Introduction

Water stabilization ponds (WSPs) also known as water stabilization lagoons are manmade
depression like structures, built for wastewater treatment to reduce organic content and
pathogens from wastewater. Wastewater enters the pond as ‘influent’ and is retained for days
up to 30 and exit the pond as ‘effluent’. During the retention wastewater is subjected to
treatment by natural processes involving, sunlight, nutrients, atmospheric oxygen, bacterial
action, nutrients and algae. The organic matter in the water is broken down by aerobic bacteria.
The most common types of WSPs are anaerobic ponds, facultative ponds and aerobic ponds
(maturation, polishing ponds, aerated ponds and high-rate algal ponds (HRAPs)) as shown in
fig 1 below. The primary function of anaerobic and facultative is to remove and stabilize
organic matter. However some pathogens may be removed here. Maturation and polishing
ponds are essentially designed to remove inactive pathogens (Verbyla , Sperling, & Maiga,
2017)
For the most effective treatment the ponds should be linked such that effluent is passed on from
anaerobic to facultative and then later aerobic pond. The anaerobic pond is the deepest of the
three ponds and the primary stage in treatment, it helps reduce the organic load in the
wastewater. Sedimentation and subsequent anaerobic digestion are processes that occur at this
stage to help remove the solids and BOD accumulated sludge. The anaerobic bacteria converts
the organic carbon into methane and through this 60% of BOD is removed. The effluent from
anaerobic pond is then passed on to a facultative pond, where further BOD is removed. The
top layer of the pond receives oxygen from natural diffusion, wind interaction and algae
photosynthesising while the lower level is deprived of oxygen and becomes anaerobic. The
solids then accumulate at the bottom of the pond and are digested. The aerobic and anaerobic
organisms work together to achieve up to 75% of BOD reduction. (EAWAG & Spuhler, 2019)
The anaerobic pond is the last stage in treatment of effluent from the facultative pond hence it
is referred to as a maturation, polishing and finishing pond. It is the shallowest of the series of
ponds to ensure full penetration of the sun to make sure photosynthesis occur. Photosynthesis
algae releases oxygen into water and at the same time consume carbon dioxide produced by
the respiration of bacteria. Dissolved oxygen levels are the highest during the day and drop off
at night. Dissolved oxygen is also provided by natural winds. (EAWAG & Spuhler, 2019)
Fig 1- Typical scheme of a waste stabilisation system: An anaerobic, facultative and
maturation pond in series. Source: TILLEY et al. (2014)
Background

Wastewater stabilization ponds have been used worldwide due to its simplicity in design and
construction, relatively low cost of operation and maintenance, reliable and sustainable
technology. Many modern industrialized countries have however realized high levels of
wastewater treatment technologies most of which are automated and mechanized and too
expensive for developing countries. Since developing countries make up 2/3 of the world’s
population technologies that are cheap and affordable to them are needed. Many treatment
technologies are being developed but the choice of the most fitting is based on consideration
of economic, political, social factors. That is to say the applicable technology should have
favourable: capital cost, sustainability, effective in meeting the discharge standards and its
environmentally friendly. (Phuntsho, Shon, Vigneswaran , & Kand)
In Botswana the quantities of wastewater generated every day is increasing due to the country’s
outlay and intention to improve water supply into homes. This has put a lot of pressure on the
demand for skilled personnel and technology that can help treat the wastewater to meet desired
national standards. This has led to wastewater treatment facilities being constructed in the
country. The treatment systems in the country are mostly waste stabilisation ponds. Palapye
WSP system was commissioned in 1997 for treating sewage from domestic and industrial
wastewater. Treated effluent is discharged into the catchment area of tributaries that drain into
Lotsane River which is dammed downstream. (Gopolang & Letshwenyo, 2018)
The National Masterplan for Wastewater and Sanitation had identified about 64 wastewater
treatment works in Botswana with an adding capacity of 90 974 m3 /day related with a daily
flow of 61 045 m3 . Forty five (74%) of these Wastewater treatment works use ponds type
systems. The remaining nineteen (30) consist of 3 Activated Sludge (AS), 1 Trickling Filter
(TF), 4 Rotating Biological Contractors (RBC) and 11 wetland systems (mostly on-site). The
rate of evaporation and production losses differ with each treatment type. For instance,
Activated Sludge and Trickling filter systems lose about 5%, compared to about 60% that is
lost in the open ponds system as a result of evaporation. Most of the wastewater produced come
from urban areas like Gaborone, Lobatse, Jwaneng, Francistown and Selibe-Phikwe etc. which
account for about 80% of the inflow at treatment plants. In 2002, the inflow into and outflow
from treatment works were projected to be around 24.5 Mm3 and 12.3 Mm3 respectively.
According to the author only about 20% of the outflow is presently applied for beneficial re-
use, mostly for irrigation of golf courses and agricultural applications. There has been plans
put forward to try and re use wastewater for irrigation in Gaborone and Francistown. (Arntzen,
Molosiwa, & Kaisara, 2006)

