WEFTEC 2012

A Review of Vortex Grit Basin Design

Coenraad F. Pretorius

Carollo Engineers, 10540 Talbert Ave., Suite 200E, Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Email: cpretorius@carollo.com

ABSTRACT

Due to the challenges associated with sampling, and the low priority often bestowed on grit
removal, good data on grit removal in vortex grit basins is surprisingly rare. A review of
experimental and full scale plant results, mathematical models and CFD model results were
undertaken with the goal of identifying a common separating mechanism in vortex grit basins.
Finding such a mechanism would lead to a mathematical model or equation that can be used for
the design of vortex grit basins. Analysis of grit basins show that centrifugal forces are negligible
and intricate flow patterns do not exist. Sedimentation under the influence of gravity is the main
mechanism for grit removal in vortex grit basins. CFD modeling and the available data support
this conclusion. Due to the high tangential velocity introduced by the influent flow, some
allowance must be made to accommodate the resulting turbulence. Some mathematical models
include such allowance, but the allowance has not been fully quantified. This is a key
requirement for future research. CFD modeling is a tool that would allow for optimization of grit
basin design, particularly for those parameters, such as outlet configuration, that cannot be easily
included in a mathematical analysis. Suggestions are provided for other parameters that form part
of vortex grit basin design.

KEYWORDS: Vortex grit basin, surface overflow rate, Froude number, terminal settling
velocity

BACKGROUND

A good starting point would be the definition of grit: “Grit consists of sand, gravel, cinders, or
other heavy materials that have specific gravities or settling velocities considerably greater than
those of organic particles. In addition to these materials, grit includes eggshells, bone chips,
seeds, coffee grounds, and large organic particles.” (Tchobanoglous et al., 2003). The specific
gravity of some of these materials are listed in Table 1.

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5715
 WEFTEC 2012

Table 1: Specific gravity of material that makes up grit

Material SG Source
Sand 1.52 Incropera & DeWitt, 1990
Gravel 2.65 Supplier
Quartz 2.64 Incropera & DeWitt, 1990
Concrete 2.30 Incropera & DeWitt, 1990
Cement 3.13 Lindeburg, 1999
Aggregate 2.64 Lindeburg, 1999
Eggshell 2.53 Tsai et al, 2006
Bone, rat 2.0 – 2.25 Repo et al, 1988
Coffee grounds (dry) 0.65 Horio et al, 2008
The table shows that most of the materials have specific gravities that are surprisingly similar,
with the exception of sand and coffee grounds all the listed materials have specific gravities in
the range of 2.0 to 3.1. The table also shows that even clean grit cannot be characterized by a
single specific gravity, such as the commonly used 2.65. The low specific gravity for coffee
grounds may indicate an additional challenge: when exposed to water, coffee grounds absorb
water and specific gravity increases to the point where coffee grounds will settle. Determining
the ‘real’ wet specific gravity of coffee grounds and any other material that absorbs moisture
would require an indirect method such as measuring the settling velocity of a particle of known
diameter.

Table 2 shows the reported specific gravities for grit.

Table 2: Reported specific gravity of grit from various locations

Location SG Source
Deer Island Treatment Plant, Boston, MA 1.22 Herrick, 2010
East Bay Municipal Utility District Main WWTP, CA 1.35 Herrick, 2010
Green Bay WWTP, WI 1.53 Herrick, 2010
East Bay Municipal Utility District Main WWTP, CA 1.4 Chien et al., 2010
Primary Sludge 1.4 Tchobanoglous et al., 2003
The numbers in Table 2, assuming they are accurate, and occur at the same place and time,
would suggest that it would be impossible to remove the bulk of the grit without also removing a
large quantity of organic solids. It would also appear that grit solids may be coated with a large
quantity of organic matter.

The variation in the numbers in both tables reiterate the need for testing grit at the treatment
plant, so that the correct specific gravity for each facility can be determined.

Wilson et al (2007) compared the settling velocities of collected grit to the theoretical velocities
for SG = 2.65. They showed that larger grit particles (above ~125 μm) all settled at roughly the
same velocity. The implication is that heavier grit particles, that settle faster than a 125 μm

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5716
 WEFTEC 2012

“sand” particle (SG = 2.65) are not present in wastewater treatment plant influent, but
accumulates in the collection system, to be flushed out during a peak flow event.

Indeed, this is what appears to have happened at the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Plant in
San Francisco, CA: “On average, the plant removes about 1.6 Mg/d of grit in dry weather.
During peak grit events, 125 – 160 Mg/d of grit have inundated the plant.” (Hirano et al, 1998).
A hundredfold increase in grit load would be extremely hard to accommodate in any design.

