Selection of a Membrane Supplier
         through Piloting
         - Getting it Right
     Membrane Masterclass
       Cr...
Outline
•   Introduction
•   Membrane Selection Methodology
•   Experimental Protocol
•   Piloting
•   Evaluation
•   Sele...
Introduction
•   Why pilot?
•   Variation on Feed water quality
•   Seasonal – Temperature, Organics
•   Transient – Turbi...
Membrane Selection
Methodology

• Pre-selection criteria
• Pilot trial evaluation
• Technical evaluation
• Tender review/W...
Selection Process Overview

 Pre-Selection Criteria
                          Pass   Rejected
   Pilot Programme
         ...
Pre-selection criteria
• Proven at full scale
• Minimum 12 months operation in a
  similar application
• Nominated membran...
Pre-selection criteria
• All materials to comply with Water Supply (Water
  Quality) Regulations – Regulation 31
• The pro...
Experimental Protocol
•   Objectives
•   Test equipment description
•   Testing Methodology
•   Sampling and Analysis plan...
Experimental Protocol
• Optimisation phase one
  – Selection of initial operating conditions,
    determine preferred cond...
Experimental Protocol
• Optimisation phase two
  – Refine preferred operating conditions based
    on Demo 1 performance
•...
Parameters Assessed In Pilot
Trials
•   Hours of continuous operation/availability
•   System robustness and reliability
•...
Parameters Assessed In Pilot
Trials
•   Backwash frequency
•    Backwash quantity
•    Backwash duration
•   Operating flu...
A g r e e d D e m o n s tr a t io n P h a s e 2 O p e r a tin g C o n d itio n s
P a r a m e te r                         ...
Results
• TMP Development
• CIP Performance
0.00
                            10.00
                                           20.00
                                  ...
0.00
                            10.00
                                    20.00
                                         ...
45.0


40.0


35.0


30.0
                                                                  Rate of increase: approx 2 kPa...
0.0
                                   20.0
                                                40.0
                         ...
1.70                                                                                  40

                                ...
MEMBRANE SYSTEM TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET

                                                                         ...
Membrane Selection

  Whole-Life-Cost Evaluation
  • Using financial model
  • Inputs to model derived from data
    suppl...
Whole-Life-Cost Evaluation

Capital Cost
• Model requires: Civil, M&E, ICA, Other (membrane
  replacement)
• Supplier bid ...
Membrane Selection
  Operating Cost
  • Derived by UU, using:
     – Operating parameters provided by suppliers
     – UU ...
Outcome
Preferred supplier selected based on:

•    technical evaluation scores,
•    pilot trial performance,
•   tender ...
Selection Of A Membrane Supplier Through Piloting
Selection Of A Membrane Supplier Through Piloting
Selection Of A Membrane Supplier Through Piloting
Selection Of A Membrane Supplier Through Piloting
Selection Of A Membrane Supplier Through Piloting
Selection Of A Membrane Supplier Through Piloting
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Selection Of A Membrane Supplier Through Piloting

392 views
327 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
392
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
34
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Selection Of A Membrane Supplier Through Piloting

