Mosbaek CEV flow regulator · 2015. 5. 26. · February 2015 Mosbaek CEV flow regulator...
Transcript of Mosbaek CEV flow regulator · 2015. 5. 26. · February 2015 Mosbaek CEV flow regulator...
Verification Report
February 2015
Mosbaek CEV flow regulator Verification Report
This report has been prepared under the DHI Business Management System certified by DNV to comply with ISO 9001 (Quality Management)
Approvedby
StenLindberg(Headofdepartment,DHI)
Approvedby
PeterFritzel(Verificationresponsible,ETADanmark)
Mosbaek CEV flow regulator Verification Report
Prepared for Mosbaek A/S Represented by Torben Krejberg, Technical Director
Test facility
ProjectNo 11530013
Classification Public
Version Final
Authors MetteTjenerAndersson,DHI
Verification Report Mosbaek i
Contents
1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................3 1.1 Nameoftechnology.............................................................................................................................................................3 1.2 Nameandcontactofproposer.......................................................................................................................................3 1.3 Nameofverificationbodyandresponsibleofverification...............................................................................3 1.4 Verificationorganisationincludingexperts.............................................................................................................4 1.5 Verificationprocess............................................................................................................................................................4 1.6 Deviationsfromtheverificationprotocol.................................................................................................................6
2 Descriptionoftechnologyandapplication..........................................................................................8 2.1 Summarydescription.........................................................................................................................................................8 2.2 Intendedapplication...........................................................................................................................................................9 2.2.1 Matrix/matrices....................................................................................................................................................................9 2.2.2 Purpose(s)...............................................................................................................................................................................9 2.3 Verificationparametersdefinition............................................................................................................................10 2.3.1 FlowatHbumpandHdesign.................................................................................................................................................10 2.3.2 FlowreductionatHdesign.................................................................................................................................................10
3 Evaluation.....................................................................................................................................................11 3.1 Calculationofverificationparametersperformance........................................................................................11 3.2 Evaluationoftestquality...............................................................................................................................................11 3.2.1 Controldata.........................................................................................................................................................................11 3.2.2 Audits.....................................................................................................................................................................................11 3.2.3 Deviations.............................................................................................................................................................................12 3.3 Verificationresults...........................................................................................................................................................12 3.3.1 Performanceparameters...............................................................................................................................................12 3.3.2 FlowatHbumpandHdesign.................................................................................................................................................12 3.3.3 FlowreductionatHdesign.................................................................................................................................................13 3.3.4 Operationalparameters.................................................................................................................................................13 3.3.5 Additionalparameters....................................................................................................................................................14 3.3.5.1 Usermanual.........................................................................................................................................................................14 3.3.5.2 Requiredresources..........................................................................................................................................................15 3.3.5.3 Occupationalhealthandenvironmentalimpact.................................................................................................17 3.4 RecommendationfortheStatementofVerification..........................................................................................17 3.4.1 Technologydescription..................................................................................................................................................17 3.4.2 Application...........................................................................................................................................................................18 3.4.2.1 Matrix.....................................................................................................................................................................................18 3.4.2.2 Purpose..................................................................................................................................................................................18 3.4.2.3 Conditionsofoperationanduse................................................................................................................................18 3.4.2.4 Verificationparametersdefinitionsummary.......................................................................................................18 