Vortex Grit basins have been used since the early twentieth century for grit removal from
wastewater (Geiger, 1942). Vortex basins are used both as grit basins for wastewater treatment
and as suspended solids separating devices for combined sewer overflows.

Ineffective grit removal results in damage to downstream equipment, as well as downtime in

downstream process units, such as aeration basins and digesters. A proper assessment of the
capacity of vortex grit basins is therefore vital to plant operations.

Some of the advantages of vortex grit basins include low power requirements and odor potential
(especially compared to aerated grit chambers), low head loss and compactness. As a result,
vortex grit basins are often favored, especially for large installations.

ANALYSIS

To calculate the terminal settling velocity of a grit particle, Stokes’ Law is often used:

up = dp2g(ρp-ρ)/(18μ) (1)

where up is the terminal settling velocity of the grit particle (m/s)

dp is the particle diameter (m)

g is acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s2)

ρp is the particle density (kg/m3)
ρ is the fluid density (kg/m3) and
μ is the fluid viscosity (kg/m.s)

Equation 1 is widely used to determine particle terminal settling velocity, even though it is only
valid for a particle Reynolds number (Rep) of less than 0.2 (Coulson et al., 1991). Rep is similar
to the more widely known Reynolds number:

Rep = ρ.up.dp/μ (2)

Between an Rep of 0.2 and 1,000, which applies to most grit particles, terminal settling velocity
can be calculated by:

up = dp2g(ρp-ρ)/(18μ[1 + Rep0.687]) (3)

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5717
 WEFTEC 2012

The use of equation 3 requires iteration. With the computational power available in modern
personal computers, that should not prevent it from regular use. Explicit formulas for calculating
the terminal settling velocity of grit particles are available (Coulson et al., 1991; Veerapen et al.,
2005), but are generally much more complex than equation 3.

Removal efficiency in separation devices is a function of influent flow. In a circular device,

removal efficiency is typically expressed in terms of unit diameter. This relationship can
generally be expressed as:

η = f(Q/dn) (4)

where η = removal efficiency, as a fraction (dimensionless)

Q = flow, m3/s or mgd
d = basin diameter, m or ft.

The value of n in Eq. 4 depends on the assumption as to the type of unit and the separation
mechanism as discussed in Table 3.

Table 3: Value of n in Equation 1 and its implications

Value of n Implications

2 Would imply that gravity sedimentation is the dominating mechanism for

removal in a vortex grit basin. Q/d2 would be equivalent to surface overflow
rate (SOR), which would be a key design parameter.

2.5 Early workers appear to have accepted this as the correct value, based on
maintaining a constant Froude number. Froude number is the dominant
effect in free-surface flows and is used to apply similarity rules for such
flows (White, 1994). A simple definition of the Froude number is that it is
the ratio between inertia and gravity. It has been applied in the analysis of
vortex grit basins from the start (Geiger, 1942).

3 d3 would be equivalent to unit volume and HRT. Some theories for removal
efficiency in sedimentation basins do refer to HRT, usually when
considering rectangular basins. This would be a surprising result.

Apart from the values shown in the table, n might have an in-between value which would imply
that a complex removal mechanism exists. The possibility exists that experimental data may lead
to such a result.

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5718
 WEFTEC 2012

The Froude number, mentioned in the table, is typically used to ensure hydrodynamic uniformity
between model and prototype for ship design. In the study of stirred tanks, such as vortex grit
basins with impellers, the Froude number governs the formation of surface vortices. No theory or
data apparently exists to support the implicit assumption that hydrodynamic uniformity, or
similarity of surface vortices ensure identical removal efficiency.

An implicit assumption in the use of Eq. 4 is that other dimensions, such as depth and lower
chamber (where used) dimensions, are always directly proportional to diameter.

A review of a set of experimental results produced by American Public Works Association

(1974) was performed. The experimental unit had a fixed diameter (3 ft), but the inlet pipe width
and the liquid depth were adjustable. Four different inlet pipe widths were used (3, 4, 5 and
6 inches). The authors reported the results as if the inlet pipe width was constant (1 ft) and the
diameter of the chamber adjustable (6, 7.2, 9 and 12 ft) for the different inlet pipe widths used.
Gilsonite particles (SG = 1.06) substituted for grit.

RESULTS

A typical performance based vortex grit removal specification would refer to a number of
different particle sizes. The terminal settling velocity for spherical particles of these sizes at a
water temperature of 20°C is summarized in Table 4, for both the typically used SG of 2.65, and
an SG of 1.4, which presents the measured SG values shown in Table 2.

