FIELD EVALUATION
OF A SWIRL DEGRITTER
AT TAMWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA
By
G.J. Shelley
P.B. Stone
A.J. Cullen
G.J. Shelley, Consulting Engineer
Cammeray, NSW, Australia 2062.
Grant No. R-806746
Project Officers:
Richard Field
Hugh Masters
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (Cincinnati)
Edison, New Jersey 08817.
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268.
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11.
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solu-
tion and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treat-
ment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant
discharges from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies and to minimise the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publica-
tion is one of the products of that research; a most vital communications
link between the researcher and the user community.
The study describes the evaluation of a swirl degritter to perform the
function of grit separation more effectively than the conventional units for
concentrated grit.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
111.
-------
ABSTRACT
This field evaluation program was initiated with the overall objective
of providing information on the behavior of a full scale swirl degritter
designed and constructed in accordance with the shapes and proportions
developed during model studies.
The swirl degritter was designed for the pre-treatment of river water
prior to its entrance into the rising main in order to reduce wear and .tear
on the raw water pumps and also to reduce the solids loading of the rising
main and that of the balance tank of the water treatment works.
Results of the solids removal had been evaluated in terms of three
parameters : solids larger than 0.2 mm - the classical size aimed at in grit
chambers - , solids larger than 0.088 mm and total settleable solids. In
general the tests proved the validity of the laboratory results and at
design flowrates 98% removal efficiencies were achieved.
Tests at flowrates higher than the design showed slightly better
efficiencies than predicted.
The field evaluation tests carried out at Tamworth, New South Wales,
Australia, prove the validity of the system in terms of- its hydraulic
efficiency. Compared with a conventional constant velocity longitudinal
flow grit chamber the construction cost is halved, operational and mainten-
ance costs are considerably lower.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of the conditions of
Grant No. R806746, by G.J. Shelley, Consulting Engineer, under the sponsor-
ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report covers the
period between March 11, 1980 and June 4, 1980, and the work was completed
as of October 27, 1980.
IV.
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Foreword . . iii
Abstract iv
Figures ,- vi
Tables viii
Acknowledgements ix
1. Introduction 2
2. Conclusions 4
- 3. Recommendations .-. 5 -
4. Description of the system 6
5. Sampling 11
6. Laboratory analysis 17
7. Efficiency of solids removal 19
8. Cost analysis 32
References 37
Appendix A
Laboratory analysis results (Figures 15-54} 38
Appendix B
Chronological record of test runs (Figure 55} 78
Appendix C
Photographs (Figures 56-69) ' 85
Appendix D
.Summary of comparable results at Denver, Col., U.S.A. 91
v.
-------
FIGURES
Page
1. The Swirl Degritter - Isometric view 1
2 . General Layout of River Intake Works 7
3. General Arrangement of Intake Works and Sampling Points 8
4. Swirl Degritter - General Arrangement 10
5 . Arrangement of Influent Sampling 12
6. Sampler at Point 5 (Effluent) 14
7. Frequency Distribution of Particles of Sand 15
8. CS-VS curve .... Point 3 ... Total solids '....... 21
9. - do - .... Point 3 ... (d>0.088 and d>0.2) 22
10 . - do - .... Point 4 ... Total solids 23
11. - do - Point 4 ... (d>0.088 and d>0.2) 24
12 . Removal efficiencies . . . Total solids 31
13. Removal efficiencies ... d>0.088 mm 32
14 . Removal efficiencies ... d>0 .2 mm 33
15. Frequency distribution of particles .. Point 3
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38. *
,39.
40.
41.
42.
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
- do -
. . Point 3
. . Point 3
' . . Point 3
. . Point 3
. . Point 3
. . Point 3
. . Point 4
. . Point 4
. . Point 4
. . Point 4
. . Point 4
. . Point 4
. . Point 5
. . Point 5
. . Point 5
. . Point 5
. . Point 5
. . Point 5
. . Point 5
. . Point 5
. . Point 3
. . Point 3
. . Point 3
. . Point 3
.. Point 3
. . Point 3
. . Point 3
. . Run 37
. . Runs 38 and 39 ...
. . Runs 40 and 43 ...
. . Runs 44 and 47
« . Runs 48 and 49 ....
. . Runs 50 and 51 ...
. . Runs 52 and 53
. . Run 37
. . Runs 38 and 39 ...
. . Runs 40 and 43 ...
. . Runs 44 and 47 ...
. . Runs 48 and 51 ...
. . Runs 52 and 53 ...
.. Run 37
. . Runs 38 and 39 ...
. . Runs 40 and 43 ...
. . Runs 44 and 46 ...
. . Runs 47 and 48 ...
. . Runs 49 and 50 ...
.. Runs 51 and 52
. . Runs 53 and 54 ...
. . Run 7 k...
. . Runs 8 and 9
. . Runs 10 and 20 ...
. . Runs 21 and 22 ...
. . Runs 23 and 26 ...
. . Runs 27 and 29 ...
. . Runs 30 and 31
38
39
40
41
40
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
50
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
VI.
-------
FIGURES (cont'd)
Page
43. Frequency distribution of particles
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
'54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
.. Point 3 .. Run 32 and
Point 4 .. Run 7 66
.. Point 4 .. Runs 8 and 9 67
.. Point 4 .. Runs 10 and 20 ... 68
.. Point 4 .. Runs 21 and 22 69
.. Point 4 .. Runs 27 and 29 70
.. Point 4 .. Run 32 71
.. Point 5 .. Run 10 72
.. Point 5 .. Runs 20 and 21 73
.. Point 5 .. Runs 22 and 23 ... 74
.. Point 5 .. Runs 27 and 28 ... 75
.. Point 5 .. Runs 29 and 30 76
Runs 31 and 32 ... 77
.. Point 5
Chronological Record of Test Runs 78
River Intake - Sampling Point 1 85
Swirl Degritter - Bottom, of hopper with the eductor pump 85
- do - - Inlet after Run 34 85
- do - - Ledge at 45 from inlet .. ^ ....... ."I..... I .V. ~.T.'."." 86
- do - - Ledge at 135 from inlet 86
Sampling points 2, 3 and 4 (looking downstream) 87
Sampling points 2, 3 and 4 (looking upstream) 87
Sampling pipes and inlet 87
Swirl Degritter - Coverplate and spoiler with sampling pipes ....... 88
- do - - Sampling pipes and float switch 88
- do - - Sampling pipes and sampling pump 89
- do , - - Top with 54 gal .drums ;...-. ...; 89
Pumping Station - Sampling points with 54 gal drums » 90
Floaters for decanting water 90
vix.
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1. Sampling points ...................................... ..... 11
2 . Particle size distribution of sand ......... ......... ...... 15
3. Summary of Runs 36-55 ........................... . ......... 29
4. Summary of Runs 1-34 ....................... . ...... ....... 30
5 . Construction cost of a swirl degritter .................... -35
6. Construction cost of a constant velocity grit chamber ..... 35
7. Summary of comparable results at Denver, Col., U.S. A ...... 91
(Ref. 2)
8. Summary of comparable results at Denver, Col., U.S.A. ..... 92
. 2)
Summary of comparable results at Denver, Vol., U.S.A. ..... 93
(Ref. 2)
VI11.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The permission to carry out the monitoring programme and the co-
operation given by the Department of Public Works of New South. Wales and the
assistance of the Engineers of the Tamworth City Council are gratefully
acknowledged.
We are particularly indebted to Messrs. Peter MacKenzie, Principal
Engineer, Water Supply, and John Tainsh, Inspecting Engineer, Projects, Water
Supply, of the Department of Public Works of New South Wales, for their .
interest, criticism and most useful advice and co-operation during the
planning stages of the monitoring project, to Mr. Alex Mackenzie for his
assistance in the installation of the sampling equipment, and to the
personnel of the Hydraulics Laboratory for carrying out the laboratory
analyses of samples.
Special thanks must be expressed to Mr. R.J. Anderson, Inspecting
Engineer, Water Treatment, Water Supply, Department of Public Works of New
South Wales, without whose co-operation and assistance this project could not
have been commenced.
IX.
-------
A Inlet
B Deflector
C Weir and Weir fray
D Spoiler
E Floor
F Conical Hopper
"FIGURE T SWIRL DEGRITTER " 'ISOMETRIC VIEW"!
i.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A considerable number of Australian towns rely on rivers of widely
varying flows for their water supply.
f
River flows are generally of low stage for most of the year, however
withdrawals of water may also be required during periods of high flow. The
.rivers are polluted to varying degrees with both organic and inorganic
matter and the removal of this pollution is essential for obtaining potable
water. . , _
The arrangement of the works is governed by the topography of the
site, with the intake being located either in the bed or on the bank of the
river and the raw water pumping station on the flood plain. The water gravi-
tates to the pumping station and is then pumped to a water treatment plant
which in turn supplies the storage reservoirs.
The necessity for the withdrawal of water from the river at any stage
of flow results in varying rates of pollution entering the system. Diffi-
culties have been experienced with the settlement of solids in the suction
lines and also with the excessive wear on the raw water pumps due to the
sand content of the water.
The Department of Public Works of New South Wales, one of the main
water supply design authorities of this State has, therefore, decided that
systems exposed to these hazards shall include an initial treatment of raw
water. This pre-treatment is intended to remove the sand which has been
causing significant maintenance and operational problems.
The first project where such problems were foreseen was at Tamworth,
a town at about 280 mi (450 km) north of Sydney.
During the preliminary planning and design stages comparisons were
made between the conventional longitudinal flow, constant velocity grit
chamber and other known solid liquid separation systems. Sketch designs were
prepared and capital and maintenance costs were compared.
The swirl degritter was chosen because of its considerably lower
capital and maintenance costs.
The swirl degritter was constructed during.1979 and 1980. The field
evaluation of this structure aimed to determine the efficiency of removal of
2.
-------
solids and to compare the results with those obtained from the design manual
(Ref. 1) and the prototype testing at Denver, Col., U.S.A. (Ref. 2).
Due to the low solids content of the river water during the testing
period, samples with significant solids content could generally be recovered
only from the runs which included sand artificially added. During some
runs settling and scouring occurred in the influent conduit resulting in a
random distribution of solids in the vertical cross-section of the intake
conduit. In these cases we could not determine concentration of solids in
the influent in a reliable and consistent manner and, therefore, these runs
had to be also eliminated from the final evaluation.
Removal efficiency rates could be determined for:
total solids
solids larger than 0.088 mm
solids larger than 0.2 mm
3.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The swirl degritter removes efficiently that portion of the solids
for which it was designed.
The removal efficiency rate of the inorganic material larger than
0.2 mm diameter and having a density of 2650 kg/cu.m. (specific gravity i
2.65} of the five metre (16ft Sin) diameter unit was in substantial agree-
ment with the predictions based on model testing and scale up using the
settling velocities and the Proude number.
The method of removing grit collected in a hopper allows for complete
automation of operation and the possibility of an unattended plant with
remote control.
The capital cost of installation of the swirl degritter is about half
of that of a conventional longitudinal flow, constant velocity grit chamber.
The operational costs depend on the quantity of solids collected in
the hopper. Maintenance costs are low because there are no mechanical',
moving elements.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The swirl degritter in its present form has produced the predicted
results.
The departures from the original form of the swirl chamber were
necessitated by the particular application/ and may not be required in other
cases.
It is, therefore, recommended that
a. the swirl degritter be designed in accordance with the proportions
and dimensions that are recommended in Ref. 1.
b. the design include facilities for monitoring the performance.
c. the inspection of the chamber, inlet and outlet conduits and of the
monitoring equipment be made convenient.
d. provision be made for controlled adding of solids - if accelerated
monitoring of performance i's envisaged.
e. further work be conducted to determine the ability of the degritter
to classify materials on the bases of size and specific gravity
(density).
-------
SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM
BASIC INFORMATION
The swirl degritter is part of the River Intake Works of the
Tamworth Water Supply Augmentation project. Planning design and construc-
tion was jointly financed by the Public Works Department o-f New South
Wales and Tamworth City Council. Detail design and contract documentation
was prepared by G, J. Shelley, Consulting Engineer. The construction was
supervised by the Public Works Department of N.S.W. and carried_put by
John Holland (Constructions) Pty. Ltd.
SITE CONDITIONS
The intake works is about 3mi (4.5 km) west of Tamworth on the
flood plains of the Peel River. The water of the river at Tamworth
consists partly of natural run off from forests and grazing land and
of releases from the Chaffey Dam.
The water for Tamworth City is withdrawn through an intake
structure consisting of a side inlet weir combined with a tapered channel
in the bed of the river. The conduit connecting the Intake Structure
with the swirl degritter has a 2ft 6in x 2ft 6in (760 x 760mm) reinforced
concrete rectangular section approximately 89ft (27 m) long, ending in a
structural steel rectangular section inside the swirl degritter. The
effluent from the swirl degritter flows by gravity to the pumping station
through mild steel lined circular conduits. From the pumping station
the raw water is pumped to the water treatment works through a 1.5 mi
(3 km) long rising main. (Figures 2 and 3)
FLOW RATES, VELOCITIES OF FLOW
The rate of flow through the system is governed by the variable
speed pumps. The speed and the delivery rate of pumps is automatically
set by telemetry depending on the water level in the balance tank of the
water treatment works and the available supply from the river.
A single pump satisfies the demand of 3.4 to 10.8 US Mgal/d
(0.15 - 0.55 cu.m/s) and two pumps work in parallel at delivery rates
of 10.3 to 20.5 US Mgal/d (0.45 - 0.9 cu.m/s).
6.
-------
SURVEY lOCAUIr AND BOREHOLE*
GENERAL LAVOO', DRAWING LIST
DETAIL SURVE* PLAN
PEEL RIVER YJCBKS ADDITIONAL SUR1.
PEEL RIVER WORKS SECT10NSISHEET
PEEL RivER WORKS PLAN [PARTDAN
PEEL RIVER W3RKS SECIIO JSISHEE
MEASURING FLUME
INTAKE STRUCTURE GENERAL ARRAf
INTAKE STRUCTURE CONCRETE n
INTAKE SlRL-CtLRE STEELWOTK
GRIT CHAMBER GENERAL ARRAI GE
GSIT CHAMBER CONCRETE flEll.FOi
GRIT CHAMBER STEEL DETAILS (Si
GRIT CHAMBER STEEL OE^AI.S ,!