Study area
Palapye is situated almost halfway between Francistown and Gaborone in Central District at
elevation 919 m in Botswana. Its geographic location is latitude −22˚33'00'' and longitude
27˚08'00''. The 2011 housing and population census was 36, 211. The Palapye wastewater
treatment system is comprised of 1 anaerobic pond, 3 facultative ponds and 6 maturation ponds
(Figure 2). The system treats inflow averaging 4507 ± 214 m3/day and the pond are laid in
series. The system was commissioned in 199 for population equivalent of 34740. The average
annual daily temperature for the area during the period 2015 to 2018 was 29.25˚C ± 3.7˚C and
average annual night temperature was 12.58˚C ± 4.5˚C. The minimum and maximum annual
daily temperatures were 23˚C and 34˚C respectively. The minimum and maximum annual night
temperatures were 6˚C and 17˚C respectively. The wind speed blowing from Easterly to
Westerly direction is 6 km/hour. (Gopolang & Letshwenyo, 2018)

Fig 2 – Wastewater ponds (Gopolang & Letshwenyo, 2018)

Design Population calculations

Population as obtained from (ref) are shown on table 1 below

Table 1: Population of Palapye from 2011-2050

YEAR POPULATION
1981 9590
1991 17330
2001 26290
2011 37260

The geometric mean method was used assuming that:

 The rate increase is proportional to population i.e. constant percentage growth
 Palapye is a new industrial village at the beginning of development

Geometric mean equation:

 𝑙𝑛𝑃2 − 𝑙𝑛𝑃1 = 𝑘(𝑡2 − 𝑡1 )
𝑙𝑛𝑃2 − 𝑙𝑛𝑃1
𝑘=
𝑡2 − 𝑡1
𝑙𝑛17330 − 𝑙𝑛9590
𝑘1 = = 0.059
10
𝑙𝑛26290 − 𝑙𝑛17330
𝑘2 = = 0.042
10
𝑙𝑛37260 − 𝑙𝑛26290
𝑘3 = = 0.035
10
𝑘1 + 𝑘2 + 𝑘3
𝑘𝑎𝑣 =
3

0.059 + 0.042 + 0.035

𝑘𝑎𝑣 = = 0.045
3

𝑙𝑛𝑃2 − 𝑙𝑛𝑃1 = 𝑘(𝑡2 − 𝑡1 )

𝑙𝑛𝑃2 = 𝑘(𝑡2 − 𝑡1 ) + 𝑙𝑛𝑃1

𝑃2 = 𝑒 𝑘(𝑡2 −𝑡1 )+𝑙𝑛𝑃1

𝑃2 = 𝑒 0.045(2050−2011)+ln 37260 = 215 491

Design population is 215 491 people.
Waste water production calculations for design flow
Typical values of average consumption were used to calculate total average consumption. The
wastewater supply is calculated based on the water consumption of each category and effluent
generation fraction (EGF). (ref)
Table 2: Wastewater Generation
Use of water Average consumption EGF Waste water supply
(L/day/capita) (L/day/capita)
Commercial and industrial 135 0.55 74.25
Public places and fire demand 45 0.65 29.25
Domestic 160 0.8 128
Losses 62 0 0
Total 402 231.5