Table 4: Terminal settling velocity of commonly used grit particle sizes, m/h (gpd/sf)

US Sieve, mesh Particle diameter, Terminal settling velocity with

μm
SG = 2.65 SG = 1.4
50 297 154 (91,400) 50 (29,300)
70 211 96 (56,800) 28.8 (17,000)
100 149 57 (33,300) 15.7 (9,200)
140 105 31.2 (18,400) 8.2 (4,800)
The table confirms that such a significant reduction in SG causes a three- to fourfold reduction in
terminal settling velocity. Concern about the impact of organics coating grit particles would
appear to be valid.

However, when a grit particle is covered by organics, the particle’s overall mass and size would
increase. For example, if a spherical grit particle with a diameter of 149 μm and initial SG of
2.65 is coated with organic matter with an SG of 1.2 such that its diameter doubles to 298 μm,

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5719
 WEFTEC 2012

the new particle will have an SG of 1.38, and its terminal velocity would be 48 m/h
(28,300 gpd/sf), which is only 15% lower than the terminal velocity listed in the Table 4 for the
original particle.

The more significant question is how the size of the coated particle is measured. If it is measured
as that of the coated particle, it would indeed have a terminal settling velocity that is almost 70%
lower than that of a similar sized clean grit particle. Ultimately, the amount of damage that such
a particle would do to downstream equipment is more likely to be a function of the clean particle
size, and it would be more reasonable to measure the clean grit particle size.

Another grit particle property that often causes concern is shape. No real grit particle is likely to
be a perfect sphere, so the question arises about the relevance of equation 1 or 3. Haider and
Levenspiel (1989) developed a procedure to estimate the terminal velocity of a non-spherical
particle. They used a property called sphericity to describe the shape of real particles, where

Sf = s/S (5)

where Sf = sphericity
s = surface area of a sphere having the same volume as the particle (m2) and
S = surface area of the particle (m2).

For example, the sphericity of a cube is 0.81 and that of a tetrahedron 0.67. The sphericity of a
rectangular prism with a lenth: width: depth ratio of 10:1:1 would be 0.53. Considering how the
elongated nature of this shape would reduce its sphericity, it would seem reasonable to conclude
that most grit particles would have a sphericity of more than 0.5.

Using the correlation developed by these authors, it appears that a grit particle with a sphericity
of 0.5 would have a terminal settling velocity of 75 to 90% of a spherical particle. If grit particle
shape is of particular concern, it can be included in the analysis. If not, it can be assumed to have
a relatively minor impact on terminal settling velocity.

Figure 1 shows the removals achieved as a function of surface overflow rate (SOR). The strong
correlation between the two parameters is obvious. Some variation exists at each flow (SOR)
tested, due to different liquid depths used. This would suggest that increased liquid depth may
improve removal, in the range of liquid depths tested. The ratio of SWD to liquid depth varied
between 0.3 and 0.9. In current full-scale designs this ratio usually varies between 0.4 and 0.65.

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5720
 WEFTEC 2012

Equation 2 is a fairly complicated design equation, especially if one considers that design
engineers would typically want to specify removal efficiency (η) and use it to determine SOR
(by solving for ø in equation 6). Since ø appears both as an exponent and a normal term in
equation 6, the equation cannot be solved explicitly for ø. This limitation can be overcome,
nonetheless, through the use of the iterative calculating power available in modern personal
computers.

A more serious limitation regards the value of α. The authors seem to suggest that the value of α
can be estimated by assuming the Peclet number is constant and equal to 54. Their definition of
the Peclet number includes the tangential velocity at the basin’s periphery, which is not equal to
the inlet velocity, and must apparently be measured. A designer would need some method for
estimating α that does not include measured values.

Where α = 0, the system would be turbulent and well mixed and removal efficiency would be
defined by:

η = ø/(ø + 1) (7)

On the other hand, in an ideal quiescent system (α → ∞)

η=ø (8)

Equation 7 and 8 present the two extremes in a vortex basin. Equation 8 is sometimes used in the
analysis of primary clarifiers where discrete particle settling is considered (Tchobanoglous et al.,
2003). Equation 7 is more conservative and the authors recommend that designers use it for
design. Equation 7 can be rewritten as a design equation:

ø = η/( 1 - η) (9)

or, to determine the required surface overflow rate:

SOR = up (1 - η)/ η (10)

where SOR is the surface overflow rate (m/h).