GRIT CHAMBER STEE. CO/SRS
PlPEVIORA GENERAL ARR, IOEMENI
PUMPING STATION-GENEIAL R1A
PUMPiKS STATION =OjNj.llON
PUM7N6 S'A'iON-RiN3BE-'5 J1
PUMPING STATION-FLCOR-cor;;
PUMPING S*ATIO>i -FJSCa - CO isi
PJVP 5SMO CiA-- '
ABM 6/0
RL 387 575
A CN CONCRETE a
TOANIM SaONiIJjVE
DEPA-
TA
INTO
FIGURE. 2. GENERAL LAYOUT OF RIVER INTAKE WORKS
-------
00
FIGURE. 3. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT,( OF INTAKE WORKS a SAMPLING POINTS,
-------
The velocities of flow in the influent box conduit varies between 0.85
and 5.11 fps (0.26 and 1.56 m/s) while in the effluent circular conduit it
varies between 0.44 and 2.61 fps (0.13 and 0.8 m/s).
SUSPENDED LOAD IN WATER
The suspended load in the river depends on the stage of the flow which
may result from either dam releases or from natural run off. It may consist
of organic or inorganic solids.
SWIRL DEGRITTER
Main Dimensions
The swirl degritter was proportioned in accordance with Figures 12 and
3 of "The Swirl Concentrator as a Grit Separator Device" (EPA-670/2-74-026).
(Ref. 1). There were three departures from the recommended structure. The
weir was designed to be submerged at all times/ a coverplate was placed on
top of the spoilers, and a secondary spoiler was placed into the hopper.
The first two measures were taken in order to positively avoid vortex "forma-
tion and to prevent entrance of air into the section line of the pump. The
secondary spoiler was placed into the hopper in order to reduce the circular
movement of the water (Figure 4}.
l
It is expected that during operation the flow rates vary between
3.4 US Mgal/d (0.15 cu.m/s) and 19.4 US Mgal/d (0.85 cu.m/s) and will be
regulated by the delivery rates of the variable speed pumps.
The design allows for minimum water levels in the degritter to be
associated with each pumping rate, varying approximately linearly, between
5ft 7in (1.71 m) above the weir (0.15 cu.m/s) and 5ft 4in (1.62 m) above the
weir (0.85 cu.m/s). It is expected that for about 80% of the time, water
levels in the degritter will exceed the minimum values and will be deter-.'...
mined by the river levels.
Removal Of Collected Grit From Hopper
The grit collected in- the bottom of the hopper is removed with a
water jet eductor pump through a grit discharge pipeline back into the Peel
River. In order to ensure proper solids concentration in the discharge . ':
line, originally twelve water jets were constructed in the hopper distri-
buted along two rings, in addition to the six mixing jets operating from the
body of the eductor pump. During the monitoring and testing period the six
jets in the ring at about mid-height of the hopper were disconnected. The
mixing water added into the hopper is approximately 30% of the grit dis-
charge slurry flow. Both the mixing jets and the eductor pump are supplied
on discharge side of the raw water pumps, from the rising main between the
pumping station and the water treatment works.
9.
-------
H
O
mox arm
tlniciuic
;.........? . i . f .? . t-, J- -' - SECTION g
.lOpMt&CLf
, . _ CII4HOM) COM
JSS3Wlg)\&^
^ wo. rafia
.«» H CguM PAurtt*
^ or wi CHAMBcit
FIGURE. 4. SWIRL DEGRITTER
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING
SAMPLING POINTS AND SAMPLE SIZES
The sampling points and sample sizes are shown in Table 1.
' 'TABLE I. SAMPLING POINTS"
N5
1
2
3
4
5
Position
-
Intake works ( in riverbed )
Influent' conduit bottom
» « center
H ii top
Discharge of main pumps '
Liquid
Sampled
River water
Influent liquid
ii M
n n
Effluent 'liquid
Method
Buckets
Sampling
port
ti
u
slol " -
Size
U.S. gal. (L)
Runs
1-34 { 36-55
54(205)
54(205)
54(205)
54(205)
54(205)
54(205)
54(205)
54(205)
v
54(205)
108(410)
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Sampling Point No. 1
The sampling was carried out manually with buckets immersed into
the river.
Sampling Points Nos. 2, 3 s 4
Sockets of UPVC (unplasticized PVC) conduit pipe turned against
the main flow were used as sampling ports. The inside diameters of the
sockets were l.Sin (39 mm). The centers of the ports were placed in
the vertical center line of the conduit at 2.75in (70 mm), 1.25ft (380 mm)
and 2.27ft (690 mm) distances respectively from the invert. Each
sampling point was individually connected to the sampling pump with
approximately 16ft (5m) of 1.125in (29 mm) diameter rigid UPVC pipe.
Stop cocks were provided at the suction end of the pump. The discharge
line of the pump also consisted of a 1.125in (29 mm) diameter rigid UPVC
11.
-------
RL SSIOOOrnj
1128291 It);
I
. FIGURE" 57~~ ARRANGEMENT OF |
"I₯FLUENT SAMPLING"!
PLAN
O I a 3 4 5m
Mill 1 1 1 1 , I.I.I
12.
-------
pipe within the structure of the swirl degritter connected to a flexible
polyethylene hose on the surface. The arrangement of this sampling
system was altered after Run 34 by placing a 2in (50 mm) high sill
between the bottom intake port and the invert of the conduit (sample
included the rolling bedload) and a shorter and larger diameter flexible
hose was used (sampling velocity increased) (Figure 5) .
Sampling Point No. 5
The sampling intake was a slot cut into a 0.375in (10 mm) outside
diameter copper tube (Figure 6) which penetrated "into the 12in (300 mm)
discharge pipe. A flexible hose was attached to the end of the copper
tube. During Runs 1-34 the slot had an. area of 0.93 sq.in (600 sq mm)
and the center of the slot was at the center of the discharge pipe. During
Runs 35-55 the area of the slot was reduced to about 0.6 sq.in (389 sq mm),
the center of the slot was at about the top quarter point of the 12in
(300 mm) diameter pipe and the flexible hose was shortened. The slot
was always facing the direction of flow. __ _
Sampling Containers
54 US gal (205 L) drums lined with removable semirigid polyethylene
liners were used as temporary containers for each sample.
Sand
The particle size distribution of the sand added to the system is
shown in Table 2 and Figure 7. A chute"was constructed on the bank of
the river ending at the manhole near the intake works (Figure 3). Before
commencing sampling each run a quantity of sand measured by volume was
placed into the chute. The sand was then manually added over a recorded
period of time.
In chosing the sand we aimed at minimizing settlement of solids
in the influent conduit and still being compatible with the limitations
of the readily available laboratory equipment.
Rate of Supply from the Peel River
During the sampling period there had been no significant rainfall
in the catchment area and the flow in the Peel River was completely
dependent on the limited releases from Chaffey Dam.
During Runs 1 to 18 the operating pumps could only work during
the time required for sampling because the pumping rate had been
considerably higher than the supply in the river from upstream. This
resulted in a "stop-go" flow through the intake and the system.
During Runs 19 to 34 the supply of water in the river was adequate
and the flow through the system was continuous during working hours but
13.
-------
:3^
i* -ii >
1 SIKH
ftirql
' M mm
\£S
3 <-} X 3/0" (IOmml * to*" Tl**
e> y1^
BfOM Pip. RHlna/
KX> mm i i
, TZSmm t
yj
<
SAMPLE DRAW OFF TUBE
EFFLUENT, RUNS 1-34
<^
~iS> 3/B" OOmmJ X Copjor Tub»
10 mm {
50 mm
£3 mm
' EOmm
8f?« pip« nrnij'
490 mm 1
" " H
f
SAMPLE DRAW T OFF TUBE-
EFFLUENT. RUNS 36-55
FIGURE. 6. SAMPLER AT POINT 5
-------
TABLE 2. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SAND
Particle Size (mm) Cumulative
group average | 'd %
>2-O 1-16 -16
2-00 -. 1-68 1-89 0-22 -38
1-68 - 1-41 1-54 0-03 -41
1-41
1-19 1-30 0 -41
1-19 - 1-00 MO 0-21 -62
1-00 - 0-84 0-92 0-O8 -70
0-84 - 0-71 0-77 l«85 3-55
0-71
0-59 0-65 4-48 8-03
0-59 - 0-50 0-55 7-59 15-62
0-50 - 0-42 0-46 7-30 22-82
0-42 - 0-35 0-39 10-41 33-23
0-35 - 0-30 0-32 11-94 45-17
0-30 - 0-25 0-27 11-64 56-81
0-25 . - 0-21 0-23 10-61 ' 67-42
0-21 - 0-177 0-193 8-68 76-12
0-177 - 0-125 0 149 8-14 84-26
0-125 - 0-088 0-105 2-55 86-81
r>
o
5
&.
V
o*
a
+ 0
6^
< 0-088 13-20 100-01
!
1
1
(
I
1
^
U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers
IO . 30 50 70 120 2OO
20 40 60 100 140
t r\f\
QA - - - - -
7O '--
CA - - ...
c A
HU
t
i
I
f
J
I
f
1
1
1
\
/
/
f
^
f
1_ j t
^
^
s
V
.
~~
2-0 1-5 1-0
0-5
0-3 0-2
0-1
Particle Size (mm)
FIGURE 7. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SAND
15.
-------
was interrupted for lunch breaks and at night.
During Runs 36-55 the supply in the river was nearly adequate. The
withdrawal of water had to be interrupted occasionally in between sampling
runs particularly after some higher flow sampling.
Solids Content of River Water
The river water was sampled in Runs 1-3 only because it was found
that it contained practically no solids (about 3.4 mg/L). These solids
consisted of particles less than 0.088 mm diameter grain sizes.
An attempt was made to establish the organic solids content of the
water from the three river samples collected and from a further three
randomly chosen influent samples. The laboratory results indicated that
the mass of the dry grit ash was only about 0.3 mg/L less than the dry
mass of the total solids.
It may be assumed, therefore, that all the solids were artificially
added to the influent and that they constitute a reasonably unifbmT
material of a specific gravity of 2.65 (density of 2650 kg/cu m) and of a
bulk density of 100 Ib/cu ft (1500 kg/cu m).
Flow Rates and Velocities
During sampling the flowrate in the conduit was governed by setting
the raw water pumps to predetermined speeds and the corresponding flow rate
was read from the calibrated pump performance curve. The velocity of flow
was calculated from the flow rate and the area of the conduit.
INFLUENT SAMPLING
The sampling pump used for Points No. 2, 3 and 4 worked at constant
speed and the sampling velocity had been determined from the time required
to fill a 54 US gal (205 L) drum and the net area of the sampling port.
The intake velocities were 2.8fps (0.85 m/s) for Runs 1-34 and 4.5' fps
(1.37m/s) for Runs 36-55. These sampling velocities were adequate for
capturing and transporting the largest sand particles introduced.
EFFLUENT SAMPLING
The velocity of flow was calculated from the flow rate and the
net inside area of the 12in (300 mm) nominal size cement-lined pipe.
The sampling flow rate depended on the pressure produced by the
raw water pumps at different speeds and was established by recording the
time required for the collection of the sample.
16.
-------
SECTION 6
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
LABORATORY
The analyses of the specimens were carried out in the Hydraulics
Laboratory of the Public Works Department of New South Wales at Manly Vale.
TESTS
Limitations of the Laboratory Analysis
The equipment used requires a mass of at least 3 grams solids
between 0.088 and 1.68 mm sizes to be present in the sample. The frequency
distribution analysis of the particle sizes for those samples which
had less solids than 3 grams could not be carried out.
Organic-Inorganic Matter
Attempt was made to separate the.inorganic matter from the organic
particles by burning in an oven. This test was carried out on six
independent samples and resulted in indicating negligible quantities of
organic matter only.
Particle Size Distribution
The solids content of the sample delivered to the laboratory
was allowed to resettle in the original drum liner polyehtylene bag.
After a minimum of two days the supernatant water was drained off leaving
about lin (25 mm) of water above the settled material, the solids were
dried in oven and the dry mass of the total solids was established with
an electronic analytical balance.
The fines smaller than 0.088 mm were removed by sieving and washing
and the particles larger than 1.68 mm were removed by sieving. The
masses of both the fine and coarse fractions thus removed were weighed.
The fraction between 0.088 and 1.68 mm was analysed in a settling column
attached to a Hewlett Packard 21 MX Data Logger and the frequency of the
particle size distribution was printed out both numerically and in the
form of frequency distribution and integration curves.
RESULTS
The curves plotted by the Data Logger for samples yielding significant
17.
-------
results and the concentrations of solids calculated from the total volume
of samples and the masses of solids in the samples are shown in Figures
15 to 54 inclusive.
18.
-------
SECTION 7
EFFICIENCY OF SOLIDS REMOVAL
i
ERRORS DUE TO THE INFLUENT SAMPLING PROCEDURE |
Comprehensive and wide ranging studies published in Ref. 3 and Ref. 4
established that the concentration of solids in the sample collected is
dependent on:
f.
the shape and construction of the intake ports
the direction of the intake ports . - . J
t
the velocity of sampling related to the main stream velocity
the size and density (specific gravity) of solids collected - \
the position of the sampler in the vertical cross-section of the
conduit i
the solids transport conditions in the rectangular conduit.
Shape of the Intake Ports
The construction of the intake ports has a comparatively minor effect
on the retrieval efficiency (Fig. 22, Ref. 4) and it is assumed that the
pipe socket used in this instance was equivalent to the standard nozzle
(Fig. 9, Ref. 4).
Direction of Ports
The ports were constructed to face the main flow and thus no correct-
ion of the solids content of the sample was required for this reason.
Sampling Velocity and Size of Solids
There were significant variations in the ratio of the sampling
velocity and the main stream velocity. The laboratory results of the solids
content of the sample therefore had to be modified.
Figures 10 to 14 inclusive (Ref. 4) showing the sampling error caused
by the velocity ratio have been synthesized by regression analysis:
J.9.
-------
E = In a (10V)b - 100 (Eqn 1)
where E = sampling error (%)
a = 0.5022 (d-0.125) 0>333 + 4.88) regression
b = 0.5679 (d-0.1) °'333 _ 0.29 ) coefficients "
V = ratio of sampling to main stream velocity
d = diameter of particles (m)
In each sample the mass of each particle size group was calculated
in accordance with the frequency distribution supplied by the laboratory
analysis and then corrected for this sampling error by application of
Eqn 1. The corrected masses were summed and the resulting corrected
concentrations of solids were used in the further calculations.
