Fluids and Solids Handling

The G-Value for

Agitator Design:
Time to Retire It?
This commonly used number does not correctly
Gregory T. Benz, P.E.
address the influence of viscosity, and has no
Benz Technology relationship to performance parameters such
International, Inc. as fluid velocity and blend time. This article
recommends actual measures of agitator
performance that should be used instead.

C
amp’s G-value, or simply “G-value,” has been used
as the standard way for specifying agitation systems
in the water and wastewater treatment industry for
many years. Engineers within the industry have instinctively
known that the concept was inadequate or even wrong, but
have been reluctant to challenge it because of its long tradi-
tion of use. Instead, they have attempted to “make it work”
by supplementing the G-value with such requirements as
minimum impeller diameter, maximum tip speed, and so on.
Perhaps it is time to highlight the deficiencies of the G-
value concept. Several others have gone on record pointing
out the problems of G-value. For example:
• “It is generally recognized that the velocity gradient or
G-value concept is a gross, simplistic and totally inadequate
parameter for design of rapid mixers” (1).
• “Camp’s ‘G’ value is not intended for design or com-
parison of different impeller types, and has not been shown
to accurately correlate mixing effectiveness for different
mixing processes” (2).
This article looks at what the G-value is and why it does
not correctly address agitation design issues. It then gives
examples of design procedures that are relevant to the water
and wastewater treatment industry.
What is the G-value?
The G-value, as defined by Camp and Stein in 1943 (3),
is intended to represent the root mean square (rms) velocity
gradient in a basin. Why this should be a relevant measure
of mixing performance, rather than such things as mean
velocity, blend time or other more direct measures, has
never been adequately explained. Additionally, it is ques-
tionable whether the G-value even measures the true rms
velocity gradient.
The defining equation for the G-value is:
G = (P/µV)0.5 (1)
Its units are normally chosen so that G is expressed as s–1.
This equation implies that the required agitator power is
directly proportional to the viscosity and liquid volume.
In order to see why it is wrong to use the G-value to
describe agitation, it is first necessary to briefly review some
common agitator performance calculations.
Calculating agitator performance
A discussion of design procedures for the wide variety of
agitation problems is beyond the scope of this article. How-
ever, as a first step, most water and wastewater applications
can be classified as flow-velocity-controlled or blend-time-
controlled. Furthermore, virtually all are turbulent-flow
applications, due to the low viscosity of water. Thus, it is
possible to describe simplified, yet accurate, procedures for
these types of situations.
Viscosity has an effect on agitation, but not in a linear
fashion. Instead, all attributes of agitation are functions of
the impeller Reynolds number (4):

CEP March 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 43

Fluids and Solids Handling

Table 1. Generic impeller characteristics (turbulent).

Nomenclature
A = tank cross sectional area, m2 Radial Pitched Hydrofoil
B = blend time exponent on D/T, dimensionless (4-blade) (4-blade) (3-blade)
D = impeller diameter, m D/T NP NQ NP NQ NP NQ
G = root mean square velocity gradient, s–1 0.25 3 0.7 1.37 0.88 0.33 0.57
K = blend time coefficient, dimensionless 0.30 3 0.7 1.37 0.80 0.32 0.55
N = shaft speed, s–1 or rpm 0.35 3 0.7 1.37 0.74 0.31 0.54
NP = power number, P/ρN3D5, dimensionless 0.40 3 0.7 1.37 0.68 0.29 0.53
NQ = pumping number, Q/ND3, dimensionless 0.45 3 0.7 1.37 0.64 0.28 0.52
NRe = impeller Reynolds number, D2Nρ/µ, dimensionless 0.50 3 0.7 1.37 0.60 0.27 0.51
P = power, W or kg-m2/s3
Q = impeller pumping rate, m3/s
T = cylindrical tank diameter, m To express the actual basin geometry on a square-batch
V = liquid volume, m3 basis, T in Eq. 5 is defined based on a square batch having
VC = characteristic velocity, m/s the same volume as the actual basin (4):
Z = liquid level, m
Greek Letters T = (4V/π)1/3 (6)
θB = blend time, s (or min)
µ = viscosity, kg/m-s (or cP)
ρ = fluid density, kg/m3 The impeller pumping rate can be derived from the
pumping number (4):

NRe = D 2Nρ/µ (2) Q = NQND 3 (7)

In fully developed turbulent conditions (where the Thus:

