FILTER SURVEILLANCE AND

MEDIA CONDITION ASSESSMENT

AT GILBERT’S NORTH WATER TREATMENT PLANT

Rebecca Hamel, Water Quality Supervisor

Filter Surveillance
▷ Elements of Filter Surveillance
▷ Gilbert’s NWTP
▷ Filter and backwash specifications
▷ Backwash Evaluation
▷ Backwash Observation, Media expansion
▷ Filter media analysis
▷ Depth profile and media loss
▷ Sieve analysis and media condition
▷ Filter 16 inspection
▷ Media and Underdrain Replacement
▷ Performance (GAC, Anthracite)
▷ Next steps and Take-Aways
What is a filter surveillance program?
▷ Formalized
evaluation of filter
Condition
performance
▷ Proactive evaluation
and maintenance to
Performance
monitor condition

Reliability
Why implement a filter surveillance
program?
▷ Increase filter performance
▷ Optimal filter backwash increases filter
performance
▷ Protect longevity of filter media
▷ Monitor lifecycle and condition of filter media to
maximize useful life
▷ Assess issues before condition
becomes critical
▷ Catastrophic failures are more costly than
routine maintenance
Elements of Filter Surveillance

Performance Data Tracking Backwash Evaluation Media Analysis

▷ Turbidity ▷ Backwash Observation ▷ Depth measurement
▷ Head loss ▷ Media expansion ▷ Sieve analysis
▷ Run time ▷ Turbidity profiling ▷ Surface evaluation
▷ Run volume ▷ Sludge Retention
Gilbert’s North Water Treatment Plant
45 MGD Conventional plant, SRP source
Anthracite GAC, Sand Anthracite

▷ 18 Filters, 24ft by 16 ft, 48” bed depth

▷ 1-6, 17&18 mono-media Antrhacite
▷ 7-16 GAC with 6 inches support sand

▷ Last media replacement 2006-2015

2015 2006 2012 2006

▷ Last media replacement 2006-2015

▷ Filters 1-2 replaced in 2015
▷ Filters 4-8, 13-18 replaced in 2006
▷ Filters 9-12 replaced in 2012
▷ Variable declining rate filter
▷ Filtration 1.5 ft head
▷ Backwash 6ft head (maximum)
▷ No backwash pumps
▷ Leopold underdrains with IMS caps
▷ History of underdrain failure and cap
replacement
 ▷ Leopold underdrains with IMS caps
▷ History of underdrain failure and cap replacement

Filter 1 (2014-2015)
Elements of Filter Surveillance

Performance Data Tracking Backwash Evaluation Media Analysis

▷ Turbidity ▷ Backwash Observation ▷ Depth measurement
▷ Head loss ▷ Media expansion ▷ Sieve analysis
▷ Run time ▷ Turbidity profiling ▷ Surface evaluation
▷ Run volume ▷ Sludge Retention
▷ Backwash observation
▷ Looking for hot-spots or “boiling” during air scour and
backwash

Filter 16 backwash (some hot spots) Example of regular and uniform backwash
▷ Backwash observation
▷ Looking for hot-spots or “boiling” during air scour and
backwash
 Example of smooth filter surface after backwash

▷ Backwash observation
▷ Uneven or irregular
surface after draining
▷ Craters or sunken areas
▷ Mudball accumulation on
surface of media

Large sunken areas

Mudballs Irregular surface
▷ Media expansion
▷ Ideally 20-30% expansion during high-rate backwash
▷ Measured for one Anthracite and one GAC filter
▷ 4 inches for GAC (14% expansion)
▷ 4 inches for Anthracite (9.5% expansion)
▷ Future: measure expansion in each filter to see outliers

Commercially purchased Ours (DIY)

Elements of Filter Surveillance

Performance Data Tracking Backwash Evaluation Media Analysis

▷ Turbidity ▷ Backwash Observation ▷ Depth measurement
▷ Head loss ▷ Media expansion ▷ Sieve analysis
▷ Run time ▷ Turbidity profiling ▷ Surface evaluation
▷ Run volume ▷ Sludge Retention
▷ Depth Measurement
▷ Can be done using any stiff marked pole
▷ Core sampling can be done with a marked clear
PVC tube
▷ Recommend the installation of pegs for easy
measuring and visual inspection
 Filter Media Depth
60

50

40
Depth (in)

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Anthracite Depth GAC Depth Design Depth (48 inches)

▷ Anthracite
▷ Average media depth: 41 inches (14.5% loss)
▷ Average media age: 9.75 years

▷ GAC
▷ Average media depth: 35.6 inches (25.8% loss)
▷ Average media age: 9.6 years
 Filter Media Total % loss
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
% Media loss

25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Anthracite % loss GAC % loss Average % loss

▷ What is an acceptable percent of media loss?

▷ Anthracite can be topped-off to replace media loss
▷ GAC replacement recommended with excessive loss of media
▷ Total media loss : 180 inches
▷ 3.75 filters worth of media
 Filter Media % Loss per Year
4.50%
4.00%
3.50%
3.00%
% Media loss

2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Anthracite % loss GAC % loss Average % loss

▷ What is an acceptable annual rate of loss?

