Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ABSTRACT
The ARC-Institute for Agricultural Engineering has 23 years of experience on the testing of micro
irrigation filters. A special instrument called the Dirtiness Index Meter was developed to quantify the
clogging potential of irrigation water for micro irrigation filters. With this instrument as reference, a
test method was developed and a test bench build at the Institute.
Two types of tests are normally conducted. The first test is to verify the friction loss of micro
irrigation filters and the second is to verify the dirty water filtration capacity of these filters. Pine
sawdust is used as clogging agent. While measuring the dirty water filtration capacity of a filter the
filtration efficiency of the filter relatively to a certain particle size (in µm) is also measured. This is
done by measuring the dirtiness index of the in-going water and the dirtiness index of the out-going
water of the filter, relative to the same micron size as the element of the filter.
Five tests are done at different dirtiness indexes, ranging from 2% up to 50% dirtiness of the water,
and a graph is drawn of volume water filtered against dirtiness index at a head loss increase of 50kPa
over the filter. For these tests the filter elements are thoroughly hand-cleaned before each clogging
test. After these tests, the same tests are repeated, but this time the filters are back-washed and not
hand-cleaned. It was found that a reduction of the filtration capacity of the filters happens, and the %
reduction is a direct indication of the back-washing efficiency of the filter.
In the paper the test bench and the test method will be presented and some test results will be shown.
The filtration efficiency of filters will also be measured in the field in the same way and that will be
compared with the lab results.
RESUME ET CONCLUSIONS
L'indice de saleté est une mesure du potentiel obstruant de l'eau pour les filtres utilisés en micro
d'irrigation. Ce n'est pas une mesure de l'aspect visuel de l'eau, mais une mesure de l'effet de
colmatage que l'eau aura sur un filtre, en tenant compte de la de la maille du filtre. Le potentiel
obstruant de l'eau est l'effet combiné du type de saleté présent dans l’eau et de sa concentration. La
mesure de l’indice de saleté est cependant indépendante du type de saleté et de sa concentration.
L'indice de saleté est mesuré sur une échelle de 1 à 100. La valeur 100 est attribuée arbitrairement à
une eau naturelle jugée exceptionnellement sale (par exemple rencontrée dans un cours d’eau en crue).
L'eau usuellement rencontrée dans la nature est, en moyenne, caractérisée par un indice de saleté
variant de 2 à 3 (eau à 2-3% sale). Dans de telles conditions un filtre se colmate en une semaine
1
Head of ILI Hydrolabs, ARC-Institute for Agricultural Engineering, Private Bag X519, Silverton, 0127,
PRETORIA, SOUTH AFRICA, asvn@ing1.agric.za
2
environ. Pour une saleté de 15%, il s’obstruera en un jour. Pour 30% de saleté, en une heure. Et en
quelques minutes pour un taux de 60%.
La mesure d'indice de saleté se fait généralement grâce à un essai obstruant accéléré dans des
conditions normalisées et contrôlées. Un instrument spécial, appelé le compteur d'indice de saleté, a
été développé par l’Institut du génie rural (ILI) de l’ARC afin de mesurer la saleté de l'eau d'irrigation
et de lui attribuer une valeur numérique. C'est un instrument très simple et bon marché qui a été
développé pour faire des mesures sur le terrain. Au Laboratoire Hydraulique d’ILI (Hydrolabs), une
version automatisée de l’‘appareil a été développée, et constitue un élément essentiel du banc d’essai.
On utilise deux de ces appareils afin de contrôler la saleté de l'eau à l’entrée et à la sortie du filtre.
L'efficacité de filtration est ainsi mesurée. En utilisant un facteur d’écran spécifique dans la formule de
calcul de l’indice de Saleté, la valeur numérique pour la saleté de la même eau est calculée,
indépendamment de la maille de l’écran utilisée dans l’appareil. Lorsque l’on fait un test sur un filtre,
la maille de l’écran dans l’appareil de mesure de l’Indice de saleté doit être la même que celle de
l’élément du filtre lui-même.
Pour mesurer l'efficacité du lavage à contre courant d'un filtre, un graphique de capacité de filtration
pour le filtre doit d'abord être préparé. Pour ceci, cinq essais obstruants sont réalisés sur le filtre, aux
indices de saleté de 2%, 7%, 15%, 30% et 50%. Avant chaque essai, l'élément filtrant est
complètement nettoyé à la main. Puis le s mêmes essais sont reproduits, mais cette fois le filtre subi un
lavage à contre courant avant chaque nouvel essai et la capacité de filtration est tracée sur le même
graphique que pour les essais précédents. En dehors de ces conditions de test en banc d'essai, il est
impossible de faire deux essais l’un après l’autre exactement au même indice moyen de saleté. Si ça se
produisait, ce serait en grande partie du au hasard. Par conséquent des ajustements de courbe sont faits
sur les cas de nettoyage manuel et de lavage à contre courant. Ces points sont employés pour calculer
la capacité de filtration du filtre dans les deux conditions au même indice de saleté. Ces valeurs sont
employées pour calculer l'efficacité de lavage à contre courant du filtre.
