Mosbaek CEV flow regulator
Contents
1. 3 3 sojeinBay J99MPSUBIL unssald Flowmeter a 1130 3 Flowmeter ad d asu ssei ixeid Figure 3 3 Sketch of test set up The set up consists of a well regulator well placed on a base the CEV regulator is mounted in this well The regulator well is in direct connection with a large diameter tank inlet tank through a pipe positioned just opposite the CEV outlet The water levels in the regulator well and the inlet tank are accordingly identical This set up is established in order to secure that the Verification Report Mosbaek 19 20 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 increase of the water level in the regulator well can be controlled and limited still with a reason able high flow rate to the well The outlet connection goes through the CEV in the regulator well to the outlettank A pressure transducer is mounted in the base of the regulator well On the base ofthe regulator well a Plexiglas riser is mounted in order to follow the water level in the well during testing The flow to the inlet tank is fed atthe top ofthe tank through a pipe placed internally in the tank by means ofa pump which is pumping water from a feeding tank The flow from the feeding tank to the inlet tank is measured by means ofthe flowmeter The water level in the feeding tank is kept constant by pumping water from a central reservoir to the feeding tank an overflow weir ensures that the water level in this tank is kept almost cons2. 5 89 to 9 99 4 74 4 50 5 04 3 3 8 2 2 9 CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 78 8 60 to 12 97 8 17 7 57 8 74 0 2 7 6 6 7 CEV 10 51 s O 2 00m 100 11 32 to 15 24 10 18 9 75 10 67 3 0 7 1 1 6 Table 3 2 Verified performance on Qdesgn based on two tests only CEV model Inflow in test Deviation from model Vs characteristics CEV 1 41 s O 1 00m 100 1 79 to 6 31 1 43 1 42 1 45 2 1 1 4 3 6 CEV 4 91 s 1 50 m 100 5 89 to 9 99 4 78 4 76 4 80 2 4 2 9 2 0 CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 78 8 60 to 12 97 10 11 10 09 10 12 3 7 3 9 3 6 CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 100 11 32 to 15 24 10 56 10 55 10 56 0 6 0 5 0 6 Orifice 13 72 6 36 N A N A Please be aware that there is a unique influence of Qbumb by Qinfiow see Figure 3 1 12 ACEV 1 4 100 CEV 4 9 100 Qbump I s CEV 10 5 78 CEV 10 5 100 10 Qinflow 1 s Figure 3 1 Corelation between Q inflow and Q bump given forall tested CEVs 3 3 3 How reduction at Huesign Performance compared to a well with no flow regulator is listed in Table 3 3 Table 3 3 Verfied performance on flow reduction compared to no CEV installed in well Orifice diameter How reduction factor at Hueson mm CEV 1 41 s O 1 00m 100 Diameter corresponding to CEV 4 45 1 41 s 1 00m 100 outlet Mosbaek CEV 1 41 s 1 00m 100 is verified to reduce the flow by a factor o
3. DANETV Mosbaek CEV flow regulator Verification Report Mosbaek s Verification Report February 2015 This report has been prepared under the DHI Business Management System certified by DNV to comply with ISO 9001 Quality Management 3 TEM C au noe DNV GL ISO 9001 DNV GL BUSINESS ASSURANCE DENMARK A S Approved by Approved by Sten Lindberg Head of department DHI Peter Fritzel Verification responsible ETA Danmark Se OL FA Mosbaek CEV flow regulator Verification Report Prepared for Mosbaek A S Represented by Torben Krejberg Technical Director Test facility Project No 11530013 Classification Public Version Final Authors Mette Tjener Andersson DHI Contents 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 5 3 3 5 1 3 3 5 2 3 3 5 3 3 4 3 4 1 3 4 2 3 4 2 1 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 1 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 1 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 5 3 4 6 INTOdU CHO dad 3 Name of technology PAI An 3 Nameand Contact 0f PrOp ser a u n uen nee 3 Name of verification body and responsible of Verification sesssecstecseesesteesseecstesesteesneeenteesatessneeenteeeatees 3 Verification organisation including CXPerts eeesseccssscsessstecseecseesneecseecstessseesst
4. X model X of Qaesign 5 is met at Hbump Qaesign 5 is met at Haesign Specific values for each of the four selected CEVs are listed in Table 2 1 Table 2 1 Specific performance claims from the proposer on Qbump and Qdesign CEV model Qbump I S Qaesign I S CEV 1 41 s 1 00m 100 1 4 5 1 4 5 CEV 4 91 s 1 50 m 100 4 9 5 4 9 5 CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 78 8 2 5 10 5 5 CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 100 10 5 5 10 5 5 How reduction at Hiesign Mosbaek has further specified their claimed reduction of the flow at Haesign compared to a well with no flow regulator equal to a hole in a straight wall with no additional piping Mosbaek claims the following A Mosbaek CEV 100 model can reduce the flow by a factor of 4 25 at Qaesign Performing tests where the test well is filled up to Haesign with no CEV will require very high water flow Therefor this claim will be verified using only the smallest ofthe four CEVs used in the tests Specific performance claim is listed in Table 2 2 Table 2 2 Specific performance claims by the proposer on flow reduction compared to no CEV installed in well CEV model Orifice dia meter Flow reduction factor at Huesign mm CEV 1 41 s O 1 00m 100 Diameter corresponding to CEV 4 25 1 41 s 1 00m 100 outlet Verification Report Mosbaek 3 Evaluation Detailed descriptions of the test design and test results are found in the Test Plan Appendix C and
