Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Grit Happens You Dont Know What You Are Missing

GRIT HAPPENS YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE MISSING



Pat Herrick, Hydro International Wastewater Division
Hydro International - Wastewater Division
2925 NW Aloclek Drive, #140 - Hillsboro, OR 97124
(503) 615-8130

ABSTRACT
Operator dissatisfaction with grit removal systems is all too common. Design of grit removal processes
has been labeled as inadequate and misunderstood. Conventional guidelines target removal of grit larger
than 210 m while minimizing organic content. In fact, many wastewater treatment plants across the
country find over 50% of their influent grit is smaller than 210 m. In addition to designing for inadequate
removal based on size alone other factors contribute to grit system failure. Conventional design assumes
that municipal grit settles like clean sand particles in clean water. Grit removal systems are traditionally
based on settling velocities of perfect spheres of silica sand particles with a 2.65 specific gravity in clean
water. In reality, wastewater grit is comprised of silica sand as well as asphalt, concrete and various other
materials that do not have a specific gravity of 2.65. Further, grit particles are not all perfect spheres and
finally, grit is exposed to fats, oils, greases, and soaps in the collection system which coats the grit and
changes its settling velocity. Grit systems can work as intended when designed with an accurate
understanding of the nature and characteristics of the grit arriving at the treatment plant and how this grit
actually behaves in wastewater. Advancements in grit management technology now allow 95% capture
of grit as fine as 75 m while producing a clean, dry product.

KEYWORDS: Grit Removal System, Size Distribution, Settling Velocity, Specific Gravity, Shape,
Agglomeration, Sand Equivalent Size (SES)

CONVENTIONAL DESIGN
Meeting regulatory requirements for treated effluent quality is the major focus for wastewater treatment
facilities. Grit removal, since it is not a regulated constituent, has historically been treated as an
afterthought. Yet, wastewater treatment plants can be significantly and negatively impacted by grit.

Traditional design guidelines target removal of coarse grit particles while minimizing organic content. The
conventional design criterion for grit removal systems, based on Metcalf & Eddy, WEF MOP #8, and other
trade manuals, has historically been to target grit particles 210 m and larger, with a specific gravity of
2.65. The results of these design criteria are more likely to produce a product with low organic content in
order to make it acceptable at a landfill than to eliminate the grit which passes through the removal
system causing problems for the plant. Producing a low organic content grit is an important goal to keep
in mind when designing a grit removal system, as organics create odor issues, as well as increasing
volume and water content which can increase vector attraction and make the product unacceptable at a
landfill. However, the primary goal of any grit removal system should be to minimize the grit which is
causing abrasive wear on mechanical equipment and depositing in process basins throughout the plant.

ABRASION & DEPOSITION
Grit is a nuisance material which causes abrasive wear to mechanical equipment and in turn increases
maintenance and operational costs while reducing equipment performance and useful life. Equipment
such as primary sludge pumps, thickener feed pumps, sludge dewatering pumps, digester draft tubes and
mixers, centrifuges, and process collectors and screws are especially susceptible.

In addition to the abrasive effects, grit accumulates in processes throughout a plant reducing processing
capacity and detention time and influencing circulation patterns. Velocities through most process basins
are lower than design velocities in the collection system. If grit is not removed in the headworks, it will
settle once it arrives in a process basin which has lower velocities and a fine particle deposit limit. Fine
bubble aeration basins and digesters have a deposit limit of approximately 100 m (Wilson,
Tchobanoglous, Griffiths, 2007). If grit particles as small as 100 m are not removed in the headworks

Grit Happens You Dont Know What You Are Missing
they will deposit throughout the process where conditions are conducive to settling, the grit then
consumes tank volume and reduces process capacity.

Processes such as fine bubble aeration basins, primary clarifiers and digesters are susceptible to grit
deposition. The reduction in processing capacity can affect the plants ability to achieve process design
goals such as; reducing methane production, reducing volatile solids reduction or impeding mixing
effectiveness in digesters (Massart, OKelley & Neun, 2010); or increasing operational costs, such as
horsepower requirements in aeration basins (Herrick, 2009).

At most treatment plants, grit accumulations typically happen gradually and continuously. It often goes
unnoticed until a process is completely overwhelmed and needs to be shut down to manually remove the
deposited grit, which is a labor intensive and costly operation. In some instances, when a process must
be taken off-line, the flow to the entire process train must be diverted. This requires building excess plant
capacity to use as grit storage which can significantly increase the size, cost and footprint of the plant.

