Filter Efficiency (Alan Ouellet)

Filter Selection for Proper Efficiency & Energy Savings A great opportunity at an opportune time

© CAMFIL FARR

Going Green

Agenda items •

Understanding ASHRAE Standard 52.2 Air Filter Test Method and MERV Ratings.

•

Selection of Air Filtration Products for Lowest Total Cost of Ownership.

•

Filtration Technologies for Maximum Energy Savings.

Air Filter Test Methods • ASHRAE 52.1 - 1992 • ASHRAE 52.2 - 1999 • Dioctylphthalate (DOP) and Poly-alpha olafins (PAO) • UL 900

ASHRAE 52.1 • A design qualification test • A destructive test to measure average efficiency, pressure drop, and dust holding capacity for low and medium efficiency filters • Test aerosol is ASHRAE standard test dust: • • •

Size classified Arizona Road Dust Cotton linters Carbon black

ASHRAE 52.1

1 z

Initial Resistance „ „

z

Pressure required to move air through filter at a certain air flow Written in inches water, pascals or millimeters water

Dust Holding Capacity „ „

Amount of dust filter holds at end of test Written in grams

ASHRAE 52.1 • Arrestance – Using ASHRAE Test Dust – Percent of dust by weight that filters captures – If filter holds 60 grams out of 100 fed then the arrestance is 60% • Efficiency – Using Outdoor Air – Percent of staining filter prevents – Filter 90% efficient captures 90% of the staining dust from reaching the room

Standards Comparison ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2007 Minimum Eff Reporting Value

Composite Average Particle Size Efficiency, % in Size Range, µ m

ASHRAE 52.1

EN 779 Efficiency

Average Arrestance

Average Dust Spot Efficiency

Average Eff at 0.4µ m

Range 1

Range 2

Range 3

(MERV)

0.30 - 1.0

1.0 - 3.0

3.0 - 10.0

%

%

%

1

n/a

n/a

E3 < 20

Aavg < 65

< 20

G1

2

n/a

n/a

E3 < 20

Aavg > 65

< 20

3

n/a

n/a

E3 < 20

Aavg > 70

< 20

4

n/a

n/a

E3 < 20

Aavg > 75

< 20

5

n/a

n/a

E3 > 20

80

20

6

n/a

n/a

E3 > 35

85

20-25

7

n/a

n/a

E3 > 50

90

25-30

8

n/a

n/a

E3 > 70

92

30-35

9

n/a

n/a

E3 > 85

95

40-45

10

n/a

E2 > 50

E3 > 85

96

50-55

11

n/a

E2 > 65

E3 > 85

97

60-65

12

n/a

E2 > 80

E3 > 90

98

70-75

13

n/a

E2 > 90

E3 > 90

98

80-85

F7

14

E1 > 75

E2 > 90

E3 > 90

99

90-95

F8

15

E1 > 85

E2 > 90

E3 > 90

99

95

F9

16

E1 > 95

E2 > 95

E3 > 95

100

99

H10

G2

G3

G4

F5

F6

Note: The final MERV value is the highest MERV where the filter data meets all requirements of that MERV.

ASHRAE 52.2 – 2007(B) • •

Addendum B Published (Sept 2008) Non-Mandatory Appendix – Appendix J has been added

– SPECIFIABLE value – MERV-A – The filter should be tested per ASHRAE 52.2 (including Appendix J) – The resulting MERV-A must have the same (or higher) numerical value when compared to the MERV value. • •

Dust Holding Capacity was added Dust Weight Arrestance was added

ASHRAE 52.2 • A design qualification test • A destructive test to measure minimum efficiency (MERV) • Efficiency test aerosol is Potassium Chloride (KCl) particles, 0.1 to 10 micron • Dust loading aerosol is ASHRAE Standard Test Dust

ASHRAE 52.2 z

Initial Resistance Pressure required to move air through filter at a certain air flow written in inches water, pascals or millimeters water

z

Final Resistance Pressure at which the filter would be considered fully loaded.