A note the use of units: while the SI unit for velocity is m/s, this would result in small numbers
where grit particle terminal velocity and surface overflow rates are concerned, and m/h is
preferred and commonly used. The exception is that in equations 1 – 3 m/s must be used for
consistency.

The term 1/( 1 - η) in equation 9 and 10 can be considered a design safety factor, and presents
the difference between using equation 7 or 8. The main problem with using this particular design
safety factor is its magnitude when high removal efficiencies are required: for a 90% removal

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5723
 WEFTEC 2012

efficiency, the safety factor is 10, for a 95% removal efficiency it doubles to 20! For example, a
common specification for grit removal efficiency would be 95% for 50-mesh (> 300 μm). A
spherical particle with an SG of 2.65 and a diameter of 300 μm would have a terminal settling
velocity of 155 m/h (91,600 gpd/sf). Using equation 10 would result in a design SOR of 8.2 m/h
(4,800 gpd/sf). Using this design approach would obviously result in very large vortex grit
basins, and negate one of the big advantages of the technology.

The authors suggest that, for an optimized design, the value of α could be as high as 1.5. Using
this value, the safety factor for achieving 90% removal is 1.7 and for 95% it is 2.1. This shows
that a better estimate of α would be necessary to keep designs practical. There are two options
for achieving this: the first would be an analytical solution that describes α in terms of variables
that would be known to the designer.

The second would be to determine α experimentally and use it for similar designs. The authors
appear to be suggesting that the value α would remain constant as long as a constant ratio
between surface overflow rate and inlet velocity is maintained. Current vortex grit basin design
usually aim to maintain a constant inlet velocity as far as possible, based on an estimated
velocity required to keep coarse grit in suspension. It follows that sizing vortex grit basins to
maintain a constant surface overflow rate would maintain a constant value of α, so that
performance would at least be consistent between different sized basins sized for constant inlet
velocity and SOR.

Through the modeling and experimental testing, the authors showed that the three parameters
that affected performance most are tank diameter (surface overflow rate), inlet diameter (inlet
velocity) and outlet geometry. The impact of the last two parameters will be discussed below.

Chien et al (2010) investigated the inability of a vortex grit basin to meet the specified removal
efficiency. A CFD model was used to determine that reducing the flow through the basin from
70 to 35 mgd, reducing surface overflow rate by 50%, would reduce the maximum velocity in
the unit from 6 to 2 ft/s. In addition, the model predicted that coarse grit (diameter = 649 μm; SG
= 1.4) removal would increase from 89% to 100% and medium grit (diameter = 254 μm; SG =
1.4) removal would increase from 7% to 72%.

McNamara et al (2009) reported that after replacing detritors with vortex grit basins the grit
volume dropped from 25.7 L/ML (3.4 ft3/MG) to 1.4 L/ML (0.2 ft3/MG). McNamara (2011)
concedes that some of this drop may be attributed to the higher organic content of grit from the
detritors. However, within two years of putting the vortex grit basins in service, the plant had to
take downstream aeration basins out of service to remove grit for the first time ever. Grit was
also found in secondary clarifiers and chlorine contact basins.

There is a multitude of differences between detritors and grit basins, including surface overflow
rates: The average surface overflow rate for the detritors were 8.1 m/h (4,200 gpd/sf) with all

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5724
 WEFTEC 2012

units in service and 9.7 m/h (5,000 gpd/sf) with one unit out of service. For vortex grit basins the
numbers were 42 m/h (21,600 gpd/sf) and 84 m/h (43,200 gpd/sf). The design surface overflow
rate for the vortex grit basins is 263 m/h (155,000 gpd/sf).

Fenner and Tyack (1998) studied the removal of plastic beads in a pilot scale (300 mm diameter)
and prototype (1.6 m diameter) hydrodynamic separator with central outlet, per typical Hydro
International design (Grit King, Storm King, etc.). They developed a correlation for estimating
prototype capacity that includes both surface overflow and Froude number similarity:

Qp = Qm (η Lr2 + 0.75 [1- η] Lr2.5) (11)

where Qp = Prototype flow where model removal efficiency can be expected (L/s)
Qm = Model flow (L/s)
Lr = Length ratio, i.e. (prototype chamber diameter)/(model chamber diameter) (dimensionless)

The first term in equation 11 includes n = 2 (surface overflow rate) and the second term includes
n = 2.5 (Froude number similarity). However, it also appears that for high removal efficiencies
(η → 1), the first term would dominate and the second term would approach zero. This supports
the thesis that for high removal efficiency surface overflow rate should be used as a sizing
criterion. In addition, using surface overflow rate is more conservative than using Froude number
similarity and this approach would be consistent with normal wastewater design practice.