𝑙
231
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.5 ∗ ∗ 215 491 = 𝟕𝟒 𝟔𝟔𝟕 𝟔𝟑𝟐 𝒍/𝒅𝒂𝒚
𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎
Maximum design flow is 74 667 632 l/day
DESIGN OF SCREENS
Screening
A screen is a device with openings for removing bigger suspended or floating matter in
sewage which would otherwise damage equipment or interfere with satisfactory operation of
treatment units.
The chosen screen to be designed in this case is a coarse screen.
Coarse Screens: Coarse screens also called racks, are usually bar screens which are
composed of vertical or inclined bars spaced at equal intervals across a channel through
which sewage flows. Bar screens with relatively large openings of 75 to 150 mm are provided
ahead of pumps, while those ahead of sedimentation tanks have smaller openings of 50 mm.
(Siddharth)
Bar screens are usually hand cleaned and sometimes provided with mechanical devices.
These cleaning devices are rakes which periodically sweep the entire screen removing the
solids for further processing or disposal. Mechanical cleaned racks are generally erected
almost vertically, however the angle with the horizontal can be in the range 45 to 85º (IIT).
Such bar screens have openings 25% in excess of the cross section of the sewage channel.
(Slide Share, 2013)
The maximum allowable head loss for a rack is about 0.60 to 0.70m. Racks should be
cleaned when head loss is more than the allowable values.
DESIGN OF COARSE SCREEN
The following parameters are important design considerations in the installation
of coarse screens:
• Location-installed ahead of grit chambers to prevent fouling of grit chamber
equipment.
• Approach velocity-should be at least 0.4 m/s to minimise deposition of solids.
Velocity through screens should be less than 0.9 m/s at peak flow rates
• The suggested maximum velocity through the screen is 0.3 m/sec at average flow for
hand cleaned bar screens and 0.75 m/sec at the normal maximum flow for
mechanically cleaned bar screen. (Rao, 2007)
• Clear spacing between the bars may be in the range of 15 mm to 75 mm in case of
mechanically cleaned bar screen.
• The width of bars facing the flow may vary from 5 mm to 15 mm, and the depth may
vary from 25 mm to 75 mm

The velocity of flow through the bar screen openings can be calculated
from the number of bars in the channel width and the depth of the water
level. The approximate number of bars is as follows:
 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ – 𝑏𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑁𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 = ( )
𝑏𝑎𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ + 𝑏𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒

Number of bar spaces = (Nbars + 1)

Area of screen openings = (number of bar spaces) × (bar spacing) × (water depth) m2

Head loss through racks as described by Kirschmer (1926):

4
𝑤 3 𝑣²
H= 𝛽 (𝑏) ∗ (2𝑔)𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃

H = head loss, m
w = maximum width of the bar facing the flow, m
b = minimum clear spacing of bars, m
v = velocity of flow approaching the rack, m/s
g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 m/s2
θ = angle of the rack to the horizontal
B = bar shape factor:
Table 3: Shape Factor Values of Screens

(Letshwenyo, 2019)
Note: Head losses due to installation of screens must be controlled so that back water will
not cause the entrant sewer to operate under pressure. (IIT)
• Disposal of screenings- Screening can be discharged to grinders or disintegrator pumps,
where they are ground and returned to the wastewater. Screenings can be disposed off along
with municipal solid waste on sanitary landfill. In large sewage treatment plant, screenings
can be incinerated. For small wastewater treatment plant, screenings may be disposed off by
burial on the plant site. (IIT)
Coarse (Bar) Screen Design
Maximum design flow= 74 667 632 l/day
Assumptions
 Mechanical cleaning bar screen and angle of inclination of bars with horizontal as 45º.
 Velocity of normal maximum flow for mechanically cleaned bar screen as 0.75 m/s.
 Upstream depth of 0.9 m.
 A clear spacing between bars of 30 mm
 Circular bars with 10 mm width, 50 mm thickness
 Design for sharp edged rectangular bar, β = 2.42

74 667 632 l⁄𝑑 = 0.864 𝑚3 /𝑠

This channel is designed to avoid deposition of grit and other materials going into it. At least
two bar racks, each designed to carry peak flow will be provided.
Therefore:
0.864
𝑄= = 0.432 𝑚3 /𝑠
2
𝑄 0.432
𝐶𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝐴 = = = 0.576 𝑚2
𝑣 0.75
𝐴 0.576
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤 = = = 0.64 𝑚
𝑑 0.9
𝑤 0.64
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = = = 21 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠
𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 0.03
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 = 𝑛𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 − 1
= 21 − 1
= 20 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠
Therefore use 20 bars
𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑊 = 𝑤 + 𝑤𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 = 0.64 + (0.01 × 20) = 0.84 𝑚
Height of the rack
𝑥 0.9
=
sin 90 sin 45
0.9 sin 90
𝑥= = 1.273 𝑚
sin 45
Allowing freeboard of at least 0.6 m, height of rack:
ℎ = 1.273 + 0.6 = 1.873 𝑚
Use 1.9 m
𝑤 0.64
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝐸𝐶 = = = 0.76
𝑊 0.84

