Attempts to regulate the air conditioning (AC) and commercial refrigeration markets for the benefit of the environment are nothing new. During the past 25+ years, various legislative actions have limited the use of various refrigerants that depleted ozone or emitted greenhouse gases, both of which have been shown to contribute to global warming potential (GWP). 

The most recent actions, including the EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program and the much more recent American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (AIM), are further driving growth of low-GWP refrigerants. While this is good news for the environment, these low-GWP refrigerants are not without their own challenges. They may increase energy consumption, introduce added safety risks and require significant equipment modifications. 

 

A history of efforts to benefit the environment 

Refrigeration systems contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases when a leak occurs of a high-GWP refrigerant. The two refrigerants most commonly used in the early days of refrigeration were ammonia and carbon dioxide (CO2). Both proved to be problematic for different reasons. Ammonia is toxic and carbon dioxide requires extremely high pressures to operate in a refrigeration cycle. 

As a result, both refrigerants lost popularity when Freon 12 (dichloro-diflouro-methane) hit the market. Among other benefits, Freon is extremely stable, non-toxic, and operates at moderate pressures. Unfortunately, it was also shown to have a high ozone depletion potential (ODP), which is the primary reason is has since been banned from use globally. 

Numerous other refrigerants have also been banned through SNAP, which was established under the Clean Air Act to identify and evaluate substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. The EPA has since published numerous rules about what is and is not acceptable under SNAP, creating tremendous confusion in the industry. The policies established under SNAP took on greater meaning due to the AIM Act, which went into effect in 2020. The AIM Act requires the EPA to implement a phase down of the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC refrigerants) to reach approximately 15% of their 2011-2013 average annual levels by 2036. HFCs are of particular concern since they are classified as potent greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. 

 

Pros and cons of preferred low-GWP alternatives carbon dioxide (CO2) and propane (R290) 

Tighter environmental legislation is opening the door for increased demand for low-GWP refrigerants.  

Two of the more popular options on the market today are CO2 and propane (R290). Both have a long history in refrigeration but have recently again emerged as front-runners due to their low environmental impact. CO2 is the more commonly used for many reasons, including: 

• Environmentally safe with a GWP rating of 1 
• Non-toxic and non-explosive, which means it is safe for use in public locations, such as supermarkets 
• Less expensive than synthetic refrigerants 
• Non-corrosive to most component materials and compatible with most compressor lubricants 
• High density, which allows for a smaller pipe size 
• Less noticeable pipeline pressure drops 
• High heat transfer efficiency so heat exchangers can be smaller 
• SNAP-approved for use in many different types of systems 

A key challenge of using CO2, however, is that it operates at a far higher pressure than other natural and synthetic refrigerants. This increases the risk of leaks which, in turn, necessitates the use of more durable, costly components and piping to handle the greater pressure and added controls and other safety features, many of which increase energy consumption due to high ambient temperatures. 

As a hydrocarbon, R290 provides several equally attractive benefits, including superior thermodynamic properties and greater heat capacity. These combined characteristics allow R290 to absorb more heat at an accelerated rate, resulting in higher device energy efficiency with faster temperature recovery and lower energy consumption.  

More importantly from an environmental standpoint, R290 (like all hydrocarbons) has no ozone depleting properties and a low GWP of 3. It is also compatible with materials commonly used in the construction of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, is readily available and relatively inexpensive. It can be stored and transported in steel cylinders similar to how other common refrigerants are handled.

A major concern about R290 is that it’s highly flammable. That’s why refrigerant charge limits are in place, as well as other special safety standards when using R290. 

 

Overcoming the challenges of CO2 

The higher operating pressure of CO2 creates a few design challenges. But most of these can be overcome, albeit at a higher cost. Key are material upgrades, such as thicker-walled piping or high-strength K65 copper alloys. 

Parker manufactures an array of valves, seals and controllers that are specially rated for CO2 high-pressure refrigeration systems. This includes pressure-rated electric expansion valves, ball valves with integrated pressure relief, stepper motor-driven pressure regulating valves, pulse width modulation valves that manage refrigerant flow and pressure-regulating gas cooler/flash gas bypass valves.