The Hydro International design allows centrifugal forces to assist removal, due to its central
overflow. At the maximum flow used to test the prototype (60 L/s), a particle in the center of the
inlet pipe would experience a centrifugal force of close to 60% of gravity. It is thus likely that
centrifugal force assisted removal at high flows, and perhaps it is the contribution of centrifugal
force that leads to the inclusion of Froude number similarity in equation 11. In units where
centrifugal force is a small fraction of gravity, i.e. most full scale vortex basins, the Froude
number term may not be required.

Vortex basins in other applications

Vortex basins are also used for treating combined sewer overflows, storm water runoff and even
for primary clarification. In all of these application the focus is on the removal of total suspended
solids (TSS) rather than inorganic fixed solids (grit). Nonetheless, the same removal mechanism
would describe removal efficiency for all vortex basins.

Schmidt et al (1997) used experimental data to show that for combined sewer overflows, surface
overflow rate (they used the term ‘surface load’) had a significant impact on removal efficiency.

Le Cornu et al (2000) used experimental data to show that grit removal efficiency from storm
water runoff was almost exclusively dependent on influent flow, and hence surface overflow

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5725
 WEFTEC 2012

rate. A linear regression of their data (Figure 3) shows 100% removal of grit at a flow of
approximately 6.7 L/s, or a surface overflow rate of 21 m/h (12,600 gpd/sf).

Faram and Andoh (2000) investigated the use of vortex basins for primary treatment of
wastewater. They used first principles to develop an equation to describe removal efficiency as a
function of influent flow, unit diameter, particle terminal settling velocity, ratio of overflow to
underflow and underflow proportion. Their equation shows that similar removal efficiencies
would be achieved at a constant surface overflow rate, i.e. ratio of influent flow to the square of
unit diameter is kept constant.

Current Design Practice

Figure 4 shows the stated capacity for various suppliers as a function of SOR. Many suppliers
adhere roughly to the constant Froude number approach (n = 2.5 in Eq 1). At least one supplier
adheres to constant SOR (n = 2). The implications to capacity is that if one assumes that a 7 ft
diameter vortex grit basin has a capacity of 2.5 mgd (the only agreement between all four
suppliers), a 20 ft diameter unit would have a capacity of 20 mgd (n = 2) or 34.5 mgd (n = 2.5).
Note that three of the suppliers rate these units at 50 mgd, which is optimistic, even if Froude
number similarity is assumed.

Figure 3: Grit removal efficiency as a function of flow (Le Cornu et al., 2000)

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5726
 WEFTEC 2012

Figure 4: Vortex Basin Design Capacities and Particle Terminal Settling Velocities

Also included in the figure are the settling velocities for various particle sizes, typical of those
used in grit removal specifications. Note that the terminal settling velocities were determined
assuming an SG of 2.65, which would be optimistic according to the data shown in Table 2.

The figure would suggest that even the most conservative of the suppliers would achieve only
partial removal of the three particle sizes shown, under the most favorable set of assumptions,
i.e. SG = 2.65 and that equation 8 is valid. The figure would suggest that for large vortex grit
basins, most suppliers are making optimistic claims regarding capacity.

Additional Design Parameters

Some of the additional design parameters of vortex grit basin design are worth reflecting on.
These include floor slope, the use of rotating paddles or stirrers, the use of a lower chamber or
grit hopper inlet and outlet configurations and hydrocyclone orientation.

Floor slope

Claims have been made that floor slope is a key parameter in determining the flow regime that
develops inside the grit basin, and even that the floor slope determines the mechanism of grit

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5727
 WEFTEC 2012

removal. Specifically it is claimed that a flat floor induces a toroidal (or doughnut shaped) flow
pattern in the basin, with a downward flow velocity at the outer portion of the basin, an inward
flow along the floor, an upward flow along the center of the basin and an outward flow along the
surface. The toroidal flow supposedly helps to move grit to the center of the unit, where it is
captured in the grit hopper.

However, a totoidal flow pattern would also mean higher upward velocities in the basin, as only
a relatively small part of the total surface area (at the center) is used to channel the entire flow
upward through the unit. Higher upward velocities would increase the likelihood of grit particles
being carried into the effluent from the grit basin.

The inlet baffles that is part of the latest flat floor design would seem to significantly impede the
development of a toroidal flow pattern. Using CFD analysis, Chien et al. (2010) found no
evidence of a toroidal flow pattern in a full scale grit basin.