Reynolds number is above 10,000), all common measures of
agitation performance become constant as a function of the VC = 4NQND 3/πT 2 (8)
Reynolds number. This means that viscosity has no effect
when it is low enough to result in turbulent flow, which is Note that the impeller pumping number, NQ, is a function
nearly always the case in water. of impeller type and the D/T ratio. Many agitator manufac-
For example, the impeller pumping number, NQ, and turers are reluctant to disclose these figures, and when they
the impeller power number, Np, are constant under turbu- do, the figures may not always be reliable. Table 1, there-
lent conditions: fore, gives some general guidance for generic impellers, as
well as generic power numbers. Keep in mind that there are
NQ = Q/ND 3 (3) many combinations of impeller type and size that will give
equal pumping, and that power and shaft speed will be dif-
NP = P/ρN 3D 5 (4) ferent for these various combinations.
Power is calculated from the definition of the power
For fluid-motion-control applications, such as holding number (4):
tanks, equalization basins, reagent make-up tanks, etc.,
where the retention time is long enough that the suspension P = NPρN 3D 5 (9)
of trace solids and the ability to blend reagents of higher or
lower density or viscosity than water are limiting, rather than The calculations are straightforward once the desired
blend time, one measure of agitation intensity is the charac- characteristic velocity is known. Table 2 compares typical
teristic velocity, VC. This parameter is calculated on the basis values for various applications common to water and waste-
of a cylindrical vessel of “square-batch” geometry, where the water treatment plants.
liquid level is the same as the tank diameter (Z = T), regard-
less of the actual geometry. The impeller pumping and Table 2. Typical characteristic velocities (VC)
power characteristics are measured based on this geometry; for common applications.
it is assumed that a given impeller will pump the same in a
Application VC, m/s
different geometry as long as the volume is the same.
Equalization Basin, Wastewater 0.08
Characteristic velocity is defined as (4):
Equalization Basin, Water 0.06
Flocculation 0.05
VC = Q/A= 4Q/πT 2 (5) Holding Tanks 0.08
Rapid Mix 0.15+

44 www.aiche.org/cep March 2007 CEP

 Table 3. Blend time coeffi- Table 4. Effects of viscosity on power,
cients (K) and exponents (B) for pumping rate, G-value, and blend time.
various impellers.
Applications with Basis: 10-m-dia. cylindrical vessel, 10-m liquid level,
Impeller short retention times or pitched-blade turbine with a 3-m-dia. impeller (D = 3) and
Type K B very fast critical reac- shaft speed of 20 rpm (N = 20)
Radial 4.98 –2.32 tions may also need to µ, cP NRe P, kW Q, m3/s G, s–1 θB, min
Pitched 7.06 –2.20 be checked for blend 0.1 3.00E+07 12.33 7.2 396.2 5
Hydrofoil 16.9 –1.67 time. The normal defi- 0.5 6,000,120 12.33 7.2 177.2 5
nition of blend time, 1 3,000,060 12.33 7.2 125.3 5
θB, is the time for a disturbance or addition to be attenuated 2 1,500,030 12.33 7.2 88.6 5
to within ±1% of the disturbance value. This is sometimes 5 600,012 12.33 7.2 56 5
10 300,006 12.33 7.2 39.6 5
called 99% blend time. For most continuous-flow applica- 20 150,003 12.33 7.2 28 5
tions, the blend time is set to the retention time or less. 50 60,001 12.33 7.2 17.7 5
However, for rapid mixing, the retention time is so low that 100 30,001 12.33 7.2 12.5 5
it is acceptable to blend to only about ±20% attenuation; this 300 10,000 12.33 7.2 7.2 5
is known as the 80% blend time. It is only 34% as long as
the 99% blend time — because considerable blending occurs to viscous forces. Viscosity has virtually no effect on power
in the pipe downstream of the mixing chamber, it is not nec- draw, impeller pumping or blending performance unless the
essary to blend to the 99% level in the rapid mix chamber. Reynolds number falls below 10,000, which almost never
In turbulent flow, the blend time is correlated by (4): happens in water or wastewater applications.
Designers in this industry have attempted to remedy this
θB N = K(D/T)B (10) oversensitivity to viscosity by requiring the G-value to be
calculated at some reference temperature, which will fix the
Table 3 lists values of K and B for some common generic viscosity. But, in practice, this means that the actual G-value
impellers. These values are based on a cylindrical vessel with a varies with temperature, implying different mixing results.
square-batch configuration and a single impeller. For a cylin- Anyone looking at the basin will not see any difference
drical vessel for which Z/T ≠ 1, a factor of (Z/T)0.44 should be between the mixing in a tank with a 5°C water temperature
applied. For other geometries, software such as that offered by and that in a 50°C tank, yet the G-value will be 66% higher
Reyno, Inc. (www.ReynoInc.com) is recommended. at the warmer temperature because viscosity is 2.78 times as
Solids-suspension applications are far too complex to dis- high at 5°C as at 50°C.
cuss here, as they incorporate many geometry effects as well Table 4 illustrates the lack of sensitivity to viscosity for a
as settling rate, and other factors. They also cannot be corre- 10-m-dia. cylindrical basin with a 10-m liquid level, where
lated as a function of the G-value. The same can be said for the impeller size, type and shaft speed are fixed and viscosi-
the dispersion of gases into liquids. ty is allowed to vary from 0.1 cP to 300 cP. This relatively
high maximum viscosity is not chosen for its applicability to
What’s wrong with the G-value? water treatment, where viscosities never get that high, but
By analyzing the defining equation, one can see that there rather to emphasize the point that the results are insensitive
are several things wrong with the G- value: to viscosity until it gets to 300 cP. The Reynolds number,
• it requires the agitator power to be proportional to viscosity power draw, impeller pumping rate, G-value and blend time
• the implied scale-up is on a power/volume basis are shown as a function of viscosity.
• no allowance is made for the impeller size Over this range of viscosity, the Reynolds number varies
• no allowance is made for the impeller type. from 30 million to 10,000. The power, pumping rate and
These are all serious deficiencies in the concept, and will blend time all remain constant, indicating no change in real
be explored in the subsequent sections of this article. agitation performance. Yet the G-value varies from 396 to
7.2, a ratio of 55 to 1. Clearly, the G-value does not properly
Agitator power proportional to viscosity account for the effects of viscosity on agitation. Had the vis-
This requirement grossly overstates the importance of the cosity continued to increase, the Reynolds number would
viscosity in agitator design. The power required to pump liq- have dropped below 10,000, which would start to affect real
uids in a pipe is not proportional to viscosity. In fact, viscosi- agitation results.
ty has no effect on required pumping power as long as the The correct way to account for the viscosity is to corre-
pipe flow is fully turbulent. The same is true for agitators. late power, pumping, blend time or other relevant parameters
Turbulence is measured by the Reynolds number (as as a function of the Reynolds number.
defined by Eq. 2), which is conceptually the ratio of inertial
Article continues on p. 46

