en1822jan2012compatibilitymode-120510101012-phpapp02

51
The Camfil Farr Group Corporate presentation

description

en1822jan2012compatibilitymode-120510101012-phpapp02.pdf

Transcript of en1822jan2012compatibilitymode-120510101012-phpapp02

  • The Camfil Farr Group

    Corporate presentation

  • 2Clean air experts since

    1963 Swedish family owned business Started more than 45 years ago Top class products and services Today around 3 400 employees

    all over the world

    Founder: Gsta LarsonCamfil factory 1960s

  • 3Company highlights

  • 4Company overview 2009 Group sales over SEK 4.5 billion Approximately 3 400 employees 23 production plants Sales companies in 25 countries Agents and representatives in more

    than 50 countries

    Alan OConnell,

    CEO, Camfil Farr Group

  • 5Clean air business conceptOur business concept is to delivervalue to customers all over the worldwhile contributing to somethingessential to everyone clean air.

  • 6

  • Comfort air

    7

    A healty and beneficial climate Offices Hotels Schools Shopping centres Conference centres Airports

  • Clean processes

    8

    Protecting processes Bio Pharma Food and beverage Pulp and paper Automotive Hospital

  • 9Air Pollution ControlHeavy-duty clean air solutions

    Blasting, welding and grinding

    Laser and plasma cutting

    Thermal / flame spray

    Pharmaceutical compounds

    Food processing

  • 10

    Power systems

    Gas turbines Turbo compressors Diesel engines

    Supply of complete: Air Inlet & Exhaust Systems Enclosure & Vent. Systems Damper Systems for the

    Power and Oil & Gas industry

  • 11

    Nuclear and ContainmentProtecting people and environment from airborne hazards Nuclear Chemical Biological Industrial

  • 12

    Airborne Molecular Contamination (AMC)

    Microelectronics

    Ensures very clean manufacturing

    environment for VLSI (Very Large

    Scale Integrated) circuit production

  • Clean processes

    13

    Mike Vinson

    CP Segment Manager UK

  • BS/EN1822:2009

    High efficiency air filters (EPA,HEPA and ULPA)

  • 1. Coarse/fine filters - ASHRAE

    2. HEPA and ULPA filters

    EN 779:2012

    EN1822:2009

  • FilterClass

    Overallefficiency(%)

    Minimumlocal efficiency(%)

    Max localpenetration(%)

    E10 85 - *C - *CE11 95 - *C - *CE12 99.5 - *C - *CH13 99.95 99.75 0.25H14 99.995 99.975 0.025U15 99.9995 99.9975 0.0025U16 99.99995 99.99975 0.00025U17 99.999995 99.9999 0.0001

    Classification Table

    *C - Group E Filters (E10,E11,E12) cannot and shall not be leak tested for classification purposes

  • MPPS (Most Penetrating Particle Size) is normally in range 0.1-0.25 micron for HEPA/ULPA filters

    Air Velocity* through filter media and type of filter material determine: MPPS Efficiency Pressure drop

    *= Note the difference between media air velocity and filter face velocity

  • MPPS (Most Penetrating Particle Size) is normally in range 0.1-0.25 micron

    Filters have historically been tested at various sizes 0.17 m - Soda salt test (AFNOR X44-1) 0.30 m - DOP test (Q107 or MIL282) 0.65 m - Sodium flame (BS3928)

    Today MPPS is introduced (EN 1822)

  • In situ ISO 14644-3 IES-RP-CC002.2 (photometer) IES-RP-CC-006.2 (counter) BS 5276 (photometer)

    Factory test EN1822 IES-RP-CC007.1 (US) DOP (Q107, Mil std 282) Eurovent 4/4 (BS3928)

  • EN 1822-1 Classification, performance testing and marking EN 1822-2 Aerosol production, measuring equipment EN 1822-3 Testing flat sheet filter media EN 1822-4 Determining leakage of filter element (Scanning) EN 1822-5 Determining the efficiency of Filter element