5. Test Report Appendix D 3 1 Calculation of verification parameters performance Detailed information on how to calculate the verification parameters are included in the Specific Verification Protocol in Appendix B 3 2 Evaluation of test quality 3 2 1 Control data Test system control included leakage test and for CEV1 41 s H 1 00m 100 investigation of the variation was included for tests carried out with identical inlet flows The variation was min imal and far less than 10 which means according to the Verification Protocol Appendix B section 5 1 4 that triplicate tests were not needed for the remaining CEVs Test performance audit included review of calibration certificates for pressure transducers and flowmeters They are valid and can be found in Appendix to the Test Plan Appendix C In addi tion calibration tests were performed of pressure transducers on both inlet and outlet side The outflow could not be measured directly due to air and circulation in the outlet Instead measurement of head in the outlet tank and of the overflow from the outlet tank where meas ured The calculation two different methods were listed see Appendix B section 6 1 Calculation of performance parameters Method 2 was expected to most precise while method should be used for control For method 1the time series had to be subjected to intensive averaging to get readable results A comparison between the results obtained by means of method 1 an
6. Verification Protocol Version 1 1 July 7th 2014 2 ETA Danmark ETV Verifikation 130 11 Environmental Technology Verification 20 11 2013 3 Gavaskar A and Cumming L Cost Evaluation Strategies for Technologies Tested under the Environmental Technology Verification Program 2001 Battelle 4 European Commission Commission Directive on classification packaging and labelling of dangerous substances 2001 59 EC 2001 5 DANETV Test Centre Quality Manual 2013 08 13 Verification Report Mosbaek 25 26 Verification Report Mosbaek APPENDICES Verification Report Mosbaek Verification Report Mosbaek APPENDIX A Terms and definitions Verification Report Mosbaek Verification Report Mosbaek The terms and definitions used by the verification body are derived from the EU ETV General Verification Protocol ISO 9001 and ISO 17020 Comments on the DANETV approach Accreditation Meaning as assigned to it by Regulation EC No 765 2008 EC No 765 2008 is on setting out the require ments for accreditation and market surveil lance relating to the marketing of products GVP cedure to be followed by the EU ETV pilot pro gramme when verifying an individual envi ronmental technology Additional parameter Other effects that will be described but are None considered secondary Amendment Is a change to a specific verification protocol or None atest plan done before the verifica
7. the characteristic curve gives robustness towards changes in pressure head Larger ori fice opening compared to other competing solutions give robustness with respect to clogging Maintenance scheme should be adjusted according to changes in condition concerning the quality of the water Maintenance is a visual check of the condition of the regulator and to remove signs of clogging Verification Report Mosbaek Reusability recyclabili ully or partly and end of life decommissioning and disposal A regulator can be reused in another location with similar conditions or adjusted to fit other conditions If reuse is not possible the regulator can be sold as scrap and molten into new steel It is 100 is recyclable 3 3 5 3 Occupational health and environmental impact The risks for occupational health and for the environment associated with the use of the prod ucts will be identified A list of chemicals classified as toxic T or very toxic Tx for human health and or environmentally hazardous N in accordance with the directive on classification of dangerous substances 4 will be compiled The tightening material used for installation is chosen by the sewer contractor The mainly used material is sealant tape or waterproof silicone which are both unclassified All operations in wells are subject to safety risk and standard safety precautions have to be tak en accordingly 3 4 Recommendation for the Statement of Verification 3 4 1
8. 10 51 s 2 00m 100 Application Matix The CEV is installed before the combined system with storm water and wastewater and is re stricting storm water inflow to the combined system The verification covers storm water Purpose The purpose of the technology is to store storm water at appropriate places before entering the piping system during storm water events The CEV is installed in wells and basins depending on the piping network Conditions of operation and use Maintenance is needed regularly as a visual check of the condition of the regulator and to re move signs of clogging Verification parameters definition summary Two types of parameters have been verified 1 Outflow 1 s at Hbump and Haesign 2 Flow reduction at Haesign Test and analysis design The test was designed for this verification No existing data have been included Laboratory or field conditions The test was performed at a test set up at Mosbaek s premises in Koege Denmark see Figure 3 3 The figure is suggested to be an appendix to the Statement of Verification Verification Report Mosbaek sv yoegs JOJQUIMO y Qe MPA AP 1Seqso LI a9yyo 08 8 9 9S HL 08 98 9 95 Xt 4 230N 009p 07 Paspaisyum A AP ADLQSOLIAMAM SAOJDINBIY MOJA myaogsopw JOJOWEIP J9 NO 0 19491 SUO SUBWIP ad d pue em yuez IV 3JON s v x eqsow 102 9 yuez ajul ALANYA 601 dN L3S LS3L gt 3 a D n c S 3 o a a D 5
