Clogging in Louisville
1 / 68

Steve Hubbs & Tiffany Caldwell University of Louisville - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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).

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Steve Hubbs & Tiffany Caldwell University of Louisville' - tanika

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Steve hubbs tiffany caldwell university of louisville

Clogging in Louisville

Steve Hubbs &

Tiffany Caldwell

University of Louisville

This presentation
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.

Typical rbf systems in us
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

Sites with rbf systems
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

Riverbank filtration an effective technique for public water supply
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

Indications of clogging
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.

Factors impacting yield
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

Factors restoring yield
Factors Restoring Yield

  • Riverbed shear stress and scouring

  • Biological “Grazing” (Rhine River)

  • Mechanical Intervention (Llobregat River)

Sustainable yield
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.

Predicting sustainable yield
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)

Steve hubbs tiffany caldwell university of louisville

RegressionModel, “cleaned data”

Impact of 4 month layoff 2004
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

Projection with jumps capacity in mgd
Projection with Jumps-capacity in MGD

Specific Capacity:

Measured: 0.545 MGD/ft

Predicted: 0.36 MGD/ft

August 2004 (predicted)


Specific yield calculations
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.

Pump tests at lwc
Pump Tests at LWC

  • 1999 Pump test

  • 2004 Pump test

  • Direct measures of infiltration

Steve hubbs tiffany caldwell university of louisville



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)

Steve hubbs tiffany caldwell university of louisville

Ohio River

Geokon Probe P39

t=20 min

t=2 days

Geokon Probe P37

Sand and Gravel Aquifer

Lateral L-4


Piezometric surface

Steve hubbs tiffany caldwell university of louisville

Compressed Riverbed

Ohio River

t=20 min

Geokon Probe P37

Sand and Gravel Aquifer

Several months

Lateral L-4


Piezometric Surface

Interpretation of 2004 temp data
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.

Direct measure of riverbed flux rate
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

Problems with flux measurement
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

Steve hubbs tiffany caldwell university of louisville

Hose to

Attach to


In Stilling


Seepage meter


Steve hubbs tiffany caldwell university of louisville

Ohio River

t=20 min

No flux

Area of high flux measurement

Geokon Probe P37

Sand and Gravel Aquifer

Several months

Lateral L-4


Piezometric Surface

Calculating riverbed k from direct measurement of infiltration rate
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

Summary of measured riverbed k values
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

Measuring riverbed compression
Measuring Riverbed Compression

  • 0.33 meter Drift Pin attached to 1 meter rod

  • Dropped a distance of 0.58 meters.

  • Penetration into riverbed observed by underwater camera.

  • Submerged trees are the enemy!

Results of penetrometer
Results of Penetrometer

  • Riverbed surface varies considerably.

  • Drift pin penetrates up to 0.33 meters in undisturbed areas…typical is 0.15 meters.

  • Penetration is less than 0.05 meters in areas of riverbed compression near well.

  • Additional measurements needed to define area of riverbed compression.

Ongoing work at louisville
Ongoing Work at Louisville

  • Mapping infiltration rates.

  • Mapping riverbed compression area.

  • Proceeding with expansion of wellfield from 20 MGD to 60 MGD total capacity (75,000 m3/day to 225,000m3/day)

  • Using vertical wells (as opposed to horizontal collectors)


  • Any other observations regarding compression of riverbed?

  • Do the values of riverbed “K” look right?

  • Any other theories about riverbeds under unsaturated conditions?

  • Guidance regarding design and operation of RBF systems with regards to unsaturated conditions under the riverbed?

Assumptions problems in velocity profile measure of shear stress
Assumptions/Problems in Velocity Profile measure of Shear Stress

  • Uniform bed surface and predictable interface velocities based on particle size.

  • Theoretical curve based on uniform flow (and implications from river bedforms)

  • Doppler velocities limited by technique: unable to read velocities at the top and bottom 5 feet of the profile.

Stream slope calculations for shear stress
Stream Slope Calculations for Shear Stress Stress

  • Data available from USGS via internet.

  • Variety of stream flow conditions available.

  • Yields an averaged shear stress for a particular stream reach.

  • Influenced by stream characteristics: bedforms, obstructions, curves.

Inferring maximum shear stress by bedload transport
Inferring Maximum Shear Stress by Bedload Transport Stress

  • Larger shear stresses required to move larger rocks.

  • Smaller shear stresses required to move gravel and sand.

  • Data available to indicate minimum shear stress to move riverbed particles: sand 0.2 Newtons/sq. meter; gravel 3 N/sq. m

Future work at lwc
Future Work at LWC Stress

  • Direct measure of riverbed conductivity

  • Analysis of additional streams under varying conditions

  • Influence of barges?

Shear stress definition
Shear Stress: Definition Stress

  • Shear stress is the resistance imparted by a fixed surface (streambed) on a moving fluid.

  • This is similar to the friction forces at work in pipe headloss, and provides for the “head loss” in river system.

  • Units: Newtons/sq. meter; psi/sq. foot

Riverbed scouring
Riverbed Scouring Stress

  • Occurs when shear stress imparts a force on the riverbed adequate to move the particles of the riverbed.

  • Is a function of stream velocity at the riverbed, and the particles (size, shape, density) making up the riverbed itself (sand and gravel).