Steel piping is also being used in some instances for high pressure CO2 and the addition of electronic controls which can monitor and record pressures, temperatures and additional parameters. This includes pressure-rated electric expansion valves, ball valves with integrated pressure relief, stepper motor-driven pressure regulating valves, pulse width modulation valves that manage refrigerant flow and pressure-regulating gas cooler/flash gas bypass valves. The use of remote monitoring systems is growing. Not only is remote monitoring a safer option, but it is also in response to the current shortage of trained HVAC technicians, allowing companies to monitor multiple systems and locations with fewer workers. 

 

Overcoming the challenges of R290 

With the high flammability of R290, refrigerator manufacturers need to make the necessary system design changes to align with applicable UL and ASHRAE standards that include charge limits, marking requirements and ventilation requirements. System charges of up to 150 grams are currently allowed for most R290 applications, though a few are even lower. Proposed and under-revision UL safety standards seek to raise this limit as high as 500 grams for open refrigeration appliances, and 300 grams for closed appliances. While some systems or applications would remain with more restrictive charges, these increases promise to open R290 to many more applications and enable new applications. 

To address flammability concerns, Parker manufactures innovative filter driers and thermostatic expansion valves (TEVs) that are designed to minimize the amount of refrigeration system charge when using flammable refrigerants.that are designed to minimize the amount of refrigeration system charge when using flammable refrigerants. 

In addition, some system manufacturers use a sealed design that seals off the spark inside by isolating the R290 from the electrical switch assembly. This type of design reduces the potential for explosion by stopping the gas from entering the electrical switch compartment. 

Another option is to fit the leak detection and control systems such that, when activated, it will pump down the propane charge into a liquid receiver and then shut off the electrical supply. If the compressor is enclosed, a ventilation fan must be installed and activated by the leak detection system to remove any gas that might leak from the compressor into the enclosure. 

 

Preparing for an uncertain future 

Despite the ongoing changes and obstacles presented by various environmental regulations in the U.S. and abroad, the good news is that the necessary product and material innovations are already available to help engineers overcome the design challenges presented by low-GWP refrigerants, such as CO2 and R290.  

 

This article was contributed by Parker Sporlan Division.  

 

Additional helpful content:

Reliable Solutions for HVAC and Refrigeration

Related content on HVACR industry

Choosing a Solenoid Valve for Applications Requiring Extreme Performance

HVACR Tech Tip: Prevent Destructive Superheat with TREV Liquid Injection

HVACR Tech Tip: Compressor Overheating is the Number One Refrigeration Problem

 

The COVID pandemic impacted the way many industries do business, and the HVAC industry is no exception. Ongoing concerns regarding infection risk and indoor air quality have prompted an unprecedented demand for filters with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) value of 13, commonly known as MERV 13 filters, as well as those with even higher MERV ratings. As part of its COVID response, ASHRAE recommends increasing outside air within buildings as much as possible, as well as upgrading air filters to a minimum MERV 13 efficiency rating.

The rush to upgrade to high MERV filters, however, opens the door to a practical discussion about whether that is the best action in all cases. The reality is that using the wrong filter for the wrong application in the wrong place can substantially limit HVAC systems’ efficiency. The result is that air quality will suffer, and the system will consume more power than it should to function.

 

Is MERV 13 really the best choice for your HVAC system?

A MERV rating is determined by the filter’s particle-size removal efficiency. The higher the number, the higher the filter efficiency. Before considering ratings, however, it’s important to determine the purpose of the filter.

If the primary purpose is to keep heating and air conditioning systems clean and block contaminants from interfering with the operation of key components, you likely don’t need as high a MERV rating. If the primary objective is to protect breathing air quality, then a higher MERV rating might make sense.

An option worth considering in some applications is the use of a multi-filter system that includes final filters and pre-filters. A less expensive, lower MERV-rated filter, functioning as a pre-filter, can trap dirt and large particles before the air reaches the final filters downstream which then remove the small particles. Multi-filter systems can extend the life of the more expensive final filters, creating overall cost savings.