9. Technology description The technology verified is the vertical centrifugal flow regulator CEV CEntrifugal Vertical from Mosbaek The flow regulator technology for extreme rainfall events is based on quickly reaching the maximum discharge flow where it creates a vortex making it stay at or below this discharge flow while the remaining water is stored in the well A schematic view of the CEV with inflow in the bottom is shown in Figure 3 2a Hdesign j Qdesign 100 Houme7s 78 Flow Figure 3 2 A Sketch of CEV flow regulator installed in well B Graphic showing the general vortex brake effect on water outflow with CEVs operating at 78 and 100 efficiency and water inflow to well larger than outflow though CEV well is filling up Both provided by Mosbaek Figure 3 2b shows the flow through a CEV With a 100 model the maximum outlet Qaesign is met twice first where the vortex is formed the bump on the graph and then at the specified Haesign Where Haesign is calculated from the invert of the discharge pipe to the maximum water level in the well A 78 model is also shown here the bump occurs at a flow of 78 of Qaesign Mosbaek has selected four models to represent their CEV series The models are e CEV1 41 s O 1 00m 100 e CEV4 91 sO 1 50 m 100 e CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 78 Verification Report Mosbaek 17 18 3 4 2 3 4 2 1 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 1 e CEV
10. ail tlOcivil aau dk Verification Report Ian Walker IW WRec plc e mail Ian Walker wrcplc co uk The tasks assigned to each expert are given in more detail in section 4 Quality assurance The relationships between the organisations related to this verification and test are given in Figure 1 1 EU ETV Pilot A External expert Programme e A scan Danen DS Cert DANETV Y Proposer r Y DHI DANETV Water Centre Figure 1 1 Organisation of the verification and test 1 5 Verification process The principles of operation of the DANETV verification process are given in Table 1 1 Verification Report Mosbaek Table 1 1 As it can be seen verification and testing are divided between the verification and the test body Verification Report Mosbaek 1 6 Table 1 1 Simplified overview of the verification process Phase Responsible Document Preliminary phase Verification body Quick Scan Contract Specific verification protocol Testing phase Test body Test plan Test report Assessment phase Verification body Verification report Statement of Verification Quality assurance is carried out by an expert group of internal and external technical experts Two audits of the test system were performed starting with an internal audit by the test body followed by an external audit by the DANETV verification body under ETA Danmark Reference for the verification process is the EU ETV Genera
11. ately 9 21 s The corresponding Qbump would be approximately 4 931 s see Figure 3 12 in Test Report Appendix E e CEV 10 51 s 2 0m that such a water level rise would be obtained for an in flow of approximately 13 91 s The corresponding Qbump would be approxi mately 10 41 s see Figure 3 16 in Test Report Appendix E 4 The test with the orifice was carried out with a larger inflow than predefined This was done as the Q H relation for an orifice is independent of the water level increase which also is documented by comparing with the theoretical relation see Figure 3 23 in the Test Report Appendix E Verification results Performance parameters The verified performance for the two parameters is listed below The results are transferred di rectly from the Test Report Appendix E How at Hbump and Huesign Specific performance for each ofthe four selected CEVs is listed in Table 3 1 and Table 3 2 Table 3 1 Verified performance on Qbump Be aware that the results of Q bump are uniquely influenced by Qinfow see later Forthis flow the water level rise was only 0 19 mm s while the operational requirement was gt 0 5 mm s this isan explanation forthe deviation from the expected Inflow in test Deviation from model Vs characteristics Verification Report Mosbaek Meant Range CEV 1 41 s 1 00m 100 1 79 to 6 31 1 34 1 22 1 45 4 3 13 3 6 CEV 4 91 s 1 50 m 100
12. ce of a technology or a product for a specified application under defined conditions and quality assurance The objective of this verification is to evaluate the performance of a vertical centrifugal flow regulator for storm water This Verification Report and the verification of the technology are based on the Specific Verifica tion Protocol Test Plan and Test Report for the Mosbaek CEV flow regulator included as Ap pendix B D and E 1 1 Name of technology Vertical centrifugal flow regulator CEV CEntrifugal Vertical produced by Mosbaek A S Mosbaek produces CEVs for flow capacities from 0 2 l s to 80 1 s The verification will cover ver ification test of four specific CEV dimensions within this range Mosbaek have selected four specific CEV models to represent their CEV technology namely e CEV1 41 s E 1 00m 100 e CEV4 91 s 1 50m 100 e CEV 10 5 s 2 00m 78 e CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 100 The name of the CEV indicates the designed maximum flow of for example 1 4 1 s and the corre lating maximum pressure height of for example 1 00 m The percentage 100 and 78 indi cates the percentage of the design flow at the point bump where the vortex is formed 1 2 Name and contact of proposer Mosbaek A S V rkstedsvej 20 4600 K ge Denmark Contact Torben Krejberg e mail tk mosbaek dk phone 45 5663 8580 Mosbaek website www mosbaek dk 1 3 Name of verification body and responsible of verification ETA Danmar