Field observations confirm that a flat floor makes accumulation of grit on the floor likely,
especially at low flows. The accumulated grit would be re-suspended during peak flow events,
potentially contributing to the danger of overloading grit handling equipment. During their
experimental work, the American Public Works Association (1974) specifically converted the
test unit to a sloped floor system to avoid grit accumulation on the floor from complicating their
results and analysis.

Rotating impeller

Conventional wisdom would have it that the rotating device helps to keep heavy organics in
suspension, while allowing fine grit to settle. As shown in Table 2, the distinction between grit
and organic solids may not be as well defined as the conventional wisdom would have it. The
degree of overlap between fine grit and heavy organic settling velocities is likely plant specific
and would complicate efforts to find an optimum impeller speed for a specific installation. An
alternative approach would be to design the grit basin for maximum removal of a defined solids
grading (diameter and SG) and rely on grit washing equipment to separate any organics trapped
in the underflow.

In the design of gravity sedimentation basins it is accepted that any flow velocity or current in a
sedimentation basin impedes settling and reduces removal efficiency. Baffles and inlet
configurations are commonly designed to attempt to minimize flow velocities. This includes the
design of aerated grit basins.

In a laboratory-scale basin Chien et al (2010) found, using CFD analysis, that the impeller
induced a reverse toroidal flow pattern (outwards along the floor, upwards along the sides). Such
a flow pattern would hinder the capture of solids in a grit basin. However, in a full scale grit
basin, the found that the impeller had no significant impact on the flow pattern, as its influence

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5728
 WEFTEC 2012

was overshadowed by that of influent and effluent flows. The CFD model showed, as later
confirmed by full scale testing, that performance improved when the impeller was removed.

Grit hopper

The grit hopper would allow the settled grit to accumulate in an area free of the influence of the
influent flow and an impeller. The accumulation of grit in such a hopper also increases the
likelihood of blockage in the suction of the grit pump, especially where intermittent pumping is
used.

The original vortex grit basin did not include a grit hopper (or an impeller), as is shown in
Figure 5 (Geiger, 1942). In some countries the original design is still used with minor
modifications, such as making it deeper. These designs put a grit pump or its suction at the center
of the unit. Continuous grit pumping may remove settled grit just as efficiently as a grit hopper.
Pumping grit from a higher elevation may also reduce the potential for plugging in grit lines.

This author is not aware of any data comparing the performance of the original design to that of
the more complex North American design. In the absence of such data, construction cost saving
may be realized by using the simpler design.

Inlet configuration

Conventional grit basin design includes a rectangular or square inlet conduit. This makes it
relatively easy to get a smooth transition from the inlet conduit into the grit basin. The American
Public Works Association (1974) used a circular inlet pipe that transitioned smoothly into a
square inlet conduit. Veerapen et al. (2005) used a circular inlet pipe. They also concluded that
while it does not appear to be a major factor in performance, the optimum feed point in terms of
depth is at the mid-depth of the unit. This agrees with intuition, which would suggest that an inlet
close to the surface would encourage short-circuiting, while an inlet close to the floor would
result in influent velocity lifting settled solids from the floor of the unit.

A circular inlet pipe would minimize concerns about grit settling in the inlet conduit, as it does
not have corners where the flow velocity is low and solids would tend to settle out. Positioning
the inlet pipe at mid-depth may reduce concerns regarding a smooth inlet transition.

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5729
 WEFTEC 2012

Figure 5: Original proposed vortex grit basin design (Geiger, 1942)

According to the CFD model used by Veerapen et al. (2005), reducing the inlet velocity from
1.47 m/s (4.8 ft/s) to 0.37 m/s (1.2 ft/s) reduced the value of ø where 100% removal is achieved
form 10.5 to 3.5.

Some suppliers provide inlet baffling that extend into the main chamber. The benefit such a
baffle is supposed to provide is not obvious. Chien et al. (2010) using CFD modeling showed
that removing the inlet baffles would improve removal efficiency. The improvement was
confirmed by before and after testing.

Outlet configuration

Veerapen et al. (2005) investigated a number of outlet geometries. Experiments showed that a
central pipe achieved only 1% removal due to short-circuiting along the outer pipe wall. Adding
a 90° elbow so that the pipe exits at the side of the unit, improved removal to 10%. A “side
outlet” (a pipe connected to the sidewall of the unit) increased removal to 74%. The side outlet
would be the closest outlet configuration tested to the peripheral weir outlet that is part of most
traditional vortex grit basin designs. The peripheral weir outlet would probably result in lower

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5730
 WEFTEC 2012

outlet velocities than the outlet pipe used in these tests. The best results were achieved when
using a radial launder (89%) with flow only allowed to enter from the down current end (90%).
The authors speculate that the efficiency of the radial outlet pipe is due to the fact that such a
pipe would reduce tangential velocity in the basin, reducing flow velocities and allowing better
sedimentation to occur.

