Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.
For additional information about this document and the document conversion process, please contact WRDS at [email protected] and include the phrase
“Digital Documents” in your subject heading.
To view other documents please visit the WRDS Library online at: http://library.wrds.uwyo.edu
Mailing Address: Water Resources Data System
University of Wyoming, Dept 3943 1000 E University Avenue
Laramie, WY 82071
Physical Address: Wyoming Hall, Room 249 University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071
Phone: (307) 766-6651 Fax: (307) 766-3785
Funding for WRDS and the creation of this electronic document was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission
(http://wwdc.state.wy.us)
Final Report CANAL SEEPAGE REDUCTION USING ANIONIC
POLYACRYLAMIDE: FIELD AND BENCH-SCALE TESTS
Prepared for: Wyoming Water Development Commission Cheyenne, Wyoming Prepared by: Brian Story and Michael Urynowicz Department of Civil & Architectural Engineering University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming
September, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 OVERVIEW 1 PAM BACKGROUND 2 Polymer Introduction 2 Agricultural Applications 2 Canal Seepage Reduction 3 Environmental Impacts 4 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTUVITY RECUTION MECHANISMS 5
Coagulation/Flocculation 5 Filtration 5 Adsorption 6 Extensional Viscosity 6 Crosslinked Polymer Gels 8
WORKS CITED 9 CHAPTER 2: REDUCING WATER SEEPAGE WITH ANIONIC POLYACRYLAMIDE: APPLICATION METHODS AND TURBIDITY EFFECTS 12 ABSTRACT 12 INTRODUCTION 13 METHODS 14
Materials 14 Adsorption Study 15 Column Studies 15 Flume Studies 17
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 19
Column Studies 19 Liquid Injection 19 Adsorption Study 24 Granular Surface Application 26
Flume Studies 27 Liquid Injection 28 Slurry Surface Application 29 Granular Surface Application 31
CONCLUSIONS 33 AKNOWLEGMENTS 34 NOTATION 34 WORKS CITED 35
ii
CHAPTER 3: BORDEAUX LATERAL CANAL POLYMER APPLICATION: FIELD REPORT 37
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 37 INTRODUCTION 38
Agricultural Applications 38 Canal Seepage Reduction 39 Environmental Considerations 40
BACKGROUND 40 Project Background and Objective 40 Site Description 41
METHODS 44 Test Reach Characterization 44
Polymer Application 45 Discharge Measurement 47 Real-time Stage Discharge Measurement 47 Falling-Head Permeameter Tests 48
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 49
Polymer Application 49 Discharge Measurement 50 Real-time Stage Discharge Measurement 51 Falling Head Permeameter Tests 54 Column Tests 56
CONCLUSIONS 56 WORKS CITED 58
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 60
CONCLUSIONS 60
Lab 60 Field 60 FUTURE RESEARCH 61 APPENDIX A – COLUMN DATA 63 APPENDIX B – ADSORPTION AND ISOTHERM DATA 77 APPENDIX C – FLUME DATA 80 APPENDIX D – FIELD DATA 86 APPENDIX E – ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS 95
iii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES
Table 2.1- Liquid injection column study results for the 0.4, 10, 50 and 100 NTU experiments 20
Table 2.2 - Granular surface test results for the 0.4 and 100 NTU experiments 27
Table 2.3 -Flume study results for liquid injection (LI), spray surface (SS), and granular surface (GS) tests
28
Table 3.1 – Average water flow and water chemistry in the Bordeaux canal test reach 44
Table 3.2 – PAM application rates during the Bordeaux test 47
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 - Molecular structure of anionic polyacrylamide 2
Figure 1.2 - Rotation and extension of a particle due to a linear shear flow gradient 7
Figure 1.3 - Elongation of a polymer molecule in a converged porous media flow section 8
Figure 2.1 - Schematic of the constant head permeameter used in the column studies 16
Figure 2.2 – Schematic of the flumes used in flume studies 18
Figure 2.3 –Representative normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time for liquid injection column tests
20
Figure 2.4 – Minimum normalized hydraulic conductivity as a function of initial polymer concentration for
liquid injection column tests 21
Figure 2.5 - Number of pore volumes required for hydraulic conductivity to return to 80% of pre-treatment
levels as a function of initial polymer concentration for liquid injection column tests 22
Figure 2.6 - Kinematic viscosity required to account for the observed hydraulic conductivity reduction as a
function of maximum polymer concentration 23
Figure 2.7 - Polymer adsorption by silica sand as described with the Langmuir Equation 25
Figure 2.8 – Normalized mean hydraulic conductivity versus time for granular surface application column
tests 26
Figure 2.9 - Normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time for 72 mg/l liquid injection flume tests 29
Figure 2.10 – Normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time for slurry surface application flume tests 30
Figure 2.11 – Minimum normalized hydraulic conductivity as a function of polymer mass load for slurry
surface application flume tests 31
Figure 2.12 - Normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time for granular surface application flume tests
32
Figure 3.1 – Site map showing the WID canal system, the Bordeaux canal test reach and the gauging site
42
Figure 3.2 – Bordeaux lateral daily flow schedule for 2006 as measured at the gauging site 43
Figure 3.3 – Site map of the Bordeaux test reach showing the polymer injection point and downstream
monitoring points 44
iv
v
Figure 3.4 – Grain size distribution of canal surface material 45
Figure 3.5 – Polymer application system during treatment. 46
Figure 3.6 – Flow rating curves for each discharge measurement point 48
Figure 3.7 – Falling Head Permeameters in the Bordeaux canal 49
Figure 3.8 – Sets of discharge measurements at each monitoring point 51
Figure 3.9 - Percent of influent water loss as a function of time 51
Figure 3.10 - Pressure-based discharge data showing pre- and post-treatment water seepage as a function of
inflow over the entire test reach 52
Figure 3.11 - Pressure-based discharge data showing pre- and post-treatment water seepage as a function of
inflow 53
Figure 3.12 – Falling head permeameter data showing a drop in water height versus time 55
Figure 3.13 - Column test results showing normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time 56
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
Water resources are limited, and water conservation is an increasing priority for
water managers. An estimated 17% of water diverted for irrigation is lost in conveyance
(Lentz 2003), and infiltration of water into unlined conveyance channels accounts for
much of this loss. As a result, a simple, inexpensive method for reducing canal seepage
is needed. This research was conducted as part of a Wyoming Water Development
Commission (WWDC) funded study aimed at determining the effectiveness of high
molecular weight, anionic polyacrylamide (PAM) application in decreasing seepage from
unlined irrigation canals. The first stage of the study was completed at the University of
Wyoming in 2006 by Jessica Morris and Dr. Michael Urynowicz (Morris 2006). The
research involved jar test experiments to optimize polymer dose, system pH, and mixing
intensity for reaction of PAM and aqueous phase suspended solids. Also, constant head
permeameter experiments with liquid PAM injection and varying water turbidities were
conducted. Morris (2006) suggested that in low turbidity water (1-10 Number of
Turbidity Units or NTU), PAM-sand adsorption dominated hydraulic conductivity
reduction (HCR). In high turbidity (50-100 NTU) water, HCR was attributed to PAM-
clay aggregate filtration at the sand surface through an interstitial straining mechanism.
To better understand seepage effects from polyacrylamide application, field and
laboratory tests were conducted during the course of this study. In Chapter 2, laboratory
results are presented as a manuscript for submission to the Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering. Laboratory experiments were conducted at the bench and pilot
scale to better understand PAM’s effect on hydraulic conductivity with and without
added suspended solids. Column studies were conducted with uniform silica sand to
determine the magnitude of HCR, treatment longevity, and dominant HCR mechanisms
with liquid PAM injection. In addition, flume and column studies tested the relative
effectiveness and longevity of three PAM application techniques: liquid injection, slurry
surface application, and granular surface application. In Chapter 3, field results are
presented as a report to be submitted to the WWDC and States West Water Resource
Corporation. The field application, conducted on a 457 meter long (1,500 ft) section of
1
canal near Wheatland, Wyoming, examined the effectiveness and extent of seepage
reduction due to PAM treatment at the field scale. Treatment was achieved by pumping
concentrated PAM slurry into the flowing canal.
PAM BACKGROUND
Polymer Introduction
Polyacrylamide (PAM) is a polymer
composed of repeating acrylamide monomers
(Figure 1.1). While the chemical composition
varies between manufacturers, high molecular
weight (12-15 Mg/mol), 8-35% charge density
PAM provides the most effective soil treatment
(Lentz et al. 2000). PAM is commercially available with a nonionic, anionic or cationic
net charge and comes in either a dry granular or an emulsified liquid form. Currently,
PAM is used in the paper, textile, food, and oil recovery industries, as well as in water
treatment for solids removal and wastewater treatment for dewatering of sludge
(Friedman 2003).
Figure 1.1 - Molecular structure of anionic polyacrylamide
Agricultural Applications
Polyacrylamide application to reduce soil erosion and maintain water infiltration
has been extensively researched and is now common in agriculture. Many studies have
shown that at the recommended applied concentration of 10 mg/l, PAM application to
unsaturated irrigation furrows increases water infiltration rates relative to untreated
furrows in medium textured soils including sandy loams, silt loams, loams, and silty clay
loams (Lentz et al. 1992; Lentz et al. 1995; Shainberg et al. 1990; Trout et al. 1995).
Water application in untreated soils causes clay particles to disperse at the soil surface,
forming an impermeable crust. PAM maintains soil structure and porosity by preventing
surface crust formation (Lentz et al. 1995). Over many field applications to medium and
fine textured soils, PAM treatments increased water infiltration an average of 15% (Lentz
et al. 1995). Similarly, simulated rainfall experiments with PAM applications of 20 kg/ha
2
on a typical loess and dark brown brumsoil showed a 38 -78% increase in infiltration rate
relative to controls (Shainberg et al. 1990).
In addition to increasing water infiltration, PAM application substantially reduces
soil erosion in low-slope furrow irrigation scenarios by simultaneously stabilizing the soil
surface and reducing total runoff (Green and Stoutt 2001). When applied to test
irrigation furrows, PAM application rates of 5-20 mg/l showed a 98% reduction in soil
loss (Lentz et al. 1992). Soil erosion reduction by PAM application is also effective on
steep construction site slopes, where applications have reduced sediment yield by more
than 50% (Chaudhari and Flanagan 1998).
Canal Seepage Reduction
Research suggests polyacrylamide application may be effective in reducing water
seepage in unlined irrigation canals (Lentz 2003, Morris 2006). Although laboratory tests
have been encouraging, field PAM applications have produced mixed results. Successful
laboratory treatments were recorded at the Soils Research Laboratory in Kimberly, Idaho
where seepage flow in flumes was reduced by 60 to >99% (Lentz 2003). At the field
scale, Nelson Engineering (2004) tested a variety of PAM application methods on the
Green River supply canal in western Wyoming, and was unable to quantify a resulting
seepage reduction. In addition to mixed results from field applications, significant
questions remain with respect to dominant seepage reduction mechanisms. Lentz (2003)
suggests that seepage reduction occurs only at high (> 250 mg/l) polymer concentrations
and is caused by apparent viscosity effects. Indeed, viscosity and hydraulic conductivity
tests of PAM solutions through coarse and fine sand concluded that PAM behaves as if it
were much more viscous than its kinematic viscosity would suggest when flowing
through porous media (Letey 1996). A similar theory states that infiltration effects are a
balance between surface seal breakage and apparent viscosity increase (Ortis et al. 2002).
Finally, Morris (2006) suggests that suspended solids may play a significant role in
seepage reduction.
3
Environmental Impacts
An Initial Risk Characterization examined environmental and human health
impacts associated with anionic linear polyacrylamide application to unlined canal
systems (Young et al. 2006). Human health concerns stem from the fact that acrylamide
(AMD), present at 0.05 percent concentration in PAM, is a known neurotoxin and
carcinogen. The risk characterization concluded that during typical application scenarios,
AMD concentrations will be at or lower than the drinking water standard (0.5 μg/L) and
orders of magnitude below the chronic levels needed to impact human health. Barvenik
(1996) suggests that PAM does not degrade to the more toxic acrylamide monomer in
biologically active systems since the primary step in the biological degradation of
polyacrylamide is the rapid microbial metabolism of the amide functional group as a
nitrogen source. Similarly, Sojka et al. (1996) found that both the polyacrylamide and
acrylamide monomer degrade in soil and water systems by biological, photochemical,
and physical mechanisms.
Overall toxicity is strongly dependent on PAM’s net charge. In fact, negatively
charged anionic PAM is generally 10 to 100 times lower in toxicity than positively
charged cationic PAM (Young et al. 2006). Neutral and cationic PAM has LD50s high
enough to affect aquatic species, including rainbow trout, at concentrations above 130
mg/l. As a result, the application of neutral and cationic PAM is restricted. A recent
Interim Conservation Practice Standard has been produced by the National Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS 2005). The standard, adopted by the state of Wyoming,
specifies acceptable application methods and chemical properties. The standard also
limits PAM treatments to 4.5 grams of active polymer ingredient per canal bed surface
square meter (g/m2) or 40 lb/acre. When discussing environmental impacts, it is
important to note the significant conservation benefits of PAM treatment. PAM
treatments have been shown dramatically reduce soil erosion and to reduce water use in
furrow irrigation by improving water retention and application efficiency. Finally,
successful PAM applications in canals have the potential to substantially reduce water
loss during conveyance.
4
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY REDUCTION MECHANISMS
Coagulation/Flocculation
Polyacrylamide’s tendency to coagulate and flocculate suspended colloidal
particles plays a critical role in suspended solids removal during drinking water
treatment, soil stabilization, and potentially, canal seepage reduction in high turbidity
water. Coagulation/flocculation occurs as suspended colloidal particles adsorb to
charged functional groups on the polymer. Each polymer molecule is capable of forming
a large, aggregated particle as individual colloidal particles adsorb to its many charged
functional groups. These large, aggregated particles quickly settle out of solution. Since
both the polymer and colloidal particles are negatively charged, divalent cations are
required to “bridge” between the negatively charged surfaces. During infiltration studies
conducted in two fine-textured soils, Shainberg et al. (1990) found that a high-Ca
photogypsum and PAM treatment maintained a 28% higher infiltration rate than PAM
treatment alone. Laird (1997) conducted flocculation tests with anionic PAM and
kaolinite, illite, and quartz with a variety of added ions including Na+ and Ca2+ salts, Na+
and Ca2+ hydroxides, and HCl. Laird (1997) concluded that the efficacy of anionic PAM
treatment varied with the type of saturating cation (Ca2+>>Na+), mineralogy
(kaolinite>illite>>quartz), and treatment type (acid>salt>H20>base). Another significant
finding was that divalent cations such as Ca2+ achieve effective bridging between the
negatively charged clay particles and PAM surfaces, while monovalent ions such as Na+
are attracted to only one of the negatively charged surfaces.
Filtration
Suspended solid filtration is a process where suspended particles are removed
from water as they pass through a porous media. Well established theory states that
particle removal is achieved in two distinct steps (Weber 1972). The first step is
transport, where suspended particles move into contact with the fixed media surface.
Transport mechanisms include diffusion, gravity settling, and hydrodynamic transport
and are dominated by suspended particle physical properties including mass and density.
Once particles are transported to the fixed media surface, the second filtration step,
5
attachment, dominates filter behavior. Attachment occurs when suspended particles
attach to the fixed media surface and is highly dependant on chemical variables including
pH, water chemistry, and media surface hydrostatic charge (Kawamura 1975). If
suspended particles are large with respect to the media pore spaces, interstitial straining
will occur. Interstitial straining involves particle interception at the media surface,
resulting in rapid head loss increase in the upper layers of the media column. With
attachment and interstitial straining, media pores become effectively smaller as particles
accumulate, resulting in high head loss rates (Weber 1972).
Adsorption
In addition to coagulation and flocculation processes, PAM is capable of
adsorbing to soil and porous media. After testing the sorption capacity of several
polymers, Letey (1994) concluded that polyacrylamide adsorption to pure clays is
strongly influenced by polymer charge and the order of adsorption is
cationic>nonionic>anionic. Similarly, Malik and Letey (1991) found that molecular size
and particle electrostatic charge have a significant effect on adsorption effectiveness with
PAM and loamy soils.
In siliceous materials, adsorption effectiveness increases as pH increases from 4
to 8 due to dissociation of the acrylate groups. Also, at pH 7, anionic PAM adsorption
ceases to occur at salt concentrations below approximately 10 mg/l due to electrostatic
repulsion between negatively charged PAM and clay surfaces (Lecourtier and
Chauveteau 1990). Adsorption equilibrium is achieved within 16 hours, after which very
little to no desorption occurs, even when aqueous PAM is removed. When PAM-soil
solutions are dried, the majority of PAM remaining in solution becomes irreversibly
bonded to the soil (Nadler et al. 1992).
Extensional Viscosity
Darcy’s equation (Equation 1.1) has long been recognized as a suitable model for
describing fluid flow through saturated porous media where Q is fluid flow rate, i is the
hydraulic gradient, and A is the cross sectional area of flow.
KiAQ −= (1.1)
6
With Darcy’s equation, fluid flow is directly proportional to hydraulic
conductivity, K, as defined by the Subcommittee on Permeability and Infiltration
(Richards 1952). As shown in Equation 1.2, K is directly proportional to the intrinsic
permeability, k, and the gravitational constant, g. Also, K is inversely proportional to the
fluid kinematic viscosity, υ.
υkgK −= (1.2)
Malik and Letey (1992) conducted a series of constant head permeameter
experiments during which hydraulic conductivity was measured as dilute PAM solutions
flowed through saturated sand columns. During these experiments, kinematic viscosity
values, measured with tube and mechanical viscometers, were significantly lower than
kinematic viscosity values required to achieve the observed hydraulic conductivity
reduction (HCR). This discrepancy was especially pronounced in fine sand (r<0.5 mm),
where kinematic viscosity values required to account for the observed HCR were 200-
400% greater than those observed in coarse sand (0.5-1 mm). As a result, Malik and
Letey (1992) concluded that HCR is highly dependant on pore size and is likely caused
by an extensional viscosity mechanism.
The theory of extensional viscosity states that large particles such as anionic PAM
molecules rotate and extend when exposed to shear flow gradients (Figure 1.2).
Extension
Rotation
Figure 1.2 - Rotation and extension of a particle due to a linear shear flow gradient
When the flow is bounded on both sides, as it is in porous media, shear flow gradients act
in opposing rotational directions, causing the particle to extend without rotating (Figure
7
1.3). This extension, known as extensional viscosity, causes an enormous increase in
flow resistance (Cowan 2001). Interthall and Hass (1981) verified these qualitative
observations experimentally in a modified permeameter device and also demonstrated
that a porous bed consisting of randomly packed spherical bodies is a system in which
considerable elongational flow occurs.
Figure 1.3 - Elongation of a polymer molecule in a converged porous media flow section
Crosslinked Polymer gels
Polymer gels are commonly applied in oil recovery, where they provide higher
flow resistance to water than to oil. The gels are formed by crosslinking liquid
polyacrylamide with Chromium (III). Al-Sharji et al. (2001) visually characterized water
flow patterns through crosslinked high molecular weight polyacrylamide gel using a
microscope and camera to photograph dyed water flow through single capillary pores and
found the gel to be up to 200 more times more permeable to oil than to water. In
addition, by combining visual data and flowrate data, Al-Sharji et al. (2001) concluded
that the crosslinked gels plug media pore spaces, thereby reducing water flow to small
capillary gel pores, where permeability varies as a power-law function of water velocity.
After measuring the pressure drop of water across several crosslinked anionic
polyacrylamide gels (1800-3200 mg/l), Grattoni et al. (2001) found that as water velocity
increases, free polymer molecules are compressed into crosslinked regions, effectively
increasing gel permeability. This qualitative analysis was supported with experimental
data, where gel permeability increased with flow velocity and decreased with polymer
concentration, with both relationships varying according to power-law relationships.
8
Also, of special interest for PAM application in canals, Grattoni et al. (2001) suggested
that flow through polymer gels can be effectively halted if the pressure gradient is lower
than interaction forces within the gel network. Marty et al. (1991) measured the
permeability of polyacrylamide/Chromium (III) gel in an unconsolidated sandpack and
concluded that flow resistance is caused by filtration of gel aggregates.
WORKS CITED Al-Sharji, H.H., C. A. Grattoni, R. A. Dawe, and R. W. Zimmerman. “Flow of Oil and
Water through Elastic Polymer Gels.” Oil & Gas Science and Technology. 56, (2001): 145-152.
Barnevik, F.W., R.E. Sojka, R.D. Lentz, F.F. Andrews, and L.S. Messner. “Fate of
Acrylamide Monomer Following Application of Polyacrylamide to Cropland.” IN R.E. Sojka and R.D. Lentz (eds.) Proceedings: Managing Irrigation-Induced Erosion and Infiltration with Polyacrylamide. May 6, 7, and 8, 1996, College of Southern Idaho, Twin Falls, ID. University of Idaho Misc. Pub.
Chaudhari, K. and D. C. Flanagan. “Polyacrylamide effect on sediment yield, runoff, and
seedling emergence on a steep slope.” Technical papers, Annu. Meet. ASAE, Orlando, FL. 12-16 July 1998. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Cowan, M. E. “Water-soluble polymers. Correlation of experimentally determined drag
reduction efficiency and extensional viscosity of high molecular weight polymers in dilute aqueous solution.” Journal of applied polymer science. 82, (2001): 1222-1231.
Friedman, M. “Chemistry, biochemistry, and safety of acrylamide. A review.” Journal
of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 51, (2003). 4504-4526. Grattoni, C. A., H. H. Al-Sharji, C. Yang, A. H. Muggeridge, and R. W. Zimmerman,
“Rheology and Permeability of Crosslinked Polyacrylamide Gel.” Journal of colloid and Interface Science. 240, (2001). 601-607.
Green, S. V. and D. E. Stoutt. “Polyacrylamide: A Review of the Use, Effectiveness, and
Cost of a Soil Erosion Control Amendment.” Paper presented at the 10th International Soil Conservation Organization Meeting, Purdue University, 2001.
Interthall, W. and R. Hass. “Effects of dilute polymer solutions on porous media flows.
Part I: Basic concepts and experimental results.” Flow and transport in porous media. Proceedings of Euromech. Delft, the Netherlands 2-4 September, 1981. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands: 157-162.
9
Kawamura, S. “Design and Operation of High-Rate Filters-Part 1.” Journal of the American Water Works Association. 91, (1975): 535-544.
Laird, D. A. “Bonding between polyacrylamide and clay mineral surfaces.” Soil
Science. 162, (1997): 826-832. Lecourtier, L. T. and G. Chauveteau. “Adsorption of Polyacrylamides on Siliceous
Minerals.” Colloids and Surfaces. 47, (1990): 219-231. Lentz, R. D. “Inhibiting water infiltration with polyacrylamide and surfactants:
Applications for irrigated agriculture.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 58, (2003): 290-300.
Lentz, R. D., I. Shainberg, R.E. Sojka, and D.L. Carter. “Preventing irrigation furrow
erosion with small applications of polymers.” Soil Science Society of America Journal. 56, (1992): 1926-1932.
Lentz, R. D., R. E. Sojka, and C. W. Ross. “Polymer Charge and Molecular Weight
Effects on Treated Irrigation Furrow Processes.” International Journal of Sediment Research. 15, (2000): 17-30.
Lentz, R.D., T. D. Steiber, R.E. Sojka. “Applying Polyacrylamide (PAM) to Reduce
Erosion and Increase infiltration Under Furrow Irrigation.” Proceedings of the Winter Commodity Schools 27 (1995): 79-92.
Letey, J. “Adsorption and Desorption of Polymers on Soil.” Soil Science. 158, (1994):
244-249. Letey, J. “Effective viscosity of PAM solutions through porous media.” IN Sojka, R.E.
and R.D. Lentz (eds.) Proceedings: Managing Irrigation-Induced Erosion and Infiltration with Polyacrylamide May 6, 7, and 8, 1996, College of Southern Idaho, Twin Falls, ID. University of Idaho Misc. Pub. 101-96, pages 94-96.
Malik, M. and J. Letey. “Adsorption of Polyacrylamide and Polysaccharide Polymers on
Soil Materials. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 55, (1991): 380-383. Malik, M. and J. Letey. “Pore-Size-Dependent Apparent Viscosity for Organic Solutes in
Saturated Porous Media.” Soil Science Society of America Journal. 56, (1992): 1032-1035.
Marty, L., D. W. Green, and G. P. Wilihite. “The Effect of Flow Rate of the In-Situ Gelation of a Chrome/Redox/Polyacrylamide System.” SPE Reservoir Engineering. 6, (1991): 219-224.
Morris, J. “Organic Polymer Addition for Reducing Conveyance Seepage.” M.S. Thesis
of the U. of Wyoming, 2006.
10
Nadler, A., M. Malik, and J. Letey. “Desorption of Polyacrylamide and Polysaccharide Polymers from Soil Materials.” Soil Technology. 5, (1992): 91-95.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), “Interim Conservation Practice
Standard; Irrigation Water Conveyance Anionic Polyacrylamide Ditch and Canal Treatment.” Washington D.C., 2005.
Nelson Engineering, “Green River Supply Canal Seepage Study Report.” Jackson,
Wyoming: 2004. Ortis, W. J., R. E. Sojka, and G.M. Glenn. “Polymer additives in irrigation water to
reduce erosion and better manage water infiltration.” Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech 13: (2002): 37-41.
Richards, L. A., ed. “Report of the subcommittee on permeability and infiltration,
Committee on Terminology, Soil Science Society of America.” Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. 15 (1952): 85-88.
Shainberg, I., D. N. Warrington, and P. Rengasmy. “Water quality and PAM interactions
in reducing surface sealing.” Soil Science. 149, (1990): 301-307. Sojka, R. E. and R. D. Lentz, ed. Managing Irrigation-Induced Erosion and Infiltration
with Polyacrylamide. Twin Falls, Idaho: USDA-ARS, 2006. Trout, T. J., R. E. Sojka and R. D. Lentz. “Polyacrylamide effect on furrow erosion and
infiltration.” Transactions ASAE. 38: (1995) 761-765. Weber, W. J. Physiochemical Processes for Water Quality Control. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1972. Young, M. H., Tappen, J. J., Miller, G. C., Carroll, S. Initial Risk Characterization:
Using Linear Anionic Polyacrylamide to Reduce Water Seepage from Unlined Water Delivery Canal Systems.U Reno: Desert Research Institute, 2006.
