C).
3.7.2 Test for turbidity in natural river water and treated water
Turbidity of water source reflects the transparency in water. Letshwenyo and Lebogang, 2018
reported that, turbidity has been one of the most important parameters for monitoring the
29
performance of a filter and it can carry nutrient and pathogens which can lead to biological
activity. High turbidity levels in the raw water will prematurely block the slow sand bio filter,
leading to a much-shortened time span between cleanings and an overall deterioration of the
water quality. High turbidity in the raw water may shorten the filter life from several months
to a matter of days (Abudi, 2011) . The TDS of the natural river water and treated water, in
experimentation period is measure by Turbidity meter instrument (See appendix B).
.
3.7.3 Test for suspended solid in natural river water and treated water
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) can include a wide variety of materials, such as silt, decaying
plant and animal matter, industrial wastes, and sewage. As cited in (Nassar and Hajjaj, 2013)
high concentrations of suspended solids can cause many problems for human health and
aquatic life and it can be trapped by a filter ( See appendix D, the procedure and apparatus
used to measure TSS ).
30
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Sieve analysis
The effective particle size and uniformity coefficient can be determining from a sieve analysis
result. The particle size distribution of the sand is shown in Figure 4-1. From logarithmic graph,
the effective grain size d10 is 0.46 mm, d60 is 1.01 mm and the uniformity coefficient d60 /d10
is 2.20.
praticle size distrbution curve

110
100
90
80
% age of passing on each sieve
70
1.01 mm
60
50
40
30
20
0.46 mm
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain size d (mm)
Figure 4-1:Logarithmic scale plot of grain size vs percent of passing.
As different authors, the recommended range of effective size of sand used in slow sand filter
is 0.15 -0.35 mm and uniformity coefficient are 1.5-5 (preferably <3). However, some authors
31
such as Barrett et al., 1991, have reported that, typical recommendations for slow sand filter
effective size to be 0.18 - 0.44 mm. This range suggests that the effective grain size used in
this study is slightly larger. But uniformity coefficient value 2.20 is within ranges as different
authors the recommended.
4.2 Flow rate analysis

Flow rate was decreased with increasing sand bed depth. The highest flow rate was found at
10cm sand bed depth with an average rate of 0.398 l/s for April ,2019 and 0.133 l/s for
July,2019 experimentation time. The lowest flow rate was found at 140cm sand bed depth,
averagely 0.0123 l/s for April ,2019 and 0.004 l/s for July,2019 experimentation time. When
the flow rate was high, the filter performance was low and when the flow rate very low, the
filter performance good., but high risk in the filter clogging. If the SSF not clear the top sand
bed after run time of 60 days for dry season and after 15 days run times for rainy season, the
raw water turbidity leads to clog the slow sand filter. These days, at both seasons was estimated
plotting flowrate versus filter running days and make iteration to get the day when flow rate
approach to zero. The average flow rates at different sand bed depth and season are shown in
Table 4.1.
Table 4-1 Average flow rates of slaw sand filter at different sand bed depth and season
April, 2019 July,2019

Sand bed depth(cm) Time (sec) Flow rate (l/s) Time (sec) Flow rate (l/s)
10 5.04 0.398 8.714 0.133
30 10.45 0.192 16.815 0.063
50 19.47 0.1028 30.588 0.034
80 42.74 0.0468 87.364 0.012
110 84.18 0.0238 152.203 0.007
140 162.97 0.0123 253.031 0.004
4.3 Water quality analysis at different sand bed depth

The results of the selected parameters of both filtered and unfiltered water at different sand bed
depth and at different experimentation days and season are compare with the related standards
32
for drinking water. The photo below shows, the comparation of raw river water and filtered
water through 140 cm sand bed filter in this pilot plant study during July ,2019 experimentation
season.
Figure 4-2: Comparation of raw river water and filtered water through 1.4 m sand bed
4.3.1 Raw river water turbidity characteristics

The turbidity of natural sample river water (unfiltered water) for a month April,2019
experimentation season for continuous seven days was not a greatly variation in the sample
river water. A minimum of 6.5NTU (at 3rd day) to a maximum of 7.5NTU (at 7th day).
The turbidity of natural sample river water for a month July ,2019 experimentation season for
continuous seven days, of filtration, the daily variation in the sample river water (unfiltered
water) throughout the study was significantly observed. A minimum of 175 NTU (at 5th day)
to a maximum of 230 NTU (at 1st day).
33
20 240
200
16
160
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
12
120
8
80
4
40
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (day) Time (day)

Raw river water turbidity during April,2019 Raw river water turbidity during July ,2019
experimentation period experimentation time
Figure 4-3 : Raw river water turbidity characteristics during April and July,2019
Form this study, the great variation in turbidity of river water was observed during dry and
rainy season. The turbidity of river water during rainy season higher in river water and the
turbidity of filtered water at different sand bed depth was above the recommended limit of
turbidity for drinking water.
4.3.2 Treated river water turbidity characteristics