When choosing a filter, it’s also important to consider the conditioned space’s activities and the types and sizes of particles those activities generate. Contaminants of greatest concern need to be evaluated to determine the level of filtration efficiency required for that contaminant’s size (measured in micrometers/microns). Once a full list of contaminants of concern has been identified, you can use the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2017 to select the proper filter with the appropriate MERV.

 

Additional considerations when choosing a filter

Of course, particle-capture efficiency matters. But there are also other filter characteristics that should be considered when determining the best filter for a specific application. Cost is always a consideration and should include the purchase price, as well as service life and maintenance requirements. The filter’s resistance to airflow also is a key consideration, as it is proportional to the energy consumed by the filter. Energy expenditures can account for about 81% of an air filtration system’s annual operating costs, while its purchase price and maintenance can account for about 18.5%.

Other considerations include the design and materials used in filters. Some designs are easier to install, seal better, and don’t absorb moisture or shed. Pleated filters, which are commonly made with a blend of cotton and polyester or synthetic media, provide a larger filter-surface area than panel filters. Most pleated filters are MERV 6 to 13. Depending on the filter, capture efficiencies for particles in the 3 to 10-micron range can be 35% to 90%.

There are also extended-surface filters that are made with synthetic, fiberglass or cellulose/glass-fiber media. These include bag or pocket, rigid-cell, aluminum-separator and V-bank filters. Pocket filters provide an even greater filter surface area than pleated filters to provide maximum efficiency with the lowest pressure drop and longest life. They typically have MERV ratings of 11 to 15.

 

Other factors that can affect efficiency          

Even a filter with the highest MERV rating can’t achieve high-quality air if some of the air is not going through the filter. Gaps around high-efficiency filters or filter housings can decrease filter performance. They occur when filter media are not sealed properly in the filter frame, when filters are not gasketed properly in filter racks, or when air-handler doors and duct systems are not sealed properly.

For a 1-mm gap, bypass flows can increase to 25% to 35% of the total airflow. The percentage increases based on the filter’s efficiency because air naturally flows through areas with the least resistance. Since higher efficiency filters have a greater resistance to airflow, bypass air has a larger effect. This, in turn, reduces the efficiency rating. For a 1-mm gap, for instance, a MERV 15 filter will perform only as well as a MERV 14 filter. A 10-mm gap, in contrast, causes a MERV 15 filter to perform as a MERV 8 filter. That’s why building operators and maintenance personnel should perform regular field inspections to ensure filter seals and gaskets are installed properly.

To combat gap problems, Parker created its QuadSEAL® HVAC filters with proprietary E-Pleat® media technology. The molded polyurethane frame incorporates a QuadSEAL integrated gasket on all four sides and can flex without damage. Since the media pack is 100% bonded into the foamed frame, bypass is eliminated as is the need for additional sealants or adhesives.

 

Challenges with MERV 13 filters (and what can be done)

If it were just a matter of choosing the filter that produced the best air quality, the decision would be simple. Everyone would install filters with the highest MERV ratings they could find. Unfortunately, it’s not quite so simple. The challenge facing engineers, building owners and maintenance personnel tasked with specifying and installing filters is that more efficient filters cause higher pressure drops because the smaller pores create more resistance to air flow.

Not only are higher efficiency filters less energy efficient (causing increased energy consumption by the fan), but your air handling unit simply may not have enough capacity to function with a high-efficiency filter. The reality is that most commercial HVAC systems today can only handle MERV 8 filter or MERV 9 filter types.

So, what are your options?

• Upgrade to the most efficient filter you can without exceeding the operating capacity of your ventilation system (including investigation of newer filter designs that may have higher ratings and less pressure drop)
• Upgrade your system so that it can overcome the additional pressure drop and handle a higher-efficiency filter. This often requires, at minimum, upgrading fans.
• Use portable air cleaners with high-efficiency filters to complement your current HVAC system.

MERV 13 vs HEPA -- Limited applications for highest efficiency ratings

When COVID hit, suddenly industries that, for years, had functioned well with filters with MERV ratings of 8, 10 or 11, were scrambling for MERV 13, 14 and 16 filters. The reality, though, is that there are filter options even more efficient than MERV 16 filters.