The low removal efficiency with a central pipe raises the question of whether an impeller
significantly reduces removal efficiency in the typical vortex grit basin. Since flow is not
withdrawn from the center of the standard grit basin, the existence of such a short-circuiting flow
may not exist.

CFD modeling (Chien et al., 2010) showed that removing the effluent baffle from a standard
vortex grit basin design would improve performance.

Hydrocyclone orientation

Hydrocyclones are often used for grit classification. In many designs the hydrocyclone is placed
at an angle, sometimes as small as 10° to the horizontal. McNamara et al. (2009) discovered a
significant recycled grit load, and suspected the hydrocyclone overflow as the source. Changing
the hydrocyclone angle from 11.5° to 45° resulted in a significant increase in hydrocyclone grit
capture. They were not able to install the cyclone fully upright due to space constraints. They
recommend that new designs install hydrocyclones in the upright position.

In general, a grit classifier or grit washer needs to have a high capture efficiency, or else it would
compromise the removal efficiency achieved in the grit basin.

DISCUSSION

The available data, CFD modeling and mathematical analysis all point to the use of surface
overflow rate as the key parameter determining capacity in the design of vortex grit basins. The
use of surface overflow rate is more conservative than other approaches, and would fit well with
the general industry philosophy.

An SOR-based approach can also be adjusted for site specific concerns such as site specific grit
characteristics, or removal requirements. Site-specific grit characterization determines the
minimum particle size required for removal. Site-specific removal requirements would include
consideration of the unit processes directly downstream of the vortex grit basin. A primary
clarifier would be more forgiving than an aeration basin. Each facility can determine for itself the
priority it wants to attribute to achieving a high level of grit removal.

The distinction between clean and coated grit, as shown in Table 4, must also be considered. If it
is decided to target coated grit according to the size of the coated grit particle, this decision alone
would increase the total surface area of the vortex grit basin(s) three- to fourfold.

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5731
 WEFTEC 2012

Due to the flow turbulence introduced into the basin by the influent flow, it is necessary to
include a safety factor in the designs. The mathematical model developed by Veerapen at al.
(2005) has the potential to serve as the basis for determining such a safety factor. More analytical
work and/or experimental work is required to develop the model into a design tool.

For example, a facility may decide to target clean grit of 297 μm and above for 95% removal.
Determining the SG of clean grit would be the first step, and may be 2.3 if the bulk of the grit is
from wear in the concrete collection system (Table 1). The particle terminal settling velocity
would be 128 m/h (75,300 gpd/sf). Using equation 6 with α = 1.0, i.e. not quite as high as
Veerapen et al reported for their optimized design, ø is iteratively determined to be 2.6, which
results in a design surface overflow rate of 49 m/h (29,000 gpd/sf). Compared to current design
practice, where the surface overflow rate is sometimes as high as 270 m/h (160,000 gpd/sf;
Figure 4), this would result in much larger vortex grit basins. But it may address some of the
performance issues discussed by McNamara et al. (2009) and Chien et al. (2010).

Future research to allow the designer to determine the value of α in equation 6, or some other
method to determine the design value of ø, would be extremely useful. This would allow
designers to compensate for turbulence introduced into the basin by the influent flow.

The current practice is to specify different removal efficiencies for different sizes of grit
particles. It is unclear what is accomplished by setting these potentially conflicting requirements.
For example, a typical requirement is to achieve 65% removal of grit particles larger than
149 μm. If it is acceptable for 35% of these particles to pass through the grit basin, why would
40 or 50% be unacceptable? More can arguably be accomplished by focusing on a single size grit
particle and accepting that smaller grit particles will pass through the grit basin at a rate that is
unknown and unimportant.

CFD modeling is another tool that can be used to optimize designs. The benefit of CFD
modeling is that it can be used to investigate the influence of design parameters that can not be
easily included in a mathematical analysis.

There is evidence that the typical North American vortex grit basin design can be simplified
considerably without negatively impacting performance. There is some evidence that such
simplifications can in fact improve performance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Use SOR as a basis of design. It is more conservative than using Froude number similarity.
Design SOR can easily be adjusted for site-specific grit properties.

2. Equation 6 and an assumed value for α can be used to determine ø. Alternatively, a value of ø
can be assumed and used to determine SOR = up/ø.