Solids Transport Conditions in the Rectangular Conduit ~ ~~
Inspections after Runs 18 and 34 disclosed that a considerable
settlement of solids had taken place in the intake conduit between the
point of adding sand and the swirl degritter. Because of the long
period which elapsed between subsequent inspections it was uncertain
when and at "what rate the solids settled in the conduit and, therefore,
the efficiency of the swirl degritter could not be calculated directly
from the relationship between the concentration of sand added and the
concentration of solids in the effluent" samples.
For the flow conditions encountered there is no relevant information
available in literature on the solids transport rate and the vertical
distribution characteristics of solids. It was decided that another
set of tests be carried out where frequent inspections verify that all
the solids introduced into the system actually reach the swirl degritter
and ensure that the average concentration of solids in the conduit is
uniform and therefore the influent samplers at Points 3 and 4 sample
the local concentrations related to these known average concentrations of
solids introduced into the flow.
Runs 36 to 55 were thus used to establish the solids transport
characteristics of the influent conduit. The ratios of the sampled
concentrations of solids to the average concentrations of solids were
plotted against the ratios of the sampling velocity to the main stream
velocity in order to verify that the data yielded significant relationships..
Curves were fitted through regression analysis. The plotting of the data
with the corresponding regression curves and explanation of the notation
used are shown in Figures 8 to 11 inclusive.
This analysis proved that significant correlation existed between
the efficiency of the samplers (ratio of sampled to artificially added
concentrations of solids) and the main stream (influent conduit) velocities,
20.
-------
= 0-3326 - O-3I48
Ccs Concentration of sand added, mg/L.
Cs- Concentration of solids in sample, mg/L.
V$ "Sampling velocity, m /s.
Vc: Velocity in conduit, m/s.
40: Run number
o
O
u>
O
0-6 -
0-5-
0-4-
0-3-
0-2-
0-1 -
»
*t"?G' Total Solids
"Vs"v+-,5//4S
+52~4g9
- ^>s^^' -",;'"
'-+53 - ^" - . -
05 ^V^O^O 1-17 1-51-56
vs/vc
FIGURE 8.
.
Cc
Vc
CURVE
I
RUNS 36 - 55 (POINT 3) !
21.
-------
O
Vi
0
0-6
.0-5-
0-4-
0-3-
0-2-
0-1 -
0
0-5
o
O
-v.
w
O
FIGURE 9.
d :
> O-088 mm
0-70 ' 0-83 |!n
0-78 0-941 U
vs/vc
37,49
vs/vc
.C,
v
CURVES RUNS 36 - 55 (POINT 3)
22.
-------
-
Cc
= 0-1512 - 0-1318
u
o
^»
in
0-6-
0-5-
0-4-
0-3-
0-2-
o-i -
Cc: Concentration of sand added, mg/L.
Cs Concentration of solids in sample, mg/L.
Vs : Sampling velocity, m/s.
Vc Velocity in conduit, m/ s.
40 Run
| Total Solids | '
. 4-5X
+40
0-5
0-70 '0-83 r~7t
0-78 0-94 IC
17
1-5 t-56
FIGURE 10.
C-
CC
.- VC
CURVE
RUNS 36 - 55 (POINT 4} .
23.
-------
o
o
CO
0
0
o
^
(ft
0
0-6-
0-5-
0-4-
0-3-
0-2-
0-1 -
o -
0-
d > 0-088 mm
-°^ = 0-07867 - 0-1334 N-^-J
' .
51+ +52
+47
~^+48.
^~~~"+39 -^
~153,43- - ^^"^^
5 0-70 'o-'es ' i!0 |.[7 I'si'se
0-78 0-94 ' '
vs/vc
0-6-
0-5-
0-4-
0-3-
0-2-
o-i-
0 -
C
i.
1 d > 0-20 mm
T^s 0-02368 - 0-0358 Infrr^j
Cc \ycj
\
- '
« » fl\ «'
1Q»48 ?jqi ^^^f , ' d&~4<
's °'o.r%** oW10 ';'7 "ll8"8
vs/vc
FIGURE II. ~s ~s CURVES , RUNS 36 - 55 (POINT
Cc Vc
f
_ J
24.
-------
with some samples inevitably showing freak information.
After eliminating the runs which were obviously inconsistent due
to some freak condition in the conduit, or due to some mishaps during
sampling, handling or testing of samples, the relationships between
the sampled and average concentration of solids in the -influent were
established for samples withdrawn at points 3 and 4. The multiple
regression analyses correlating the average velocity in the intake conduit
on the one hand and the ratios of the concentrations of the three groups of
solids in the samples from the centre of the conduit (Point 3} and the top
of the conduit (Point 4) to the average concentration in the conduit on
the other hand resulted in the following expressions :
Total soiids : (eV)2 = a -, b ^L
a(T)
with a = - 11.9320
- b ='+ 97.5511 -' - - ' '-
c = - 11.7306
E(T) = 0.3933
Solids larger than d == 0.088 mm
c c Egn*3
, V. 2 , 3(0.088) ^ - 4(0.088) +
(e ) = a + b *- '-+ c * - E -
Ca(0.088) Ca(0.088) (0-088)
with a = -3.4928
b = 92.7066
c = -13.0351
E(0.088) = 0.3540
Solids larger than d = 0.2 mm
V2 . C3(0.2) C4(0.2)
e = a + b i - ^-+c-H -
Ca(0.2) Ca(0.2)
with a = 0.9162
b = 55.6222
c = 35.7718
E(0.2) = 0.2149
25.
-------
where e = base of natural logarithm
V = average velocity of influent in conduit in m/s
a, b, c, = regression coefficients
C3(T>, C3<0.088), C3<0.2> = concentration 'of solids in the sample
for the particle size groups at sampling point 3 (mg/L)
C4(T>, C4(0.088>, C4(0.2) = concentration of solids in the sample
for the particle size groups at sampling point 4 (mg/L)
C,, C , . C , , = concentration of solids for the
a(T), a(0.088), a(0.2)
particle size groups in the added sand (accepted as the average
concentration in the conduit for the purposes of the regression
analyses } (mg/L)
E/ E/« noo\ E/« o\ = Standard errors of estimate for 99 per cent
IT) t (Q.Ooa) , (0-2)
probability in the f (V) quantity on the left hand side of the
Equations 2, 3 and 4. : » - : -
Equations 2, 3, and 4 were rewritten in the form
+ CC4(T) ^' 5
E(T).
bC3(0.088) + CC4(0.088) E<^' 6
"av( 0.088} v)2 .
(e ' + a ± E (0.088)
c = CC4(0.2) E<^- 7
av(0.2) v2
e + a ± E(0.2)
These equations were applied to the laboratory results for the
sample solid concentrations, which had already been corrected for sampling
error due to the ratio of sampling velocity to average main stream
velocity in the influent conduit to calculate the average concentration
of the respective size groups of solids in the influent conduit.
26.
-------
The summary of the calculation results is shown in Tables 3 and 4.
ERRORS DUE TO THE EFFLUENT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Solids Distribution at Sampling Point 5
The effluent was sampled at 4ft (1.2 m) downstream from the delivery
side of the main operating pump and within the zone of high turbulence.
Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the water at the point of sampling
contained the average concentrations.
Efficiency of Sampling
Because of the high velicity of the main flow and construction
considerations, it was impossible to achieve a sampling velocity similar
to the main velocity. However, the lower sampling velocity is consistent
with a sample having a concentration higher than the true concentration and
thus the adoption of the sample concentration results in a lower
removal efficiency rate and means erring on the safe side. The fact
that the effluent sampler was bent by the pressure of the water during
sampling (and reduced the effective area of the intake slot) does not
materially alter the above argument/ because the resulting increase
in the intake velocity was insignificant compared with the main stream
velocity in the pipe.
Therefore, it can safely be assumed that the concentration of
solids in the samples was higher than or at least the equivalent of the
concentration of solids in the effluent."
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF SOLIDS
The removal efficiency of solids were calculated with Equation 8.
R% = (1 - ) x 100 Eqn"
av
where C^ -= the concentration of solids at Point 5 in the sample (mg/L)
C = The average concentrations of the groups of solids in the
clV
influent conduit, obtained from Equations 5 to 7 respectively (mg/L)
Effect of the Standard Errors in the Regression Analysis
The general shape of the Equations 5 to 7 is
bC + cC Eqn. 9
C =
av f(V) + a + E
27.
-------
If this expression is substituted into Equation 8 it becomes:
. C C Eqn. 10
R% V " bC3 _ CC4 X (f(V) + *> * bC3 + CC4 E) X 10°
The third member inside the brackets represents the error of the
regression analysis for 99% probability. The actual quantity of this
expression had been calculated for each case. It was found that it generally
did not exceed ^0.4% and so it was ignored in the representation.
Representation of Results
The removal efficiencies are shown in Tables 5 and 6 and also in
Figures 12, 13 and 14.
28.
-------
TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF RUNS 36-55
!
i
* i
* i
\ t
\
\
i
'
i
*
s
5:
36
37
38
39
40
41
.
42
43
44
45
45
47
43
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
UJ
K.
I
L/j
450
450
lioo
750
1000
1300
ISO
600
450
150
300
900
900
450
450
soo
850
600
600
600
CONCENTRATION OF
SAND INTRODUCED
mg/L
M»
774
600
720
675
_
643
143
267
348
640
348
842
8S2
263
i
INFLUENT VELOCITY 1
m/s
0-83
0-83
1-1
1-39
I-B6
0-56
0-20
l-ll
083
0-28
1-67
1-67
1-67
083
0-81
67
58
II
II
II
:
<
*>
K
i
u
>
1-56
1-56
1-17
094
0-70
2-33
68
17
56
68
78
78
78
56
56
78
83
17
17
17
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
POINT 3
SAMPLE y#
Pw
mgt
8-6
243-4
173-7
260-8
347-7
1-4
1-7
163-2
310-0
0-9
1-3
79-8
153-7
10-5
56-4
37 1 -8
334-6
247-8
1-4
1-6
PARTICLES
> 0-088mm
mgL
_
43-6
98-5
183-8
255-7
0-3
_,
67-7
138-7
0-1
0-1
59-8
120-3
38-1
23-8
252-9
244-3
404
0-6
0-3
PARTICLES
^> 0-2 rnm
tnfli
_
11-7
23-0
84-3
124-1
__
15-4
32-5
_
27-0
58- 3
2-8
6-3
14- 2
94-8
28-4
_
POINT 4
SAMPLE #*
O O
H* t/J
nX!/L
11-6
97-5
74-9
93-9
83-0
I-l
1-5
89-4
231-2
1-6
1-5
55-4
69-5
69-0
38-0
2S9-0
196-8
106-1
1-3
1-0
PARTICLES
> 0-088 mm
ma/L
__
13-5
31-7
42-3
33-1
__
_
31-3
73-6
0-2
0-2
32-2
31-3
7-5
5-1
90-0
138-0
75-9
0-4
0-1
PARTiaES
>- 0-2 mm
m?A.
7'3
5-8
JO-9
5-4
__
_
4-6
7-2
t ,r.
7-7
7-0
_
83-4
3S-8
14-8
~.
AVERAGE IN
CONDUIT
o £
r-W
tnfl/L
__
^
760
8S9
619
9
12-4
704
1601
__
176
353
580
394
825
854
035
PARTICLES
;> 0-088mm
mO/L
_
__
686
S4I
520
__
609
1360
.-,
__
162
339
392
245
661
770
947
PARTICLES
> 0-2 mm
rttiL
II H
215
489
201
_
_
148
377
-
90
17!
28
63
473
422
305
CONC
^^ G)
^* v)
moi
17-0
86-3
94-5
149-5
194-3
4-1
1-0
154-3
113-9
1-0
19-9
49-0
88-5
63-8
41-4
204'5
59-7
36-7
1 4-5
5-3
EFFLUENT
JENTRATION
POINT 5
PARTICLES
>. 0-088mm
md.
5-0
262
46-4
85-ji
132-3
_
__
58-3
47-1
0-2
18-2
27-6
56-0
32-0
I 3-1
137-7
96-7
49-8
12-3
3-8
PARTICLES
;>- 0-2ir.m
mot
_
5-4
7-36
19-0
50-3
n_.
5-4
It -9
_.
5-2
14-13
20-G
6-9
4-2
50-0
24-5
6-2
4-3
EFFICIENCIES
po
F-(/>
%
_
..
87-6
82-3
60-6
__
__
78-0
92-9
«M«M
72-0
74-9
89-0
89-5
75-2
81-3
87-4
PARTICLES
>. 0-088 mm
%
.
_
93-2
Q9-8
74-6
90-4
25 -5
__
_
82-9
83-5
01-8
94-6
79-2
S7-4
94-7
~_
PARTICLES
;>- 0-2 mm
%
__
93-1
96-1
75-0
_
96-3
96-E
. - - -
84-q
080
75-7
93-4.
89-4
94-2
98-0
10
vo
i * Laboratory
results for sampling errors due to .sq.mPH"9...velocity
mam stream '
Calculated from regression analysis
insufficient solids in
ratio
samples '
-------
TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF RUNS |-34l,
K
1
Z
Z
g
7
8
98
10
20
21
22
23
26
27
23
30
31
32
33
34
1
o:
^»
0088mm
mg/L
25-5
20-8
43-9,
162-3
228-3
140-9
120-0
68-0
21-0
41-6
143- I
72- 8
5I-S
55- 1
28-7
7-5
PARTICLES
I>-0-2 mm
m<2/L
1-0
2-4
2-0
20-8
94-6
52- 0
50- 2
26-4
5-4
10- 0
28- 1
7- 5
3- 6
5-8
3-8
POINT 4 #
*S
id
t-w
mg/L
191-7
109-8
213-7
287-7
101- 5
104- 1
65- 9
35- 8
30- 4
63- 1
116- 8
99- S
74- 8
116* 1
42-2
8-4
PARTiCLES
- >-O-088mm
mg/L
20-8
13-2
26-8
63-9
31-7
37-9
15- I
8-0
7-3
17-0
21-4
6- 3
I 0-0
19-0
7-2
4-2
PARTICLES
I>»0-2 mm
mg/U
1-5
0-7
1-0
2-5
4- 1
3-3
1-5
__
_
2-2
1-8
1-5
AVERAGE IN
CONDUIT «*
II
l-w
mg/L
438
405
1223
1903
822
484
399
241
166
292
1031
1459
826
872
419
II 9
PARTICLES
>- O-088mm
mg/L
100
214
588
. 1767
692
420
363
206
131
258
962
845
589
616
326
81
PARTICLES
;>0-2 mm
mg/L
17
24
9
158
298
'65JU,
156
8 I
40
27
21 6
SO
58
72
40
CONC
TOTAL
SOLIDS
mc/L
112-1
121-8
126-1
22&2
185- I
126-1
859
50-0
268
52-4
15G2
1433
8& 5
81-7
42-5
9 5
EFFLUENT
£NTRATION
POINT 5
PARTICLES
>- 0-088 mm
mg/L
7-7
8-0
7-1
39-6
44-0
68-9
38- 3
23- 4
7- 9
16- 2
42 9
15- 1
15- I
11- 8
10- .0
4- 5
PARTICLES
;> O-2 mm
mg/L
.'
