TESTING AND COMPARISON OF THE FILTERSAFE STANDARD, TURBO AND SUPERTURBO CONFIGURATIONS.

Final report, June 2017
TESTING AND COMPARISON OF THE FILTERSAFE STANDARD,
TURBO AND SUPERTURBO CONFIGURATIONS.
+ =

3 Executive Summary
4 Background and Objective
5 Experimental Setup
7 Test Procedure
8 Test Results/ Discussion
12 Backwash Frequency and Volume
13 Sampling and Analysis
14 Conclusion
15 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control
CONTENT
InBallast DHI Lloyd'sCONTRIBUTORS:

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Filtersafe Ltd. have 3 configurations of their filter product suite – Standard, Turbo
and Super Turbo. The three filter configuration’s design are identical except for
nozzle density, improving the filter’s capability to clean the filter screen. The filter
is commonly used as a pre-treatment step for several treatment systems that are
type approved by the USCG.
USCG’s Marine Safety Center has required vendors that want to use the Turbo
and Super Turbo configurations to validate that the configuration does not
compromise the separation efficiency. Lloyds Register is appointed an IL by the
USCG, qualifying them to oversee and evaluate testing related to ballast water type
approvals. The plan for testing as presented in email dated 27.04.2017 was agreed
with by the USCG in email of 01.05.2017. Together with Lloyds Register and DHI, it
has been defined that the acceptance criteria for the tests is that the removal rate
of the two “new” configurations should be as good as the standard version within
the standard deviation of the results.
A BS-101 Filtersafe filter with a corresponding rated capacity of 250 m3
/h
(Standard), 300 m3
/h (Turbo) and 350 m3/h (Super Turbo), has been tested at DHI’s
land based test facility in Hundested, Denmark under the supervision of Lloyds
Register. The tests were carried out in accordance to Test Plan which was approved
by Lloyds Register prior to the testing.
The intention of the test program has been to assess the BS-101 Filtersafe Turbo
and Super Turbo filter configurations against the standard version by addressing
their ability to produce comparable and reproducible test results and to determine
if the alternative configurations of the filter has any effect on the ability to remove
organisms ≥ 50 µm in minimum dimension.
All tests were carried out using water exceeding IMO/ USCG challenge water
requirements for the referred organism category and sampled and enumerated
according to IMO/ USCG requirements by DHI.
The results from the comparative testing of the Filtersafe – Standard, Turbo and
Super Turbo versions has not identified any deviations in their ability to remove
organisms ≥ 50 µm in minimum dimension. The increased rated challenging
conditions did effect the backwashing frequency and therefore the backwash
volume, however not to a level where the filter will clog or to the point where the
separation efficiency is compromised.
Standard Turbo SuperTurbo

BACKGROUND The Filtersafe filters have been applied successfully as an integral component of
different ballast water treatment systems in numerous formal type approval tests in
accordance with both the ETV protocol as well as with the IMO G8 Guidelines.
Filters are typically scaled linearly with reference to a specific flow per unit
filter screen area for a specified filtration size. This empirical approach is widely
recognized and used by most manufacturers. The Filtersafe standard product suite
has been further developed and two extensions from the base models are now
available: The Turbo and Super Turbo filters. These are identical to the standard
filter, however with a higher nozzle density (increased number of nozzles per
screen area unit), improving the filter’s capability to clean the filter screen. This
improvement can then be utilized by increasing filtrated water flow without
changing the physical properties of the filtration process.
The purpose of these tests has been to compare the separation and cleaning
capabilities of the Turbo and Super Turbo with the standard rated filter.
Filtersafe have undertaken a number of tests including that of a comparative
evaluation of multiple nozzle scanners using a BS-025 filter with 40µm screen at
their Tefen-based test laboratory (September 2016). The experimental results have
confirmed a relationship between increased nozzle density and increased capacity
whilst ensuring the filters ability to fully recover following a flushing sequence.
Tests have been undertaken triggering the flushing sequence at specified
differential pressure of 0.4 bar. The increased flow velocity and consequently the
more rapid build-up of filter-cake does not seem to impact the filters separation
capacity. It may be noted that the flow velocity inside a filter chamber is relatively
lower than that in the inlet and outlet pipe.
From this, it was concluded that an increase in cleaning capacity by adding
number of nozzles per screen area unit from the standard version, enables the
filter to sustain higher flowrates without jeopardizing its separation capacity. This
has opened for the opportunity of introducing higher capacity filters without
increasing their footprint/ volume. Thus, the Turbo and Super Turbo models has
been introduced.
In correspondence with the USCG, it has been made clear that the acceptance
of filter models based on a standard filter but with increased maximum flowrate
based on the above, such as the Turbo and Super Turbo models, will require an
independent assessment by a class society/ independent third party (such as an
Independent Laboratory, IL) to conclude that such models can be a replacement
for standard models.
The assessment including testing has been undertaken in compliance with the
Test Plan. This has been approved by Lloyds Register. Tests were undertaken in
accordance with this on 27.07.2017 and 28.07 2017.
OBJECTIVE