The filtered water turbidity content significantly varies with sand bed depth and filtration run
time. Turbidity of filtered water during April,2019 experimentation time was 5.9-6.7 NTU at
10cm sand bed depth, 5.64-4.92 NTU at 30cm sand bed depth, 3.35-2.93 NTU at 50cm sand
bed depth, 1.42-1.24 NTU at 80cm sand bed depth, 1.03-1.19 NTU at 110cm sand bed depth,
0.65-0.74 NTU at 140cm sand bed depth.
Turbidity of filtered water during July ,2019 experimentation time was 148.75-218.50 NTU
at 10cm sand bed depth, 122.35-195.5 NTU at 30 cm sand bed depth, 52.92-110.4 NTU at 50
cm sand bed depth ,13.23-46 NTU at 80 cm sand bed depth ,11.34-43.7 NTU at 110cm sand
bed depth, 9.43-25.3 NTU at 140cm sand bed depth.
34
A clear trend was seen in turbidity reduction in the 10cm, 30cm, 50cm,80cm,110cm and 140
cm sand bed depth for 10 days a continuous filtration at month of April,2019 and for
continuous seven days a month July,2019 of experimentation season. The turbidity of in the
effluent water always less than the influent water. Even though higher turbidity was made in
the sample raw water, the turbidity removal trend is clearly shown. That means the turbidity
of sample water was slightly vary from day to day, the turbidity removal efficiency of SSF
increases with filter maturity time and sand bed depth increase. Reversely filtration rate was
decreased specially for rainy season, when turbidity of raw river water sample increase and it
increase the occurrence of clogging in the filter. For this pilot filtration system, both unfiltered
and filtered water turbidity content at both experimentation season with filter running time and
sand filter bed is shown below in Figure 4-4,4-5,4-6,4-7,4-8and 4-9`using curve charts.
20 240
200
16
160
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
12
120
8
80
4
40
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (day)
Time (day)
Treated river water during July,2019
Treated river water during April,2019 experimentation time
experimentation time"
Figure 4-4 :Treated river water turbidity characteristics at 10 cm sand bed depth
35
20.0 240
200
16.0
160
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
12.0
120
8.0
80
4.0
40
0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (Day) Time (Day)
Treated river water during April,2019 "Treated river water during Julyl,2019
experimentation time experimentation time
Figure 4-5 :Treated river water turbidity characteristics at 30 cm sand bed depth
20.00 240
200
16.00
160
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
12.00
120
8.00
80
4.00
40
0.00 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Treated river water during April,2019 Treated river water during July,2019
Figure 4-6: Treated river water turbidity characteristics at 50 cm sand bed depth
36
20.00 240
200
16.00
160
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
12.00
120
8.00
80
4.00
40
0.00 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Treated river water during April,2019 Treated river water during July,2019
20.00 240
16.00 200
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
160
12.00
120
8.00
80
4.00
40
0.00 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Treated river water during April,2019 Treated river water during July ,2019
37
20.00 240
200
16.00
160
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
12.00
120
8.00
80
4.00
40
0.00 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Treated river water during April,2019 Treated river water during July ,2019
a) Turbidly removal efficiency of SSF during April .2019
The efficiency of slow sand filter to reduce turbidity of the river water increase with sand bed
and filter ruing time increase. The results of the percent of turbidity removal through the
respective sand filter bed depth for seven continuous days of filtration during April,2019
experimentation time are shown in Figure 4-10 below.
38
100.00
1st day
90.00
2nd day
80.00 3rd day
4th day
70.00 5th day

Percent removal of of turibidity(%)
6th day
60.00
7th day
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Sand bed depth (cm)
Figure 4-10 :Relationship between the depth of filter and the percent removal of turbidity
39
Turbidity reduction at different sand filter depth specially, 10cm ,30cm,50cm and 80cm, the
percent of improvement of removal efficiency significantly increase when filtration goes the
sequential depth of sand bed. But after depth 80 cm sand bed depth, the percent of reduction
of removal increase insignificantly manner. Since turbidity of river water during dry season
was low and it can reduce to the require limit of turbidity at 80 cm sand bed depth which is
81.8% at 7th day without any pretreatment.
The average turbidity of river water during April ,2019 experimentation time was 6.82 NTU.
For this unfiltered water turbidity, the minimum, maximum and the average efficiency SSF to
removal of turbidity for sequential depth of sand filter is shown in table below.
Table 4-2: Percent removal of turbidity for subsequently depth at April ,2019
Sand bed depth Min. % Max.% Ave.% Average filtered water

(cm) removal removal removal turbidity in NTU
10 4.48 13.33 7.92 6.27
30 13.29 27.78 22.23 5.29
50 48.38 57.01 53.71 3.15
80 78.1 81.76 80.36 1.34
110 81.75 84.80 83.63 1.11
140 88.6 90.91 89.79 0.70
Where:
1) Min. % removal: Minimum percent removal during the seven days of filtration
2) Max. % removal: Maximum percent removal during the seven days. of filtration
3) Ave.% removal: Average percent removal during the seven days of filtration
The filtered water (treated water) turbidity at the depths of 10cm and 30cm was greater than 5
NTU. At later depths up to 140 cm (50,80,110 and 140 cm). the turbidity of treated water is
less than 5 NTU, which is the permissible limit of drinking water standard.
Referring to table 4.2 above, it is noted that at depth up to 80cm the average removal of
turbidity is 80.36 %. Thus, this depth indicates, an effective sand depth for the turbidity
40
removal by SSF using ES=0.46mm and below.it It is also noticed that there is no significant
decrease in turbidity through the depths from filtration going from 80cm to 110,140 cm with
an average turbidity of less than 5 NTU. Figure 4-10 below show, the mathematical relation
between the depth of filter and the average percent removal of turbidity.
100.00
90.00
Percent removal of turbidity (%)
80.00
y = 0.1571x + 67.312
70.00 R² = 0.9698
y = 1.0771x - 4.7216
60.00 R² = 0.9828
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Sand bed depth(cm)
Figure 4-11: Relationship between depth of filter and average % removal of turbidity.
The mathematical relation between the depth of filter and the average percent removal of
turbidity with different sand filter depth, can represent as follow: This relation was made for
effective sand size (ES) 0.46 mm and uniformity coefficient (UC) 2.2.
1.0771x − 4.7216 for 0 < x ≤ 80

f(x) = { }------------------------------------(9)
0.1571x + 67.312 for 80 ≤ x ≤ 140
Where x: depth in cm and 𝑓(x) the percent removal of Turbidity
Referring to Table 4.2, it is noted that at depth up to 80cm the average removal of turbidity is
80.36 %. Thus, this depth represents the effective depth for the removal of turbidity. It is also
noticed that there is no significant decrease in turbidity through the depths from filtration going
from 80cm to 110,140 cm with an average turbidity of less than 5 NTU,
.
41
a) Turbidity removal efficiency of SSF during July, 2019
The results of the percent of turbidity removal efficiency through the respective sand filter bed
depth for seven continuous days of filtration during July ,2019 experimentation time are shown
below in Figure 4.13.
100
percent removal of turbidity(%)
90
80
70
60
1st day
2nd day
50
3rd day
40 4th day
5th day
30
6th day
20 7th day
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Sand bed depth(cm)
Figure 4-12 : Relationship between depth of filter and percent removal of turbidity
Since during July,2019 experimentation period, the turbidity of the river water was higher and
filtered water turbidity was also higher. But the percent removal of turbidity slightly higher
than Apil,2019 experimentation time for the same sand bed depth due filtration rate decrease.
It was also observed that reduction turbidity going from 10cm to 30cm,30 to 50 cm and 50 to
80 cm sand bed depth, the percent of improvement of removal increase significantly. But
flirtation going from 80 to 110 and 110 to 140 cm the percent of improvement of removal
increase with insignificant manner Turbidity of river water during rainy season was high and
42
it could not reduce to the required limit even at depth of 140 cm sand bed depth which is 95
%. The average turbidity of raw river water during July ,2019 experimentation time was 201
NTU. For this unfiltered water turbidity, the minimum, maximum and the average percent
removal of turbidity for sequential depth of sand filter is shown in table 4.3 below.
Table 4-3 : Percent removal of turbidity for subsequently depth at July,2019.
Sand bed depth Min. % Max.% Average % Average filtered