Head loss
𝑤 4⁄ 𝑣 2
𝐻 = 𝛽( ) 3 sin 𝜃
𝑏 2𝑔
0.01 4⁄ 0.92
𝐻 = 2.42( ) 3 sin 45 = 0.016 𝑚
0.03 2 × 9.81
The maximum allowable head loss for a rack is about 0.60 to 0.70 m so head loss is within
range. Rack should be cleaned if head loss exceeds these values.
For half clogged screen, the head loss can be worked out using opening width as half.
30
Thus,𝑏 = ( 2 ) = 15 𝑚𝑚 meaning:
0.01 4⁄ 0.92
𝐻 = 2.42( ) 3 sin 45 = 0.041 𝑚
0.015 2 × 9.81
41.143 mm < 150 mm
However, provide 150 mm drop of after screen. If this head loss is very excessive, this can be
reduced by providing bars with rounded edges at upstream, or by reducing width of bars to 6
to 8 mm, or by slight reduction in velocity. Except for the change in shape of bars in other cases
the channel dimensions will change. (IIT)
Note: For mechanically cleaned screen, the head loss is specified by the manufacturer, and it
can be between 150 to 600 mm.

GRIT CHAMBER DESIGN

Grit chambers are defined as sedimentation tanks that are placed after screens and before
primary clarifiers. Grit chambers are basin to remove the inorganic particles to prevent
damage to the pumps, and to prevent their accumulation in sludge digesters. Their purpose is
to remove materials that may form heavy deposits in pipelines, protect pumps and other
mechanical equipment from abrasion, reduce the frequency of digester cleaning caused by
grit accumulation, and separate heavier inert solids from lighter biodegradable organic solids
that are sent to secondary biological treatment. Grit is defined as sand, gravel, or other
mineral material that has a nominal diameter of 0.15–0.20 mm or larger (Droste, 1997). There
are mainly three types of grit chambers namely horizontal flow, aerated and vortex grit
chamber. (Taylor & Francis Group, 2013)
There are two ways of cleaning grit chambers which are mechanically cleaned and manually
cleaned. In mechanically cleaned grit chamber, scraper blades collect the grit settled on the
floor of the grit chamber. The grit so collected is elevated to the ground level by several
mechanisms such as bucket elevators, jet pump and air lift. The grit washing mechanisms are
also of several designs most of which are agitation devices using either water or air to
produce washing action. Manually cleaned grit chambers should be cleaned at least once a
week. The simplest method of cleaning is by means of shovel.
Designing an aerated grit chamber for a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Maximum
Design Flow is 74649.6 m3/d.
Determine tank dimensions.
Aerated grit chamber is designed for peak flow rates. Use two chambers in parallel for each
unit by using peak factor of 2.5
Peak flow rate = 74649.6 × 2.5 = 186624 m3/d.
Flow in each tank at peak flow, Q = 186624 / 2 = 93312 m3/d
Assume detention time at peak flow, t = 4 min (generally ranges from 3 to 5 min)
Volume of each tank = Q·t = (93312 m3/d) × (4 min) / (1440 min/d) = 259.2 m3
Size of rectangular channel
Assume width to depth ratio = 1:1 (typically ranges from 1.5:1 to 2.0:1)
Select depth = 4 m Therefore, width = 4m
Length =Volume /Area = 259.2/ (4 × 4) = 16.2 m ≈ 16 m
Therefore tank dimensions are L×w×d= 16 m × 4 m × 4 m
Determine total air required.
Assume air is supplied at 0.35 m3/min per m of length.
Air required = (0.35 m3/min per m) × 16 m = 5.6 m3/min for each tank
Total air required for 2 tanks = 5.6 × 2 = 11.2 m3/min
Calculate volume of grit.
Assume grit collected is 0.10 m3/1000 m3 at peak flow
Volume of grit = (0.10 m3/1000 m3) × 93312 m3/d = 9.3312 m3/d in each tank
Total grit volume = 9.3312 × 2 = 18.6624 m3/d
Figure 1: Vortex grit chamber shown before mechanical screen and after Screw grit
clarifier