Conclusions
Pendant les essais d’obstruction du filtre effectués à l’Hydrolabs d’ILI, l'indice de saleté de l'eau est
mesuré en permanence en amont et en aval du filtre. Si un filtre s’obstrue, on constatera que la
différence de pression avant le filtre augmente graduellement et sans interruption. A l’Hydrolabs, un
essai de filtre commence avec une différence de pression de 10kPa (en raison de la perte de charge
dans le filtre) et il est observé jusqu'à ce que la différence de pression avant-filtre atteigne 60kPa.
Quelques observations très intéressantes ont été faites pendant les essais d'efficacité de filtration qui
ont été réalisés sur des filtres à l'institut:
• On a constaté que l'efficacité de filtration varie en fonction de la différence de pression à laquelle
est soumit le filtre. Pour un élément propre soumit à une faible différence de pression, l'efficacité
de filtration est généralement grande. À mesure que la différence de pression augmente, il y a une
réduction de l'efficacité de filtration. Pour une différence de pression variant entre 30kPa et 40kPa,
il y a un changement de tendance et l'efficacité de filtration peut soit augmenter légèrement soit
rester constante et, au-delà de 50kPa, il y a de nouveau une baisse dans l'efficacité de filtration.
• Quand le débit dans le filtre est réduit, l'efficacité de filtration augmente.
• Avec un indice de saleté faible, l'efficacité de filtration est plus faible qu'avec un indice de saleté
élevé.
• A des indices de saleté élevés, certains filtres ont affiché, lorsqu’ ils subissent un lavage à contre
courant, des efficacités de filtration plus élevées que lors du nettoyage manuel.
Le lavage à contre courant des filtres d'irrigation est une pratique courante, mais dont l’efficacité est
encore méconnue. De ces essais d'efficacité de lavage à contre courant une information intéressante a
été collectée:
• Un fait alarmant qui est ressorti de ces essais de filtres est que le lavage à contre courant des filtres
3
annulaires est seulement efficace à environ 30%. Ceci signifie qu'un filtre s’obstruera trois fois
plus rapidement après un lavage à contre courant qu’après un lavage manuel.
• L'efficacité du lavage à contre courant est plus ou moins la même pour les différents filtres qui ont
été examinés et relativement constante quand l'indice de saleté de l'eau est supérieur à 10%. En
dessous de ce niveau de saleté de 10%, l’efficacité diminue progressivement, jusqu’à environ 15%
pour un indice de saleté de moins de 2%.
INTRODUCTION
The invention of the Dirtiness Index Meter made it possible that a numeric value can be attached to the
dirtiness of irrigation water. This value gives a very good indication of how a filter will react to the
water. The fact that it can be measured makes it possible that it can be controlled in a test bench set up.
Once this is possible, it becomes possible to conduct very accurate filter clogging tests, but before that
is possible it is necessary that the factors that influence these tests be discussed and explained.
A B
When the dirtiness index of water is measured for a specific filter, the fineness of the screen that is
used in the Dirtiness Index Meter should be the same as that of the filter element. Figure 2 shows the
values for factor F in the formula, for a number of micron sizes of screens that are commonly used in
the Meter:
Screen Size (µm) Screen Factor (F)
50 23 1100
1000
From the discussion so far it is clear that the micron size of a filter’s element must be known before a
dirtiness index measurement can be made for that filter. The fineness of many filter’s elements are
specified in mesh. With sand filters it is also a problem to know what the fineness of filtration is for
such filters. To be able to do dirtiness index measurements for these filters figures 3 and 4 shows what
the relation is between mesh and microns and also what the theoretical fineness is for a sand filter with
a certain size of graded sand as filter medium:
Microns Mesh
500
22 450 450
400
80 200
350
100 155 300
Mesh
250
130 120 200
150
200 75 100
50
300 50 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
500 30
Microns
800 20
1200 12
Mesh = 10187 x µm –0,9327
Figure 3: Relation between the mesh - and micron sizes of screens (Relation entre la maille et la taille
en micron des écrans)
6
0,6 97 250
200
0,8 126
150
1,0 155
100
1,2 184 50
1.4 213 0
1,6 242 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
2,0 300
µm = 10 + 145 . mm
Figure 4: Theoretical relation between the sand particle size and the filtration fineness of sand filters
(Relation théorique entre la taille des particules de sable et la finesse de filtration des filtres à sable)
Most sand filters have 0,6mm sand as medium. From figure 4 it can thus be seen that the filtration
fineness of irrigation sand filters is about 100µm.
