Crushed Over Burnt Bricks as Filter Media in Filtration Process

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
THESIS NO: 072/MSE/r/918/237
Crushed Over Burnt Bricks as Filter Media in Filtration Process
by
Tej Binod Pandey
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

LALITPUR, NEPAL
February, 2018
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
THESIS NO: 072/MSE/r/918/237
Crushed Over Burnt Bricks as Filter Media in Filtration Process
by
Tej Binod Pandey
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING

LALITPUR, NEPAL
February, 2018
1
COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the library, Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk
Campus, Institute of Engineering may make this thesis freely available for inspection.
Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for
scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor who supervised the work recorded
herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department wherein the thesis was done.
It is understood that the recognition will be given to the author of this thesis and to the
Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, and Institute of Engineering in
any use of the material of this thesis. Copying or publication or the other use of this
thesis for financial gain without approval of the Department of Civil Engineering,
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering and author’s written permission is
prohibited. Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of the material in
this thesis in whole or in part should be addressed to:
Head
Department of Civil Engineering
Institute of Engineering
Pulchowk Campus, Lalitpur
Nepal
2
PULCHOWK CAMPUS, LALITPUR
The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the institute of
engineering for acceptance, a thesis entitled “Crushed Over Burnt Bricks as Filter
Media in Filtration Process”, submitted by Mr. Tej Binod Pandey in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental
Engineering.
Supervisor, Iswar Man Amatya

Assoc. Prof.
Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus
Institute of Engineering, TU, Nepal
External Examiner, Er. Nam Raj Khatri

Environmental Engineer
Program Coordinator, Iswar Man Amatya

M. Sc. in Environmental Engineering Program
Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus
Institute of Engineering, TU, Nepal
Date: February, 2018
3
ABSTRACT
Rapid gravity filters (RGF) are becoming popular for water treatment. RGF consist of
suitable filter media for purification process. Sand, gravel, anthracite are commonly
used filter media. As per availability and cost effectiveness other materials can also use
if these materials give better result. Over burnt bricks (OBB) is common in places where
brick industry is situated. The main objective of this research was to see the
performance of COBB filter media with respect to sand media.
In this research two RGF columns were prepared having internal dimensions of 11 cm
x 11 cm x 290 cm, one with sand and another COBB as filter media. The properties of
both filter media were kept same with effective size (D10) of 0.5 mm and uniformity
coefficient (UC) of 1.54. For both filter base material was gravel with size specified.
Constant Filtration rate of 3m/h was set and other ancillary activities were made same
for both filter models. The experiments were repeated seven times with different
influent turbidity as 0-25, 25-50, 50-100, 100-150, 150-200, 200-250, 250-300 NTU.
Both the Filters were backwashed with backwashing velocity of 24 m/h, when the
terminal head loss of 165.4 cm was obtained.
For the influent turbidity up to 100 NTU effluent turbidity for both the filter was below
5 NTU lower limit prescribed by NDWQS. Turbidity and head loss were measured and
compared. The efficiency of both the filters was analyzed in terms of turbidity removal
efficiency, filter run time, UFRV produced, head loss gained, backwash time, backwash
water consumption etc. In most of the filter run, turbidity of effluent produced from
COBB was less as compared to sand filter. The average turbidity removal efficiency
for sand was 94.78 % and for COBB was 95.44 %. Also filter run time for COBB filter
was more than sand filter in all the filter run. The filter run time for sand vary from 132
to 9 hours and for COBB vary from 147 to 13 hours from first to seventh filter run. In
average, filter run length of COBB filter was more than that of sand filter by 38.43 %.
Filter run time decreases with increase in influent turbidity. In all filter runs, rate of
head loss gained for sand filter was on higher side. The average water consumption for
backwashing in sand was more than COBB by 26.47 %. The average UFRV for COBB
filter was 38.43 % more than that of sand filter.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my profound gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Iswar Man Amatya for
constant guidance and invaluable suggestions, supervision and friendly discussions
throughout the thesis work.
Sincere thanks are extended to Er. Nama Raj Khatri and Dr. Ram Kumar Sharma for
their valuable suggestions.
I am sincerely grateful to the Sustainable Water Sanitation and Health Development

(SWSHD), NOMA program for the financial assistance for setup the Filter model in
Pulchowk campus.
I am very much grateful to Laboratory in charge Mrs. Prabha Karmacharya for her
valuable support during the laboratory work. Grateful thanks continue to Mr. Ram kaji
Maharjan, Heavy Lab chief of IOE, Pulchowk campus for providing space in heavy lab
while collecting and preparing filter media. I am very thankful to Mr. Ram Kumar
Thing and Er. Uttam Neupane for making bricks in fine forms.
I am very thankful to all who directly and indirectly helped me to write and get
knowledge with providing valuable instructions and guidance in the preparation of this
report. Lastly, I would also like to thank all the friends, teachers, relative and unknowns
who helped me to complete this proposal.
Tej Binod Pandey

072/MSN/918
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Cover Page 1
Copyright 2
Approval Page 3
Abstract 4
Acknowledgement 5
Table of contents 6
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 11
1.1 Background 11
1.2 Rationale of the Study 12
1.3 Objectives of the Study 13
1.4 Limitation of the Study 14
1.5 Organization of Report 14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 16
2.1 Turbidity and Filtration 16

2.2 Rapid Gravity Filter 17
2.3 Mechanisms of Filtration 20
2.4 Working and Backwashing of Filter 20
2.5 Over Burnt Bricks 21
2.6 Use of Novel Material as Filter Media 21
CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY 23
3.1 Material Collection and Preparation of Filter Media 23

3.2 Model Construction 23
3.3 Preparation of Artificial Turbid Water 25
3.4 Mode of Filter Operation 26
3.5 Testing of Models 26
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 27
4.1 Influent and Effluent Turbidity During Filter Run Time 27

4.2 Head Loss Development During Filter Run Time 29
4.3 Filter Run Time with Increase in Influent Turbidity 30
4.4 Effluent Turbidity with Increase in Influent Turbidity 31
4.5 Turbidity Removal with Increase in Influent Turbidity 32
4.6 Effect of Porosity on Filter Media 32
4.7 Comparative Analysis of Turbidity Removal with Influent Turbidity 33
4.8 Unit Filter Run Volume (UFRV) with Increase in Influent Turbidity 34
4.9 Backwash Time with Increase in Influent Turbidity 34
4.10 Backwash Water Consumption with Increase in Influent Turbidity 35
6
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37
5.1 Conclusions 37
5.2 Recommendations 39
REFERENCES 40
APPENDIX A: Filter Media Properties 42
APPENDIX B: Design and Calculations 44
APPENDIX C: Turbidity and Head Loss 49
PHOTOGRAPHS 62
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page

3.1 Base material (Gravel) thickness 25
3.2 Method of analysis 26
4.1 Summary of filter runs for sand media 37

4.2 Summary of filter runs for COBB media 37
4.3 Extra run time and extra removal obtained for COBB in comparison 37
to sand
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page

3.1 Schematic drawing of filter model setup 24
3.2 Detail drawing of filter column 25
4.1 Turbidity vs. filter run time for different influent turbidity levels 28
4.2 Head loss gain during filter run time for different influent turbidity 30
4.3 Filter run time with increase in influent turbidity 31
4.4 Effluent turbidity with increase in influent turbidity 31
4.5 Turbidity removal with increase in influent turbidity 32
4.6 Comparative analysis of turbidity removal with influent turbidity 34
4.7 Unit filter run volume (UFRV) with increase in Influent Turbidity 34
4.8 Backwash time with increase in influent turbidity 35
4.9 Backwash water consumption with increase in influent turbidity 36
9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADB = Asian Development Bank

COBB = Crushed Over Burnt Brick
ENPHO = Environment and Public Health Organization
EPA = Environment Protection Agency
HDPE = High Density Polyethylene
IOE = Institute of Engineering
KUKL = Kathmandu Upatyaka Khanepani Limited
MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NDWQS = Nepal Drinking Water Quality Standards
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
OBB = Over Burnt Brick
RSF = Rapid Sand Filter
RGF = Rapid Gravity Filter
SSF = Slow Sand Filter
TU = Tribhuvan University
UFRV = Unit Filtration Rate Volume
USEPA = US Environmental Protection Agency
WHO = World Health Organization
% = Percentage
cm = centimeter
D10 = Particle size of which 10% is particles are finer than it
Hrs. = Hours
m/h = meter per hour
mins = Minute
mm = millimeter
10
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Throughout the world, water is recognized as the most fundamental and indispensable
of all-natural resources and it is clear that neither social and economic development,
nor environmental diversity, can be sustained without water. Safe drinking water is
essential for existence of human life. This fundamental resource is of such importance
because no living organism can survive without water. Today, virtually every country
faces severe and growing challenges in their efforts to meet the rapidly escalating
demand for water that is driven by increasing populations. So, there is a demand for
clean, unpolluted water in substantial supply.
Water supplies continue to dwindle because of resource depletion and pollution. Rapid
and largely unplanned urban population growth, dramatic land use changes,
socioeconomic transformation, and a poor management system have resulted a low
availability of potable water in the urban areas. According to a report by ADB,
inadequate access to water has led to increased disease incidence, health risks and
associated economic burdens, which disproportionately impact the poor and vulnerable
population of Kathmandu Valley (Udmale et al., 2016). Nearly half of the Kathmandu
valley total water supply during the wet season and 60-70 % during the dry season,
comes from groundwater sources supplied by Kathmandu Upatyaka Khanepani
Limited (KUKL) (Udmale et al., 2016).
Ground water may contain numbers of pollutants which may cause harmful effects in
health as well as hindrance in daily life. The evidence has shown that the most of the
matters present in water is harmful in nature and cause various kind of disease to human.
The major water quality problem is related to seasonal attributes like in wet seasons the
turbidity in these sources increases drastically which causes poor implementation of
such water supply schemes. NDWQS limits turbidity within range of 5 NTU in normal
condition and 10 NTU when other sources are not available (NDWQS, 2062). In Nepal,
although the basic water supply coverage is 86.5% only 29.1 % of population are in
access of safe drinking water (NPC, 2015). A technology not only should be 'low-
investment' so that its construction is within the financial possibilities of the developing
11
countries, it should also satisfy operational and socioeconomic considerations for
effective operation and maintenance. These some of the considerations are generally
accepted for a technology to be suitable in a particular situation (Ahsan, 1995).
1.2 Rationale of the Study
Turbidity is the principle parameter, which refers to water containing suspended matters
or impurities that interferes with the light transmission through water. It reduces
aesthetic acceptability, filterability and disinfection potential of drinking water. It is
recommended that treated water turbidity to be less than 0.1 NTU prior to chlorination
(WHO, 2008). High residual turbidity in the treated water would promote the re-growth
of pathogens in the distribution system. Turbidity removal is a major challenge in
community water supply schemes where ground water, streams or river are the sources
of supply. The ever–increasing deforestation in many catchments has increased the
landslides and soil erosion problems tremendously, thereby resulting highly turbid
streams and rivers.
Sand has been used to purify water for over a thousand years, and it still remains the
dependable methods of making water fit for drinking. The idea of water sand filtration
can be seen when water taken from sandy river beds is generally pure, because it has
percolated through the sand grains where harmful bacteria are removed. Sand has been
traditionally used as the filter medium in conventional water treatment plants because
of its wide availability, low cost and the satisfactory results that it had given.
Slow sand filters (SSF) are mostly used in the rural area. Past experience shows that
effective operation of SSF requires relatively clean water with raw water turbidity
below 30 NTU. Life of SS is low due to heavy load of suspended solid concentration
and hence needs pretreatment to handle high turbidity which demands development and
application of low cost, and sustainable water pre-treatment technology. RSF evolved
at the end of the 19th century in the United States and quickly gained popularity. By
the 1920s, they were widely used as a major water purification method, since necessary
facilities required less land area compared to SSF. However, the grading of sand that
might occur in backwashing of RSF, leaving the finer sand on top, could restrict the
capacity of conventional RSF. The floc particles removed in filtration might
concentrate on the topmost layers of the filters leaving most of the thickness of the
filters unused. Besides, these filters were proven to be inefficient in satisfying the recent
12
stringent quality guidelines. Further, the design of these filters was intended to treat
high turbidity water and could not tackle low turbidity water.
Based on the above facts, most current existing plants turned incapable of tackling such
proper water treatment and provision of sufficient water for various demands. These
plants acted merely as a passing through units. Complains of the public increased,
supplied water was not healthy and tested bad. An additional technology in the water
treatment methodology has been introduced to encounter such problems. Upgrading of
the existing potable water treatment plants by establishing effective operation and
improving unit processes can be suggested to overcome such situations. This will be
reflected on plant production and improve the quality of the treated water. Alternative
media filters can overcome these limitations of conventional RSF. Alternatively, higher
filtration rates even can be achieved.
In developing country manufacture of bricks is rapidly increasing. Bricks are