(cm) removal removal removal turbidity in NTU
10 5 20 11.88 176.92
30 15 35 26.25 149.84
50 52 72 60.50 76.86
80 80 93 87.00 24.47
110 81 94 91.31 23.15
140 89 95 92.14 15.92
Where:
1) Min. % removal: Minimum percent removal during the seven days of filtration
2) Max. % removal: Maximum percent removal during the seven day of filtration
3) Average % removal: Average percent removal during the seven days of filtration
The incremental increasing of the percent removal turbidity was high at the first three sand bed
depths (at depths of 10 cm,30 cm and 50 cm), whereas the incremental increasing of the percent
removal turbidity was low at the last sand bed depth (80,110 and 140 cm).
Figure 4-13. shows the mathematical relation between the depth of filter and the efficiency
slow sand filter for turbidity removal at different sand filer depth range. The most
representative equation of removal of turbidity from 10-80cm sand filter depth was liner, (R2
= 0.98 and which is close to 1) and from 80-140cm sand filter depth was also a liner (R2 =
0.86 which is also close to 1)
43
100.00
90.00
80.00 y = 0.0857x + 80.723

R² = 0.8674
y = 1.1223x - 1.2921
70.00
R² = 0.978
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Figure 4-13 : Relationship between depth of filter and average percent removal of turbidity
turbidity at different range of sand bed depth, can represent as follow: : This relation was
made for effective sand size (ES) 0.46 mm and uniformity coefficient (UC) 2.2.
1.1223x − 1.2921 for 0 < x ≤ 80

f(x) = { }---------------------------------------(10)
0.0857x + 80.723 for 80 ≤ x ≤ 140
Where x: depth in cm and 𝑓(x) the percent removal of turbidity
Referring to table 4.3, it is also noted that, sand bed depth up to 80 cm the average removal of
turbidity is 87 %. After this depth the incremental increasing is low both in average removal
percentage and filtered water turbidity content. Even if the turbidity of the filtered water is not
within the permissible limit drinking water standard, 80 cm sand bed depth leads an effective
sand bed depth to remove turbidity of river water. There is no significant difference in filtered
water turbidity at depths 110m and 140 cm.
Since the filtration rate decrease for high turbidity of water, high turbidity water is the major
factor to accelerate the slow sand filter clogging.
44
4.3.3 Raw river water TDS characteristics
The TDS of raw river water, in this study, was vary from 438.25 to 510.66 mg/l for
experimentation period for month of April ,2019 for continuous seven days. TDS concentration
river water was low. For this case study, TDS concentration is not affecting the slow sand filter
performance.
600
550
500
450
400
TDS (mg/l)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Run time (Days)
Raw river water TDS during ,2019 experimentation time
Figure 4-14 : Raw river water TDS characteristics

.
45
4.3.4 Treated River water TDS characteristics
For this pilot filtration system, during April ,2019 experimental time the filtered water TDS
concentration with filter run time at different sand bed depth is shown in Figure 4-15. The TDS
concentration of filtered water always less than unfiltered water.
46
600
550
500
450
400
350
TDS (mg/l)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (Day)
10 cm sand bed depth 30 cm sand bed depth

Figure 4-15: Treated river water TDS characteristics at different sand bed depth
47
a) TDS removal efficiency of SSF during April, 2019
The efficiency of slow sand filter to reduce TDS of the river water increase with sand bed and
filter running time increase. The results of the percent of TDS removal through the respective
sand filter bed depth for seven continuous days of filtration during April,2019 experimentation
time are shown below in Figure 4-16.
90.00
80.00 1st day
2nd day
70.00
Percent removal of TDS(%)
3rd day
60.00
4th day
50.00
5th day
40.00
6th day
30.00
7th day
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Sand bed depth (cm)
Figure 4-16: Relationship between the depth of filter and the percent removal TDS
48
Like turbidity, TDS reduction improvement increase significantly when filtration going from
10 to 30cm,30 to50 cm ,50 and 50 to 80 cm sand bed depth. But after 80cm sand bed depth the
percent of improvement of removal increase with insignificantly.
The average TDS of river water during April ,2019 experimentation time was 476.97 mg/l. For
this unfiltered water, the minimum, maximum and the average percent removal of TDS for
sequential depth of sand filter is shown in table 4.4 below.
Table 4-4 Percent removal of TDS at sequential depth filter at April ,2019.
Sand depth Min. % Max.% Ave. % Average filtered water TDS

(cm) removal removal removal concentration in mg/l
10 10 25 18.43 388.81
30 12 32 23.00 366.89
50 15 48 35.00 309.60
80 25 70 49.00 242.67
110 28 72 52.29 226.91
140 30 73 54.14 218.10
Where:
1) Min. % removal: Minimum percent removal during the ten days of filtration
2) Max. % removal: Maximum percent removal during the ten days of filtration
3) Ave.% removal: Average percent removal during the ten days of filtration
The minimum, maximum and average percent removal of TDS incremental increasing is
higher from 10 cm to 30 cm, 30 cm to 50 cm and 50 cm to 80 cm higher. But from sand bed
depth 80cm to 110cm and 110cm to 140cm is low. Figure 4-17 shows the mathematical relation
between the depth of filter and the efficiency slow sand filter for TDS removal at different sand
filer depth range. The most representative equation of removal of TDS from 10-80cm sand
filter depth was polynomial, (R2 = 0.99 and which is close to 1) and from 80-140cm sand filter
depth is also liner (R2 = 0.97 which is also close to 1).
49
100.00
90.00
Percent removal of TDS (mg/l)
80.00
70.00
y = 0.0857x + 42.381
R² = 0.9749
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
y = 0.002x2 + 0.275x + 14.827
R² = 0.9888
10.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Sand bed depth (cm)
Figure 4-17 : Relationship between depth of filter and the average % removal of TDS
TDS, which can represent as follow: This relation was made for effective sand size (ES) 0.46
mm and uniformity coefficient (UC) 2.2.
2
f(x) = {0.002𝑥 + 0.2751x + 14.827 for 0 < x ≤ 80}----------------------------(11)
0.0857x + 42.381 for 80 ≤ x ≤ 140
Where x: depth in cm and 𝑓(x) the percent removal of TDS
At 80 cm sand bed depth the average removal of TDS is 49 %. After this depth the
incremental increasing is low at both in average removal percentage and filtered water TDS
content. Due to this 80 cm sand bed depth may an effective depth to remove TDS from river
water.
50
4.3.5 Raw river water TSS characteristics
The raw river water TSS concentration during April ,2019 test time was varying from 0.35 to
0.4 mg/l. The filtered water TSS concentration at all sand bed depth is less than that of
unfiltered water TSS concentration. TSS concentration of river water for this study at both
extermination time was very low and not seen the effects of TSS concentration on the
performance of slow sand filter.
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
TSS (mg/l)
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time ( day)
Raw water TSS during April,2019 experimentation period
Figure 4-18 :Raw river water TSS characteristics