  • Method:

    The MPPS is determined at nominal flow (flat sheet media efficiency)

    Filter tested (scanned) for leaks at MPPS

    The readings downstream are used to calculate overall efficiency

  • Penetration curve

    0,000001

    0,000010

    0,000100

    0,001000

    0,010000

    0,100000

    1,000000

    0,01 0,1 1size [m]

    p

    e

    n

    e

    t

    r

    a

    t

    i

    o

    n

    [

    %

    ]

    2 cm/s1.5 cm/s0.5 cm/s

    E12

    H13

    U15

    H14

    U16

    U17

  • The standard describe Test procedure Classification system Aerosol characteristics (DEHS, other aerosol may be used) Statistical considerations Instrumentation, equipment performance

  • Filter scanning set up

    Particle counterScanning Probe

    Aerosol generator

    Diluter

    Upstream probe

  • FilterClass

    Overallefficiency(%)

    Minimumlocal efficiency(%)

    Max localpenetration(%)

    E10E11

    85 - -95 - -

    E12 99.5 - -H13 99.95 99.75 0.25H14 99.995 99.975 0.025U15 99.9995 99.9975 0.0025U16 99.99995 99.99975 0.00025U17 99.999995 99.9999 0.0001

  • 0.1 1 10Particle size (m)

    Diffusion effect Interception effect

    Straining effect

    Total Efficiency

    Electrostatic effect

    MPPS region

  • Filter scanning set up

    3) Particle counterScanning Probe

    1) Aerosol generator

    2) Diluter

    Upstream probe

  • Common type of aerosols used for Filter test:

    DEHS (DOS) liquid DOP liquid Emery 3004 liquid NaCl solid (salt) SiO2 solid Latex (PSL) solid (plastic) KCl solid

  • Laskin NozzleDEHS, DOP

    Spray NozzleLatex, Silica (SiO2)

    Compressed air Aerosol out

    DEHS, DOP

    Compressed air

    Latex + water

    Additional heater

    Aerosol out

  • SiO2 KCl0.6 m 0.6 m

  • Filter elements of Group H

    Can be tested using one of three leak test methods: -

    The reference scanning method EN 1822-4 The Oil Thread Leak Test (EN 1822-4:2009, Annex A) The 0.3mm 0.5mm Particle Efficiency Leak Test (EN1822-

    4:2009, Annex E, for Class H13 only)

    All leak tests shall be performed at the nominal/rated air flow of the test filter element.

  • Filter shapes creating highly turbulent air flow (eg V-bank or cylindrical filters) for which the reference scan method can not be applied, should be leak testing by either of the two alternative methods:

    1. Oil Thread Leak Method (EN 1822-4:2009, Annex A) or 0.3mmmmm 0.5mmmmm2. Particle Efficiency Leak Test (EN1822-4:2009, Annex E, for Class H13 only)

    For higher Classes of filters, the two alternative methods might not be sensitive enough to measure the local penetration limits.Higher Classes of filters have to be marked:-

    1. Alternative leak tested, method A or

    2. Alternative leak tested, method E on its label and test report

    BS/EN 1822:2009

  • In-Situ (site) testing

    14644-3 or PD6609-UK

  • Poly- and Mono disperse aerosol distribution

    0.01 0.1 1 10Size [micron]

    C

    o

    n

    c

    e

    n

    t

    r

    a

    t

    i

    o

    n

    Poly-disperseMono-disperse

  • DOP-aerosol Comparison

    aerosol generators, measured with LAS-X

    Differential representation of LASKIN nozzle and thermal generator

    0.00

    5.00

    10.00

    15.00

    20.00

    25.00

    30.00

    35.00

    40.00

    0.1 1 10particle size [m]

    f

    r

    e

    q

    v

    e

    n

    c

    y

    /

    m

    [

    %

    ]

