1 / 68

Steve Hubbs & Tiffany Caldwell University of Louisville

Clogging in Louisville. Steve Hubbs & Tiffany Caldwell University of Louisville. This presentation:. Provide some slope data from US Rivers. Present calculations for Specific Capacity and decrease with time at Louisville (clogging).

tanika
Download Presentation

Steve Hubbs & Tiffany Caldwell University of Louisville

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Clogging in Louisville Steve Hubbs & Tiffany Caldwell University of Louisville

  2. This presentation: • Provide some slope data from US Rivers. • Present calculations for Specific Capacity and decrease with time at Louisville (clogging). • Analyze Pump Test data from 1999 and 2004 for indications of Riverbed compression at Louisville. • Analyze field data for flux and head • Review calculations of riverbed hydraulic conductivity (K) for 1999 and 2004 at Louisville.

  3. Typical RBF systems in US • Smaller system capacity (5,000 m3/day) • Recent tendency for large systems (100,000 m3/day) and larger • Located very close to streams (30 meters from bank) • Laterals extend under riverbed

  4. Sites with RBF Systems • Louisville, 20 MGD (45 MGD planned), Ohio River • Cincinnati, 30 MGD, Great Miami River • Somoma, CA. 45 MGD, Russian River • Lincoln NE, xx MGD, Platte R • Des Moines, KC, • Considering: St.Louis, New York, others

  5. RIVERBANK FILTRATIONAn effective technique for public water supply • An ancient technology…documented in the Bible! • Exodus 7:24 “…dug around the Nile for water to drink.  Filtered through sandy soil near the river bank, the polluted water would become safe to drink.” • Modern installations in Germany over 140 years old • Extensive development in US since the 1950s • Recent interest as a treatment technique for Disinfection By-Product and Pathogen Regulations

  6. Indications of Clogging • Louisville capacity decreases to 67% of original level over 4 years, hardpan present. • Cincinnati “hardpan” forms when pumping at high levels under low-stream flow conditions • Sonoma infiltration beds hard to penetrate and unsaturated below surface. • Initial capacity of collector wells decrease after several years of operation.

  7. Factors Impacting Yield • Temperature (River, Aquifer, Well) • Time (used as a surrogate for plugging) • Pumping Rate and Driving Head • Aquifer Characteristics (at riverbed, through bulk of aquifer, near wellscreen) • Water Quality

  8. Factors Restoring Yield • Riverbed shear stress and scouring • Biological “Grazing” (Rhine River) • Mechanical Intervention (Llobregat River)

  9. Sustainable Yield • The long-range sustainable yield is a balance between all yield-limiting factors and all yield-restoring factors • The question is: How do we measure and predict all of these factors? • Focus of this part of the presentation: looking at the composite of plugging factors, and the impact of shear stress on sustainable yield.

  10. Predicting Sustainable Yield • Use a combined stochastic/deterministic approach. • Specific Capacity = Flow/(river head - well head) • Cs = a*(river temp) + b*(well temp) + c*(time)

  11. Raw Data for Regression Model

  12. Model with Temperature only

  13. RegressionModel, “cleaned data”

  14. Projection of Model-20 years

  15. September 9, 2004

  16. Impact of 4 month layoff, 2004 • Pump failures resulted in long downtime • Pumps off during high flow events of spring 2004 • Pumps restarted July 28, 2004 • Pump test of 1999 repeated

  17. Projection with Jumps-capacity in MGD Specific Capacity: Measured: 0.545 MGD/ft Predicted: 0.36 MGD/ft August 2004 (predicted) measured

  18. Specific Yield Calculations • Adjusting for temperature, the calculated specific capacity for 2004 is 0.645 MGD/ft at week 4 of pump test. • A similar calculation for specific yield was 0.848 for 1999 after week 4 of pumping. • Current capacity approximately 76% of original after layoff and scouring event. • Previous measurements indicated that capacity was approximately 67% of original.

  19. Pump Tests at LWC • 1999 Pump test • 2004 Pump test • Direct measures of infiltration

  20. 20 MGD Collector Well: Ohio River at Louisville

  21. Measured 2 feet below riverbed

  22. 1999 P39 The aquifer velocity q is measured at the mid-point of curve at W1 (P39) at 1.08 hours for the 2 foot distance or 2 feet/hour The measured head loss at P39 was 10 feet across the 2 foot vertical distance yielding a riverbed K value of: K=(2’/10’)(2ft/hour)=0.4 ft/hr (0.12m/hr)

  23. 2004 pump test repeat

  24. 0.6 meter below surface

  25. 3 meters below surface

  26. What’s going on?

  27. Ohio River Geokon Probe P39 t=20 min t=2 days Geokon Probe P37 Sand and Gravel Aquifer Lateral L-4 BEDROCK Piezometric surface

  28. Compressed Riverbed Ohio River t=20 min Geokon Probe P37 Sand and Gravel Aquifer Several months Lateral L-4 BEDROCK Piezometric Surface

  29. Interpretation of 2004 Temp data • Pump test starts with aquifer saturated to 420’. • As head increases, vertical velocity increases and piezometric surface drops. • After 8 hours, the piezometric surface intersects and drops below the riverbed. Riverbed conductivity reduces sharply, and the flow path shifts from vertical to horizontal. • The piezometric surface continues to extend, increasing the distance of flow and bringing in cooler aquifer water. Minimal flow is passing P39. • The piezometric surface stabilizes, and temperature increases to river temperatures.

  30. Direct Measure of Riverbed Flux Rate • Seepage meter procedure modified for deep river use • Heavy “can” 1 sq. foot surface (0.093 sq meter) • Flexible connection to surface • Stilling well at river surface • Camera to observe riverbed conditions

  31. Problems with flux measurement • Wind, Waves, and Current are enemies • Unable to work when river velocity exceeds 1 mph (1.6 km/hour) due to erosion of seal • Wind/waves make boat and stilling well pitch • It takes near-perfect conditions to get repeatable data

  32. Hose to Attach to Bladder In Stilling Well Seepage meter “can”

  33. Stilling Well

  34. Ohio River t=20 min No flux Area of high flux measurement Geokon Probe P37 Sand and Gravel Aquifer Several months Lateral L-4 BEDROCK Piezometric Surface

  35. Calculating Riverbed K from direct measurement of infiltration rate • Approach Velocity measured at .3 to 1 meter/hour • Porosity assumed at 0.2 • Aquifer velocity q = (.3/0.2) = 1.5 m/hour • Head loss across riverbed at 0.6 meter depth is 6 meters • K=(L/hL)(q)= (0.6/6)1.5m/hour = 0.15 m/hr • Measured range based on approach velocities was 0.15 to 0.45 m/hour

  36. Summary of Measured Riverbed K values • At identical points (P39, 0.6m depth) • 1999 temperature-derived value = 0.12 m/hr • 2004 temperature-derived value = 0.03 m/hr • From direct measure of flux across riverbed • Max 2003 flux-derived value = 0.45 m/hr • Typical 2004 flux-derived value = 0.15 m/hr • Max 2004 flux-derived value = 0.38 m/hr

More Related