GRIT COLLECTION TECHNOLOGIES
Most headworks grit collection processes are sedimentary processes and therefore knowing the nature
and characteristics of the grit arriving at the treatment plant can be critical for design. In terms of design,
the most important criteria to be considered are an accurate size distribution and particle settling velocity.
Gravity Sedimentation Basins, Aerated Grit Basins and Forced Vortex Grit Basins are the three common
types of grit removal systems. In each of these processes gravity is the predominant force field. Forced
Vortex Grit Basins take advantage of centrifugal and other rotary derived forces to promote grit removal,
but these forces are at most equal to, and in most cases significantly lower than gravitational forces.
Therefore knowing the settling velocity of the incoming grit is critical to properly design the process.
Utilizing both size distribution and settling velocity distribution enables the designer to establish a removal
efficiency target and determine the design cut point particle. If size distribution alone is considered the
removal results can be significantly different than anticipated. Many grit removal systems do not perform
as designed because the settling velocity of the grit was over estimated.

Once collected the grit must be washed and dewatered in order to produce a clean dry product for landfill.
All three steps of the grit removal system, collection, washing and dewatering, must be as effective as the
collection device otherwise the overall system efficiency will suffer. A system approach to design is the
most effective. It is not uncommon to see a sufficient volume of grit captured in the collection step, only to
lose collected material back to the process in the washing and dewatering steps. A grit study performed
at Fox Lake, Illinois showed that while the aerated grit basin removed 58% of total grit volume entering
the plant, the cyclone/screw classifier washing and dewatering equipment only retained 17% of what it
received (Griffiths, 2004, Boldt 2005). The loss of grit in the washing and dewatering step reduced the
systems overall efficiency to only 10%.

GRIT CHARACTERIZATION
One reason that conventional grit removal systems often fail to achieve effective removal is due to the
size and settling velocity of grit being over estimated during design. This occurs when generic design
criteria are used instead of developing a set of grit characteristics specific to the wastewater flow being
treated. Generic design criteria often assume that each grit particle is a sphere settling in laminar
conditions in clean water. Grit behavior in wastewater is a complex phenomenon governed by numerous
factors such as size, specific gravity, shape, tendency for agglomeration with other wastewater
constituents and environmental factors such as wet weather influences.

Size
The conventional design criterion of 210 m removal has allowed passage of large quantities of grit into
wastewater treatment plants. Figure 1 shows the size distribution of grit found from onsite studies at a
number of plants around the country (Osei and Andoh, 2008). Considering size alone it can be seen in
the below chart that in many plants 50% of the incoming grit is smaller than the conventional design cut
point of 210 m. Therefore, based solely on size distribution, by design, grit removal systems often miss
half of the incoming grit. Modifying design criteria to remove 90% of the incoming grit requires changing
the design cut point to somewhere between 75-150 m, depending on the gradation of the native grit.

Grit Happens You Dont Know What You Are Missing

FIGURE 1. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR GRIT AT MULTIPLE WWTPS (Osei and Andoh, 2008)




Specific Gravity
The conventional design criterion has allowed passage of a large quantity of slowly settling grit into
wastewater treatment plants evidenced by larger grit particles often found downstream of the grit removal
process. The larger material that passes must be accounted for based on criteria other than size. The
assumption has been that grit settles like silica sand however municipal grit is comprised of a variety of
materials. Wastewater grit is comprised of asphalt, limestone, concrete, slowly putrescible organics and
various other materials that rarely have a specific gravity of 2.65. Table 1 below lists the specific gravities
of various materials that are likely to be constituents of grit entering a wastewater treatment plant. As can
be seen, none of the materials listed has a specific gravity as high as 2.65, and the average value on the
listed materials is in fact only two-thirds as dense.









Compiled Particle Size Distribution from Treatment Plants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (micron)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

T
h
a
n

(
%
)
Chicago (10/27/2004) Chicago (10/28/2004) Chicago (10/29/2004) Florida (Ormand Beach)
Florida (Iron Bridge WRF) Florida (Eastern WRF) Florida (Largo WWTP) Florida (St. Petersberg SW)
Florida (Three Oaks WWTP) New England (Hartf ord, CT) Various (Atlanta) Various (Baltimore)
Calumet City WRP (7/15/2003) Calumet City WRP (7/18/2003) Clearwater, FL (Northeast Plant) Clearwater, FL (Marshall St. Plant)
Clearwater, FL (East Plant) Green Bay, WI Tampa, FL
Compiled Particle Size Distribution from Treatment Plants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (micron)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