manufacture in Brick kiln. All bricks produced from Kiln is not usable in construction
industry. OBB are byproduct from brick industry and are thrown nearby vicinity. These
bricks are very hard. The use of OBB bricks in construction industry is objectionable.
OBB have irregular shape and dark color. OBB have very low compressive strength
hence it is generally not used in construction works.
Sometimes these bricks are used as aggregate for concrete in foundations, brick floors,
surkhi, roads, etc. because of the fact that the over burnt bricks have a compact
structure. Most of over burnt bricks are throwing around the brick industry. Due to its
compact structure and hardness, its use in water purifying system may be suitable.
Filtration of water using granular material like sand is widely applied water treatment
process. Other commonly used granular media for water filtration include anthracite
coal, garnet sand and ilmenite (Soyer et al., 2010). The use of OBB in secondary
purpose like filtration, in one hand water may be purified and waste matter (OBB) will
also manage.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of over burnt brick as
filter media over conventional media for removing selected parameters guiding
13
drinking water quality while operating under similar conditions of raw water quality
and environmental conditions. The specific objective can be listed out as follows:
a) to determine the turbidity removal efficiency of COBB filter media
b) to determine the head loss development in COBB filter media
c) to compare performance of both models in terms of UFRV
d) to compare performance of the COBB filter media and sand filter media on the
basis of total length of filter run, quality of effluent produced and back wash
requirement
1.4 Limitations of the Study
The limitations of the research work are:

a) Effects of parameters like biological characteristics, temperatures, pH etc. are
not considered in this study.
b) Only variable water head and turbidity removal are considered for study
c) Effect of intermittent operation on the performance of filter models was not
studied in detail.
d) Loss of filter media during backwashing operation was not studied.
e) The effect of porosity on turbidity removal was not studied in detail.
f) The study was limited to laboratory scale model only.
1.5 Organization of Report
This report is organized into five chapters.
Chapter One with general introduction of the subject. It includes background,

Rationale of the study, objectives and limitation of study.
Chapter Two deals with reviewing the literature of previous work performance in this
subject by various organizations and researchers.
Chapter Three deals with the methodology adopted to accomplish the objectives of the
study. It includes details of experimental setups, procedures, sampling method,
frequency, parameters measured, etc.
Chapter Four presents with the result comprehended from the observations made.
Discussions on these results obtained have also been made.
14
Chapter Five consists of conclusion drawn from the results obtained in this study and
recommendation for future research study.
Appendices includes sampling data, tables, graphs, properties of media, computations and
photographs etc.
15
CHAPTER TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Turbidity and Filtration
Turbidity is a water quality parameter that quantifies the degree to which light traveling
through a water column is scattered by suspended particles. The scattering of light
increases with increased particulate suspension. Turbidity is commonly measured in
Nephelometric Turbidity units (NTU). If not removed, turbidity can promote regrowth
of pathogens in distribution systems, leading to waterborne disease outbreaks which
have caused significant cases of gastroenteritis throughout the United States and the
world (USEPA, 1999).
Turbidity is the most practical measure of filter performance (Lusardi and Consonery,
1999). For RGF, efficiency is roughly measured by overall plant reduction in turbidity.
Overall reductions of over 99.5 % can be achieved under optimum conditions, while a
poorly operated filter and inadequate pretreatment (coagulation, flocculation, and
clarification) can result in turbidity removals of less than 50 % (EPA, 1995). NDWQS
limits turbidity within the range of 5 NTU in normal condition and 10 NTU when other
sources are not available (NDWQS, 2062).
Water treatment originally focused on improving the aesthetic qualities of drinking

water. Methods to improve the taste and odor of drinking water were recorded as early
as 4000 B.C. Ancient Sanskrit and Greek writings recommended water treatment
methods such as filtering through charcoal, exposing to sunlight, boiling, and straining.
Visible cloudiness (later termed as Turbidity) was the driving force behind the earliest
water treatments, as many sources of water contained particles that had an objectionable
taste and appearance (Joshi, 2017). During the 1700s, filtration was established as an
effective means of removing particles from water, although the degree of clarity
achieved was not measurable at that time. By the early 1800s, slow sand filtration was
beginning to be used regularly in Europe. During the mid to late 1800s, scientists gained
a greater understanding of the sources and effects of drinking water contaminants,
especially those that were not visible to the naked eye (Joshi, 2017).
Filtration is one of the most important steps in treating municipal waters to clarify it,
providing an important step in the protection of public health. Surface waters tend to be
16
more turbid than ground waters, and contain more microbes, particles of vegetation,
and silt. For that reason, the principles of clarification and filtration play a key role in
the protection of public health when surface water sources are used. Filtration removes
microbes and other suspended solids that could affect subsequent treatment processes
or disinfection steps of primary significance in relation to public health.
The filter medium is “any material that, under the operating conditions of the filter, is
permeable to one or more components of a mixture, solution or suspension, and is
impermeable to the remaining components” (Purchas and Sutherland, 2002). The
principal role of the medium is to separate particulates from the liquid with the
minimum consumption of energy. To achieve this, selection of the correct filter medium
takes into account factors such as the particle sizes and their distribution, permeability
of the clean medium, its particle retention capability and the permeability loss of the
medium during use. Filtration using granular media such as quarried sand, anthracite
and granular activated carbon is a well-known material used in both water and
wastewater treatment.
2.2 Rapid Gravity Filter
Rapid sand filter (RSF) evolved at the end of the 19th century in the United States and
quickly gained popularity. By the 1920s, they were widely used as a major water
purification method, since necessary facilities required less land area compared to SSF.
RSF, in contrast to SSF, is a purely physical treatment process. As the water flows
through several layers of coarse-grained sand and gravel, relatively large particles are
held back safely. However, RSF never provide safe drinking water without adequate
pre-treatment and final disinfection. Usually, coagulation and flocculation and
chlorination are applied for that purpose. RSF are the most commonly used filters in
large water supply schemes. In these types of filters, the raw water is usually fed to the
filters only after it has been treated through sedimentation (Kansakar, 2015). RSF
provide rapid and efficient removal of relatively large suspended particles. RSF does
not use biological filtration and depends primarily on mechanical straining,
sedimentation, impaction, interception, adhesion and physical adsorption. In RSF the
complete filtration cycle (filtration and back washing) occurs sequentially. Later on,
with the development RSF, other material has also been used as filter media. After that,
17
Collectively RSF termed as rapid gravity filter (RGF), since filter media used may be
anthracite, coal and other novel media.
Components of RGF
a) Filter tank
b) Filter media
c) Gravel
d) Under drainage system and
e) Wash water troughs
Filter tank
Water treatment filter bed sizes vary from 25 to 100 m2 with lengths in the range of 4
to12 m and widths in the range of 2.5 to 8 m and length to breadth ratio of 1.25 to 1.33.
The wash water collection channel is located on one side along the length of the filter.
Filter beds of twice this size can be constructed as two identical beds separated by the
wash water collection channe1, thus limiting the length of travel of feed water to 5 m.
A minimum overall depth of 2.6 m including a free board of 0.5 m is adopted (Nobrega,
2010).
Filter media
The filter media is the important component of the water treatments filter which actually
removes the particles from the water being treated. In water treatment, sand is most
commonly used filter media. The sand used in RGF is coarser than the sand used in
SSF. This larger sand has larger pores which do not fill as quickly with particles
removed from the water. Coarse sand also costs less and is more readily available than
the finer sand used in slow sand filtration. The filter sand used in RGF is prepared from
stock sand specifically for the purpose. Likewise, for the use of Other material in RGF
in place of sand, the property should be in the same range. Commonly in most RGF,
filter contains 60 to 90 cm thickness of filter media but some newer filters are deeper.
The UC and D10 of filter media respectively lies within the range of 1.3 to 1.75 and 0.45
to 0.70mm, generally taken for rapid filter (Mota et al., 2014). Desirable characteristics
for filter media are as follows (EPA, 1995):
a) Good hydraulic characteristics (permeable)
b) Does not react with substances in the water (inert and easy to clean)
18
c) Hard and durable
d) Free of impurities
e) Insoluble in water
Two factors are very important in making judgments about media selection (EPA,
1995):
a) The time required for turbidity to break through the filter bed.
b) The time required for the filter to reach limiting head loss.
Gravel
The water filter gravel at the bottom of the water filter bed is not part of the filter media
and it is merely providing a support for media above the underdrains and allowing an
even distribution of flow of water across the filter bed during filtering and backwashing.
The gravel also prevents the filter sand from being lost during the operation. The filter
gravel is usually graded of size from 2.5 to 50 mm (largest size being at the bottom) in
four to five layers to total thickness of 45 to 50 cm, depending on the type of under
drain system used. In case the under-drainage system with porous bottom or false floor
no gravel base is required. The filter gravel shall be classified by sieves into four or
more size grades, sieves being placed with the coarsest on top and the finest at the
bottom. (Bahrudeen, 2008)
Under drainage System
The under-drainage system is provided to