Figure 2: shows a horizontal flow grit chamber

Anaerobic ponds
Anaerobic ponds are used for bulk solids removal. The design is done on the basis of
volumetric BOD loading and temperature, i.e.
𝑳𝒊 𝑸
𝝀𝑽 =
𝑽𝒂
Where: λV = BOD loading rate (gBOD/m3-d)
Li = influent BOD (g/m3)
Q = design flow (m3/d)
Va = pond volume
Table 4: Typical Design Parameters for Anaerobic ponds
Temperature (oC) Loading rate (gBOD/m3-d) BOD removal (%)

<10 100 40

10-20 20T – 100 2T + 20

20-25 10T + 100 2T + 20

>25 350 70

Where T is the temperature in oC

Anaerobic ponds should be desludged when the sludge accumulated reaches 30% of the total
pond volume. This can be measured periodically within the pond, or estimated as follows:
1.7 𝐹𝑋𝑉𝑆𝑆,0 + 4.5 𝐹𝑋𝐹𝑆𝑆,0 + 𝐹𝐶𝐵𝑂𝐷,0
𝑉𝐴𝑆 = 𝐾𝐴𝑆 [ ]
1000
Where: VAS = Volume of accumulated sludge (m3/d)
KAS = accumulation coefficient
FXVSS,0 = inflow of VSS (kg/d)
FXFSS,0 = inflow of FSS (kg/d)
FCBOD,0 = inflow of BOD (kg/d)
And, 𝐾𝐴𝑆 = 0.00898 𝑇 2 − 0.9442𝑇 + 12.967

INFORMATION REQUIRED
 1. How much effluent is to be treated in 2050 in Palapye. This is a forecasted flow of
74 667.6m3.
2. BOD and TSS levels of influent. According to Gopolang & Letshwenyo (2018), the
influent BOD for the Palapye wastewater treatment plant is 205 ± 78 mg/l,
therefore use highest value of 283mg/l. the influent TSS is 294 ± 57mg/l, hence
use 351mg/l
3. Temperature at location. For design purposes use mean temperature in the coldest
month, of which for Palapye this is in July where mean temperature is 13°C.
4. Recommended L:W ratio = 3
5. Recommended depth,d = 2.5-6m
6. Design for 2 ponds, Hence flow in 1 tank = Q/2 = 74 667.6/2 = 37 333.8m3
7. Assume VSS = 75% TSS

At a temperature of 13°C, the loading rate is

𝜆𝑉 = 20T – 100 = (20*13) – 100
𝜆𝑉 = 160gBOD/m3.d
Expected BOD removal = 2T + 20 = (2*13) + 20 = 46%
Hence volume of pond is
𝐿𝑖 𝑄
𝑉𝑎 =
𝜆𝑉
283 ∗ 37333.8
𝑉𝑎 =
160
= 66 034m3
Assume a depth of 5m
𝑉𝑎
𝐴 =
𝑑
66 034
𝐴=
5
A = 13 206.8m2
L:W ratio = 3
𝐴 = 3𝑊 2

𝐴
𝑊= √
3

13206.8
𝑊= √
3

𝐖 = 𝟔𝟔. 𝟑𝟓 𝐦
 L = 3W = 66.35 *3 = 199.05m
Adopt the following sizes
D = 5m
W = 66.5m
L = 200m
DESLUDGING INTERVAL
𝐾𝐴𝑆 = 0.00898 𝑇 2 − 0.9442𝑇 + 12.967
@ T = 13oC, therefore
𝐾𝐴𝑆 = 0.00898 (13)2 − (0.9442 ∗ 13) + 12.967 = 2.21
Total suspended solids, TSS = 351 mg/L
Assume 75% of TSS are volatile, therefore
Volatile suspended solids, VSS = 75 % TSS = 0.75 * 351 = 263.25mg/l
263.5 mg/l = 0.2635 kg/m3; 0.2635 kg/m3 * 37333.8 m3/day = 9 837.5 kg/day
Fixed suspended solids, FSS = TSS - VSS = 351 – 263.25 = 87.75 mg/l
87.75 mg/l = 0.08775 kg/m3; 0.08775 kg/m3 * 800 m3/day = 3276 kg/day