CEP March 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 45

Fluids and Solids Handling

Table 5. Effects of impeller diameter on pumping rate Table 6. Effects of impeller diameter on power, G-value
and blend time at constant G-value. and blend time at constant impeller pumping rate.

Basis: 10-m-dia. cylindrical vessel, 10-m liquid level, pitched- Basis: 10-m-dia. cylindrical vessel, 10-m liquid level, pitched-
blade turbine, viscosity µ = 1 cP, G-value = 100 s–1 blade turbine, viscosity µ = 1 cP, pumping rate Q = 7 m3/s
D, m N, rpm NP NQ P, kW Q, m3/s θB, min D, m N, rpm NP NQ P, kW G, s–1 θB, min
2.5 23.34 1.37 0.88 7.88 5.3 6.4 2.5 30.53 1.37 0.88 17.63 150 4.9
3 17.23 1.37 0.8 7.88 6.2 5.8 3 19.45 1.37 0.8 11.34 120 5.1
3.5 13.32 1.37 0.74 7.87 7 5.3 3.5 13.24 1.37 0.74 7.73 99 5.4
4 10.66 1.37 0.68 7.87 7.7 5 4 9.65 1.37 0.68 5.84 86 5.5
4.5 8.76 1.37 0.64 7.87 8.5 4.7 4.5 7.2 1.37 0.64 4.37 75 5.7
5 7.35 1.37 0.6 7.87 9.2 4.4 5 5.6 1.37 0.6 3.48 67 5.8

