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. Outline
• Introduction
• Membrane Selection Methodology
• Experimental Protocol
• Piloting
• Evaluation
• Selection

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. Membrane Selection
Methodology
• Pre-selection criteria
• Pilot trial evaluation
• Technical evaluation
• Tender review/Whole life cost
analysis
• Supplier selection

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. 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. 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. Experimental Protocol
• Objectives
• Test equipment description
• Testing Methodology
• Sampling and Analysis plan
• Data Management and Analysis
• QA/QC
• Health and Safety
• Communications
• Waste

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..

20. Results
• TMP Development
• CIP Performance

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. Outcome
Preferred supplier selected based on:
• technical evaluation scores,
• pilot trial performance,
• tender review
• WLC