Table 1: The effect of the dirtiness index of irrigation water on filter performance (L'effet de l'index de
saleté de l'eau d'irrigation sur l'exécution de filtre)
Dirtiness Index of the water (%) Time it will take for a filter to clog
2 More or less one week.
15 More or less one day.
30 More or less one hour.
60 Only a few minutes.
7
0,6183
DI = 35,612 x PPM
Figure 5: Relation between the dirtiness index measurement and the concentration of size related
particles in the water in PPM on a volumetric basis (Relation entre la mesure d'indice de saleté et la
concentration en particules (d’une certaine taille) en PPM, sur une base volumétrique)
35
Dirtiness Index (%)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
31
61
91
121
151
181
211
241
271
301
331
Number of days
Figure 6: Daily variation of the dirtiness index of an irrigation reservoir’s water over time (Variation
journalière de l'indice de saleté de l’eau d’un reservoir d' irrigation)
In figure 6 it shows that the dirtiness index can vary between 3% and 23% even in one day’s time (see
day 331). This can be explained by the fact that dirt is not uniform in irrigation water, but it moves
around in lumps of algae, water grass, fish eggs etc. When such a lump passes the point of extraction,
there is a sudden increase in the dirtiness index that lasts for a short time after which the dirtiness
index falls back to normal again. Most filters can “survive” such spikes on condition that they do not
last for too long.
8
Figure 7: The irrigation filter test bench of the ILI Hydrolabs (Le banc d'essai du filtre d'irrigation de
l'ILI Hydrolabs)
Figure 8: An example of a filter clogging test spreadsheet (Un exemple de résultat d’un test obstruant
de filtre)
On the spreadsheet in figure 8 a very interesting observation is made: In cell D23 a negative filtration
efficiency is shown. This means there is more dirt after the filter than before the filter. The only
explanation for that is that dirt that had accumulated on the element has gone through the element,
10
causing a huge rise in the dirtiness index of the water after the filter. This happened between the 50kPa
and 55kPa levels of clogging of the filter, leaving a “clean patch” on the filter element. A close look at
the graph of pressure difference against filtered volume shows a deviation of the gradient of the graph
between these pressures. This means that relatively more water had to be filtered to cause the pressure
difference increase from 50kPa to 55kPa than was necessary between 45kPa and 50kPa and also
between 55kPa and 60kPa. This proves that part of the element was cleaner and had to be clogged first
before the pressure difference could rise further and that dirt was indeed forced through the element at
that high pressure difference across the element.
The five samples were averaged per particle size and number-percentages were calculated. Arbitrary
volumes based on the particle sizes were assigned to them and volume-percentages were calculated.
Figure 9 shows the results graphically. A scaled photograph of the particles of sample 4 is also shown:
11
20
15
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Particle Size (µm)
Number-of-particles-Percentage Bulk-volume-Percentage
Filter A
Filter B
Details
Details
Figure 10: Filter A and Filter B with the discs used in their elements (Filtre A et filtre B avec les
disques utilisés dans leurs éléments)
specific particle size which corresponds with the fineness of the filter’s element. As was mentioned
earlier in the paper do the Dirtiness Index Meters have the same micron size screens in them as that of
the filter element. The filtration efficiency is calculated as follows:
80 50
Filtration Efficiency (%)
DI = 2% DI = 7% DI = 15% DI = 2% DI = 7% DI = 15%
DI = 30% DI = 50% DI = 30% DI = 50%
Figure 11: Filtration efficiencies of Filter A (left) and Filter B (right) against pressure difference
when they were hand-cleaned (Efficacités de filtration du filtre A (gauche) et du filtre B (droit) vs
différences de pression après lavage manuel)
Filtration Efficiency (%)
Filtration Efficiency (%)
70 50
60
40
50
40 30
30 20
20
10
10
0 0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Pressure Differential (kPa) Pressure Differential (kPa)
DI = 2% DI = 7% DI = 15% DI = 2% DI = 7% DI = 15%
DI = 30% DI = 50% DI = 30% DI = 50%
Figure 12: Filtration efficiencies of Filter A (left) and Filter B (right) against pressure difference
when they were back -washed (Efficacités de filtration du filtre A (gauche) et du filtre B (droite) vs
différences de pression après lavage à contre-courant)
From the graphs it can be seen that the filtration efficiency of a filter is effected by the pressure
difference over the filter and the dirtiness index of the water. Although there seems to be no
constancy, certain trends can be observed:
• The higher the dirtiness index of the water, the better the filtration efficiency.