13. d method 2 for one of the model tests has been performed The results are shown in the Appendix D of the Test Report Appendix D to this report It appears that there is apart from the fluctuations a good agreement between the two methods However since the quality of the results with meth od 2 was very reliable and while the results obtained by means of method 1 are subject to large fluctuations it was chosen to use method 2 only 3 2 2 Audits During testing and internal test a system audit was performed by Jesper Fuchs from DHI on 29 September 2014 The verification body ETA Denmark represented by Peter Fritzel performed a test system audit on 2 October 2014 Conclusions of the internal audit Jesper Fuchs The test is performed in accordance with the test plan and carried out in a safe manner Han dling and storage of data is safe Conclusions of the audit by ETA Denmark Peter Fritzel There is consistency with the test plan and handling of measurements is carried out in a safe manner The full audit reports can be found in Appendix E Verification Report Mosbaek 11 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 Deviations There were four deviations to the test plan The description of these can be found in full in Ap pendix C of the Test Report included as Appendix E to this report A summary of the deviations is as follows 1 Instead of establishing the zero level in the inlet tank for each test a common zero scan
14. eesatessnessateesseesseesneeesieessteesneesnees Verification process mccicannconnens mess Deviations from the verification protocol Description of technology and application Summary description Intended application Matrix matrices PULP OSC S zus Bee a EA RRNA Ea aes Verification parameters definition rara Flow at Hbump and Haesign eaudecuccoutueucecuuseucccusbeucecesswuccouseeucecusesuceeusucuceseuecuseen E E E cess sewuseas Sued secs setecesn A T Flow reduction at Haesign n anna ernennen Evaltation aan tas 11 Calculation of verification parameters performance cocineros 11 Evaluation of test quality Control data Audits nenn Deviations Verification Ano o Performance parameters Flow at Hbump and Haesign TEE EE E P E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E T Flow reduction at Hassien a 2 ss Operational parameters Additional parameters User manual Required resourcesz nee ee a Occupational health and environmental iMPACt naciera 17 Recommendation for the Statement of Verification u uusssnseensenseennseennsseennnseennssennnssennnseennnsnnnnsennnnnennnn 17 Techn logy des CAPO ae ei Application Matrix nenne Purpose Conditions of operation and use Verification parameters definition SUMMA Y omnia eee eran renos 18 Test and analysis desir ci Laboratory or field conditions u Matrix composition Test and analysis parameters Test and analysis methods sum
15. ence tech A 2 Verification Report Mosbaek Comments on the DANETV approach nology tests Verification Provision of objective evidence that the tech nical design of a given environmental technolo gy ensures the fulfilment of a given perfor mance claim in a specified application taking any measurement uncertainty and relevant assumptions into consideration None Verfication Report Mosbaek A 3 Verification Report Mosbaek APPENDIX B Specific Verification Protocol Verification Report Mosbaek Verification Report Mosbaek APPENDIX C Test Plan Verification Report Mosbaek Verification Report Mosbaek APPENDIX D Test Report Verification Report Mosbaek Verification Report Mosbaek APPENDIX E Audit reports Verification Report Mosbaek Verification Report Mosbaek
16. f 4 45 at Qdesign 3 3 4 Operational parameters During operation the following parameters were measured Verification Report Mosbaek 13 3 3 5 3 3 5 1 e Inflow l s e Water level pressure in regulator well mH20 Pa e Water level pressure in the outlet tank mH20 Pa e Outlet from the outlet tank l s These data have created curves shown in the Test Report section 3 Test results Appendix E During the test the average water level must be within 0 5 and 1 5mm s since this is common values in runoff systems Additional parameters User manual The verification criterion for the user manual is that the manual describes the use of the equip ment adequately and is understandable for the typical test coordinator and test technician This criterion was based on a number of specific points of importance see Table 3 4 for the parame ters to be included A description is complete if all essential steps are described if they are illustrated by a figure or a photo where relevant and if the descriptions are understandable without reference to other guidance Mosbaek has provided e Centrifugal valve CE V wet mounted General information e Installation Instruction Mosbaek Flow Regulators Type CEV KPS Sealing e Maintenance and Inspection Instructions Mosbaek Flow Regulators Type CEV KPS Sealing Table 3 4 Evaluation of user manual Summary No description Not relevant description Product Principle of
17. ign criteria are de fined by the client and Mosbaek in cooperation according to the design of the existing or planned piping network Figure 2 1 Sketch of CEV flow regulator installed in well Sketch provided by Mosbaek The CEVs verified have inflow in the bottom of the regulator as shown in Figure 2 1 This is to ensure proper and equal hydraulic conditions Furthermore in a standard installation Mosbaek will ensure that inlet and outlet are located at the same level in the well as depicted on Figure 2 1 in order to be able to control the water level rise in the well optimally Figure 2 2 shows the flow through a CEV In the 100 case the maximum outlet Qaesign is met twice first where the vortex is formed the bump on the graph and then at the specified Haesign where Heesign is calculated from the invert of the discharge pipe to the maximum water level in the well A 78 case a smaller CEV in a well with same height with the same Heesign is also shown here the bump occurs at a flow of 78 of Qaesign Verification Report Mosbaek Hdesign Hbump100 100 Hbump78 due gt 78 Flow Figure 2 2 Graphic showing the general vortex brake effect on water outflow with CEVsoperating at 78 and 100 efficiency and water inflow to well larger than outflow though CEV well is filling up Graph provided by Mosbaek The optimal solution 100 where Qbump equals Qeesign gives less restriction at low heads al lowing a bet