TEST SETUP The validation tests were undertaken by DHI Denmark. The testing was overseen
and evaluated by Lloyds register. The tests applied a challenge water with the
following characteristics containing an
average of 412 000 and 542 000 individual organisms of minimum diameter of ≥
50 μm.
• Most of the organisms (>90%) were natural and concentrated by filtration
• of ambient water near the test facility.
• In addition, some standard test organisms –STO’s were added (Artemia). The
intention of adding Artemia, was to verify the integrity of the filter mesh (e.g. in
light of the size of these, any presence of Artemia in the filtered sample water
would indicate a deficiency in the filter mesh.
• TSS was added to meet the ETV protocol/ IMO G8.
• The water was applied to the test filters from a single test water tank of 750 m3.
• A total of two batches was used allowing two tests of each filter configuration
per batch.
• Preparation, storage and mixing of the water in the tank followed the approved
QAPP to which the facility operates when undertaking compliance testing for
type approval under the USCG type approval regime1.
1
DHI. Quality Assurance Project Plan. Biological efficacy performance evaluation of ballast water management systems.
DHI Ballast Water Centre - Denmark.
2
Test Protocol for validating flow rates on Standard, Turbo and Super-Turbo scanners Doc. No TP01, Rev.2.2.2
Figure 1 -
P&ID of the Test
Setup Ref. Appendix
D in the Approved
Test Plan2 Test Tank
750m3
>100.000,
>50µm
Filter BS-101
Tank
1m3
Data Logger
Test Facility
V1
P1
S1 S2
F1 FT2
FT3
PT1 PT2
V2
V3
Over board
Over board
Data Logger
FS
Controller
FS
Filtersafe scope of delivery
Test facility scope of delivery
35 µm sieve
Tank
20L

The influent was sampled by taking a 20-liter time integrated sample for each test.
The effluent was sampled by use of a 1 m3
sample tank with a single integrated
(continuous) sample for each test run. Both effluent and backwash was discharged
to sea.
Inlet pressure, outlet pressure, inlet flow and backwash flow was monitored by the
Filtersafe (FS) logging system. The piping system’s Inlet flow was logged by the test
facility with their own instrumentation.
A BS-101 filter with a rated nominal flow of 250 m3
/h was used for the test
representing the reference base filter. By changing the scanner arm and associated
number of nozzles, this filter was converted into the Turbo version and the Super
Turbo version between tests. By these changes only, the filter meets the Turbo and
Super Turbo filter specification.
Testing was undertaken as with the following filters:
Table 1 filter capacity
The filter flow capacity settings defined (Turbo +20%, Super Turbo + 40%),
represent a flow increase for the entire product suite.
The filters backwash operation was automatically controlled by the standard
Filtersafe control unit that initiated an automatic backwash sequence when the
differential pressure (between the inlet and outlet of the filter) reached 0,4 bar.
The filter in each of the configurations was operated over a period of time
sufficient to undertake a representative sample for the ≥ 50 µm organism group
as defined by IMO and USCG. In order to ensure stable conditions and to allow
for sufficient time to undertake appropriate sampling, the test cycle had duration
of between 18 and 21 minutes. For each filter configuration, four test cycles with
water from two independent test tanks was conducted. The test plan matrix is
presented in Table 2 below.
A standard Filtersafe filter used for ballast water treatment has a 40 µm screen.
In the ballast water treatment context, the task of the filter is to reduce the
concentration of the ≥50 µm organism group defined by IMO and USCG.
Filter Rated max. capacity
BS-101 base filter 250 m3
/hr
BS-101 base filter converted by installing turbo scanner arm
(representing the Turbo version)
300 m3
/hr
BS-101 base filter converted by installing super turbo scanner arm
(representing the Super Turbo version)
350 m3
/hr
TEST
SAMPLING

