380 likes | 527 Views
Elements & Media. Elements/Media. Types Comparison Which one do I use? Construction Testing. Types. Cellulose Fiberglass Wire Mesh Water Removal. Cellulose. Cellulose. Denoted by a “C” - (10C) Phenolic resins hold pleat shape after curing Not recommended for HWCF
E N D
Elements/Media • Types • Comparison • Which one do I use? • Construction • Testing
Types • Cellulose • Fiberglass • Wire Mesh • Water Removal
Cellulose • Denoted by a “C” - (10C) • Phenolic resins hold pleat shape after curing • Not recommended for HWCF • Difficult to achieve < 5 micron removal due to large fiber size • Old technology, commodity type of element
Wire Mesh • Stainless steel • Cleanable media with some % loss of life • Difficult to clean elements rated below 40 micron • Rated as mesh size or micron size pore 200 mesh = 74W (74 micron)
Element Cleaning 1)Remove external build-up with cleaning fluid in separate tank 2)Immerse element for 30 minutes in cleaning fluid 3)Flush opposite direction as oil flow with water & air
Element Cleaning 4)Continue to flush with air only 5)Immerse in ISO-Propyl -Alcohol to remove remaining water particle 6)Air dry element and package for future use
Fiberglass • Latest technology for solid particle removal • Microglass III is our current version • Denoted by a “Q” - (10Q)
MicroGlass III Upstream Support Mesh • Dual Layer construction Micro-glass Capacity Layer Micro-glass Efficiency Layer Polyester Spun-bonded Support Layer Downstream Support Mesh Support Core
Typical capacity layer (100x) MicroGlass III • Dual Layer construction Capacity Layer • High Loft • Void Volume • Protects Efficiency Layer
Typical efficiency layer (100x) MicroGlass III • Dual Layer construction Membrane Efficiency Layer • Ultrathin .007” • Increased Filtration Area • Laminated to Support Scrim • Fixed Pore Size
MicroGlass III vs. II • Equivalent Efficiency • Equal or Greater Dirt Holding Capacity • Much Lower Clean Pressure Drop • Lower Energy Consumption • Lower stress on filter construction • Less chance of bypass in cold conditions • Opportunity to upgrade to higher efficiency
MicroGlass III vs. IITested Per ISO 16889 to 4 bar (60 PSID) 114LPM (30 GPM) 10mg/L BUGL
MicroGlass III vs. II Tested Per ISO 16889 to 4 bar (60 PSID) 114LPM (30 GPM) 10mg/L BUGL
MicroGlass III vs. IITested Per ISO 16889 to 4 bar (60 PSID) 114LPM (30 GPM) 10mg/L BUGL
MicroGlass III vs. Competition Tested Per ISO 16889 to 6.8 bar(100 PSID) 114LPM (30 GPM) 10mg/L BUGLJanuary 8, 2001
ß = 75 ß = 200 ß = 75 ß = 200 MicroGlass III vs. Competition Tested Per ISO 16889 to 100 psid 114LPM (30 GPM) 10mg/L BUGL January 8, 2001
MicroGlass III vs. Competition Tested Per ISO 3968 January 8, 2001
Ecoglass II • Line of non-metallic filter elements meeting ecological demands for longer life and reduced disposal. • Up to 60% less disposal volume. • Par-Fit designs that do not require customer retrofit, or relocation of bypass valves which compromises performance.
Par-Gel • Small amounts of water • Removes free water only • Low flow density
Par-Gel New pleat before absorption Used pleat swelled from water retention
Par-Fit • Must compare efficiency, dirt capacity, and pressure loss at the same micron size
Element A Price: $20.00 Dirt capacity: 5 grams Price-per-gram: $4.00 Element B $30.00 10 grams $3.00 Price-Per-Gram
Multi-pass Test • To compare tests • Flow Rate • Terminal Pressure • Injection rate • Concentration • Element size • Contaminant type