18. k A S Goteborg Plads 1 2150 Nordhavn Denmark Verification responsible Peter Fritzel PF email pf etadanmark dk phone 45 7224 5900 Verification Report Mosbaek Appointed verification expert Mette Tjener Andersson MTA e mail mta dhigroup com phone 45 4516 9148 14 Verification organisation including experts The verification was conducted by ETA Danmark A S in cooperation with Danish Centre for Ver ification of Climate and Environmental Technologies DANETV which performs independent verification of technologies and products for the reduction of climate changes and pollution The verification is conducted to satisfy the requirements of the ETV scheme established by the European Union EU ETV Pilot Programme 1 The verification was coordinated and supervised by ETA Danmark assisted by an appointed verification expert while tests were coordinated and supervised by DHI with the participation of the proposer Mosbaek The testing was conducted at the premises of Mosbaek in Kgge where a test facility has been constructed An internal and an external expert are assigned to provide independent expert review of the planning conducting and reporting of the verification and tests e Internal technical expert Morten Just Kjglby MJK DHI Urban and Industry Dept e mail mjk dhigroup com e External technical expert Verification protocol Professor Torben Larsen TL Aalborg University Department of Civil Engineering e m
19. l Verification Protocol 1 and ETA Danmarks internal procedure 2 A Statement of Verification will be issued by ETA Danmark after comple tion of the verification This verification report will include the other documents prepared as appendices Deviations from the verification protocol There were no deviations to the verification protocol Verification Report Mosbaek Verification Report Mosbaek 2 1 Description of technology and application Summary description The flow regulator technology for extreme rainfall events is based on quickly reaching the max imum discharge flow and staying at or below this value The maximum discharge flow is the al lowable amount of water passing through the regulator without causing any problems to the downstream pipe network The technology verified is the vertical centrifugal flow regulator CEV CEntrifugal Vertical from Mosbaek It is a wet mounted vortex flow regulator for storm water with design flows between 0 2 and 80 l s The CEV regulates the water due to the vortex created when sufficient water flow is going through the unit The vortex is created when the water flow reaches a certain flow rate The vor tex slows down the water flow through the CEV In this way the water is stored in the well and the water flow is then kept almost constant A schematic view of the CEV in operation is shown in Figure 2 1 The CEV can be designed to fulfil different design criteria The specific des
20. lar inspection and drainage of 1 day sump sand catcher Waste management Sump sand As for other wells with no CEV Permit compliance None Evaluation of the following subjects has been performed based on information gained from Mosbaek e Resources used during production of the equipment in the technolo The CEV and their mounting are produced from stainless steel grade 1 4404 316L For the tested products incl mounting the weights are CEV 1 41 s 1 0m 100 5 9 kg CEV 4 91 s 1 5m 100 11 5kg CEV 10 51 s 2 0m 78 21 5kg CEV 10 51 s 2 0m 100 25 1kg 80 of the steel on the world market is reused material The main part of the steel in Denmark is imported from other European countries while the rest is mainly from Taiwan India and China Depending on the distance the freight is by ship or by truck For the European marked the transport is mainly by truck Mosbaek purchases steel from Danish distributors such as Dacapo Stainless Lemvigh M ller Sanist l and Dam stahl The average energy consumption for the final product is 4 1kWh kg Longevity of the equipment The regulators are designed to last as long as the other components in a sewage system approx 50 years A regulator will not need to be replaced unless inspection shows con siderable wear and tear e Robustness vulnerability to changing conditions of use or maintenance The regulator is robust to changes in temperature and environment A steeper slope on
21. mary Parameters AAA PA aaa aa aAa a E AAA Verification SA dadaa daad Naaraiden iaaiiai anila Performance param Cte 0 PEOR OR E PO PEN DE PO A aradan eai Caaan aoia A aE EAKA aE RE aa Operational parameters ta Environmental parameters Additional parameters Additional information Quality assurance and deviations Verification Report Mosbaek Figures Figure 1 1 Figure 2 1 Figure 2 2 Figure 3 1 Figure 3 2 Quality assurance conc rn 23 References Aaa 25 Organisation of the verification and test cessesssssssessstesssesesssesseesstessnesssssceaeeesteesaeessieecsnesseeceaeeesteesneeeseecsueessseeeaeeeaseeeneeesaees 4 Sketch of CEV flow regulator installed in well Sketch provided by Mosbaek c ssssssssssssssessstsesteessesenseesteeeneeenses 8 Graphic showing the general vortex brake effect on water outflow with CEVs operating at 78 and 100 efficiency and water inflow to well larger than outflow though CEV well is filling up Graph provided by Mosaic E 9 Correlation between Qinflow and Qbump given for all tested CEVS cccseecssssssessssssseesstessessnecssseesseesseessteessessneessseeeneesiee 13 A Sketch of CEV flow regulator installed in well B Graphic showing the general vortex brake effect on water outflow with CEVs operating at 78 and 100 efficiency and water inflow to well larger than outflow though CEV well is filling up Both provided by Mosbaek eesssssssesss