11
CHAPTER 2: REDUCING WATER SEEPAGE WITH ANIONIC
POLYACRYLAMIDE: APPLICATION METHODS AND TURBIDITY
EFFECTS1 2
Brian T. Story, M.ASCE3; Michael A. Urynowicz4; Drew W. Johnson5; Jessica A. Morris6
ABSTRACT Column and flume experiments examined the effectiveness and longevity of three anionic
Polyacrylamide (PAM) application methods in uniform silica sand with and without
added suspended solids. Hydraulic conductivity reduction (HCR) and treatment
longevity proceeded in the order: granular surface turbid > granular surface > slurry
surface >> liquid injection turbid > liquid injection. Low turbidity (0.4 NTU) liquid
injection column tests showed 20-65% HCR, likely by an extensional viscosity
mechanism. HCR was enhanced by added suspended solids, especially at low PAM
concentrations. High turbidity (100 NTU) column tests showed 66-77% HCR, likely by
surficial PAM-clay aggregate filtration. Column and adsorption tests strongly suggest
PAM-sand adsorption does cause significant HCR. In low turbidity flume tests, slurry
surface application produced up to 100% HCR, likely through a viscosity mechanism,
and granular surface application produced up to 100% HCR, likely by fixed surficial
polymer gel formation. Hydraulic conductivity returned to control adjusted pre-treatment
levels following PAM application in all tests except granular surface applications at high
mass loads or with high turbidity.
DOI:
CE Database subject headings: Polyacrylamide; Irrigation; Canals; Extensional
Viscosity; Seepage.
1 Paper to be submitted to the Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. Reston, VA. 2 Paper to be presented in Tampa, FL at the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007,
May 13-17. 3 Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Univ. of Wyoming, P.O. Box
3295, University Station, Laramie, WY 82071. E-mail: [email protected] 4 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Univ. of Wyoming, P.O. Box
3295, University Station, Laramie, WY 82071. E-mail: [email protected] 5 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Univ. of Wyoming, P.O. Box
3295, University Station, Laramie, WY 82071. E-mail: [email protected] 6 Engineering Intern, CH2M HILL, 9 South Washington, Spokane, Washington, 99201
12
INTRODUCTION
Polyacrylamide (PAM) is a polymer composed of repeating acrylamide
monomers. Currently, PAM is used in water treatment as a flocculent for solids removal
and wastewater treatment for sludge dewatering (Friedman 2003). High molecular
weight (12-15 Mg/mol) PAM with an 8-35% charge density is used as a soil amendment
in agriculture (Lentz et al. 2000). Polyacrylamide substantially reduces soil erosion by
flocculating dispersed clay particles into stable aggregates (Green and Stoutt, 2001).
When applied to irrigation furrows, PAM application rates of 5-20 mg/l have reduced soil
erosion by as much as 98% (Lentz et al. 1992). Also, many studies have shown that at
the recommended applied concentration of 10 mg/l, PAM application to unsaturated
irrigation furrows increases water infiltration rates in medium textured soils by reducing
clay crust formation (Lentz et al. 1992; Lentz et al. 1995; Shainberg et al. 1990; Trout et
al. 1995). Over many field applications to medium and fine textured soils, PAM
treatment increased water infiltration an average of 15% (Lentz et al. 1995). Adsorption
studies have concluded that while PAM sorption depends on polymer, soil, and water
properties, once adsorption equilibrium is achieved, very little or no desorption occurs if
aqueous PAM is removed. When PAM-soil solutions are dried, the majority of PAM
remaining in solution becomes irreversibly bonded to the soil (Nadler et al. 1992).
Water resources are limited, and water conservation is an increasing priority for
water managers. An estimated 17% of water diverted for irrigation is lost in conveyance
(Lentz 2003), and infiltration of water into unlined conveyance channels accounts for
much of this loss. Polyacrylamide addition to canals has the potential to provide a means
of reducing canal seepage (Lentz 2003; Morris 2006). Successful PAM treatments in
laboratory flumes have reduced hydraulic conductivity by 60 to >99% (Lentz 2003).
Malik and Letey (1992) showed up to 99% Hydraulic conductivity reduction (HCR) in
saturated permeameter experiments with 0-400 mg/l PAM solutions in silica sand.
Surprisingly, kinematic viscosity values were significantly too low to account for the
observed infiltration reduction. Also, the discrepancy between measured and observed
kinematic viscosity values was 200-400% greater in fine sand (r<0.5 mm) than in coarse
sand (0.5-1 mm). As a result, both Lentz (2003) and Malik and Letey (1992) concluded
13
that seepage reduction is caused by an extensional viscosity mechanism. The theory of
extensional viscosity states that anionic PAM molecules rotate and extend when exposed
to simple shear flow gradients. When the flow is bounded on both sides, as it is in porous
media, shear flow gradients act in opposing rotational directions, causing suspended
particles to extend without rotating (Interthall and Hass 1981). This extension, known as
extensional viscosity, causes an enormous increase in flow resistance (Cowan 2001).
Although several field PAM applications across the western United States appear
to have substantially reduced canal seepage reduction, several significant questions
remain. First, seepage reduction has been variable. Second, dominant seepage reduction
mechanisms are not well understood. Third, even though Conservation Practice
Standards have been adopted by many western states, PAM application techniques vary
widely, appear to produce mixed results, and are not comprehensively discussed in
literature. Fourth, treatment longevity has not been rigorously examined. Finally, the
effect of water turbidity on treatment effectiveness has not been rigorously examined.
This study examined the effectiveness, treatment longevity, and turbidity effect for three
polymer application methods (liquid injection, slurry surface application, and granular
surface application) in silica sand using column and flume experiments. Dominant HCR
mechanisms were also examined with column, flume, adsorption, and viscosity
experiments.
METHODS
Materials
All laboratory investigations were conducted in the pilot lab (B-135) in the
Engineering building at the University of Wyoming. Kaolinite clay was used to create
aqueous phase suspended solids. Solutions were prepared by combining 40 g of clay and
120 liters of tap water in a 189-liter tank. Water in the tank was then stirred and turbidity
samples were collected and measured with a Model 2100A Hach® Ratio Turbidimeter
(Hach Environmental, Loveland, CO). Turbidity was quantified using the standard unit,
Number of Turbidity Units (NTU). Additional clay was added as necessary to create
solutions with initial water turbidities of 100, 50, and 10 NTU. Uniform #20 pool filter
14
silica sand (0.45-0.55 mm, 40 % porosity, <1.4 U.C., 99.88% SiO2) was used as the
porous media in the column and flume studies (U.S. Silica Company, Berkeley Spring,
WV).
Stock polyacrylamide solutions (1000 mg/l and 9540 mg/l) were prepared by
mixing PAM and tap water and allowing the resulting slurry to hydrate for at least 36
hours. Experimental PAM solutions were prepared by diluting stock solutions to the
appropriate concentration with tap water. Exacto Polytex® EC (Exacto, Inc., Battleboro,
NC) was the polymer used for all experiments except the granular application tests.
Exacto Polytex® EC is an emulsified anionic PAM, 30% charge density, which contains
55.8% active polyacrylamide ingredient and 44.2% dispersing agents. Polytex® DC was
the polymer used for surface granular applications. Polytex® DC (Exacto, Inc.,
Battleboro, NC) is a dry granular PAM that contains 80% active ingredient and has a
30% charge density. In all cases, PAM concentrations refer to the concentration of active
ingredient, not the concentration of raw product.
Adsorption Study
To better determine adsorption effects on hydraulic conductivity, sorption studies
were conducted with PAM and silica sand. With these tests, 150 grams of sand and 150
ml PAM solutions ranging from 0-5000 mg/l were combined in 300 ml glass reaction
vessels. The vessels were shaken on a shaker table at ambient temperature (~20oC) for
48 hours, allowing PAM sorption to reach equilibrium. The supernatant solution was
collected, and liquid phase PAM concentrations were determined with Volatile
Suspended Solid (VSS) tests (ASTM Method 2540-D), assuming PAM is 64% volatile
by weight, as reported by the manufacturer. Adsorbed PAM mass was assumed to be the
difference between initial and final liquid phase PAM mass.
Column Studies
Two sets of column tests were conducted with a hydraulic head change of 14.61
cm. Six columns ran simultaneously at ambient temperature (~20oC) with one control
column. To minimize air entrainment effects, columns were backflow saturated with de-
aired water prior to PAM treatment. De-aired water was used for the duration of the
15
tests. Water was de-aired by bubbling helium gas into the water supply tank. As shown
in Figure 2.1, during PAM application, de-aired tap water with 0.4, 10, 50, or 100 NTU
turbidity was pumped into a 114 liter gravity feed tank with a Masterflex® L/S Standard
Drive Pump and size 24 Masterflex® tubing (Cole-Parmer Instrument Company, Vernon
Hills, IL). Water flowed from the tank into 400 ml mixing jars. For the liquid injection
tests, concentrated PAM solutions were metered in to the mixing jars with a Masterflex®
L/S six-drive peristaltic pump for approximately 4 hours. The water and concentrated
PAM solutions were mixed in the mixing jars with a Lab-Line® Multi Magne Drive
mixer (Lab-Line Instrument Inc., Melrose, IL). Next, the mixed PAM solutions flowed
into saturated permeameter columns 49.0 cm long and 5.1 cm in diameter packed with
uniform silica sand. Infiltration rates were measured gravimetrically with a Mettler®
FE/60 balance (Mettler Toledo, Inc., Columbus, OH). Applied PAM concentrations
increased over the course of the test since total flowrate into the columns decreased but
concentrated PAM solutions were pumped in at a constant mass loading rate. De-aired
tap water was applied immediately following PAM treatment until hydraulic conductivity
returned to pre-treatment levels.
Discharge collection
Pump
Mixing jars
Columns
Water supply tank
Overflow
Gravity Feed tank
Peristaltic Pump
PAM Solutions
Figure 2.1 - Schematic of the constant head permeameter used in the column studies
16
In addition to liquid injection, a set of granular surface column tests were
conducted. After backflow saturation and pre-treatment hydraulic conductivity
determination, the water head was lowered to the porous media surface and a granular
PAM product (POLYTEX DC®) was sprinkled onto the porous media surface at mass
loading rates of 22.4, 44.8, and 101 grams of active PAM ingredient per sand surface
square meter (g/m2). Next, the water head was raised to 14.6 cm and infiltration rates
were measured gravimetrically. Tests were run in this manner with 0.4 NTU and 100
NTU water.
Flume Studies
To determine the optimal polymer application technique, flume studies
investigated three polymer application methods: liquid injection, slurry surface
application, and granular surface application. Four flumes ran simultaneously with one
control flume. A constant hydraulic head of 21 cm was maintained for the liquid
injection experiment, which produced an infiltration velocity similar to the column tests.
Since hydraulic conductivity quickly returned to pre-treatment levels, the remaining tests
(slurry and granular surface application) were conducted at a hydraulic head of 9.1 cm.
As shown in Figure 2.2, tap water from a 3800 liter storage tank was gravity fed from a
de-gassing chamber, through 1.9 cm (¾ inch) ID flexible tubing, and into a 1.7 liter
mixing chamber. The water then flowed in to the flumes which were 290 cm long and 12
cm wide. A downstream weir maintained a flow depth of 9.5 cm. Before reaching the
downstream weir, water flowed over columns filled with uniform silica sand (12.7 cm by
12.7 cm by 41.9 cm long). Up to 50% of the water infiltrated into the sand columns, and
the remaining water flowed through the flume, over a broad-crested weir, into a 1.7 liter
overflow collection chamber, and discharged to a floor drain. Infiltration water flowed
through the sand columns and out through 0.6 cm (¼ inch) ID flexible tubing to the
discharge point. Infiltration rates were measured gravimetrically. Tests ran until
hydraulic conductivity returned to pre-treatment levels. Similar to the column tests, air
entrainment was minimized by backflow saturating the sand columns with de-aired water
prior to PAM treatment. For the flume studies, water was de-aired inline for the test
17
duration by bubbling helium gas into the degassing chamber. Helium flowrates were
adjusted to maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations of less than 2 mg/l.
OverflowDischarge
Direction of flow
Seepage Discharge
Sandcollumn
Pump
PAM
Weir
In-line mixer
3800 LStorage Tank
De-gassing chamber Overflow
collectionchamber
Influent chamber
Water infiltration
Figure 2.2 – Schematic of the flumes used in flume studies
With liquid injection, stock PAM solutions were pumped through 0.6 cm ID
tubing from a stock solution jar into the influent tubing lines and mixed with static in-line
mixers. A Cole-Parmer® CP 7553-10 peristaltic pump (Cole-Parmer Instrument
Company, Vernon Hills, IL) maintained a constant mass loading rate. The resulting 72
mg/l solution flowed into the flumes and sand columns. With slurry surface application,
after backflow saturation, the water level was lowered to the sand surface. Concentrated
PAM slurry (1,500 or 9540 mg/l) was sprayed on the sand surface with a hand spray
nozzle. The flumes were then re-filled with water, and infiltration rates were measured
until they returned to pre-treatment levels. For granular surface application, after
backflow saturation and Ko determination, the water level was lowered and PAM
granules (Polytex® DC) were sprinkled onto the sand surface. The sand/PAM surface
was wetted with water and the granules were allowed to partially hydrate. The flumes
were then re-filled with water and infiltration rates were measured until they returned to
pre-treatment levels.
18
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Column Studies
Liquid injection column studies were conducted with added water turbidity of 0.4,
10, 50, and 100 NTU. Also, granular surface column tests were conducted with 0.4 and
100 NTU water.
Liquid Injection
Liquid injection column study results are summarized in Table 2.1. Figure 2.3
shows representative normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time for column tests at
0.4 and 100 NTU. Normalized hydraulic conductivity was obtained by dividing
hydraulic conductivity by pre-treatment hydraulic conductivity for each time step.
Although hydraulic conductivity decreased over the entire application period, most of the
reduction occurred in the beginning of the test. With turbidity addition, hydraulic
conductivity values in the control dropped slightly (11% in the 100 NTU tests), likely the
result of surficial suspended solids filtration. Hydraulic conductivity returned to pre-
treatment levels within 20 hours of the end of PAM application for all tests. Notably, in
the 100 NTU tests, HCR was maintained for approximately 4 hours following PAM
treatment in the lowest concentration (23 mg/l) column, while conductivity levels began
rising to background levels immediately following treatment in the other columns. In jar
tests examining PAM-clay coagulation/flocculation behavior, Morris (2006) found that
ideal PAM-clay aggregate settling occurs at low (1-2 mg/l) PAM concentrations. At
higher PAM concentrations, PAM-clay aggregates formed, but settling was impaired.
Since PAM concentrations were much greater than 1-2 mg/l, aggregate formation was
likely limited by clay mass loading. Also, the observed low-concentration longevity
increase is likely attributable to the fact that the lowest applied concentration came
closest to the ideal coagulation/flocculation concentration.
19
Table 2.1- Liquid injection column study results for 0.4, 10, 50 and 100 NTU experiments
Water turbidity Mass load Initial
concentration Maximum
concentration Initial
infiltration rate Minimum
infiltration rate Minimum normalized hydraulic conductivity
Pore Volume for 80% recovery
(NTU) (g/m2) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ml/min) (ml/min)0.4 0 0.0 0.0 67.8 62.7 0.93 N/A0.4 23 17.3 19.5 62.2 49.5 0.801 N/A0.4 57 47.1 58.3 64.4 41.1 0.645 5.60.4 57 47.1 58.1 65.1 40.4 0.637 5.00.4 57 52.7 73.1 57.6 33.0 0.580 3.20.4 114 132.5 221.6 61.1 21.0 0.350 19.210 0 0.0 0.0 59.5 51.5 0.87 N/A10 23 16.6 18.3 62.2 40.8 0.736 2.410 57 46.3 54.2 65.3 33.2 0.578 7.310 57 48.9 56.2 69.5 32.7 0.525 6.110 57 55.1 61.3 66.5 29.1 0.495 9.910 114 142.4 198.7 62.8 14.6 0.298 14.150 0 0.0 0.0 62.7 51.1 0.810 N/A50 23 18.6 27.2 58.5 19.9 0.507 11.050 57 52.9 76.7 61.7 20.0 0.463 12.750 57 53.7 83.5 63.4 19.0 0.416 12.950 57 53.6 84.1 61.5 17.7 0.416 12.250 114 133.1 252.1 62.0 10.0 0.292 14.1100 0 0.0 0.0 58.4 51.1 0.875 N/A100 23 22.6 51.0 58.6 7.3 0.227 15.6100 57 56.4 98.3 60.1 15.7 0.344 19.9100 57 65.7 115.7 58.5 13.0 0.314 22.2100 57 68.2 124.5 56.1 12.4 0.273 22.6100 114 141.6 342.0 57.2 6.6 0.226 22.4
0.4 NTU
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (h)
Nor
mal
ized
Hyd
raul
ic C
ondu
ctiv
ity (K
/Ko
)
0 mg/l
17 mg/l
47 mg/l
133 mg/l
100 NTU
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (h)
Nor
mal
ized
Hyd
raul
ic C
ondu
ctiv
ity (K
/Ko)
0 mg/l
23 mg/l
66 mg/l
142 mg/l
End of treatment
End of treatment
Figure 2.3 –Representative normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time for liquid injection
column tests
Figure 2.4 shows minimum normalized hydraulic conductivity as a function of
initial PAM concentration. Minimum hydraulic conductivity values were adjusted for
changes in the control column. In all cases, added suspended solids enhanced HCR,
especially at low PAM concentrations. For example, at low (15-25 mg/l) concentrations,
100 NTU minimum normalized conductivity values were 57.4% lower than 0.4 NTU
20
values, while at high concentrations (130-145 mg/l), 100 NTU minimum normalized
hydraulic conductivity values were only 12 % lower than 0.4 NTU values. Also, linear
curve fits indicate minimum normalized hydraulic conductivity is proportional to PAM
concentration (R2 = 0.90 to 0.96) at 0, 10 and 50 NTU. The slope of the minimum
hydraulic conductivity versus polymer concentration lines decreased as turbidity
increased, suggesting PAM concentration plays less of a role as water turbidity increases.
In 100 NTU water, the slope of the line was close to zero, which suggests that in high
turbidity water, significant HCR can be achieved at low PAM concentrations (23 mg/l).
y = -0.004x + 0.823R2 = 0.958
y = -0.003x + 0.722R2 = 0.903
y = -0.002x + 0.534R2 = 0.942
y = -0.000x + 0.299R2 = 0.069
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Polymer Concentration (mg/l)
Min
imum
nor
mal
ized
hyd
raul
ic c
ondu
ctiv
ity
0.4 NTU
10 NTU
50 NTU
100 NTU
Figure 2.4 – Minimum normalized hydraulic conductivity as a function of initial polymer
concentration for liquid injection column tests
Figure 2.5 shows the number of pore volumes required for hydraulic conductivity
to return to 80% of pre-treatment levels as a function of PAM concentration. Added
suspended solids enhanced treatment longevity. Similar to HCR results, this longevity
increase was especially pronounced at low (20-80 mg/l) PAM concentrations.
21
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Polymer concentration (mg/l)
Pore
Vol
ume
for 8
0% h
ydra
ulic
con
duct
ivity
reco
very
0.4 NTU
10 NTU
50 NTU
100 NTU
Figure 2.5 - Number of pore volumes required for hydraulic conductivity to return to 80% of pre-
treatment levels as a function of initial polymer concentration for liquid injection column tests
Kinematic viscosity, extensional viscosity, PAM-clay aggregate filtration, and
PAM-sand adsorption were all examined as possible HCR mechanisms with liquid
injection. According to Darcy’s equation, saturated fluid flow is inversely proportional to
kinematic viscosity
Q = -Kia = -(kg/υ)ia (2.1)
where Q = volumetric flow rate; K = hydraulic conductivity; k = intrinsic permeability; g
= gravitational constant; υ = kinematic viscosity; i = hydraulic gradient; and A = cross
sectional area. From Equation 2.1, the solution kinematic viscosity required to achieve
the observed conductivity reduction, υo, was calculated for each set of column tests
according to the relationship
υo = υw(Qw/Qs) (2.2)
where υo = kinematic viscosity required to account for the maximum observed HCR; υw =
water kinematic viscosity; Qw = water flowrate; and Qs = minimum PAM solution
flowrate. To characterize kinematic viscosity effects on hydraulic conductivity, the
22
kinematic viscosity of 0-10,000 mg/l PAM solutions was measured with glass capillary
viscometers in accordance with ASTM D-445. Tests were run in duplicate or triplicate.
The resulting viscosity curve is shown as a solid line in Figure 2.6. Each point in Figure
2.6 represents the kinematic viscosity required to account for the observed HCR in a
single column test as calculated with Equation 2.2. Clearly, kinematic viscosity is not
high enough to account for the observed HCR. As a result, most of the HCR is likely
attributable to solution extensional viscosity, as described in the introduction section.
y = -7E-10x3 + 2E-06x2 + 0.0006x + 1.0076R2 = 0.9992
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Maximum Polymer Concentration (mg/l)
Kin
emat
ic V
isco
sity
(mm
2 /s)
Measured0.4 NTU10 NTU50 NTU100 NTU
Figure 2.6 - Kinematic viscosity required to account for the observed hydraulic conductivity
reduction as a function of maximum polymer concentration. The solid line represents measured
kinematic viscosity.
Hydraulic conductivity effects were significantly different in high turbidity (100
NTU) experiments, where HCR did not vary significantly with changing PAM
concentration (Figure 2.4), and the time and number of pore volumes required for
hydraulic conductivity to return to 80% of pre-treatment levels was enhanced (Figure 2.5).
Also, instead of flushing through the columns, the PAM-clay aggregates formed a thin
gelatinous film on the column surface which remained intact for the test duration. These
23
results suggest an alternate HCR mechanism dominates during turbid water application.
When turbidity is added to PAM solutions, suspended particles adsorb to charged
functional groups on the polymer molecules, forming large aggregated particles. Since
both the polymer and colloidal particles are negatively charged, divalent cations, present
in tap water, provide the required electrostatic attraction through a cation bridging
mechanism (Shainberg et al. 1990; Laird 1997). Next, flocculated PAM-clay aggregates
rapidly settle and filter out of the water near the column surface. As filtered aggregates
accumulate, they likely physically plug pore spaces, resulting in significant HCR at the
media surface. Kawamura (1975) found similar results over years of design and
operation of sand filters for water treatment. To maintain hydraulic conductivity, he
suggested limiting polymer concentrations to the 10-30 μg/l range.
Adsorption Study
Adsorption isotherm data were plotted and fit with the Langmuir Equation
q = QobC/(1+bC) (2.3)
where q = polymer mass adsorbed per dry unit sand mass; Qo = polymer mass adsorbed
per dry unit sand mass at complete surface coverage; b = constant representing energy of
interaction; and C = equilibrium liquid phase polymer concentration. For PAM and silica
sand, Qo was 832 μg/g, and b was 0.0011 mg/l. The resulting curve (Figure 2.7) shows
PAM that is capable of adsorbing to sand particles in the column.
24
Langmuir Isotherm
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Polymer Concentration (mg/L)
q (μ
g/g)
953.0
0011.188.0
2 =
+=
r
CCq
q = 0.88 C/(1+0.0011 C) r2 = 0.953
Figure 2.7 - Polymer adsorption by silica sand as described with the Langmuir Equation
Initially, we hypothesized that adsorbed PAM may either physically clog the pore
spaces or extend into the pore spaces and exert drag on the passing water with liquid
injection in low-turbidity water. A series of calculations helps determine an order of
magnitude estimate of PAM volume adsorbed during the column studies. For the highest
mass loading liquid injection test (114 g/m2) in 0.4 NTU water, the maximum PAM
concentration was 222 mg/l. According to the adsorption isotherm, at this concentration,
157 mg, or 15.4% of the applied polymer mass adsorbed to the sand. Using the specific
gravity for PAM reported by the manufacturer, 157 mg of PAM correlates to 0.16 ml of
PAM, which would only fill 0.04% of the column pore volume (397 ml). As a result, it is
unlikely that adsorbed PAM causes significant HCR by physically filling the pore spaces.
In addition, Nadler et al. (1992) showed that once PAM is adsorbed to quartz sand, very
little to no desorption occurs after PAM is removed from solution. As a result, HCR by
PAM sorption should be persistent. In contrast, hydraulic conductivity returned to 80%
of pre-treatment values within 22 pore volumes of the end of PAM application in 0.4
NTU tests (Figure 2.4). As a result, while PAM-sand adsorption occurred in the
columns, it is unlikely that it contributed significantly to HCR.
25
Column Granular Surface Application
As shown in Figure 2.8, turbidity significantly enhanced both the magnitude and
longevity of HCR with granular PAM treatment.
0.4 NTU
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 10 20 30 40 50time (h)
Nor
mal
ized
Hyd
raul
ic C
ondu
ctiv
ity
Red
uctio
n (K
/Ko)
0 g/m222 g/m245 g/m2101 g/m2
100 NTU
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 10 20 30 40 5time (h)
Nor
mal
ized
Hyd
raul
ic C
ondu
ctiv
ity
Red
uctio
n (K
/Ko
)
0
0 g/m222 g/m245 g/m2101 g/m2
Figure 2.8 – Normalized mean hydraulic conductivity versus time for granular surface application
column tests
At 22 and 45 g/m2 mass loadings, the increase in HCR from 0.4 NTU to 100 NTU
water was 34% and 19%, respectively (Figure 2.8). More significantly, added suspended
solids dramatically increased treatment longevity. In 0.4 NTU tests, hydraulic
conductivity slowly returned to pre-treatment levels. Conversely, in 100 NTU tests,
hydraulic conductivity values only returned to a maximum 28% of pre-treatment levels
after 48 hours of 100 NTU water application. Granular surface application results are
summarized in Table 2.2.
26
Table 2.2 - Granular surface test results for 0.4 and 100 NTU experiments
Water turbidity Mass load Initial
infiltration rate
Minimum infiltration
rate
Minimum normalized hydraulic conductivity
(NTU) (g/m2) (ml/min) (ml/min)0.4 0 64.9 60.3 0.9290.4 22 57.3 12.1 0.2110.4 22 59.8 29.6 0.4940.4 22 62.1 31.0 0.5000.4 45 57.5 7.6 0.1330.4 45 56.5 14.7 0.2600.4 45 60.1 11.8 0.1960.4 101 51.8 0.0 0.0000.4 101 56.3 0.6 0.0110.4 101 53.0 0.0 0.000100 0 60.4 32.8 0.540100 22 52.0 8.9 0.170100 22 63.0 9.1 0.144100 45 60.1 0.0 0.000100 45 61.7 0.5 0.009100 101 58.7 0.0 0.000
With surface granular application, significant HCR likely occurred as PAM
hydrated to form a fixed polymer-sand gel layer. Polyacrylamide gel formation is
described in detail in the Flume Studies section. When 100 NTU water was applied,
suspended particles likely adsorbed to charged functional groups on the PAM gel surface.
These adsorbed colloidal particles likely reduced hydraulic conductivity by physically
restricting flow through small capillary pore flow paths in the polymer gel.