High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) and Ultra-Low Particulate Air (ULPA) filters are designed to trap the smallest airborne particles and contaminants. HEPA filters have a minimum efficiency of 99.97% at 0.3 microns, whereas ULPA filters have an efficiency rating of 99.999% at 0.12 microns or higher. This does not mean that ULPA filters are better than HEPA filters when taking air flow and other variables into account. In fact, HEPA filters cost less, have a lower resistance to air flow and offer a longer service life than ULPA filters.

Parker offers a complete line of HEPA and ULPA standalone and pre-filters for removing particles and contaminants with efficiencies up to 99.9995%. They also are designed to reduce energy consumption and operating costs.

So why doesn’t everyone simply switch to a HEPA or ULPA filter since they represent the gold standard in air quality? Because most commercial and industrial HVAC systems on the market today simply aren’t compatible with them. Since they are so efficient, HEPA and ULPA filters cause a higher pressure drop than filters with lower MERV ratings.

The best option today for using HEPA and ULPA filters is as part of stand-alone systems. Many school districts are looking at options for installing portable air filtration systems with HEPA filters in each classroom to augment their central air filtration systems. HEPA and ULPA filters are also frequently found in critical medical applications and cleanrooms.

  Newer innovations offer superior efficiency while overcoming problems with air flow

Parker’s approach to balancing the need for efficiency with minimum pressure drops has been the development of its LoadTECH® filter that utilize Parker’s proprietary E-pleat® technology. This patented design molds filtration media into a series of pre-formed channels that direct the air smoothly through the filter, allowing for even loading, minimum resistance and complete media utilization. The previously mentioned QuadSEAL® filters offer a similar benefit of improving efficiency without restricting air flow. The advanced media used in these filters also resists tearing, damage, moisture and microbial growth, leading to a long filter life and the need for fewer filter changeouts.

The decision to use a filter with a MERV 13 rating (or higher), in accordance with the latest guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and ASHRAE, is complicated by the fact that most commercial HVAC systems cannot handle the highest efficiency-rated filters. While there are options for upgrades, redesigns that include a multi-filter system, and new technologies that balance efficiency and air flow, specifiers need to be careful that they choose the right filter after considering all the variables, including cost, maintenance requirements, operating efficiency and, of course, air quality.

 

This article was contributed by the Parker HVAC Filtration Division.

 

Related content:

Reliable Solutions for HVAC and Refrigeration

Defining Our Unique Contribution to the World

Related content on HVACR industry

Avoiding Filter Failures in Air Handling Systems

How to Improve Indoor Air Quality and Protect Your HVAC System

Safety Precautions to Take When Changing HVAC Filters for Reducing Airborne Transmission

Reducing Airborne Transmission with HVAC Air Filters

Frequently Asked Questions About HVAC Filtration and COVID-19

 

 

 

For decades, futurists have been dreaming of “flying cars” that are easier and nimbler to operate than a helicopter and accessible to everyone. Today, many aerospace technologies are coming together helping numerous companies develop small passenger electric aircraft as soon as 2023.

It’s no secret that Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is going to be a hotly contested market with legacy aircraft builders, nimble startups, and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) systems providers clarifying their vision of the future. This new market aims to transport passengers and cargo at lower altitudes through urban, suburban, and regional landscapes. Aircraft that will meet these needs will utilize more- or all-electric technologies. 

Vast possibilities, by any measure

According to a 2020 Roland Berger study on Urban Air Mobility (UAM), a submarket of AAM, “the passenger UAM industry will generate revenues of almost $90 billion a year, with 160,000 commercial passenger drones plying the skies.” Further, Morgan Stanley Research projects that the UAM market could grow to $1.5 trillion by 2040. 

Even the most conservative forecasts indicate the AAM market has huge potential as evidenced by the hundreds of vehicles in development.

AAM is evolving toward reality

In early 2021, Air One, the world’s first airport for electric aircraft, was launched in Coventry, England by Urban Air Port, a subsidiary of sustainable tech company small (Six Miles Across London Limited) in partnership with Hyundai Motor Company, Coventry City Council, and the UK government. 