22. operation Vv Intended use Vv Performance expected y Limitations Vv Preparations Unpacking Vv Transport Vv Assembly Installation lt lt Function test Operation Steps of operation Points of caution Accessories Maintenance Ni lt lt lt lt lt Trouble shooting Safety Chemicals Ni Power y Verification Report Mosbaek 3 3 5 2 Required resources The capital investment and the resources for operation and maintenance could be seen as the sustainability of the product and will be itemized based upon a determined design 3 see Table 3 5for the items that will be included The design basis consists of one installed CEV in an existing well All cost items relevant for the Mosbaek CEVs are listed Note that the actual cost for each item is not compiled and reported Verification Report Mosbaek 15 Table 3 5 List of capital cost itemsand operation and maintenance cost items per product unit Number duration Capital Site preparation None Buildings and land None Equipment The CEV and mounting from Mosbaek 1 Tightening material and bolts Utility connections Rain water sewer system and wells 1 Installation To be installed by sewer contractor 1 day Start up training Permits None Operation and maintenance Materials including chemicals None Utilities including water and energy None Labor Regu
23. pounds reduction of energy use MW kg etc Specific verification protocol Protocol describing the specific verification of a technology as developed applying the princi ples and procedures of the EU GVP and the quality manual of the verification body None Standard Generic document established by consensus and approved by a recognised standardization body that provides rules guidelines or charac teristics for tests or analysis None Test testing Determination of the performance of a product for measurement parameters defined for the application None Test performance audit Quantitative evaluation of a measurement sys tem as used in a specific test E g evaluation oflaboratory control data for relevant period precision under repeatability conditions trueness evaluation of data from laboratory participation in proficiency test and control of calibration of online measurement devises Test system audit Qualitative on site evaluation of test sampling and or measurement systems associated with a specific test E g evaluation of the testing done against the requirements of the specific verification proto col the test plan and the quality manual of the test body Test system control Control of the test system as used in a specific test E g test of stock solutions evaluation of stabil ity of operational and or on line analytical equipment test of blanks and refer
24. relevant assumption made The proposer claims shall be included in the ETV proposal The initial claims can be devel oped as part of the quick scan Verification Report Mosbaek A 1 Comments on the DANETV approach Performance parameters re vised performance claims A set of quantified technical specifications rep resentative of the technical performance and potential environmental impacts of a technolo gy in a specified application and under speci fied conditions of testing or use operational parameters The performance parameters must be estab lished considering the application s of the product the requirements of society legisla tive regulations customers needs and pro poser initial performance claims product and how it is affected Procedure Detailed description of the use ofa standard or The procedure specifies implementing a stand a method within one body ard or a method in terms of e g equipment used Proposer Any legal entity or natural which can be the Can be vendor or producer technology manufacturer or an authorised representative of the technology manufacturer If the technology manufactures concerned agree the proposer can be another stakeholder undertaking a specific verification programme involving several technologies Purpose The measurable property that is affected by the The purpose could be reduction of nitrate con centration separation of volatile organic com
25. s isan explanation forthe deviation from the expected Based on two tests only 3 4 4 2 Operational parameters No additional operational parameters than the performance parameters were measured This subchapter will therefore not be included in the Statement of Verification 3 4 4 3 Environmental parameters No additional environmental parameters than the performance parameters were measured This subchapter will therefore not be included in the Statement of Verification 3 4 4 4 Additional parameters The user manual and other descriptions were described as complete Application of the CEV does not give rise to any special risk or contact to hazardous substances Though installation in the well is subject to safety risk as all operations in wells and standard safety precautions therefore have to be taken accordingly The CEVs are produced of stainless steel Today 80 of the stainless steel on the marked is re cycled It is imported from Europe and certain places in Asia The tested CEVs contain from 6 25 kg stainless steel and 4 1kWh kg steel is used in the production The CEVs are reusable or 100 recyclable They have a lifetime of 50 years The above information is obtained from Mosbaek A S Verification Report Mosbaek 21 22 3 4 5 3 4 6 Additional information The CEV is designed to be effective within a flow range until a certain amount of water is stored in the connected well or basin This means that if a storm water even