__
2-0
28-5
24-4
8-3
5-4
1-5
2-2
3-6
0-4
0-3
EFFICIENCIES
*i
id
H V)
%
74-4
69-9
89 7
88-1
77-5
73-9
78-5
79-2
82-3
83-0
84-8
90- 1
89-2
90-0
89-6
92-0
PARTICLES
;> 0088mm
%
95-7
96-3
98 8
97-8
93-B
,83-8
89-5
88-6
94-0
93-2
95-5
98-2
97-4
97.6
9G-6
94 -5
PARTICLES
;> 0-2 mm
%
100
100
100
98-7
90-4
85-2
94-6
93-3
£**
94-3
98-9
95-5
98-9
99-6
*4N-
***
I 34 430 0-74 20-9
7-5
8-4
4-2
II 9
i & Laboratory results for 1 sampling errors
w ^ ^e. Calculated from regression analysis ^^
81
due 1
^ Ins
fo .^a.!n.
9 5
pTTng
main streo
ufficient sol
4- 5
92-0 94
velocity ratio
m ,
ids in samples
5 ***
i
1
; i
-------
u>
H
too
90
Z
UJ
o
li.
u.
UJ
I
U
cc
80
70
200
5-0
+D5
02
300
400
500
600
700
800
300
1000
LA
10-0
15-0
FLOWRATE
20-0
25-0 US M got fl
FIGURE \Z REMOVAL EFFEC1ENCIES
-------
co
to
100
o
80
u.
A
i
a
a:
+20
Lecend
454 Run Na/Tomworlh
4 02 Run No, Denver
i-40
150 200
300
400
500
600
roo
800
900
1000 LA
5-0
too
15-0
FLOWRATE
20-0
US M
-------
u>
w
100
tH
MS
90
«>
O
lu
u,
UJ
I
UJ
200
5-0
Q
+49
+40
4-D4
4-D2
300 400
500
600
700
800 900
1000 1100
100
20-0
150
FLOWRATE
FIGURE 14 REMOVAL EFFECIENCIES !
25-0 US Mgol/d
-------
SECTION 8
COST ANALYSIS
Cost Basis
The costs are based on the actual construction cost of the swirl
grit separator.
The estimated cost of an equivalent longitudinal constant velocity
grit chamber assumed to be constructed on the same site with the swirl con-
tract unit rates. . . .
Unit Rates
3
Excavation, backfilling, including dewatering $A 25/m
3
Reinforced concrete including formwork $A500/m
Contingencies, investigations, design and
construction supervision costs 30%
Assumptions
a. Both the swirl grit separator and the longitudinal constant
velocity grit chamber have been dimensioned for 7540 US gpm (470L/s)
flow, to be constructed in the flood plains of the Peel River, for
gravitational flow between the intake and the pumping station.
b. Equipment for the swirl grit separator includes all steel
works within the chamber and a hydraulic grit eductor.
c. Equipment for the constant velocity grit chamber include two
screw conveyors and hydraulic grit eductors.
34.
-------
TABLE 5. CONSTRUCTION COST OF SWIRL GRIT SEPARATOR
Description
Excavation including backfilling
and dewatering during
construction
Reinforced concrete including
formwork
Miscellaneous equipment
(spoilers, weir, pipework,
eductor, access)
Quantity
1520 cu m
(2000 cu yd)
170 cu m
( 220 cu yd)
Item
Total
Amount
$A
38 000
85 000
57 000
180 000
TABLE 6. CONSTRUCTION COST OF CONSTANT VELOCITY GRIT CHAMBER
Description
Excavation including backfilling
and dewatering during
construction
Reinforced concrete including
formwork
Miscellaneous equipment
(conveyors, pipework,
eductors, access)
Quantity
6000 cu m
(7850 cu yd)
350 cu m
( 450 cu yd)
Item
Total
Amount
$A
150 000
175 000
100 000
425 000
35.
-------
COMPARISON WITH MODEL PREDICTIONS
The curves for the 16.4ft (5m) diameter chamber were interpolated
in Figures 49 and 50 of Ref. 1, the removal efficiency rates corresponding
to flowrates were read, and civeraged.
The resulting points were plotted in Figure 14 (d 0.2mm)
COMPARISON WITH THE DENVER PROTOTYPE RESULTS
The results obtained at Denver (Ref 2) for the grit ash are
comparable with the data presented for the Tamworth structure.
The data contained in Tables A4 to A6 inclusive (Ref 2) had been
recalculated based on the concentration of grit ash shown in Tables 8 to
10 inclusive (Ref 2).
The information was then tabulated in Tables 7, 8, and 9 in this .
Report. In order to allow comparisons between the two sets of results, the
flow rates were sealed up with the scale factor of X2'5- where X=2.73
(the ratio of the diameters of the structures). The scale up of the particle
size groups based on their settling velocities did not result in a signifi-
cant shift of the data and, therefore, the original distribution was
adopted.
The resulting removal efficiencies were plotted in Figures 12 and
14. Values for the particle size group of d>0.'088 mm could not be ex-.,
tracted from the available information.
36.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Sullivan, R.H., Cohn, M.M., Ure, J.E. and Parkinson F.
The Swirl Concentrator a Grit Separator Device.
EPA-670/2-74-026, U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1974, pp. 82.
2. Sullivan, R.H., Ure, J.E., and Zielinski, P.
EPA-600/2-77-185, Field Prototype Demonstration of the Swirl
Degritter, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1977, pp. 64.
3. Shelley, P.E. Sampling of Water and Wastewater. EPA-600/4-77-039,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977, pp. 311.
4. Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Project (FIASP), Laboratory
Investigation of Suspended Sediment Samplers. Report No. 5. St.
Paul U.S. Engineer District Sub-Office Hydraulic Laboratory, Univer-
sity of Iowa, Iowa City, 10, 1941, pp. 99.
5. Graf, W.H., Hydraulics of Sediment Transport. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, N.Y., 1971.
37.
-------
CO
(O
o
LJ
r>
O
°
: r
Bun £lo
ci~": = I6B-8frig/lL"
C2 ,J!L1r.92.'3n)g/.U.
C5 i = , !5-5mg/L .
i i
, -l.oo , -) is t o tg o.io it! i ii in
| | | [J J j I [ j ! SPHERE DIBRETER IPHIJ
."' SPHERE 0%1ER>HJ1
FIGURE jl7f FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
LEGEND
w
03
P :
C|«
Cg!
T=
Sampling Point.
Concentration of
Concentration of
Concentration of
- loa^d
Qonversion of Phi
phi
- 1-00
-0-75
- 0-50
- 0-25
0
4- 0-25
4- 0-5
4- 0-75
4- POO
4- 1-25
4- 1-50
4- 1-75
4- 2-00
+ 2-50
4- 3-00
4- 3-50
total solids.
solids d^= 0-088 .mm
solids d~ 0*2 .mm
Values into Millimeters
d mm
2-00
1-68
1- 41
0-19
1-00
0-84
0-71
0-60
0-50
0-42
0-35
0-30
0-25
0- 177
0- 125
0-088
'5
00
is
UJ
UJ
I!
i i
I]
i. ..
pi 1.253-0 rng/L'
,48-4 mg./,L
-L J 12-5 mg'/'L
iii1 .
! L-,-,.,.1-1 1 I , <
1 ' , ! i 1 *
44
t i
i i
' t"
, ( I l'|,
i } ; !
U t. 1. i ^ -1 i
I . i
.,.11,
IJ
, ><>
].,,
(>ll 141 I-II I'll
SPERE OIRHETER tPHU
FIGURE H5 "' FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
s
?->
^
Run No. 38 . ',.,.'.
P. No. 3 ._ _L :
C| = 179-1 mg/L §
C2 = 102-9 mg/L, '
C3 = 23-2 mg/L
»* k «* l»*f »«SO I
-------
No, .44 ."
329-B mg/L'
l53*.8mg/L' , i.,.' ,
*mg/jL :!'i'
1 ' i
_ i _
\<~
;; s
i i i
Run No. 47
P. No, 3 , . , , i i ,-H
Cj = . 74-9 mg/li t '
C2 = , 56-0 mg/L'-1 '
GS = 24-8 mg/L, .
lit «» « 10 !» >(9 > «« t.<0 i i 1.99
SPHERE Oifi.lETER (PHI) i , ' ! !
FIGURE 18' FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
^~ .,_..
-------
. '146-1 -mg/L . -
b'-J. I 13-0' mg/L
=.' 5I-5 mg/.l
g'lg g'« Tig I'M t.M
.SPHERE DIfiHETER (PHI)
en
0S1
UJ
3>,
K
I I
No
I 1 I
115-6 rog/L.
43-3 .nng/L
' I '
J J i i_ '...j _.
"' i
T,
i , i
! , i
i i
-H-
- -' !
1 I ' I
! i
! ' '
j
i. I-
j ' i i
I' J
-i - i
, -
-' , r
l
, i * - ,M
i l-
Ma
, i. i
o « l 03 !« t.oi
SPHERE DIRMETER tPHI)
FIGURE 191 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
SBHELEJifl*-11252.-ii§i..HBSi^SS
to
t'
rN'o.
- ?*
|, :..Rj^p-fcjo-5L__._._..,
i ,- *y i.L 'i !- -
.|_i.i_?, 4-.'No.-3, ..!, .,
I -|-4
J_=|J.J302'8|nigXL..
^ ;=i- (236-9 htig/L -
ii = 1104-5 mg/L
i , . i
I It |.CO t.lg I tg
SPHERE DiatlETER (PHI)
i og ,!»
U .1 1 L
. ^_.i-.^_ i . -_u. t J i -| t -.. i -< i
FIGURE 20 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
g,
°-l.n
i.eo t (o l ffs 1*19 t*eo
SPHERE OlfUlETER (PHIJ
SPHERE p'l'f)HET£R IPHl" jj_*'" '_
FIGURE -21' FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
LEGEND
P
C|
Sampling Point.
Concentration of total solids.
Concentration of solids d
.0-088. mm
Concentration of solids d^ 0-2. mm
^
Conversion of Phi Values into Millimeters
~ logd
*»
Cn
phi
( -1 -00
-0-75
-0-50
-0-25^
0
+ 0-25
+ 0-5
-fO-75
+ 1-00
+ 1-25
-f 1-50
+ 1-75
+ 2-00
+2-50
t
+ 3-00
H-3-50
d mm
2-00
1-68
1-41
0- 19
r-oo
0-84
0-71
0-60
0-50
0-42
0-35 j
0-30
0-25
0-177
0- 125
0-088
i.it , i n o.io i.oo no t.«
111,1 SPHERE DlflMETER (PHU
FIGURE >22 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
a\
I M ttfO 1.11 1 10 t 00
SPHERE OlflflETER (PHI) i I I
s
' s,
IRunU
_.p,:-No.-4.:
= 42-5 mg/Li
= I0-4:i
ton «.n i.g) t'» tin i tiit,
SPHERE DlfiMETER (PHI).I J ,
* _ JJ. L I .Lj;i J_i.
FIGURE 23" FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
, R_ 80-6 mg/-L
t. i 31-1 mg/i.
i n
J " ' I 1
o «« o in !« i to t.o»
SPHERE JDIflnETER (PHI)
;.JL8^.fi«D
I s
t. s
as
.Run .NO
P. L No. 4
.H-1
!l I
C|
C2
03
92-1 "mg/L'-i
33-3 rngVL' '
4-6 mg'/L
!.«« I t.M | ,»«
SPHERE OIRMETER tP.HI) i j , ; \ \ j j
v! '
< 10
I
FIGURE |24 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
*>.
CO
I o.
i s
2?
z
°°
>-s
0
CD
CCS
2s
o
>-8
.i:
SPHERE OlflflETER (PHI) _i. ,._' L '
FIGURE '25' FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
ra
00
is
o-j«
^
' o
ys
'S.8'
' 3
tl*
i OS n
i ?
s
2'
I|J.
I
I !>
! i
J^-teLta.
"P
wp
67-9 mg
Id:-!
-i | 29-8 nlg/L '
|=i i 6-3 tn'g'/L "
_i (
Ij
L
, !!j;!,,J ..,'
i iJ-L1..-
ill ,.t
! ' i
! I '
} !
-i H- !
1 ! '
I !
'f I'1
! 1,1-!-1.! -SI>H
I P»1V I UO
t ,ea t*vt >.M > tf
5?-"
Is.
>-s
^
0
Sg
US'
2
I_
I*
U.
.P. . . Mo, 4... ... .
'
Cj = 255-8.mg/L, ,' , j I
C2. ' =. . 177-1.mg/L1 11
C3 -= 75-
mg/.L
i '
- II -»,CI
1,99 , 1 V 9
, , > , .
SPHERE OlflflETER IPHl) '..' , ' I
! J «
I. 'I
FIGURE '26 FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION
OF PARTICLES
-------
Ln
O
, SPHERE OtflMETER (PHU
-I.II
!|!
. i SPHERE OlflMETER (PHI)
' III
,1 ft
FIGURE |27 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
LEGEND
in
P s Sampling Point.
C| : Concentration of total solids.
Cg: Concentration of solids d- 0-088 .tnm
C3! Concentration of solids d 0-2
(j> t tog g i : »»
SPHERE 0!Rf1tTEs If't'U
FIGURE 28 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
Ul
38. ,
, 5 I
94-$ i rrig/L, i
4J5-41 mg/L '
V)'
i~l
p
03
9 CO 0*1 1*00 1.30 t 00
SPHERE DtPMETER (PHU
C.99 O.tl .09 II)
SPHERE DlfiKETE"
FIGURE 29 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
Ul
w
"-8
"Xo.
z>
5s
>- 1
(J S'
S3
, ' ' I
§8dES«I_l!SAI.ii2iSJ.Ufl2.HBi^_2«.5fiaj j
-- i- i t . i i .- - M-Xr"1
i M i I' i
I. i*w, I »-' ! I ! , I i I
C,., ^.'IS^Srrjg/U i j
C2 ' ~
R No. 1 ' &
.....J.UL..L, M !.,..(_
I !