3.4.3 Testandanalysisdesign................................................................................................................................................18 3.4.3.1 Laboratoryorfieldconditions....................................................................................................................................18 3.4.3.2 Matrixcomposition..........................................................................................................................................................20 3.4.3.3 Testandanalysisparameters......................................................................................................................................20 3.4.3.4 Testandanalysismethodssummary.......................................................................................................................20 3.4.3.5 Parametersmeasured.....................................................................................................................................................20 3.4.4 Verificationresults...........................................................................................................................................................21 3.4.4.1 Performanceparameters...............................................................................................................................................21 3.4.4.2 Operationalparameters.................................................................................................................................................21 3.4.4.3 Environmentalparameters..........................................................................................................................................21 3.4.4.4 Additionalparameters....................................................................................................................................................21 3.4.5 Additionalinformation...................................................................................................................................................22 3.4.6 Qualityassuranceanddeviations..............................................................................................................................22
ii Verification Report Mosbaek
4 Qualityassurance.......................................................................................................................................23
5 References....................................................................................................................................................25
Figures Figure1‐1 Organisationoftheverificationandtest.......................................................................................................................................4 Figure2‐1 SketchofCEVflowregulatorinstalledinwell.SketchprovidedbyMosbaek...............................................................8 Figure2‐2 Graphicshowingthegeneralvortexbrakeeffectonwateroutflow,withCEVsoperatingat78%and100%
efficiencyandwaterinflowtowelllargerthanoutflowthoughCEV(wellisfillingup).Graphprovidedby
Mosbaek.......................................................................................................................................................................................................9 Figure3‐1 CorrelationbetweenQinflowandQbumpgivenforalltestedCEVs........................................................................................13 Figure3‐2 A)SketchofCEVflowregulatorinstalledinwell.B)Graphicshowingthegeneralvortexbrakeeffecton
wateroutflow,withCEVsoperatingat78%and100%efficiencyandwaterinflowtowelllargerthan
outflowthoughCEV(wellisfillingup).BothprovidedbyMosbaek..............................................................................17 Figure3‐3 Sketchoftestset‐up.............................................................................................................................................................................19
Tables Table1‐1 Simplifiedoverviewoftheverificationprocess.........................................................................................................................6 Table2‐1 SpecificperformanceclaimsfromtheproposeronQbumpandQdesign..............................................................................10 Table2‐2 SpecificperformanceclaimsbytheproposeronflowreductioncomparedtonoCEVinstalledinwell.........10 Table3‐1 VerifiedperformanceonQbump.+)BeawarethattheresultsofQbumpareuniquelyinfluencedbyQinflow,see
later.............................................................................................................................................................................................................12 Table3‐2 VerifiedperformanceonQdesign.*)basedontwotestsonly................................................................................................13 Table3‐2 VerifiedperformanceonflowreductioncomparedtonoCEVinstalledinwell.........................................................13 Table3‐3 Evaluationofusermanual.................................................................................................................................................................14 Table3‐4 Listofcapitalcostitemsandoperationandmaintenancecostitemsperproductunit..........................................16 Table4‐1 QAplanfortheverification...............................................................................................................................................................23
Appendices A TermsanddefinitionsB SpecificVerificationProtocolC TestplanD TestreportE Auditreports
Archiving:Allstandardprojectfiles(documents,etc)arearchivedatETADanmark.Anyotherprojectfiles(set‐upfiles,forcingdata,model
output,etc.)arearchivedwiththeinstituteperformingthetestsoranalysis.
Verification Report Mosbaek 3
1 Introduction Environmentaltechnologyverification(ETV)isanindependent(thirdparty)assessmentoftheperformanceofatechnologyoraproductforaspecifiedapplicationunderdefinedconditionsandqualityassurance.Theobjectiveofthisverificationistoevaluatetheperformanceofaverticalcentrifugalflowregulatorforstormwater.ThisVerificationReportandtheverificationofthetechnologyarebasedontheSpecificVerifica‐tionProtocol,TestPlanandTestReportfortheMosbaekCEVflowregulator,includedasAp‐pendixB,DandE.
1.1 Name of technology Verticalcentrifugalflowregulator,CEV(CEntrifugalVertical),producedbyMosbaekA/S.
MosbaekproducesCEVsforflowcapacitiesfrom0.2l/sto80l/s.Theverificationwillcoverver‐ificationtestoffourspecificCEVdimensionswithinthisrange.
MosbaekhaveselectedfourspecificCEV‐modelstorepresenttheirCEVtechnology,namely:
CEV1.4l/[email protected]–100%
CEV4.9l/[email protected]–100%
CEV10.5/[email protected]–78%
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–100%
ThenameoftheCEVindicatesthedesignedmaximumflowofforexample1.4l/sandthecorre‐latingmaximumpressureheightofforexample1.00m.Thepercentage(100%and78%)indi‐catesthepercentageofthedesignflowatthepoint/bumpwherethevortexisformed.