4.3.6 Treated river water TSS characteristics
The TSS of the filtered water, for this study during April,2019 experimentation period was
found to vary from 0.10 to 0.35 mg/l at 10cm sand filter depth, 0.05 to 0.29 mg/l at 30 cm sand
filter depth , 0.05 to 0.23 mg/l at 50 cm sand filter depth ,0.04 to 0.23mg/l at 80 cm sand filter
depth , 0.04 to 0.22mg/l at 110cm sand filter depth and 0.03 to 0.21 mg/l at 140cm sand filter
depth and that of the average .
For this pilot filtration system, the both unfiltered water and filtered water TSS concentration
at with filter run time at different sand bed depth is shown in Figure 4-19 below.
51
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
TSS (mg/l)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time ( day)
110cm sand bed depth 140 cm snad bed depth
Figure 4-19: Treated river water TSS characteristics at different sand bed depth
a) TSS removal efficiency of SSF during April, 2019
The efficiency of slow sand filter to reduce TSS of the river water increase with sand bed and
filter run time increase specially up to 50cm sand bed depth. The results of the percent of TSS
removal through the respective sand filter bed depth for seven continuous days of filtration
during April,2019 experimentation time are shown below in Figure 4-20.
52
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
Percent removal of TSS (%
50.00 1st day

2 nd day
3rd day
40.00
4th day
5th day
30.00 6th day

7th day
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Sand bed depth (cm)
Figure 4-20 :Relationship between the depth of filter and percent removal of TSS
During April,2019 experimentation period, the minimum, maximum and average percent
removal of TSS incremental increasing was significantly higher from (10-50cm) sand bed
depth and from 50-140cm sand bed was insignificant.
53
The average TSS of river water during April ,2019 experimentation time was 0.41 mg/l. For
this unfiltered water, the minimum, maximum and the average percent removal of TSS for
sequential depth of sand filter is shown in table below.
Table 4-5 : Percent removal of TSS for subsequent depth at April,2019
San depth Min % Max % Average% Average filtered water

(cm) removal removal removal TSS in mg/l
10 13.00 59.79 37.43 0.22

30 27.50 67.83 47.78 0.18
50 42.00 80.64 63.75 0.12
80 43.45 81.83 65.03 0.12
110 44.18 82.43 66.08 0.11
140 46.35 83.32 67.73 0.11
Where:
1) Min. % removal: Minimum percent removal during the seven days of filtration.
2) Max. % removal: Maximum percent removal during the seven days of filtration
3) Ave.% removal: Average percent removal during the seven days of filtration.
The average percentage removal of TSS relation with the specify depth was also summarized
Figure 4-21 below using curve charts.
54
100.00
90.00
Percent removal of TSS (%) 80.00
70.00
y = 0.0374x + 61.535
60.00 R² = 0.9918
50.00
y = 0.6579x + 29.919
40.00 R² = 0.981
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Sand bed depth(cm)
Figure 4-21 Relation between the depth of filter and the average percent removal of TSS
The mathematical relation between the depth of filter and the average percent removal of TSS,
which can represent as follow:
0.6579x + 29.919 for 0 < x ≤ 50

f(x) = { }-----------------------------------(12)
0.0433x + 61.535 for 50 ≤ x ≤ 140
Where x: depth in cm and 𝑓(x) the percent removal of TSS
Since the percent improvement of removal of TSS from sample river water after 50 cm sand
bed depth was insignificant and the sand bed depth 50cm is an effective sand bed depth to
remove the TSS from river water.
55
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
In this pilot scale slow sand filtration system study, the effective size of the sand was 0.46mm
which is slightly larger than the effective size specification which was set by different authors
and it is not the cause of clogging of the full slow sand filter and this sand size is effectively
remove impurities from river water for dry season without pretreatment.
The performance of slow sand filters to purify river water through using 1.4 m sand filter
column at different sand bed depth by selecting the three parameters of river water was
evacuated. As the result shows the slow sand filter is capable of achieving a good result in term
of total suspended solids, total dissolved solid and turbidity removal. However, the process is
sensitive to high turbidity of raw water. Highly turbid water can lead to premature clogging of
the filter. The turbidity river water for dry season low (below 50 NTU) and the slow sand filter
can reduce the permissible limit of drinking water turbidity (below 5 NTU) without affecting
the slow sand filter with frequently clearing after 2 months of filtration running time for dry
season. But the turbidity of river water during rainy season averagely above 200 NTU, which
is lager and cannot reduce to the required limit of drinking water up to 1.4 m sand bed depth
rather its negative effect on the slow sand filter for a time after run time 15 day; it leads to
clogging of sand filter.
Used sand filter is not able to completely remove turbidity, total dissolved solid and total
suspended sloid of the river water up to 140 cm sand bed depth and able to produce effluent
having acceptable turbidity and total dissolved solid at depth 80cm for dry season. Percent
removal of turbidity, total suspend solid, total dissolved solid contents of river water using
slow sand filtration system increased as the depth of the sand filter increased. Using sand filter
for the removal of suspended solid is effective up to 50 cm sand bed depth and for turbidity
and total dissolved solid are effective up to 80 cm sand bed depth. After these sand bed depths,
there is no a significantly effect of increasing in removal of the respective parameter of filter
water. Averagely, about 84 % of the removal of turbidity occurred at depth 80 cm, about 49 %
of the removal of total dissolved solid occurred at depth 80 cm, and about 64 % percent removal
of suspended solid occurred at depth 50 cm.
56
5.2 Recommendation
Following this study there are some of recommendations that are made to mitigate measure of
the problem and further work:
1. It is recommended to use the slow sand filter with single stage to treaty river water for
dry season only. For rainy season, SSF water method is not recommend in the area and
the community use water harvesting system or any other source.
2. The organization, who built slow sand filter to treaty river water specially for rain season
for dinking purpose, should provide after a detailed multistage pilot plant investigation for
different season by given special focusing on the turbidity of raw water.
3. It is also recommended to provide the filtration rate measuring instrument at the filter outlet
of the treatment plant to indicate the maintenance time of the sand filter before complete
clogging.
4. For further work, it is recommended to investigate the performance of slow sand filter with
different sand size with more the one of pilot plant.
57
REFERENCES
Abudi, Z. N. (2011) ‘The Effect of Sand Filter Characteristics on Removal Efficiency of
Organic Matter From Grey’, 4(2), pp. 143–155.
Amhara Design and Supervision Works Enterper (ADSWE) (2013) ‘Addiss Alem town Water
supply and santiation project final design report’,Ethiopia ,Bahir Dahir .ADSWE.
Bagundol, T. B., Awa, A. L. and Enguito, M. R. C. (2014) ‘Efficiency of Slow Sand Filter in
Purifying Well Water’, Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(1), pp. 86–102.
Barrett, J. M. et al. (1991) ‘Manual of Design for Slow Sand Filtration’, U.S.A.,AWWA
Research Foundation and AWWA,
Carty, G. and Bourke, N. (1995) ‘Water treatment manuals Filtration’, Ireland ,Environmental
Protection Agency,
Cleary, S. A. (2005) ‘Sustianable drinking water treatment for samall communities using multi
sage slow sand filterration' ,Masters of Applied Science in Civil Enginering .Unviresty of
Waterloo,Canada.
Cleary, S. A., Ndiongue, S. and William, B. (2004) ‘Cleary , S . A ., S . Ndiongue , W . B .

