Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mechanical R&D • Test Report
Test Report
Test Report -SKOV Cooling pad
Test required by:
Henrik Bjærge
SKOV A/S
Hedelund 4, Glyngøre
DK-7870 Roslev
Test performed by: Report written by:
Tommy Berg Nielsen Tommy Berg Nielsen
SKOV A/S SKOV A/S
Hedelund 4, Glyngøre Hedelund 4, Glyngøre
DK-7870 Roslev Dk-7870 Roslev
Date: 2015-06-22 Signature: ______________________________________
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 2
1 INTRODUCTION 3
2 OBJECTIVE 3
3 CONCLUSION 3
4 PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT. 4
4.1 Angle of channel. .............................................................................................. 4
4.1.1 Purpose / method. ............................................................................................................. 4
4.1.2 Result. ................................................................................................................................ 4
4.2 Height of channels. ........................................................................................... 4
4.2.1 Purpose / method. ............................................................................................................. 4
4.2.2 Result. ................................................................................................................................ 4
5 MEASUREMENT OF THE PRESSURE DROP. 5
6 TEST EQUIPMENT FOR MEASUREMENT OF THE PRESSURE DROP. 6
6.1 Pictures of the Test Setup for measurement of the pressure drop: .............. 6
6.2 Pictures of the carving: .................................................................................... 7
6.2.1 Purpose / method. ............................................................................................................. 7
6.2.2 Result. ................................................................................................................................ 7
6.3 Paper quality: .................................................................................................... 8
6.3.1 Purpose / method. ............................................................................................................. 8
6.3.2 Result. ................................................................................................................................ 8
6.3.3 Paper quality result: ......................................................................................................... 9
6.4 Impregnation: ...................................................................................................10
6.4.1 Purpose / method. ........................................................................................................... 10
6.4.2 Result. .............................................................................................................................. 10
6.5 Glue: ..................................................................................................................11
6.5.1 Purpose / method. ........................................................................................................... 11
6.5.2 Result. .............................................................................................................................. 11
6.6 Moisture content: .............................................................................................12
6.6.1 Purpose / method. ........................................................................................................... 12
6.6.2 Result. .............................................................................................................................. 12
6.7 Capillary action: ...............................................................................................13
6.7.1 Purpose / method. ........................................................................................................... 13
6.7.2 Result. .............................................................................................................................. 13
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 3
1 Introduction
This report is the result of measurements of the SKOV Cooling pad.
2 Objective
The objective of the report is to evaluate the performance and quality of the SKOV Cooling pad.
437313 Munters 150*600*1500 green stripe 70/60 is used for comparison.
3 Conclusion
Based on the test performed, there is no significant difference between SKOV and Munters cooling
pad.
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 4
4 Physical measurement.
4.1 Angle of channel.
4.1.1 Purpose / method.
Angles determine the cooling efficiency and pressure drop across the pads.
4.1.2 Result.
Measured to 45° and 15°.
4.2 Height of channels.
4.2.1 Purpose / method.
If the height too small, it will cause a large pressure drop.
4.2.2 Result.
Measured over 10 channels to 14 mm, equal to Munters.
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 5
5 Measurement of the pressure drop.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Dif
fere
nti
al p
ress
ure
[P
a]
Performance [m3/h]
Performance [m3/h]
Munters Cooling Pad 150x600x2000 green stripe 70/60, Aera 180X40 cm, Pad no. 1-3
SKOV Cooling pad, average, Pad no. 1-3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Dif
fere
nti
al p
ress
ure
[P
a]
Performance [m3/h]
Performance [m3/h]
SKOV Cooling pad, Aera 180X40 cm, Pad no 1 SKOV Cooling pad, Aera 180X40 cm, Pad no 2
SKOV Cooling pad, Aera 180X40 cm, Pad no 3
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 6
6 Test Equipment for measurement of the pressure drop.
The test room is controlled by Telemecanique Altivar ATV61HD30N4 frequency inverter and
equipped with ISO nozzles sizes Ø 315 (4 pcs.), Ø 200, Ø 150, Ø 75, Ø 50 and Ø25 mm for flow
measurements.