Test
day
Test
Actual test flow
(rated flow)
(m3/h)
Filter
Actual
Accumulated
test volume
(m3
)
Sample
Inlet
≥50
Sample
Treated
≥50
1
1 265 (250) Filtersafe Base 81,2 1 1
2 264 (250) Filtersafe Base 81,2 1 1
3 315 (300) Filtersafe Turbo 107,6 1 1
4 315 (300) Filtersafe Turbo 115,2 1 1
5 364 (350) Filtersafe Super Turbo 117,8 1 1
2
9 317 (300) Filtersafe Turbo 96 1 1
10 317 (300) Filtersafe, Turbo 103,1 1 1
11 262 (250) Filtersafe, Base 88,9 1 1
12 263 (250) Filtersafe, Base 87,1 1 1
TEST
PROCEDURE
A verification checklist was prepared in collaboration with DHI and Lloyds Register.
The intention with this was to secure that the tests were run according to the
approved test plan and present in a more transparent way, what had been verified
on site.
The testing was run sequentially according to the following table.
Table 2 test run matrix
The inlet water delivered from the tank was assumed homogenous due to the
standard active mixing in operation in the tank.
Each test was run for 18-21 minutes at full flow specified by the rated capacity of
the filter in accordance with Table 2. The flow was adjusted by the pump of the test
facility. The influent and effluent was sampled for ≥50µm organisms by test facility
staff for later analysis.
After 2 sequential tests for each filter configurations, Filtersafe crew changed the
nozzle scanner from a standard to a Turbo, and from a Turbo to a Super Turbo, by
removing blinded nozzles. The design of the nozzle configuration is identical to
commercial product. The changeover procedure was overseen by the independent
test facility staff/ Lloyds Register to assure that the filter was changed to the
agreed configuration and to verify that other components of the filter were not
tampered with.

TEST RESULTS/
DISCUSSION
Inlet values:
The inlet values (average) of each tank was 4-5 times higher than that required
(> 100 000 required). Further, the concentration of natural organisms (excluding
STO’s) dominated the water with an average of > 90 % of the organisms.
In spite of the continuous mixing of the tank, the inlet values for each individual
test varied somewhat. However, DHI have confirmed these to reflect experienced
variations and that these are within acceptable limits.
Referring to the final results presented in DHI’s counting logs, there are no specific
trends related to the taxonomy of species. Additionally, the values show no defined
trend of layering of organisms in the water. This can be seen in Figure 2 below,
where the concentration peaks differ for the different fractions (tests) from each
tank. Due to the fact that all 3 filters were operated in different sequences over
the two test days, and that the test tank had mismatching concentration peaks of
species concentration, as illustrated in Figure 2, variations in inlet concentration
seems not to have had any influence on the final results.
The average inlet concentrations of organisms for the base filter was around
20% lower than for the “turbo” and super turbo” filter. For the base filter, the
average concentration was approximately 408 000 organisms/ m3 over the 4
tests. For the turbo and super turbo filter, the average inlet concentrations were
536 000 organisms/ m3
and 488 000 organisms/ m3
over the 4 tests, respectively.
Indeed, the Turbo and Super Turbo versions were challenged with a higher inlet
concentration and thus, the testing of these assumed conservative in comparison
with the base model. This in respect to both separation capability as well as to
their resistance against clogging and ability to fully recover following backwashing.