Anderson , R . A . LeCraw , M . Galan , and P . M . Huck , 2004 . Treatment of Variable
Turbidity Surface Water with Multistage Slow Sand , Treatment of a Variable Turbidity
Surface Water with Multistage Slow Sand Filtration’, (November).
Donison, Kori S. (Kori Shay), 1981- (2004) ‘Household scale slow sand filtration in the
Dominican Republic’.Masters of Engineering in Civil and Envromental Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology .Dominican Republic.
Enviromental Protiction Egency( EPA) (1990) ‘Tecnologies Upgrading Existing or Designing

of New Drinking water Treatment Facilities’.U.S Office of drinking water center of
Envromental Resarch information .
Fauzi, A. F. B. (2010) ‘Water Treatment Using Slow Sand Filter’.Bachelor of Civil

Enginnering ,Unversity of Malaysia Pahaang,Malaysia.
58
Huisman,L.,Wood ,W.E.(1974) Slow Sand Filtration. World Health Organaziation ,Geneva.
Jena, P. S. and Jha, P. R. (2013) ‘Development of Low Cost Water Purification Technique
,Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering ,National Institue of Technology ,Rourkela.
Kiky, A. (2018) ‘Optimization of Slow Sand Filtration Design by Understanding the Influence
of Operating Variables on the Suspended Solids Removal’.
Letshwenyo, M. W. and Lebogang, L. (2018) ‘Pilot Scale Investigation on the Removal of

Pollutants from Secondary Effluent to Meet Botswana Irrigation Standards Using Roughing
and Slow Sand Filters’, 12(5), pp. 370–378.
Logsdon, G. S. et al. (2002) ‘Slow sand filtration for small water systems’, Journal of
Environmental Engineering and Science, 1(5), pp. 339–348.
Muhammad, N. et al. (1996) ‘Optimization of slow sand filtration’, Reaching the unreached -
Challenges for the 21st century: Proceedings of the 22nd WEDC Conference, New Delhi, India
9-13 September 1996, pp. 283–285.
Mushila, C. N. et al. (2016) ‘Hydraulic design to optimize the treatment capacity of Multi-
Stage Filtration units’, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. Elsevier Ltd, 92, pp. 85–91.
Nancy, A. B., Josephine, M. and Aluoch Lizzy, M. (2014) ‘Slow Sand Filtration of Secondary
Sewage Effluent: Effect of Sand Bed Depth on Filter Performance’, International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 03(08), pp. 15090–15099.
Nassar, A. M. and Hajjaj, K. (2013) ‘Purification of Stormwater Using Sand Filter’, Journal
of Water Resource and Protection, 05(11), pp. 1007–1012.
National Drinking Water Clearing House (NDWCH) (2000) ‘Slow Sand Filter’, pp. 1–4.
Nkwonta, O. and Ochieng, G. (2009) ‘Roughing filter for water pre-treatment technology in
developing countries: A review’, International Journal of Physical Sciences, 4(9), pp. 455–
463.
59
Pachocka, M. (2010) ‘Intermittent slow sand filters: improving their design for developing
world applications’, degree of Master of Civil Engineering ,Faculty of the University of
Delaware.
Pescod, M. B., Abouzaid, H. and Sundaresan, B. B. (1986) ‘Slow sand filtration: A low cost
Treatment for Water Supplies in Developing Countries’, pp. 10–14.
Reddy, C. D. (1997) ‘The Potential Use Of Slow Sand Filtration For The Production Of Potable
Water’.Masters of Science in Enginering ,University of Natal,Durban.
Sharath, D., A, B. T. and Sushma, K. (2017) ‘DESIGN OF SAND FILTER UNIT FOR
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT IN GUBRE CITY , SNNPR , AND ETHIOPIA’, 33(2),
pp. 1120–1127.
Shenkut, M. (1999) ‘Multistage filtration in water treatment’,Integrated Development for

water supply and santation,25th WEDC Conference Addis Abbaba,Ethiopia , pp. 298–301.
Shishaye, H. A. (2017) ‘Design and Evaluation of Household Horizontal Slow Sand Filter’,
23(1), pp. 1–10.
Spellman, F. R. (2003) Handbook of Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations, A

CRC press company,Washington,D.C
Srishti Verma,Achlesh Daverey & Archana Sharma (2017) " Slow sand filteration for water
and waste water treatment -a Review.",Enviromental Technology Reviews ,6(1),pp 47-58
Streicher, L. (1974) Treatment-Plant Design, Journal - American Water Works Association.
Tanner, S. A. and Ongerth, J. E. (1990) ‘Evaluating the Performance of Slow Sand Filters in
Northern Idaho’, Journal - American Water Works Association, 82(12), pp. 51–61.
Visscher, B. J. T. et al. (1987)‘Slow Sand Filteration for community Water