Implied power/volume scale-up
Although detailed scale-up procedures are beyond the
scope of this article, it is valuable to understand that scale-up
using equal G-value is a power/volume scale-up.
Different process results scale up differently. For equal
mean velocity and geometric similarity, it can be shown that
the required scale-up rule corresponds to equal torque per
volume, not equal power per volume. This rule also results
in equal impeller tip speed. An equal power/volume scale-up
would result in oversized equipment and waste power com-
pared to the correct scale-up for velocity-controlled process-
es such as holding basins, flocculators and similar motion-
controlled applications.
On the other hand, processes that require the same absolute
blend time require a much larger agitator upon scale-up than a
power/volume basis would imply. In fact, they require that the
power/volume ratio increase in proportion to the volume
raised to the 5/9 power. In such a case, scaling based on equal
G-value would result in undersized equipment.
The only situations where power/volume is commonly
used for scale-up are mass-transfer-controlled applications,
such as gas-liquid contacting. Even there, the G-value is
weak because it overstates the viscosity effect.
Thus, the G-value is not useful as a scale-up tool, and, in
fact, leads to erroneous results for most common applications.
No allowance for impeller size
The only agitation parameter in the G-value equation is
the power draw. One could meet a specified G-value by
using a 50-mm-dia. impeller turning at a very high shaft
speed in a million-cubic-meter basin. Yet, intuitively, we
know this would not work.
Table 5 illustrates this for the same 10-m-dia. tank used in
Table 4. The impeller diameter varies from 2.5 m to 5 m,
and the shaft speed is chosen to maintain an equal G-value
of 100 s–1. Equations 3 and 4 are rearranged to calculate the
power and pumping rate from the power number and the
pumping number. Although the larger impellers turn more
slowly, they pump more and blend faster than the small
ones. The 5-m-dia. impeller pumps 74% more than the 2.5-
m impeller, and blends 45% faster, yet they have the same
G-value. So, by failing to account for different impeller
sizes, G-value fails to relate to real process performance.
It has long been known that larger impellers can, in fact,
save energy compared to smaller impellers. A large impeller
can pump the same amount of liquid as a smaller impeller at
a lower shaft speed and lower mean discharge pressure, thus
drawing less power.
Table 6 illustrates the required shaft speed and power for
the same impellers and tank as Table 5, at a constant
impeller discharge rate of 7 m3/s. The power varies from
more than 17 kW for the small impeller to 3.5 kW for the
largest one. The G-value varies from 150 to 67. For flow-
velocity-controlled applications, the 5-m impeller drawing
3.5 kW will perform as well as the 2.5-m impeller drawing
17.6 kW, with a power savings of 80%. Thus, G-value does
not account for impeller size effects for flow-velocity-con-
trolled applications.
Notice that in Table 6, the blend time is not constant,
even though the impeller pumping rate is. This is because
blending is not simply a flow-controlled operation, but
involves both flow and turbulence. The larger impellers pro-
duce less turbulence at a given flowrate, so their blend time
is somewhat longer.
In most cases, blend time is not a limiting factor, but for
completeness, Table 7 shows the effects of varying impeller
diameter at constant blend time. Based on a 5-min blend
time, the required power varies from 16.4 kW to 5.4 kW, and
the G-value varies from 144 to 83. So, the G-value does not
account for impeller diameter effects on blend time either.
No allowance for impeller type
There are many types of impellers on the market today.
Some are proprietary, some are generic. Some have an axial
discharge pattern, some have a radial pattern, some are
mixed-flow. They have a wide range of performance charac-
teristics, such as power numbers ranging from less than 0.2
to more than 5, pumping numbers ranging from less than 0.1
to about 1.0, and varying blend time characteristics. Yet, G-
value accounts for none of these variations.
Table 8 shows how the choice of impeller affects per-
formance at constant G-value, using three different impeller

46 www.aiche.org/cep March 2007 CEP

 Table 7. Effects of impeller diameter at constant blend time. Table 8. Effects of impeller type at constant G-value.