KAS = 2.21; FXVSS,0 = 9837.5 kg/d; FXFSS,0 = 3276 kg/d

FCBOD,0 = 0.283 * 800 = 10565.5 kg/d
(1.7 ∗ 9837.5) + (4.5 ∗ 3276) + 10565.5
𝑉𝐴𝑆 = 2.21 [ ]
1000

𝑽𝑨𝑺 = 𝟗𝟐. 𝟗𝒎𝟑 /𝒅

Anaerobic ponds should be desludged when the sludge accumulated reaches 30% of the total
pond volume.
Desludge volume = Pond volume * 0.3
= 66 034 * 0.3 = 19 810.2 m3
𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑙 =
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒
19810.2𝑚3
Desludge interval = = 𝟐𝟏𝟑 𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒔
92.9 𝑚3 /𝑑
End statement
There will be 2 anaerobic ponds of length =200m, width =66.35m and depth = 5m. These
ponds will have to be desludged every 213 days, which is roughly every 7 and a half months.
It is advisable to consider covering the pond to avoid odour problems and environmental
impacts such as wind and rain. A benefit that can come from covering the pond is it allows
biogas to be harvested therefore if funds allow, a covered anaerobic pond would be the better
option instead of leaving it open.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The designed considerations and parameters for the sewage treatment plant are given below:
 The design period should be in between 25 to 30 years.
 Estimated population by the year 2050 is 215 491 numbers
A. Screens: generally, the standard parameters of screens are width should be in between
6mm to 20mm, depth should be in between 30mm to 80mm, dia of bars should be in between
6mm to 12mm and the spacing between the bars should be in between 6mm to 40mm. After
designing the screens obtained values are thickness of bars is 50mm, width of bars is 10mm,
and spacing of bars is 30mm.
B. Grit Chamber: generally the standard parameters of grit chamber are length should be in
between 7.5m to 20m, width should be in between 1m to 7m, depth should be in between 1m
to 5m. After designing the grit chamber obtained values are length is 16m, width is 4, and
depth is 4m.
The accuracy of the assumptions made depends of whether the design parameter values
attained from the design of the wastewater system fall within the allowable range. In this case
the assumptions made were correct since the results produced were in the allowable range.
Table 5 below summarises the design parameters.
Design Parameter Designed Values
Dimensions of Screens Width = 10 mm
Thickness = 50 mm
Bar Spacing =30 mm
Grit Chamber Type: Manually cleaned
Length= 16m
Width=4m
Depth=4m
Anaerobic Ponds Length = 199m
Width = 67m

References
Arntzen, J., Molosiwa, K., & Kaisara, T. (2006, May). Retrieved from https://www.car.org.bw/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Botswana-wastewater-accounts.pdf

EAWAG, & Spuhler, D. (2019, June 03). Retrieved from SSWM: https://sswm.info/factsheet/waste-
stabilisation-ponds
Gopolang, O., & Letshwenyo, M. (2018, November). Scientific Research. Retrieved from scirp.org:
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=88658

IIT, N. (n.d.). NPTEL IIT Kharagpur Web Courses. Retrieved July 2019, 07, from
https://nptel.ac.in/courses/105105048/M14L18.pdf

Letshwenyo, M. W. (2019). LECTURE 6 Wastewater operational units design. Palapye: Hewlet-

Packard Company.

Phuntsho, S., Shon, H., Vigneswaran , S., & Kand, J. (n.d.). UNESCO-EOLSS. Retrieved from eolss.net:
http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c07/e6-144-12.pdf

Rao, M. N. (2007). Waste Water Treatment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co
Pvt.Ltd.

Siddharth, Y. (n.d.). Design of Waste Water Treatment System. Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan
University.

Slide Share. (2013). Retrieved July 09, 2019, from https://www.slideshare.net/jshrikant/l-11-screen-

chamber

Taylor & Francis Group. (2013). Fundamentals of wastewater Treatment and Engineering. RUMANA
RIFFAT.

Verbyla , M., Sperling, M. v., & Maiga, Y. (2017, March 13). Global Water Pathogen Project. Retrieved
from https://www.waterpathogens.org/book/waste-stabilization-ponds