Supply,planning,design,construction,operationand maintenance’.IRC for comminty water
supply and santation ,Hague,Netherland .
Wood (1985) ‘Slow Sand Filtration' , CRC crtical reviews in envrimental control,15(4), pp.
315–354.
60
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Photo of failure SSF and pilot plant preparation
Figure A-1: The failure slow sand filter treatment plant
61
Appendix B: Turbidity measuring Procedures and apparatus use
a) Apparatus
➢ AD300 EC/TDS/Temperature Bench meter
➢ 50ml glass beaker
Reagent
For calibrating the instrument use standard solution of 0.01mg/l of KCL
b) Procedures
1- The instrument connects to electric power supply socket
2- Turn of the instrument on by pressing the ON/OFF button
3- All LCD tags are displayed and a beep is generated while the instrument perform a self-
test
4- Calibration of the instrument by standard solution of 0.01mg/l of KCL
5- If need, press RANGE until the desired TDS range is selected on the LCD
Note –make sure that the meter is calibrated before taking measurement.
6- Immerse the probe into the solution to be tested. The sleeve holes must be completely
submerged.
7- Tap the probe repeatedly to remove any air bubbles that may be trapped inside the
sleeve.
8- Insert 25-50ml of water from sample water on AD300 TDS meter instrument.
9- Read TDS and recording the numerical value in mg/l.
Figure B-1: TDS measuring instrument and procedures
62
Appendix C: TDS measuring Procedures and apparatus use
a) Apparatus:
➢ Turbidity meter
➢ 10ml test tube
Reagent: For calibrating the instrument use turbidity free distilled water samples.
b) Procedure
1- On the turbidity meter instrument

2- Fill up the sample holder with distilled water, place it in the instrument & Close the
cover. Using the zero-adjustment knob, adjust the reading to zero, the instrument now
calibrated.
3- Take out the distilled water sample and fill up the holder with the10ml sample water both
river and treated water. Place it in the instrument and close the cover.
4- To know the turbidity of the given unknown sample, keep it in the instrument and record
the turbidity reading directly as NTU.
Figure C-1: Turbidity measuring instrument and procedures
63
Appendix D: TSS measuring procedures and apparatus use
a) Apparatus
Glass beakers, Hot air oven, digital balance
b) Reagents
Aluminum Sulfate (Al2 (SO4)3)
Based on Gravimetric method using weight of insoluble precipitates or evaporated residues in

glass ware or metal and accurate analytical balance.
c) Procedure
1- Measure the weight of empty glass beaker let say (B)
2- Add 1 litter water sample on the empty glass beaker
3- Based on the water quality aspect, add Aluminum Sulfate (Al2 (SO4)3) solution on the
water containing beaker to accelerate settle down the residual on the sample water
4- Carefully separate the settled residual solid and the suspended water
5- Oven dry the settled solid up to 24 hours
6- Measure the weight of the oven dry settled solid, let say (A)
Calculation
mg (A−B)
TSS ( )= *100----------------------------------------(13)
l V
Where:
B= weight of empty glass beaker, mg.
A = weight of glass beaker + dried residue, mg
V=sample volume, mL
64
Appendix E:
Table E-1: Filtration rate analysis result

April, 2019 July , 2019
At sand bed depth 10cm
3
Day volume time(se v(m ) Time(h Flow m/hr time(se Time( Flow Filtration
(l) c) r) rate(l c) hr) rate(l/S (m/hr)
/S) )
1st 2.000 4.500 0.002 0.001 0.444 25.600 11.400 0.002 0.175 20.211
2nd 2.000 4.610 0.002 0.001 0.434 24.989 12.800 0.002 0.156 18.000
3rd 2.000 4.800 0.002 0.001 0.417 24.000 14.400 0.002 0.139 16.000
4th 2.000 5.020 0.002 0.001 0.398 22.948 15.800 0.002 0.127 14.582
5th 2.000 5.120 0.002 0.001 0.391 22.500 16.480 0.002 0.121 13.981
6th 2.000 5.180 0.002 0.001 0.386 22.239 17.760 0.002 0.113 12.973
7th 2.000 5.230 0.002 0.001 0.382 22.027 19.900 0.003 0.101 11.578
1st 2.000 9.400 0.002 0.003 0.213 12.255 28.460 0.004 0.070 8.096
2nd 2.000 9.600 0.002 0.003 0.208 12.000 28.620 0.004 0.070 8.050
3rd 2.000 9.900 0.002 0.003 0.202 11.636 29.600 0.004 0.068 7.784
4th 2.000 10.200 0.002 0.003 0.196 11.294 32.220 0.004 0.062 7.151
5th 2.000 10.600 0.002 0.003 0.189 10.868 33.500 0.005 0.060 6.878
6th 2.000 10.700 0.002 0.003 0.187 10.766 34.500 0.005 0.058 6.678
7th 2.000 10.900 0.002 0.003 0.183 10.569 35.240 0.005 0.057 6.538
1st 2.000 18.700 0.002 0.005 0.107 6.160 56.280 0.008 0.036 4.094
2nd 2.000 18.900 0.002 0.005 0.106 6.095 57.100 0.008 0.035 4.035
3rd 2.000 19.030 0.002 0.005 0.105 6.054 57.740 0.008 0.035 3.990
4th 2.000 19.080 0.002 0.005 0.105 6.038 58.540 0.008 0.034 3.936
5th 2.000 19.240 0.002 0.005 0.104 5.988 59.220 0.008 0.034 3.891
6th 2.000 19.560 0.002 0.005 0.102 5.890 59.840 0.008 0.033 3.850
7th 2.000 19.840 0.002 0.006 0.101 5.806 60.020 0.008 0.033 3.839
65
April,2019 July ,2019
At sand bed depth 80 cm
3
Day volu time(se v(m ) Time Flow Filtration time(sec) Time Flow Filtratio
me(l) c) (hr) rate(l/ (m/hr) (hr) rate(l/S) n (m/hr)
S)
1st 2 42 0.002 0.013 0.048 2.743 172.3 0.023 0.012 1.3372
2nd 2 42.210 0.002 0.012 0.047 2.729 173.120 0.024 0.012 1.331
3rd 2 42.650 0.002 0.012 0.047 172.580 0.024 0.012 1.335
4th 2 42.410 0.002 0.012 0.047 2.716 173.560 0.024 0.012 1.327
5th 2 42.800 0.002 0.012 0.047 2.692 174.420 0.024 0.011 1.321
6th 2 42.880 0.002 0.012 0.047 2.687 175.100 0.024 0.011 1.316
7th 2 42.960 0.002 0.012 0.047 2.682 175.900 0.024 0.011 1.310
At sand bed depth 110 cm
1st 2 82.400 0.002 0.023 0.024 1.398 300.440 0.042 0.007 0.767
2nd 2 82.450 0.002 0.023 0.024 1.397 301.300 0.042 0.007 0.765
3rd 2 82.620 0.002 0.023 0.024 1.394 301.780 0.042 0.007 0.763
4th 2 82.780 0.002 0.023 0.024 1.392 303.780 0.042 0.007 0.758
5th 2 83.420 0.002 0.023 0.024 1.381 303.780 0.042 0.007 0.758
6th 2 83.960 0.002 0.023 0.024 1.372 304.300 0.042 0.007 0.757
7th 2 85.170 0.002 0.024 0.023 1.353 305.560 0.042 0.007 0.754
1st 2 161.75 0.002 0.044 0.012 0.71221 500.3 0.14 0.004 0.23026
365
2nd 2 161.98 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.71 503.12 0.14 0.00 0.23
3rd 2 162.23 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.71 503.72 0.14 0.00 0.23
4th 2 162.45 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.71 504.92 0.14 0.00 0.23
5th 2 162.98 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.71 505.78 0.14 0.00 0.23
6th 2 163.12 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.71 505.98 0.14 0.00 0.23
7th 2 163.44 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.70 507.56 0.14 0.00 0.23
66
Appendix F:
TableF-1: Turbidity of raw and treated river water at sequential filter sand bed result
Turbidity result at 10cm sand bed depth