Test Duct Configuration Outlet Filters

Exhaust

ASME Nozzle

Downstream Mixer

Room Air Inlet Filters

Blower

Flow Control Valve

Aerosol Generator

Upstream Mixer

OPC

Device Section Backup Filter Holder (Used When Dust loading)

TYPICAL 52.2 COMPLETE LOADING TEST DATA Size Fractional Efficiency (%) @ ∆P (“W.G.) Range Composite (microns) 0.285 0.320 0.464 0.643 0.822 1.000 Minimums 0.3-0.4 2.7 6.7 17.2 29.4 37.1 37.9 2.7 7.8 15.9 27.7 43.3 53.2 54.6 7.8 0.4-0.55 11.2 0.55-0.7 11.2 30.2 46.0 60.7 70.5 71.6 0.7-1.0 17.6 42.6 59.3 73.7 81.3 81.8 17.6 20.4 1.0-1.3 20.4 51.6 70.3 80.8 83.7 85.2 23.9 1.3-1.6 23.9 58.2 76.5 84.7 86.1 87.2 1.6-2.2 28.3 69.9 84.1 89.1 90.2 91.0 28.3 2.2-3.0 36.3 36.3 83.9 91.9 94.2 94.4 93.2 3.0-4.0 39.4 89.4 93.7 95.8 96.4 94.9 39.4 4.0-5.5 42.8 90.6 95.3 96.5 97.9 95.6 42.8 46.5 5.5-7.0 46.5 92.3 97.1 98.0 98.4 97.9 7.0-10.0 50.4 94.8 97.5 98.3 100.0 99.2 50.4 Initial Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value: MERV 6 @500FPM Composite Average Efficiency:

0.3 to 1.0 1.0 to 3.0 3.0 to 10.0 Micron Micron Micron E1 = 9.8 E2 = 27.2 E3 = 44.8

ASHRAE 52.2 Minimum Efficiency Reported Value (MERV) Efficiency by particle size reported as one number – 1 to 16 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

52.1 Equivalent

95% 85% 65%

10

8.37

6.2

4.69

3.46

2.57

1.88

1.44

1.14

0.84

0.62

0.47

0.35

25% 0.30

Efficiency, %

z

Particle Size, µm

Typical Minimum Efficiency Reporting Curves

ASHRAE 52.2

“Appendix J”

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

• Incorporates a conditioning step using KCL. • Eliminates static charges on media that typically dissipates quickly in service. • Results in a MERV-A rating

14

HEPA Filter Testing • A non-destructive penetration test • Aerosolized dioctylphthalate (DOP) - or polyalphaolephins (PAO) – Instrument measures overall intensity of light scattered by aerosol both upstream and downstream

• Polystyrene latex spheres (PSL) – fractional efficiency measured with particle counter

The Impact of Filter Selection to the Total Cost of Your Filtration System.

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

• TCO “Total Cost of Ownership” • LCC “Life Cycle Cost”

17

Why Energy, Why Now?

World events have a disturbing effect on oil pricing.

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Energy is foremost in the concerns of economic advisors worldwide.

18

30% of the total electric bill your HVAC system* –

of the cost to operate air filters in a HVAC system is energy to move air through the filters

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

60- 80% 19

*EPA data@ WWW.epa.gov

what is life cycle costing (lcc)? • Why? – The HVAC system is typically the largest energy consumer

• What? – Optimizing filter selection at a given level of efficiency – Maximize IAQ, minimize total cost

• How? – Analyzing the cost of a system over its entire life span

• Goal? •Have you ever bought a car?

– minimize total cost of ownership – make knowledgeable choices (i.e., “first cost” shouldn’t be the only consideration)

components of Life-Cycle Cost LCC = Investment + PCenergy + PCmaint. + PCcleaning + PCdisposal

• Investment – capital cost of filters, frames, installation • PCenergy – present total cost of power • PCmaintenance – present total cost of maintenance including filter replacement, etc. • PCcleaning – present cost of duct cleaning • PCdisposal – present total cost for removal and disposal of the used filters

energy equation for life-cycle cost • PCEnergy – the current cost of energy Energy (E) = [(Q * ∆P * T)/(ŋ * Co)] * Pc Q – Air flow, m3/s (cfm) ∆P – Average filter pressure loss, Pa (inWG) T – Operation time, hr

ŋ – Fan efficiency, % Co – Constant, 1000 in SI units, 8515 in IP units Pc – Cost of Power, $/kWh

lab ∆P vs. real life ∆P PI = 0.40” WG PF = 1.20” WG PF

1.20

Lab (Avg) CF (Actual) CP (Actual)

1.10 1.00

Resistance

Simple averaging (Lab) ∆P

Actual (Real Life) ∆P PF

0.90

∫ Dx

0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40

(PI+PF)/2 = 0.8” WG

PI PI

∆P Good Filter (Act) = 0.6” WG ∆P Average Filter (Act) = 0.7” WG

0.30 0.20 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

time

7

8

9 10

what is total cost of ownership (tco)? • Filtration evaluation of multiple:

– Sites – Buildings – Floors – AHUs • Comprehensive LCC evaluation

Important points... • Life Cycle Cost analysis – will give you several ways to evaluate the best filtration system for the money

• Selling price is not the best indicator of total cost – Typically, 60-80% of the filters LCC is ENERGY!