▷ Depends on plant backwash

▷ Identified top candidates for further investigation

▷ Filter 16 – highest total loss (41.7% loss)
▷ Filter 1 – highest rate of loss (4.2% per year)
▷ Sieve analysis
▷ 4% or greater passthrough of #20 sieve resulted in
failure

Media Age % pass-through #20 Pass/Fail Media Type

Filter 1 3 5 Fail Anthracite

Filter 2 3 5 Fail Anthracite

Filter 3 12 1 Pass Anthracite

Filter 4 12 2 Pass Anthracite

Filter 5 12 1 Pass Anthracite

Filter 6 12 1 Pass Anthracite

Filter 17 12 2 Pass Anthracite

Filter 18 12 2 Pass Anthracite

▷ Sieve analysis
▷ 4% or greater passthrough of #20 sieve resulted in
failure

Media Age % pass-through #20 Pass/Fail Media Type

Filter 7 12 17 Fail GAC

Filter 8 12 40 Fail GAC

Filter 9 6 13 Fail GAC

Filter 10 6 7 Fail GAC

Filter 11 6 5 Fail GAC

Filter 12 6 25 Fail GAC

Filter 13 12 23 Fail GAC

Filter 14 12 24 Fail GAC

Filter 15 12 28 Fail GAC

Filter 16 12 37 Fail GAC

Findings from filter surveillance
▷ Filters are under-backwashing
▷ Hot spots during backwash
▷ Uneven media surface
▷ Mudball accumulation
▷ Insufficient bed expansion

▷ Filters are losing media

▷ 3.75 filter beds total media loss
▷ As much as 41% individual filter media loss
▷ Several candidates for media removal and
underdrain inspection
Findings from filter surveillance
▷ Media is failing sieve analysis
▷ Excessive GAC abrasion during backwash cycle
▷ Inability to wash out fines during backwash

▷ Suspected underdrain integrity issues

▷ History of underdrain failures
▷ Uneven media surface post backwash
▷ Sunken areas on surface of media
▷ Excessive media loss
Filter Underdrain Inspections
Removal of media, inspection of underdrain
Filter 16 media removed
IMS caps show extensive clogging
IMS caps show extensive clogging
▷ Sand and Extracellular Polymeric
Substances (EPS)
▷ Filters have been operated biologically (or with
incidental biological filtration) in the past
Mortar/Grout missing
and unsecured
IMS caps lifting
Filter inspection findings
▷ Similar conditions were found in several filters
of the same age
▷ Total replacement of underdrains is required
▷ “universal” underdrain style will not accept the current style
of IMS replacment caps
▷ Investigating alternative underdrain and cap
configurations
▷ Emergency CIP to replace media and
underdrains in filters 7, 8 and 13 – 16 summer
2019
 Filter Rehabilitation
Removal of media, replacement of underdrains and media
$1.6 Million
Media and Underdrain replacement of 6 filters
2020
2006 2019 2012 2019 2006
(Future)

▷ Filters 7, 8 and 13-16 were replaced in

the summer of 2019
▷ Filters 1 and 2 are planned in 2020 with the
remaining filters to follow.
Anthracite GAC, Sand Anthracite

▷ Filters 7 and 13-16 were replaced with

Anthracite media
▷ Filter 8 was replaced with virgin GAC

Anthracite GAC, Sand Anthracite

▷ IMS caps and “universal” leopold
underdrains were replaced with new
slotted caps and lower profile underdrains
▷ IMS caps and “universal” leopold
underdrains were replaced with new
slotted caps and lower profile underdrains
Performance of Rehabilitated Filters
▷ Filters are much more productive
▷ Effluent valves need to be throttled to ensure
even loading among all filters

▷ Filter run-times are much longer

▷ Current procedure to backwash every 24 hours
or when production drops below 1MGD
▷ New filters could run as long as 60-70 hours
Performance of Rehabilitated Filters

▷ GAC media is excellent for TOC removal

▷ New GAC has proved challenging for

filterability
▷ New GAC has been challenging to operate with
some water qualities at the plant.
Performance of Rehabilitated Filters - Backwash

Before rehabilitation After rehabilitation

Performance of Rehabilitated Filters - Backwash

▷ Backwash flow rate has increased

through the new underdrains
▷ 6MGD versys 10MGD flow

▷ Bed expansion has improved

Old expansion New expansion
GAC 12.3% 26.7%
Anthracite 8.7% 19.3%
Next steps
▷ Rehabilitation of filters 1 and
▷ Other filters likely to follow after this summer

▷ Ongoing monitoring of filter media

condition and bed depth
 References

• Martin, Barb, and Kevin Linder.

“Filter Surveillance Improves
Performance.” Opflow, vol. 42, no. 11,
2016, pp. 8–9.,
doi:10.5991/opf.2016.42.0069.

• Nix, Daniel K., and John Scott

Taylor. Filter Evaluation Procedures for
Granular Media. American Water
Works Association, 2018.
Thanks!
Any questions?
Rebecca Hamel
Water Quality Supervisor
Rebecca.Hamel@GilbertAZ.gov
 Statements of fact and opinion expressed are those of the author(s)/presenter(s).
AZ Water, AZAWWA, and AZWEA assume no responsibility for the content, nor do they
represent official policy of the Association.