Kg
9 CO 0 Iff 1*09 UI9 t*BO
SPHERE OlflflETER (PHI)
-I*
''"
H,i,
A ' ' '
'" 1
0 W
i g»ao Q to
! , SPHERE
.. 1 i , i ,. .
. «*»
I OB ttfO
DIRttETER
, t
1. 10
CPHI1
x_
t n > n
FIGURE !30 'FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
a
!£2
a
>"
us-
es«
£H
u.
Run
cl
C2
C3
No>..44. " -./...'
No. _EL lr_._
113-9 mg/t-
47iL mg./L
ll-9mg/L
fi£flCL£JlflA.U2fi2_»1133.!
o
^-
:a
CO
or.
to
O
>-S
g»
UJ
ra
03
°
«" 010 !» til I OH, I l.ll I ».00, I
SPHERE OIPflETER (PHI) M . .,,
i I. i 1. ! ! I I '. .1
o.tt ««» « to < i go
. j., r'! 4., .SPHERE .
'
t to t » i > t 10
(,P)1U i | ,.|
FIGURE'S!; FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
Oi
Ul
z.
o,
05-
UJ
I'
1 I
5.
'.C2-,~, , 27-6
., C3', ' 'l4-13mg/L-
II
i i
!"]
r;"
1 ' i
l-r p
«.t) o u i.oo i» t.n
! SPHERE DIRMETER (PHIJ
2?
0
(.JO-
SBflELS.tJ3j.H251 945.1388 41.2189
pi!
Sl!.' ! ' j38-5.mg!A-- . '
4< ! ' ;-56--OrTig/J
'. .'. 20--5mg/L ..
, -- -----"
! ,°-i.»a ! i «J» i »»» o>» i M
' -Li ? M j,!-! SPHFRF nrn
..,'-' i i -i-' I 1
t.It «.«>
SPHERE OIRHETER (PHI)
FIGURE '32 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
U1
c
i j-s
' US'
', l-J
i^
ISDE!.E_HfiA.JL122fl..iai2.BBSSi
Run No, 49 ;-- -- !--i
P. NO.-.5.I 1 r-!--!"--
GI 63'9mg/L -.
Cs ... 6-9.mg/L . ,.i..^..V
SPHERE DlflMETER (PHI)
s
- I
S
-51
to
os-
is
UJ
PS
, b
i _LBua£la~.5.Q _. .
"
LL Jbg.[.'; J3'-! mg/L
l-i-'Cs':-,, :4-?mg/L
!!
.i.j LI. ;
IM'-M'
., ^ ,-r,,...,
11' i
J._. I-I-L I.J .-L ,-
H M "
i ! , i i i
!_! ! , ' 4.. ,
.-._,_!_. ,.J
«.» l.» « to i «« 1 19 T » t.ll 1.13 >
-------
Ul
No, 51
No. 5
. 204-5 mg/L
l37-7mg/L.
50-Onrtg/L
OtfO I GO I.Iff 1-00
. SPHERE DlflUETER (PHI)
c
I > j
z.'
. p.
..c..
. : J_
!
No. 5
.. ,152-7. mgj/L'J.
. .96-7mg/L-
24-5 mg/L .
i i
(.-,.-,-
1,10 C.I9 I'M 1 (I . < Ct
SPHERE OlflMETER (PHI)
FIGURE 34 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
Ul
00
i tt Ull !«»
SPHERE OIRHETER (PHU
1 FIGUR^_35 _lFREQUENCY . DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
LEGEND
in
VD
i XV 15.112.4:6: .
Ac| <.«
' I I ' I I I
_r_ = ^.-^LJ,.j^«...U.i - .f LI- - » -iI-
T <___' .,17: I TT; I I T MM
-«.!t I.M «!« l.» lit t 00 | ,«,(« I i lit, 11
, , SPHERE DlflMETER IPHI), I ,1 I L I,' , ! I
~ Ml_v_n_J_ - . ,!_ - » Il Jut. 1-1 lJ.jl I Ijuiulwll I'JlUll
P ' Sampling Point.
C| ! Concentration of total solids.
Cg: Concentration of solids d, ^s 0-088. mm
C3' Concentration of solids d=^ 0*2.mm
§ log £ d
Conversion of Phi Values into Millimeters
.phi
d mm
- 1-00
-0-75
- 0-50
- 0-25
0
4- 0-25
4- 0-5
4- 0-75
+ 1-00
4- 1-25
4- 1-50
4- 1-75
4- 2-00
4- 2-50
4- 3-00
4- 3-50
2-00
1 -68
1 -41
0- 1 9
1-00
0-84
0-71
0-60
0-50
0-42
0-35
0-30
0-25
0- 177
0- 125
0-088
FIGURE 36 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
s
!°'
i
c
2
o
j
ta
£:
* o-
w»
o
UJ
, II.
' 1!
I »
, s
s-
'1J'4'9J.jTim/t;.
i I i i-i-u, I
r r
.!- h
1 m i
I I
i i!
t I
.a.
- l!'i! .:'
! 1.1 ' . J..' i i i.!
,00 ,. -«.n uj Oi» t to i« t.n t.<»
.j . , , SPHERE DlfiMETER.tPHlJ ... .
1.M >"
I :
I =)
i . ffl
1 (J «
1 S
o:i
1 u.
, "
i-l
,j!i|ir||Ti[yr[:n]!,T- '-','^_
^k
"i r1
J
i
°J-
ISB.
.
iL
-h-
L
tteJTirfi-/L±.i:j:-j
i i i i
IT >i-:-j-h-ir!-v:
HliTTi'-;1
ittt
' i , i ! ' It
, , 1 ... i
.L.I.'J. Jj.; -.. u.:
i r
- I i
I l"t I i I -i ~ -t i
III'' '
-g.il t.oi e,tj i.t) i.« t.og t.tt i.ei t It
«,!J I.Ot t.» t.05
SPHERE OlflMETER IPHH
'FIGURE 37 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
SflnEL£J!lfl.i_m§Q-_Llli_t!S3
o,
i;
W"
o
.a'
'1;
1 5,
! a
I 2'
I I
rj |-
1 , i
I I
I !
i ,
C,;
Cg,1
II
* ;.,294-0 mg/L.
.' F ' !l9O-0 mg/L1
F1 ' '109-6 mg/L
I i i I ' ' !
' I I
i!;ij
! i M I . I
i! lit
I I I !
'ill1-1,
! ii, i
! I
i ' i
V
. I I
i I !
O.OJ 0 a l.» I.C9 t S3
i SPHERE QintlETER (PHU
FIGURE' 38 FREQUENCY ' DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
to
C|- =' 17.0--4 mg/L
C2. =".
?«W 'II t M I (9 2 CO ' t J9
SPnERS QlflliETER (PHI), , , .-M-r-i
-^.-.^.-1 i..-ta_L
1 ' 3
s
Ul
31.
Y1T
^; L'.9'9'-5"mg/L :
,= ', , 58 3 mg/L
i
i I
i -I 90 i"» (0 0 03 C.IO IK 1 tC t «
' I j I | j ,,,,,, SPHERE OlfiHETER (PHIJ
\n in
FIGURE 391 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
o.it i 99 t.tg t,
SPHERE OlfltlETER (PHI
~s
z
o.
ui
S«
ce»
Run NO ae_,. i ,
R ' .No.3. L'-:.."
! !! i1!-1! i!i'_M i!
* '" '" """" 1 " "i T-"] j i i i i f
-t.lt t.M ».!> 1.99 1 19 > 09 t.ll l.t)
SPHERE DIRttETER (PHI)
FIGURE 40 'FREQUENCY 'DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES^
-------
T.
O,
>-«
S!
0 M 0*n t>oa t CD I DO
SPHERE Dlft«ETER (PHI)
in,
3
KS
t- 0
1C"
c
Run "No! 29." ,
c2-
C3
'=" 262-"6~mg7L ,
"= 132-0, mg/.L ,
= 5'2-6 mg/JL! ; , i !
i ..
O.W t.it >» t-tl 1.00 t 76 !»»
SPHERE DlfiKETER (PHI) i , ,
FIGURE* 41 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
' ! S
a
a
» ?""
OC
Cj..' ==: 2,59-6 mg/L
C2, ,=' 75-3 mg/L
03! ?' , 15,-2 mg/L
i '
r r i- '- ,-
;.UU^-<-,
t.aa o ii !« !» t'» tt» >»
SPHERE OlfiHETER (PHI)
i C
s-
£
Z
«*1
Run No., 31
C| "= " I49-I mg/L! I ' . , ; r'
Cg - 53-0 mg/L ! j' ; i / M
J ' i . ! i
.|,M -«.tl »rf«
SPHERE OlflttETER (Phi)
, I.H , i I 19
i FIGURE; 42_
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
SBflELE.l!lBi.lll4S..WS5.HB§
cr>
w
o
_
z.
LJ
.T
I..L IP,
i H.,_c[.!-,--- l53tCLmg/L .
' \ ' Cg. b J5j6'-£'.mg/L
=' ; i 'IE-5 mg/L
! i
: i'
1 3"
i !
-».« 1 ,« » I io i.ta t.io t n t.H
I !,' . SPHERE DIRHETER (PHU -
!.»» l.«
SPHERE O'lftdETER-iPHI) .. .
FIGURE 43 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES.
-------
:"Ma:..4:i.. ;:.,.!
,
i ' 1 -I-, , N I
J j . r-. ,--,-, |-l-
>i j jij_;.
*
-l.O
-v
_.,_ .... t.o t>n «.t«
SPHERE DIPHETER (PHU-, (. , J.
i.ot I > n
JJiLJ
I.M t ft l.»l l.«»
. SPHERE DlflHETER
£LGURE. 44' 'FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
en
CO
z.
o.
, 081
.No, .10. . n,.-,. . '.1
p' .^.l-Omg/L. ,.
'= - . .6-Omg/L
,' .;!:..- -
0,00 O.S3 1*63 t K t H 1^9
SPHERE OlflKEfER (PHI)
s
tw
^
a
.No..4~.-t.L'!' L'.'.1 !
= . 96-lfng/L ,..' (
=._ 28-9(ng/L , I -",'
= , S'2mg'/L , ', ' \ I
I" ...... I "'" ' I
«.n e-io i to
SPHERE
j os
(PHIJ
i I
3 »
I I
FIGURE 45 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
CTi
NO! ,4 , . _^i.._'j
^1 |95-4 mg/L
i= , 26-8.mg/L .J
5-7 mg/L .
s
'I «-
Oo
!
l-S'
UJ
i.
i i j to O'M i ea i»' i.s» i.«
, SPHERE OtflltTER (Phi)
I -»,!»:
i I
5 It I 01 1.10 t.CO t.U >..t «.R
SPHERE DIAMETER tPHU
'FIGURE 46 'FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES,
-------
t s
3
,o,.
.Run.
R".. .
No'.. 4 ._._!. .._..
= 60-7 mg/L ' r
= . 15-S.mg/L. ;"
= ' 3-9 mg/b '
i>n «<«
i n in
SPfERE
] I
.N «.
z
v_«J
>
us-
C2--
C3
"- . ' i i I i ! ! ,"
r"T-r--;-ri'T H
i ( i -i ,
I !6-.Omg/L
- 22-3 mg/L
S-Smg/'L , , , i ,
(PHIJ
-I )> -1 to 0 H
I 09 t 19 '00 t It, 1 01
QlflflETER (PHI) , I j
'FIGURE' -47 f.REQUENC_Y__D!STRlByjlOM__OFmPAj?TJCL55
-------
LEGEND
P Sampling Point.
C| ' Concentration of
Cg'- Concentration of
C3: Concentration of
Conversion of Phi
phi
- 1-00
-0-75
- 0-50
- 0-25
0
4- 0-25
4- 0-5
4- 0-75
4- 1-00
4- 1-25
4-, 1-50
4- 1-75
4- 2-00
4- 2-50 -
4- 3-00
4- 3-50
» V- '
total solids.
solids d^ 0-088 .mnr
solids d~ 0-2 .mm
Values into Millimeters
d mm
2-00
1 -68
I -41
0- 1 9
1-00
0-84
0-71
0-60
0-50
0-42
0-35
1 0-30
0-25
0- 177
0- 125
_ .P'088^ .
" ..»...** ... - T - - }
-I,.'-
!fij_lii6i__jiSK.c5§-
$(it\,Mpf-3£-rri -- ,..
1
l7'6mg/L
:£' j .=. i . .2Q-0.mg/L.
2-4mg/L
1 ' i
'"1
! i !
i) SI
6 I
'
1 ' '
''", SPMERE OLP METER IPnY)
-------
LEGEND
to
P s Sampling Point.
C|' Concentration of total solids.
Cg: Concentration of solids d^ 0-088.mm
C^'- Concentration of solids d~0-2.mm
Conversion of Phi Values into Millimeters
,npM_
- 1-00
-0-75
- 0-50
- 0-25
0
4- 0-25
4- 0-5
4- 0-75
4- 1-00
4- 1-25
4-, 1-50
4- 1-75
4- 2-00
4- 2-50 '
4- 3-00
' . + 3-50
. , , ; ' ' ». U-i « "
d mm
2-00
1-68
1-41
0- 1 9
1-00
0-84
0-71
0-60
0-50
0-42
0-35
0-30
0-25
0- 177
0- 125
0-088
.----" ' , ,--i- L . ...... .....*:
FIGURE!491 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
i s
-I S'
Is
CO
H«
, m"
a
..rp: A
'. £,.'
185- 1 mg/L
44-0 mg/L
28-5 -mg/L
/
SPHERE Oinri£TER CPHI)
, '
S'
, §3
£:j
Ci"
J i i ! L /
"T!~- i l"~" "j '"" /, '"i"
.I mg/L. '-."
2mg/.L.. i., ,
,4mg/L'
0 » 10° '" ><" 1 ><>
SPHERE DIfifiETER (PHI) I ,
'FIGURE. -50 -FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
i
>-
o
2
UJ
1^
u.
j ] L|,:RiijirN'o;...22!T'' .:...: _...
; , | '-bj , ;.-., 85:9 mg/L. .
i ! | , Cg' ' -, ! '38:3 m'g/L
, j, £3, ''= , 8- 3 nig/ L
Mi"! ' ! ' , , ' ' ' , ' I
i i i
i ^ i
, i !
l i
-3..
i- !( «.« on t :s i.H t.» «.(8 % n
I I I j , i i SPHERE DI3METER
^L:_.:_;_..:_.. / :.
ir»: .A- : . J .