Flume Studies
Flume studies were conducted in 0.4 NTU water with three surface application
methods: liquid injection, spray surface application, and granular surface application.
Table 2.3 summarizes the flume study test results.
27
Table 2.3 -Flume study results for liquid injection (LI), spray surface application (SS), and granular
surface application (GS) experiments
Application method Mass load Initial infiltration
rate Minimum
infiltration rate Minimum normalized hydraulic conductivity
(g/m2) (mg/l) (mg/l)LI 344 421 350 0.831LI 243 292 250 0.855LI 249 297 257 0.865SS 2.2 134 130 0.973SS 4.5 208 196 0.944SS 9 148 140 0.945SS 22 239 211 0.885SS 45 230 153 0.667SS 112 224 83 0.369SS 168 136 0 0.000GS 11 146 133 0.910GS 22 147 132 0.898GS 45 206 32 0.154GS 112 219 0 0.000GS 168 135 0 0.000
Liquid Injection
With liquid injection, hydraulic conductivity decreased rapidly during the first
two pore volumes (20 minutes) of PAM application, then remained essentially constant
relative to the control for the remaining 3 hours of PAM application (Figure 2.9). Also,
hydraulic conductivity returned to pre-treatment levels within five pore volumes of the
end of PAM treatment. Similar to low turbidity column tests, absolute solution viscosity
was not high enough to account for the observed HCR. In fact, according to viscosity test
results and Darcy’s law, the kinematic viscosity of a 72 mg/l PAM solution will produce
5.8% HCR. This is significantly lower than the observed mean 15% HCR. As a result, it
is likely that extensional viscosity is the dominant HCR mechanism. Liquid injection
flume tests showed significantly lower HCR than liquid injection column tests. Using the
linear curve fit in Figure 2.4, the estimated maximum HCR at 72 mg/l would have been
44% for the 0.4 NTU column tests, which is significantly higher than the mean 15% HCR
observed in flume tests.
28
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
time (h)
Norm
aliz
ed H
ydra
ulic
Con
duct
ivity
(K
/Ko)
0 g/m2
243 g/m2
249 g/m2
344 g/m2
End of treatment
Figure 2.9 - Normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time for 72 mg/l liquid injection flume tests
Slurry Surface Application
Slurry surface application produced significantly more HCR at lower mass
loading rates than liquid injection. As shown in Figure 2.10, slurry surface application
reduced hydraulic conductivity at mass loading rates as low as 22 g/m2, where 12% HCR
was observed. At high mass loadings, a 158 g/m2 slurry surface treatment temporarily
produced 100% HCR.
29
Slurry Surface
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6time (h)
Nor
mal
ized
Hyd
raul
ic C
ondu
ctiv
ity
(K/K
o)
0 g/m222 g/m245 g/m2112 g/m2168 g/m2
Figure 2.10 – Normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time for slurry surface application flume
tests
At mass loading rates of 22 and 56 g/m2, hydraulic conductivity decreased for 0.9
and 1.3 pore volumes, respectively, before slowly returning to pre-treatment levels.
Since PAM was first visually observed in seepage effluent at least 0.5 pore volumes prior
to the maximum HCR point, the initial hydraulic conductivity decrease was likely caused
by PAM seeping through the sand columns. PAM continued to seep through the
columns, visually clouding seepage effluent samples from 0.5 to 8 pore volumes. Since
hydraulic conductivity values returned to pre-treatment levels as aqueous-phase PAM
flushed through the columns, extensional viscosity likely caused most of the observed
HCR. As shown in Figure 2.11, a direct correlation between applied mass load and
minimum normalized hydraulic conductivity exists for slurry surface application in silica
sand (R2 =0.997).
30
Slurry Surface
y = -0.0058x + 0.9932R2 = 0.9975
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 50 100 150 200
Mass load (lb/acre)
Min
imum
Nor
mal
ized
Hyd
raul
icC
ondu
ctiv
ity
Figure 2.11 – Minimum normalized hydraulic conductivity as a function of polymer mass load for
slurry surface application flume tests
Granular Surface Application
Similar to slurry surface application, granular surface application produced
significantly more HCR than liquid injection. As shown in Figure 2.12, granular surface
application caused HCR at mass loading rates as low as 11 g/m2, where 9% HCR was
observed. At the other end of the spectrum, both 112 and 168 g/m2 applications produced
persistent 100% HCR. At mass loadings of 56, and 112 g/m2, granular surface
application produced 51% and 37% more HCR, respectively, than 56 and 112 g/m2 slurry
surface tests. Also, granular treatment longevity was significantly greater than slurry
treatment longevity. For example, at 56 g/m2, granular surface and slurry surface
application took 15.1 and 1.8 pore volumes, respectively, to return to 80% of pre-
treatment levels.
31
Granular Surface
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20
time (h)
Nor
mal
ized
Hyd
raul
ic C
ondu
ctiv
ity
(K/K
o)
0 g/m211 g/m222 g/m2112 g/m2168 g/m2
Figure 2.12 - Normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time for granular surface application flume
tests
In all granular surface application tests, hydraulic conductivity decreased for the
first 0.4-1.5 hours of water application (0.2-3.1 pore volumes). This decrease likely
occurred as the PAM granules hydrated to form a fixed PAM-sand gel layer. The gel
layer visually extended as far as 1 cm above the sand surface and as far as 2 cm down
into the sand. Once hydrated, the gel layer remained fixed throughout the test duration.
Visual characterization of water flow through high-molecular weight polyacrylamide gels
suggest water flows through the capillary pores in the gel as it flows through a porous
medium, except permeability varies as a power-law function of water velocity (Al-Sharji
et al. 2001). Grattoni et al. (2001) measured the pressure drop of water across anionic
polyacrylamide gels crosslinked with Chromium (III) and found that as water velocity
increases, gel permeability increases according to a power law relationship. In addition,
gel permeability decreased with increasing polymer concentration, also according to a
power law relationship. Finally, Grattoni et al. (2001) suggested that flow through
32
polymer gels can be completely halted if the pressure gradient is lower than the
“interaction forces” within the crosslinked gel network.
CONCLUSIONS
Column and flume studies were conducted with and without added suspended
solids to determine treatment effectiveness, longevity, and dominant HCR mechanisms
for three polyacrylamide application methods: liquid injection, slurry surface application,
and granular surface application. Liquid injection column tests at 23-114 g/m2 caused
20-65% HCR in 0.4 NTU water. With low turbidity liquid injection, it is likely that HCR
was caused by an extensional viscosity mechanism. It is unlikely that PAM-sand
adsorption accounted for the observed HCR. Suspended solids enhanced HCR for liquid
injection column tests, where 23-114 g/m2 injections caused 66-77% HCR in 100 NTU
water. This enhancement was especially pronounced in low PAM concentration
treatments. With added turbidly, PAM-clay aggregates were filtered out of the water at
the sand column surface, likely through an attachment or interstitial straining mechanism.
Slurry surface application produced significantly more HCR than liquid injection,
where 22-112 g/m2 flume tests caused 12-100% HCR in 0.4 NTU water, likely by a
viscosity mechanism. Granular surface application was the most effective treatment
method, where 11-168 g/m2 flume tests caused 10-100% HCR in 0.4 NTU water. With
granular surface application, PAM granules hydrated to form a fixed polymer gel in the
upper sand layer and likely caused HCR by physically filling pore spaces. Turbid water
addition enhanced HCR 20-35%, relative to low turbidity granular surface application,
likely by flocculating with the polymer gel and further restricting flow paths.
With the exception of granular surface applications at high (<112 g/m2) mass
loadings and with added suspended solids (100 NTU), hydraulic conductivity returned to
control-adjusted pre-treatment levels within 2-100 pore volumes (0.5-42 hours) following
PAM treatment. Treatment longevity proceeded in the order granular turbid >> granular
> slurry surface >> liquid injection turbid > liquid injection. All tests were conducted in
0.45-0.55 mm uniform silica sand. Since HCR with PAM addition is highly pore-size
dependant, the magnitude of PAM effect could potentially be much greater and more
persistent under field conditions where the pore sizes of silts and clays are much smaller.
33
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Wyoming Water Development Commission for
funding this study.
NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A = cross sectional area;
b = constant representing energy of interaction;
C = equilibrium liquid phase polymer concentration;
g = gravitational constant;
i = hydraulic gradient;
q = polymer mass adsorbed per dry unit sand mass;
Q = volumetric flow rate;
Qo = polymer mass adsorbed per dry unit sand mass at complete surface coverage;
Qs = minimum PAM solution flowrate;
Qw = water flowrate;
k = intrinsic permeability;
K = hydraulic conductivity;
Ko = hydraulic conductivity;
υ = kinematic viscosity;
υo = kinematic viscosity required to account for observed HCR; and
υw = water kinematic viscosity (m2/s);
34
WORKS CITED Al-Sharji, H.H., C. A. Grattoni, R. A. Dawe, and R. W. Zimmerman. (2001). “Flow of
Oil and Water through Elastic Polymer Gels.” Oil & Gas Sci. and Tech., 56, 145-152.
Cowan, M. E. (2001). “Water-soluble polymers. Correlation of experimentally
determined drag reduction efficiency and extensional viscosity of high molecular weight polymers in dilute aqueous solution.” J. App. Poly. Sci., 82, 1222-1231.
Friedman, M. (2003). “Chemistry, biochemistry, and safety of acrylamide. A review.” J.
Agr. and Food Chem., 51, 4504-4526. Grattoni, C. A., H. H. Al-Sharji, C. Yang, A. H. Muggeridge, and R. W. Zimmerman.
“Rheology and Permeability of Crosslinked Polyacrylamide Gel.” (2001). J. Col. and Interf. Sci., 240, 601-607.
Green, S. V. and D. E. Stoutt. (2001). “Polyacrylamide: A Review of the Use,
Effectiveness, and Cost of a Soil Erosion Control Amendment.” Paper presented at the 10th Int. Soil Cons. Org. Mtng., Purdue University.
Interthall, W. and R. Hass. (1981). “Effects of dilute polymer solutions on porous media
flows. Part I: Basic concepts and experimental results.” Flow and Trans. in Por. Med. Proc. Euromech. Delft, the Netherlands 2-4 September, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands: 157-162.
Kawamura, S. (1975). “Design and Operation of High-Rate Filters-Part 1.” J. of the
AWWA, 91, 535-544. Laird, D. A. (1997). “Bonding between polyacrylamide and clay mineral surfaces.” Soil
Sci., 162, 826-832. Lentz, R. D. (2003). “Inhibiting water infiltration with polyacrylamide and surfactants:
Applications for irrigated agriculture.” J. Soil and Water Cons., 58, 290-300. Lentz, R. D., I. Shainberg, R.E. Sojka, and D.L. Carter. (1992). “Preventing irrigation
furrow erosion with small applications of polymers.” Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., 56, 1926-1932.
Lentz, R. D., R. E. Sojka, and C. W. Ross. (2000). “Polymer Charge and Molecular
Weight Effects on Treated Irrigation Furrow Processes.” Int. J. of Sed. Res., 15, 17-30.
Lentz, R.D., T. D. Steiber, R.E. Sojka. (1995). “Applying Polyacrylamide (PAM) to
Reduce Erosion and Increase infiltration Under Furrow Irrigation.” Proc. of the Winter Comm. Schools, 27, 79-92.
35
Malik, M. and J. Letey. (1992). “Pore-Size-Dependent Apparent Viscosity for Organic
Solutes in Saturated Porous Media.” Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. J., 56, 1032-1035. Morris, J. (2006). “Organic Polymer Addition for Reducing Conveyance Seepage.” M.S.
Thesis of the U. of Wyo. Nadler, A., M. Malik, and J. Letey. (1992). “Desorption of Polyacrylamide and
Polysaccharide Polymers from Soil Materials.” Soil Tech. 5, 91-95. Shainberg, I., D. N. Warrington, and P. Rengasmy. (1990). “Water quality and PAM
interactions in reducing surface sealing.” Soil Sci. 149, 301-307. Trout, T. J., R. E. Sojka and R. D. Lentz. (1995) “Polyacrylamide effect on furrow
erosion and infiltration.” Trans. ASAE. 38, 761-765.
36
CHAPTER 3: BORDEAUX LATERAL CANAL POLYMER
APPLICATION: FIELD REPORT7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Polyacrylamide (PAM) is a polymer composed of repeating acrylamide
monomers. Although PAM application to reduce soil erosion and increase water
retention is common in agriculture, ongoing research suggests PAM application may be
effective in reducing seepage in unlined irrigation canals. The Bordeaux polymer
application test was conducted on a 1500-foot long section of the Bordeaux lateral canal
near Wheatland, Wyoming. The test was part of an ongoing Wyoming Water
Development Commission (WWDC) funded polyacrylamide study. In addition, the test
was a follow-up to a Level II Conservation Study of the Wheatland Irrigation District
(WID). The Bordeaux lateral canal delivers 10-40 cfs with water turbidities ranging from
2.5-16 NTU. WID officials estimate the canal looses approximately 50% of its influent
flow over its 18-mile length.
Polymer application was achieved by injecting PAM slurry into the flowing canal.
The polymer product, POLYTEX EC®, was mixed with 150 gallons of tap water,
forming a concentrated PAM slurry. The slurry was pumped directly into the flowing
canal for approximately one hour at a maximum 11 mg/l in-stream concentration, which
resulted in a mass loading of 40 lb/canal acre for a 2,796-foot long section of canal. To
quantify the effectiveness of PAM treatment, discharge measurements were collected
over a period of two months at the injection point and at monitoring points 1 and 2 (MP1
and MP2) before and after treatment. In addition, hydrostatic water level was measured
real-time using pressure transducers at each discharge measurement station for a month
before and after treatment. Flow rating curves were developed by combining discharge
and water level data and were used to convert real-time water level data into real-time
discharge data. Falling Head Permeameter (FHP) tests provided a secondary means of
quantifying seepage.
7Field report to be submitted to the Wyoming Water Development Commission and States West Water Resources Corporation.
37
Real-time stage discharge data suggest PAM treatment produced a small increase
in seepage over the test reach. The mean pre-treatment flow loss over the entire test
reach was 0.90-0.94 cfs, while the mean post-treatment loss was 1.09-1.13 cfs (α=0.05).
This corresponds to a mean 21% increase in water loss over the test reach. Since
systematic error in direct discharge measurement was comparable in magnitude to total
seepage (5% and 6%, respectively), direct discharge measurements were unable to
quantify a PAM treatment effect (α=0.05). The FHP tests also showed an increase in
seepage as a result of PAM treatment.
The exact cause of the seepage increase is unknown. A possible explanation is
that PAM flocculated dispersed clay particles at the canal bed surface, forming a
flocculated, porous soil structure and in effect breaking the existing surface seal. At the
same time, the low (11 mg/l) –in-stream PAM concentrations were likely too low to
cause a seepage reduction by viscosity effect. Although a significant seepage reduction
by PAM application should be possible in the Bordeaux Canal, an alternate application
method should be developed.
INTRODUCTION
Agricultural Applications
Polyacrylamide application to reduce soil erosion and increase water retention has
been extensively researched and applied in agriculture. Water application in untreated
soils causes clay particles to disperse at the soil surface, forming a crust which inhibits
water infiltration into the soil. Dilute (10 mg/l) liquid PAM applications maintain soil
structure and porosity by flocculating dispersed clay particles into large aggregated
particles at the soil surface (Lentz et al. 1995). Over many field applications in medium
and fine textured soils, PAM treatments increased water infiltration an average of 15% in
medium textured soils (Lentz et al. 1995). Even greater infiltration increases (30-110%)
were observed when 10 and 0.5 mg/l PAM solutions were applied to 18-foot long test
furrows in Portneuf silt loam soil (Trout et al. 1995). Similarly, simulated rainfall
experiments with PAM applications of 44 lb/acre on a typical loess and dark brown
brumsoil showed a 38 -78% increase in infiltration rate relative to controls (Shainberg et
38
al. 1990). In addition to increasing water infiltration, PAM application reduces soil
erosion in low-slope furrow irrigation scenarios by >95% (Lentz et al. 1992).
Canal seepage reduction
Research suggests polymer application may be effective in reducing water
seepage in unlined irrigation canals (Lentz 2003, Morris 2006). Although laboratory tests
have been encouraging, field PAM applications have produced mixed results. Successful
laboratory treatments were recorded at the Soils Research Laboratory in Kimberly, Idaho
where seepage flow in flumes was reduced by 60 to >99% (Lentz 2003). On the other
hand, Nelson Engineering (2004) tested a variety of PAM application methods on the
Green River supply canal in western Wyoming and was unable to quantify a resulting
seepage effect. In addition to mixed results from field applications, significant questions
remain with respect to the dominant seepage reduction mechanism. Lentz (2003)
suggests that seepage reduction occurs only at high (> 250 mg/l) polymer concentrations
and is caused by apparent viscosity effects. Viscosity and hydraulic conductivity tests of
PAM solutions through coarse and fine sand have repeatedly found that PAM behaves as
if it were much more viscous than its kinematic viscosity would suggest (Letey 1996;
Malik and Letey 1992). Malik and Letey (1992) concluded that seepage reduction with
PAM liquid injection in silica sand is highly dependant on pore size and is caused by an
extensional viscosity mechanism. The theory of extensional viscosity states that large
particles such as anionic PAM molecules rotate and extend when exposed to simple shear
flow gradients. When the flow is bounded on both sides, as it is in porous media, shear
flow gradients act in opposing rotational directions, causing the particle to extend without
rotating (Interthall and Hass 1981). This extension, known as extensional viscosity,
causes an enormous increase in flow resistance (Cowan 2001). A similar theory suggests
that PAM’s effect on infiltration is a balance between surface seal breakage and apparent
viscosity increase (Ortis et al. 2002). Recent research at the University of Wyoming
suggests that suspended solids may also play a significant role in seepage reduction
(Morris 2006). In high turbidity water (>10 NTU), significant hydraulic conductivity
reduction occurred in sand column tests at PAM concentrations as low as 7 mg/l. Morris
(2006) attributed the conductivity reduction to PAM-clay aggregates filtering out at the
39
media surface by an interstitial straining mechanism. Low turbidity levels (2.5-16 NTU)
were not enough for this straining mechanism to dominate in the Bordeaux canal
application test.
Environmental Impacts
An Initial Risk Characterization, conducted by Young et al. (2006), examined
potential environmental and human health impacts associated with anionic linear
polyacrylamide application to unlined canal systems. The characterization concluded
that during typical application scenarios, amide monomer concentrations will be at or
lower than the drinking water standard (0.5 μg/L) and orders of magnitude below the
chronic levels needed to impact human health.
Overall toxicity is strongly dependent on PAM’s net charge. Negatively charged
(anionic) PAM is 10 to 100 times lower in toxicity than positively charged cationic PAM
(Young et al. 2006). As a result, the application of neutral and cationic PAM is not
permissible. A recent Interim Conservation Practice Standard has been produced by the
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS 2005). The standard, adopted by the
state of Wyoming, specifies acceptable application methods and chemical properties. To
eliminate environmental and human health impacts, the standard limits treatments to 40
pounds of active polymer ingredient per canal bed surface acre (lb/acre) per year. When
discussing environmental impacts, it is important to note the significant environmental
benefits of PAM treatment. In addition to improving water retention and application
efficiency in furrow irrigation, erosion reduction due to PAM treatment reduces soil,
pesticide, and fertilizer concentrations in receiving waters.
BACKGROUND
Project Background and Objective
The Bordeaux polymer application test, conducted on July 25, 2006, involved
pumping concentrated PAM slurry into the canal from a single injection point for 1 hour.
The test was part of an ongoing polymer study funded by the Wyoming Water
Development Commission (WWDC) which utilizes bench-, pilot-, and field-scale tests to
40
determine PAM’s effectiveness in reducing irrigation canal seepage in the state of
Wyoming. In addition to providing valuable information to the WWDC, Bordeaux test
results will supplement a Level II Conservation Study of the Wheatland Irrigation District
(WID), which was prepared by States West Water Resources Corporation in 2005. The
conservation study identified PAM treatment as a promising method for reducing seepage
in two irrigation canals on the WID, Canal No. 2 and the Bordeaux lateral canal. Over its
18-mile length, WID officials estimate the canal looses 50% of its influent flow. The
Bordeaux polymer application test was conducted to examine the effectiveness and extent
of seepage reduction due to PAM treatment at the field scale.
Site Description
The Bordeaux polymer application test was conducted on a 1500-foot long test
reach on the Bordeaux lateral canal. The canal is located south of Wheatland, Wyoming
on the WID (Figure 3.1). The canal flows southeast from Lower Canal 1 and provides
water to agricultural plots in the southeastern section of the WID.
41
Wheatland Gauging site
Figure 3.1 – Site map showing the WID canal system, the Bordeaux canal test reach, and the gauging
site
Inflows to the Bordeaux canal are adjusted daily and vary from 10 to 40 cfs.
Inflows are measured at the inlet weir, located at the gauging site, 2 miles upstream of the
canal test reach. Typically, the canal runs nearly continuously from mid-May through
early September. In 2006, the canal ran from May 4 to August 29. To conserve water,
deliveries were suspended during a rainy spell from June 2 to June 14. In 2006,
deliveries ranged from 13 to 34 cfs with a mean delivery of 21 cfs (Figure 3.2).
Test Reach
42
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5/4 5/11
5/18
5/25 6/1 6/8 6/1
56/2
26/2
9 7/6 7/13
7/20
7/27 8/3 8/1
08/1
78/2
48/3
1 9/7 9/14
Date
Del
iver
y (c
fs)
Figure 3.2 – Bordeaux lateral daily flow schedule for 2006 as measured at the gauging site
The Bordeaux test reach was selected for its high seepage, indicated by extensive
ponding and aquatic vegetation in the bottom of the draw below the canal. Indeed,
subsequent discharge measurements indicated an average seepage rate of 0.9 cfs (4.9% of
the influent flow) over the test reach. As shown in Figure 3.3, an injection point was
established at the influent end of the test reach and Monitoring points 1 and 2 (MP1 and
MP2) were established approximately 500 and 1,500 feet downstream of the injection
point, respectively.
43
N
BORDEAUX LATERAL PROJECT REACHSite Map
Injection point
Monitoring Pt. #2
Flow direction
Monitoring Pt. #1
SCALE in feet
0 200 400
Figure 3.3 – Site map of the Bordeaux test reach showing the polymer injection point and
downstream monitoring points
METHODS
Test Reach Characterization
Once the test reach and monitoring points were established, the reach was
characterized. First, reach lengths, flow depth, and top width were measured. Next,
canal water chemistry was evaluated (Table 3.1). Turbidity grab samples were collected
and measured in the lab using a Model 2100A Hach® Ratio Turbidimeter. Additional
water quality parameters including pH and electrical conductivity were analyzed in-situ
using a Hydrolab® DataSonde® 4a probe.
Table 3.1 – Average water flow and water chemistry in the Bordeaux canal test reach
Inflow (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Turbidity (NTU) pH e- Cond. (μs/cm)min 12.4 11.9 2.5 7.2 612ave 18.5 17.6 7.2 8.6 620
max 22.4 21.1 16 9.2 629
ChemistryFlow
44
Bed surface material samples were collected from the upper 3 inches of the canal
bed and a representative sample was classified in accordance with ASTM 2487-00
(Figure 3.4). The bed material was classified as a silty-sand (SM) with 13% fines, a
coefficient of uniformity (Cu) of 6.3, a coefficient of curvature (Cc) of 0.85, and a D50 of
0.71 mm.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110
Grain size (mm)
% P
assi
ng
Figure 3.4 – Grain size distribution of canal surface material
Polymer application
An emulsified anionic polyacrylamide product (POLYTEX EC®) was used for the
Bordeaux polymer application test. POLYTEX EC® has a 30% charge density, a 20-25
Mg/mol molecular weight, and is composed of 55.8% active polymer ingredient. To
enhance hydration and dispersion, 9.1 gallons of POLYTEX EC® were mixed with 150
gallons of tap water to form a 34,000 mg/l polymer slurry. The slurry was mixed
overnight in a 150-gallon tank by a ½-hp Shurflo® sump pump. Polymer treatment was
achieved by pumping the slurry from the 150-gallon tank directly into the flowing canal.
Flexible 1” ID vinyl tubing connected the pump to the PVC delivery pipe (Figure 3.5).
The pump was a Masterflex® ½ hp variable rate peristaltic pump (Model #7585-30).
The delivery pipe was a 10-foot long, 2” OD PVC pipe with 1/4” ID holes drilled 6” on
45
center. PAM was applied in this manner for approximately one hour at a maximum 11
mg/l in-stream concentration.
Figure 3.5 – Polymer application system during treatment. PAM was pumped from the 150-gallon
tank through the PVC pipe delivery system. PAM can be seen flowing into the canal
46
Application rates are summarized in Table 3.2. Based on visual observation,
since as much as 30% of the PAM settled to the bottom of the tank, actual application
concentrations were likely lower than 11 mg/l. Assuming PAM treatment occurred over
a reach length of 2,800 feet, the Bordeaux polymer application test was conducted at a
mass loading rate in accordance with Conservation Practice Standards.
Table 3.2 – PAM application rates during the Bordeaux test
% active Ing. 55.8 %PAM product applied 9.1 galMass act. ingr. appl. 42.4 lb
Volume 150 galConcentration 33843 mg/L
Canal flow 17.75 cfsTest duration 60 minApplied concentration 10.62 mg/L
Reach length 2796 ftWet. Perimeter 16.5 ftMass loading rate 40.0 lb/acre
Mass loading
Application Rates
Slurry properties
Polymer properties
Discharge measurement
Water discharge measurements were collected at the injection point and at MP1
and MP2 using the standard USGS velocity-area method (USGS, 1969). Flow depth and
water velocity at 0.6 times the flow depth were measured in 0.7-foot increments across
the channel cross section with a Son-Tec FlowTracker® Handheld ADV®. This device
uses Acoustic Doppler Velocimetry (ADV) to accurately measure water velocity. Water
disturbance was minimized by taking discharge measurements from wood beams placed
over the channel cross section at each discharge measurement station. For each set of
discharge measurements, seepage was calculated by subtracting discharge at the injection
point from discharge at each monitoring point.
Real-time stage discharge measurement
In addition to direct discharge measurement, water pressure was measured real-
time at each discharge measurement station using In-Situ® Level Troll® 700 pressure
47
transducers. Data were logged continuously in ten minute intervals for 27 days before
treatment and for 30 days after treatment. Pressure transducers were placed in ¾-inch
OD PVC pipe that was partially buried in the canal bank. One end of the PVC pipe
extended into the flowing canal, allowing for accurate pressure measurement. One
additional pressure transducer was left open to the atmosphere and was used to correct
water pressure readings for atmospheric pressure fluctuations. Real-time flow depth was
calculated from barometer-corrected pressure data. Flow rating curves (Figure 3.6) were
developed at each discharge measurement station. The rating curves predict canal
discharge as a function of flow depth. To construct the curves, individual discharge
measurements were paired with the average flow depth reading over the discharge
collection period. The paired discharge/depth data were fit to a linear model. The
resulting flow rating curves were utilized to convert real-time flow depth data into real-
time discharge data.