• There is a general decline in the filtration efficiency of a filter when the pressure difference across
it increases.
When the data points in the previous graphs are averaged vertically, the average filtration efficiencies
of the two filters over the whole dirtiness index spectrum against pressure difference can be seen and
other, less visible trends can be observed. In figure 13 the average filtration efficiencies of the filters,
when they are hand-cleaned and back-washed, are shown on the same graphs. Comparison of the
filters themselves and amongst each other is then possible:
14
60 35
50 30
25
40
20
30
15
20 10
10 5
0 0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Figure 13: Average filtration efficiencies of Filter A (left) and Filter B (right) against pressure
difference when they were hand-cleaned and back-washed (Efficacités moyennes de filtration du filtre
A (gauche) et du filtre B (droite) vs différence de pression après lavage manuel et lavage à contre-
courant)
From the graphs it can be seen that the filtration efficiency of a filter does not stay the same when the
pressure difference over the filter increases. With a clean element and a low pressure difference, the
filtration efficiency is usually high. As the pressure difference increases, there is a reduction in the
filtration efficiency. At a pressure difference of between 30kPa and 40kPa there is a turning point and
the filtration efficiency can either increase a bit or stay constant and after 50kPa there is again a drop
in the filtration efficiency. This tendency can be theoretically explained as follows: When the element
is clean with a low pressure difference across it, it can keep the dirt back. When the pressure
difference increases, dirt is forced through the
60 40
Filtration Efficiency (%)
35
50
30
40
25
30 20
20 15
10
10
5
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Dirtiness Index (%)
Dirtiness Index (%)
Filter A Hand- cleaned Filter A Back- washed Filter B Hand- cleaned Filter B Back- washed
Figure 14: Average filtration efficiencies of Filter A (left) and Filter B (right) against dirtiness index
when they were hand-cleaned and back -washed (Efficacités moyennes de filtration du filtre A
(gauche) et du filtre B (droite) vs indice de saleté après lavage manuel et lavage à contre-courant)
element. When the element is thoroughly dirty (resulting in a high pressure difference) the dirt on the
element itself acts as a “filter” that is finer than the filter’s element, and the size of particles, for which
the Dirtiness Index Meter after the filter is on the outlook, will not pass through, and a high filtration
efficiency is measured. If the pressure difference gets too high though, the “dirt filter” breaks up and a
lot of dirt is pushed through the element.
The filtration efficiencies can further be compared against the dirtiness index of the irrigation water. If
the average of all the dirtiness index measurements before the filter are taken and also that of the
measurements after the filter for a specific clogging test, an average filtration efficiency for the whole
test at the average dirtiness index for that test, can be calculated. The graphs in figure 14 show that for
Filter A and Filter B when they are hand-cleaned and back-washed.
15
10000 1000
Volume (m 3)
Volume (m 3 )
1000 100
100 10
10 1
1 10 100 1 10 100
Dirtiness Index (%) Dirtiness Index (%)
Figure 15: Filtration capacities for Filter A (left) and Filter B (right) against dirtiness index when
they were hand-cleaned and back-washed (Capacités de filtration pour le filtre A (gauche) et le filtre B
(droite) vs l'indice de saleté après lavage manuel et lavage à contre-courant)
Out of the nature of the tests and the test bench it is impossible to do two tests after one another at
exactly the same average dirtiness index. If it does happen, it will largely be by accident. Therefore
curve fittings are done on the hand-cleaned and the back-washed data points and these are used to
calculate the filtration capacities for each of the two filters, at the same dirtiness index, for each of the
two treatments. In figure 16 the lines and the power equations are shown for all the curves in figure 15
for Filter A and Filter B when they are hand-cleaned and back-washed:
y = 3042.1x
2
100 -1.5497 100 R = 0.9976
y = 4910.9x
10 R2 = 0.9881 10 -1.1328
y = 448.74x
2
1 R = 0.9964
1
1 10 100
1 10 100
Dirtiness Index (%)
Dirtiness Index (%)
Hand-cleaned Back-washed
Hand-cleaned Back-washed
Power (Back-washed) Power (Hand-cleaned)
Power (Back-washed) Power (Hand-cleaned)
Figure 16: Curve fittings for the filtration capacity curves of Filter A (left) and Filter B (right) against
dirtiness index when they are hand-cleaned and back -washed (Ajustements de courbe pour les courbes
de capacité de filtration du filtre A (gauche) et du filtre B (droite) vs l'indice de saleté après lavage
manuel et lavage à contre-courant)
Using the curve fittings to calculate the volumes, the backwash efficiency of Filter A and Filter B can
be calculated at the intended dirtiness indexes at which the filter was tested, using equation 3:
Volume Filtered after Back − washing
Backwash Efficiency = × 100 3.