T
h
a
n

(
%
)
Chicago (10/27/2004) Chicago (10/28/2004) Chicago (10/29/2004) Florida (Ormand Beach)
Florida (Iron Bridge WRF) Florida (Eastern WRF) Florida (Largo WWTP) Florida (St. Petersberg SW)
Florida (Three Oaks WWTP) New England (Hartf ord, CT) Various (Atlanta) Various (Baltimore)
Calumet City WRP(7/15/2003) Calumet City WRP(7/18/2003) Clearwater, FL (Northeast Plant) Clearwater, FL (Marshall St. Plant)
Clearwater, FL (East Plant) Green Bay, WI Tampa, FL

Grit Happens You Dont Know What You Are Missing
TABLE 1. SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF LIKELY CONSTITUENTS OF GRIT (Reade Advanced Materials,
2010)
Specific Gravity of Various Materials
Quartz Sand 1.2 Earth 1.4
Limestone 1.55 Granite 1.65
Clay 1.8 Red Brick 1.9
Sand, wet 1.92 Gravel 2
Asphalt 2.2 Concrete 2.4

There is evidence that industry acceptance of this data is growing. For example, at the East Bay MUD
wastewater treatment plant in the Oakland, California area it was determined that the specific gravity of
their influent grit ranged from 1.04-1.61 with an average of 1.35 (Borys, Gabb and Hake, 2002).
Illustrating the impact of this, a 210 m particle with a specific gravity of 2.65 would settle at 2.39 cm/s at
15C (59F); whereas a 210 m particle with a specific gravity of 1.35 would settle at a rate of 0.62 cm/s
at the same temperature. The difference is significant, with the higher specific gravity particle settling
almost four times more rapidly than the other particle. This is an important fact considering that
conventional grit collection devices predominately rely on gravity as the main acceleration force causing
separation of the solids from the liquid stream.

Shape
Grit particles vary in shape, are rarely spheres and many plants have noted that much of their larger grit
is flat. An angular particle will exhibit reduced settling characteristics, settling more slowly than a sphere
as its drag coefficient is higher (Jimimez and Madsen, 2003). More conservative design settling rates can
better ensure capture of such angular particles.

Agglomeration
While in the collection system, the grit particles are exposed to a variety of constituents including fats, oils
& greases (FOG), soaps, scum, some chemical constituents and dissolved gasses can attach to the grit
particles and alter the particles settling characteristics. Such wastewater constituents can be significantly
influenced by the commercial and industrial influences within the collection system. Regional aspects,
such as the local soils and geology, winter traction control regimes and the type and age of the collection
system can also impact the nature of grit.

Wet Weather
During peak wet weather events grit volume entering the plant can be 20-40+ times higher depending on
the peak to average flow ratio, as well as the age and type of collection system (Wilson, Tchobanoglous,
Griffiths, 2007). As much as 70% of the annual grit load can be received at the plant during a handful of
first flush events (Wilson, 1998). These peak grit production periods frequently overload facilities, and
must also be accounted for in the design of a grit removal system, especially in terms of grit conveyance
and transport systems.

GRIT SAMPLING
Grit size distribution and settling velocity is not easy to characterize. First, there is no industry standard
method for measuring grit. Obtaining representative and repeatable samples is difficult because grit does
not flow evenly into the plant. It tends to travel in a higher concentration at the bottom of the channel,
volume fluctuates with diurnal flow variations and grit volume significantly increases during wet weather
events according to the energy/velocity profile in the collection system. Due to these significant variations
sampling should occur over several days and ideally also include a wet weather event.

Care must be taken in collecting the sample to ensure it is representative of incoming grit. Sampling from
a column of flow or well mixed area ensures a representative sample is collected. A sufficient amount of
material must be collected for analysis and collected grit volume should be correlated to incoming flow so
an inlet concentration can be determined, indicating whether the sample is representative. While
collecting grit, the holding vessel must be quiescent, encourage collected grit to settle and operate with a

Grit Happens You Dont Know What You Are Missing
low surface loading rate to ensure fine and slowly settling grit particles are retained. Once sampling is
complete, the size distribution and effective settling velocity or effective specific gravity of the grit sample
must be determined. Both characteristics are needed in order to have accurate data upon which to base a
system design.

In the absence of site specific information, it is advisable to err on the side of conservatism. In most
cases, design should be based on the smallest practicable particle size which would typically be in the
75-106 m size range. Figure 2 below shows the size distribution of grit from various plants versus the
settling velocity of the grit particles expressed in sand equivalent size or SES (Wilson, Tchobanoglous,
Griffiths, 2007). SES expresses the measured grit settling velocity in terms of the size of sand sphere
having the same settling velocity. SES is a method for normalizing all factors impacting settling velocity,
such as size, shape, SG and agglomeration, to a known design point. The chart below shows that 106
micron is a convergent point where shifts in settling velocity, carry velocity, particle impacts, etc. merge
into a sensible design point. Relating to Figure #1, it can be seen a 100 micron cut point targets most of
the grit entering the plant.