.n .'^C^.,.. -r.11J?Q:Q mg./L.
., .-[ C'gl' = ;:'23-4 ing/L
';.]:,, .= ! 5-4 mg/L
! . l" ! "' l
-
t M J It 1.09 t I) I 09
SPriERE DIfittETER (PHI)
t.lt i.K JJJ
FIGURE! 51' FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SOLIDS
-------
x
us
3s"
a
>-S
««1
2s-1
3
3"
r
..Run
C2L§.N2^_ill4iliii.tiS§___§^S/§g
.No, .27- ' '1
Pi
.= .52-4. mg/L '. |".
= " 1.6- 2 mg/L1 j ' '
,= I .-5 mg/b , , i ,|
. M ! ! " I
»j,i6 0*59 9*1) (00 I IS t CO
. SPHERE DIfiMETER (PHIJ < | ] !
I I ... i i i.
Is
03
5
K-
. in
s
LL
|« <»» I »9 t 19
SPHERE OlflMETER (PHI)
'FIGURE 52 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
en
Ruo_' .No.. .29.-' '.-
..C|._= J56-2 mg/L..'
£2"--~="V. - 142-9 mg/L,.-,1
Cs = 2-2 mg/ L ";
> i
i.u an 11> t go t.io
oo l.l: i » oj .
SPriERE Dlfl^ETER (PHH i i i ' ! i ' ! '
o.oo i 10 t eo t.w t 09 t.w
, , SPHERE OlFMETER (PHI)
< f> »-«t
FIGURE . 53 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLES
-------
. CO
B«
o i 09 i (v t oe *«ia »«
i i , SPHERE QtPlETEH (PHU
FIGURE 54i FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION. OF PARTICLES
-------
LEGEND
CO
SAMPLING POINT 1 , RIVER WATER
SAMPLING POINT 2-
SAMPLING POINT 3
INFLUENT
SAMPLING POINT
SAMPLING POINT 5, EFFLUENT
SAND INTRODUCED
FIGURE 55. CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF TEST RUNS
I 1
I t
-------
400 L s'l' 450 L~s-r~585~~L.V' 585 "Ls"'" 585 Ls" " 605
Minutes
30
20
10
Reference
Time
Run
March 1980
B
_
1 1
$'
,\
V
,\
\
A
^-
A-
k\
- I
fa 1
\
; fjf T
:r'|
IIMO
1
\\
v\
A
\
8-
' - \\
b \\
- V
- V
M \
K-| V
--1 T
_
=^
11-46
2
H5?
|fV
M
l
T-l
j
1
A
S
\
v
c^
\\
lOs
2
V
S*>
V
13 30
3
r-
CVJ
~%
-%
y,
g
£/
y.
v
y,
y
-''/,
yf
_Y/,
%
V
-g
Y,
Y%
%
%
A
r^
B v-
o\
o>
- N"
\
M A
~ v
yN
~T 2"
_
LJ
14 40
4
__
« H
. C
F
tn
^f*
y
y
'/*
y,
y
fy
yf
y?
y/
1
^
//,
fa
yf
y/
I
'£
j i^r
V
V
V
V
V
\\
SA
V]
_ \\
i V
B A
= _^_
1 R ivH
M1
T -
15-32
5
na
L s-i 605
1
21-
E
M . ..._ ,.,
"IT
y.
y,
Y,
-^
4
A
Y/,
-%
'}<>
Y,
V
%
'4
/fa
y,
/x
^
_
B
M
=d
~
-C*
;
T
,s
s\
,v
*-
v~
A
v
Ov
\^
\s
\v
v
yv
v$
14-45
6
L
s-i 605 L s-' 300 L S'1
- T _
_i
-o
y
~i
%
-i
1
-^
K
y,
y,
y,
Y,
Kf
y.
Yf
-
-
B
M
f
"T"
-
-
-
^
^
^S
\s
\
§
^
X
.
15
22
7
mm
-1
e. ...
- C
. (£
y.
y
y
'y
y
T
yf
YS
Yr
'4
-'y,
'%
%
Y/
f/
Y,
1
U
\\
r~i V
_ yv
B V._
_~ V
rv
v«
*~ M \~
-=.-§-
pj Vi
vv
V
2s
LJ
16-08
8
12*
T
cy
t r~i
t
- N
'/
//
Yi
y
-'%
Y/f
ri'
'y
-'&/
- */
^
'/f
'/f
'/f
Y)
Y,
K
'%,
^
V-.B
L__j
AJ
VM
\N
. v\ -
V>
\ »
\N
\v
v\
S-
\\
\:
8-03
9A
'3~
FIGURE 55. CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD- OF TEST' RUNS (ContM)
-------
300 L s'1 440 L s~l 440 L s"1 130 L'S"' 130 L s"1 440 L s"' 440 L s"' 630 L s"1 630L s"1
03
O
Ol
I
'i
30
20
10
Reference
Time
Run
March I960
1
:£
'-r-
f
1
~#
I
'//
>/
I
*
P
I
?
-
Ivi
B,
l
fTfl
(vsl
T
~
\*
O3
^
§
^-
1
10 16
9B
.
1
" C
CM
"p
f
1
f
u-
II
B.
M
T
v >
vS1
A
^s
V* "
i\_
\X-
1
30
10
_
1
- _J
c
-s
'/A
\
'/4
-'<&
I
-9
,,
-
I
M
e=
13
F
s
SA
i
-
~
41
II
\\
^
v\
v\
\\
S^-
M -- v
\\
§~ ^\-
-w|
15 05
12
_ t>
' CM
- in
-c
-^
^
t
1
-I
-fa
i
1
^
-
ie
B
E~
T
-
v^
i\
b
A
^
S
1
-
-
-
53
13
is&
-1
_j
_ c
rr
- c
r»
^?
/^
:|
Y/
.'*
1
4
I
re
l
i_j
~
f
i
7
^
1
N\
^\
^
43
14
P^
i
b
...
M .,
ly\
^
V\
V
1
i
-
-
T
8' 17
15
ii
M
T
,s
w
V
v
s
v~
v
\s
\\ ""
^-
\\
x-
\^-
23
16
l
fc
<
o
-^
-^
-^
1
!
1
i
J
i>
5
J
"-
>!
t
E
T
T>
-
»»
M
r~~i
t
15
17
,^.
<
"53"""
*j\
it
Fr
iM_
\V
r\
vA
VI
\\
V
v^
V
\.\
^=
^_
35
.1
14*
FIGURE 55, CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF TEST RUNS (Cont^d)
-------
630 L s"1 950 L s"1 950 L s'1 950 L s"1 950 L s"1 950 L s"1 950 L s"1 950 L s"1 680 L s'1
03
H
FIGURE 55. CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF TEST RUNS (Contvd)
-------
680 L s-' 680 L s"' 680 L s'" 430 L s"' 430 L s'l 430 L s~i 430 L s~' 430 L s"' 450 Ls"1
CO
to
FIGURE 55. CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF TEST RUNS (Cont'd)
-------
450 L s'1 600 Ls"1 750 L s"1 1000 Ls"1 300 Ls"' 150 Ls"! SOO Ls"J 450 Ls~' 150 Ls'1
oo
w
rrgr
JJGURE_ 55. .^CHRONOLQGJCAL. . RECORD OF TEST RUNS . .(Cpnty)
-------
900 L.S-' 900 LS"1 SOO Ls"1 450 Ls'1 450 Ls"1 900 Ls'1 850 Ls"1 COO Ls"1 600 Is"1 600 Us"1
03
FIGURE 55. CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF TEST RUNS (Contvd)
-------
FIGURE 56
River Intake - Sampling Point 1.
FIGURE 57
Swirl Degritter - Inlet after
Run 34. j
sand settled on invert of conduit
/FIGURE 581
Swirl Degritter - Bottom of Hopper with1,
Eductor Pump. \
85.
-------
'FIGURE 59 Swiri Degritter - Ledge at 45° from Inlet. 1
FIGURE 60 Swirl" Degritter - Ledge 1
at 135° from Inlet. 'i
86.
-------
trlet port
(tripling Point^-v)
P0rt pr
Sampling Point >J^|;-rf
Li.et port
IfS^Tipling Point 2)|1^^'
ill \During runs
m^um ^ : Bft.-"fe-j
36-55 onh
FIGURE 61
Sampling Points 2,3 and ^
(Looking Downstream Towards]
Swirl Degritter)
FI_GURE 62}
Sampling Points 2,3 and
(Looking Upstream into
Inlet Conduit)
FIGURE 63 Swirl Degritter - Sampling Pipes and Inlet!
87.
-------
FIGURE 6*1
Swirl Degritter - ,
Coverplate and Spoiler
with Sampling Pipes. !
'sampling suction pipesj
water level detector |
FIGURE 65,
Sv/irl Degritter -
Sampling Pipes and Float Switch
IPalfhi^fli p?_ ^ t^f f il*-^---**- >_-_-_ -t-sS* - -- ef -
88.
-------
FIGURE 66
Swirl Degritter -
Sampling Pipes and Sampling Pump
sampling discharge pipe]
sampling pumpj
FIGURE 67_ Swirl Degritter - Top with 54 gal Drums.]
89.
-------
FIGURE 68
Pumping Station - Sampling Point 5
'with 54 US gal Drums.
FIGURE 69
'.Floaters for Decanting Water
90.
-------
I
,FIow
rate
i
f*
v-
5
<*
<
(B
(O
(0
O
CD
u) «
_J _I
o»
5 2
tn
-------
Flow
rate
1 ,_
' 21
S ^
^ j;
OT V
1 A
- evl
o 2
j§ ,2
1
o>
_J
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
GRIT " ASH " " ~~~ ~1
Grain
size
mm
< 0.15
0.15-0.25
0.25-0.5
0.5 -1.0
1.0 -2.0
2.0 -3.15
3.15 <
Total 1
Total 2
.< 0.15
0.15-0.25
0.25-0.5
0.5 -1.0
1.0 -2.0
2,0 -3.15
3.15 <
Total 1
Total 2
< 0.15
0.15-0.25
0.25-0.5
0.5 -1.0
1.0 -2.0
2.0"-3.15
3.15 <
Total 1
Total 2
< 0.15
0.15-0.25
0.25-0.5
0.5 -1.0
1.0 -2.0
2.0 -3.15
3.15 <
Total 1
Total 2
< 0.15
0.15-0.25
0.25-0.5
0.5 -1.0
1.0 -2.0
2.0 -3.15
3.15 <
Total 1
Total 2
Influent
%
H. 5
13.9
22.6
22.9
18.2
7.7
3.2
100
100
11.6
18.1
50.7
11.3
5.9
1.9
0.5
100
100
23.4
14.3
23.0
18.9
12.4
6.3
1.7
100
100
14.6
17.4
50.3
10.1
5.1
1.7
0.8
100
100
11.4
19.4
42.8
14.1
7.9
3.3
1.1
100
100
Swirl
effluent
%
51.0
26.5
13.9
5 .2
2.5
0.5
0.4
100
100
53.6
28.5
10.6
3.5
2.2
0.9
0.7
100
100
57.1
18.9
13.8
5.1
3.6
1.5
0
100
100
61.5
25.8
8.5
2.1
1.1
0.3
0.7
100
100
43.2 J
26.7
16.5
8.0
4.5
0.8
0.3
100
100
Influent
concen-
tration
mg/L
1.7
2.0
3.3
3.3
2.7
1.1
0.5
14.6
12.9
6.2
9.7
27.1
6.0
3.2
1.0
0.3.
53.5
47.3
4.5
3.3
5.3
4.4
2.9
1.5
0.4
23.1
17.7
4.9
5.9
17.0
3.4
1.7
0.6
0.3
33.8
28.9
6.4
10.9
24.1
8.0
4.5
1.9
0.6
56.4
50.0
Swirl
effluent
concen-
tration
mg/L
3.1
1.6
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
0
6.04
2.94
3.0
1.6
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
5.67
2.67
1.9
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
3.38
1.48
5.0
2.1
0.7
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
8.09
3.09
5.0
3.1
1.9
0.9
0.5
0.1
0
11.59
6159
i
Removal
%
83.5
21.1
74.6
90.6
94.3
97.3
94 8
58.5
77.2
51.0
83.8
97.8
96.7
96.0
95.0
85.2
89.3
94.4
56.7
80.7
91.2
96.1
95.8
96.5
100
85.6
91.6
0.8
64.5
96.0
95.0
94.8
95.2
79.1
76.0
89.3
22.1
71.7
92.1
88.3
88.3
95.0
94.4
79.4
86.8
HGURE 71. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AT DENVER, CAL USA (Ref 2
92:
-------
T-
Flow
rate
tvl
»*-
5
in
o
CO
5<
0>
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
4
5
Grain
size
mm
< 0.15
0.15-0.25
0.25-0.5
0.5 -1.0
1.0 -2.0
2.0 -3.15
3.15 <
Total 1
Total 2
< 0.25
0.15-0.25
0.25-0.5
0.5 -1.0
1.0 -2.0
2.0 -3.15
3.15 <
Total 1
Total 2
< 0.15
0.15-0;25
0.25-0.5
0.5 -1.0
1.0 -2.0
2.0 -3.15
3.15 <
Total 1
Total 2
< 0.15
0.15-0.25
0.25-0.5
0.5 -1.0
1.0 -2.0
2.0 -3.15
3.15 <
Total 1
Total 2
< 0.15
0.15-0.25
0.25-0.5
0.5 -1.0
1.0 -2.0
2.0 -3.15
3.15 <
Total 1
Total 2
GRIT ASH " *
Influent
%
17.4
14.9
' 22.0
19.5
17.2
6.7
2.3
100
100
9.7
22.4
47.7
12.0
5.3
2.0
0.9
100
100
6.9
11.7
33.3
23.4
16.7
6.4
1.6
100
100
8.1
15.5
37.7
21.4
11.7
4.2
1.4
100
100
6.4
10.0
33.3
25.3
17.4
5.9
1.7
100
100
Swirl
effluent
%
23.2
17.3
18.9
16.0
13.6
7.5
3.5
100
100
18.4
29.1
30.2
10.5
7.6
2.8
1.4
100
100
23.2
33.4
36.3
4.5
2.0
0.3
0.3
100
100
22.9
31.5
32.9
7.0
4.1
1.3
0.3
100
100
24.0
15.1
18.2 '
14.6
13.5
9.4
5.2
100
100
Influent
concen-
tration
mg/L
2.7s-
2.4
3.5
3.1
2.7
1.1
0.4
15.8
13.1
4.9
11.2
23.9
6.0
2.7
1.0
0.5
50.1
45.2
3.5
5.9
16.7
11.8
8.4
3.2
0.8
50.3
46.8
3.4
6.6
15.9
9.1
4.9
1.8
0.6
42.3
38.9
0.4
0.6
2.0
1.5
1.1
0.4
0.1 '
6.04
5.6
Swi rl
effluent
concen-
tration
ma/1_
2.2
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.3
0.7
0.3
9.54
7.34
3.8
6.1
6.3
2.2
1.6 .