April,2019 July ,2019
Filtration Raw river Treated Percent Raw river Treated Percent
time (day) water water removal (%) water water removal
(NTU) (NTU) (NTU) (NTU) (%)
1st 6.5 6.2 4.62 230 218.5 5.00
2nd 6.7 6.4 4.48 188 176.7 6.00
3rd 6.25 5.9 5.60 207 190.4 8.00
4th 7.1 6.6 7.04 201 174.9 13.00
5th 6.5 5.9 9.23 175 148.8 15.00
6th 7.2 6.4 11.11 217 177.9 18.00
7th 7.5 6.5 13.33 189 151.2 20.00
1st 6.5 5.6 13.29 230 195.5 15.00
2nd 6.7 5.3 20.40 188 146.6 22.00
3rd 6.25 4.9 21.33 207 155.3 25.00
4th 7.1 5.5 22.54 201 150.8 25.00
5th 6.5 4.9 24.36 175 126.0 28.00
6th 7.2 5.3 25.93 217 151.9 30.00
7th 7.5 5.4 27.78 189 122.9 35.00
1st 6.5 3.35 48.4 230 110.4 52.0
2nd 6.7 3.2 52.6 188 84.6 55.0
3rd 6.25 2.9 53.2 207 86.9 58.0
4th 7.1 3.3 53.9 201 76.4 62.0
5th 6.5 2.9 55.0 175 59.5 66.0
6th 7.2 3.17 55.9 217 67.3 69.0
7th 7.5 3.22 57.0 189 52.9 72.0
67
April,2019 July,2019
Filtration Raw river Treated Percent Raw river Treated Percent
time (day) water water removal water (NTU) water (NTU) removal (%)
(NTU) (NTU) (%)
1st 6.5 1.42 78.1 230 46 80.0
2nd 6.7 1.35 79.9 188 28.2 85.0
3rd 6.25 1.24 80.1 207 26.91 87.0
4th 7.1 1.39 80.4 201 22.11 89.0
5th 6.5 1.24 80.9 175 17.5 90.0
6th 7.2 1.35 81.3 217 17.36 92.0
7th 7.5 1.37 81.8 189 13.23 93.0
1st 6.5 1.19 81.8 230 43.7 81.0
2nd 6.7 1.12 83.2 188 26.32 86.0
3rd 6.25 1.03 83.4 207 26.91 87.0
4th 7.1 1.16 83.7 201 21.105 89.5
5th 6.5 1.03 84.1 175 17.5 90.0
6th 7.2 1.12 84.4 217 15.19 93.0
7th 7.5 1.14 84.8 189 11.34 94.0
1st 6.5 0.74 88.6 230 25.3 89.0
2nd 6.7 0.70 89.5 188 18.8 90.0
3rd 6.25 0.65 89.7 207 16.56 92.0
4th 7.1 0.72 89.8 201 16.08 92.0
5th 6.5 0.65 90.1 175 12.25 93.0
6th 7.2 0.70 90.3 217 13.02 94.0
7th 7.5 0.71 90.5 189 9.45 95.0
68
Appendix G:
Table G-1: TSS of raw and treated river water at sequential filter sand bed result
TSS result at 10cm sand bed depth

April,2019
Filtration time Raw river water Treated water (mg/l) Percent removal
(day) (mg/l) (%)
1st 0.4 0.35 13.00
2nd 0.42 0.33 22.62
3rd 0.39 0.27 30.00
4th 0.43 0.26 38.60
5th 0.41 0.23 44.39
6th 0.44 0.20 53.64
7th 0.47 0.19 59.79
1st 0.4 0.29 27.50
2nd 0.42 0.28 34.52
3rd 0.39 0.23 40.77
4th 0.43 0.22 48.84
5th 0.41 0.19 53.66
6th 0.44 0.17 61.36
7th 0.47 0.15 67.83
1st 0.4 0.23 42.00
2nd 0.42 0.21 49.40
3rd 0.39 0.16 59.08
4th 0.43 0.15 64.19
5th 0.41 0.11 72.20
6th 0.44 0.09 78.75
7th 0.47 0.09 80.64
69
April,2019
Filtration time Raw river water Treated water (mg/l) Percent removal
(day) (mg/l) (%)
1st 0.4 0.23 43.45
2nd 0.42 0.21 50.60
3rd 0.39 0.15 60.69
4th 0.43 0.15 65.72
5th 0.41 0.11 72.66
6th 0.44 0.09 80.30
7th 0.47 0.09 81.83
1st 0.4 0.22 44.18
2nd 0.42 0.20 51.79
3rd 0.39 0.15 62.31
4th 0.43 0.14 66.74
5th 0.41 0.11 74.05
6th 0.44 0.08 81.07
7th 0.47 0.08 82.43
1st 0.4 0.21 46.35
2nd 0.42 0.20 53.57
3rd 0.39 0.14 63.92
4th 0.43 0.13 69.30
5th 0.41 0.10 75.44
6th 0.44 0.08 82.23
7th 0.47 0.08 83.32
70
Appendix H:
Table H-1: TDS of raw and treated river water at sequential filter sand bed result
TDS result at 10cm sand bed depth