As technology evolves, infrastructure is built, and the regulatory/certification requirements established, AAM vehicles will take different forms:

• Hybrid electric vehicles will be using on-board electrical generating equipment, such as hydrogen power plants or small gas turbines, to generate the electricity needed for propulsion as well as for other systems like flight controls, environmental controls, accessories, and electric braking. Hybrid aircraft may be tasked with shorter regional routes – as opposed to short-hop intra-urban routes – and could be fixed-wing types that take off and land traditionally, or those that takeoff and land vertically. Such hybrid vehicles, which have the potential of significantly reducing emissions, are bridging the gap between today’s conventionally powered aircraft and all-electric ones.
• All-electric vehicles will primarily utilize rechargeable battery packs for flight energy. These aircraft will likely be of the electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) type, using distributed electric propulsion systems where the propulsive motors are distributed around the vehicle in proximity to the rotors that provide lift, forward motion, and flight control.

MEA: a pathway to an all-electric future

More-electric aircraft (MEA), which have been in production for over a decade, utilize electric power for all non-propulsive systems. The trend toward more-electric aircraft has been driven by the desire for improvements in aircraft weight, fuel efficiency, emissions, life-cycle costs, maintainability, and reliability.

Technology advancements in the areas of electric motors, motor controllers and inverters, electromechanical actuators (EMAs), and thermal management equipment are providing the building blocks that enable development of systems for more-electric aircraft.

Technologies for more-electric and all-electric aircraft

Parker Aerospace, via its dedicated AAM systems team, offers a broad range of products and systems expertise for present-day applications as well as future-state aircraft:

• Cockpit controls – Parker Aerospace cockpit controls provide functional and ergonomic interfaces between pilots and aircraft fly-by-wire systems. Compact and lightweight, these solutions can be seamlessly integrated into cockpit designs, including sidestick or yoke-based cockpit layouts.
   
• Electro-mechanical actuators –These types of actuators are used for primary, secondary (flap/high lift/electronically synchronized), utility, stabilizer trim, and more. Of note is Parker’s development of patented jam-tolerant EMAs.
   
• Electric motors and controllers – Motor and controller technology is at the core of many Parker solutions for more-electric and all-electric aircraft. Parker is developing families of motors and controllers to reduce cost and development time, while also looking at the newer high-power market needs for motors and controllers/inverters.
   
• Electric braking development – Applying its broad and deep experience in hydraulic aircraft braking systems, Parker is developing advanced electric braking systems for next-generation hybrid and all-electric aircraft.
   
• Integrated power management systems – These higher-voltage solid-state electric power distribution systems are required by the AAM market to address the higher-voltage power architectures noted below.  
   
• High-voltage power architectures – AAM vehicle builders are looking for high-voltage system architectures on the order of 500, 700, and even 1,000 volts and higher. These types of systems enable electronic equipment OEMs to design products that are much smaller and lighter-weight than the systems currently in use on commercial aircraft.
   
• Advanced thermal management solutions – Parker’s offering includes thermal management for electric motors and battery systems utilizing cooling pumps (ePumps), reservoirs, heat exchangers, valves, conveyance equipment, and more. This recent blog article explores the challenges and solutions available for eVTOL thermal management.
  
   
• Vibration attenuation and motion control – Technologies that safely and securely attach the propulsion system and airframe equipment, while mitigating the effects of vibration, shock, and sound disturbances, providing longer equipment life and noise reduction.
  
   
• Localized hydraulic powerpack solutions – When electric power solutions may not yet be feasible – flight controls for larger aircraft, for example – hydraulic powerpacks offer a robust, compact, and lighter-weight answer. This blog article provides a deeper dive into the benefits of hydraulic powerpacks.

 

Certification: where concepts meet reality

The AAM market is dynamic and changing rapidly. New ideas for platforms, infrastructure, and the technologies that make this exciting segment possible are surfacing daily.

Amid this excitement, these aircraft must be certified for their intended purpose, as do the systems and components that enable the platforms to execute their missions. Regulatory agencies such as the FAA and EASA are presently establishing the parameters under which AAM vehicles can be approved to fly.

Platform builders need to know that their partners have the engineering muscle and experience to not only design an innovative solution that meets requirements, but to also produce a solution that can be certified. This is where an experienced aerospace technology partner is crucial.