– Leads to a complete answer

© Camfil Farr

• A Total Cost of Ownership program is more comprehensive, but requires more resources

25

what is LCC? proper selection of a filter = best value • a method of analyzing the cost of a system over its entire life span • the objective should be to choose the most cost effective system that yields the desired level of IAQ • the selected system will not necessarily have the lowest “first cost”

LCC - the increased cost of energy Typically 60-80% of the LCC of a filter is the energy consumption.

15 Filter Cost

5

2 8

Labor Cost Disposal Cost Cleaning Cost

70

Energy Cost

What if we gave you free filters in exchange for 50% of your Energy savings?

Reduce energy consumption and save money

Filter Product

• • • •

Typical NA Cost (est.)

Materials Manufacturing Warehousing Delivery

Labor

• Initial Installation & Change Outs • Removal & Disposal • Monitoring and Scheduling

Energy

• Cost to Move Air Across Filters

Est. Spend in Scope

•

$950K

$450K

%

19%

9%

$3.6 M

72%

5.0 M

100%

As a rule of thumb- “A reduction of .1” WG. saves $25-$40 per opening per year in energy.”

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Addressable Costs of Air Filtration

28

Bottom line? Energy Savings • At energy rate of $0.10 per kWh, for every 0.10” w.g. reduction in static pressure there is realized energy savings of $50 per year, per filter • At energy rate of $0.16 per kWh, for every 0.10” w.g. reduction in static pressure there is realized energy savings of $80 per year, per filter Accuracy of data provided for LCC calculations assures correct projections

Running 24/7 at 400 FPM with moderate ambient air challenge

30

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Pressure drop filter characteristics ∆pm + ∆pc = ∆pfilter (in WG)

∆ pm

∆ pc

∆pfilter % Configuration

30/30

0.09

0.19

0.28

67%

Riga-Flo 200 0.37

0.33

0.70

47%

Hi-Flo 95

0.45

0.20

0.65

30%

Durafil 95

0.21

0.16

0.37

43%

Filter design & construction makes a big difference

• Highly-engineered and carefully manufactured products assure maximum filter efficiency with minimum resistance to airflow. • Quality of manufacturing and filter design can represent as much as a 75% difference in resistance to airflow between air filters of similar design and media.

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

blocked surface area = high ∆p & shorter life

32

Radial Pleat Design vs. Standard Design Uniform radial style pleat loads evenly resulting, in lower average pressure drop and long loading curve.

Chandler or ‘V” type pleat will blind causing rapid increase in pressure drop.

– many fibers/small diameter

• Synthetic Fibers (coarse fibers) – fewer fibers/large diameter

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

• Glass Fibers (fine fibers)

34

© CAMFIL FARR 200905-13

The media you use makes a big difference

34

Glass media (fine fiber) significantly outperforms charged synthetic media in “real life” applications Clean air with economic benefits

90 80 70

•

MERV 14 glass, fine fiber media (Univ. Minn.)

•

MERV 14 synthetic, coarse fiber media (Univ. Minn.)

60 50 40 30 20 10

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

00

35

50

00

32

50

30

27

00

25

50

22

00

20

50

17

00

15

50

12

00

0

10

75

0 50

25

0

0 0

Efficiency at 0.3 um (%)

100

35

New filter technologies can reduce their contribution to your waste stream by more than 50%. Most filters built today are not very biodegradable so reducing their disposal is the best “Green” solution.

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Reduce waste and save money

36

Sustainability and energy conservation is all of our responsibility.

Reduce their energy consumption by using lower resistance filters.

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Reduce waste by using fewer filters.

37

Things to Remember Original cost is only a small part of total cost Not all filters maintain their particle capture efficiency 60-80% of the cost to filter the air is energy. All filters are not the same – as much as 75% of pressure drop results from design & manufacturing • The “Green Message” for air filters

• These claims can be proven by simple evaluations.

38

− Energy savings – lower resistance product saves energy − Waste reduction – less filter changes − “Green” product features save money.

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

• • • •

38

© CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Questions ?

39