Rating Curve
y = 6.13x + 13.81R2 = 0.91
y = 5.59x + 11.54R2 = 0.80
y = 5.76x + 9.56R2 = 0.92
15
15.5
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Flow Depth (ft)
Dis
char
ge (c
fs)
InjectionMP1MP2
Figure 3.6 – Flow rating curves for each discharge measurement point. The curves were used to
convert real-time flow depth data into real-time discharge data
48
Falling-Head Permeameter Tests
Falling Head Permeameter (FHP) tests provided a secondary means of
quantifying seepage. As shown in Figure 3.7, each permeameter consisted of a 5-foot
long, 4-inch OD PVC pipe driven approximately four inches down into the canal bed,
filled with water, and allowed to drain over the course of seven days. As the water
drained down, hydrostatic water pressure was measured real-time in each permeameter
with In-Situ® Level Troll® 700 pressure transducers. To examine the polymer treatment
effect, three permeameters were installed prior to treatment and three permeameters were
installed 2 hours after treatment.
Figure 3.7 – Falling Head Permeameters in the Bordeaux canal
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Polymer Application
Although the liquid PAM injection method employed in the Bordeaux seepage
study was effective in delivering PAM in a consistent, well mixed manner, large-scale
application may prove impractical for several reasons. First, slurry volumes required for
an extensive application may be too large to easily handle. Second, the process of
installing a liquid injection system in 500-foot increments along the treatment length of
49
the Bordeaux canal would likely be expensive and time-consuming. Third, high applied
in-stream PAM concentrations are difficult to achieve at the field scale. Column tests
conducted at the University of Wyoming suggest PAM treatment is most effective at high
(>100 mg/l) PAM concentrations in low turbidity water such as that found in the
Bordeaux canal (Morris 2006). Also worth noting, subsequent literature investigation
suggests that high shear environments, such as those found in the pump used to mix the
PAM slurry, can cause polyacrylamide to degrade by scission of the polymer chains (Rho
et al. 1995). This shear degradation, which increases with increasing PAM concentration,
has been shown to substantially reduce PAM’s ability to effectively flocculate suspended
colloidal particles (Henderson and Wheatley 1987). As a result, the use of a recirculating
sump pump is not recommended for mixing PAM solutions.
One alternative to liquid injection involves spraying a granular PAM onto the
surface of a flowing canal. This method is capable of achieving elevated in-stream PAM
concentrations. Challenges include major concerns with initiating hydration, and
uncertainties in the distance between polymer application and treatment effect. A second
method involves applying PAM in either a granular or slurry form directly to the dry
canal bed surface prior to turning water on for the season. Laboratory flume
investigations of this technique are discussed in Chapter 2. Labor demands may limit the
feasibility of slurry application. Although an even application may be difficult to
achieve, surface granular application is worthy of further investigation. One probable
challenge with surface granular application is allowing the granules to partially hydrate
and adsorb to the canal surface prior to filling the canal.
Discharge Measurement
Water seepage was calculated from raw discharge data by subtracting the
discharge at each monitoring point from the discharge at the injection point for each set
of discharge measurements. For both monitoring points, 95% confidence intervals for the
mean of all pre-treatment seepage measurements overlapped the mean of all post-
treatment seepage measurements (Figure 3.8). As a result, discharge measurement data
were unable to quantify a change in seepage due to polymer treatment (α=0.05).
Systematic error using the USGS velocity-area method limits discharges measurement
50
accuracy to 5% of the actual discharge rate (USGS 1969). Since total seepage values
were 5.5-5.6% of the influent flow (α=0.05), systematic discharge measurement error was
large enough to obscure changes in seepage. Consequently, pressure-based discharge
data were required to accurately describe the effect of PAM treatment on seepage.
Pre-treatment
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Dis
char
ge (c
fs)
Injection
MP1
MP2
Post-treatment
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Dis
char
ge (c
fs)
Injection
MP1
MP2
Figure 3.8 – Sets of discharge measurements at each monitoring point. Error bars to show the 5%
uncertainty inherent in the method
Real-time Stage Discharge Measurement
Pressure-based discharge data suggest PAM treatment produced a small increase
in seepage over the test reach (Figures 3.9-3.11).
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
time (d)
Wat
er lo
ss (%
)
Inj to MP1MP 1 to MP2Inj to MP2
Figure 3.9 - Percent of influent water loss as a function of time showing the increase in seepage at
MP2. PAM application occurred at 27.5 days and is indicated by a vertical black line
51
As shown in Figure 3.10, the mean pre-treatment seepage over the entire test
reach was 0.90-0.94 cfs, while the mean post-treatment seepage was 1.09-1.13 cfs
(α=0.05). This corresponds to a mean 21% increase in water loss over the test reach due
to PAM treatment. Seepage increased as inflow increased and was likely influenced by
bank infiltration.
Injection to MP2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Inflow (cfs)
Seep
age
(cfs
)
PrePost
0.90 – 0.94 cfs
1.09 – 1.13 cfs
α = 0.05
Figure 3.10 - Pressure-based discharge data showing pre- and post-treatment water seepage as a
function of inflow over the entire test reach
An investigation of the upstream reach (between the injection point and MP1) and
the downstream reach (between MP1 and MP2) provides additional information on
seepage effects. As shown in Figure 3.11, the majority of pre-treatment seepage occurred
in the upstream reach (Injection to MP1). At the same time, at 0.9 cfs, mean pre- and
post- treatment seepage values were statistically identical (α=0.05), indicating no
polymer effect in the upstream reach. In contrast, mean seepage increased from near zero
(0.03 cfs) to 0.20 cfs following treatment in the downstream reach (MP1 to MP2).
52
Injection to MP1
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
12 17 22
Inflow (cfs)
Seep
age
(cfs
) Pre
Post
MP1 to MP2
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
12 17 22
Inflow (cfs)
Seep
age
(cfs
) PrePost
Figure 3.11 - Pressure-based discharge data showing pre- and post-treatment water seepage as a
function of inflow
The exact cause of the seepage increase is unknown. One possible explanation is
that PAM flocculated dispersed clay particles at the surface of the canal bed, forming a
porous soil structure and in effect breaking the existing surface seal. This phenomenon is
common in irrigation furrows, where 10 mg/l PAM treatments have increased water
infiltration (15%-110%), relative to controls, on medium to fine textured soils over the
course of many independent field investigations (Lentz et al. 1992; Lentz et al. 1995;
Shainberg et al. 1990; Trout et al. 1995). At the same time, the 11 mg/l, in-stream PAM
concentration in the Bordeaux canal was likely too low to cause significant seepage
reduction by apparent viscosity effect. In flume experiments, Lentz observed no seepage
reduction from a 10 mg/l PAM application in a disturbed silt loam soil. By contrast, a
500 mg/l PAM application produced a 62.5% seepage reduction within 19 hours of
treatment (Lentz 2003). A second possible explanation for the observed seepage increase
is that PAM increased water seepage through a turbulent drag reduction mechanism. At
low concentrations, studies indicate PAM solutions reduce energy loss in pipes. Khalil et
al. (2001) found that when 0-500 mg/kg PAM solutions were pumped through a closed
pipe circuit, drag reduction increased by increasing polymer concentration, increasing
Reynolds number, and decreasing pipe diameter. Orlandi (1995) found similar results,
but also only observed drag reduction in high-strain regions, where polymer molecules
are in an extended state. It is unclear in the literature weather these results hold true in
porous media. Also, contrary to the persistent seepage increase observed in the Bordeaux
53
field test, it is likely that increased seepage from a drag reduction mechanism would have
only a temporary effect.
Literature suggests Bordeaux canal water chemistry including pH, conductivity,
and low turbidity should be conducive to seepage reduction by PAM treatment. Cations
present in canal water have been shown to enhance PAM adsorption through a cation
bridging mechanism (Shainberg et al. 1990), so canal water electrical conductivity (612-
629 μs/cm) should not inhibit treatment effectiveness. Also, sorption effectiveness has
shown to increase due to molecular de-coiling as pH increases from 4 to 8 (Lecourtier
1990), so high canal pH (7.2-9.1) should not inhibit PAM effectiveness. Finally, column
tests conducted on siliceous materials suggest that in low turbidity water, high
concentration (>150 mg/l) PAM applications are capable of reducing hydraulic
conductivity by 70%-90% (Morris 2006).
Falling Head Permeameter Tests
Falling Head Permeameter data also showed an increase in hydraulic conductivity
due to PAM treatment (Figure 3.12). Initial water heights were 6.2, 6.8, and 6.9 feet for
Untreated 1, Untreated 3, and Treated 1, respectively. FHP data showed a strong diurnal
fluctuation, which may be influenced by water evaporation or daily water level
adjustment. Mean pre-treatment hydraulic conductivity was 0.14 in/d and mean post-
treatment hydraulic conductivity was 0.28 in/d, suggesting a 100% increase in seepage
due to PAM treatment. This is significantly higher than the 21% increase found with the
real-time stage discharge data. It is worth noting that useful data were only obtained
from three of the six permeameters. In the three remaining permeameters, the water head
dropped suddenly, likely the result of breakage of the seal between the permeameter and
the soil.
54
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
time (d)
H/H
o Untreated 1Untreated 3Treated 1
Figure 3.12 – Falling head permeameter data showing a drop in water height versus time. Untreated
1 and Untreated 3 were installed prior to PAM treatment, and Treated 1 was installed two hours
after PAM treatment.
Falling head permeameter data can be used to spatially characterize seepage. If
the entire canal bed lost water the rate observed in the FHP tests, only 0.035 cfs or 3.5%
of the observed water loss (0.9-1.12 cfs) would be lost to seepage over the test reach. In
addition, the mean seepage of 0.14 cfs over the 2-mile section of canal upstream
corresponds to a background flow loss of 0.07 cfs per mile of canal. At this rate, only
0.02 cfs or 2% of the observed water loss can be attributed background flow losses. As a
result, background flow losses, which include evaporation and evapotransporation, are
likely only a small component of the observed water loss in the Bordeaux test reach. So
an alternate source of water loss must be occurring in the Bordeaux test reach. One likely
explanation is that the majority of canal seepage occurs through preferential flow paths,
or localized zones of high seepage.
55
Column Tests
Laboratory liquid injection column tests were performed on Bordeaux sediment
samples. The test method was identical to that described in Chapter 2, except soil
samples were only 4 inches long, and the applied hydraulic head was 5.1 feet. Water
flow through the columns was measured throughout the test duration. As shown in
Figure 3.13, PAM treatment reduced water flow and column hydraulic conductivity by
78-93 %. These results suggest that PAM is capable of significantly reducing seepage in
Bordeaux canal sediments at high applied concentrations.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
time (h)
K/K
o
0 ppm
60 ppm
106 ppm
265 ppm
277 ppm
610 ppm
Figure 3.13 - Column test results showing normalized hydraulic conductivity versus time showing the
effectiveness of PAM treatment at the laboratory scale.
CONCLUSIONS
In the Bordeaux canal seepage test, anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) was applied to
a 1,500 foot long test section of the Bordeaux canal. Concentrated PAM slurry was
pumped directly into the flowing canal from a single application point for approximately
56
1 hour, resulting in a maximum in-stream concentration of 11 mg/l. Mean pre- and post-
treatment seepage values over the test reach were 0.90-0.94 cfs and 1.09-1.13 cfs,
respectively (α=0.05). This suggests PAM treatment caused a mean 21% increase in
water loss over the test reach. Low in-stream PAM concentrations, bed surface material
type, and application method likely contributed to seepage increase.
One key challenge in studying seepage is obtaining accurate seepage data. Of the
three seepage quantification methods, direct discharge measurement, real-time stage
discharge measurement, and FHP hydraulic conductivity measurement, real-time stage
discharge measurement provided the only accurate, statistically significant seepage data.
Systematic error in direct discharge measurement was similar in magnitude to actual
seepage flows, obscuring changes in seepage from PAM application. Technical problems
and a small sample size limit the statistical validity of the FHP results.
57
WORKS CITED
Henderson, J. M. and A. D. Wheatley. “Factors Effecting a Loss of Flocculation Activity
of Polyacrylamide Solutions: Shear Degradation, Cation Complexation, and Solution Aging.” Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 33, (1987): 669-684.
Interthall, W. and R. Hass. “Effects of dilute polymer solutions on porous media flows.
Part I: Basic concepts and experimental results.” Flow and transport in porous media. Proceedings of Euromech. Delft, the Netherlands 2-4 September, 1981. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands: 157-162.
Khalil, M. F., S. Z. Kassab, A. A. Elmiligui, and F. A. Naoum, “Effect of water soluble
polymers on energy loss in pipe fittings.” ASME Fluids Engineering Division . Proceedings of Summer Meeting. New Orleans, LA 29 May-1 June, 2001. American Society of Mechanical Engineers: 283-290.
Lecourtier, L. T. and G. Chauveteau. “Adsorption of Polyacrylamides on Siliceous
Minerals.” Colloids and Surfaces. 47, (1990): 219-231. Lentz, R. D. “Inhibiting water infiltration with polyacrylamide and surfactants:
Applications for irrigated agriculture.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 58, (2003): 290-300.
Lentz, R. D., I. Shainberg, R.E. Sojka, and D.L. Carter. “Preventing irrigation furrow
erosion with small applications of polymers.” Soil Science Society of America Journal. 56, (1992): 1926-1932.
Lentz, R.D., T. D. Steiber, R.E. Sojka. “Applying Polyacrylamide (PAM) to Reduce
Erosion and Increase infiltration Under Furrow Irrigation.” Proceedings of the Winter Commodity Schools 27 (1995): 79-92.
Letey, J. “Effective viscosity of PAM solutions through porous media.” IN Sojka, R.E.
and R.D. Lentz (eds.) Proceedings: Managing Irrigation-Induced Erosion and Infiltration with Polyacrylamide May 6, 7, and 8, 1996, College of Southern Idaho, Twin Falls, ID. University of Idaho Misc. Pub. 101-96, pages 94-96.
Malik, M. and J. Letey. “Adsorption of Polyacrylamide and Polysaccharide Polymers on
Soil Materials. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 55, (1991): 380-383. Malik, M. and J. Letey. “Pore-Size-Dependent Apparent Viscosity for Organic Solutes in
Saturated Porous Media.” Soil Science Society of America Journal. 56, (1992): 1032-1035.
Morris, J. “Organic Polymer Addition for Reducing Conveyance Seepage.” M.S. Thesis
of the U. of Wyoming, 2006.
58
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), “Interim Conservation Practice Standard; Irrigation Water Conveyance Anionic Polyacrylamide Ditch and Canal Treatment.” Washington D.C., 2005.
Nelson Engineering, “Green River Supply Canal Seepage Study Report.” Jackson,
Wyoming: 2004. Orlandi, P. “A tentative approach to the direct simulation of drag reduction by
polymers.” Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics. 60 (1995): 272-301. Ortis, W. J., R. E. Sojka, and G.M. Glenn. “Polymer additives in irrigation water to
reduce erosion and better manage water infiltration.” Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech 13: (2002): 37-41.
Rho, T., J. Park, C, Kim, HK. Yoon, HS. Suh. “Degradation of Polyacrylamide in Dilute
Solution.” Polymer Degradation and Stability. 51, (1996): 287-293. Shainberg, I., D. N. Warrington, and P. Rengasmy. “Water quality and PAM interactions
in reducing surface sealing.” Soil Science. 149, (1990): 301-307. Trout, T. J., R. E. Sojka and R. D. Lentz. “Polyacrylamide effect on furrow erosion and
infiltration.” Transactions ASAE. 38: (1995) 761-765. United States Geological Survey. “Discharge Measurements at Gauging Stations.”
United States. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey. Washington, DC. 1969.
Young, M. H., Tappen, J. J., Miller, G. C., Carroll, S. Initial Risk Characterization:
Using Linear Anionic Polyacrylamide to Reduce Water Seepage from Unlined Water Delivery Canal Systems. U Reno: Desert Research Institute, 2006.
59
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
Lab • The order of hydraulic conductivity reduction (HCR) was granular surface
turbid > granular surface > slurry surface >> liquid injection turbid > liquid injection.
• With liquid injection, HCR increased with increasing PAM concentration,
except in high turbidity water (100 NTU) where significant HCR occurred with initial PAM concentrations as low as 23 mg/l.
• With low turbidity liquid injection, it is unlikely that sand-polymer adsorption
or solution kinematic viscosity accounted for the observed HCR. Instead extensional viscosity is likely the dominant HCR mechanism.
• With high turbidity liquid injection, flocculated PAM-clay aggregates filter
out at the media surface, likely acting as the dominant HCR mechanism.
• A fixed polymer-sand gel forms at the media surface during granular surface application which likely acts as the dominant HCR mechanism.
• The order of treatment longevity was granular surface turbid >> granular
surface > slurry surface >> liquid injection turbid > liquid injection.
• Within 42 hours, hydraulic conductivity returned to control-adjusted pre-treatment levels following treatment for all application methods except granular surface application at high mass loads and granular surface application with added suspended solids.
Field
• Polyacrylamide treatment was achieved by pumping PAM slurry into the flowing Bordeaux canal at a maximum 11 mg/l concentration.
• PAM treatment produced a mean 21% increase in seepage over the test reach. • Low in-stream PAM concentrations, soil type, and application method likely
contributed the lack of seepage reduction.
• Of the three seepage quantification methods (direct discharge measurement, real-time stage discharge measurement, and FHP hydraulic conductivity measurement), real-time stage discharge measurement provided the only accurate, statistically significant seepage data.
60
FUTURE RESEARCH
These laboratory and field study results provide significant new insight into PAM
application techniques, treatment longevity, turbidity effects, and dominant seepage
reduction mechanisms. However, significant questions remain as to how laboratory
results translate to the field scale. It is important to remember that tests were conducted
in a medium textured, uniform silica sand. Additional testing will be required to
determine how these results change with bed surface materials found at the field scale,
specifically in soils containing fine sands, silts, and clays. While treatment effectiveness
should increase dramatically in fine materials for both of the proposed liquid injection
HCR mechanisms (extensional viscosity and filtration), the magnitude of this increase
and the effect on treatment longevity are both unknown. Also, the effects of media type
and size on slurry surface and granular surface application is unknown and merits further
investigation. Finally, the effects of porous media drying such as would occur at the end
of the irrigation season, are unknown and should be investigated. While literature
(Nadler et al., 1992) suggests the majority of liquid phase PAM irreversibly adsorbs to
the soil surface during drying, the resulting effects in water infiltration are unknown.
Several additional issues merit further investigation. One significant issue that
should be addressed is the potential for PAM treatment to increase infiltration in medium
to fine textured bed surface materials with dispersible clays, as observed in the Bordeaux
canal test reach. While we hypothesize that the observed seepage increase was a function
of bed surface material and low applied PAM concentration, understanding this
phenomenon is important. Another issue is the observed disconnect between mass PAM
loads required to achieve HCR at the laboratory and those permitted in the field. Even
with granular surface application, which was the most effective treatment technique
tested in the lab, treatment effectiveness tapered off to only 10% HCR at 11 g/m2 (100
lb/acre), which is significantly higher then the NRCS Conservation Practice Standard
value of 40 lb/acre. Finally, the three treatment techniques as well as granular addition to
a flowing canal need to be rigorously tested to determine both their feasibility and
effectiveness at the field scale. With granular surface application, a method for initiating
hydration should be developed. With granular surface application, the granules should be
wetted prior to turning the water on in order to prevent canal water from transporting dry
61
granulars. This wetting may be achievable by either applying granules prior to a natural
rain event, or using a hose to spray the granules on the edge of the canal. Field scale tests
should be conducted in a test reach with accurate flow measurement infrastructure
including upstream and downstream weirs and real-time flow measurement capabilities.
In addition, precise injection or surface application infrastructure should be utilized in
order to accurately quantify PAM mass loading rates and concentrations.