0.6"
0.3
20.8
17.0
4.8
6.8
7.4
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.1
20.5
15.7
3.1
4.3
4.4
0.9
0.6
0/2
0
13.5
10.4
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
4.71
3.61
Removal
«
%
19.5
29.9
48.1 |
50.5
52.3
32.4
8.1
3V. 6
44.0
21.2
46.1
73.7
63.7
40.5
41.9
35.4 i
58.2
62.4
37.0
16.3
55.6
92.2
95.1
98.1
92.4
59.3
66.5
9.8
35.1
72.1
89.6
88.8
90.1
93.2
67.9
73.3
-192.4
17.8
57.4
55.0
39.5
-24.2
-138.5
21.5
36.0
URE 72. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AT DENVER, CAL. USA (Ref 2}
93.
-------
*lf
«r"
' (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
. REPORT NO.
2.
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
FIELD EVALUATION OF A SWIRL DEGRITTER, AT
TAMWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA
.AUTHOR(s>6.j. Shelley, Consulting Engineer
P.B. Stone, Supervising Engineer, Hydraulics Lab, PWD
A.J. Cullen. Resident Enaineer. Tamworth. PWD of NSW
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME Af
G.J. Shelley, Consulting En
205 Ernest Street
Cammeray, NSW, Australia 2
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AN D ADt
Municipal Environmental Res
Office of Research and Deve
U.S. Environmental Protecti
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
>JD ADDRESS
gi neer
062
DRESS
earch Laboratory-Cinn. , OH
lopment
on Agency
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
AZBIB
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R- 806 746
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Project Officers: Ri chard Field and Hugh Masters, Storm and
Combined Sewer Section, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cinn., OH 45268,
FTS 340-6674, (201) 321-6674.
16. ABSTRACT . .......-,_..._
"This field evaluation program was initiated with the overall objective of providing information on the
behaviour of a full scale swirl degritter designed and constructed in accordance with the shapes and proportions
-developed during model studies.
The swirl degritter was designed for the pre-treatrnent of river water prior to its entrance into the rising
main in order to reduce wear and tear on the raw water pumps and also to reduce the solids loading of the
rising main and that of the balance tank of the water treatment works.
Results of the solids removal had been evaluated in terms of three parameters : solids larger than 0.2 mm
- the classical size aimed at in grit chambers -, solids larger than 0.088 mm and total settleable solids. In
general the tests proved the validity of the laboratory results and at design flowrates 98% removal efficiencies
were achieved.
Tests at flowrates higher than the design showed slightly better efficiencies than predicted.
The field evaluation tests carried out at Tamworth, New South Wales, Australia, prove the validity of the
system in terms of its hydraulic efficiency. Compared with a conventional constant velocity longitudinal flow
grit chamber the construction cost is halved, operational and maintenance costs are considerably lower-
This report was submitted in fulfillment of the conditions of Grant No R806746, by G.J, Shelley, Consulting
Engineer, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report covers the period
between March 11, 1980 and June 1, 1980 and the work was completed as of October 27,- ,1980;
17.
a. DESCRIPTORS
Grit chambers
Prototypes
Water treatment
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Stormwater treatment
Swirl Degritter
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassif-ied
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
21. NO. OF PAGES
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
94.
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEER
AUSTRALIA
TEL National 02 929 2680
MACEA MACSE CJ"" Internal '6129292880
10/GJS/MJK 18th September
Mr. Richard Field,
Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Vastewater Researciz Division,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Woodbridge Ave., Building 1O,
EDISON, N.Y. 08817
Dear Rich,
Field Evaluation of Swirl Grit Separator
at Tamworth N.3.V., Australia
Your ref. No. R 8067^6
Since my last letter we managed to run into a lot of
troubles, which were somewhat foreshadowed in the -Appendix
to that lett er .
I described the difficulties that we met during
setting up the sampling method, the nearly complete lack of
solids in the river, actually the lack of water in the river
and the need of "spiking" the influent to obtain sort of
reasonable concentrations. While planning the sampling
procedure we had hoped and preliminary calculations indicsted
that there should not be any significant amount of deposition
in the intake conduit. As'-you may have noted from the previous
communication this supposition proved to be false. The obvious
question had arisen then, why the deposition has occurred,
whether the relationship of concentrations shown in ?hillip
Shelley's report is valid for a cross-section and particles
larger than in the basis of the report.
I enclose some photos of the sampling set up and
also of the grit separator in dewatered condition.
Also enclosed are full scale drawings showing the
general layout of site, the general arrangement of the grit
separator and some details of the samplers, together with the
master calculation sheet in its present state. In the draft
report they shall be converted to the glossy black and white
photos and properly reduced size drawings.
I should like to mention also that we have not
received the sec_ojid installment of advance payment despite the fact
that our request was mailed July 7th, 1980. (Copy enclosed).
-------
I My thanks for asking Fred Parkinson to send some
information on the concentration of solids applied at the
mod'el testing. I have received it about two weeks ago, and
shall try to make good use of it.
Proving or contradicting tne points raised means a
lot of hard and time consuming work and in short we are far
behind schedule, We could not commence tae field work as
originally planned and we have run into difficulties at
eveluating the results and therefore I should like to ask for an
extension of time of three months for the completion of the
draft report.
Best regards,
George Shelley
-------
LIST OF PHOTOS
1. ₯eir , Spoiler cover plate assembly before installation.
2. Entry to swirl chamber (.after Run 18)
3. Discharge pipe (.After Run 18)
4. Ledge (After Run 18.)
5. Bottom of hopper (After Run 44)
6. Ledge cs£. inlet (0°) (\After Run 3k)
7. Ledge at 90° Ufter Run 34)
8. Ledge at 130° (After Run 34)
9. Ledge at 150° (After Run 44)
10. Ledge at 230° (After Run 44)
11. Ledge at 2?0° (After Run 44)
12. River intake -with sampling drums
13. River intake
14. Sampling nozzles in influent conduit (looking downstream)
Note : Sill under nozzle Runs 35-55
15. Sampling nozzles in influent conduit (looking upstream)
16. Bottom of the influent sampling line
17. Bottom of the influent sampling line
18. Influent sampling line and cover plate
19. Influent sampling line
20. Influent sampling line and sampling pump
21. Top of grit separator with sampling drums
22. Top of grit separator with sampling drums
23. Effluent sampling drums (the one in the front, in line
with pump has the float for decanting clear water.}
24. Effluent sample partly prepared for transportation
(the drum liner containing the sample had been
removed from the drum placed in a plastic trash
bin, but not properly tucked in as yet and ready
for lifting from the pumping station floor to
surface) .
-------
.sst.ri--;-.
"*. "-tu-tftf
' " ,«?
!.<, -f I
," ' lj>
'. "^SH:*
»>\-3*^s*«ss*
J %'
' J-v<-_,B
w
*«/"
»-->^V v" r"V** ,- )''
X3:,: H .£*Jfl ^.'- i'v
-------
*"-- . ail* **;**'-* -
9bfc<&,. i,*«Ti S .. .5. -" * " ,
r- - , * u'-bf,^^1
",» -1 >., j^-li''--/
. -^ I (( ^ f \ ^i1 fr , >-J1 ?" I,? l v '-) "
^»^-l * ^ * { f J s * "~ff ~"*% ₯ H *« ^ J1 5-
-------
* -I «"
-------
205 L (54 US GAL I DRUM _
x FlNiaD GROUND LEVEL-
»- 4
PLAN
ARRANGEMENT OF INFLUENT SAMPLING
-------
ONE ELBOW AND ONE TEE CULT CAM 86
CONSTRUCTED ON SUCT1CH SIDE ALL
OTHER CHANGES OF DfltCTlOM MUST B£
3VDS
HI !900*900 CONCRer
GRir CHAMBER & PUMP STN
RELOCATED HVORANtS AOOEO ?'!!-_ 7 78
W1IH ISOOSUPPLY ^
ALULEVELS ARE N METRES
OTHER OIMENSIONS
ARE IN MILLIMETRES
UflLESS STATED OTHERWISE
TAMWORTH W/S AUGMM
INTAKE & PUMPING STATION
MON1TORINC GRIT SEPARATOR
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
8930-2
-------
i.W., AUSTRALIA
EPA GRANT NO. R806746
.M/LUtHl »*yPLC»
«MCH"W» c
5
mg/L
,
.
f
9
2
4
T
0 ZI8*
*-4 >489*«
1
BB 1937
8 4 1312
£!!***
32 IZ22
37 I9Z6
14 4436
1
i
mg/L
.US
UtAZ
769
128 Z
1433 B
913
143-7
4282
3
mg/L
I 30-4
223
74
1303-2
218
027
in e
HO $%
s
~
I
-
9
5
5
-
ccxrct
.tMMOM MltfSI
fi
-
-
-
-
Ill
-
147
223
224
140
-
229
121
3T3
,»
ISO
rao
IT4
-
192
190
170
17V
140
110
171
193
-
-
221
184
_
207
Z32
297
248
330
~
I
1
g
0 31
0 31
7 91
9 31
26 36
a 69
2265
2032
4476
436,
1 92
69-51
1626
4031
3* 44
6023
3493
1706
3 36
0 17
14 31
2*96
33 04
93 21
3O 37
31 36
15 91
4 33
1 81
SI 87
9Z 76
0 30
0 39
67 49
0 29
OZ4
Z998
12 22
6207
3231
033
6
31 3
626
396
49 1
330
78 T
21 1
6 8
2330
Z374
1 B
1 9
1 2
1 Z
** 1
9» 6
3028
Z39Z
1 7
8
I
mt/L
_
1 8
39
140
96
246
324
490
-
1836
S3 7
182 B
219 4
1900
110 1
330
2 3
19 2
304
684
310
733
930
38-2
290
7 6
-
484
600
0-3
-
0 1
0 1
1130
262
2169
46 3
03
0
mg/L
-
0 7
0 T
2 5
4 9
44
424
86 a
M8
344
20*
09 «
096
ei l
30-4
8 3
19 9
24 9
2 8
a 2
9 1
Z 9
4
2 9
800
31 B
6-7
04 9
Z3«
ttmiMKM '
5
Si
I
mg/L
43-4
260 6
93-7
3«4
71 6
147(1
3
mg/L
439
43 8
38-7
1203
Z38
2329
404
o
3
mg/L
*
117
843
32 e
270
683
63
14 2
284
RMB JL.
3
3
1
~
i
"
5
-
w
l*»0»»TO«f IMittM
I
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
149
274
236
118
-
290
273
Z3I
162
134
187
-
_
173
no
-
-
184
-
-
-
IM
,,4
_
272
-
-
233
241
_
2*2
73
T"
3
i
g
0 333
0 «J
0 34
7 71
2 49
10 39
390*
22 24
49 ia
17 IZ
017
29 96
t 27
Zf74
3ZIO
19 70
19 96
6-62
31 63
"7^"
Z 48
379
20 24
3 10
4 10
8 96
1 70
2 2a
9 33
0 21
0 ZT
6007
0-39
0»
0 36
3 IZ
803
243
2 49
0 Z2
|
3
I
g
_
-
-
0 34
0 03
1 76
4 2B
Z 63
6 16
948
006
7 93
4 81
21 44
23 31
3 92
9 90
1 48
0146
1 34
S 17
4 97
1 32
Z 12
4 II
1 93
0077
-
8 71
-
16 «
0 04
0 04
3 63
0 II
1 IZ
38 90
0 03
i
3
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0 10
-
-
_
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
~I~
-
-
-
-
_
~T~
3
4
042
0 14
0 43
1 77
1 16
3 (B
13 (6
19 ii
1 47
1 IT
0 90
0 (7
0 46
1 41
1 43
1 Z)
94
OnCtHTMT.*!
j
mg/i.
I 7
4 19
27
389
12 1
976
1907
100 9
2204
1323
3 3
144 Z
49 2
1304
138 B
9* 1
93 4
33 0
19 9
2* 7
e o
00 9
73 6
17 4
427
09
II 4
10
(3
1 4
1 «
30 «
8T9
40 1
93-8
1 1
§
S
I
mg/1
_
-
-
2 7
0 2
0 0
20 9
IZ 9
300
461
0 J
367
333
104 t
1137
289
2*0
7 4
0 7
7
223
66
10 6
200
76
44
-
_
02
oz
276
2»B
S*
771
0 1
3
mg/L
2 1
0 7
Z 2
8 6
6 4
17 8
M T
749
82
9 7
3 3
Z 4
70
83
91
16M
i
mg/
534
61-5
90
[*IN*
*
5
!
mg/L
3Z2
31 3
00
MN C
I
^
1O9
7 7
7 0
3 4
"*r/>T.r
3
-
8
i
-
j
-
CO
«.
j
-
IVlFtWt
\
1
~
~
i
- i
3
0
a
9
9
9
6
1
6
6
4
4
0 'ivfhT
,}
/J m/
9
»
n
7)1
7i
0
ol
"ol
4,
9
»
H
3
It
7J
71
71
711
71
B
;
-
crrt-ucnr s AUPLC*
S
I
L
203
203
209
203
203
203
203
209
105
Z09
203
203
1ST
203
209
209
203
203
203
203
ZOS
203
203
203
203
410
410
10
410
410
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
to
10
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
119
-
131
129
133
138
_
-
144
139
146
37
240
-
-
-
09
171
_
-
96
-
67
71
31
44
69
80
_
iteou
*
*
g
049
O 34
0 30
3 67
IZ 14
8 93
2! 99
24 98
29 6
24 27
2 41
II 93
2374
3794
1023
4 99
3 91
10 74
13 82
32 03
29 38
8 73
8 72
1 95
8 98
1 31
1 69
0 4
6 70
040
408
010
830
693
3 63
38 03
2 18
f
ow
\
g
0 14
0 S3
0 4J
1 17
,63
1 44
8 19
003
3 ii
it ei
19 Z *
4 eo
1 SO
1 621
3 31
3 S3
8 79
3 42
3 04
2 03
O 91 S
Z 04
3 02
9 31
0 07
334
3 37
Z34
33T
6 46
10 42
37
A 141 9>
1
g
3
1
g
0 23
0 24
026
038
3 03
1 II
0 30
0 33
046
0 73
000
0 08
779
400
Z 12
979
84
1 71
047
Z94
CONCCNTftt
!
mg/L
1262
333
982
^7
900
32 4
91 8
362
433
895
61 7
423
93
170
49 3
4 1
1 0
39
10
99
90
a s
1 4
4 9
8 7
0
2
mg/L
10 f
292
269
440
602
Z94
16 Z
271
429
3 1
31
40
00
45
3 0
89/4
471
02
2
7*
98 0
3 1
77
9
T4H
1
"*
1 1
Z T
28 3
244
94
1 3
1 6
2 2
3*
041
031
-
3-4
90
1
32
4 13
203
4 2
OO
6 2
S
%
a 9
793
900
1 6
4 «
a i
3 7
»Z
necueo
i
l
%
98 1
8* 3
93 3
80 1
ei 3
3 7
ftl 2
3 3
I
I
^
990
94 1
983
922
91 3
62
91 2
0 9
.