26. ssseessesssseesseesteesssesssessnsssseeenteesaee 17 Figure 3 3 SKEtCh OF test set Up iii A 19 Tables Table 1 1 Simplified overview of the verification process miii rr 6 Table 2 1 Specific performance claims from the proposer on Qbump and Qdesignzssnessensensensensenunsneesmnunsenessunssensenunsensnsnmnensennnnne 10 Table 2 2 Specific performance claims by the proposer on flow reduction compared to no CEV installed in well 10 Table 3 1 Verified performance on Qbump Be aware that the results of Qbump are uniquely influenced by Qinflow see aa a 12 Table 3 2 Verified performance on Qaesign based on two tests ONlY cccanccconnnnnnerenncnn cercare renacer 13 Table 3 2 Verified performance on flow reduction compared to no CEV installed in well 13 Table 3 3 Evaluation of user Mancilla anilla ii atea 14 Table 3 4 List of capital cost items and operation and maintenance cost items per product unit 16 Table 4 1 QA plan for the Verification ici ia 23 Appendices A Terms and definitions B Specific Verification Protocol C Test plan D Test report E Audit reports Archiving All standard project files documents etc are archived at ETA Danmark Any other project files set up files forcing data model output etc are archived with the institute performing the tests or analysis Verification Report Mosbaek 1 Introduction Environmental technology verification ETV is an independent third party assessment ofthe performan
27. t exceeds the design crite ria the well or basin where the CEV is located will float over This situation is not included in the verification The CEV is designed with the largest possible opening at the given hydraulic situation The CEV is most often installed as detachable and if required obstacles can be removed in this way At lo cations with many obstacles in the water the CEV can be equipped with a grid All tests are car ried out with water without obstacles Industrial wastewater and backwater backwards flow through the CEV are not included nor are rapid changes in head and flow Such changes may occur in special situations e g if pumps are Started or stopped Characteristics obtained from the experiments are only 100 valid for applications which have full geometric similarity with the set up defined in Figure 3 2a For applications with geometries which differ from this figure the actual characteristic can deviate from the characteristic found from the verification experiment Quality assurance and deviations Prior to testing was performed leakage test and review of calibration certificates for pressure transducers and flowmeters In addition calibration tests of pressure transducers were per formed on both inlet and outlet side During testing internal and external test system audits were performed by DHI and ETA Danmark Verification Report Mosbaek 4 Quality assurance The personnel and experts responsible for q
28. tant In this way it is possible to keep an almost constant pressure head atthe pump and thus an almost constant flow From the regulator well the water flows through the CEV to the outlet tank The outlet tank has a pressure transducer monitoring the water level in this tank The outlet flow from the outlet tank is measured by means of a flowmeter Matix composition The used water is from an outdoor reservoir Test and analysis parameters The following test runs were performed CEV 1 41 s 1 00m 100 CEV 4 91 s 1 50 m 100 CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 78 CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 100 Orifice Tests of the performance at Hbump and Heesign are marked in light orange Test of the flow reduction at Haesign is done by comparing the results from the hatched test runs The repetition of CEV 1 41 s 1 00m 100 dark blue marking is done to see if there is more than 10 variation between runs with the same flow There was very limited variation there fore the repetition was not done for other test runs Test and analysis methods summary The inflow and outflow from the CEV was measured by the use of flowmeters and pressure transducers as described above Parameters measured e Inflow l s e Water level pressure in regulator well mH20 Pa e Water level pressure in the outlet tank mH20 Pa e Outlet from the outlet tank l s Outflow from CEV is calculated by using the following equation AHo
29. ter flow during normal operating situations and thereby less risk of blocking down stream 2 2 Intended application The intended application of the technology for verification is defined in terms of the matrix and the purpose 2 2 1 Matrix matrices The CEV is for storm water and certain types of industrial wastewaters The CEV is installed be fore the combined system with storm water and wastewater and is thereby restricting the amount of storm water into the combined system The verification therefore only covers the ma trix storm water 2 2 2 Purpose s The purpose of the technology is to store storm water at appropriate places before entering the piping system during storm water events The CEV is installed in wells and basins depending on the piping network Verification Report Mosbaek 10 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 Verification parameters definition There is no regulation to fulfil for this technology The initial claims from the proposer are matching the claims from other vendors No need has been found to add any additional perfor mance parameters to those initially selected by the proposer Mosbaek has two types of claims for their CEVs both described below How at Hbump and Huesign Mosbaek has specified the performance of four selected models ofthe CEV through performance graphs and specified the following specific claims for details please consult Appendix B 100 model Qaesign 5 is met at Hbump and Haesign