a) Collect the filtrated material
b) To provide uniform distribution for back water wash.
Commonly used drainage systems are:
a) Perforated pipe system
b) Pipe and strainer system
Wash water Trough
Wash water troughs above the filter media collect backwash water and carry it to the
drain system. Proper placement of these troughs is important to ensure filter media is
not carried into the troughs during the backwash and removed from the filter. Wash
troughs must be installed at the same elevation, so they remove backwash evenly from
the filter and an even head is maintained across the entire filter. These backwash
19
troughs are constructed from concrete, plastic, fiberglass, or other corrosion-resistant
materials.
2.3 Mechanisms of Filtration
There are number of mechanisms that act simultaneously in the solid removal process.
The principle mechanisms depend on the physical and chemical characteristics of the
suspension and medium, the rate of filtration and the chemical characteristics of the
water. Some turbidity causing materials may be removed by interstitial straining.
Removal of other materials, particularly the smaller solid, depends on the two types of
mechanisms. First, a transport mechanism must bring the small particle from the bulk
of the fluid within the interstices close to the surfaces of the media. Transport
mechanism may include gravitational settling, diffusion, interception, and
hydrodynamics. Second, the attachment mechanism may involve interactions, chemical
bridging, or specific adoption.
2.4 Working and Backwashing of Filter
The RSF get clogged very frequently and have to be back washed frequently. For
normal working of the filter, the inlet valve and valve to the filtered water storage tank
is opened and all other valves are kept closed. The filter operates under gravity flow.
The standing depth of water over the sand bed varies between 1 and 2 m (Bahrudeen,
2008).
With more and more material being trapped in the sand bed, the pores are clogged and
the loss of head through the filter bed becomes excessive. The filter is then back washed
to remove the trapped materials. The back washing of a filter is usually done when the
loss of head through it has reached the maximum allowable value which is between 2.5
and 3 m. The back washing of a RSF is carried out by passing air and water upwards
through the filter bed. The total wash water used should normally not exceed 2% of the
treated water. The wash water should be applied at a pressure of about 5 m head of
water as measured in under drains. During the backwash cycle the bed should be
expanded by a minimum of 10% and a maximum of 20% to ensure adequate cleaning.
If the backwash rate is slightly too high, material can be rapidly lost. If it is slightly too
low, the cleaning efficiency will fall abruptly, the filter will cease to be cleaned properly
and its performance will quickly deteriorate (EPA, 1995).
20
2.5 Over Burnt Bricks
OBB are cheap, easily obtaining from brick kiln. As more than 20% of bricks obtained
are over burnt brick, if we use it for secondary purpose such as filtration then it would
be more economical. Due to its compact structure and hardness it can be used as filter
media and recent study showed that it is efficient in removal of various contaminants
as discussed earlier.
2.6 Use of Novel Material as Filter Media
Recent study prevails the use of bricks and over burnt bricks as filter media. Certain
studies revealed that fired clay chips and natural soils are among the large number of
cost effective adsorbents which have been reported to International Journal of
Engineering and Technology possess fluoride removal capacity. The chief advantage
of using fires clays products and natural soils is that they are cheap and locally available
(Mayabi et al., 2009). Bricks are one type of ceramic ware, which has a lot of porosity
in the range of (20 -50) % (Matti, 2009).
Various researches have been carried out throughout world in using of brick as filter
media. Crushed brick has been used to remove dye from aqueous solutions effectively
(Hamdaoui, 2006). Metals, such as Cu (Djeribi and Hamdaoui, 2008) and Hg (Labidi,
2008), have also been removed from aqueous solutions using crushed brick. Crushed
brick may be used to eliminate Hg (II) species from wastewater. Crushed brick is a low
cost industrial abundant adsorbent material and may be an alternative to costlier
adsorbent materials (Labidi, N.S., summer 2008). Broken pieces of freshly burnt bricks
are used as filter media for removing fluoride (Wijesundara, 2004).
Kanchan arsenic filter (KAF) has been developed for removing arsenic, pathogens,
iron, turbidity, odor, and some other contaminants in drinking water. Filter media used
in KAF was Bricks chip, Iron nail, sand and Gravel (Ngai et al., 2005). Argaw and
kebede used crushed brick and local clay pot to filter water after three days storage. The
results showed 89.6% and 74.6% reduction of fecal coliforms in addition, considerable
reduction in turbidity and color. Crushed red brick is very good in removing total
bacteria and turbidity (Matti, 2009). Other material used in filtration is Crushed Glass,
which resembles the properties with COBB.
21
Various other materials have been used as filter media in filtration process by many
researchers. The application of crushed glass for filter media is relatively new and has
been successfully applied as filter media for slow filtration by piccirillo and letterman
in 1997 (Rutledge and Gagnon, 2002). Crushed glass can be an effective filter media in
water filtration and a good alternative to silica sand in rapid filtration (Prakash, 2017).
Media types commonly used in roughing filtration are gravel, broken stones or rocks,
broken burnt clay bricks, plastic material, burnt charcoal and coconut fiber, but can be
replaced by any clean, insoluble and mechanically resistant material (Graham, 1988).
These studies prove the use of bricks, bricks product and OBB in water treatment via
filtration. The OBB resembles the desirables properties of filter media set by EPA. OBB
can be crushed in to sizes as that of sand. Hence COBB can be can be used as filter
media.
22
CHAPTER THREE
3. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
The experiment was performed using 2 high rate filter columns made of fiber glass.
One filter column was filled by sand as filter media and another with the COBB. The
base material for both filters was made of same size and depth gravel layer. The research
work was conducted as follows:
3.1 Material Collection and Preparation of Filter Media
The OBB were collected from the brick factory and were cleaned properly. The
collected OBB were crushed with help of hammer manually and were sieved through
series of sieves, of sizes 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.425 mm and 0.3 mm. The materials
retained on each sieve were collected separately and again cleaned to remove fine
particles. After drying, they were mixed in fixed proportion by weight as shown in
Appendix A to create batch of Uniformity Coefficient (UC) of 1.54 and effective size
(d10) of 0.5 mm. For sand, except crushing the same procedures were followed in order
to have same particle size distribution to that of COBB. The UC and D10 of sand were
equal to that of COBB. The particle size distribution of filter media is as shown in
Annex B.
3.2 Model Construction
Internal dimensions of the RGF were (11x 11 x 290) cm3 each for both filter media.
The laboratory models were constructed by fiber glass. The models will be setup in TU,
IOE, Water Supply Department premise (27°40'48.30"N, 85°19'13.10"E) as shown in
Figure 3.1. The design drawings are shown in Figure 3.2.
The raw water was stored in 1000 liters capacity HDPE tank for each experiment day.
Another tank was provided for safe storage. It was then flowed to 100-liter capacity
constant head bucket. Filter was connected with constant head bucket by 20 mm
diameter pipes.
23
Figure 3.1 Schematic Diagram of Filter Model Setup
Each model consists of altogether six ports as shown in Figure 3.2, three at 5 cm above
the base of filter on three different faces for outlet, piezometer and backwashing
purposes, fourth at height of 115 cm from base for piezometer, fifth at height of 135 cm
from base for backwash effluent and sixth at height of 285 cm from base for influent
overflow. Ball valve of 20 mm diameter was fitted to each port, except for the influent
overflow port. Base material aggregate used in this study were of sizes ranging 2-6mm,
6-12mm, 12-20mm, and 20-40 mm with top two of 15 cm depth and bottom two of 10
cm depth. The effluent level was kept 10 cm above the filter media to keep minimum
of 10 cm water level above the filter media in order to keep media wet and to avoid
development of negative head loss in the filter media. The porosity of COBB was 7.5%
more than that of Sand Media. To acquire the same height of 60cm the weight of COBB
was 21.23 % lesser than the weight of Sand that would fill the same volume.
24
Figure 3.2 Detail drawing of Filter Column All dimensions are in cm
Drawings not in scale
Table 3.1: Base material (gravel) thickness
layer Thickness/depth size(mm)

Top layer 15cm 2-6
Intermediate layer 15cm 6-12
Intermediate layer 10cm 12-20
Bottom layer 10cm 20-40
Total 50cm
3.3 Preparation of Artificial Turbid Water
Model raw water was prepared by pumping sedimentation sludge. Hit and trial method
was used to calculate amount of sludge required to prepare the artificial turbid water.
The mixing tank (Constant head tank) was stirred continuously by using mechanical
rotor.
25
3.4 Mode of Filter Operation
The models of filters constructed are gravity filter which are operated in constant
filtration rate with variable water head. The filtration rate was kept constant by feeding
the filter with constant discharge from top of filter column and effluent was taken out
from outlet port elevated to height of 120 cm from base of filter with effluent valve
opened completely. The resistance developed during filtration will be compensated by
increase in water level above the filter media keeping the filtration rate constant
throughout the filter operation. In order to obtain desired filtration rate of 3m/h, the
flow rate from a constant head tank adjusted with a ball valve. Filtration rate was
calculated from the outlet discharge and the flow area.
3.5 Testing of Models
For first experimental run, ground water from well was used as influent water and for
remaining filter runs the artificial turbidity was prepared. Samples of influent and
effluent water from both filters for various filter runs were collected at interval of one
hour in the sampling bottles of capacity 125 ml and development of head loss was
measured using piezometer. Turbidity was measured by 2100A (HACH) Turbidity
meter. Manufacturer’s instruction was followed while calibrating the instrument. The
filter was operated intermittently and filter runs were terminated when the available
head was exhausted, irrespective of filter effluent turbidity value. The terminal head
loss for both the filter media was set as 165.4 cm.
After exhaustion, filters were backwashed in order to remove the trapped solids in filter
media with backwashing velocity of 24 m/hr. The end of backwashing operation was
judged by viewing the clarity of backwash effluent. Further, the algae developed inside
the filter columns and pipes are cleaned manually. In all filter runs, the methods used
in the analysis are listed in Table 3.2
Table 3.2 Method of Analysis
S. No Parameters Methods Frequency