62
APPENDIX A – COLLUMN DATA
*Note: K/Ko represents normalized hydraulic conductivity *Note: 1 lb/acre = 8.92 g/cm2
63
0.4 NTU Liquid Injection Tests with 0, 17, 47, 47, 53, and 133 mg/l PAM
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
time (h)
K/Ko 0 ppm
17 ppm47 ppm47 ppm53 ppm133 ppm
Co 0 ppm Co 47 ppmM load 0 lb/acre Mload= 508 lb/acre
Qo 67.8 mL/min Qo = 65.1 mL/mintime Q K/Ko Cave PoreV oreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV(h) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L)0.2 67.0 0.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.6 0.84 0.0 0.00.3 66.3 0.98 0.0 1.7 1.4 48.1 0.74 47.1 1.30.5 66.0 0.97 0.0 3.3 2.7 44.6 0.69 52.2 2.50.7 67.0 0.99 0.0 5.0 4.0 45.0 0.69 53.9 3.60.8 66.5 0.98 0.0 6.7 5.3 45.0 0.69 53.7 4.71.0 67.1 0.99 0.0 8.4 6.6 42.8 0.66 55.0 5.81.5 66.7 0.98 0.0 13.4 10.4 40.4 0.62 58.1 9.02.0 66.3 0.98 0.0 18.5 14.1 46.0 0.71 55.9 12.22.5 67.5 1.00 0.0 23.5 17.9 42.8 0.66 54.4 15.63.0 67.4 0.99 0.0 28.6 21.6 41.9 0.64 57.1 18.83.5 67.4 0.99 0.0 33.7 25.4 42.0 0.65 57.7 22.04.0 68.0 1.00 38.8 29.4 46.8 0.72 25.34.5 65.9 0.97 43.9 33.6 51.7 0.79 29.05.0 66.5 0.98 48.9 37.8 54.6 0.84 33.15.5 67.9 1.00 54.0 42.0 54.9 0.84 37.26.0 67.6 1.00 59.1 46.1 54.8 0.84 41.37.0 67.2 0.99 69.3 54.4 52.4 0.80 49.48.0 67.4 0.99 79.4 62.7 53.8 0.83 57.4
20.0 67.3 0.99 201.6 65.2 62.6 0.96 163.028.5 66.5 0.98 287.6 40.2 61.9 0.95 242.932.5 64.9 0.96 327.3 75.8 61.2 0.94 280.145.0 63.1 0.93 448.2 86.6 59.9 0.92 394.450.0 62.7 0.92 495.7 30.2 59.9 0.92 439.656.5 62.7 0.93 557.3 86.3 58.8 0.90 497.972.0 63.3 0.93 704.9 19.4 58.7 0.90 635.5
Co 17Mload= 203Qo = 62.2
Q K/Ko(mL/min)
58.7 0.9453.0 0.8551.3 0.8251.2 0.8250.4 0.8150.4 0.8150.1 0.8149.5 0.8049.6 0.8049.6 0.8050.6 0.8156.5 0.9154.8 0.8855.0 0.8855.5 0.8954.7 0.8855.0 0.8854.7 0.8858.3 0.9458.5 0.9459.3 0.9558.0 0.9357.4 0.9256.9 0.9156.7 0.91
ppmlb/acremL/min
Cave P(mg/L)
0.017.318.518.919.019.219.219.419.519.519.3
1223446
64
Co 47 ppm Co 53 ppm Co 133 ppmMload= 508 lb/acre Mload= 508 lb/acre Mload= 1015 lb/acreQo = 64.4 mL/min Qo = 57.6 mL/min Qo = 61.1 mL/min
time Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV(h) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L)0.2 55.1 0.86 0.0 0.0 50.8 0.88 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.68 0.0 0.00.3 47.6 0.74 47.1 1.3 40.9 0.71 52.7 1.2 31.3 0.51 132.5 0.90.5 44.5 0.69 52.5 2.5 38.1 0.66 61.2 2.1 31.1 0.51 155.0 1.70.7 45.1 0.70 54.0 3.6 38.9 0.67 62.8 3.1 30.0 0.49 158.2 2.50.8 43.4 0.67 54.7 4.7 37.6 0.65 63.2 4.1 28.3 0.46 166.0 3.21.0 43.5 0.68 55.6 5.8 36.3 0.63 65.4 5.0 26.1 0.43 178.0 3.91.5 42.7 0.66 56.1 9.0 35.0 0.61 67.8 7.7 23.9 0.39 193.4 5.82.0 43.8 0.68 55.9 12.3 35.1 0.61 69.0 10.4 24.5 0.40 199.7 7.62.5 41.9 0.65 56.4 15.5 33.4 0.58 70.6 12.9 23.8 0.39 200.1 9.43.0 41.9 0.65 57.7 18.7 33.0 0.57 72.8 15.5 22.7 0.37 207.9 11.23.5 41.1 0.64 58.3 21.9 33.0 0.57 73.1 17.9 21.0 0.34 221.6 12.84.0 43.5 0.68 25.0 50.4 0.87 21.1 31.5 0.52 14.84.5 51.1 0.79 28.6 52.0 0.90 25.0 42.1 0.69 17.65.0 53.5 0.83 32.6 53.5 0.93 29.0 46.5 0.76 21.05.5 53.3 0.83 36.6 53.0 0.92 33.0 48.1 0.79 24.56.0 52.9 0.82 40.6 53.2 0.92 37.0 49.0 0.80 28.27.0 54.5 0.85 48.7 54.5 0.95 45.1 49.6 0.81 35.68.0 54.1 0.84 56.9 53.1 0.92 53.2 50.2 0.82 43.2
20.0 59.5 0.92 160.0 58.5 1.02 154.4 54.8 0.90 138.428.5 59.3 0.92 236.3 58.4 1.01 229.5 54.1 0.89 208.332.5 59.0 0.92 272.0 57.6 1.00 264.5 53.6 0.88 240.945.0 60.4 0.94 384.8 55.1 0.96 370.9 53.8 0.88 342.250.0 58.4 0.91 429.8 54.4 0.94 412.3 53.8 0.88 382.956.5 58.0 0.90 486.9 54.4 0.94 465.7 53.1 0.87 435.472.0 57.9 0.90 622.6 53.7 0.93 592.3 53.6 0.88 560.4
65
10 NTU Liquid Injection Tests with 0, 17, 46, 56, 61 and 142 mg/l
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time (h)
K/Ko 0 ppm
17 ppm46 ppm56 ppm61 ppm142 ppm
Co 0 ppm Co 17 ppm Co 46 ppmMload = 0 lb/acre Mload = 203 lb/acre Mload = 508 lb/acre
Qo = 59.5 mL/min Qo = 62.2 mL/min Qo = 65.3 mL/mintime Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV(h) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L)0.2 60.3 1.01 0.0 0.0 54.1 0.87 0.0 0.0 50.6 0.78 0.0 0.00.3 60.0 1.01 0.0 1.5 47.9 0.77 16.6 1.3 40.7 0.62 46.3 2.30.5 59.5 1.00 0.0 3.0 47.3 0.76 17.8 2.5 40.7 0.62 52.0 3.30.7 59.7 1.00 0.0 4.5 48.9 0.79 17.6 3.7 43.8 0.67 50.1 4.40.8 59.8 1.00 0.0 6.0 48.8 0.78 17.3 4.9 43.6 0.67 48.4 5.51.0 58.9 0.99 0.0 7.5 47.3 0.76 17.6 6.1 42.1 0.64 49.4 6.61.3 58.9 0.99 0.0 10.5 46.1 0.74 18.1 8.5 39.6 0.61 51.8 8.61.7 58.5 0.98 0.0 13.4 44.8 0.72 18.6 10.8 38.0 0.58 54.5 10.62.0 57.6 0.97 0.0 16.4 44.5 0.71 19.0 13.0 37.4 0.57 56.1 12.52.5 56.8 0.95 0.0 20.7 45.4 0.73 18.8 16.4 35.7 0.55 57.8 15.23.0 56.4 0.95 0.0 25.0 44.0 0.71 18.9 19.8 34.9 0.54 59.9 17.93.5 55.6 0.94 0.0 29.2 42.6 0.68 19.5 23.1 33.9 0.52 61.5 20.54.0 53.1 0.89 0.0 33.3 40.8 0.66 20.3 26.2 33.2 0.51 63.1 23.04.8 56.7 0.95 39.5 50.1 0.80 31.4 42.2 0.65 27.35.6 56.8 0.96 46.7 51.7 0.83 37.8 51.5 0.79 33.26.3 55.8 0.94 53.1 52.5 0.84 43.7 53.6 0.82 39.28.0 52.7 0.89 66.7 58.8 0.95 57.7 52.4 0.80 52.511.3 53.6 0.90 92.8 56.5 0.91 86.0 61.0 0.93 80.423.8 59.5 1.00 200.3 62.4 1.00 199.1 65.0 1.00 200.126.0 51.5 0.87 218.5 58.4 0.94 218.9 63.5 0.97 221.230.3 51.5 0.87 252.2 55.6 0.89 256.2 60.0 0.92 261.6
66
Co 47 ppm Co 53 ppm Co 133 ppmMload= 508 lb/acre Mload= 508 lb/acre Mload= 1015 lb/acreQo = 64.4 mL/min Qo = 57.6 mL/min Qo = 61.1 mL/min
time Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV(h) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L)0.2 55.1 0.86 0.0 0.0 50.8 0.88 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.68 0.0 0.00.3 47.6 0.74 47.1 1.3 40.9 0.71 52.7 1.2 31.3 0.51 132.5 0.90.5 44.5 0.69 52.5 2.5 38.1 0.66 61.2 2.1 31.1 0.51 155.0 1.70.7 45.1 0.70 54.0 3.6 38.9 0.67 62.8 3.1 30.0 0.49 158.2 2.50.8 43.4 0.67 54.7 4.7 37.6 0.65 63.2 4.1 28.3 0.46 166.0 3.21.0 43.5 0.68 55.6 5.8 36.3 0.63 65.4 5.0 26.1 0.43 178.0 3.91.5 42.7 0.66 56.1 9.0 35.0 0.61 67.8 7.7 23.9 0.39 193.4 5.82.0 43.8 0.68 55.9 12.3 35.1 0.61 69.0 10.4 24.5 0.40 199.7 7.62.5 41.9 0.65 56.4 15.5 33.4 0.58 70.6 12.9 23.8 0.39 200.1 9.43.0 41.9 0.65 57.7 18.7 33.0 0.57 72.8 15.5 22.7 0.37 207.9 11.23.5 41.1 0.64 58.3 21.9 33.0 0.57 73.1 17.9 21.0 0.34 221.6 12.84.0 43.5 0.68 25.0 50.4 0.87 21.1 31.5 0.52 14.84.5 51.1 0.79 28.6 52.0 0.90 25.0 42.1 0.69 17.65.0 53.5 0.83 32.6 53.5 0.93 29.0 46.5 0.76 21.05.5 53.3 0.83 36.6 53.0 0.92 33.0 48.1 0.79 24.56.0 52.9 0.82 40.6 53.2 0.92 37.0 49.0 0.80 28.27.0 54.5 0.85 48.7 54.5 0.95 45.1 49.6 0.81 35.68.0 54.1 0.84 56.9 53.1 0.92 53.2 50.2 0.82 43.2
20.0 59.5 0.92 160.0 58.5 1.02 154.4 54.8 0.90 138.428.5 59.3 0.92 236.3 58.4 1.01 229.5 54.1 0.89 208.332.5 59.0 0.92 272.0 57.6 1.00 264.5 53.6 0.88 240.945.0 60.4 0.94 384.8 55.1 0.96 370.9 53.8 0.88 342.250.0 58.4 0.91 429.8 54.4 0.94 412.3 53.8 0.88 382.956.5 58.0 0.90 486.9 54.4 0.94 465.7 53.1 0.87 435.472.0 57.9 0.90 622.6 53.7 0.93 592.3 53.6 0.88 560.4
67
50 NTU Liquid Injection Tests with 0, 19, 53, 54, 54 and 133 mg/l
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (h)
K/Ko 0 ppm
19 ppm53 ppm54 ppm54 ppm133 ppm
Co 0 ppm Co 19 ppm Co 53 ppmMload = 0 lb/acre Mload = 203 lb/acre Mload = 507 lb/acre
Qo = 62.7 mL/min Qo = 58.5 mL/min Qo = 61.7 mL/mintime Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV(h) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L)0.2 62.2 0.99 0.0 0.0 48.2 0.82 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.70 0.0 0.00.3 61.0 0.97 0.0 1.6 42.7 0.73 18.6 1.2 37.1 0.60 52.9 1.00.5 59.9 0.96 0.0 3.1 39.9 0.68 20.5 2.2 35.1 0.57 58.6 1.90.7 60.4 0.96 0.0 4.6 38.9 0.67 21.5 3.2 33.9 0.55 61.3 2.80.8 60.0 0.96 0.0 6.1 37.4 0.64 22.2 4.1 32.7 0.53 63.5 3.61.0 59.6 0.95 0.0 7.6 35.7 0.61 23.2 5.1 31.4 0.51 65.9 4.41.3 59.3 0.95 0.0 10.6 33.6 0.58 24.4 6.8 29.0 0.47 70.0 6.01.7 58.1 0.93 0.0 13.6 30.6 0.52 26.3 8.4 26.4 0.43 76.3 7.42.0 57.5 0.92 0.0 16.5 28.6 0.49 28.6 9.9 24.5 0.40 83.0 8.62.5 56.7 0.90 0.0 20.8 25.8 0.44 31.1 12.0 22.6 0.37 89.8 10.43.0 55.4 0.88 0.0 25.0 23.8 0.41 34.1 13.8 21.5 0.35 96.1 12.13.5 54.1 0.86 0.0 29.2 21.9 0.37 37.0 15.6 21.0 0.34 99.5 13.74.0 53.8 0.86 0.0 33.2 21.0 0.36 39.4 17.2 20.0 0.32 103.2 15.24.5 51.7 0.83 37.2 21.8 0.37 18.8 22.2 0.36 16.85.0 51.1 0.81 41.1 19.9 0.34 20.4 24.2 0.39 18.65.5 53.5 0.85 45.0 20.5 0.35 21.9 25.5 0.41 20.56.0 54.9 0.88 49.1 24.6 0.42 23.6 27.6 0.45 22.57.0 56.3 0.90 57.5 41.8 0.72 28.6 39.8 0.65 27.58.0 56.1 0.89 66.0 50.1 0.86 35.6 51.9 0.84 34.59.0 56.9 0.91 74.6 52.7 0.90 43.3 56.4 0.91 42.710.0 57.0 0.91 83.2 52.6 0.90 51.3 57.0 0.92 51.220.0 57.8 0.92 169.9 55.3 0.94 132.7 60.2 0.98 139.721.5 59.2 0.94 183.2 56.9 0.97 145.5 61.1 0.99 153.5
68
Co 54 ppm Co 54 ppm Co 133 ppmMload = 507 lb/acre Mload = 507 lb/acre Mload = 1015 lb/acre
Qo = 63.4 mL/min Qo = 61.5 mL/min Qo = 62.0 mL/mintime Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV(h) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L)0.2 43.2 0.68 0.0 0.0 42.4 0.69 0.0 0.0 35.4 0.57 0.0 0.00.3 35.6 0.56 53.7 1.0 36.5 0.59 53.6 1.0 28.1 0.45 133.1 0.80.5 32.7 0.52 62.0 1.9 34.1 0.55 59.9 1.9 25.6 0.41 157.5 1.50.7 31.2 0.49 66.2 2.7 32.6 0.53 63.4 2.7 24.3 0.39 169.7 2.10.8 29.7 0.47 69.4 3.4 31.0 0.50 66.5 3.5 23.0 0.37 178.9 2.71.0 28.7 0.45 72.4 4.2 29.4 0.48 70.0 4.3 21.6 0.35 189.5 3.31.3 26.6 0.42 76.5 5.6 26.7 0.43 75.3 5.7 19.4 0.31 206.0 4.31.7 23.7 0.37 84.1 6.8 24.2 0.39 83.0 7.0 17.0 0.27 232.1 5.22.0 22.0 0.35 92.4 8.0 22.1 0.36 91.3 8.2 15.2 0.24 262.8 6.02.5 20.4 0.32 99.8 9.6 20.1 0.33 100.3 9.7 12.4 0.20 306.5 7.13.0 19.6 0.31 105.8 11.1 18.3 0.30 110.1 11.2 10.8 0.17 363.4 7.93.5 19.3 0.30 108.8 12.6 17.9 0.29 116.7 12.6 10.1 0.16 404.2 8.74.0 19.0 0.30 110.4 14.0 17.7 0.29 118.7 13.9 10.0 0.16 421.7 9.54.5 20.9 0.33 15.5 24.5 0.40 15.5 14.7 0.24 10.45.0 25.4 0.40 17.3 28.0 0.46 17.5 21.3 0.34 11.85.5 26.8 0.42 19.2 28.9 0.47 19.6 26.8 0.43 13.66.0 28.6 0.45 21.3 31.7 0.52 21.9 28.2 0.46 15.77.0 39.7 0.63 26.5 43.0 0.70 27.6 33.4 0.54 20.38.0 52.1 0.82 33.4 53.6 0.87 34.9 46.1 0.74 26.39.0 58.0 0.91 41.7 56.8 0.92 43.2 54.2 0.87 33.910.0 57.5 0.91 50.5 57.1 0.93 51.8 54.8 0.88 42.220.0 56.7 0.89 136.8 58.8 0.96 139.4 54.4 0.88 124.721.5 62.3 0.98 150.3 59.9 0.97 152.8 56.4 0.91 137.2
69
100 NTU Liquid Injection Tests with 0, 23, 56, 66, 66 and 142 mg/l
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time (h)
K/K
o
0 ppm23 ppm56 ppm66 ppm68 ppm142 ppm
Co 0 ppm Co 23 ppm Co 56 ppmMload 0 lb/acre Mload 203 lb/acre Mload 508 lb/acre
Qo 58.4 mL/min Qo 58.6 mL/min Qo 60.1 mL/mintime Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV(h) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L)0.2 58.4 1.00 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.71 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.68 0.0 0.00.3 58.4 1.00 0.0 1.5 33.1 0.57 22.6 1.0 34.0 0.56 56.4 1.00.5 57.5 0.99 0.0 2.9 27.9 0.48 27.7 1.7 30.1 0.50 66.1 1.80.7 58.1 1.00 0.0 4.4 25.3 0.43 31.8 2.4 27.8 0.46 73.1 2.50.8 59.2 1.01 0.0 5.9 22.3 0.38 35.6 3.0 25.6 0.43 79.3 3.21.0 56.7 0.97 0.0 7.3 20.3 0.35 39.8 3.5 23.4 0.39 86.4 3.81.3 57.3 0.98 0.0 10.2 16.7 0.28 45.8 4.4 20.7 0.34 96.0 4.91.7 55.1 0.94 0.0 13.0 14.7 0.25 54.0 5.2 18.6 0.31 107.6 5.92.0 55.5 0.95 0.0 15.8 13.4 0.23 60.2 5.9 17.9 0.30 115.9 6.82.5 53.4 0.91 0.0 19.9 12.6 0.22 65.0 6.9 15.7 0.26 126.0 8.13.0 52.5 0.90 0.0 23.9 11.6 0.20 69.9 7.8 18.3 0.30 124.4 9.33.5 52.0 0.89 0.0 27.9 10.8 0.18 75.6 8.7 16.8 0.28 120.5 10.74.0 51.7 0.89 0.0 31.8 9.5 0.16 83.5 9.5 16.2 0.27 128.4 11.94.5 51.9 0.89 35.7 9.1 0.15 10.2 16.2 0.27 13.15.0 52.0 0.89 39.6 8.5 0.15 10.8 18.7 0.31 14.45.5 52.2 0.89 43.6 8.3 0.14 11.5 20.4 0.34 15.96.3 52.0 0.89 49.5 7.6 0.13 12.4 20.6 0.34 18.27.0 51.8 0.89 55.3 7.3 0.12 13.2 21.4 0.36 20.68.0 53.1 0.91 63.3 8.0 0.14 14.4 28.0 0.47 24.49.0 53.5 0.92 71.3 8.8 0.15 15.6 40.1 0.67 29.510.0 54.0 0.92 79.4 13.6 0.23 17.3 45.7 0.76 36.011.0 52.9 0.91 87.5 34.3 0.59 20.9 48.6 0.81 43.112.2 52.2 0.89 96.6 45.3 0.77 27.9 49.5 0.82 51.613.2 51.7 0.89 104.5 44.1 0.75 34.6 50.0 0.83 59.124.3 51.1 0.87 190.7 50.3 0.86 113.8 51.4 0.86 144.226.0 51.1 0.88 204.2 52.7 0.90 127.4 52.0 0.87 157.926.5 51.2 0.88 208.0 52.5 0.90 131.4 52.2 0.87 161.8
70
Co 66 ppm Co 66 ppm Co 142 ppm
Mload 508 lb/acre Mload 508 lb/acre Mload 1015 lb/acreQo 58.5 mL/min Qo 56.1 mL/min Qo 57.2 mL/min
time Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV Q K/Ko Cave PoreV(h) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L) (mL/min) (mg/L)0.2 35.7 0.61 0.0 0.0 35.2 0.63 0.0 0.0 34.8 0.61 0.0 0.00.3 28.7 0.49 65.7 0.8 26.8 0.48 68.2 0.8 24.9 0.44 141.6 0.80.5 25.5 0.44 78.0 1.5 23.4 0.42 84.2 1.4 21.0 0.37 184.4 1.30.7 23.7 0.40 85.9 2.1 21.3 0.38 94.6 2.0 19.4 0.34 209.9 1.80.8 22.5 0.39 91.5 2.7 19.5 0.35 103.5 2.5 17.3 0.30 230.6 2.31.0 21.1 0.36 97.0 3.2 18.0 0.32 112.8 3.0 16.2 0.28 252.2 2.71.3 18.3 0.31 107.3 4.2 15.9 0.28 124.8 3.8 12.9 0.23 290.6 3.51.7 17.0 0.29 119.7 5.1 14.2 0.25 140.6 4.6 10.9 0.19 355.6 4.12.0 15.5 0.27 130.1 5.9 12.4 0.22 159.0 5.2 10.0 0.18 404.3 4.62.5 14.3 0.24 141.8 7.1 14.9 0.26 154.9 6.3 10.7 0.19 408.6 5.43.0 13.7 0.23 150.8 8.1 14.2 0.25 145.7 7.4 7.9 0.14 455.1 6.13.5 13.1 0.22 157.9 9.1 13.7 0.24 151.5 8.4 7.2 0.13 559.8 6.64.0 13.0 0.22 162.3 10.1 13.8 0.25 153.7 9.5 6.6 0.12 611.8 7.24.5 18.2 0.31 11.3 13.8 0.25 10.5 8.1 0.14 7.75.0 18.5 0.32 12.7 17.1 0.30 11.7 10.3 0.18 8.45.5 20.2 0.34 14.2 19.1 0.34 13.0 14.3 0.25 9.36.3 20.0 0.34 16.4 19.5 0.35 15.2 19.4 0.34 11.27.0 21.3 0.36 18.8 19.1 0.34 17.4 22.4 0.39 13.68.0 29.6 0.51 22.6 22.0 0.39 20.5 25.7 0.45 17.29.0 38.5 0.66 27.8 33.1 0.59 24.7 30.7 0.54 21.510.0 43.6 0.75 34.0 41.6 0.74 30.3 37.5 0.66 26.711.0 44.7 0.76 40.6 43.4 0.77 36.8 47.0 0.82 33.012.2 45.5 0.78 48.5 45.9 0.82 44.5 51.9 0.91 41.613.2 46.5 0.79 55.4 49.4 0.88 51.7 53.6 0.94 49.624.3 51.4 0.88 137.5 50.0 0.89 135.1 53.4 0.93 139.326.0 52.3 0.89 151.2 50.2 0.90 148.4 52.8 0.92 153.426.5 52.4 0.90 155.2 50.6 0.90 152.2 53.2 0.93 157.4
71
0.4 NTU Granular Tests with 0, 400, 900 and 2000 lb/acre
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time (h)
K/Ko
0 lb/ac
900 lb/ac
900 lb/ac
400 lb/ac
400 lb/ac
2000 lb/ac
Mload 0 lb/ac Mload 400 lb/ac Mload 400 lb/ac
Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/LQo 51.3 Qo 56.5 mL/min Qo 60.1 mL/min
time Q K/Ko PoreV Q K/Ko PoreV Q K/Ko PoreV(h) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min)0.3 51.98 1.0 0.00 14.69 0.3 0.00 11.81 0.2 0.000.5 53.60 1.0 1.99 30.85 0.5 0.86 14.61 0.2 0.500.8 54.24 1.1 4.03 34.32 0.6 2.09 16.06 0.3 1.081.0 54.76 1.1 6.09 32.78 0.6 3.36 15.96 0.3 1.681.3 55.64 1.1 8.84 37.76 0.7 5.12 19.34 0.3 2.561.7 55.31 1.1 11.69 37.17 0.7 7.04 24.04 0.4 3.682.0 56.32 1.1 14.47 39.95 0.7 8.96 30.95 0.5 5.052.5 56.13 1.1 18.72 42.42 0.8 12.08 41.50 0.7 7.793.0 55.74 1.1 22.95 45.59 0.8 15.40 41.83 0.7 10.933.5 55.23 1.1 27.14 47.39 0.8 18.91 44.89 0.7 14.214.5 56.08 1.1 35.55 50.47 0.9 26.31 48.35 0.8 21.255.0 58.02 1.1 39.86 50.82 0.9 30.13 49.23 0.8 24.945.5 58.44 1.1 44.26 50.88 0.9 33.97 50.41 0.8 28.706.0 58.76 1.1 48.69 51.50 0.9 37.84 50.70 0.8 32.527.0 58.50 1.1 57.55 51.45 0.9 45.62 51.03 0.8 40.218.5 58.22 1.1 70.77 51.85 0.9 57.32 51.70 0.9 51.859.0 58.59 1.1 75.19 53.02 0.9 61.29 52.46 0.9 55.7811.0 58.58 1.1 92.89 54.15 1.0 77.48 53.25 0.9 71.7612.5 58.27 1.1 106.13 56.54 1.0 90.02 53.91 0.9 83.9014.0 58.10 1.1 119.32 57.06 1.0 102.89 55.54 0.9 96.3015.0 58.90 1.1 128.16 58.49 1.0 111.62 55.93 0.9 104.7318.5 57.90 1.1 159.04 59.15 1.0 142.73 55.42 0.9 134.1722.0 60.06 1.2 190.23 62.51 1.1 174.90 58.94 1.0 164.4123.6 60.08 1.2 204.76 63.14 1.1 190.09 57.63 1.0 178.5026.0 60.52 1.2 226.62 63.92 1.1 213.12 57.00 0.9 199.2828.0 59.80 1.2 244.80 64.36 1.1 232.50 55.56 0.9 216.2930.0 59.84 1.2 262.88 64.57 1.1 251.98 56.29 0.9 233.1933.0 59.60 1.2 289.95 61.98 1.1 280.67 59.91 1.0 259.53
72
Mload 900 lb/ac Mload 900 lb/ac Mload 2000 lb/acCo N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/LQo 56.3 mL/min Qo 53.0 mL/min Qo 58.3 mL/min
time Q K/Ko PoreV Q K/Ko PoreV Q K/Ko PoreV(h) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min)0.3 13.41 0.2 0.00 0.81 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.000.5 8.44 0.1 0.41 1.04 0.0 0.03 0.00 0.0 0.000.8 8.93 0.2 0.74 0.00 0.0 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.001.0 12.47 0.2 1.14 0.00 0.0 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.001.3 5.23 0.1 1.59 0.00 0.0 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.001.7 0.59 0.0 1.74 0.00 0.0 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.002.0 3.18 0.1 1.83 0.00 0.0 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.002.5 6.07 0.1 2.18 0.00 0.0 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.003.0 10.46 0.2 2.80 0.47 0.0 0.07 0.00 0.0 0.003.5 6.82 0.1 3.46 0.00 0.0 0.09 0.00 0.0 0.004.5 12.29 0.2 4.90 2.15 0.0 0.25 0.00 0.0 0.005.0 23.39 0.4 6.25 3.38 0.1 0.46 0.00 0.0 0.005.5 32.78 0.6 8.37 1.92 0.0 0.66 0.00 0.0 0.006.0 34.57 0.6 10.91 7.43 0.1 1.01 0.00 0.0 0.007.0 35.69 0.6 16.22 8.20 0.2 2.20 0.00 0.0 0.008.5 41.36 0.7 24.95 3.13 0.00 0.0 0.009.0 42.38 0.8 28.12 14.30 0.3 3.67 0.00 0.0 0.0011.0 42.78 0.8 40.98 16.69 0.3 8.35 0.00 0.0 0.0012.5 42.26 0.8 50.62 22.32 0.4 12.77 0.00 0.0 0.0014.0 42.52 0.8 60.23 26.75 0.5 18.33 0.00 0.0 0.0015.0 43.35 0.8 66.72 27.10 0.5 22.40 0.00 0.0 0.0018.5 47.04 0.8 90.62 34.43 0.6 38.67 0.00 0.0 0.0022.0 51.35 0.9 116.63 40.70 0.8 58.53 0.00 0.0 0.0023.6 54.26 1.0 129.40 43.08 0.8 68.66 0.00 0.0 0.0026.0 56.72 1.0 149.52 47.50 0.9 85.08 0.00 0.0 0.0028.0 56.83 1.0 166.68 48.61 0.9 99.61 0.00 0.0 0.0030.0 57.33 1.0 183.93 51.17 1.0 114.68 0.00 0.0 0.0033.0 57.60 1.0 209.97 52.04 1.0 138.07 0.00 0.0 0.00