30. tion or test step is performed Application The use of a product specified with respect to The application must be defined with a preci matrix purpose target and effect and limita sion that allows the user of a product verifica tions tion to judge whether his needs are comparable to the verification conditions DANETV Danish centre for verification of environmental None technologies Deviation Is a change to a specific verification protocol or None atest plan done during the verification or test step performance Evaluation Evaluation of test data for a technology product None for performance and data quality Experts Independent persons qualified on a technology These experts may be technical experts QA in verification experts for other ETV systems or regulatory experts General verification protocol Description of the principles and general pro None Matrix The type of material that the technology is intended for Matrices could be soil drinking water ground water degreasing bath exhaust gas condensate etc Operational parameter Measurable parameters that define the applica tion and the verification and test conditions Operational parameters could be production capacity concentrations of non target com pounds in matrix etc None Initial performance claim Proposer claimed technical specifications of product Shall state the conditions of use under which the claim is applicable and mention any
31. uality assurance as well as the different quality as surance tasks can be seen in Table 4 1 All relevant reviews are prepared using the DANETV re view report template 5 Audit during testing has been performed Table 4 1 QA plan for the verification Intemal expert Verification body Extemal experts Mosbaek Specific verification protocol Review Review and approve Review Test plan Review Approve Review and approve Test system at test site Audit Test report Review Review Verification report Review Review Review Statement of Verification Acceptance Review Internal review was conducted by Morten Just Kjglby MJK and a test system audit was con ducted following general audit procedures by certified auditor Peter Fritzel PF Only the verification protocol and verification report require external review according to EU ETV pilot programme GVP 1 For the verification protocol external review was performed by Torben Larsen TL while the verification report and Statement of Verification have been re viewed by Ian Walker IW The verification body has reviewed and approved the test plan and reviewed the test report The reviews were performed by Mette Tjener Andersson MTA while the approval was given by Peter Fritzel PF Verification Report Mosbaek 23 24 Verification Report Mosbaek 5 References 1 EU Environmental Technology Verification pilot programme General
32. ut x Aout x 1000 Qoutflow Qover flow At Verification Report Mosbaek Qoutflow Flow out of CEV 1 s Qoverflow Overflow from the outlet tank 1 s Aout Surface area in the outlet tank riser m Hout Pressure head in the outlet tank mH20 At Time for changing Hout with AHout s 3 4 4 Verification results 3 4 4 1 Performance parameters The results of the verification with regards to flow at Hbump Qbump and at Haesign Quesign are listed in the table Based on the results from a test with 1 41 s 1 00m 100 and a corresponding orifice it can be stated that Mosbaek CEVs are verified to reduce the flow by a factor of 4 45 at Quesign Qbump Qaesign Mean and range Deviation from Mean and range Deviation from Vs model charac Vs model character teristics istics CEV 1 41 s 1 00m 100 1 34 1 22 1 45 4 3 13 3 6 1 43 1 42 1 45 2 1 1 4 3 6 CEV 4 91 s 1 50m 100 4 74 4 50 5 04 3 3 8 2 2 9 4 78 4 76 4 80 2 4 2 9 2 0 CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 78 8 17 7 57 8 74 0 2 7 6 6 7 110 11 10 09 10 12 3 7 3 9 3 6 CEV 10 51 s 2 00m 100 10 18 9 75 10 67 3 0 7 1 1 6 10 56 10 55 10 56 0 6 0 5 0 6 Orifice N A N A 6 36 N A Be aware that the results of Qbump are uniquely influenced by Qintlow For this flow the water level rise was only 0 19 mm s while the operational requirement was gt 0 5 mm s thi
33. was performed for each CEV type This zero scan was carried out as an individual test instead of an integrated part of each test 2 The lowest inflow in the tests with CEV 1 41 s 1 0m was carried out with too low in flow 1 791 s instead of 1 91 s With good accuracy the inlet flow which will result in a water level rise of 0 5mm s can be found by interpolation Such interpolation shows that an inflow of approximately 2 81 s will result in a water level rise of 0 5mm s The corresponding Qbump would be approximately 1 281 s see Figure 3 8 in Test Report Appendix E 3 Forall 100 CEVs the largest inflows gave larger water level rise than 1 5mm s which was the largest water level rise to be tested and a predefined operational parameter During the test attempt was made to come close to 1 5 mm s but due to the character of the curve with the rapid bump it was difficult in advance to estimate the water level rise With good accuracy the inlet flows which will result in a water level rise of 1 5mm s can be found by interpolation Doing this is it nice to have a measured values of water level rise is above 1 5 mm s Interpolations show for e CEV 1 41 s 1 0m that such a water level rise would be obtained for an inflow of approximately 6 11 s The corresponding Qbump would be approximately 1 441 s see Figure 3 8 in the Test Report Appendix E e CEV 4 91 s 1 5m that such a water level rise would be obtained for an inflow of approxim
Download Pdf Manuals
Related Search