Nephelometric Method (2100 A
1 Turbidity Hourly
Turbidity meter)
2 Head Loss Piezometer Hourly
3 Discharge Volumetric Method Daily
26
CHAPTER FOUR
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The data were collected and recorded from September 22, 2017 to December 28, 2017.
During this course of collection of data 7 runs were performed. Each run was associated
with backwash and influent turbidity range. Seven filter runs influent turbidity were 0-
25, 25-50, 50-100, 100-150, 150-200, 200-250, 250-300 NTU respectively. The data of
each filter run with effluent and influent turbidity was shown in Annex C. The
summary of COBB filter and sand filter are shown in Table 4.1 and 4.2
4.1 Influent and Effluent Turbidity During Filter Run Time
Effluent turbidity produced during first, second, sixth and seventh filter run are shown
in Figure 4.1
100 Influent
COBB
Turbidity, NTU
Sand
10
0.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, Hrs
(a) Turbidity Vs. Filter run time for natural water with turbidity 0-25 NTU
100
Turbidity, NTU
Influent
10 COBB
Sand
1
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time, Hrs
(b) Turbidity Vs. Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity 25-50 NTU
27
1000
Turbidity, NTU
100 Influent
COBB
10 Sand
1
0 5 10 15 20
Time, Hrs
(c) Turbidity Vs. Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity 150-200 NTU
1000
Turbidity,NTU
100 Influent
COBB
10 Sand
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time,Hrs
(d) Turbidity Vs. Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity 250-300 NTU
Figure 4.1 Turbidity vs. Filter run time for different influent turbidity levels
In first filter run, effluent turbidity for sand was between 0.2-3.2 NTU and for COBB
filter was between 0.1-3.5NTU. The average effluent turbidity for sand was 1.2 NTU
and for COBB was 1 NTU as shown in Figure 4.1(a). While in second filter run, effluent
turbidity for sand was between 0.6-3.5 NTU and for COBB was between 0.4-3.5 NTU,
with average effluent turbidity of 1.9 NTU for sand and 1.83 NTU for COBB as shown
in Figure 4.1(b). Where as in fifth filter run, effluent turbidity for sand was between
5.2-8.8 NTU and for COBB was between 4.3-7.8 NTU, with average effluent turbidity
of 6.5 NTU for sand and 5.6 NTU for COBB filter as shown in Figure 4.1(c). In seventh
filter run, effluent turbidity for sand was between 3.5-10.9 NTU and for COBB filter
was between 3.3-9.5 NTU. The average effluent turbidity for sand was 6.9 NTU and
for COBB was 5.8 NTU as shown in Figure 4.1(d).
In the first and second filter run, effluent turbidity produced by sand and COBB both
were below 5 NTU as lower limit (NDWQS, 2062). There was not much difference in
effluent quality for both media. However, quality of effluent was relatively better by
28
COBB then sand. While in fifth and seventh filter run the effluent quality were not as
prescribed by NDWQS i.e. most of effluent turbidity were greater than 5 NTU which
is not safe for human consumption. However, in terms of removal efficiency both media
show high turbidity removal efficiency. In all the filter run the COBB showed slightly
better average turbidity removal efficiency as compared to sand. Influent turbidity
should be below 100 NTU for producing effluent with turbidity below 5 NTU lower
limit prescribed by NDWQS (NDWQS, 2062). It is true since start of each filter run
range.
4.2 Head Loss Development During Filter Run Time
Head loss development during first, fifth and seventh filter runs are shown in Figure
4.2.
170
150
Head loss, cm
130
110
90 Sand
70
50 COBB
30
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, Hrs
(a) Head loss Vs. Filter run time for natural raw water with turbidity 0-25 NTU
170
150
Head loss, cm
130
110
90 Sand
70
50 COBB
30
10
0 5 10 15 20
Time, Hrs
(b) Head loss Vs. Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity 150-200 NTU
29
170
150
Head loss, cm
130
110
90
70 Sand
50 COBB
30
10
0 5 10 15
Time, Hrs.
(c) Head loss Vs. Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity 250-300 NTU
Figure 4.2 Head loss gain during filter run time for different influent turbidity
For both the media model, the allowable terminal head loss was 165.4 cm. In the first
filter run, initial head loss for sand filter was 15.3 cm, whereas for COBB filter was
14.10 cm, a little higher in sand filter as shown in Figure 4.2(a).
Similarly, in fifth filter run, the initial head loss for sand filter was 20.4cm, whereas for
COBB filter was 18.2cm as shown in Figure 4.2(c), again the initial head loss was
higher for sand media. The development of head loss was rapid for both the media. In
seventh filter run, initial head loss for sand filter was 22.5cm, whereas for COBB filter
was 17.2 cm. Again, the Sand filter showed greater head loss. The development of head
loss was rapid for both filters due to high influent turbidity indicating surface sealing
of filter media. There was continuing head drop on each day due to intermittent filter
operation.
4.3 Filter Run Time with Increase in Influent Turbidity
Filter run length depends on the raw water characteristics. The filter run time for both
the filter models subjected to different influent turbidity value is shown in Figure 4.3.
With the increase in influent turbidity, filter run time decreases due to increase in
suspended solid content in the water. Filter run time for both the filters were decreased
with increase in turbidity.
30
200
Filter Run Time, Hrs.

150
Sand
100 COBB
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Influent Turbidity, NTU
Figure 4.3 Filter run time with increase in influent turbidity
The maximum filter run time for sand filter was 132 hours and for COBB filter was 147
hours, when both filters were subjected to influent turbidity of range 0 to 25 NTU or
average influent turbidity of 10.94 NTU. The minimum filter run time for sand filter
was 9 hours whereas for COBB was 13 hours, when filters were subjected to influent
turbidity of range 250 to 300 NTU or average influent turbidity of 274.73 NTU. After
Influent turbidity of 175 NTU there was approximately same filter run time but COBB
is slightly on higher side. In average, filter run length of COBB filter increases by 38.43
% more than that of sand filter. In all the filter run, COBB filter showed longer run time
than sand filter. For various filter influent turbidity range, the extra run time for COBB
filter as compared to sand filter is shown in Table 4.3.
4.4 Effluent Turbidity with Increase in Influent Turbidity
The effluent turbidity for both filter models with different influent turbidity is shown in
Figure 4.4
10
Effluent Turbidity,
Sand
NTU
COBB
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 4.4 Effluent turbidity with increase in influent turbidity
For the influent turbidity up to 25 NTU, COBB effluent was slightly better than sand
filter effluent, with both filter effluent turbidity below 5 NTU lower limit prescribed by
NDWQS (NDWQS, 2062). With further increase in influent turbidity above 50 NTU,
31
there was sudden increase in effluent turbidity for both filters with sand on higher side.
Most of effluent is above 5 NTU for influent turbidity greater than 100 NTU, which is
not safe for consumption as prescribed by NDWQS (NDWQS, 2062) for the media.
Effluent turbidity is almost same for turbidity range of 200 to 230 NTU. After influent
turbidity exceeds 250 NTU, the effluent turbidity for COBB again showed better result.
4.5 Turbidity Removal with Increase in Influent Turbidity
100
Turbidity Removal, %
98
96
94 Sand
92
COBB
90
88
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 4.5 Turbidity removal with increase in influent turbidity
The turbidity removal of both filter models with different influent turbidity is shown in
Figure 4.5. In fist filter run, for average turbidity of 10.94 NTU, turbidity removal of
COBB filter was better than sand filter with removal efficiency of 89.5 % for sand and
90.65 % for COBB filter. With the increase in influent turbidity level, turbidity removal
of both filter media was in increase trend. Both the filter media had almost same
turbidity removal efficiency for average influent turbidity of 36.67 NTU. But after this
the COBB shows significantly higher efficiency as compared to sand and for both the
media removal efficiency was in slightly increasing trend. Again, at influent turbidity
of 215.95 NTU both the media showed almost same efficiency. After that COBB media
showed greater removal efficiency than sand media. For above 100 NTU, the efficiency
is higher in high turbid water but most of effluent water turbidity is above 5 NTU which
is lower limit prescribed by NDWQS (NDWQS, 2062). The extra removal for each run
by COBB is shown in Table 4.3.
4.6 Effect of porosity of media on filtration
From the experiment the porosity of COBB was found more than sand media by 7.5 %.
Experimentally, the filter run time for COBB was more than sand in every influent
turbidity range. Theoretically, the initial head loss development for sand obtained was
32
62.5 cm and for COBB was 33.5 cm. This showed the head loss development for sand
was more than COBB. Also, the filter run length for COBB was more than sand which
is because of more porosity in COBB filter. The respective value of porosity, theoretical
and experimental initial head loss for sand and COBB are shown in annex A and B.
4.7 Comparative Analysis of Turbidity Removal with Increase in Influent

Turbidity
The comparative analysis of both filter media in removal of influent turbidity is shown
in Figure 4.7. The sand filter is comparatively lower efficient in removal of turbidity
than COBB filter. The COBB filter is highly effective in removal of turbidity in range
of 50 to 100 NTU and higher range of 250-300 NTU. In other ranges of turbidity, the
removal capacity is moreover in same range but COBB filter being in higher side.
However, in turbidity range of 200-250 NTU sand filter is slightly effective in removing
turbidity. The comparative study shows that the COBB filter media is very effective for
turbidity removal in higher range of turbidity because the COBB being more porous
provides greater space for suspended particles resulting more filter run time. For both
the filter media with the increase in influent turbidity the removal of turbidity is in
increasing trend. The equation of the trend line for COBB filter and sand filter
respectively are shown as follows:
y = 4.9563x + 6.5112 Eqn. (4.1)
y = 4.129x + 6.3542 Eqn. (4.2)
The regression coefficient (R2) of sand is more than COBB, which showed that data
obtained for sand was more consistent as shown in Figure 4.7.
50
y = 4.9563x + 6.5112
Influent/Effluent, Ci/Ce
Sand
40 COBB R² = 0.8734
Linear (Sand) y = 4.129x + 6.3542
30 Linear (COBB) R² = 0.9201
20
10
0
10.9 36.67 73.6 126.38 167.29 215.95 274.73
Average Influent Turbidity, NTU
33
Figure 4.7 Comparative Analysis of Turbidity Removal with Increase in
Influent Turbidity
4.8 Unit Filter Run Volume (UFRV) with Increase in Influent Turbidity
500
UFRV, m3/m2
400
300 Sand
200 COBB
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 4.8 UFRV with increase in influent turbidity
The UFRV for both the filter models subjected to different influent turbidity is shown
in Figure 4.8. The UFRV is defined as volume of water produced by the filter during
its run time divided by filter surface area. UFRV is usually expressed in m3 per m2.
With the increase in influent turbidity, UFRV for both the filter models was decreased.
In all of the filter run, URFV for COBB filter is higher as compared to sand. The
maximum value of URFV for COBB was 441 m3/m2 and for sand filter was 396 m3/m2
during the first filter run. The minimum value of URFV for COBB was 39 m3/m2 and
for sand filter was 27 m3/m2 during seventh filter run. After Influent turbidity of 175
NTU there was approximately same UFRV but COBB is slightly on higher side. In
average, the COBB filter showed higher UFRV than Sand filter by 29.57 NTU. In
average, UFRV for COBB filter was 38.43% more than that of sand filter.
4.9 Backwash Time with Increase in Influent Turbidity
Backwash was conducted with the backwash velocity of 24m/hr., when the terminal
head loss of 165.4cm was achieved. The backwashing time was judged by viewing the
relative clarity of backwash effluent. The backwash time to different influent turbidity
is shown in Figure 4.9. In the first filter run, time of backwash for sand filter was more
than the COBB filter, with 24 minutes for COBB and 27 minutes for sand filter. Expect
first filter run, all other filter run show greater backwash time for COBB filter. The
maximum time of backwash for sand filter was 38 minutes and for COBB filter was 42
minutes and minimum time of backwash for sand filter was 25 minutes and for COBB
34
filter was 24 Minutes. The average backwash time for sand filter was 30.43 minutes
and for COBB filter was 33.29 minutes.
50
Backwashing Time,
40
30
Mins
20 Sand
10 COBB
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 4.9 Backwash time with increase in influent turbidity
In average, backwashing time for COBB filter was 9.22 % more than that of sand filter.
4.10 Backwash Water Consumption with Increase in Influent Turbidity
The amount of water used for backwash is important for analyzing the effective use of
filter media. The percentage of water consumed in backwashing to influent turbidity
for both the media is shown in Figure 4.10. The backwash water consumption was
increasing from first filter run to sixth run. After sixth run both the filter models show
decrease in backwash water consumption, with 37.04 % for sand filter and 30.70 % for
COBB filter. In seventh run, the backwash water requirement was in decreasing trend
than previous sixth run. In seventh run sand filter required more water to back wash by
6.27 %. In all filter run sand filter showed more backwash water consumption than
COBB filter, with maximum of 42.22 % for sand and 37.33 % for COBB during sixth
filter run and minimum of 2.73 % for sand and 2.18 % for COBB during first filter run.
The average water consumption was 21.76 % for sand and 17.50 % for COBB, with
4.26 % more for sand filter.
50
% Backwash Water
40
Consumption
30
20
Sand
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 4.10 Backwash water consumption with increase in influent turbidity
35
Table 4.1 Summary of filter runs for Sand filter
Average Average Filter Filter Backwashing