73
0.4 NTU Granular Tests with 0, 200, 400 and 900 lb/acre
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
time (h)
Q/Q
o
0 lb/ac
200 lb/ac
200 lb/ac
200 lb/ac
400 lb/ac
900 lb/ac
Mload 0 lb/acre Mload 200 lb/acre Mload 200 lb/acreCo N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/LQo 64.9 mL/min Qo 57.3 mL/min Qo 59.8 mL/min
time Q K/Ko PoreV Q K/Ko PoreV Q K/Ko PoreV(h) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min)0.3 60.26 0.9 0.00 12.22 0.2 0.00 29.55 0.5 0.000.5 62.28 1.0 1.55 12.09 0.2 0.31 30.74 0.5 0.760.8 63.05 1.0 3.91 13.76 0.2 0.79 33.71 0.6 1.981.0 63.35 1.0 6.30 14.13 0.2 1.32 36.95 0.6 3.311.3 63.63 1.0 9.47 15.84 0.3 2.07 39.03 0.7 5.211.7 63.68 1.0 12.74 15.69 0.3 2.88 40.01 0.7 7.242.0 63.41 1.0 15.90 15.75 0.3 3.66 40.42 0.7 9.242.5 63.50 1.0 20.70 47.29 0.8 6.04 41.08 0.7 12.323.2 63.17 1.0 27.40 46.95 0.8 11.03 41.91 0.7 16.713.5 64.45 1.0 30.29 46.18 0.8 13.14 41.95 0.7 18.614.5 64.20 1.0 40.01 47.19 0.8 20.19 42.96 0.7 25.025.0 65.01 1.0 44.89 47.27 0.8 23.76 43.06 0.7 28.276.5 64.73 1.0 59.59 48.41 0.8 34.60 42.84 0.7 38.017.0 64.74 1.0 64.48 51.88 0.9 38.39 46.77 0.8 41.398.0 64.71 1.0 74.26 55.68 1.0 46.52 52.52 0.9 48.899.0 64.42 1.0 84.02 56.14 1.0 54.97 53.41 0.9 56.9010.0 63.95 1.0 93.72 55.72 1.0 63.42 54.44 0.9 65.0411.0 63.77 1.0 103.36 55.94 1.0 71.85 54.76 0.9 73.2913.5 62.72 1.0 127.25 57.11 1.0 93.20 54.84 0.9 93.9915.3 65.31 1.0 144.18 59.24 1.0 108.59 57.00 1.0 108.7818.3 63.99 1.0 173.49 59.28 1.0 135.45 57.78 1.0 134.7920.0 64.42 1.0 190.47 59.65 1.0 151.17 58.47 1.0 150.1622.0 63.68 1.0 209.82 59.28 1.0 169.14 58.71 1.0 167.8724.0 63.20 1.0 228.99 59.29 1.0 187.06 58.42 1.0 185.5726.0 63.71 1.0 248.17 59.24 1.0 204.97 57.49 1.0 203.0828.0 63.42 1.0 267.38 59.59 1.0 222.92 58.07 1.0 220.5430.5 63.19 1.0 291.29 59.79 1.0 245.47 58.31 1.0 242.5232.0 63.26 1.0 305.62 61.64 1.1 259.23 59.64 1.0 255.8936.5 62.87 1.0 348.50 60.78 1.1 300.85 58.91 1.0 296.1941.8 62.90 1.0 398.39 61.47 1.1 349.34 59.02 1.0 342.97
74
100 NTU Granular Tests with 0, 200, 400 and 900 lb/acre
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 10 20 30 40 50 6
time (h)
K/K
o
0
0 lb/ac
200 lb/ac
200 lb/ac
400 lb/ac
400 lb/ac
800 lb/ac
Mload 0 lb/acre Mload 200 lb/acre Mload 200 lb/acreCo N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/LQo 60.4 mL/min Qo 52.0 mL/min Qo 63.0 mL/min
time Q K/Ko PoreV Q K/Ko PoreV Q K/Ko PoreV(h) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min)0.3 62.51 1.0 0.00 41.36 0.8 0.00 33.69 0.5 0.000.5 58.44 1.0 2.28 21.31 0.4 1.18 19.16 0.3 1.000.8 61.39 1.0 4.55 15.86 0.3 1.89 17.07 0.3 1.681.0 60.79 1.0 6.85 12.59 0.2 2.42 13.85 0.2 2.271.3 60.97 1.0 9.89 12.96 0.2 3.06 13.03 0.2 2.941.7 59.72 1.0 12.99 14.27 0.3 3.76 12.94 0.2 3.602.0 59.32 1.0 15.96 15.04 0.3 4.49 13.85 0.2 4.272.5 57.83 1.0 20.38 13.87 0.3 5.58 14.11 0.2 5.333.0 57.15 0.9 24.73 12.91 0.2 6.59 14.20 0.2 6.403.5 57.01 0.9 29.04 14.08 0.3 7.61 13.70 0.2 7.454.0 55.91 0.9 33.30 13.89 0.3 8.67 13.96 0.2 8.504.8 54.43 0.9 39.97 13.73 0.3 10.34 13.07 0.2 10.136.0 53.00 0.9 49.71 13.72 0.3 12.83 15.09 0.2 12.687.5 53.36 0.9 61.77 14.62 0.3 16.04 16.27 0.3 16.249.3 51.31 0.8 75.61 11.74 0.2 19.53 12.30 0.2 20.0111.0 50.99 0.8 89.13 10.81 0.2 22.51 10.66 0.2 23.0515.5 47.59 0.8 122.64 8.86 0.2 29.19 9.52 0.2 29.9119.5 46.15 0.8 150.97 9.57 0.2 34.76 9.47 0.2 35.6521.5 45.22 0.7 164.77 9.59 0.2 37.65 9.09 0.1 38.4523.5 44.75 0.7 178.37 9.81 0.2 40.58 9.55 0.2 41.2725.5 42.84 0.7 191.60 9.34 0.2 43.48 9.63 0.2 44.1727.5 41.41 0.7 204.33 11.42 0.2 46.61 10.90 0.2 47.2728.0 40.65 0.7 207.43 9.83 0.2 47.41 10.30 0.2 48.0729.8 41.88 0.7 218.34 9.08 0.2 49.91 10.41 0.2 50.8132.0 40.60 0.7 232.36 9.58 0.2 53.09 10.03 0.2 54.2834.0 40.76 0.7 244.65 9.23 0.2 55.93 10.34 0.2 57.3637.0 38.09 0.6 262.52 10.38 0.2 60.37 10.23 0.2 62.0242.5 35.79 0.6 293.22 10.09 0.2 68.88 10.91 0.2 70.8144.0 35.11 0.6 301.26 9.79 0.2 71.13 10.45 0.2 73.2346.0 34.40 0.6 311.76 10.22 0.2 74.15 10.77 0.2 76.4348.0 32.82 0.5 321.92 9.81 0.2 77.18 10.60 0.2 79.66
75
Mload 400 lb/acre Mload 400 lb/acre Mload 900 lb/acreCo N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/LQo 60.1 mL/min Qo 61.7 mL/min Qo 58.7 mL/min
time Q K/Ko PoreV Q K/Ko PoreV Q K/Ko PoreV(h) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min)0.3 6.72 0.1 0.00 3.91 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.000.5 3.21 0.1 0.19 0.78 0.0 0.09 0.00 0.0 0.000.8 0.56 0.0 0.26 0.53 0.0 0.11 0.00 0.0 0.001.0 0.62 0.0 0.28 2.89 0.0 0.18 1.18 0.0 0.021.3 0.00 0.0 0.30 4.62 0.1 0.37 1.17 0.0 0.081.7 1.89 0.0 0.34 3.63 0.1 0.58 1.50 0.0 0.152.0 4.99 0.1 0.52 1.31 0.0 0.70 1.81 0.0 0.232.5 6.05 0.1 0.93 4.26 0.1 0.91 2.13 0.0 0.383.0 5.80 0.1 1.38 6.64 0.1 1.32 2.15 0.0 0.543.5 6.39 0.1 1.84 7.28 0.1 1.85 2.16 0.0 0.714.0 8.23 0.1 2.39 8.61 0.1 2.45 1.19 0.0 0.834.8 9.82 0.2 3.48 10.47 0.2 3.60 1.53 0.0 1.006.0 13.60 0.2 5.61 13.40 0.2 5.77 1.84 0.0 1.307.5 13.52 0.2 8.68 14.50 0.2 8.93 2.18 0.0 1.769.3 12.00 0.2 12.06 12.27 0.2 12.47 3.27 0.1 2.4811.0 11.89 0.2 15.21 10.77 0.2 15.51 3.95 0.1 3.4315.5 11.71 0.2 23.23 11.31 0.2 23.02 6.02 0.1 6.8319.5 10.76 0.2 30.02 8.16 0.1 28.90 7.95 0.1 11.0521.5 10.76 0.2 33.28 8.17 0.1 31.37 7.84 0.1 13.4423.5 10.90 0.2 36.55 8.71 0.1 33.92 7.79 0.1 15.8025.5 9.12 0.2 39.57 8.55 0.1 36.52 9.07 0.2 18.3527.5 14.48 0.2 43.14 11.40 0.2 39.54 9.99 0.2 21.2228.0 10.86 0.2 44.10 8.43 0.1 40.29 10.28 0.2 21.9929.8 16.61 0.3 47.73 8.70 0.1 42.55 11.06 0.2 24.8132.0 13.36 0.2 52.83 7.24 0.1 45.26 10.29 0.2 28.4434.0 12.38 0.2 56.71 6.84 0.1 47.39 11.75 0.2 31.7737.0 11.65 0.2 62.16 6.79 0.1 50.48 12.04 0.2 37.1742.5 11.64 0.2 71.84 6.70 0.1 56.08 10.44 0.2 46.5144.0 11.25 0.2 74.44 5.86 0.1 57.50 10.47 0.2 48.8846.0 11.98 0.2 77.95 4.70 0.1 59.10 10.64 0.2 52.0748.0 11.36 0.2 81.47 4.75 0.1 60.52 10.96 0.2 55.33
76
APPENDIX B: ADSORPTION AND ISOTHERM DATA
77
Adsorption Data
y = 7.67x0.56
R2 = 0.81
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Polymer Concentration (mg/L)
q (μ
g/g)
Msand 150 gVwater 150 mL
Initial PAM concentration
Final PAM concentration
Adsorbed mass q
mg/L mg/L mg μg/g50 18.0 3.6 24.050 29.8 2.7 18.0100 15.0 11.9 79.1250 48.7 18.6 123.7250 135.7 15.2 101.5500 177.2 26.9 179.5500 280.1 25.7 171.51000 519.2 47.6 317.61000 645.9 49.8 332.02500 1910.5 69.6 464.35000 4016.1 110.0 733.2
78
Viscosity Data
0.1
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
C (mg/L)
Kin
.Vis
c (c
p)
PAM concentration t1 t2 t3
Average time
Viscometer constant
Kinematic viscosity
mg/L s s s s mm2/s2 (cp)1 124.0 122.6 123.3 0.0080 0.98010 517.1 523.6 526.0 522.2 0.0194 1.01125 536.0 531.4 529.7 532.4 0.0194 1.03050 561.4 567.2 564.3 0.0194 1.092100 136.5 136.8 136.7 0.0080 1.086200 151.5 151.4 151.5 0.0080 1.204400 204.1 199.7 200.4 201.4 0.0080 1.6011000 418.8 418.0 423.4 420.1 0.0080 3.3399540 693.4 722.2 707.8 1.2090 855.760
79
APPENDIX C: FLUME DATA
*Note: 1 lb/acre = 8.92 g/cm2
80
Liquid Injection with 0 and 72 mg/l
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
time (h)
K/K
o
0 lb/ac
2200 lb/ac
2200 lb/ac
3100 lb/ac
Mload 0 lb/acre Mload 3065 lb/acre Mload 2165 lb/acre Mload 2224 lb/acreCo 72 ppm Co 72 ppm Co 72 ppm Co 72 ppmQo 420.4 mL/min Qo 420.6 mL/min Qo 292.3 mL/min Qo 297.3 mL/min
t Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V(h) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min)0.2 416.9 0.99 0.0 390.1 0.93 0.0 275.9 0.94 282.9 0.95 0.00.3 420.7 1.00 1.5 384.3 0.91 1.4 266.7 0.91 1.0 274.9 0.92 1.00.5 417.7 0.99 3.0 376.0 0.89 2.8 265.1 0.91 1.9 271.8 0.91 2.00.7 416.9 0.99 4.6 376.0 0.89 4.2 260.8 0.89 2.9 267.9 0.90 3.00.8 417.7 0.99 6.1 376.4 0.89 5.5 261.9 0.90 3.9 268.3 0.90 4.01.0 414.5 0.99 7.6 372.0 0.88 6.9 261.5 0.89 4.8 269.5 0.91 5.01.3 416.2 0.99 10.7 371.8 0.88 9.7 259.6 0.89 6.8 266.0 0.89 6.91.7 406.0 0.97 13.8 363.9 0.87 12.4 254.1 0.87 8.7 265.2 0.89 8.92.0 401.5 0.95 16.8 358.8 0.85 15.1 255.3 0.87 10.6 261.2 0.88 10.92.5 400.5 0.95 21.2 357.7 0.85 19.1 253.3 0.87 13.4 259.4 0.87 13.83.3 391.6 0.93 27.8 349.6 0.83 24.9 251.9 0.86 17.6 258.1 0.87 18.13.7 388.0 0.92 31.4 351.0 0.83 28.2 249.9 0.86 19.9 257.2 0.87 20.54.0 389.6 0.93 34.3 382.7 0.91 30.9 269.9 0.92 21.8 275.9 0.93 22.44.3 389.2 0.93 36.4 379.4 0.90 33.0 271.9 0.93 23.3 276.8 0.93 24.04.5 393.2 0.94 38.6 386.2 0.92 35.1 272.1 0.93 24.8 277.4 0.93 25.54.8 395.5 0.94 40.8 392.0 0.93 37.3 274.3 0.94 26.4 279.3 0.94 27.05.0 397.3 0.95 43.0 395.9 0.94 39.5 276.8 0.95 27.9 281.3 0.95 28.65.5 393.2 0.94 47.4 394.2 0.94 43.9 275.7 0.94 31.0 280.2 0.94 31.7
81
Slurry Surface with 0, 20, 40 and 80 lb/acre
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4time (h)
K/K
o0 lb/ac
20 lb/ac
40 lb/ac
80 lb/ac
Mload 0 lb/acre Mload 20 lb/acre Mload 40 lb/acre Mload 80 lb/acreCo N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L
Qoest 210.92 ml/min Qoest 133.58 ml/min Qoest 207.62 ml/min Qoest 148.32 ml/minQmin 205.62 Qmin 129.96 Qmin 195.96 Qmin 140.22
t Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V (h) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min)0.0 210.7 1.00 0.0 131.8 0.99 0.0 197.3 0.95 0.0 141.8 0.96 0.00.1 207.7 0.98 0.4 130.5 0.98 0.2 196.0 0.94 0.4 141.1 0.95 0.30.2 205.6 0.97 0.8 131.1 0.98 0.5 196.6 0.95 0.7 140.2 0.95 0.50.3 206.3 0.98 1.5 130.0 0.97 1.0 196.0 0.94 1.5 140.6 0.95 1.00.5 208.9 0.99 2.3 131.7 0.99 1.5 198.6 0.96 2.2 144.9 0.98 1.60.7 217.0 1.03 3.1 130.3 0.98 1.9 203.8 0.98 2.9 149.4 1.01 2.10.8 212.9 1.01 3.9 130.4 0.98 2.4 206.6 1.00 3.7 145.6 0.98 2.71.0 213.5 1.01 4.7 130.7 0.98 2.9 208.9 1.01 4.5 145.1 0.98 3.21.5 213.9 1.01 7.0 131.0 0.98 4.4 214.0 1.03 6.8 145.6 0.98 4.82.0 214.8 1.02 9.4 132.2 0.99 5.8 214.2 1.03 9.2 145.5 0.98 6.42.5 215.2 1.02 11.8 132.6 0.99 7.3 214.5 1.03 11.6 146.0 0.98 8.03.0 211.8 1.00 14.2 133.1 1.00 8.8 212.7 1.02 13.9 146.5 0.99 9.73.5 212.0 1.01 16.5 132.9 1.00 10.2 211.3 1.02 16.3 145.8 0.98 11.34.0 210.9 1.00 18.9 133.6 1.00 11.7 209.6 1.01 18.6 146.3 0.99 12.9
82
Slurry Surface with 0, 200, 500 and 1500 lb/acre
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9time (h)
K/K
o
0 lb/ac
200 lb/ac
500 lb/ac
1500 lb/ac
Mload 0 lb/acre Mload 200 lb/acre Mload 500 lb/acre Mload 1500 lb/acreCo N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L
Qoest 137.1 ml/min Qoest 238.6 ml/min Qoest 230.0 ml/min Qoest 136.0 ml/mint Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V
(h) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min)0.0 136.7 1.00 0.0 224.6 0.94 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00.1 134.6 0.98 0.2 223.7 0.94 0.2 171.2 0.74 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.00.1 134.5 0.98 0.3 217.2 0.91 0.6 168.8 0.73 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.00.2 135.3 0.99 0.5 212.7 0.89 0.8 163.6 0.71 0.5 0.0 0.00 0.00.3 136.3 0.99 0.9 211.2 0.88 1.4 153.4 0.67 0.9 0.0 0.00 0.00.4 134.1 0.98 1.0 220.1 0.92 1.6 163.6 0.71 1.1 0.0 0.00 0.00.4 134.0 0.98 1.2 213.6 0.89 2.0 165.5 0.72 1.4 0.0 0.00 0.00.5 133.2 0.97 1.4 218.7 0.92 2.3 177.2 0.77 1.7 35.6 0.26 0.00.6 131.4 0.96 1.7 221.2 0.93 2.7 185.6 0.81 2.0 75.0 0.55 0.10.7 131.3 0.96 2.0 224.5 0.94 3.3 196.5 0.85 2.5 79.9 0.59 0.30.8 130.5 0.95 2.4 227.8 0.95 4.0 205.1 0.89 3.1 77.1 0.57 0.61.0 129.6 0.95 2.9 230.1 0.96 4.8 211.2 0.92 3.9 78.8 0.58 0.81.2 131.2 0.96 3.4 229.1 0.96 5.7 212.3 0.92 4.7 85.7 0.63 1.21.3 131.8 0.96 3.9 231.1 0.97 6.5 216.0 0.94 5.4 87.7 0.64 1.51.5 131.7 0.96 4.4 231.3 0.97 7.4 216.4 0.94 6.2 93.1 0.68 1.81.8 132.0 0.96 5.1 233.0 0.98 8.7 219.8 0.96 7.5 100.0 0.74 2.32.0 134.5 0.98 5.8 231.3 0.97 10.0 219.6 0.95 8.7 104.8 0.77 2.92.3 133.2 0.97 6.8 232.6 0.97 11.7 220.1 0.96 10.3 112.1 0.82 3.72.7 134.2 0.98 7.8 232.1 0.97 13.4 219.2 0.95 11.9 115.5 0.85 4.63.0 133.4 0.97 8.8 232.7 0.98 15.1 219.5 0.95 13.5 118.4 0.87 5.43.5 134.2 0.98 10.3 235.1 0.99 17.7 224.6 0.98 16.0 123.2 0.91 6.84.0 141.2 1.03 11.8 229.2 0.96 20.3 228.3 0.99 18.5 127.3 0.94 8.24.5 142.9 1.04 13.4 228.4 0.96 22.8 228.7 0.99 21.1 129.5 0.95 9.65.0 137.0 1.00 14.9 233.5 0.98 25.4 226.9 0.99 23.6 131.0 0.96 11.06.5 137.9 1.01 19.5 234.3 0.98 33.2 229.0 1.00 31.2 135.6 1.00 15.57.0 137.1 1.00 21.0 234.0 0.98 35.8 229.5 1.00 33.7 135.5 1.00 17.08.0 134.4 0.98 24.1 238.6 1.00 41.0 230.0 1.00 38.8 136.0 1.00 20.0
83
Granular Surface with 0, 200, 500 and 1500 lb/acre
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (h)
Q/Q
o
0 lb/ac100 lb/ac500 lb/ac1500 lb/ac
Mload 0 lb/acre Mload 100 lb/acre Mload 500 lb/acre Mload 1500 lb/acreCo N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/L Co N/A mg/LQo 221 ml/min Qo 146 ml/min Qo 206 ml/min Qo 135 ml/min
t Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V(h) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min)0.0 221.3 1.00 0.0 140.8 0.97 0.0 145.5 0.71 14.6 0.11 0.00.1 221.6 1.00 0.4 141.3 0.97 0.3 109.8 0.53 0.2 4.4 0.03 0.00.2 221.2 1.00 0.8 139.8 0.96 0.5 82.3 0.40 0.4 0.7 0.01 0.00.3 224.4 1.02 1.4 139.8 0.96 0.9 63.0 0.31 0.6 0.2 0.00 0.00.5 215.8 0.98 2.2 135.1 0.93 1.4 56.7 0.28 0.8 0.0 0.00 0.00.6 217.2 0.98 2.9 134.8 0.93 1.8 50.8 0.25 1.0 0.0 0.00 0.00.7 224.9 1.02 3.2 135.0 0.93 2.0 41.2 0.20 1.1 0.0 0.00 0.00.8 216.9 0.98 4.0 134.6 0.92 2.5 39.9 0.19 1.2 0.0 0.00 0.01.0 218.4 0.99 5.0 132.5 0.91 3.1 38.6 0.19 1.4 0.0 0.00 0.01.3 217.0 0.98 6.0 132.8 0.91 3.7 35.9 0.17 1.6 0.0 0.00 0.01.5 218.3 0.99 7.2 132.6 0.91 4.5 31.8 0.15 1.7 0.0 0.00 0.01.8 218.7 0.99 8.4 133.3 0.92 5.2 35.3 0.17 1.9 0.0 0.00 0.02.0 216.7 0.98 9.6 133.1 0.91 5.9 38.0 0.18 2.1 0.0 0.00 0.02.3 218.0 0.99 11.2 135.6 0.93 6.9 40.6 0.20 2.4 0.0 0.00 0.02.7 217.9 0.99 12.9 134.3 0.92 7.9 44.0 0.21 2.7 0.0 0.00 0.03.1 218.6 0.99 14.9 135.9 0.93 9.2 51.6 0.25 3.2 0.0 0.00 0.03.5 213.7 0.97 16.9 132.8 0.91 10.4 60.2 0.29 3.7 0.0 0.00 0.04.0 220.5 1.00 19.3 137.1 0.94 11.9 62.1 0.30 4.4 0.0 0.00 0.04.5 217.0 0.98 21.7 137.0 0.94 13.4 76.0 0.37 5.1 0.0 0.00 0.05.0 220.0 1.00 24.1 139.1 0.95 15.0 88.6 0.43 6.1 0.0 0.00 0.06.5 209.8 0.95 31.3 135.8 0.93 19.5 120.8 0.59 9.5 0.0 0.00 0.07.5 207.9 0.94 35.9 138.0 0.95 22.6 143.4 0.70 12.5 0.0 0.00 0.08.5 205.0 0.93 40.5 138.4 0.95 25.6 150.6 0.73 15.7 0.0 0.00 0.09.5 213.1 0.96 45.1 141.0 0.97 28.8 157.1 0.76 19.1 0.0 0.00 0.010.5 213.6 0.97 49.9 139.8 0.96 31.9 160.2 0.78 22.7 0.0 0.00 0.011.3 210.5 0.95 53.6 136.5 0.94 34.3 158.2 0.77 25.5 0.0 0.00 0.012.5 209.6 0.95 59.2 141.9 0.97 38.0 163.0 0.79 29.8 0.0 0.00 0.015.0 209.4 0.95 70.9 140.4 0.96 45.9 177.1 0.86 39.2 0.0 0.00 0.019.0 209.7 0.95 89.5 143.3 0.98 58.5 186.8 0.91 55.4 0.0 0.00 0.021.0 212.7 0.96 98.8 146.8 1.01 64.9 188.4 0.91 63.7 0.0 0.00 0.023.0 209.0 0.95 108.2 139.0 0.95 71.2 189.8 0.92 72.1 0.0 0.00 0.024.0 219.4 0.99 113.0 146.2 1.00 74.4 195.5 0.95 76.4 0.0 0.00 0.0
84
Granular and Slurry Surface with 0, 200 and 1000 lb/acre
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1time (h)
Q/Q
o
6
0 lb/ac1000 lb/ac liq200 lb/ac gran1000 lb/ac gran
Mload 0 lb/acre Mload 1000 lb/acre Mload 1000 lb/acre Mload 200 lb/acreLiquid Liquid Granular
Qo 135.04 mL/min Qo 223.6 mL/min Qo 218.91 mL/min Qo 147.28 mL/mint Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V Q K/Ko Pore V
(h) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min) (mL/min)0.0 136.7 1.01 0.0 82.6 0.37 0.0 49.1 0.22 0.0 143.9 0.98 0.00.1 134.1 0.99 0.3 119.2 0.53 0.2 11.6 0.05 0.1 140.1 0.95 0.30.3 133.9 0.99 0.6 124.0 0.55 0.5 5.8 0.03 0.1 139.4 0.95 0.70.4 134.3 0.99 1.0 122.3 0.55 0.9 3.4 0.02 0.1 139.1 0.94 1.00.5 134.0 0.99 1.4 131.8 0.59 1.2 1.9 0.01 0.1 137.0 0.93 1.40.7 134.9 1.00 1.9 146.7 0.66 1.7 0.8 0.00 0.1 132.3 0.90 1.90.9 135.7 1.00 2.5 164.3 0.73 2.4 0.8 0.00 0.1 135.3 0.92 2.51.0 134.5 1.00 3.0 173.8 0.78 3.1 0.3 0.00 0.1 139.6 0.95 3.01.3 134.8 1.00 3.6 183.2 0.82 3.9 1.1 0.01 0.1 138.5 0.94 3.71.5 135.6 1.00 4.4 193.6 0.87 5.0 1.4 0.01 0.1 139.7 0.95 4.51.9 134.7 1.00 5.5 198.4 0.89 6.6 0.3 0.00 0.1 139.2 0.95 5.62.1 133.4 0.99 6.0 198.3 0.89 7.4 0.2 0.00 0.1 139.4 0.95 6.22.5 135.4 1.00 7.4 204.4 0.91 9.4 0.0 0.00 0.1 138.9 0.94 7.63.2 134.7 1.00 9.4 206.6 0.92 12.4 0.0 0.00 0.1 133.6 0.91 9.64.0 131.9 0.98 11.8 206.6 0.92 16.2 0.0 0.00 0.1 137.8 0.94 12.14.5 132.5 0.98 13.3 206.5 0.92 18.5 0.0 0.00 0.1 138.2 0.94 13.65.0 131.1 0.97 14.8 208.0 0.93 20.8 0.0 0.00 0.1 142.1 0.96 15.25.5 132.2 0.98 16.2 207.8 0.93 23.1 2.8 0.01 0.2 140.1 0.95 16.86.5 133.5 0.99 19.2 211.7 0.95 27.8 2.9 0.01 0.2 139.0 0.94 19.97.7 130.1 0.96 22.6 208.0 0.93 33.2 6.5 0.03 0.3 140.8 0.96 23.59.0 133.8 0.99 26.5 213.5 0.95 39.5 0.5 0.00 0.4 140.2 0.95 27.610.0 131.0 0.97 29.4 210.1 0.94 44.2 0.9 0.00 0.5 144.9 0.98 30.811.0 131.3 0.97 32.3 212.0 0.95 48.9 6.4 0.03 0.5 146.4 0.99 34.012.0 133.1 0.99 35.3 204.6 0.92 53.5 7.8 0.04 0.7 143.5 0.97 37.215.0 132.2 0.98 44.1 201.2 0.90 67.0 1.8 0.01 1.0 143.1 0.97 46.8