The measurement uncertainty, is about +/- 4 %
Micro manometer: Furness Controls FCO332 Serial Nr. 080461, 080462, 081121, 081122, 081123,
081124, 081125, 081126, 081127.
Barometer: Vaisala PTB110 Serial Nr. D3140101
Psychrometer: 2 pcs. PT100
Software: Software developed by SKOV A/S for calculating air flow and density
6.1 Pictures of the Test Setup for measurement of the pressure drop:
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 7
6.2 Pictures of the carving:
6.2.1 Purpose / method.
The carving should be as clean as possible, without paper fraying. (At the frayed edges, the pads will
collect more dust and algae, as well generate a greater pressure drop).
6.2.2 Result.
The edge of SKOV is a little more frayed than Munters pad.
*SKOV left, Munters green stripe 70/60 right.
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 8
6.3 Paper quality:
6.3.1 Purpose / method.
The quality and the stiffness of the paper must be tested by pressing on a wet pad (Padden soaked in
34 °C water for 2 days before the test ) The test is performed in the tensile/push test bench on a piece
of 25 X 25 cm. (The stiffer pad, the better quality. A soft pad will quickly lose rigidity and collapse)
An Ø60 mm pipe is pressed down in the samples.
6.3.2 Result.
The pad from SKOV is stiffer than the pad from Munters.
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 9
6.3.3 Paper quality result:
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Forc
e [N
]
Position[mm]
Compression test, Cooling pads
Munters green stripe 70/60, sample 1 Munters green stripe 70/60, sample 2
SKOV cooling pad, sample 1 SKOV cooling pad, sample 2
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 10
6.4 Impregnation:
6.4.1 Purpose / method.
If a pad is impregnated, check the quality of the impregnation by comparing then stiffness of the
treated area and the area that is not impregnated. There must be a noticeable difference in the two
areas.
(Impregnation enhances the stiffness of the outer approximately 2 cm. thereby lengthening the life and
allows a more harsh cleaning)
6.4.2 Result.
SKOV cooling pad, is not impregnated.
NOT DONE, SAMPLE IMAGE
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 11
6.5 Glue:
6.5.1 Purpose / method.
It must not be possible to tear the different layers from another on a wet pad (pad soaked in water for
2 days before the test)
Or use a better method, by heating the water to 60-65 °C for 3-4 days.
If the various layers of paper come apart, the glue quality is not sufficient.
Glue quality is important for the life and stiffness of the pads.
6.5.2 Result.
After 4 days in 34 °C hot water, there is not a clear difference in tensile strength between SKOV and
Munters cooling pad.
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 12
6.6 Moisture content:
6.6.1 Purpose / method.
A piece of 25 X 25 X 15 cm pad immersed in water for 30 minutes. Let the piece drain for 2 minutes
and weight it afterwards. (It tells about the cooling properties)
6.6.2 Result.
There is no difference in the ability to absorb water.
No. SKOV Cooling pad Munters Cooling pad green stripe 70/60
Before
immersed [g]
After
immersed [g]
Increase in
weight [g]
Before
immersed [g]
After
immersed [g]
Increase in
weight [g]
1 241 546 305 223 515 292
2 235 520 285 225 515 290
3 243 - - 221 - -
4 235 - - 222 - -
Mechanical R&D • Test Report 13
6.7 Capillary action:
6.7.1 Purpose / method.
A pad placed in a vat with 20 cm water. After 24 hours, measured how high the water is sucked op on
the pad. (The pad containing most water considered to have the best cooling properties)
6.7.2 Result.
SKOV Cooling pad, 31 cm, Munters green stripe Cooling pad, 39 cm.
SKOV A/S • Hedelund 4 • Glyngøre • DK-7870 Roslev Tel. +45 72 17 55 55 • Fax +45 72 17 59 59 • www.skov.com • E-mail: [email protected]