Turbidity UFRV Head
Filter Influent Effluent Run % Water
Range, , loss Time,
Run Turbidity, Turbidity, Time, 3 2 Consumpti
NTU m /m gained Mins
NTU NTU Hrs. on
1 0-25 10.90 1.16 132 396 1.50 27 2.73
2 25-50 36.67 1.90 62 186 1.45 31 6.67
3 50-100 73.60 4.24 35 105 1.45 30 11.43
4 100-150 126.38 6.57 21 63 1.43 35 22.22
5 150-200 167.29 6.39 12 36 1.45 27 30.00
6 200-250 215.95 6.69 12 36 1.50 38 42.22
7 250-300 274.73 7.56 9 27 1.43 25 37.04
Table 4.2 Summary of filter runs for COBB Filter
Average Average Filter Filter Backwashing

Turbidity Head
Filter Influent Effluent Run UFRV,
Range, loss Time, % Water
Run Turbidity, Turbidity, Time, m3/m2
NTU gained Mins Consumption
NTU NTU Hrs.
1 0-25 10.90 1.00 147.0 441.0 1.51 24 2.18
2 25-50 36.67 1.83 70.5 211.5 1.49 33 6.24
3 50-100 73.60 3.20 49.0 147.0 1.45 34 9.25
4 100-150 126.38 5.76 40.5 121.5 1.45 40 13.17
5 150-200 167.29 5.62 17.0 51.0 1.47 30 23.53
6 200-250 215.95 6.89 15.0 45.0 1.50 30 30.77
7 250-300 274.73 5.80 13.0 39.0 1.48 42 37.33
Table 4.3 Extra run time and extra removal obtained for COBB in comparison to sand
Removal Efficiency, Extra

Influent
Time, Hrs. % Run
Turbidity
Filter Time, Extra
(NTU)
Run Sand COBB Sand COBB Hrs. Removal, %
1 0-25 132 147 89.05 90.65 15 1.6
2 25-50 62 70.5 94.88 95.02 8.5 0.14
3 50-100 35 49 94.54 95.65 14 1.11
4 100-150 21 40.5 94.67 95.46 19.5 0.79
5 150-200 12 17 96.16 96.61 5 0.45
6 200-250 12 15 96.87 96.82 3 -0.05
7 250-300 9 13 97.29 97.9 4 0.61
36
CHAPTER FIVE
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
This research was aimed to perform comparative study of two RGF, using filtration
media of COBB in one model and sand in another model. This research work also aimed
to find out the usefulness of COBB in filtration process. Based on the result obtained,
following conclusions have been made:
1. COBB proves an efficient material for improving performance of RGF in terms of
turbidity removal efficiency, head loss development, UFRV, filter run length and
back wash water requirement.
2. With the increase in influent turbidity level, turbidity removal of both filter media
was in increase trend. Both the filter media had almost same turbidity removal
efficiency but COBB on higher side except in sixth filter run. The average turbidity
removal efficiency for sand was 94.78 % and for COBB was 95.44 %.
3. The head loss development is directly proportional to influent turbidity. In all filter
run, the head loss gained for COBB was more than sand with respect to time. Initial
head development for sand filter was more than COBB. It means the rate of head
loss development for sand was more than COBB and terminates first. The average
head loss for sand was 1.46 m whereas for COBB was 1.48 m with respect to initial
head loss.
4. Unit Filter Run Volume (UFRV) is directly proportional to influent turbidity. In all
filter run, UFRV for COBB filter was on higher side, with maximum of 441 m3/m2
for COBB filter and 396 m3/m2 for sand filter in first filter run and minimum of 39
m3/m2 for COBB filter and 27 m3/m2 for sand filter in seventh filter run. In average,
UFRV for COBB filter was 38.43% more than that of sand filter.
5. Filter run length is inversely proportional to the influent turbidity. The maximum
filter run time for COBB filter was 147 hours and for sand filter was 132 hours for
average influent turbidity of 10.9 NTU and minimum of 13 hours for COBB filter
and 9 hours for sand filter for average influent turbidity of 274.73 NTU. COBB
filter run time was more than sand filter in all filter runs. In average, filter run length
of COBB filter was more than that of sand filter by 38.43 %.
37
6. Filter backwashing time for COBB filter was more than sand filter. In the initial
stage with turbidity range of 0 to 25 NTU, there was more backwashing time for
sand, with 24 minutes for COBB and 27 minutes for sand filter. Expect first filter
run, all other filter run show greater backwash time for COBB filter. The maximum
time of backwash for sand filter was 38 minutes and for COBB filter was 42 minutes
and minimum time of backwash for sand filter was 25 minutes and for COBB filter
was 24 Minutes. The average backwash time for sand filter was 30.43 minutes and
for COBB filter was 33.29 minutes. In average, backwashing time for COBB filter
was 9.22 % more than that of sand filter.
7. Backwash water requirement for COBB filter was lesser than sand filter in all filter
run. Which makes COBB filter more economical in terms of water saving and less
back wash energy consumption. In all filter run sand filter shows more backwash
water consumption with maximum of 42.22 % for sand and 37.33 % for COBB
during sixth filter run and minimum of 2.73 % for sand and 2.18 % for COBB
during first filter run. The average water consumption was 21.76 % for sand and
17.50 % for COBB, with 4.26 % more for sand filter. In average, sand filter showed
26.45 % more water consumption than COBB filter.
8. The effluent turbidity is directly proportional to the influent turbidity. Influent
turbidity should be below 100 NTU for producing effluent with turbidity below 5
NTU lower limit prescribed by NDWQS (NDWQS, 2062) for both filter media.
The produced effluent for influent turbidity below 100 NTU satisfied most stringent
quality standards, offers a satisfaction for consumers as well as it was healthy. It is
true since start of each filter run range. The influent turbidity therefore, above 100
NTU should be pretreated in order to meet required effluent turbidity standard.
9. The use of COBB in filter not only manage waste in the vicinity but also treat turbid
water with efficiency.
5.2 Recommendations
The works which requires further study are recommended as:

1. The backwash water temperature affects the filter bed expansion. Therefore, it is
recommended to perform tests at different backwash water temperature.
2. It is recommended to study the microbiological as well as iron and manganese
removal by COBB.
38
3. The effect of porosity of COBB in effluent and head loss development could be
studied.
4. The pilot study was limited to direct filtration only. The effect of using coagulants
on the effectiveness of COBB filter could be studied.
5. The economic use of COBB media could be studied with respect to conventional
media such as sand.
6. This study was performed by making artificial turbidity in natural ground water.
This research could be extended to waste water filtration.
7. It is recommended to use capping media to increase effectiveness of COBB.
8. The effectiveness of COBB filter for higher filtration rates could be studied.
39
REFERENCES
1. Ahsan, T., 1995, "Process analysis and optimization of direct horizontal flow
roughing filtration" Doctoral thesis, International Institute for Infrastructural,
Hydraulic & Environmental Engineering (IHE), Technological University of Delft
(TUD), Delft, The Netherlands, pp.1, 8
2. BIS, 1977, IS 8419-1., Requirements for filtration equipment, Part 1: Filtration
media-sand and gravel, CED 24: Public Health Engineering, PP. 4,7.
3. Djeribi, R., and Hamdaoui, O., 2008, "Sorption of copper (II) from aqueous
solutions by cedar sawdust and crushed brick." Desalination 225, pp. 95.
4. EPA, 1995, Water Treatment Manuals Filtration, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Ireland, pp. 3, 23,26, 38.
5. Graham, N., and Collins, N. (editors), 1988, "Advances in slow sand and
alternative biological filtration", John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England. pp.
360, 378.
6. Hamdaoui, O., 2006, "Batch study of liquid-phase adsorption of methylene blue
using cedar sawdust and crushed brick", J. Hazard. Mater. Vol. 135, pp. 264.
7. Joshi, C. R., 2017, Comparative Study of Gravel and Anthracite as Filter Media in
Up Flow Roughing Filter, M. Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil engineering, Institute
of engineering, Tribhuvan University, Pulchowk, Lalitpur.
8. Kansakar, B. R, 2015, Water Supply Engineering, First Edition, Divine Print
Support, Lagan Tole, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN 978-0-7506-6843-9, pp. 201
9. Labidi, N.S, 2008. "Removal of mercury from aqueous solutions by waste brick",
Int. J. Environ, Res. 2, pp. 275.
10. Lusardi, P. J., and Consonery, P. J., 1999, "Factors affecting filtered water
turbidity", Journel AWWA, 91(12), pp. 28.
11. Matti, L.Y., 2009, "Performance Comparison of Various Filters Media in Water
Treatment”, Tikrit Journal of Eng. Sciences, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 37,40.
12. Mayabi, A. O., Mutothia, F. U., and Kamau, G., 2009, "An Assessment of Soil
Materials in Kenya as Sorbent Media for Defluoridation of Water", Journal of Civil
Engineering Research and Practice, 6(2), pp. 39.
13. Mota, M. H., Chougule, S. H., and Bhosale, G. M., 2014, "Improvement of
Performance of Rapid Sand Filter Using Coconut Shell as Capping Media",
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 3(6), pp. 2254.
40
14. NDWQS, 2062, National Drinking Water Quality Standards, Ministry of Physical
Planning and Works, Kathmandu, pp.1.
15. Ngai, T., Dangol B., Murcott, S., and Shrestha, R.R., 2005. Kanchan Arsenic
Filter. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Environment and Public
Health Organization (ENPHO). Kathmandu, Nepal.
16. Nobrega, P., 2010, Demand Study and design of filtration tank, pp.43
17. NPC, 2015, Sustainable Development Goals, 2016-2030 National (preliminary)
Report, National Planning Commission, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp 78.
18. Peavy, H.S., Rowe, D. R., and Tchobanoglous, G., 1985, "Environmental
Engineering", Second Edition, McGraw-Hill. pp.178
19. Prakash, M., 2017, Crushed glass as Filter Media in Water Filtration, M. Sc. Thesis,
Department of Civil engineering, Institute of engineering, Tribhuvan University,
Pulchowk, Lalitpur.
20. Purchas, D., and Sutherland, K., 2002, Hand Book of Filter Media, Elsevier
Science, ISBN: 9780080507774, pp. 1.
21. Rutledge, S.O., and Gagnon, G.A., 2002, "Comparing recycled glass to silica sand
for dual media filtration", Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science,
1(5), pp. 350.
22. Soyer E., Akgiray O., Eldem N. O. and Saatc A.M., 2010, "Crushed recycled glass
as a filter medium and comparison with silica sand", CLEAN-Soil, Air, Water,
38(10), pp. 927.
23. Udmale, P., Ishidaria, H., Thapa, B. R., and Shakya, N. M., 2016, "The status of
domestic water demand: supply deficit in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal", Water,
8(5), pp. 196.
24. USEPA, 1999, Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule: Turbidity Provisions, US Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), pp. 7-4.
25. WHO, 2008, Guidelines for drinking-water quality: incorporating 1st and 2nd
addenda, Vol. 1, Recommendations, Geneva, World Health Organization (WHO),
pp. 219
26. Wijesundara, T., 2004. "Low-cost defluoridation of water using broken bricks",
30th WEDC International Conference, Vientiane, Lao PDR, 1, pp. 521.
41
APPENDIX A: Filter Media Properties
A-1 Ignition loss test