Removal Rates:
The removal rates for the different filter configurations showed to be similar
regardless of inlet concentration of organisms, inlet flow and respective nozzle
density. This is shown in Tables 3 and 4 as well as in Figure 3.
Table 3 Inlet and Discharge Concentrations of ≥50 µM Organisms
Day Test Filter Inlet (#/m3) Outlet (#/m3) Reduction (%)
1
1 Base 471 975 75 960 83,9
2 Base 406 433 65 766 83,8
3 Turbo 611 733 83 227 86,4
4 Turbo 720 976 74 556 89,7
5 Super 617 867 78 778 87,3
6 Super 427 542 89 397 79,1
2
7 Super 429 200 93 434 78,2
8 Super 476 867 88 264 81,5
9 Turbo 493 333 76 608 84,5
10 Turbo 317 675 80 505 74,7
11 Base 400 350 74 016 81,5
12 Base 355 200 64 918 81,7
Figure 2 -
Inlet Concentration
Challenge water Characteristics
(oeganisms/ m3) vs fraction of tank
Day 1 Day 2
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1# 2# 3# 4# 5# 6# AVG

Table 4 Removal Rates of ≥50 µM Organisms
Removal Rates (%)
Standard Turbo Super
Day Test Removal
(%)
AVG
(paired tests)
Test Removal
(%)
AVG
(paired tests)
Test Removal
(%)
AVG
(paired tests)
Day 1
Test
1
83,9
83,9
Test
3
86,4
88,0
Test
5
87,3
83,2
Day 1
Test
2
83,8
Test
4
89,7
Test
6
79,1
Day 2
Test
11
81,5
81,6
Test
9
84,5
79,6
Test
7
78,2
79,9
Day 2
Test
12
81,7
Test
10
74,7
Test
8
81,5
AVG (4
tests)
82,7 83,8 81,5
STD
DEV (4
tests)
1,3 6,5 4,1
Looking at the average removal rates achieved for the Base, Turbo and Super Tubo
filters at 82.7, 83.7 and 81.5, respectively, it may be concluded that perform very
similarely.
Following this, it has been shown that both the Turbo and the Super Turbo filter
versions meets the requirement of seperation as good as the standard filter within
its standard deviation.
Figure 3 -
Comparison of
Removal Rates of >50
µM Organisms
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Base Turbo Super Turbo
1# 2# 3# 4# AVG
%

BACKWASH
FREQUENCY
AND VOLUME
The tests show that that the FS filter will backwash every 3,5 - 4 minutes for the
predicted water quality (IMO challenge water) for the standard filter. For the
Turbo and Super Turbo model, the flushing increases a bit - every 3,3 -2,5 minutes
respectively. The backwash sequence time is fixed for all models, thus the outcome
of increasing the flow is increased the backwash frequency for the Turbo and
Super Turbo model to some extent, however, none of the filters were running in
continuous backwash. Figures 4-6 are representative charts, that illustrate that the
filters backwashing abilities is not effected by the higher flow. Table 5, describes
the flushing volume and flow rates for the tests.
Figure 4 -
Representative
Chart for a Standard
Filter Running on
Challenge Water
Test 1 - Standard-1, Day 1
Time line (hh:mm:ss)
Pressure(bar)
Flowrate(m3
/h)
FiltrationVelocity(m/h)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
0:00:00 0:02:53 0:05:46 0:08:38 0:11:31 0:14:24 0:17:17 0:20:10
Intel flowrate Flushing flowrate Inlet Pressure ∆P

Table 5 – Backwash characteristics
Scanner model No. of nozzles
Flush flow rate m3/hr @ 2 bar
(Pending on operating pressure)
Actual flush per cycle
(At 50 seconds) Liters
Base 4 12 200
6 18 300
8 23 350
Figure 5 -
Representative
Chart for a Turbo
Filter Running on
Challenge Water
Figure 6 -
Representative Chart
for a Super Turbo
Filter Running on
Challenge Water
Test 5 - Super Turbo-1, Day 1
Pressure(bar)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
33
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
0:00:00 0:02:53 0:05:46 0:08:38 0:11:31 0:14:24 0:17:17 0:20:10
Flowrate(m3
/h)
Pressure(bar)
Flowrate(m3
/h)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
0:00:00 0:02:53 0:05:46 0:08:38 0:11:31 0:14:24 0:17:17 0:20:10
Test 3 - Standard-1, Day 1