85
APPENDIX D – FIELD DATA
86
Boredeaux Canal Raw Discharge Measurements
Pre-Treatment
INJDate Q Q Seepage Q Seepage
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)7/11 21.374 21.462 -0.088 19.804 1.577/13 22.072 20.716 1.356 21.915 0.1577/17 19.724 19.307 0.417 17.849 1.8757/17 17.778 16.524 1.254 15.506 2.2727/24 15.993 15.39 0.6037/25 18.045 16.992 1.053 18.16 -0.115Mean 0.765833 1.1518
Std. dev 0.556111 1.066204
Post-Treatment
INJDate Q Q Seepage Q Seepage
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)7/26 16.393 15.646 0.747 15.375 1.0188/1 17.875 16.795 1.08 16.42 1.4558/3 19.856 18.236 1.62 19.124 0.7328/3 19.399 17.754 1.645 19.24 0.1598/22 12.988 12.855 0.133 12.342 0.6468/22 13.856 13.033 0.823Mean 1.045 0.8055
Std. dev 0.634901 0.428046
MP1 MP3
MP1 MP3
87
Bordeaux Canal Pressure-Based Discharge Data
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8Time (d)
Dis
char
ge (c
fs)
0
Inj PntMP 1MP 2
*Vertical line at 27 days represents PAM treatment
Month Date Day Hour Barom. P Adj P Q P Adj P Q Δ Q P Adj P Q Δ Q(psi) (psi) (psi) (cfs) (psi) (psi) (cfs) (cfs) (psi) (psi) (cfs) (cfs)
6 30 0.250 6 1.005 1.104 1.109 18.18 1.385 1.39 17.40 0.780 1.248 1.253 17.38 0.7966 30 0.500 12 0.997 1.082 1.079 17.75 1.362 1.359 16.98 0.768 1.228 1.225 17.02 0.7326 30 0.750 18 0.999 1.102 1.101 18.06 1.38 1.379 17.25 0.813 1.24 1.239 17.20 0.8637 1 1.000 0 0.964 1.074 1.038 17.17 1.353 1.317 16.43 0.746 1.219 1.183 16.48 0.6947 1 1.333 6 0.974 1.08 1.054 17.40 1.359 1.333 16.64 0.760 1.226 1.2 16.70 0.7017 1 1.583 12 1.024 1.116 1.14 18.61 1.395 1.419 17.78 0.833 1.256 1.28 17.73 0.8867 1 1.833 18 1.028 1.159 1.187 19.28 1.435 1.463 18.37 0.913 1.295 1.323 18.28 0.9967 2 2.167 0 1.017 1.177 1.194 19.38 1.45 1.467 18.42 0.959 1.317 1.334 18.43 0.9537 2 2.417 6 1.041 1.188 1.229 19.87 1.468 1.509 18.98 0.896 1.328 1.369 18.88 0.9977 2 2.667 12 1.031 1.174 1.205 19.53 1.451 1.482 18.62 0.915 1.313 1.344 18.55 0.9807 2 2.917 18 1.021 1.17 1.191 19.34 1.445 1.466 18.41 0.930 1.306 1.327 18.34 1.0017 3 3.250 0 0.999 1.175 1.174 19.10 1.452 1.451 18.21 0.889 1.315 1.314 18.17 0.9287 3 3.500 6 1.06 1.211 1.271 20.47 1.491 1.551 19.54 0.932 1.352 1.412 19.43 1.0377 3 3.750 12 1.058 1.207 1.265 20.38 1.483 1.541 19.40 0.980 1.346 1.404 19.33 1.0557 3 4.000 18 1.068 1.245 1.313 21.06 1.519 1.587 20.01 1.047 1.378 1.446 19.87 1.1927 4 4.333 0 1.048 1.198 1.246 20.11 1.47 1.518 19.10 1.017 1.337 1.385 19.08 1.0317 4 4.583 6 1.083 1.199 1.282 20.62 1.476 1.559 19.64 0.981 1.339 1.422 19.56 1.0637 4 4.833 12 1.069 1.211 1.28 20.59 1.489 1.558 19.63 0.966 1.35 1.419 19.52 1.0747 4 5.167 18 1.069 1.205 1.274 20.51 1.481 1.55 19.52 0.988 1.344 1.413 19.44 1.0667 5 5.417 0 1.041 1.165 1.206 19.55 1.442 1.483 18.63 0.916 1.305 1.346 18.58 0.9687 5 5.667 6 1.078 1.192 1.27 20.45 1.465 1.543 19.43 1.024 1.33 1.408 19.38 1.0747 5 5.833 12 1.07 1.163 1.233 19.93 1.436 1.506 18.94 0.992 1.302 1.372 18.92 1.0157 5 6.250 18 1.062 1.185 1.247 20.13 1.458 1.52 19.12 1.004 1.324 1.386 19.10 1.0327 6 6.500 0 1.01 1.142 1.152 18.78 1.412 1.422 17.82 0.963 1.283 1.293 17.90 0.8887 6 6.750 6 1.024 1.1 1.124 18.39 1.377 1.401 17.54 0.846 1.24 1.264 17.52 0.8667 6 6.917 12 1.009 1.086 1.095 17.98 1.358 1.367 17.09 0.888 1.223 1.232 17.11 0.8687 6 7.333 18 0.999 1.093 1.092 17.94 1.37 1.369 17.12 0.819 1.23 1.229 17.07 0.8657 7 7.583 0 0.987 1.05 1.037 17.16 1.323 1.31 16.33 0.825 1.19 1.177 16.40 0.7577 7 7.750 6 1.014 1.054 1.068 17.60 1.331 1.345 16.80 0.799 1.194 1.208 16.80 0.7967 7 8.167 12 1.023 1.085 1.108 18.16 1.357 1.38 17.26 0.899 1.219 1.242 17.24 0.9237 7 8.417 18 1.029 1.087 1.116 18.28 1.36 1.389 17.38 0.893 1.223 1.252 17.37 0.907
MP2MP1Injection
88
7 8 8.667 0 1.021 1.05 1.071 17.64 1.324 1.345 16.80 0.841 1.191 1.212 16.85 0.7877 8 8.833 6 1.067 1.091 1.158 18.87 1.364 1.431 17.94 0.929 1.232 1.299 17.97 0.8957 8 9.250 12 1.084 1.099 1.183 19.22 1.373 1.457 18.29 0.937 1.239 1.323 18.28 0.9407 8 9.500 18 1.083 1.145 1.228 19.86 1.418 1.501 18.87 0.988 1.282 1.365 18.83 1.0347 9 9.750 0 1.055 1.119 1.174 19.10 1.392 1.447 18.15 0.942 1.259 1.314 18.17 0.9287 9 9.917 6 1.062 1.126 1.188 19.29 1.4 1.462 18.35 0.941 1.265 1.327 18.34 0.9597 9 10.333 12 1.034 1.079 1.113 18.23 1.352 1.386 17.34 0.890 1.217 1.251 17.36 0.8787 9 10.583 18 1.05 1.091 1.141 18.63 1.369 1.419 17.78 0.848 1.228 1.278 17.70 0.9267 10 10.750 0 1.019 1.12 1.139 18.60 1.394 1.413 17.70 0.899 1.256 1.275 17.66 0.9367 10 11.167 6 1.005 1.079 1.084 17.82 1.353 1.358 16.97 0.852 1.216 1.221 16.97 0.8557 10 11.417 12 0.972 1.041 1.013 16.82 1.316 1.288 16.04 0.778 1.18 1.152 16.08 0.7407 10 11.667 18 0.953 1.026 0.979 16.34 1.304 1.257 15.63 0.709 1.164 1.117 15.63 0.7107 11 11.833 0 0.908 0.994 0.902 15.25 1.266 1.174 14.53 0.723 1.129 1.037 14.60 0.6537 11 12.250 6 0.93 1.028 0.958 16.04 1.298 1.228 15.24 0.798 1.164 1.094 15.33 0.7107 11 12.500 12 0.955 1.052 1.007 16.73 1.327 1.282 15.96 0.773 1.191 1.146 16.00 0.7337 11 12.750 18 0.973 1.07 1.043 17.24 1.344 1.317 16.43 0.817 1.207 1.18 16.44 0.8037 12 12.917 0 0.962 1.09 1.052 17.37 1.361 1.323 16.51 0.865 1.226 1.188 16.54 0.8277 12 13.333 6 0.975 1.054 1.029 17.04 1.328 1.303 16.24 0.805 1.194 1.169 16.30 0.7477 12 13.583 12 0.983 1.033 1.016 16.86 1.308 1.291 16.08 0.781 1.171 1.154 16.10 0.7577 12 13.750 18 0.973 1.049 1.022 16.95 1.325 1.298 16.17 0.773 1.183 1.156 16.13 0.8167 13 14.167 0 0.926 1.044 0.97 16.21 1.312 1.238 15.38 0.835 1.178 1.104 15.46 0.7517 13 14.417 6 0.952 1.076 1.028 17.03 1.346 1.298 16.17 0.857 1.21 1.162 16.21 0.8237 13 14.667 12 0.978 1.098 1.076 17.71 1.373 1.351 16.88 0.832 1.232 1.21 16.83 0.8837 13 14.833 18 0.999 1.139 1.138 18.59 1.409 1.408 17.64 0.951 1.271 1.27 17.60 0.9867 14 15.250 0 0.976 1.088 1.064 17.54 1.362 1.338 16.70 0.835 1.228 1.204 16.75 0.7917 14 15.500 6 1.005 1.106 1.111 18.20 1.376 1.381 17.28 0.928 1.242 1.247 17.30 0.9017 14 15.750 12 1.03 1.124 1.154 18.81 1.397 1.427 17.89 0.925 1.259 1.289 17.85 0.9687 14 15.917 18 1.037 1.165 1.202 19.49 1.438 1.475 18.53 0.966 1.299 1.336 18.45 1.0417 15 16.333 0 1.004 1.147 1.151 18.77 1.419 1.423 17.83 0.936 1.284 1.288 17.83 0.9387 15 16.583 6 1.011 1.147 1.158 18.87 1.418 1.429 17.91 0.955 1.281 1.292 17.88 0.9867 15 16.750 12 1.02 1.142 1.162 18.93 1.415 1.435 17.99 0.932 1.277 1.297 17.95 0.9787 15 17.167 18 1.021 1.151 1.172 19.07 1.425 1.446 18.14 0.927 1.289 1.31 18.12 0.9527 16 17.417 0 0.983 1.054 1.037 17.16 1.33 1.313 16.37 0.785 1.196 1.179 16.43 0.7317 16 17.667 6 0.983 1.038 1.021 16.93 1.311 1.294 16.12 0.812 1.178 1.161 16.19 0.7377 16 17.833 12 0.993 1.029 1.022 16.95 1.302 1.295 16.13 0.812 1.167 1.16 16.18 0.7647 16 18.250 18 1.003 1.056 1.059 17.47 1.328 1.331 16.61 0.857 1.194 1.197 16.66 0.8107 17 18.500 0 0.979 1.078 1.057 17.44 1.349 1.328 16.57 0.869 1.212 1.191 16.58 0.8597 17 18.750 6 1.023 1.122 1.145 18.69 1.397 1.42 17.79 0.891 1.26 1.283 17.77 0.9187 17 18.917 12 1.072 1.157 1.229 19.87 1.43 1.502 18.88 0.989 1.292 1.364 18.81 1.0617 17 19.333 18 1.082 1.19 1.272 20.48 1.463 1.545 19.46 1.026 1.324 1.406 19.35 1.1287 18 19.583 0 1.031 1.071 1.102 18.08 1.344 1.375 17.20 0.881 1.209 1.24 17.21 0.8647 18 19.750 6 1.038 1.068 1.106 18.13 1.345 1.383 17.30 0.831 1.212 1.25 17.34 0.7927 18 20.167 12 1 1.049 1.049 17.33 1.321 1.321 16.48 0.849 1.186 1.186 16.52 0.8117 18 20.417 18 0.985 1.056 1.041 17.21 1.329 1.314 16.39 0.829 1.194 1.179 16.43 0.7887 19 20.667 0 0.947 1.008 0.955 16.00 1.282 1.229 15.26 0.742 1.147 1.094 15.33 0.6687 19 20.833 6 0.963 1.033 0.996 16.58 1.303 1.266 15.75 0.830 1.167 1.13 15.79 0.7837 19 21.250 12 0.969 1.046 1.015 16.85 1.321 1.29 16.07 0.780 1.185 1.154 16.10 0.7437 19 21.500 18 0.996 1.089 1.085 17.84 1.365 1.361 17.01 0.826 1.227 1.223 16.99 0.8437 20 21.750 0 1.007 1.134 1.141 18.63 1.41 1.417 17.75 0.874 1.27 1.277 17.69 0.9397 20 21.917 6 1.042 1.134 1.176 19.12 1.411 1.453 18.23 0.891 1.275 1.317 18.21 0.9187 20 22.333 12 1.061 1.15 1.211 19.62 1.422 1.483 18.63 0.987 1.285 1.346 18.58 1.0397 20 22.583 18 1.068 1.174 1.242 20.06 1.448 1.516 19.07 0.987 1.309 1.377 18.98 1.0787 21 22.750 0 1.038 1.138 1.176 19.12 1.406 1.444 18.11 1.010 1.267 1.305 18.05 1.0737 21 23.167 6 1.079 1.196 1.275 20.52 1.466 1.545 19.46 1.068 1.33 1.409 19.39 1.1327 21 23.417 12 1.108 1.247 1.355 21.66 1.519 1.627 20.55 1.110 1.379 1.487 20.40 1.2577 21 23.667 18 1.123 1.288 1.411 22.45 1.558 1.681 21.26 1.184 1.418 1.541 21.09 1.3537 22 23.833 0 1.09 1.261 1.351 21.60 1.534 1.624 20.51 1.093 1.391 1.481 20.32 1.2787 22 24.250 6 1.122 1.276 1.398 22.26 1.548 1.67 21.12 1.147 1.41 1.532 20.98 1.2857 22 24.500 12 1.11 1.243 1.353 21.63 1.517 1.627 20.55 1.082 1.377 1.487 20.40 1.2297 22 24.750 18 1.097 1.24 1.337 21.40 1.513 1.61 20.32 1.081 1.374 1.471 20.19 1.2097 23 24.917 0 1.038 1.196 1.234 19.94 1.467 1.505 18.92 1.020 1.328 1.366 18.84 1.1067 23 25.333 6 1.045 1.178 1.223 19.79 1.45 1.495 18.79 0.997 1.313 1.358 18.73 1.0547 23 25.583 12 1.019 1.141 1.16 18.90 1.419 1.438 18.03 0.864 1.277 1.296 17.94 0.9627 23 25.750 18 0.987 1.118 1.105 18.12 1.391 1.378 17.24 0.883 1.247 1.234 17.14 0.9847 24 26.167 0 0.952 1.095 1.047 17.30 1.368 1.32 16.47 0.834 1.232 1.184 16.49 0.8087 24 26.417 6 0.958 1.098 1.056 17.43 1.369 1.327 16.56 0.868 1.231 1.189 16.56 0.8717 24 26.667 12 0.951 1.093 1.044 17.26 1.362 1.313 16.37 0.884 1.224 1.175 16.38 0.8827 24 26.833 18 0.938 1.06 0.998 16.61 1.33 1.268 15.77 0.832 1.192 1.13 15.79 0.8127 25 27.250 0 0.897 0.985 0.882 14.97 1.256 1.153 14.25 0.720 1.118 1.015 14.31 0.6547 25 27.500 6 0.943 1.064 1.007 16.73 1.334 1.277 15.89 0.840 1.198 1.141 15.94 0.7977 25 27.750 12 0.964 1.091 1.055 17.41 1.358 1.322 16.49 0.920 1.223 1.187 16.53 0.8837 25 27.917 18 0.971 1.109 1.08 17.77 1.38 1.351 16.88 0.889 1.242 1.213 16.87 0.9017 26 28.333 0 0.936 1.041 0.977 16.31 1.317 1.253 15.58 0.734 1.174 1.11 15.54 0.772
89
7 26 28.583 6 0.953 1.052 1.005 16.71 1.326 1.279 15.92 0.785 1.187 1.14 15.92 0.7827 26 28.750 12 0.95 1.045 0.995 16.56 1.318 1.268 15.77 0.789 1.179 1.129 15.78 0.7827 26 29.167 18 0.94 1.04 0.98 16.35 1.314 1.254 15.59 0.763 1.175 1.115 15.60 0.7507 27 29.417 0 0.913 1.034 0.947 15.89 1.307 1.22 15.14 0.749 1.171 1.084 15.20 0.6837 27 29.667 6 0.957 1.076 1.033 17.10 1.35 1.307 16.29 0.809 1.207 1.164 16.23 0.8687 27 29.833 12 0.986 1.102 1.088 17.88 1.375 1.361 17.01 0.869 1.238 1.224 17.01 0.8727 27 30.250 18 0.985 1.1 1.085 17.84 1.375 1.36 17.00 0.840 1.234 1.219 16.94 0.8947 28 30.500 0 0.951 1.107 1.058 17.46 1.379 1.33 16.60 0.856 1.236 1.187 16.53 0.9257 28 30.750 6 0.966 1.112 1.078 17.74 1.385 1.351 16.88 0.860 1.246 1.212 16.85 0.8867 28 30.917 12 0.97 1.118 1.088 17.88 1.387 1.357 16.96 0.922 1.243 1.213 16.87 1.0147 28 31.333 18 0.955 1.126 1.081 17.78 1.398 1.353 16.90 0.876 1.259 1.214 16.88 0.9027 29 31.583 0 0.911 1.097 1.008 16.75 1.367 1.278 15.91 0.840 1.222 1.133 15.83 0.9147 29 31.750 6 0.933 1.127 1.06 17.48 1.395 1.328 16.57 0.911 1.255 1.188 16.54 0.9417 29 32.167 12 0.925 1.14 1.065 17.55 1.407 1.332 16.63 0.929 1.261 1.186 16.52 1.0377 29 32.417 18 0.927 1.124 1.051 17.36 1.393 1.32 16.47 0.890 1.247 1.174 16.36 0.9947 30 32.667 0 0.883 0.996 0.879 14.92 1.268 1.151 14.22 0.704 1.126 1.009 14.23 0.6897 30 32.833 6 0.894 1.002 0.896 15.16 1.271 1.165 14.41 0.758 1.128 1.022 14.40 0.7627 30 33.250 12 0.882 0.988 0.87 14.80 1.255 1.137 14.03 0.763 1.108 0.99 13.99 0.8067 30 33.500 18 0.862 1.002 0.864 14.71 1.27 1.132 13.97 0.744 1.123 0.985 13.93 0.7867 31 33.750 0 0.816 0.98 0.796 13.75 1.244 1.06 13.01 0.739 1.1 0.916 13.04 0.7147 31 33.917 6 0.844 1.017 0.861 14.67 1.281 1.125 13.87 0.795 1.135 0.979 13.85 0.8217 31 34.333 12 0.858 1.039 0.897 15.18 1.302 1.16 14.34 0.839 1.153 1.011 14.26 0.9187 31 34.583 18 0.923 1.098 1.021 16.93 1.359 1.282 15.96 0.971 1.211 1.134 15.85 1.0858 1 34.750 0 0.928 1.075 1.003 16.68 1.337 1.265 15.73 0.942 1.189 1.117 15.63 1.0508 1 35.167 6 0.952 1.097 1.049 17.33 1.359 1.311 16.35 0.982 1.21 1.162 16.21 1.1208 1 35.417 12 0.938 1.102 1.04 17.20 1.364 1.302 16.23 0.974 1.214 1.152 16.08 1.1228 1 35.667 18 0.936 1.098 1.034 17.12 1.373 1.309 16.32 0.796 1.223 1.159 16.17 0.9478 2 35.833 0 0.908 1.079 0.987 16.45 1.353 1.261 15.68 0.769 1.203 1.111 15.55 0.9018 2 36.250 6 0.983 1.153 1.136 18.56 1.424 1.407 17.62 0.936 1.278 1.261 17.48 1.0748 2 36.500 12 1.005 1.179 1.184 19.24 1.455 1.46 18.33 0.911 1.304 1.309 18.10 1.1348 2 36.750 18 1.024 1.201 1.225 19.82 1.474 1.498 18.83 0.986 1.32 1.344 18.55 1.2638 3 36.917 0 0.996 1.191 1.187 19.28 1.463 1.459 18.31 0.967 1.31 1.306 18.06 1.2158 3 37.333 6 1.014 1.215 1.229 19.87 1.487 1.501 18.87 1.002 1.337 1.351 18.64 1.2298 3 37.583 12 1.011 1.203 1.214 19.66 1.474 1.485 18.66 1.003 1.324 1.335 18.44 1.2238 3 37.750 18 0.998 1.198 1.196 19.41 1.472 1.47 18.46 0.948 1.32 1.318 18.22 1.1888 4 38.167 0 0.963 1.179 1.142 18.64 1.448 1.411 17.68 0.968 1.291 1.254 17.39 1.2498 4 38.417 6 0.979 1.173 1.152 18.78 1.446 1.425 17.86 0.923 1.294 1.273 17.64 1.1468 4 38.667 12 0.98 1.174 1.154 18.81 1.448 1.428 17.90 0.912 1.294 1.274 17.65 1.1618 4 38.833 18 0.974 1.183 1.157 18.86 1.453 1.427 17.89 0.968 1.301 1.275 17.66 1.1918 5 39.250 0 0.933 1.175 1.108 18.16 1.446 1.379 17.25 0.912 1.294 1.227 17.05 1.1178 5 39.500 6 0.955 1.196 1.151 18.77 1.465 1.42 17.79 0.976 1.314 1.269 17.59 1.1838 5 39.750 12 0.964 1.192 1.156 18.84 1.466 1.43 17.93 0.914 1.315 1.279 17.72 1.1258 5 39.917 18 0.99 1.211 1.201 19.48 1.485 1.475 18.53 0.952 1.336 1.326 18.32 1.1558 6 40.333 0 0.976 1.21 1.186 19.27 1.481 1.457 18.29 0.979 1.328 1.304 18.04 1.2278 6 40.583 6 1.012 1.237 1.249 20.16 1.508 1.52 19.12 1.033 1.357 1.369 18.88 1.2808 6 40.750 12 1.032 1.251 1.283 20.64 1.524 1.556 19.60 1.035 1.372 1.404 19.33 1.3098 6 41.167 18 1.02 1.245 1.265 20.38 1.52 1.54 19.39 0.993 1.364 1.384 19.07 1.3138 7 41.417 0 0.993 1.223 1.216 19.69 1.497 1.49 18.73 0.965 1.344 1.337 18.46 1.2268 7 41.667 6 1.04 1.27 1.31 21.02 1.541 1.581 19.93 1.085 1.39 1.43 19.66 1.3568 7 41.833 12 1.05 1.281 1.331 21.32 1.554 1.604 20.24 1.076 1.401 1.451 19.93 1.3828 7 42.250 18 1.036 1.267 1.303 20.92 1.536 1.572 19.81 1.105 1.385 1.421 19.55 1.3738 8 42.500 0 1.012 1.239 1.251 20.18 1.51 1.522 19.15 1.034 1.357 1.369 18.88 1.3088 8 42.750 6 1.019 1.216 1.235 19.96 1.487 1.506 18.94 1.021 1.337 1.356 18.71 1.2498 8 42.917 12 1.014 1.206 1.22 19.75 1.477 1.491 18.74 1.008 1.324 1.338 18.48 1.2698 8 43.333 18 1.012 1.206 1.218 19.72 1.478 1.49 18.73 0.993 1.327 1.339 18.49 1.2288 9 43.583 0 0.976 1.157 1.133 18.52 1.428 1.404 17.58 0.934 1.275 1.251 17.36 1.1618 9 43.750 6 0.99 1.167 1.157 18.86 1.44 1.43 17.93 0.928 1.29 1.28 17.73 1.1268 9 44.167 12 0.998 1.173 1.171 19.05 1.449 1.447 18.15 0.900 1.297 1.295 17.92 1.1318 9 44.417 18 1.002 1.175 1.177 19.14 1.447 1.449 18.18 0.958 1.291 1.293 17.90 1.2418 10 44.667 0 0.961 1.127 1.088 17.88 1.403 1.364 17.05 0.829 1.248 1.209 16.81 1.0668 10 44.833 6 0.978 1.172 1.15 18.76 1.446 1.424 17.85 0.908 1.291 1.269 17.59 1.1698 10 45.250 12 0.998 1.206 1.204 19.52 1.481 1.479 18.58 0.941 1.325 1.323 18.28 1.2378 10 45.500 18 1.001 1.186 1.187 19.28 1.462 1.463 18.37 0.913 1.308 1.309 18.10 1.1778 11 45.750 0 0.969 1.101 1.07 17.62 1.376 1.345 16.80 0.827 1.223 1.192 16.59 1.0308 11 45.917 6 0.981 1.091 1.072 17.65 1.363 1.344 16.78 0.868 1.212 1.193 16.61 1.0468 11 46.333 12 0.973 1.083 1.056 17.43 1.356 1.329 16.59 0.841 1.203 1.176 16.39 1.0398 11 46.583 18 0.945 1.071 1.016 16.86 1.346 1.291 16.08 0.781 1.194 1.139 15.91 0.9508 12 46.750 0 0.91 1.044 0.954 15.98 1.319 1.229 15.26 0.728 1.165 1.075 15.09 0.8988 12 47.167 6 0.915 1.053 0.968 16.18 1.326 1.241 15.42 0.766 1.176 1.091 15.29 0.8908 12 47.417 12 0.913 1.044 0.957 16.03 1.321 1.234 15.32 0.704 1.167 1.08 15.15 0.8768 12 47.667 18 0.953 1.106 1.059 17.47 1.382 1.335 16.67 0.804 1.227 1.18 16.44 1.0308 13 47.833 0 0.921 1.074 0.995 16.56 1.347 1.268 15.77 0.789 1.194 1.115 15.60 0.9638 13 48.250 6 0.963 1.096 1.059 17.47 1.371 1.334 16.65 0.817 1.22 1.183 16.48 0.991
90