The weight loss in ignition for both the media was presented as,
Table A 1 Ignition Loss Test for Sand
Designation Weights(gram) Remarks

W1(Crucible) 0.0520 Before Ignition
W2(Crucible + Sand) 0.0885 Before Ignition
W1-W2(Sand) 0.0365 Before Ignition
W3(Crucible + Sand) 0.0884 After Ignition
W4(Loss Weight) 0.0001
Loss % 0.2740
Table A 2 Ignition Loss Test for COBB
Designation Weights (gram) Remarks

W1(Crucible) 0.0700 Before Ignition
W2(Crucible + COBB) 0.0946 Before Ignition
W1-W2(COBB) 0.0250 Before Ignition
W3(Crucible + COBB) 0.0945 After Ignition
W4(Loss Weight) 0.0001
Loss % 0.4065
From this observation, the weight loss in ignition for COBB was more than sand media.
The weight loss in ignition for both media was less than 0.7 % as per IS 8419(Part I)-
1977 (BIS, 1977).
A-2 Acid loss test
The data obtained from acid loss test for both the media was presented as,
Table A 3 Acid loss Test
Designation Sand(gram) COBB(gram) Remarks
W1 0.052000 0.064000 Empty Crucible
W2 0.062000 0.074000 Total weight
W (W2-W1) 0.010000 0.010000 Material Only
W3 0.061821 0.073922 Total Weight After Acid Test
W4 (W3-W1) 0.009821 0.009922 Material After test
Loss 0.000179 0.000078 Total loss
Loss % 1.79 0.78 Loss percentage
Acid loss test for sand was more than COBB by 1.01 %
42
Table A-4 Porosity Test of Filter Media
Designation Sand COBB Remarks
V1 (ml) 20 20 Volume of Crucible/Sample
V2 (ml) 8.5 10 Volume of water consumed
V3 (ml) 28.5 30 Total volume
V% 42.5 % 50 %
COBB was more porous than sand by 7.5 %
Table A-5 Density of filter media
Water
Water +
Initial level Weight, added, Media, Vol. of
Media of media, ml gram ml ml media, ml Density, Kg/m3
Sand 100 145.5 100 158 58 2508.621
COBB 100 115 100 153 56 2053.571
Sand density was more than COBB by 455.05 Kg/m3
43
APPENDIX B: Design and Calculations
Design Parameters
Rate of Filtration = 3 m/h, 2.5-5 m/h (peavy et al, 2013)

Length and Breadth ratio = 1 (11cm: 11 cm)
Back washing velocity = 24 m/h (Taking rate of washing equivalent to a rise of 40 cm per
minute)
Determination of Filter media depth
Assume sand depth=60cm 0.6-0.9m (B.C. Punmia)

Take, effective size of sand(d10) = 0.5 mm
The thickness of the sand bed can be checked against breakthrough of floc through sand
bed by calculating the minimum thickness required by Hudson formula as given by the
following expression(kansakar,2015)
Qd3h/L= Bi * 29323, where, d=0.5 mm, assumed as mean diameter
h=terminal head loss=2.5m (assumed)
l=depth of sand, m
Bi= break through index (4*10-4-6*10-3) =4*10-4 (for poor response to filtration and
average degree of pre-treatment)
Thus, we get, l=0.276 m
Minimum thickness of sand bed required to avoid breakthrough of floc through sand
bed=27.6.0 cm
Hence, assumed depth of 60 cm is adequate to avoid breakthrough of floc.
Permissible Head Loss = 2.5m
Permissible negative head = 1 m
Size Gradation and calculation of Gravel depth
Let the size gradation of gravel be 2mm at top to 40mm at bottom

The requisite depth(l) in cm of a component gravel layer of size d(mm) is computed from
eqn.10.3 (B.C. Punmia)
L=2.54 k (log d)
Taking K=12
44
L=30.48*log d
When d=2mm, l=9.18cm
Hence, providing the gravel depth of 0.5m
Overall depth calculation
Depth of under drain=0.05m

Depth of bed expansion=0.2m(assumed)
Total depth of filter model= depth of under drains + depth of gravel media + depth of
sand media + depth for bed expansion + water depth + free board
= 5+50+60+20+150+5= 290 cm
Table B 1 Particle Size Distribution of Filter Media
Wt. of Media Cumulative Wt.

Sieve Size(mm) % Wt. Retain % passing
(kg) Retain(kg)
2.000 0.00 0 0 100
1.000 0.10 10 10 90
0.600 0.65 65 75 25
0.425 0.22 22 97 3
0.300 0.03 3 100 0
Total 1.00 100
Sieve Analysis
100
80
% Passing
60
40
20
0
10.0 1.0 0.1
Particle Size, mm
Figure B 1 Particle size distribution of filter media (COBB and Sand
45
Table B 2 Filter Media Details
Filter Material Size, mm Sand Filter COBB Filter Depth
Depth, cm (cm)
COBB (UC=1.54) 0.5 (E.S.) - 60
Sand (UC=1.54) 0.5 (E.S.) 60 -
Gravel, Base Material Layer 1 2-6 15 15
Table B 3 Description of Model

Components Dimension Remarks
Filter Tank (11*11*290) cm3 Glass Fiber
Mixing Tank 2000 liters HDPE Water Tank
Constant Head Tank 100 liters HDPE Water Tank
Operating Ball Valve 20 mm each at 2 tanks For two tanks
Flow regulating Valve 20 mm brass Gate valve For flow control
mechanism
Inlet Pipe 20 mm PPR pipe, tee and Connection pipe
piezometer
Ballcock valve at constant ½ Inch High Pressure Brass For flow control
head tank Float Valve
Sampling ports 6 nos. 20 mm sampling port at Using tank nipple,
20 cm c/c in vertical direction ball valve and nozzle
at each port
Outlet 20 mm ball valve and nozzle
46
Figure B 2 Detail drawing of filter columns
Clean Water Head loss
Carman-Kozeny equation was used to calculate theoretical head loss as follows:
H = f (1-a) LVs2
fa3dg
where,
H = head loss, m
f = friction factor (according to the NAVFAC standards, for sand and COBB = 0.55-
0.6, taking 0.6 for both the media)
a = porosity
f = particle shape factor (0.73 for crushed coal and angular sand)
L = depth of filter bed or layer, m
d = grain size diameter, m
vs = superficial (approach) filtration velocity, m/s
47
g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 m/s2, dg = geometric mean diameter
between sieve sizes d1 and d2.
From the calculation, it was found that initial theoretical head loss obtained for sand
was 62.7 cm and for COBB was 33.5 cm.
48
APPENDIX C: Turbidity and Head Loss
Both the filter models were run with constant flow rate of 3m/hr. using various range
of influent turbid water. The data was recorded for these range and presented in the
tabular form and corresponding graphs were plotted accordingly.
Table C-1 Turbidity Removal and Head Loss Data's for Natural Ground Water (0-25
NTU)
Effluent
% Turbidity
Head Loss, cm Influent Turbidity
Time Removal
Date Turbidity (NTU)
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
Sand COBB Sand COBB Sand COBB
1.00 15.3 14.10 14.7 3.2 3.3 78.23 77.55

Sep
2.00 15.3 14.20 13.2 2.9 3.5 78.03 73.48
22,
2017 3.00 15.4 14.20 12.3 2.6 2.5 78.86 79.67
5.00 15.5 14.30 11.9 2.4 2.4 79.83 79.83
6.00 15.7 14.40 11.1 2.2 2.1 80.18 81.08
7.00 15.7 14.50 13.3 2.8 2.9 78.95 78.20
Sep23
, 2017 9.00 15.8 14.50 11.2 2.3 2.3 79.46 79.46
10.00 16 14.70 8.0 1.5 1.4 81.25 82.50
11.00 16 14.80 10.6 1.6 0.9 84.91 91.51
12.00 16.3 14.90 9.5 1.7 2.1 82.11 77.89
Sep 13.00 16.4 14.90 7.2 2.3 1.9 68.06 73.61
25, 14.00 16.5 15.00 8.8 2.1 1.7 76.14 80.68
2017 15.00 16.7 15.10 6.9 1.8 1.2 73.91 82.61
16.00 16.8 15.20 6.4 1.2 0.8 81.25 87.50
17 17 15.30 8.3 2.1 2.5 74.70 69.88
Oct 18 17.2 15.50 9.3 1.9 1.5 79.57 83.87
4, 19 17.5 15.40 10.4 2.5 2.1 75.96 79.81
2017 20 17.9 15.60 7.8 1.4 1.1 82.05 85.90
22 18.6 15.90 9.6 1.3 1.2 86.46 87.50
23 19 14.20 7.3 0.9 0.5 87.67 93.15
Oct 25 19.9 14.60 8.5 1.1 0.6 87.06 92.94
5, 26 20.6 14.90 6.9 0.7 0.8 89.86 88.41
2017 27 21.5 15.20 7.5 0.9 0.6 88.00 92.00
28 22 15.50 5.6 1 0.7 82.14 87.50
29 23.8 15.90 7.5 1.1 0.8 85.33 89.33
Oct 30 24.4 16.20 9.0 0.8 0.5 91.11 94.44
6, 32 25 16.40 9.2 0.9 0.7 90.22 92.39
2017
33 25.8 16.70 10.6 0.8 0.6 92.45 94.34
34 26 16.90 7.8 0.5 0.3 93.59 96.15
49
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
35 26.3 17.10 10.7 0.6 0.5 94.39 95.33

