Advertisement

Self-cleaning Beach Intake Galleries: Design and Global Applications

  • Robert G. MalivaEmail author
  • Thomas M. Missimer
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Abstract

Of the various subsurface intake systems available for use, gallery intake systems have the greatest potential to provide the feed water requirements of very large-capacity seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) systems because of their scalability and flexibility as far as hydrogeological constraints. A beach gallery system is constructed beneath the intertidal zone of the beach where the wave action continuously cleans the face of the filter media. While it is designed similar to a slow sand filter, a clogging layer tends not to form at the sediment/water interface which allows it to be operated at a higher infiltration rate compared to a seabed gallery system. Design of a beach gallery system active layer (uppermost layer) must be compatible with the grain size characteristics of the beach into which it is constructed. It also must be constructed with sufficient thickness to avoid damage during storm events that produce large waves, which that can temporarily change the beach profile. The beach must be sufficiently stable so as not to have a prograding shoreline that could increase the distance from the gallery face to the sea which would decrease the rate of recharge and cause the intake to fail. This intake type is most suited for use on sandy beaches with moderate wave energy.

Keywords

Hydraulic Conductivity Hydraulic Retention Time Horizontal Well Sand Filter Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Amy, G., Carlson, K., Collins, M. R., Drewes, J., Gruenheid, M., & Jekel, M. (2006). Integrated comparison of biofiltration in engineered versus natural systems. In R. Gimbel, N. J. D. Graham, & M. R. Collins (Eds.), Recent progress in slow sand filtration and alternative biofiltration processes (pp. 3–11). London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Cook, D. I. (2003). Geosynthetics. Rapra Review Reports No. 58, Shrewsbury: Rapra Technology Limited, 132 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Crittenden, J. C., Trussell, R. R., Hand, D. W., Howe, K. J., & Tchobanoglous, G. (2005). Water Treatment: Principles and Design (2nd ed.). Hoboken: WileyGoogle Scholar
  4. Dehwah, A. H. A., Al-Mashhawari, S., & Missimer, T. M. (2014a). Mapping to assess feasibility of using subsurface intakes for SWRO, Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia. Desalination and Water Treatment, 52, 2351–2361. doi: 10.1080/19443994.2013.862035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dehwah, A. H. A., Li, S., & Missimer, T. M. (2014b). Effects of slow sand filtration of seawater in removal of algae, bacteria, organic carbons fractions, and TEP. Water Research.Google Scholar
  6. Desormeaux, E. D., Meyerhofer, P. F., & Luckenbach, H. (2009). Results from nine investigations assessing Pacific Ocean seawater desalination in Santa Cruz, California. Proceedings of the International Desalination Association World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse, Atlantis, The Palm, Dubai, UAE, November 7–12, 2009, Paper IDAW/DB09-291.Google Scholar
  7. Everts, C. H., Battley, J. P., Jr., & Gibson, P. N. (1983). Shoreline movements. Report 1, Cape Henry Virginia to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 1849–1960. Technical Report CERC-83-1, Washington, D.C.: U.A. Army Corps of Engineers and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 111 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Harbaugh, A. W. (2005). MODFLOW-2005, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model–the Ground-Water Flow Process. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A16.Google Scholar
  9. Hendricks, D. W. (Ed.). (1991). Manual of design for slow sand filtration. Denver: AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association.Google Scholar
  10. Henricks, D. W. (2011). Fundamentals of water treatment unit processes: Physical, chemical, and biological. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  11. Huisman, L., & Wood, W. E. (1974). Slow sand filtration. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  12. Jenkins, M. W., Tiwari, S. K., & Darby, J. (2011). Bacterial, viral and turbidity removal by intermittent slow sand filtration for household use in developing countries. Water Research, 45(18), 6227–6239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kosssendey, T. H., Gartung, E., & Schmidt, S. (1996). Microbiological influences on the long-term performance of geotextile filters. In Proceedings Geofilters96, Montreal, pp. 115–124.Google Scholar
  14. Lujan, L. R., & Missimer, T. M. (2014). Technical feasibility of a seabed gallery system for SWRO facilities at Shoaiba. Saudi Arabia, and regions with similar geology. Desalination and Water Treatment. doi: 10.1080/19443994.2014.909630.
  15. Maliva, R. G., & Missimer, T. M. (2010). Self-cleaning beach-gallery design for seawater desalination plants. Desalination and Water Treatment, 13, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mantilla, D., & Missimer, T. M. (2014). Seabed gallery intake technical feasibility for SWRO facilities at Shuqaiq, Saudi Arabia and other global locations with similar coastal characteristics. Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research, 2(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
  17. Missimer, T. M. (1994). Water supply development for membrane water treatment facilities. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. 253 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Missimer, T. M. (2009). Water supply development, aquifer storage, and concentrate disposal for membrane water treatment facilities. Houston, Texas, Schlumberger Water Services, Methods in Water Resources Evaluation Series No. 1, 390 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Missimer, T. M., Ghaffour, N., Dehwah, A. H. A., Rachman, R., Maliva, R. G., & Amy, G. (2013). Subsurface intakes for seawater reverse osmosis facilities: Capacity limitation, water quality improvement, and economics. Desalination, 322, 37–51. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2013.04.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Missimer, T. M. & Horvath, L. E. (1991). Alternative designs to replace conventional surface-water intakes for membrane treatment facilities. Technical proceedings of the International Desalination Association Conference on Desalination and Water Reuse, Washington, D. C., pp. 131–140.Google Scholar
  21. Rachman, R. M., Li, S., & Missimer, T. M. (2014). SWRO feed water quality improvement using subsurface intakes in Oman, Spain, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Saudi Arabia. Desalination, 351, 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rollin, A. L. (2004). Long term performance of geotextiles. In Proceedings 57th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Quebec City, Quebec, Session 4D, pp. 15–20.Google Scholar
  23. Rowe, R. K. (2005). Long-term performance of contaminant barrier systems. Géotechnique, 55(9), 631–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zheng, C., & Wang, P. P. (1999). MT3DMS: A modular three-dimensional multi-species model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in ground water systems: documentation and user’s guide. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, report SERDP-99–1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Schlumberger Water ServicesFort MyersUSA
  2. 2.U.A. Whitaker College of EngineeringFlorida Gulf Coast UniversityFort MyersUSA

Personalised recommendations