Volume Filtered after Hand − cleaning
16
Table 3: Calculating the backwash efficiencies of Filter A at different dirtiness indexes (Calcul des
efficacités de lavage à contre-courant du filtre A pour différents indice de saleté)
Dirtiness Index Volume after hand Volume after back Backwash efficiency
cleaning (m3 ) washing (m3 ) (%)
(%)
2 8496,7 1677,5 19,7
7 980,5 240,7 24,6
15 263,6 73,9 28,0
30 79,8 25,2 31,6
50 33,1 11,4 34,6
Table 4: Calculating the backwash efficiencies of Filter B at different dirtiness indexes (Calcul des
efficacités de lavage à contre-courant du filtre B pour différents indice de saleté)
Dirtiness Index Volume after hand Volume after back Backwash efficiency
cleaning (m3 ) washing (m3 ) (%)
(%)
2 1197,6 204,6 17,1
7 222,1 49,5 22,3
15 79,7 20,9 26,2
30 31,4 9,5 30,4
50 15,8 5,3 33,8
Using the data in table 3 and 4, the backwash efficiencies of Filter A and Filter B can be compared in
figure 17:
40
Back Wash Efficiency (%)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Dirtiness Index (%)
Filter A Filter B
Figure 17: Comparison between the back -washing efficiency of Filter A and Filter B against the
dirtiness index of the water (Comparaison entre l'efficacité de lavage à contre-courant du filtre A et du
filtre B vs indice de saleté de l'eau)
17
Test 2:
(DI: 15%)
Filter A 0,19 244,00 34
1,26 2,84 1,25
Filter B 0,15 86,04 15
In table 5 a cross-check is made on the accuracy of the filter tests as being done by the Hydrolabs of
ILI. At first sight, one would assume that the volume of water that two filters can clean under identical
circumstances, should be in the same ratio as the surface areas of their elements. This was proved
wrong!, as can be seen in table 5 which is quite self-explanatory. All the values differ! The reason:
The filtration efficiencies of the two filters are not the same, and that changes the whole picture! Only
if that is also taken into account one can see in the table that the numeric average of the two numbers
in the last column is 1,26 and that is the same as the element surface area ratio of the two filters. This
proves that the filtration capacity of a filter is a function of the surface area of the element and the
filtration efficiency of the element and that the tests, as being done by ILI, are accurate.
Table 6: Comparison between field measurements and laboratory measurements of the filtration
efficiencies of Filter A and Filter B (Comparaison entre les mesures sur le terrain et les mesures en
laboratoire, des efficacités de filtration du filtre A et du filtre B)
Filter A Filter B
Situation: Dirtiness Pressure Filtration Dirtiness Pressure Filtration
Index drop (∆∆ P) efficiency Index drop (∆∆ P) efficiency
(kPa) (%) (kPa) (%)
(%) (%)
Lab: 10 60 68 16 20 47
1 30 22 14 45 28
Field: 10 60 91 16 - 66
1 30 24 14 45 59
From the efficiency tests on Filter A and Filter B it was seen that the filtration efficiency of filters can
vary even while the filter is blocking and it just depends on the point in time when the measurements
were taken, what the result would be. Certain trends though do show up in the tests: When the
dirtiness index of the water increases, there’s an increase in efficiency and visa versa. When the
pressure drop over the filter increases then the following pattern emerges: At first the filtration
efficiency is high, then there is a slight drop between 25 kPa and 40 kPa after which an increase
happens up to 45 kPa from where it varies between increases and decreases and from 55 kPa it drops
from slightly to severe. These same trends show up in the field tests. That is why the field
measurements are sometimes close to the lab measurements, but they can also vary markedly from the
lab measurements in other cases. Although the exact numerical values may show differences, the same
trends are though maintained.
AUTOMATIC FILTERS
With automatic filters it is also possible to measure the filtration efficiencies in the same way as for
the hand-cleaned filters that were discussed in the paper. It is though not possible to evaluate the back-
wash efficiencies in the same way, because most of their elements can not easily be removed for hand-
cleaning. In their case it is more practical to measure the volume of their back-wash water as a
percentage of total volume filtered, against the dirtiness index of the water and to compare them on
that basis.