37 26.7 17.60 12.4 1.2 1.3 90.32 89.52
Oct 7,
39 27.5 17.90 11.3 0.9 0.6 92.04 94.69
2017
40 28.1 18.20 9.4 0.7 0.5 92.55 94.68
41 28.7 18.40 10.5 1.3 0.9 87.62 91.43
42 29.5 18.50 9.3 0.7 3.0 92.47 67.74
Oct 44 30.4 18.50 9.6 0.5 0.7 94.79 92.71
8, 46 31.5 19.00 8.5 0.4 0.3 95.29 96.47
2017 47 31.9 19.50 7.1 0.4 0.2 94.37 97.18
49 32.6 20.10 9.2 0.7 0.7 92.39 92.39
50 33.5 20.60 10.4 0.6 2.2 94.23 78.85
Oct
52 34.7 21.20 9.6 1.1 2.5 88.54 73.96
9,
2017 53 35.9 22.50 8.7 0.8 0.7 90.80 91.95
55 37 23.80 7.9 0.9 0.7 88.61 91.14
56 38.5 24.70 11.8 0.5 0.6 95.76 94.92
Oct 57 39.3 25.10 12.4 0.8 0.8 93.55 93.55
10, 58 40.6 25.80 11.3 0.7 0.5 93.81 95.58
2017 59 41.7 26.20 15.0 1.8 1.5 88.00 90.00
61 42.6 26.70 14.5 1.6 1.7 88.97 88.28
63 44.2 27.40 18.9 1.8 1.5 90.48 92.06
64 44.9 27.90 20.3 1.5 1.5 92.61 92.61
Oct
66 46.1 28.70 23.4 1.7 1.4 92.74 94.02
11,
2017 67 47.2 29.40 17.7 1.1 0.8 93.79 95.48
69 49.1 28.70 18.6 2.1 2.2 88.71 88.17
70 50 29.00 15.4 0.9 1.1 94.16 92.86
71 51.6 29.50 20.4 2.3 2.4 88.73 88.24
Oct 72 52.4 30.20 21.5 1.7 2.5 92.09 88.37
12, 74 54.1 31.80 26.0 0.7 1.2 97.31 95.38
2017 76 56.1 33.90 25.2 2.5 2.1 90.08 91.67
77 57.2 34.80 23.8 1.6 0.9 93.28 96.22
79 59.9 36.20 15.9 1.3 1 91.82 93.71
81 61.7 38.00 12.1 0.8 1 93.39 91.74
Oct
82 62.5 38.90 10.8 0.4 0.2 96.30 98.15
13,
2017 84 64.6 40.10 8.5 0.7 0.4 91.76 95.29
85 66.1 41.30 8.2 0.4 0.3 95.12 96.34
86 67.5 42.40 8.0 0.4 0.2 95.00 97.50
88 69.9 44.70 9.4 0.3 0.5 96.81 94.68
Oct
90 71.8 45.90 10.6 1.4 0.6 86.79 94.34
50
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
14, 91 73.2 47.20 7.4 1 0.6 86.49 91.89
2017 93 75.6 49.50 7.7 0.9 0.7 88.31 90.91
95 77.9 52.40 9.4 0.7 0.3 92.55 96.81
96 79 54.70 7.8 0.4 0.5 94.87 93.59
98 82 57.60 12.3 1.3 0.8 89.43 93.50
100 85 60.70 11.6 0.8 1 93.10 91.38
Oct
101 86.2 61.90 13.2 1 0.7 92.42 94.70
15,
2017 103 88 64.10 10.5 0.3 0.3 97.14 97.14
105 90.2 66.80 8.8 0.6 0.4 93.18 95.45
106 93.6 69.90 9.9 1.2 0.8 87.88 91.92
107 94.5 71.50 8.2 0.7 0.6 91.46 92.68
108 97.1 72.70 9.6 0.6 0.5 93.75 94.79
Oct
110 99.6 76.60 7.5 0.2 0.3 97.33 96.00
16,
2017 111 101.8 78.80 9.7 0.5 0.9 94.85 90.72
112 103.4 80.30 6.8 0.3 0.2 95.59 97.06
113 105 82.90 8.4 1.1 0.8 86.90 90.48
114 107.1 84.20 7.7 1.2 0.8 84.42 89.61
Oct 115 109.4 86.10 9.6 1.4 0.9 85.42 90.63
17, 116 110.4 87.00 5.8 1.3 1.5 77.59 74.14
2017 117 115.7 89.80 8.7 0.8 0.7 90.80 91.95
119 118.5 91.60 7.9 0.7 0.4 91.14 94.94
120 123.1 93.30 8.5 0.9 0.6 89.41 92.94
121 128.4 94.80 8.4 0.4 0.3 95.24 96.43
Oct
123 132.7 96.60 10.6 1 0.8 90.57 92.45
18,
2017 124 137.9 98.10 11.4 1.3 0.5 88.60 95.61
125 142.2 101.60 10.2 0.8 0.4 92.16 96.08
127 146.7 103.00 9.8 0.6 0.5 93.88 94.90
128 149.5 105.40 7.5 0.4 0.6 94.67 92.00
129 152.8 107.30 11.9 1.3 1 89.08 91.60
Oct
130 155.9 109.70 14.6 1.1 1.2 92.47 91.78
23,
2017 131 158.3 111.10 12.5 1.1 0.9 91.20 92.80
132 165.4 112.40 8.4 0.2 0.2 97.62 97.62
133 115.90 13.5 0.5 96.30
134 117.90 14.8 0.4 97.30
Oct 136 121.50 11.4 0.3 97.37
24, 137 126.80 11.9 0.3 97.48
2017 138 132.70 10.7 0.3 97.20
139 138.20 9.8 1 89.80
51
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
140 144.60 13.6 1.1 91.91

141 150.40 8.3 0.5 93.98
Oct 142 153.40 9.5 0.4 95.79
25, 143 157.50 8.1 0.3 96.30
2017 145 160.90 6.9 0.1 98.55
147 165.40 8.8 0.4 95.45
Average 10.9 1.156 1.004 89.0 90.65
Table C-2 Turbidity Removal and Head Loss Data's for Artificial Turbid Water (250-
300 NTU)
Influent Effluent Turbidity % Turbidity

Time Head Loss, cm
Date Turbidity (NTU) Removal
(Hrs.)
Sand COBB (NTU) Sand COBB Sand COBB
1 22.5 17.2 273 5.4 4.2 98.02 98.46
Oct
2 27.8 17.9 268 8.2 7.9 96.94 97.05
28,
4 60.5 22.3 290 10.9 9.5 96.24 96.72
2017
5 98.2 24.6 285.5 6.4 5.3 97.76 98.14
Oct 7 122.0 37.6 281 5.5 4.1 98.04 98.54
29, 8 154.3 60.2 292 9.8 7.6 96.64 97.40
2017 9 165.4 77.0 256 6.7 5.4 97.38 97.89
Oct 10 91.4 271 6.5 97.60
30, 11 141.7 262.8 3.3 98.74
2017 13 165.4 268 4.2 98.43
Average 274.7 7.557 5.8 97.29 97.90
250 NTU)
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
1 16.1 15.7 215 6.2 7.8 97.12 96.37

Nov 5, 2 19.6 18.9 218 6.2 8.1 97.16 96.28
2017 3 26.9 23.3 222.4 6.6 8.4 97.03 96.22
4 45.2 35.4 230 7.4 9 96.78 96.09
5 60.5 44.1 205 5.8 4 97.17 98.05
52
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
Nov 6, 6 83.8 55.6 208 6.1 5.4 97.07 97.40

2017 7 101.2 66.5 212 8.8 8.2 95.85 96.13
8 118.3 78.4 203 6.2 6.5 96.95 96.80
Nov 7,
2017 10 135.4 90.6 205 6.5 7.1 96.83 96.54
11.5 145 105.3 211 6.3 4.2 97.01 98.01
12 165.4 119.2 220.4 7.5 6.6 96.60 97.01
Nov 8, 13 131.5 218 6.4 97.06
2017 13.5 147.8 225 7 96.89
15 165.4 230.5 7.7 96.66
Average 215.95 6.69 6.89 96.87 96.82
50NTU)
Effluent
% Turbidity
Date Time Removal
Turbidity (NTU)
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
0.2 20.2 16.4 30.2 1.5 2.8 95.03 90.73

1 20.2 16.5 33 0.8 2.6 97.58 92.12
Nov 2 20.6 16.8 34 1.6 2.8 95.29 91.76
11, 3 21.1 17 33 2.3 2.5 93.03 92.42
2017 5 21.7 17.5 32 2 1.7 93.75 94.69
7 22.3 17.8 38 2.5 1.5 93.42 96.05
8.5 23 18.4 38 2.3 3.5 93.95 90.79
10 23.8 18.9 27 1 2.2 96.30 91.85
12 24.6 19.4 31 1.4 1.8 95.48 94.19
2017 12.5 25.2 19.8 35 3.4 2.6 90.29 92.57
14 26.1 20.4 36 2.3 3 93.61 91.67
16 27.2 21.1 40 2 2 95.00 95.00
16.5 28 21.7 45 2.2 2.2 95.11 95.11
18 28.9 22.2 42.3 1.8 2 95.74 95.27
Nov
20 29.4 23.5 47 3.5 2.5 92.55 94.68
13,
2017 22.5 30.3 24.1 45.5 2.8 2.3 93.85 94.95
25 31.4 24.7 43 3 2.5 93.02 94.19
26 32.5 25.3 39 2 1 94.87 97.44
26.5 33.6 26.2 37 1.8 2.4 95.14 93.51
53
Effluent
% Turbidity
Date Time Removal
Turbidity (NTU)
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
28.5 34.8 27.1 36 1.6 1.5 95.56 95.83