8 13 48.500 12 1.007 1.135 1.142 18.64 1.409 1.416 17.74 0.902 1.259 1.266 17.55 1.0958 13 48.750 18 1.022 1.14 1.162 18.93 1.415 1.437 18.02 0.905 1.264 1.286 17.81 1.1208 14 48.917 0 1.007 1.133 1.14 18.61 1.406 1.413 17.70 0.913 1.252 1.259 17.46 1.1578 14 49.333 6 1.052 1.183 1.235 19.96 1.457 1.509 18.98 0.981 1.308 1.36 18.76 1.1988 14 49.583 12 1.038 1.167 1.205 19.53 1.439 1.477 18.55 0.982 1.288 1.326 18.32 1.2128 14 49.750 18 1.019 1.158 1.177 19.14 1.43 1.449 18.18 0.958 1.281 1.3 17.99 1.1518 15 50.167 0 0.975 1.131 1.106 18.13 1.403 1.378 17.24 0.897 1.249 1.224 17.01 1.1278 15 50.417 6 0.994 1.102 1.096 17.99 1.379 1.373 17.17 0.822 1.23 1.224 17.01 0.9868 15 50.667 12 0.979 1.09 1.069 17.61 1.363 1.342 16.76 0.853 1.216 1.195 16.63 0.9788 15 50.833 18 0.962 1.098 1.06 17.48 1.37 1.332 16.63 0.858 1.218 1.18 16.44 1.0448 16 51.250 0 0.941 1.16 1.101 18.06 1.435 1.376 17.21 0.853 1.279 1.22 16.96 1.1088 16 51.500 6 0.966 1.175 1.141 18.63 1.45 1.416 17.74 0.887 1.296 1.262 17.50 1.1328 16 51.750 12 0.963 1.162 1.125 18.40 1.436 1.399 17.52 0.887 1.284 1.247 17.30 1.0998 16 51.917 18 0.99 1.202 1.192 19.35 1.475 1.465 18.39 0.958 1.321 1.311 18.13 1.2228 17 52.333 0 0.967 1.179 1.146 18.70 1.453 1.42 17.79 0.905 1.3 1.267 17.56 1.1388 17 52.583 6 0.975 1.184 1.159 18.88 1.458 1.433 17.97 0.916 1.304 1.279 17.72 1.1678 17 52.750 12 0.979 1.183 1.162 18.93 1.458 1.437 18.02 0.905 1.303 1.282 17.75 1.1718 17 53.167 18 0.977 1.172 1.149 18.74 1.444 1.421 17.81 0.934 1.293 1.27 17.60 1.1428 18 53.417 0 0.961 1.162 1.123 18.37 1.434 1.395 17.46 0.912 1.281 1.242 17.24 1.1358 18 53.667 6 0.987 1.184 1.171 19.05 1.459 1.446 18.14 0.913 1.306 1.293 17.90 1.1578 18 53.833 12 1.049 1.255 1.304 20.93 1.526 1.575 19.85 1.080 1.37 1.419 19.52 1.4138 18 54.250 18 1.075 1.282 1.357 21.68 1.561 1.636 20.67 1.019 1.403 1.478 20.28 1.4028 19 54.500 0 1.059 1.309 1.368 21.84 1.583 1.642 20.75 1.094 1.427 1.486 20.39 1.4548 19 54.750 6 1.085 1.256 1.341 21.46 1.531 1.616 20.40 1.058 1.38 1.465 20.11 1.3438 19 54.917 12 1.086 1.234 1.32 21.16 1.511 1.597 20.15 1.014 1.356 1.442 19.82 1.3438 19 55.333 18 1.059 1.196 1.255 20.24 1.47 1.529 19.24 0.998 1.319 1.378 18.99 1.2498 20 55.583 0 1.017 1.06 1.077 17.72 1.331 1.348 16.84 0.886 1.187 1.204 16.75 0.9758 20 55.750 6 1.012 1.09 1.102 18.08 1.364 1.376 17.21 0.867 1.214 1.226 17.03 1.0458 20 56.167 12 1.002 1.083 1.085 17.84 1.358 1.36 17.00 0.840 1.207 1.209 16.81 1.0238 20 56.417 18 1.015 1.134 1.149 18.74 1.408 1.423 17.83 0.908 1.256 1.271 17.61 1.1298 21 56.667 0 1.003 1.109 1.112 18.22 1.382 1.385 17.33 0.889 1.235 1.238 17.19 1.0318 21 56.833 6 1.059 1.124 1.183 19.22 1.397 1.456 18.27 0.950 1.251 1.31 18.12 1.1078 21 57.250 12 1.073 1.13 1.203 19.51 1.403 1.476 18.54 0.967 1.254 1.327 18.34 1.1718 21 57.500 18 1.061 1.125 1.186 19.27 1.399 1.46 18.33 0.939 1.251 1.312 18.14 1.1248 22 57.750 0 1.064 1.11 1.174 19.10 1.381 1.445 18.13 0.969 1.234 1.298 17.96 1.1358 22 57.917 6 1.083 1.134 1.217 19.70 1.409 1.492 18.75 0.952 1.256 1.339 18.49 1.2148 22 58.333 12 1.047 1.088 1.135 18.54 1.362 1.409 17.65 0.896 1.212 1.259 17.46 1.0868 22 58.583 18 1.029 1.091 1.12 18.33 1.366 1.395 17.46 0.870 1.212 1.241 17.23 1.1068 23 58.750 0 0.99 1.074 1.064 17.54 1.347 1.337 16.69 0.848 1.196 1.186 16.52 1.0238 23 59.167 6 0.996 1.076 1.072 17.65 1.351 1.347 16.82 0.829 1.203 1.199 16.68 0.9688 23 59.417 12 1.002 1.054 1.056 17.43 1.329 1.331 16.61 0.815 1.182 1.184 16.49 0.9368 23 59.667 18 0.988 1.047 1.035 17.13 1.322 1.31 16.33 0.797 1.17 1.158 16.16 0.9748 24 59.833 0 0.934 1.082 1.016 16.86 1.354 1.288 16.04 0.821 1.2 1.134 15.85 1.0158 24 60.250 6 0.931 1.084 1.015 16.85 1.357 1.288 16.04 0.807 1.207 1.138 15.90 0.9498 24 60.500 12 0.926 1.057 0.983 16.39 1.331 1.257 15.63 0.766 1.178 1.104 15.46 0.9358 24 60.750 18 0.939 1.088 1.027 17.02 1.358 1.297 16.16 0.857 1.207 1.146 16.00 1.0158 25 60.917 0 0.926 1.139 1.065 17.55 1.409 1.335 16.67 0.889 1.254 1.18 16.44 1.1148 25 61.333 6 0.967 1.198 1.165 18.97 1.469 1.436 18.01 0.961 1.317 1.284 17.78 1.1888 25 61.583 12 0.973 1.218 1.191 19.34 1.49 1.463 18.37 0.970 1.338 1.311 18.13 1.2078 25 61.750 18 0.982 1.218 1.2 19.46 1.493 1.475 18.53 0.938 1.342 1.324 18.30 1.1678 26 62.167 0 0.951 1.153 1.104 18.11 1.426 1.377 17.22 0.882 1.271 1.222 16.98 1.1258 26 62.417 6 1.012 1.239 1.251 20.18 1.51 1.522 19.15 1.034 1.353 1.365 18.83 1.3608 26 62.667 12 0.996 1.216 1.212 19.63 1.488 1.484 18.65 0.988 1.328 1.324 18.30 1.3378 26 62.833 18 1.001 1.245 1.246 20.11 1.52 1.521 19.14 0.977 1.359 1.36 18.76 1.3538 27 63.250 0 1.001 1.247 1.248 20.14 1.516 1.517 19.08 1.058 1.361 1.362 18.79 1.3568 27 63.500 6 1.016 1.266 1.282 20.62 1.535 1.551 19.54 1.087 1.375 1.391 19.16 1.4638 27 63.750 12 1.004 1.197 1.201 19.48 1.47 1.474 18.51 0.965 1.31 1.314 18.17 1.3108 27 63.917 18 1.024 1.225 1.249 20.16 1.493 1.517 19.08 1.073 1.338 1.362 18.79 1.3708 28 64.333 0 1.032 1.188 1.22 19.75 1.455 1.487 18.69 1.061 1.299 1.331 18.39 1.3608 28 64.583 6 1.058 1.228 1.286 20.68 1.498 1.556 19.60 1.078 1.338 1.396 19.22 1.4558 28 64.750 12 1.06 1.267 1.327 21.26 1.537 1.597 20.15 1.113 1.378 1.438 19.77 1.4938 28 65.167 18 1.075 1.271 1.346 21.53 1.539 1.614 20.37 1.155 1.382 1.457 20.01 1.5178 29 65.417 0 1.057 1.183 1.24 20.03 1.455 1.512 19.02 1.012 1.301 1.358 18.73 1.2948 29 65.667 6 1.076 1.193 1.269 20.44 1.463 1.539 19.38 1.063 1.311 1.387 19.11 1.3318 29 65.833 12 1.039 1.143 1.182 19.21 1.416 1.455 18.26 0.949 1.261 1.3 17.99 1.2228 29 66.250 18 1.011 1.111 1.122 18.36 1.382 1.393 17.44 0.924 1.228 1.239 17.20 1.1608 30 66.500 0 0.952 1.161 1.113 18.23 1.433 1.385 17.33 0.903 1.277 1.229 17.07 1.1628 30 66.750 6 0.947 1.091 1.038 17.17 1.363 1.31 16.33 0.839 1.211 1.158 16.16 1.0168 30 66.917 12 0.93 1.011 0.941 15.80 1.284 1.214 15.06 0.743 1.135 1.065 14.96 0.8448 30 67.333 18 0.921 0.918 0.839 14.36 1.189 1.11 13.67 0.683 1.042 0.963 13.64 0.716
91
Bordeaux Falling Head Permeameter Data
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Time (d)
Wat
er H
ead
(ft)
UN1
UN2
UN3
TR4
TR5
TR6
*UN 1-3 were installed prior to application *TR 4-6 were installed after application
Mo. Date Day Hour Min P (PSI) H (ft) P H P H P H P H P H
7 25 0.05 18 36 3.47 6.16 3.45 6.12 3.73 6.76 3.77 6.86 3.39 5.98 0.95 0.347 25 0.1 19 48 3.47 6.16 3.43 6.06 3.73 6.77 3.77 6.85 3.28 5.71 0.95 0.347 25 0.15 21 0 3.48 6.18 3.42 6.04 3.74 6.78 3.77 6.86 3.20 5.54 0.96 0.387 25 0.2 22 12 3.49 6.20 3.41 6.02 3.75 6.81 3.78 6.88 3.14 5.40 0.98 0.407 25 0.25 23 24 3.48 6.18 3.39 5.97 3.74 6.79 3.77 6.86 3.06 5.22 0.97 0.397 26 0.3 0 36 3.48 6.18 3.37 5.93 3.74 6.79 3.76 6.84 3.00 5.07 0.97 0.397 26 0.35 1 48 3.47 6.16 3.35 5.88 3.73 6.77 3.76 6.82 2.91 4.86 0.97 0.387 26 0.4 3 0 3.47 6.15 3.32 5.82 3.73 6.77 3.75 6.81 2.81 4.64 0.96 0.387 26 0.45 4 12 3.46 6.13 3.30 5.77 3.72 6.74 3.74 6.79 2.72 4.42 0.96 0.367 26 0.5 5 24 3.47 6.15 3.29 5.73 3.73 6.76 3.75 6.80 2.64 4.23 0.97 0.397 26 0.55 6 36 3.46 6.15 3.26 5.68 3.73 6.76 3.74 6.79 2.55 4.04 0.96 0.387 26 0.6 7 48 3.46 6.13 3.22 5.59 3.72 6.75 3.74 6.78 2.44 3.78 0.96 0.367 26 0.65 9 0 3.46 6.14 3.19 5.51 3.73 6.75 3.74 6.77 2.33 3.52 0.96 0.387 26 0.7 10 12 3.45 6.12 3.14 5.40 3.72 6.73 3.72 6.74 2.21 3.24 0.95 0.357 26 0.75 11 24 3.43 6.07 3.07 5.23 3.70 6.69 3.70 6.68 2.07 2.94 0.93 0.317 26 0.8 12 36 3.42 6.03 3.00 5.09 3.68 6.64 3.68 6.64 1.92 2.58 0.92 0.297 26 0.85 13 48 3.40 5.99 2.93 4.91 3.66 6.61 3.66 6.60 1.79 2.28 0.92 0.277 26 0.9 15 0 3.39 5.97 2.85 4.73 3.66 6.59 3.64 6.56 1.68 2.03 0.92 0.277 26 0.95 16 12 3.38 5.95 2.79 4.59 3.65 6.57 3.64 6.55 1.57 1.78 0.92 0.277 26 1 17 24 3.36 5.91 2.73 4.44 3.63 6.54 3.62 6.51 1.45 1.51 0.92 0.287 26 1.05 18 36 3.37 5.92 2.69 4.36 3.64 6.55 3.63 6.52 1.38 1.34 0.93 0.307 26 1.1 19 48 3.37 5.94 2.66 4.28 3.65 6.57 3.63 6.53 1.32 1.20 0.95 0.347 26 1.15 21 0 3.38 5.96 2.62 4.20 3.65 6.58 3.63 6.54 1.27 1.09 0.97 0.397 26 1.2 22 12 3.39 5.97 2.59 4.12 3.67 6.62 3.64 6.55 1.23 0.99 0.98 0.427 26 1.25 23 24 3.39 5.97 2.55 4.03 3.67 6.61 3.64 6.55 1.19 0.90 0.99 0.44
TR5 TR6UN1 UN2 UN3 TR4
92
7 27 1.3 0 36 3.41 6.03 2.53 4.00 3.69 6.67 3.66 6.60 1.19 0.89 1.02 0.517 27 1.35 1 48 3.41 6.01 2.49 3.90 3.69 6.66 3.65 6.58 1.15 0.81 1.01 0.497 27 1.4 3 0 3.41 6.03 2.46 3.82 3.69 6.66 3.66 6.59 1.13 0.77 1.02 0.517 27 1.45 4 12 3.41 6.02 2.41 3.72 3.69 6.67 3.65 6.59 1.12 0.73 1.02 0.517 27 1.5 5 24 3.42 6.05 2.38 3.65 3.70 6.69 3.66 6.60 1.11 0.72 1.03 0.547 27 1.55 6 36 3.43 6.06 2.35 3.58 3.71 6.71 3.67 6.61 1.10 0.69 1.04 0.547 27 1.6 7 48 3.43 6.06 2.32 3.51 3.70 6.70 3.66 6.60 1.08 0.65 1.03 0.527 27 1.65 9 0 3.42 6.04 2.28 3.42 3.70 6.69 3.65 6.58 1.06 0.60 1.01 0.497 27 1.7 10 12 3.41 6.03 2.25 3.34 3.70 6.68 3.65 6.57 1.04 0.56 1.00 0.477 27 1.75 11 24 3.40 6.01 2.21 3.26 3.69 6.66 3.64 6.54 1.03 0.53 1.00 0.467 27 1.8 12 36 3.39 5.98 2.17 3.15 3.67 6.63 3.62 6.50 1.01 0.48 0.99 0.447 27 1.85 13 48 3.38 5.95 2.13 3.06 3.66 6.60 3.60 6.47 0.99 0.45 0.99 0.447 27 1.9 15 0 3.37 5.93 2.09 2.98 3.65 6.58 3.59 6.44 0.98 0.42 0.99 0.457 27 1.95 16 12 3.35 5.89 2.05 2.88 3.64 6.55 3.57 6.40 0.97 0.40 1.00 0.457 27 2 17 24 3.34 5.87 1.97 2.70 3.63 6.53 3.56 6.37 0.97 0.39 0.99 0.457 27 2.05 18 36 3.33 5.85 1.90 2.55 3.62 6.51 3.55 6.34 0.96 0.37 0.99 0.447 27 2.1 19 48 3.33 5.85 1.66 1.99 3.63 6.52 3.55 6.34 0.98 0.41 1.00 0.477 27 2.15 21 0 3.35 5.87 1.57 1.78 3.63 6.54 3.56 6.36 1.00 0.46 1.03 0.527 27 2.2 22 12 3.35 5.89 1.49 1.59 3.64 6.55 3.56 6.37 1.00 0.47 1.03 0.537 27 2.25 23 24 3.35 5.88 1.43 1.44 3.64 6.54 3.56 6.36 1.00 0.45 1.02 0.517 28 2.3 0 36 3.34 5.85 1.39 1.36 3.63 6.53 3.55 6.33 0.99 0.43 1.01 0.487 28 2.35 1 48 3.34 5.86 1.38 1.34 3.63 6.53 3.54 6.33 0.99 0.45 1.02 0.507 28 2.4 3 0 3.34 5.85 1.38 1.33 3.63 6.53 3.54 6.33 1.00 0.45 1.02 0.517 28 2.45 4 12 3.33 5.84 1.37 1.31 3.63 6.52 3.54 6.31 1.00 0.45 1.02 0.517 28 2.5 5 24 3.33 5.84 1.36 1.30 3.62 6.52 3.53 6.30 1.00 0.45 1.02 0.517 28 2.55 6 36 3.34 5.86 1.36 1.30 3.63 6.54 3.54 6.31 1.01 0.48 1.03 0.537 28 2.6 7 48 3.33 5.85 1.35 1.26 3.63 6.52 3.53 6.29 0.99 0.45 1.02 0.517 28 2.65 9 0 3.33 5.83 1.33 1.23 3.62 6.51 3.52 6.27 0.99 0.43 1.02 0.517 28 2.7 10 12 3.31 5.80 1.32 1.20 3.61 6.48 3.50 6.23 0.98 0.41 1.02 0.517 28 2.75 11 24 3.30 5.78 1.30 1.16 3.60 6.46 3.48 6.19 0.97 0.40 1.02 0.507 28 2.8 12 36 3.29 5.73 1.29 1.12 3.58 6.42 3.47 6.16 0.96 0.38 1.00 0.467 28 2.85 13 48 3.27 5.70 1.27 1.08 3.57 6.39 3.45 6.11 0.96 0.36 0.99 0.437 28 2.9 15 0 3.25 5.66 1.25 1.04 3.55 6.35 3.43 6.06 0.95 0.34 0.97 0.407 28 2.95 16 12 3.23 5.62 1.23 0.99 3.53 6.31 3.40 6.01 0.94 0.31 0.97 0.397 28 3 17 24 3.22 5.59 1.22 0.97 3.52 6.28 3.39 5.98 0.93 0.30 0.97 0.407 28 3.05 18 36 3.22 5.58 1.21 0.95 3.52 6.28 3.38 5.96 0.94 0.31 0.98 0.417 28 3.1 19 48 3.22 5.57 1.21 0.95 3.52 6.28 3.38 5.95 0.94 0.33 0.99 0.437 28 3.15 21 0 3.22 5.58 1.22 0.96 3.52 6.28 3.38 5.94 0.96 0.37 1.00 0.457 28 3.2 22 12 3.23 5.61 1.22 0.98 3.53 6.31 3.39 5.97 0.97 0.40 1.01 0.497 28 3.25 23 24 3.23 5.60 1.22 0.97 3.53 6.31 3.38 5.96 0.98 0.41 1.02 0.507 29 3.3 0 36 3.23 5.61 1.23 0.98 3.54 6.32 3.38 5.96 0.99 0.44 1.04 0.547 29 3.35 1 48 3.23 5.61 1.22 0.98 3.54 6.32 3.38 5.95 1.00 0.45 1.04 0.567 29 3.4 3 0 3.23 5.60 1.22 0.96 3.53 6.30 3.37 5.93 1.00 0.47 1.05 0.587 29 3.45 4 12 3.22 5.59 1.21 0.95 3.53 6.30 3.36 5.91 1.01 0.48 1.06 0.597 29 3.5 5 24 3.22 5.58 1.20 0.93 3.53 6.29 3.35 5.89 1.01 0.48 1.05 0.587 29 3.55 6 36 3.22 5.58 1.20 0.92 3.53 6.29 3.35 5.88 1.01 0.48 1.05 0.587 29 3.6 7 48 3.21 5.56 1.18 0.88 3.52 6.28 3.34 5.85 0.99 0.44 1.04 0.557 29 3.65 9 0 3.21 5.56 1.18 0.88 3.52 6.28 3.33 5.85 1.00 0.45 1.04 0.557 29 3.7 10 12 3.21 5.56 1.18 0.87 3.52 6.28 3.33 5.83 1.00 0.46 1.04 0.567 29 3.75 11 24 3.20 5.54 1.17 0.86 3.51 6.26 3.32 5.81 1.00 0.45 1.02 0.517 29 3.8 12 36 3.19 5.51 1.16 0.82 3.50 6.22 3.30 5.76 0.98 0.42 0.99 0.447 29 3.85 13 48 3.17 5.47 1.14 0.78 3.49 6.20 3.28 5.72 0.97 0.39 0.96 0.367 29 3.9 15 0 3.15 5.43 1.12 0.75 3.47 6.15 3.26 5.67 0.95 0.33 0.93 0.307 29 3.95 16 12 3.14 5.40 1.11 0.71 3.46 6.13 3.24 5.64 0.93 0.30 0.90 0.247 29 4 17 24 3.13 5.37 1.09 0.68 3.44 6.10 3.23 5.60 0.91 0.25 0.88 0.197 29 4.05 18 36 3.12 5.34 1.08 0.65 3.43 6.07 3.21 5.56 0.89 0.21 0.88 0.177 29 4.1 19 48 3.12 5.35 1.09 0.66 3.44 6.08 3.21 5.55 0.89 0.21 0.88 0.187 29 4.15 21 0 3.12 5.36 1.09 0.68 3.44 6.09 3.21 5.57 0.90 0.24 0.90 0.227 29 4.2 22 12 3.13 5.38 1.10 0.68 3.45 6.11 3.21 5.56 0.90 0.23 0.91 0.247 29 4.25 23 24 3.13 5.37 1.09 0.68 3.45 6.11 3.20 5.55 0.90 0.23 0.91 0.25
93
7 30 4.3 0 36 3.13 5.37 1.10 0.68 3.45 6.10 3.21 5.55 0.91 0.25 0.92 0.277 30 4.35 1 48 3.12 5.34 1.08 0.65 3.44 6.08 3.19 5.52 0.90 0.23 0.91 0.257 30 4.4 3 0 3.11 5.34 1.08 0.64 3.43 6.07 3.18 5.49 0.89 0.21 0.91 0.247 30 4.45 4 12 3.11 5.33 1.07 0.62 3.43 6.07 3.17 5.48 0.89 0.20 0.90 0.247 30 4.5 5 24 3.10 5.31 1.06 0.60 3.42 6.06 3.16 5.45 0.88 0.18 0.90 0.227 30 4.55 6 36 3.11 5.32 1.06 0.59 3.43 6.06 3.16 5.45 0.88 0.18 0.90 0.237 30 4.6 7 48 3.10 5.31 1.04 0.55 3.42 6.05 3.15 5.42 0.86 0.14 0.89 0.207 30 4.65 9 0 3.09 5.28 1.03 0.53 3.41 6.03 3.14 5.39 0.85 0.12 0.88 0.197 30 4.7 10 12 3.07 5.24 1.02 0.50 3.40 6.00 3.12 5.34 0.84 0.09 0.88 0.197 30 4.75 11 24 3.07 5.23 1.00 0.47 3.39 5.98 3.11 5.32 0.84 0.09 0.88 0.197 30 4.8 12 36 3.05 5.19 0.99 0.43 3.38 5.94 3.09 5.28 0.83 0.08 0.88 0.187 30 4.85 13 48 3.04 5.16 0.97 0.39 3.36 5.91 3.07 5.23 0.82 0.06 0.87 0.167 30 4.9 15 0 3.02 5.13 0.96 0.36 3.35 5.88 3.05 5.20 0.82 0.03 0.86 0.157 30 4.95 16 12 3.02 5.12 0.96 0.37 3.34 5.87 3.04 5.18 0.83 0.06 0.87 0.167 30 5 17 24 3.00 5.07 0.94 0.31 3.32 5.82 3.02 5.13 0.81 0.03 0.86 0.137 30 5.05 18 36 2.99 5.06 0.93 0.30 3.31 5.80 3.01 5.10 0.81 0.02 0.86 0.147 30 5.1 19 48 2.99 5.06 0.94 0.33 3.32 5.81 3.01 5.10 0.83 0.07 0.87 0.177 30 5.15 21 0 3.01 5.09 0.96 0.36 3.33 5.84 3.02 5.12 0.85 0.12 0.90 0.227 30 5.2 22 12 3.01 5.10 0.96 0.36 3.34 5.85 3.02 5.12 0.86 0.13 0.90 0.237 30 5.25 23 24 3.02 5.12 0.97 0.39 3.34 5.86 3.03 5.13 0.87 0.16 0.91 0.257 31 5.3 0 36 3.01 5.10 0.96 0.37 3.33 5.84 3.02 5.12 0.87 0.16 0.91 0.257 31 5.35 1 48 3.01 5.11 0.97 0.39 3.34 5.85 3.01 5.11 0.88 0.18 0.92 0.277 31 5.4 3 0 3.02 5.12 0.97 0.38 3.34 5.87 3.02 5.12 0.88 0.19 0.92 0.287 31 5.45 4 12 3.01 5.10 0.97 0.38 3.34 5.85 3.01 5.10 0.88 0.19 0.92 0.287 31 5.5 5 24 3.01 5.10 0.97 0.39 3.34 5.86 3.01 5.10 0.89 0.21 0.93 0.307 31 5.55 6 36 3.02 5.13 0.98 0.41 3.35 5.88 3.01 5.11 0.90 0.23 0.94 0.337 31 5.6 7 48 3.04 5.17 1.00 0.46 3.37 5.94 3.04 5.17 0.93 0.30 0.97 0.397 31 5.65 9 0 3.06 5.22 1.02 0.51 3.39 5.98 3.05 5.19 0.95 0.36 0.99 0.447 31 5.7 10 12 3.06 5.22 1.03 0.53 3.39 5.98 3.05 5.19 0.96 0.37 1.00 0.457 31 5.75 11 24 3.06 5.22 1.03 0.53 3.39 5.98 3.04 5.18 0.96 0.37 1.00 0.457 31 5.8 12 36 3.07 5.23 1.03 0.53 3.39 5.99 3.05 5.19 0.97 0.39 1.00 0.457 31 5.85 13 48 3.06 5.22 1.02 0.52 3.39 5.97 3.04 5.16 0.96 0.38 0.99 0.437 31 5.9 15 0 3.06 5.22 1.03 0.54 3.39 5.97 3.04 5.16 0.98 0.41 1.00 0.457 31 5.95 16 12 3.05 5.20 1.03 0.52 3.38 5.95 3.03 5.14 0.97 0.39 0.98 0.427 31 6 17 24 3.06 5.21 1.03 0.52 3.38 5.95 3.02 5.13 0.97 0.39 0.98 0.427 31 6.05 18 36 3.05 5.19 1.02 0.51 3.37 5.94 3.02 5.11 0.97 0.39 0.98 0.417 31 6.1 19 48 3.07 5.23 1.04 0.55 3.38 5.96 3.02 5.13 0.98 0.42 0.99 0.447 31 6.15 21 0 3.05 5.20 1.03 0.53 3.37 5.93 3.01 5.10 0.97 0.40 0.99 0.437 31 6.2 22 12 3.07 5.24 1.05 0.58 3.39 5.97 3.03 5.14 0.99 0.45 1.01 0.487 31 6.25 23 24 3.07 5.24 1.05 0.57 3.39 5.97 3.02 5.13 0.99 0.45 1.01 0.488 1 6.3 0 36 3.07 5.23 1.05 0.57 3.38 5.95 3.02 5.12 0.99 0.44 1.01 0.498 1 6.35 1 48 3.06 5.21 1.04 0.55 3.37 5.93 3.01 5.09 0.99 0.43 1.01 0.488 1 6.4 3 0 3.05 5.20 1.03 0.54 3.37 5.92 3.00 5.07 0.98 0.41 1.01 0.488 1 6.45 4 12 3.05 5.19 1.03 0.53 3.35 5.89 2.99 5.06 0.98 0.40 1.01 0.488 1 6.5 5 24 3.05 5.19 1.03 0.53 3.35 5.88 2.99 5.04 0.98 0.41 1.01 0.498 1 6.55 6 36 3.06 5.20 1.04 0.54 3.35 5.89 2.99 5.05 0.99 0.43 1.03 0.538 1 6.6 7 48 3.06 5.21 1.04 0.55 3.35 5.89 2.99 5.04 0.99 0.44 1.04 0.548 1 6.65 9 0 3.05 5.19 1.03 0.52 3.34 5.87 2.98 5.02 0.98 0.42 1.03 0.528 1 6.7 10 12 3.05 5.19 1.02 0.52 3.34 5.85 2.97 5.01 0.98 0.42 1.02 0.52
94
APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS
95
Laboratory photos
Column apparatus
Constant Pressure head tank
PAM slurry pumped in
Columns
Mixing chambers
96
Flume Apparatus
From gravity tank
Liquid PAM pump
Outflow
Weir
Sand column
Seepage discharge
Sand column after granular surface application with suspended solids showing the fixed gel layer with flocculated solids
97
Field Photos
Bordeaux Canal Test Reach
Direct Discharge Measurement Collection showing the DV device and wood planks used to minimize water velocity disturbance.
98
![Twinkle FINAL_REPORT[1].pdf ISM](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/557213fd497959fc0b937d4c/twinkle-finalreport1pdf-ism.jpg)
![Final_report-European Common Quality Assurance Framework[1]](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/577cdab61a28ab9e78a65804/finalreport-european-common-quality-assurance-framework1.jpg)