  1. 1. Selection of a Membrane Supplier through Piloting - Getting it Right Membrane Masterclass Cranfield University January 26th 2006 Peter Hillis Lead Technical Specialist UU Water Engineering Group
  2. 2. Outline • Introduction • Membrane Selection Methodology • Experimental Protocol • Piloting • Evaluation • Selection
  3. 3. Introduction • Why pilot? • Variation on Feed water quality • Seasonal – Temperature, Organics • Transient – Turbidity, iron, manganese • Undefined contaminants – NOM • Variation in membrane suppliers • MF vs UF • PVDF vs PES • Pressure vs Immersed
  4. 4. Membrane Selection Methodology • Pre-selection criteria • Pilot trial evaluation • Technical evaluation • Tender review/Whole life cost analysis • Supplier selection
  5. 5. Selection Process Overview Pre-Selection Criteria Pass Rejected Pilot Programme Pass Rejected Technical Evaluation Pass Rejected Whole-Life-Cost Eval. Pass Rejected Contract Award
  6. 6. Pre-selection criteria • Proven at full scale • Minimum 12 months operation in a similar application • Nominated membrane system for evaluation • All aspects of the system, particularly the membrane material, to be tolerant to agreed water quality parameters
  7. 7. Pre-selection criteria • All materials to comply with Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations – Regulation 31 • The proposed system shall appear in “The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Amendment) Regulations 1999: Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies - Listing of products capable of removing or retaining particles greater than 1 micron diameter” or any subsequent amendments • The proposed system shall have been used successfully at full-scale in a secondary duty for the recovery of dirty washwater from a primary membrane process
  8. 8. Experimental Protocol • Objectives • Test equipment description • Testing Methodology • Sampling and Analysis plan • Data Management and Analysis • QA/QC • Health and Safety • Communications • Waste
  9. 9. Experimental Protocol • Optimisation phase one – Selection of initial operating conditions, determine preferred conditions for demonstration phase – California Department of Health Services (CDHS) approved fluxrates Demonstration phase one – Fixed conditions, long term test under automatic control
  10. 10. Experimental Protocol • Optimisation phase two – Refine preferred operating conditions based on Demo 1 performance • Demonstration phase two – Refined fixed conditions, long term test under automatic control
  11. 11. Parameters Assessed In Pilot Trials • Hours of continuous operation/availability • System robustness and reliability • Membrane fibre integrity • No more than one fibre failure per system during demonstration phases • Number and type of cleaning chemicals • Chemical consumption • Cleaning frequency • More than 30 days of acceptable level of operability
  12. 12. Parameters Assessed In Pilot Trials • Backwash frequency • Backwash quantity • Backwash duration • Operating flux (at specified temperature and trans- membrane pressure). • Not to exceed flux the agreed fluxrates • Maintenance clean frequency • Waste stream quality • Waste stream quantity
  13. 13. A g r e e d D e m o n s tr a t io n P h a s e 2 O p e r a tin g C o n d itio n s P a r a m e te r V a lu e U n it s M e m b r a n e flu x ( L M H ) 85 L /m 2 /h P ilo t s k id flo w 8 .6 M 3 /h B a c k w a s h in te r v a l 120 M in u te s A ir s c o u r r a t e 10 N m 3 /h p e r m o d u le A ir s c o u r d u r a t io n 30 Seconds A ir s c o u r / w a te r w a s h 1 0 /1 .2 N m 3 /h p e r m o d u le , m 3 /h p e r m o d u le A ir sco u r/w a te r w a sh 15 Seconds d u r a t io n W a s h w a te r v o lu m e 110 L itre s per w a sh (a p p ro x im a te ) D o w n tim e 1 :4 5 M in s :s e c s (a p p ro x im a te ) C I P c le a n in te r v a l > = 90 days H y p o c h lo r ite 3 0 0 /2 5 P p m /d e g re e s s t r e n g th / te m p S u lp h u r ic a c id 0 .0 5 /a m b ie n t % /d e g re e s s t r e n g th / te m p M I T t e s t fr e q u e n c y 7 days M I T p a s s c r ite r ia 4 L o g re m o v a l U n ite d U tilitie s M e m b r a n e S u p p lie r S ig n a tu re … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … S ig n a t u re … … … … … … … … … … … … … D a te … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
  14. 14. Results • TMP Development • CIP Performance