    LASKIN - Weight

    Thermal - Weight

    MPPS

  • Penetration curve

    1.0E-091.0E-081.0E-071.0E-061.0E-051.0E-041.0E-031.0E-021.0E-01

    1.0E+00

    0.01 0.1 1size [m]

    p

    e

    n

    e

    t

    r

    a

    t

    i

    o

    n

    [

    %

    ]

    2 cm/s

    1.5 cm/s

    0.5 cm/s

    c

    DOP TEST0.3 micron

  • Particle counter Digital output Typical size range 0.1-5.0 m Typical Sample flow 0.1-1.0 CFM Diluter needed to measure high

    upstream concentration Penetration range : practical min

    0.000001%

  • Photometer Analouge output Typical concentration range: 10-100

    mg/m3 Penetration range : 100-0.001%

  • Particle counter+ high sensitivity+ size distribution+ MPPS sensitive to high

    concentrations leak quantification

    Photometer+ high concentrations+ leak quantifcation medium sensitivity no direct sizing (no MPPS) need high aerosol

    concentration Result may depend on

    aerosol distribution

  • Today, normally particle counters are used for factory test (EN 1822 or similar)

    Better sensitivity Scanning and total efficiency at same test Various aerosols can be used Test at MPPS (EN 1822)

  • For In-Situ test both DPCs and Photometers can be used

    Particle counter Sensitive Used where liquid aerosols are

    unwanted Same instrument as in EN 1822 Normal penetration will be

    measured (MPPS)

    Photometer Fast quantification Less sensitive OK for check of gaskets, etc Today, basically only for

    leaks.

  • Comparison of Particle counters/photometer result

    Not same measurement technique Photometer is aerosol dependent

  • Comparison of Particle counters and photometer result

    Two aerosol distributions The penetration curve is

    measured by particle counter

    Photometer result can differ depending on aerosol

    Distribution of DOP and efficiency of class H13, 99.95% MPPS

    0.00

    5.00

    10.00

    15.00

    20.00

    25.00

    30.00

    35.00

    40.00

    45.00

    50.00

    0.01 0.1 1particle size [m]

    f

    r

    e

    q

    v

    e

    n

    c

    y

    /

    m

    [

    %

    ]

    1.00E-09

    1.00E-08

    1.00E-07

    1.00E-06

    1.00E-05

    1.00E-04

    1.00E-03

    1.00E-02

    1.00E-01

    1.00E+00

    LASKIN - Weight distributionHot DOP - Weight distributionpenetration - Absolute filter

    pen

    etration

    [%]

  • Efficiency (overall) Overall particle efficiency can be measured with static probe or

    by integrating the data from scanning

    Scanning - Leaks Scanning is performed over filter surface - leak check

  • Leak detection issues False leaks Probe speed Instrument type

    and performance Aerosol

    concentration

    Vp (probe)

    Leak

    Ambient air

    DEHS aerosol

    No Leak

  • Vp (probe)

    Leaks

    Ambient air

    Aerosol

    No Leaks, but detection

    Aerosol

    shield

    1 2 3

  • Important, measurement No false leaks Probe speed Aerosol concentration Aerosol distribution Diluter Instrument performance (Particle

    counter) Statistical considerations Particle losses in system

    Important, data Print outs Database integrity

  • ISO 14644, suggestFor filters < 99,995% (H14) photometers can be used Aerosol distribution with mass mean diameter between 0.5-0.7 m Leak designated as 0.01% For filters >99.995% particle counters should be used DOP/DEHS challenge Leaks designated as > described in EN 1822

  • Photometers and particle counters can be used for leak testing filters EN 1822 is now in use (2000-09-01) for factory test EN describes test method, equipment and classification of HEPA/ULPA

    filters Be aware of the differences in measurement technique

    (Photometer/EN1822/other tests) Communicate with customer (should filter be tested? Which test method is

    required from customer? Make sure he/she understand how Camfil test) Requirements/test methods in situ at customer can be different (ex.

    Safety cabinets, pharmaceutical industry)