April,2019
Filtration time Raw river water (mg/l) Treated water (mg/l) Percent removal
(day) (%)
1st 462.7 416.43 10
2nd 506.2 430.27 15
3rd 481.4 389.93 19
4th 463.1 379.74 18
5th 438.25 350.60 20
6th 476.52 371.69 22
7th 510.66 383.00 25
1st 462.7 407.18 12
2nd 506.2 410.02 19
3rd 481.4 380.31 21
4th 463.1 361.22 22
5th 438.25 328.69 25
6th 476.52 333.56 30
7th 510.66 347.25 32
1st 462.7 393.30 15
2nd 506.2 364.46 28
3rd 481.4 327.35 32
4th 463.1 287.12 38
5th 438.25 267.33 39
6th 476.52 262.09 45
7th 510.66 265.54 48
71
Filtration time Raw river water (mg/l) Treated water (mg/l) Percent removal
(day) (%)
1st 462.7 347.03 25
2nd 506.2 313.84 38
3rd 481.4 288.84 40
4th 463.1 250.07 46
5th 438.25 188.45 57
6th 476.52 157.25 67
7th 510.66 153.20 70
1st 462.7 333.14 28
2nd 506.2 288.53 43
3rd 481.4 255.14 47
4th 463.1 240.81 48
5th 438.25 175.30 60
6th 476.52 152.49 68
7th 510.66 142.98 72
1st 462.7 323.89 30
2nd 506.2 278.41 45
3rd 481.4 245.51 49
4th 463.1 231.55 50
5th 438.25 166.54 62
6th 476.52 142.96 70
72
Appendix I:
Table I-1: Sieve analysis result

Amount of oven dried samples before wash (gm) 1891.00
Amount of oven dried samples after wash (gm) 1868.00
Sieve size weight retain(gm) % retained % passing

2 1.10 0.06 99.94
0.425 1762.80 93.22 6.72
0.075 104.20 5.51 1.21
pan 22.90 1.21 0.00
Appendix J:
Table J-1: Drinking water standards (WHO, 2006 and ESA,2013)
permissible value
S/No Parameters WHO (2006) ESA (2013)
1 Turbidity 5 NTU (Max) 5 NTU (Max)
2 TDS 500 mg/l 1000 mg/l (max)
3 TSS 5 mg/l -
73
Appendix K: Batch Settling Column Test for Type 2 Settling
Table K-1 : Initial and final concentration of TSS at different depth and sampling time
Time of sampling (day)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Intimal concentration of TSS (mg/l)
0.4 0.42 0.39 0.43 0.41 0.44 0.47
Depth
(m) Final concentration of TSS (mg/l)
0.5 0.232 0.213 0.160 0.154 0.114 0.094 0.091
0.8 0.226 0.208 0.153 0.147 0.112 0.087 0.085
1.1 0.223 0.203 0.147 0.143 0.106 0.083 0.083
1.4 0.215 0.195 0.141 0.132 0.101 0.078 0.078
𝑐𝑖𝑗
Removal at each depth and time: 𝑥𝑖𝑗= (1 − ) ∗ 100
𝑐0
𝑥𝑖𝑗 = mass fraction removed (at ith depth at jth time interval)
Table K-2 : Percent removal at each depth and time
Time of sampling (day)
Depth (m) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th `6th 7th
0.5 42.00 49.40 59.08 64.19 72.20 78.75 80.64
0.8 43.45 50.60 60.69 65.72 72.66 80.30 81.83
1.1 44.18 51.79 62.31 66.74 74.05 81.07 82.43
1.4 46.35 53.57 63.92 69.30 75.44 82.23 83.32
74
Plotting iso removal lines
0.0
0.5 42.0 49.4 59.1 64.2 72.2 78.8 80.6
Depth
(m) 0.8 43.5 50.6 60.7 65.7 72.7 80.3 81.8
1.1 44.2 51.8 62.3 66.7 74.0 81.1 82.4
1.4 46.4 53.6 63.9 69.3 75.4 82.2 83.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sampling time (day)
Figure K-1: Iso removal line from settling analysis
75

Misganaw - Thesis Work - After Defense Correction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Misganaw - Thesis Work - After Defense Correction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Misganaw - Thesis Work - After Defense Correction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF

PILOT SCALE SLOW SAND FILTER FOR HIGHLY TURBID SURFACE

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

A THEIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF HYDRAULIC AND

ARBA MINCH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

Dr.Bhupender Singh Sandher ----------- ----

Chairman Signature Date

Dr.Mihret Dananto --------- ---

External Examiner Signature Date

Dr.Tamru Tesseme . ------------ -----

Internal Examiner Signature Date

Dr.Beshah Mogesse ---------- -----

Principal Supervisor Signature Date

ADSWE Amhara design and Supervision Works Enterprise

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii

LIST OF FIGURES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vii

1.1 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

1.3.2 Specific objectives ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

1.4 Scope of the study ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

2.1 Water sources ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

2.1.2 Surface water ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

2.1.3 Rain-water --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

2.2 Choice of raw water sources ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5

2.5.3 Hydraulics of filtration ----------------------------------------------------------------- 12

2.5.4 Mechanism of filtration ---------------------------------------------------------------- 14

2.5.5 Impurities removal by filtration ------------------------------------------------------- 15

2.5.6 Filter media ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16

2.5.7 Operational factors affecting removal in slow sand filtration -------------------- 17

2.6 Pre-treatment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 20

3.1 Description of the study area ---------------------------------------------------------------- 20

3.2.2 Pilot plant construction ----------------------------------------------------------------- 20

3.2.1 Pilot plant set up ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20

3.2.2 Pilot plant filter components----------------------------------------------------------- 20

3.3 Sand and gravel preparation----------------------------------------------------------------- 22

3.4 Installing the sand on the filter column ---------------------------------------------------- 25

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ------------------------------------------------------------------- 31

4.1 Sieve analysis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31

4.2 Flow rate analysis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32

4.3.2 Treated river water turbidity characteristics ----------------------------------------- 34

4.3.3 Raw river water TDS characteristics ------------------------------------------------- 45

4.3.4 Treated River water TDS characteristics -------------------------------------------- 46

4.3.5 Raw river water TSS characteristics-------------------------------------------------- 51

4.3.6 Treated river water TSS characteristics ---------------------------------------------- 51

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ------------------------------------------------- 56

5.1 Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56

Figure 2-1 Basic components of slow sand filtration. ............................................................. 8