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5732
 WEFTEC 2012

3. Determine the target removal efficiency for a single grit particle size. For example, in plants
with primary clarifiers, lower grit removal efficiency may be tolerated, as long as the impact is
quantified and determined to be acceptable.

4. Expect to capture a significant quantity of organic solids. The grit handling system should be
designed to deal with this.

5. Determine the peak grit load. Within reason, grit handling equipment must be sized for this
load.

6. Where hydrocyclones are used, they need to be in an upright position.

REFERENCES

American Public Works Association, The Swirl Concentrator as a Grit Separator Device,
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA-
670/2-74-026, June 1974

Chien, MH, A Borys, and JL Wong (2010) Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of a Vortex
Grit Removal System, Water Environment Association 2010 Annual Conference
(WEFTEC10), New Orleans, LA, October 2-6, 2010

Coulson, J.M., J.F. Richardson, J.R. Backhurst and J.H. Harker (1991) Chemical Engineering,
Volume 2, 4th edition, The Bath Press, Bath, Great Britain

Faram, M.G. and R.Y.G. Andoh (2000) Applications of Simulation and Predictive Techniques
for the Evaluation of Hydrodynamic Separators, CIWEM/AETT Millennium Conference;
Wastewater Treatment: Standards and Technologies to meet the Challenges of the 21st
Century, Leeds, UK, April 4 – 6, 2000, pp 223 - 230

Fenner, RA and JN Tyack (1998) Physical Modeling of Hydrodynamic Separators Operating

with Underflow, Journal of Environmental Engineering, 129, 9, 881 – 886

Geiger, H. (1942). Sandfänge für Abwasserkläranlagen. Archiv für Wasserwirtschaft

Herrick P., (2010) Grit Happens, You Don’t Know What You’re Missing, Indiana Water
Environment Federation, Indianapolis, IN, November 16, 2010

Hirano, R, P. Pitt, R. Chen and E. Skelley (1998) Grit Overload, Oceanside plant in San
Francisco, Calif., overcomes grit accumulation problems, Water Environment &
Technology, 10, 11, 55 – 58.

Horio M., A. Suri, J. Asahara, S. Sagawa and C. Aida (2008) Development of Biomass Charcoal
Combustion Heater for Household Utilization, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 48 (1), 361-372

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5733
 WEFTEC 2012

Haider, A. and O. Levenspiel (1989) Drag Coefficient and Terminal Velocity of Spherical and
Nonspherical Particles, Powder Technology, 58, 63 - 70

Incropera, Frank P. and David P. DeWitt, (1990) Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 3rd
edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Le Cornu, P., M.G. Faram and R.Y.G. Andoh (2000) A Novel Device for the Removal of Grits
and Oils from Stormwater Run-off, CIWEM/AETT Millennium Conference; Wastewater
Treatment: Standards and Technologies to meet the Challenges of the 21st Century,
Leeds, UK, April 4 – 6, 2000, pp 727 - 738

Lindeburg, Michael R., (1999) Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam, 7th
edition, Professional Publications, Inc., Belmont, CA.

McNamara, B.F., J. Griffiths and D. Book (2009) True Grit. A Grit Removal Efficiency
Investigation at Five Wastewater Treatment Plants., Paper presented at the Water
Environment Association 2009 Annual Conference (WEFTEC.09), Orlando, FL, October
10-14, 2009.

McNamara, B.F. (2011) Personal communication

Repo, M.A., R.S. Bockman, F. Betts, A.L. Boskey, N.W. Alcock and R.P. Warrell (1988) Effect
of gallium on bone mineral properties, Calcified Tissue International, 43, 5, 300-306

Scmidt, J., P. Seto and D. Averill (1997) Pilot-scale Study of Satellite Treatment Options for the
Control of Combined Sewer Overflows, Water Qual. Res. J. Canada 32, 1, 169 - 184

Tchobanoglous, G, FL Burton and HD Stensel, (2003) Wastewater engineering: Treatment and

reuse, 4th edition, Metcalf and Eddy Inc., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Tsai, W.T. , J.M. Yang, C.W. Lai, Y.H. Cheng, C.C. Lin, C.W. Yeh (2006) Characterization and
adsorption properties of eggshells and eggshell membrane, Bioresource Technology 97,
488–493

Veerapen, Jayen P., Brian J. Lowry and Michel F. Coututrier (2005) Design methodology for the
swirl separator, Aquacultural Engineering 33, 21 - 45

White F.M., Fluid Mechanics 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994

Wilson, G., G. Tchobanoglous and J. Griffiths (2007) The Nitty Gritty, Grit sampling and
analysis, Water Environment & Technology, July 2007, 64-68

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

5734