3
DHI. Quality Assurance Project Plan. Biological efficacy performance evaluation of ballast water management systems.
DHI Ballast Water Centre - Denmark.
SAMPLING
& ANALYSIS
Sampling was conducted using sampling ports according to the design specified
in ETV 5.3.2.5 and G2 of the IMO BWM convention and further positioned
according to the PID in appendix D of the approved test plan. A total of 20 L (inlet)
and 1m3
(discharge) was taken from the mainline upstream and downstream the
filter respectively in two separate tanks. This water was filtered through a net with
absolute mesh size of 50µm, and enumerated within 6 hours according to DHI’s
approved QAPP3
.
The rationale for using 20 l sampling volume for the determination of the inlet
concentration is based on a recommendation from the test facility (DHI, and in
agreement with Lloyds Register), that have experienced that sampling 1 m3
of the
inlet water will result in a too high density of organisms, making it challenging to
count and a giving high mortality, resulting in less accurate results.
QUALITY
ASSURANCE/
QUALITY
CONTROL
All testing was conducted by DHI, overseen by Lloyds Register without any
intervention by the manufacturer as verified by the signed checklist.
Data logged by the Filtersafe controller was as defined in the pre-approved Test
Plan handed over to DHI immediately after the test and was later forwarded by DHI
to the authors of this report.
Samples were conducted, handled, transported and enumerated according to the
pre-approved test plan.

REGIONAL OFFICE, MANUFACTURING
& ASSEMBLY
©CopyrightFiltersafe®2018DOC-00358
w w w . f i l t e r s a f e . n e t
Filtersafe reserves the right to change any of the information presented in this document without prior notice.
The data presented in this document is for general information only and cannot be used for quotation purposes.
Please contact Filtersafe for speciﬁc quote.
Filtersafe Offices
Filtersafe Manufacturing Facilities
Filtersafe Distributor's
ISRAEL
A 4,000 sq/m premises comprising our regional sales offices,
R&D facilities and manufacturing/assembly plant. The facility is
capable of handling very large volumes of production in line
with market growth.
Contact Information:
Address: Ha’ella Street, P.O.B 23, Tefen Ind. Zone 2495900, Israel
Phone: +972 4 987 3620 ext. 105/106, Email: sales@filtersafe.net
HONG KONG
Our Hong Kong manufacturing/assembly plant supplies our entire
line of products to the region and is supported by a world-class
steel fabrication facility.
Address: DD362 Lot 30 Tsing Chau Tsai Shipyard,
Lantau Island N T, Hong Kong
Phone: +852 2454 4300, Email: fshongkong@filtersafe.net
BRAZIL, Rio de Janeiro
Branch Office
Cell: +55 21 98899 6890
Direct: +55 21 3798 2307
Email: fsbrazil@filtersafe.net
CHINA, Beijing
Branch Office
Address: Room 811, Building 1,
Xinyuanguoji Plaza, No 1,
Chengshousi Road, Fengtai
Dist., 100078 Beijing, PRC China
Email: fschina@filtersafe.net
GERMANY, Hamburg
Branch Office
Strategic Sales & Technical
Office serving all European
markets.
Phone: +49 151 5111 9622
Email: fsgermany@filtersafe.net
SINGAPORE
Branch Office
Strategic Sales & Technical Office
Phone: +65 9848 9856
Email: fssingapore@filtersafe.net

TESTING AND COMPARISON OF THE FILTERSAFE STANDARD, TURBO AND SUPERTURBO CONFIGURATIONS.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Similar to TESTING AND COMPARISON OF THE FILTERSAFE STANDARD, TURBO AND SUPERTURBO CONFIGURATIONS.

Similar to TESTING AND COMPARISON OF THE FILTERSAFE STANDARD, TURBO AND SUPERTURBO CONFIGURATIONS. (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

TESTING AND COMPARISON OF THE FILTERSAFE STANDARD, TURBO AND SUPERTURBO CONFIGURATIONS.