...
The purpose of this experiment is to test the validity of the compare the experimental results to the empirical fluidization velocity model equation covered in the literature research section.
...
In this experiment, a bench-scale granular filter was backwashed. backwashing of a granular filter with a sand test vial as the bench scale model. Our bench scale model consists of a 5 cm deep sand filter with a diameter of 2.5 cm. The sand (classified as D60) has a diameter of 0.5mm and porosity of 0.4. The diameter of the flow control orifice is 0.2 cm. Please see figure 1 below. We essentially introduced a backwash flowrate of water of known velocity from the bottom and measured the bed expansion. An attentuator between the pump is there was installed to eliminate the pulsing action of the pump. We measured The bed expansion flow rate as we was increased the flow rate from 20 mL/min to 380 mL/min (Can you describe in units that will scale to full-scale such as average velocity?), which is the maximum flow rate possible with our pump configuration.
...
We plotted the actual fluidization velocity vs the calculated fluidization velocity as the target bed expansion is increased. As expected, higher bed expansion required high fluidization velocity. The difference between calculated and actual increased as the velocity increased. ( What do you suppose is the reason for this if you stated that head loss once the bed is fluidized is constant? What sort of relationship is exhibited in Figure 2? Also, please reference all figures before you insert them in your document.) Click here for the Experiment 1 results data.
...
We believe the following to be sources of error, which we discuss more in depth on the Clear Well Filtration Page.
>> Human error: Despite our best attempt at being consistent, there will always be human error in observing the bed expansion visually.
>> Wall Friction: We can attribute the increase in error as flow rate increased due to the increase in wall friction on the test vial. We can minimize this by increasing the size of our bench scale experiments.
>> Sand Properties Parameters: We might have used an incorrect D60 and porosity for the filter bed in our equations. (If this is the case, then why not try to fit the empirical equation to different sand diameters or porosities to see if this corrects for the majority of the error?)
>> Preferential flow: Despite our best attempt to keep the test tube as level as possible, we might have introduced preferential flow in our experiment causing an unbalanced backwash flow. (This may be true, but has it been confirmed with a dye study? If this is true what is the next step in keeping the column level?)
...