Over decades, Parker Aerospace has built thousands of certifiable components and systems for commercial and military aircraft. All Parker equipment is conceived and engineered to offer redundancy, safety, and reliability with the certification process in mind. Contributing to Parker’s track record of certification success is its state-of-the-art simulation capabilities, advanced test equipment, and thorough knowledge of global regulatory requirements.

Helping customers seize opportunity

As the market continues to ascend, Parker Aerospace and its AAM team are actively innovating to help customers take full advantage of these new and fast-changing opportunities. 

To learn more about how Parker Aerospace innovation is shaping the AAM market, email the team at airmobility@parker.com.

 

Making the world a better place is in our DNA  

As a trusted partner, Parker's team members work alongside customers to enable technology breakthroughs that change the world for the better. We help our customers and distribution partners meet the newest standards for safety or emissions, reduce power usage, improve efficiency, and move faster to optimize resources. Parker's Purpose is at the core of everything we do. Watch the introduction video with Parker's CEO Tom Williams.

 

 

This blog was contributed by Chris Frazer key account manager and UAM/eVTOL/AAM business development lead of Parker Aerospace. 

 

 

 

 

 

Related content

eVTOL Aircraft Require Comprehensive System-Level Thermal Management

5,000-psi High-Pressure Hydraulic Systems Reduce Aircraft Weight

Electric Motor-Driven Smart Pumps Support More-Electric Aircraft

Hydraulic Powerpacks Offer Size and Weight Advantages for Aircraft OEMs
 
 

Since the introduction of aviation fuel monitor cartridges in aviation fueling, super absorbent polymers (SAP) have been the essential materials used in the final stage of airport ground fueling systems for the protection of on-board systems from water contamination. The material’s ability to absorb and chemically lock in water have its challenges―potential media migration downstream. In 2017, the aviation industry through the International Air Transport Association (IATA), Air Transport Association (ATA) and Joint Inspection Group (JIG) introduced interim procedures while SAP-free filtration was developed. Parker has introduced Water Barrier Filtration technology for interplane fuel filtration solutions. 

 

Runway for change is fast approaching with the Phaseout of EI 1583 SAP filter monitors

The EI specification for filter monitors has been retracted and is no longer available or applicable to the industry, as of December 31st, 2020. Phaseout of the 1583 SAP monitor has been mandated by the industry regulators.

Parker's new drop-in solution for new and existing monitor vessels, the CDFX Water Barrier Filter, guarantees removal of water and dirt from fuel without requiring any additional sensing equipment, removing the water rather than simply detecting it. You can ensure that the clean dry fuel is delivered every time, avoiding costly downtime, potential flight delays, and/or removal of contaminated fuel from your aircraft.

All of Parker's products are fully certified, making switching easy and cost-effective.

 

Learn more about the new Parker Velcon revolutionary technology. 

  Considerations and questions for SAP Phaseout options

There are several things to consider when deciding on various options available for SAP phaseout solutions. 

What are your choices?

• Filter water separators
• Dirt defense and electronic sensors
• Water barrier filters

Questions to ask and factors to consider:

• What is the tolerance to risks?  Is water removal important at the wing of the aircraft?
• The competitor's dirt defense filters do not remove water.
• The sensors alarm and then you must decide what to do when it does alarm. Procedure? Who makes the "all good" call after an alarm.
• What is the expense of a fueling shutdown? Does it matter if it's a truck, hydrant servicer or a hydrant system?
• How robust is the sensor under adverse conditions? Can it fail prior to annual certification?
• Who does the managing of sensor calibrations? Who manages the spare certified sensors? What is your sensor life expectancy in operation or on the shelf? 
• Filter water separators can be disarmed, do not protect against water slug and are not a drop-in solution. And often these filter water separators are larger, heavier, and expensive to change out requiring considerable labor.

 

This means costly equipment design, installation, vehicle design limitations, meter capability, electronics, etc., resulting in expensive downtime

The Parker Velcon water barrier technology is approved to the EI 1588 test specifications. There are 22 tests that were similar to the 1583 specifications. However, we removed the tests associated with SAP testing. The rest of the 1588 requirements are part of the specifications:

• Water slug testing
• Emulsified water testing
• Solids testing
• Compatibility testing
• Structural testing

 Performance requirements for 1588 are as stringent as 1583, however, without the SAP media.