-------
G. J. SHELLEY CE FIEIAUST)
CONSULTING ENGINEER
M A.C EA. M A.C S E
205 ERNEST ST
CAMMERAY NSW 2062
AUSTRALIA
TEL National 02 929 2680
Internal <6129292880
8930/GJS/MJK
October 25, 1980
Mr. Richard Field,
Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Wastewater Research Division,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Woodbridge Av,, Building 10,
EDISON N.J. 08817 U.S.A.
Dear Rich,
Field evaluation., of a Swirl Grit Separator
Enclosed, please, find five copies of the Draft
Report on the Tamworth Grit Separator (one copy with the
original photos and four with photostatic copies).
As indicated in previous correspondence the results
are showing a satisfactory answer. The removal efficiencies
of inorganic solids,larger than 0.2 mm diameter exceed the
predicted values and also those observed at Dinver, Colo.
This result applied to both the design flowrates and the
higher flows.
You will notice that Runs 36-55 have been treated
separately from Runs 1-34. The main reason fotr this represent-
ation is that while in the first case the efficiency" rates
were derived from direct measurements, in the second case the
values shown are based on the statistical analysis of the
first set and thus reliance on them is less. They appeared
to yield, however, similar answers and we feel that their
inclusion was justified. The samples in the runs not included
in the tables and graphs had insufficient solids for detailed
laboratory analysis and, therefore, their content of the 0.2
mm diameter and larger fraction could not be determined satis-
factorily. Anyhow they are represented by very small concentr-
ations only and as such the ratios derived from them would;
have reduced significance.
I trust that the Report does include the information
you envisaged.
There are the financial matters that I have to bring
to your attention. Owing to inflation and variation of the
exchange rate between our respective currencies and also
because we spent considerably longer time on this project
we are badly out of pocket. This question had been raised in
our letter of January 15 and then of July 7. Unfortunately
it must have escaped your attention because no answer has been
-------
Q J SHELLEY
- 2 - 10.25.80
received. At the same time I have to draw your attention to
the fact that we have not received the second progress
payment as yet, and we think that we are due for at least
the third payment.
Could you, please, let me know at your earliest
convenience if there has been any reason for withholding
payment,
Best regards,
George Shelley
-------
KtbhAKUM hOUIMUAMUN
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60637
Phone: 312/947-2531
November 20, 1980
Richard Field, Chief
Storm & Combined Sewer Technical Branch
MERL - Cincinnait
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Woodbridge Avenue (Bldg. 10)
Edison, New Jersey 0881?
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
CHAIRMAN
Erwin F Hensch (retired)
Research and Evaluation Coordinator
City of Albuquerque
Albuquerque New Mexico
VICE CHAIRMAN
Harold L Michael
Department of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
West Lafayette Indiana
MEMBERS
William B Drake
Assistant State Highway Engineer
Kentucky Department of Transportation
Frankfort Kentucky
Albeit W Madora
Director of Public Works
New Castle County
Newark Delaware
James McCarty
Director of Public Works
Oakland California
James J McDonough
President
McDonough Engmeenng
Chicago Illinois
Donald E Nygaard
Director of Public Works
OluofSt Paul
St Paul Minnesota
Jimmie A Schmdewolf
Director of Public Works
Houston Texas
MelvmJ Shelley
Municipal Manager
Corporation of
District of Bumaby
Burnaby British Columbia
Charles D Smith
Deputy Director
Technology and Energy
Office of Chief of Engineers
Department of the Army
Washington DC
SECRETARY-TREASURER
Robert D Bugher
Executive Director
American Public Works Association
Chicago Illinois
GENERAL MANAGER
Richard H Sullivan
American Public Works Association
Chicago Illinois
Dear Dick:
I have reviewed Shelley's report and think that it is very good.
The only addition-I would make one change. I would include in
the cost comparison an analysis of operating cost.of the unit.
I trust the swirl will come out less than a conventional unit.
I hope that we can find a way for Mr. Shelley to come to the
United States in 1982,to participate in our proposed International
Symposium on Secondary Flow Motion Pollution Control Devices.
Yetms truly,
'Richard H. Sullivan
Director of Research
RHS:smo
cc: G. J. Shelley
I
-------
0250 SAINT PATRICK ST., LASALLE, P.Q. HSR 1R8
TELEPHONE: (514) 366-2970, 366-2464 TELEX: 05-268589 TELEGRAMME: LASYDRO-MONTREAL
r
United States Environmental Protection
Agency,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, New Jersey, 08817.
YOUR REF.
OUR REF.
136-c
L
J
LASALLE , November 11, 1980.
Attention: Mr. Richard Field,
Chief, Storm and Combined
Sewer Section
Reference: Swirl Degritter
Tamworth Field Test Report - Shelley
Dear Sir:
The field data and analysis done on this project appear to be very
good, and above all very encouraging when we see recovery rates even higher than
the predictions from the model. However, I would have written the report following
a much different outline, as set out below:
Section 4 - Description of System
The description is adequate, but Figures 63 to 66 should come first,
becoming Figures 1 to 4. References in the text should be made to the figures
which show the elements being described.
Section 5 - Sampling
A description of the overall sampling procedures should be presented
first. What are we trying to measure and compare ? Include a figure that shows
the relative locations of the sampling points referred to in Table 1. Figure 67
would become Figure 5.
Section 6 - Laboratory Analysis
O.K.
-------
Swirl Degritter
Tamworth Field Test Report - Shelley
Section 7 - Efficiency of Solids Removal
Reference should be made to the sampling procedures, and a description
of the test runs made. Describe how the samples taken and analysed were interpreted
and plotted on Figures 4 to 47 - which would become Figures 6 to 49. A description
of what the curves are on these figures should be given, with references to the
figures.
Final interpretation of the data on Figures 4 to 47 and treatment
before plotting on Figures 2 and 3 (which become Figures 50 and 51) should be
described. What relation was used to define efficiency ?
The photographs are excellent, but I feel they would benefit from
being set apart in their own grouping, before the figures.
My suggestions on the report constitute virtually a complete re-write,
however, it seems that it is necessary if you wish to maintain a presentation
similar to that which your committee required during our testing period.
Yours very truly,
Fred E. Parkinson, Eng.
FEP/cl Vice President
-------
G. J. SHELLEY
CONSULTING ENGINEER
MACEA MACSE
8930/GJS/MJK
CE FIE (AUST)
205 ERNEST ST
CAMMERAY NSW 2062
AUSTRALIA
TEL National 02 929 2880
internal *6129292880
5th November 1980
Mr. Richard Field,
Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Wastewater Research Division,
Mimicipal Environmental Research Laboratory
ffoodbridge Av,, Building lo,
Edison, N.Y. 0881?
Dear Mr. Field,
A3 I mentioned over the telephone, I should
like to apply for an increase in the Grant R 806746 for the
following reasons :
1, The original application for the Grant was complet-
ed in August, 1978. Since that time there has been an
inflation of an average of 10.8$ per annum reducing the
value of the Grant by about 24$ over 27 months.
2. The exchange rate of the US dollar into. Australian
dollar moved from $A = $US 1.15 to $A = $US 1,1818 (current
buying rate) leaving me about 3 points worse off.
3* The field work took twice as much time as expected
due to the drought conditions. The additional field work
showed up in the form of salaries and of out-of-pocket
expenses (transport, accommodation).
4. The office work was also increased due to the
additional field work. A great amount of time had to be
spent on calculations in establishing the correlation
between the sample concentration and the average concentr-
ation of solids in the influent conduit thus allowing the
calculation of the removal efficiency. This difficulty
showed up as additional expenses in salaries.
SUMMARY
Cause
Inflation : current value of the
originally estimated $A 15.600 ....... §A-19 344.00
Appreciation of the Australian dollar
since 1978 on &A 15.600
3-
4.
Additional field work
Additional office work
or at the current buying rate of currency
= 1,1818
496.00
3 125.00
5 360.00
28,325-00
33.475.00
-------
Q J SHELLEY
- 2 - 11.5.80
This amount of $US 33.^75 is to be compared with the
original estimated amount of §US 17,9^0 showing an over-
spending of fUS 15,535-
Actually we have been able to secure an
additional about $TJS 3,000 from local sources in the form
of salaries of N.S.W. Public Works Department employees,
assisting in the field and laboratory work
Even in the ideal situation if, following the
spirit of the Grant, the funding was divided in the pro-
portion of 38 to 62 into local and Federal US funding and
the Grant was increased from $TJS 11,212 to a total of
§TJS 20,750 or by $US 9,538 we still should suffer a loss
of about $US 3,000.
Is there any possibility of increasing the
Grant ?
Best regards,
George J. Shelley
-------
- MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
STORM AND COMBINED SEWER SECTIOfi
Edison, New Jersey 08817
November 7, 1980
Mr. George Shelley
Consulting Engineer
205 Ernest Street
Caitmeray, 2062
Australia
Re: Grant No. 806706 V . .
Dear George: _ '""'"'
I have received and reviewed the grant final draft report and
offer my comments. Basically, the report is well written and concise
enough to be easily read and understood. You are to be complirnented
for the effort. I was very happy to learn how well the swirl degrltter
worked for you. This is the type of prototype demonstration we need
to verify our hydraulic development,
I have noted comments throughout a draft copy of the report in
pen-and-ink. I am enclosing this copy to assist you in the rev/rite.
Howeverft I would like to reiterate some of piy comments. Please wake
sure to include the proper front end material, i.e. forward and
disclaimer. I v/ould also like for you to incorporate some discussion
about the test results and removal efficiencies including some values,
along with comparisons to the LaSalle Hydraulic Laboratory and Denver
studies. It Is important to cross-reference all the figures and tables
that appear in the rear of the report to the basic report text.
As you requested, I am enclosing typing guide sheets for the final
draft, I am also enclosing a Technical Report Data form which is
supposed to be the last page of the report for you to complete. You
may refer to some of our Program's previous reports for guidance on
how to fill out this fom.
Vie have a new program reporting requirement to prepare Project
Sumsnaries for major extramural distribution for all project reports.
Accordingly, I am requesting that you prepare a 4-16 page summary
document. An example of a Project Summary is enclosed, but its
usefulness as a guide is questionable, since it appears to have been
constructed from bits and pieces of several unrelated reports. My
recommendation is that a format be chosen which would allow a first-
time reader to get the gist of the problem, approach conclusions,
and recommendations. Alsos include references, since they can be
taken out later, if necessary.
' tr
-------
- 2 -
I have talked to Hugh Masters about your request for payment
based on the second progress report. Hugh has called Washington to
try to stimulate activity on their part. He will let you know about
this as soon as he finds out what transpired.
As you probably know by now, I have sent copies of your draft
report to Dick Sullivan and Fred Parkinson for their review and coin-
ment. In order to expedite matters, I have requested an early response
from thera. As soon as they submit their comments to me and I review
them, I will forward them to you for the finalization of the report.
In order for us to conform close enough to the project deadline
for report submission., I am requesting that the final report come
back to this office no later than December 15, 1980, If for any
-reason you do not receive Dick's and/or Fred's comments in time to
meet this deadline, I am asking you to go ahead without then.
I realize that sons of the comments I have made may not be
readily understood by you. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call or write. ' I am anxiously awaiting the com- .
pletion of what looks like an excellent document.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Field
Chief
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
Enclosures a/s
cc: H. Masters *-"
R. Sullivan
F. Parkinson
WRD:SCSS:RField:jez:Bldg.lO:x6674:ll/7/80
-------
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
STORM AND COMBINED SEWER SECTION
Edison, New Jersey 08817
November 6, 1980
Mr. Fred E. Parkinson
LaSalle Hydraulic Laboratory Ltd.
0250 SkPatriek Street
LaSalle, Quebec, Canada HSR 1R8
Dear Mr. Parkinson:
We recently received the enclosed final draft report and letter for our
swirl degritter project in Australia which I am sure you are familar with, I
would deeply appreciate your technical reviews and comments. I know you are
busy but also that you have a great interest in this device and project; therefore,
I hope that you find some time to perform the review.
Since project completion is overdue, it would be nice to have your review
returned by November 26, 1380. I wish to thank you in advance for your
consideration and efforts and if you should have any questions, please do not
hestiate to call me or Hugh Masters in Edison, New Jersey at (201) 321-8674 or
(201) 321-S678, respectively.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Field
Chief
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
Enclosures a/s
cc: G. Shelley S
H. Masters \S
WRD:SCSS:RField:des:Bldg.lG:X6674:ll/5/80
-------
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
STORM AND COMBINED SEWER SECTION
Edison, Hew Jersey 08817
November 6, 1980
Mr. Richard H. Sullivan
General Manager
American Public Works Association
Research Foundation
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, Illinois 61837
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
.:-_. We recently received the enclosed draft final report and letter for our
swirl degritter project in Australia which I am sure you are familar with. I
would deeply appreciate your technical reviews and comments. I know you are
very busy but also that you have a great interest in this device and project;
therefore, I hope that you can find some time to perform the review.
Since project completion is overdue, it would be nice to have your review
returned by November 26, 1980. I wish to thank you in advance for your
consideration and efforts and if you should have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call me or Hugh Masters in Edison, New Jersey at (201) 321-6674 or
(201) 321-6678, respectively.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Field
Chief
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
«.
Enclosures a/s
cc: G. Shelley
H. Masters
WRD:SCSS:RField:des:Bldg.lO:X6674:ll/5/80
------- |