Nov 30 35.7 28 40 2.6 3 93.50 92.50
14, 31.5 36.7 28.7 42 3.1 2.8 92.62 93.33
2017 32 37.9 29.5 44 3 3.2 93.18 92.73
33 39.1 30.3 43 1.8 2.7 95.81 93.72
33.5 41.6 31.2 45 1.2 3 97.33 93.33
Nov 34 43.9 32 51 3.4 2.5 93.33 95.10
15, 35 45.8 34.1 44 2.1 2.2 95.23 95.00
2017 37 48.4 36.3 37 2.1 2.1 94.32 94.32
38.5 50.7 37.5 41 1.5 2.1 96.34 94.88
39 52.4 38.9 38 2 1.5 94.74 96.05
40 54.2 40.1 36 1.4 1.2 96.11 96.67
Nov
40.5 56.6 41.5 39 2.1 1.8 94.62 95.38
16,
2017 41 59.1 42.2 42 2.5 1.9 94.05 95.48
42 61 43.6 44 2.8 1 93.64 97.73
43 63.8 45.1 41 1.9 0.8 95.37 98.05
44.5 65.3 46.4 40.5 1.7 1.5 95.80 96.30
Nov
45 68.7 47.8 43 1.2 2.2 97.21 94.88
17,
2017 46 71.2 49.5 42 2.1 2.3 95.00 94.52
47 75.2 51.6 39 2.7 3 93.08 92.31
47.5 78.3 53.1 27 2.1 1.4 92.22 94.81
49 81.4 55.7 29 2.6 1.7 91.03 94.14
Nov 49.5 84.5 57.4 31 1.2 0.9 96.13 97.10
18, 50 87.1 59.8 29 1 0.4 96.55 98.62
2017 51 90.3 61.5 27 0.6 0.8 97.78 97.04
52 92.4 63.9 25 0.8 1 96.80 96.00
53 95.7 65.2 24 0.7 1.2 97.08 95.00
53.5 98.6 67.8 33 1.3 1 96.06 96.97
54 105.9 70.1 34 2 1.6 94.12 95.29
Nov 56 110.3 73.1 32 1.4 1.6 95.63 95.00
19, 57 118.7 75.6 27 1.3 1 95.19 96.30
2017 58 125 77.9 30 1.7 1.2 94.33 96.00
59 137.5 80.2 29 1.9 0.8 93.45 97.24
60 147.8 85.8 35 0.9 0.5 97.43 98.57
61 156.2 92.3 35 1.1 1 96.86 97.14
Nov
62 165.4 99.9 32 0.7 1.2 97.81 96.25
20,
2017 62.5 106.4 25 1 96.00
64 113.7 30 1.2 96.00
54
Effluent
% Turbidity
Date Time Removal
Turbidity (NTU)
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
66 118.6 31 1.4 95.48

66.5 125.1 40 2 95.00
Nov 67 137.2 43 2.1 95.12
21, 69 145.4 45 2.1 95.33
2017 70 155.3 43 1.4 96.74
70.5 165.4 41 0.8 98.05
Average 36.67 1.90 1.83 94.88 95.02
100 NTU)
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
0.15 19.8 20 58 2.3 2.6 96.03 95.52

1 19.9 20 63 3.5 3 94.44 95.24
Dec 2.5 20.2 20 65 3.8 3.6 94.15 94.46
3,2017 3 20.8 20.3 67 3.6 4 94.63 94.03
4 21.4 20.5 68 4 3 94.12 95.59
5 22.1 20.8 61 3.8 2.4 93.77 96.07
6 22.9 21.3 69 5 3 92.75 95.65
6.5 23.5 21.8 67 4.2 4 93.73 94.03
7.5 24.7 22.4 80 5.1 3.6 93.63 95.50
Dec 4,
9 26.6 22.9 75 4.4 5.7 94.13 92.40
2017
11 28.3 23.4 72 4.4 3.2 93.89 95.56
12 32.8 24.6 77 5 2 93.51 97.40
12.5 35.5 25.7 80 5.2 4.8 93.50 94.00
15 38.2 27.2 82 5.4 4.1 93.41 95.00
15.5 42.4 29.8 85 5.8 3.8 93.18 95.53
Dec 5,
17 45.9 30.1 79 5.7 2.7 92.78 96.58
2017
19 49.4 31.6 86 4.3 4.3 95.00 95.00
20 53.7 32.8 84 5.2 3.2 93.81 96.19
21.5 57.9 34.9 80 3.8 2.2 95.25 97.25
Dec 8, 23 65.1 36.5 78 4.1 0.9 94.74 98.85
2017 25 71.6 38.7 82 5.2 3 93.66 96.34
25.5 77.9 40.8 83 6.9 4.1 91.69 95.06
55
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
27.5 83.4 42.5 85 4 3.1 95.29 96.35

28 90.7 45.7 81 3.6 4.4 95.56 94.57
29 102.3 48.6 82 3.5 3.6 95.73 95.61
30 113.6 51.4 89 2 4.2 97.75 95.28
31 122.9 55.1 95 2.8 3.3 97.05 96.53
Dec 9,
32 131.5 59.8 102 4.5 5.4 95.59 94.71
2017
32.5 143.1 63.5 96 6.3 5.1 93.44 94.69
34 152.9 66.7 99 5.5 3.3 94.44 96.67
34.5 157.8 69.4 55 1.8 0.7 96.73 98.73
35 165.4 72.4 51 1 1.2 98.04 97.65
Dec 97.69
36.5 75 65 1.5
10,
2017 37 77.1 53 3.2 93.96
38 81.3 49 3.3 93.27
39 83.4 52 1.7 96.73
40 87.8 75 2.2 97.07
40.5 96.2 68 3.1 95.44
Dec 41 102.5 66 2.7 95.91
11,
42 111.1 69 2.2 96.81
2017
43 121.5 72 3.8 94.72
45 128.7 74 3.3 95.54
45.5 135.9 79 3.5 95.57
47 142.2 71 4.8 93.24
Dec 93.38
47.5 147.8 65 4.3
12,
2017 48 157.3 63 1.5 97.62
49 165.4 62 2 96.77
Average 73.60 4.24 3.2 94.54 95.65
150NTU)
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
1 22.1 20.2 107 6.2 5.8 94.21 94.58

Dec
2 22.4 20 112 7 3 93.75 97.32
15,2017
2.5 23.1 20.5 113 7.8 3.6 93.10 96.81
56
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
3 24.5 21.1 115 4.3 4 96.26 96.52

4 25.8 21.9 123 8 4.2 93.50 96.59
5 27.6 22.5 121 7.2 5 94.05 95.87
6 33.7 23.7 140 6.5 7.8 95.36 94.43
7 38.9 25.1 142 7.4 6.8 94.79 95.21
7.5 44.5 26.0 141 7.3 8.3 94.82 94.11
Dec 16,
8 47.6 28.5 147 7.8 8.7 94.69 94.08
2017
9 50.8 30.4 152 9.3 12 93.88 92.11
10 57.8 31.9 147 9.5 10.5 93.54 92.86
11 65.2 33.6 145 8.3 8.8 94.28 93.93
12 72.1 35.9 107 5.4 4.1 94.95 96.17
12.5 78.5 38.1 109 5.8 6.7 94.68 93.85
Dec 17,
14 85.3 41.8 113 5.7 4.9 94.96 95.66
2017
15 93.9 44.2 106 7.3 7.9 93.11 92.55
16 102 47.5 105 7.1 8.2 93.24 92.19
16.5 114.5 51.2 111 4.5 7.3 95.95 93.42
17 130.4 55.6 115 4.7 4.4 95.91 96.17
19 145.7 58.9 111 3.8 3 96.58 97.30
Dec 18,
20.5 157.6 62.4 125 5.2 4.7 95.84 96.24
2017
21 165.4 65.2 123 5 5 95.93 95.93
22 68.8 118 7.7 93.47
23 72.3 115 5.5 95.22
24 75.8 125 5.8 95.36
24.5 78.2 133 3.3 97.52
Dec 19,
25 81.5 130 6.4 95.08
2017
27 85.6 137 6.1 95.55
28 89.0 140 6.3 95.50
28.5 93.1 121 3.8 96.86
29 96.8 124 4 96.77
Dec 20, 30 100.6 127 6 95.28
2017 31 105.5 124 3.4 97.26
32 109.2 121 3.2 97.36
34 113.7 133 4.3 96.77
35 117.8 141 5.1 96.38
35.5 124.5 135 5.6 95.85
Dec 21,
36.5 131.9 130 5.2 96.00
2017
38 138.6 142 4.8 96.62
39 151.8 137 3.8 97.23
57
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
40.5 165.4 145 7 95.17

Average 126.38 6.57 5.76 94.67 95.46
Table C-7 Turbidity Removal and Head Loss Data's for Artificial Turbid Water
(150-200 NTU)
Effluent
% Turbidity
Time Removal
(Hrs.)
(NTU)
1 20.4 18.2 177 5.2 4.3 97.06 97.57

Dec 2 24.3 19 181 6.4 5.4 96.46 97.02
24,2017 3 31.4 22.9 185 8.8 4.5 95.24 97.57
5 33.6 25.1 187 5.2 6.5 97.22 96.52
6 36.5 26.1 153 6.5 4.6 95.75 96.99
6.5 45.3 28.7 157 7.2 7.8 95.41 95.03
Dec
26,2017 7 60.7 31.4 154 6.4 5.2 95.84 96.62
7.5 76.8 45.9 155 5.3 4.9 96.58 96.84
9 90.3 60 157 5.4 5.1 96.56 96.75
10 107.1 72.3 160 6.1 7.4 96.19 95.38
11 125.1 79.9 165 6.4 5.9 96.12 96.42
Dec
27,2017 11.5 143.2 87.5 168 6.7 5.2 96.01 96.90
12 165.4 98.9 171 7.5 6.1 95.61 96.43
14 109.3 172 7.0 95.93
15 125.8 165 4.6 97.21
Dec 15.5 137.2 169 5.1 96.98
28,2017 16 147.7 158 5.2 96.71
17 165.4 164 6.3 96.16
Average 167.29 6.39 5.62 96.16 96.61
58
1000
100
Turbidity, NTU
Influent
10 COBB
Sand
1
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time, Hrs
Figure C 1 Turbidity vs filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity of 50-100
NTU
1000
100 Influent
Turbidity, NTU
COBB
10 Sand
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time, Hrs
Figure C 2 Turbidity vs Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity of 100-150
NTU
1000
Turbidity, NTU
100 Influent
COBB
Sand
10
0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time, Hrs
Figure C 3 Turbidity vs. Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity of 200-250
NTU
59
200
Head Loss, cm
150
100
Sand
50
COBB
0
0 20 40 60 80
Time, Hrs
Figure C 4 Head loss Vs. Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity 25-
50 NTU
200
Head Loss, cm
150
100
Sand
50 COBB
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time, Hours
Figure C 5 Head loss Vs. Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity 50-
100 NTU
200
Head Loss, cm
150
100 Sand
COBB
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time, Hours
Figure C 6 Head loss Vs. Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity
100-150 NTU
60
200
Head Loss, cm
150
100
Sand
50 COBB
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time, Hours
Figure C 7 Head loss Vs. Filter run time for synthetic water with turbidity
200-250 NTU
61
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1 Over Burnt Bricks (OBB) Photo 2 Crushing of OBB
Photo 3 Crushed OBB Photo 4 Making fine forms of OBB
Photo 5 Base Material Gravel Photo 6 Cleaned COBB
62
Photo 7 Cleaned Sand Photo 8 Sieving Sand and COBB
Photo 9 Sieve Photo 10 Manufacturing of Model
Photo 11 Sieving of Gravel Photo 12 Ready to Start the Model
63
Photo 13 Turbidity Meter Photo 14 Samples
Photo 15 Back Washing Mechanism Photo 16 Back Washing
Photo 16 Materials Sample for Testing
64

Crushed Over Burnt Bricks as Filter Media in Filtration Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Crushed Over Burnt Bricks as Filter Media in Filtration Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

THESIS NO: 072/MSE/r/918/237