  Phase 1 testing

At Parker Velcon safety is our priority.  In April of 2019, Parker Velcon successfully qualified the CDFX Water Barrier filter to the EI 1588 specification. Members of the Energy Institute witnesses were present at our Colorado facility.

Once qualified, we entered the EI robustness Phase One testing. This consisted of:

• 400 stops and starts
• Adding additional additives to the fuel
• Doing pull tests
• Running at 125% of rate of flow
• Swapping the vessel for 12 hours with water

 

Test data shows that all 20 tests passed Phase One testing with no failures, achieving maximum effluent water of fewer than one parts per million. All the tests met the minimum pull force specification above 500 Newtons.

              Phase Two testing for field trials

Two locations were selected and testing was done at these airport tank farms. These tests were accelerated with more than 10 times the typical daily throughput. Upon completion, filters were sent back to our Velcon lab and a witness was present, through EI, to verify the water removal capabilities. Test runs from the two trial locations show vessel throughputs of over 3 million and 5 million gallons per vessel.

When breaking that down to throughput per element, it is approximately 180,000 or 310,000 gallons respectively. During the field trials, elements were returned to our Velcon lab for testing with an EI witness present. These tests included the 50 parts per million slug test and pull tests. Results were consistent with the EI qualification.

Filtration performance and filter integrity have exceeded expectations with no signs of degradation, disarming or reported issues with additives in the fuel.

 

Water Barrier filtration technology timeline

To summarize the developments of the CDFX Water Barrier filter technology, we review the timeline:  

• The EI 1588 development and specification published.
• We successfully qualified the water barrier filter with Witnessed EI 1588. 
• Electrostatic charge generation test completed.
• We completed the phase one and phase two robustness testing and are currently in field trials with nine months into the trials.
• Once field trials are complete, we expect acceptance into the industry operating standard.

  How does the water barrier filter work?

Here's a short video of the water barrier filter and operation. As you can clearly see, water in the fuel is repelled by the water barrier filter and droplets fall to the bottom of the vessel where eventually they must be removed at the low drain points.

 

  Differences in technology application

Some product application differences with the water barrier filter include daily sumping that will be required and some education on the differential pressure effects.

Any water collected will need to be drained from the vessel drain point.

Parker CDFX elements are designed to replace SAP monitor elements and operation will be essentially the same. Since they do not absorb water, there are a few things to note:

• The low point in the vessel should be sumped daily.
• The differential pressure should be closely monitored.
• If differential pressure does increase, it's most likely from either solid contaminants, slow buildup of entrained water or water slug.
• If it is a water slug differential pressure rises quickly and shut down the flow.

Even if the entire vessel is filled with water, no water will pass through the filter. In any case, what is important to note is the differential pressures should not fall below the initial starting differential pressure when operating at rated flow.

 The Parker Velcon solution

There are three available technologies:

• EI 1588 water barrier filter  
• EI 1581 filter water separators
• EI 1599 dirt defense filters in conjunction with the EI 1598 water sensor

As you can see, only the 1588 water barrier technology offers removal for all three capabilities.

The CDFX Water Barrier filter is a true drop-in replacement, innovative at removing water and dirt while not allowing anything to pass through. It offers only clean dry fuel without the use of SAP media. Cost and resource-efficient, it fits deployed vessels in service, but without the needed cost of retrofitting or adding electronic sensors. All materials are compatible with fuels in the industry and simple product procedure changes are in place. Same diameter, same lengths, same flow rates all as with the two-inch monitor elements.

 

Ease of replacement

This is a short video demonstrating the ease of converting from the SAP monitor to the Parker Velcon water barrier filter.

 

 

General aviation fueling

Our water barrier filter technology was further developed for general aviation fueling applications.

The ACOX family of Water Barrier filters are ideal for slow throughput. From an operations perspective, there are minimal changes to your current operating procedures, no modifications to the filter vessel and filter change at a maximum of 22 PSID or three years of service life.