FIGURE 2. SIZE DISTRIBUTION VS. SETTLING VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION AT MULTIPLE WWTPS

Lacking an adequate grit characterization, as is always the case in new construction, a design cut point of
75-106 micron will generally remove 80-90% of the grit entering the treatment plant. Certain areas of the
country are known for fine grit or sugar sand in these areas, or regions that contain loess, the finer cut
point of 75 micron should be used. Most other areas of the country will achieve adequate results with a
106 micron design cut point particle. Reducing the design cut point particle effectively increases the
surface loading requirement four-fold allowing sufficient settling time to remove the fine and light grit that
previously has been overlooked, while the larger, heavier grit, that is transported to the treatment plant
during higher flows seen during diurnal flow cycles, seasonal variations and spikes in flow from wet
weather events, is easily captured.

SYSTEM DESIGN
Several factors should be considered when designing a grit removal system starting with a full
characterization of the endemic grit including grit concentration, size distribution and settling velocity or
effective SG. Understanding the actual characteristics of grit at a particular plant facilitates proper
selection of the size and type of grit removal system that is required. With good data on the endemic grit,
a cost benefit analysis can be determined, evaluating grit removal efficiency as compared to cost. Where
specific data on endemic grit is not available a design cut point in the range of 75-106 micron will

Grit Happens You Dont Know What You Are Missing
generally provide the plant with adequate protection by removing 80-90% of the grit entering the
treatment plant.
Other considerations in this cost analysis would include upstream screening requirements, maintenance
requirements, available space, and anticipated headloss/hydraulic gradient through the process and the
level of protection to be afforded to downstream equipment and processes. Table 2 outlines important
recommended guidelines to use when designing or evaluating a grit removal system.

TABLE 2. GRIT REMOVAL SYSTEM CRITICAL DESIGN FACTORS

Design Guideline
Define Design Requirements:
! Grit Particle Size Analysis
! Settling velocity or Specific Gravity
! Required System Removal Efficiency
! Screening Requirements
Required Downstream Protection:
! Biological Processes
! Sludge Processing Equipment
Evaluate Equipment:
! Removal Efficiency/Performance
! Equipment Design/Features
! Space Requirements
! Headloss Requirements
! Cost: Capital, Installed, Operational
! Maintenance Requirements

EMERGING TREND
Headworks screening and grit removal is the primary protection for all treatment processes and
equipment in a wastewater treatment plant, yet it has been the most neglected part of the plant. To
improve solids removal screen openings on influent screens have trended progressively smaller over the
past 10-15 years. Years ago screen openings were frequently 1 and larger. Today, screens are
commonly supplied with ! openings. It is logical that improving grit removal processes to effectively
remove incoming grit is becoming a higher priority in plant designs.

Biological processes have evolved to become more efficient and produce a cleaner effluent in
progressively smaller areas. As plants move toward higher performing processes, effective grit removal
becomes more important. The growing acceptance of Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR) technology brings
the need for advanced grit management systems into consideration. MBR technology requires extensive
screening pretreatment which protects the membrane and often allows elimination of primary clarification.
Without the protection of primary clarification, advanced grit removal should also be part of effective MBR
pretreatment system design (Andoh 2009). Grit entering a MBR plant can cause abrasive wear and
damage the membranes, which is often the most expensive equipment in the plant.

Fine Bubble aeration is not a particularly advanced treatment process yet when a plant upgrades from
coarse bubble aeration to fine bubble aeration, and in the process eliminates their primary clarifier, the
impact of grit deposition increases for two reasons. First, the velocity in the aeration basin is reduced as
is the deposit limit, making it the first likely location in the process train for grit to accumulate. Secondly,
the deposited grit creates new maintenance challenges as diffusers cover the full floor of the basin which
restricts the ability to clean them and makes the cleaning process more operator intensive and expensive.
Diffusers covered with grit are less effective and additional horsepower may be required to achieve
desired results.