Basis: 10-m-dia. cylindrical vessel, 10-m liquid level, pitched- Basis: 10-m-dia. cylindrical vessel, 10-m liquid level, viscosity
blade turbine, viscosity µ = 1 cP, blend time θB = 5 min µ = 1 cP, G-value = 100 s-1
D, m N, rpm NP NQ P, kW G, s–1 Q, m3/s D, N, P, θB, Q,
m Impeller rpm NP NQ kW min m3/s
2.5 29.8 1.37 0.88 16.39 144 6.8
3 19.96 1.37 0.8 12.26 125 7.2 2.5 Radial 17.96 3 0.7 7.86 7 3.3
3.5 14.22 1.37 0.74 9.58 110 7.5 2.5 Pitched 23.32 1.37 0.88 7.86 6 5.3
4 10.6 1.37 0.68 7.74 99 7.7 2.5 Hydrofoil 37.48 0.33 0.57 7.86 5 5.6
4.5 8.18 1.37 0.64 6.41 90 8 4 Radial 8.205 3 0.7 7.86 5 6.1
5 6.49 1.37 0.6 5.42 83 8.1 4 Pitched 10.655 1.37 0.68 7.86 5 7.7
4 Hydrofoil 17.88 0.29 0.53 7.86 4 10.1
types and two different impeller diameters. A 4-m-dia.
hydrofoil turning at roughly the same speed as a 2.5-m radial output speeds in accordance with American Gear
turbine draws the same power and has the same G-value, but Manufacturer’s Association (AGMA) standards, the actual
pumps more than three times as much and blends 75% design would have a standard motor size of 1.5 hp (1.1 kW)
faster. This comparison was chosen because these unequal and a nominal shaft speed of 9 rpm. The impeller size would
types and sizes have similar torques, and would therefore need to be adjusted for these conditions.
require the same size gear drive and have a similar cost. Blend time is calculated by rearranging Eq. 10: θB =
At equal diameter, the hydrofoils turn at a faster speed (16.9)(4/10)–1.67/(0.139 s–1) = 562 s = 9.36 min.
and require less torque than pitched or radial turbines, and so
would cost less. Yet, they pump more and blend faster at a Recommendations
constant G-value. So, G-value is useless as a means of It is time to end the practice of using the G-value in agi-
accounting for variations in impeller type. tator specifications in water and wastewater treatment appli-
cations. Instead, specify in physical terms what the agitator
What is the G-value useful for? must do in your process. Typical examples are characteristic
It is this author’s opinion that the G-value has no legiti- velocity and blend time. Allow the equipment vendors to
mate use in designing or specifying agitators. So, what is the save you money by looking at equivalent alternatives that still
correct way to specify agitation performance? achieve the required physical process results. CEP
The best way is to be very specific about the task the
agitator is expected to perform. This should be stated in
purely physical terms. For example, agitators do not bring Literature Cited
about chemical reactions; reactions are determined by com-
1. Amirtharajah, A., “Design of Rapid Mix Units,” in
position and temperature only, which are not directly con- “Water Treatment for the Practicing Engineer,” Sanks, R.
trolled by the agitator. Instead, specify volumes, the proper- L., ed., Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI (1978).
ties of each fluid being agitated, flowrates, retention times, 2. “Camp’s Gt Values and In-Line Polymer Blending/Activa-
tion,” Fluid Dynamics, Inc., ww.dynablend.com/fdtech.html
descriptions of any solids present, and a clear statement of (viewed Mar. 2006).
the desired physical process results. 3. Camp, T. R., and P. C. Stein, “Velocity Gradients and
Internal Work in Fluid Friction,” J. Boston Soc. Civ. Eng.,
30 (4), pp. 219–237 (1943).
Example 4. Dickey, D. S., and J. G. Fenic, “Dimensional Analysis
We will calculate a design for the same tank used for the for Fluid Agitation Systems,” Chem. Eng., pp. 139–145
tables (T = 10 m, Z = 10 m), based on a 4-m-dia. hydrofoil (Jan. 5, 1976).
impeller used to produce a characteristic velocity of 0.06 m/s.
This involves calculating the shaft speed and power needed. GREGORY T. BENZ, P.E., is president of Benz Technology International, Inc.
At a D/T of 0.4, Table 1 gives us a pumping number of (2305 Clarksville Rd., Clarksville, OH 45113; Phone: (937) 289-4504;
Fax: (937) 289-3914; E-mail benztech@mindspring.com; Website:
0.53 and a power number of 0.29. Rearranging Eq. 8 to http://home.mindspring.com/~benztech/). He has over 30 years of
solve for shaft speed gives: N = VCπT2/4NQD3 = [(0.06 experience in the design of agitation systems. Currently, his company offers
general engineering and mixing consultation, including equipment
m/s)(π)(10 m)2)]/[(4)(0.53)(4m)3] = 0.139 s–1 = 8.34 rpm. specification and bid evaluation, as well as courses on agitation with
Power is then calculated using Eq. 9: P = NPρN3D5 = CEU/PDH credits. Benz is also a course director at the Center for Profes-
(0.29)(1,000 kg/m3)(0.139/s)3(4 m)5 = 798 kg-m2/s3 = 798 sional Innovation and Education (CfPIE; www.CfPIE.com), and is a registered
consulting expert with Intota (www.intota.com). He received his BSChE from
W = 0.798 kW. the Univ. of Cincinnati in 1976, and has taken a course on fermentation
Motor power would need to be at least 10% more to biotechnology from the Center for Professional Advancement. He is a
registered professional engineer in Ohio, and is a member of AIChE, Society
allow for errors and mechanical transmission losses. Because for Industrial Microbiology (SIM), International Society for Pharmaceutical
motors come in standard sizes and reducers normally have Engineering (ISPE) and the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai.

CEP March 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 47