  15. 15. 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 25/ 07/ 2004 01/ 08/ 2004 08/ 08/ 2004 15/ 08/ 2004 Phase 1 22/ 08/ 2004 Optimisation 29/ 08/ 2004 05/ 09/ 2004 12/ 09/ 2004 19/ 09/ 2004 26/ 09/ 2004 03/ 10/ 2004 10/ 10/ 2004 17/ 10/ 2004 Phase 1 24/ 10/ 2004 31/ 10/ 2004 07/ 11/ 2004 Demonstration CIP 14/ 11/ 2004 21/ 11/ 2004 28/ 11/ 2004 05/ 12/ 2004 12/ 12/ 2004 Date 19/ 12/ 2004 Phase 2 26/ 12/ 2004 02/ 01/ 2005 Optimisation 09/ 01/ 2005 16/ 01/ 2005 23/ 01/ 2005 30/ 01/ 2005 06/ 02/ 2005 se 1 13/ 02/ 2005 20/ 02/ 2005 27/ 02/ 2005 06/ 03/ 2005 DemonstrationPha 13/ 03/ 2005 20/ 03/ 2005 27/ 03/ 2005 03/ 04/ 2005 10/ 04/ 2005 17/ 04/ 2005 24/ 04/ 2005 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 TMP Flow
  16. 16. 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 13/10/2004 00:00 14/10/2004 00:00 15/10/2004 00:00 16/10/2004 00:00 17/10/2004 00:00 18/10/2004 00:00 19/10/2004 00:00 20/10/2004 00:00 21/10/2004 00:00 22/10/2004 00:00 23/10/2004 00:00 24/10/2004 00:00 25/10/2004 00:00 26/10/2004 00:00 27/10/2004 00:00 DAte 28/10/2004 00:00 29/10/2004 00:00 30/10/2004 00:00 31/10/2004 00:00 01/11/2004 00:00 02/11/2004 00:00 03/11/2004 00:00 04/11/2004 00:00 05/11/2004 00:00 06/11/2004 00:00 07/11/2004 00:00 08/11/2004 00:00 09/11/2004 00:00 10/11/2004 00:00 11/11/2004 00:00 TMP
  17. 17. 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 Rate of increase: approx 2 kPa/day. TMP upper limit before CIP: 67 kPa. 25.0 Estimated runtime: (67-24)/2 = 21.5 days 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 28/11/2004 29/11/2004 29/11/2004 30/11/2004 30/11/2004 01/12/2004 01/12/2004 02/12/2004 02/12/2004 03/12/2004 03/12/2004 04/12/2004 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 Date Time
  18. 18. 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 04/12/2005 140.0 05/12/2005 06/12/2005 07/12/2005 08/12/2005 09/12/2005 10/12/2005 11/12/2005 12/12/2005 13/12/2005 14/12/2005 15/12/2005 16/12/2005 17/12/2005 18/12/2005 19/12/2005 TMP" 20/12/2005 21/12/2005 Date 22/12/2005 Flow 23/12/2005 24/12/2005 25/12/2005 26/12/2005 27/12/2005 28/12/2005 29/12/2005 30/12/2005 31/12/2005 01/01/2006 02/01/2006 03/01/2006 04/01/2006 05/01/2006 06/01/2006 07/01/2006 08/01/2006 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
  19. 19. 1.70 40 1.60 1.50 35 1.40 1.30 30 1.20 TMP (bar)/Feed Turbidity (NTU) 1.10 25 1.00 Temp (°C) 0.90 20 0.80 0.70 15 0.60 0.50 10 0.40 0.30 0.20 5 0.10 0.00 0 15-Dec 16-Dec 17-Dec 18-Dec 19-Dec 20-Dec 21-Dec 22-Dec 23-Dec Date TMP Temp
  20. 20. MEMBRANE SYSTEM TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET Supplier/System: Total Score: 0 Weighting (%) Score (0-100) Weighted Average Score System Design and Engineering Concept 30 0 0 Health and Safety 10 0 Flux 10 0 Power Consumption 5 0 Pressure Rating of the System 8 0 Differential Pressure Rating of the System 8 0 Flow Control Methods 8 0 System Complexity 8 0 Operability 8 0 Maintainability 8 0 Integrity Monitoring System 4 0 Noise 5 0 Operator Interface and Data Acquisition 8 0 Redundancy 10 0 Pilot Plant Trials 25 0 0 Hours Continuous Operation/Availability 30 0 Downtime Due to Washing and Cleaning 10 0 Number of Fibre Breaks 40 0 Operator Input Requirement 20 0 Washing, Cleaning, Washwater Recovery and Waste Systems 25 0 0 Waste Stream Quantity 40 0 Waste Stream Quality 40 0 Number of Chemicals 20 0 Supplier Profile 20 0 0 Product Support 15 0 Product Development/Innovation 15 0 Maintenance Services 15 0 Pilot Plant Support 10 0 Design Capability 15 0 Spares Availability 15 0 Effective Use of QA Procedures for Collection and Assimilation of Pilot Data 15 0 Technical Evaluation Panel Name Signature Date
  21. 21. Membrane Selection Whole-Life-Cost Evaluation • Using financial model • Inputs to model derived from data supplied with bid proposal and validated from pilot and reference plant operation
  22. 22. Whole-Life-Cost Evaluation Capital Cost • Model requires: Civil, M&E, ICA, Other (membrane replacement) • Supplier bid will include MEICA costs • UU estimating database will be used to estimate civil/building costs (allows full impact of high/low footprint solutions to be assessed) • Whole-life-cost very sensitive to membrane replacement costs. Guaranteed replacement costs and life expectancy to be addressed during procurement
  23. 23. Membrane Selection Operating Cost • Derived by UU, using: – Operating parameters provided by suppliers – UU internal unit cost rates • Guidance provided on information to be provided by supplier via tender schedules for – Power – Chemicals – Waste – Manpower – Maintenance
  24. 24. Outcome Preferred supplier selected based on: • technical evaluation scores, • pilot trial performance, • tender review • WLC

×