Today many plants are requiring increased effectiveness of their grit removal systems and their design
engineers are taking a closer look at the size and settling velocity distributions of grit entering these
plants. Newer editions of design manuals are recommending targeting particles smaller than 212 m in
grit system design. In 2009, WEF MOP #8 issued a new chapter on Grit Removal stating that in 2008, a

Grit Happens You Dont Know What You Are Missing
WEF member survey reported grit density ranged from 1100 to 2200 kg/m3 (70 140 lb/ft
3
) and averaged
1,400 kg/m3 (90 lb/ft
3
). Metcalf & Eddy states that the specific gravity of clean grit reaches 2.7 for inerts
but can be as low as 1.3 when a substantial amount of organic material is agglomerated with inerts. Bulk
density and specific gravity of wastewater grit is lower than these factors are for clean silica sand
indicating a shift in design considerations. Grit is not clean sand and many grit removal systems being
designed today are targeting removal of particles in the 75-106-150 m size range in order to remove the
particles that cause abrasive wear and deposit throughout the process.

CONCLUSION
Many installed grit systems fail to keep depositable grit out of the plant. In fact, they fail to remove the
sizes and amounts of grit they were designed to capture. Grit system failure happens primarily due to a
faulty assumption that municipal grit behaves like clean silica sand particles in clean water. The failure of
many traditional grit removal systems has led to the misconception that grit removal systems cannot
work, and that the only option is to deal with grit deposits in process basins downstream of the headworks
and to deal with the abrasive wear from grit, both increasing maintenance and operational budgets.

In order to design an effective system, design guidelines should be more comprehensive examining size
and settling velocity of endemic grit, impact grit will have on downstream equipment and processes, grit
system efficiency, headloss, space, cost, etc. A clear understanding of the grit entering the plant includes
grit concentration, size distribution, effective specific gravity and/or settling velocity. Only with a clear
understanding of the material to be removed can a system be designed to achieve specified results.
When a complete characterization of the endemic grit is not available a conservative approach can
provide effective grit removal. Targeting particles in the 75-100 micron range will typically remove 80-
90% of the grit entering the treatment plant.

Effective grit management requires a system approach. All components of the system must be effective in
order for the overall system to yield the desired results. Improving grit collection only to lose a major
portion of it back to the process in the washing and dewatering step is detrimental to overall removal
efficiency and reduces the value of the entire system. Capturing a high percentage of the incoming grit
load along with a high concentration of organics yields a product that is both difficult and expensive to
landfill and can starve downstream biological processes. Each step of the process is important and
should be optimally designed.

Grit systems can work as intended when designed with an accurate understanding of the nature and
characteristics of the grit arriving at the treatment plant and how this grit actually behaves in wastewater.
An effective system addresses size as well as settling velocity or SG and produces a clean, dry product
for landfill. The result is abrasive wear on equipment and deposits and accumulations in the plant are
minimized. In turn, money is saved on maintenance and operational costs and equipment and processes
perform better.

REFERENCES
Wilson, G., Tchobanoglous, G., and Griffiths, J. (2007) The Grit Book. Eutek Systems, Inc.: Hillsboro,
Oregon.

Massart, N., OKelley, S., Neun, G. (2010) Sustainable Biosolids Handling Digester Cleaning, Florida
Water Resources Conference. May 2010

Herrick, P. (2009) A Portable Solution for Degritting Aeration Basins. Pollution Equipment News. January
2009, pp 17-18.

Griffiths, J. (2004) Fox Lake Regional WRF Grit Testing Results. Grit Solutions. May 7, 2004 and August
19, 2003.

Boldt, J. (2005) Eliminating Grit Deposition Problems through Objective Grit System Design, A Case
Study at the Fox lake NRWRP Fox Lake, IL. Illinois WEA Conference. January 2005.


Grit Happens You Dont Know What You Are Missing
Osei, K. and Andoh, R.Y.G, (2008) Optimal Grit Removal and Control in Collection Systems and at
Treatment Plants, World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Honolulu, Hawaii, 12-16 May.

Boyrs, A., Gabb, D. and Hake, J. (2002) Performance Evaluation of Aerated Grit Chambers and
Proposed Modifications to Increase Grit Removal Efficiency at East Bay Municipal Utility District WWTP.
Conference Proceedings from California Water Environment Association Annual Conference, April 4.
Session 22.

Jiminez, J. and Madsen, O. (2003) A Simple Formula to Estimate Settling Velocity of Natural Sediments.
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCE March/April 2003

Andoh, R.Y.G. and Neumayer, A. (2009) Fine Grit Removal Helps Optimize Membrane Plants.
WaterWorld. January 2009, pp 28.

Reade Advanced Materials. Weight Per Cubic Foot and Specific Gravities. Reade Specialty Chemical
Resource Company.
http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html (Accessed February 2010).

Water Environment Federation and ASCE (2009) WEF Manual of Practice 8, 5
th
Edition, Alexandria, VA,
WEF, ASCE.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc, (2003) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 4
th
ed., McGraw-Hill.

Вам также может понравиться