1.2 Name and contact of proposer MosbaekA/SVærkstedsvej204600KøgeDenmarkContact:TorbenKrejberg,e‐mail:[email protected],phone:+4556638580Mosbaekwebsite:www.mosbaek.dk
1.3 Name of verification body and responsible of verification ETADanmarkA/SGöteborgPlads12150NordhavnDenmarkVerificationresponsible:PeterFritzel(PF),email:[email protected],phone+4572245900
4 Verification Report Mosbaek
Appointedverificationexpert:MetteTjenerAndersson(MTA),e‐mail:[email protected],phone:+4545169148
1.4 Verification organisation including experts TheverificationwasconductedbyETADanmarkA/SincooperationwithDanishCentreforVer‐ificationofClimateandEnvironmentalTechnologies,DANETV,whichperformsindependentverificationoftechnologiesandproductsforthereductionofclimatechangesandpollution.
TheverificationisconductedtosatisfytherequirementsoftheETVschemeestablishedbytheEuropeanUnion(EUETVPilotProgramme)[1].
TheverificationwascoordinatedandsupervisedbyETADanmark,assistedbyanappointedverificationexpert,whiletestswerecoordinatedandsupervisedbyDHIwiththeparticipationoftheproposer,Mosbaek.ThetestingwasconductedatthepremisesofMosbaekinKøge,whereatestfacilityhasbeenconstructed.
Aninternalandanexternalexpertareassignedtoprovideindependentexpertreviewoftheplanning,conductingandreportingoftheverificationandtests:
Internaltechnicalexpert:MortenJustKjølby(MJK),DHI,UrbanandIndustryDept.,e‐[email protected]
Externaltechnicalexpert:Verificationprotocol:ProfessorTorbenLarsen(TL),AalborgUniversity,DepartmentofCivilEngineering,e‐[email protected]:IanWalker(IW),WRcplc,e‐[email protected]
Thetasksassignedtoeachexpertaregiveninmoredetailinsection4Qualityassurance.
TherelationshipsbetweentheorganisationsrelatedtothisverificationandtestaregiveninFigure1‐1.
Figure 1-1 Organisation of the verification and test.
1.5 Verification process TheprinciplesofoperationoftheDANETVverificationprocessaregiveninTable1‐1
Verification Report Mosbaek 5
Table1‐1.Asitcanbeseen,verificationandtestingaredividedbetweentheverificationandthetestbody.
6 Verification Report Mosbaek
Table 1-1 Simplified overview of the verification process.
Phase Responsible Document
Preliminaryphase Verificationbody QuickScan
Contract
Specificverificationprotocol
Testingphase Testbody Testplan
Testreport
Assessmentphase Verificationbody Verificationreport
StatementofVerification
Qualityassuranceiscarriedoutbyanexpertgroupofinternalandexternaltechnicalexperts.Twoauditsofthetestsystemwereperformed,startingwithaninternalauditbythetestbodyfollowedbyanexternalauditbytheDANETVverificationbodyunderETADanmark.ReferencefortheverificationprocessistheEUETVGeneralVerificationProtocol[1]andETADanmarksinternalprocedure[2].AStatementofVerificationwillbeissuedbyETADanmarkaftercomple‐tionoftheverification.Thisverificationreportwillincludetheotherdocumentspreparedasappendices.
1.6 Deviations from the verification protocol Therewerenodeviationstotheverificationprotocol.
Verification Report Mosbaek 7
8 Verification Report Mosbaek
2 Description of technology and application
2.1 Summary description Theflowregulatortechnologyforextremerainfalleventsisbasedonquicklyreachingthemax‐imumdischargeflowandstayingatorbelowthisvalue.Themaximumdischargeflowistheal‐lowableamountofwaterpassingthroughtheregulatorwithoutcausinganyproblemstothedownstreampipenetwork.
Thetechnologyverifiedistheverticalcentrifugalflowregulator,CEV(CEntrifugalVertical)fromMosbaek.Itisawetmountedvortexflowregulatorforstormwaterwithdesignflowsbetween0.2and80l/s.
TheCEVregulatesthewaterduetothevortexcreatedwhensufficientwaterflowisgoingthroughtheunit.Thevortexiscreatedwhenthewaterflowreachesacertainflowrate.Thevor‐texslowsdownthewaterflowthroughtheCEV.Inthiswaythewaterisstoredinthewellandthewaterflowisthenkeptalmostconstant.AschematicviewoftheCEVinoperationisshowninFigure2‐1.
TheCEVcanbedesignedtofulfildifferentdesigncriteria.Thespecificdesigncriteriaarede‐finedbytheclientandMosbaekincooperationaccordingtothedesignoftheexistingorplannedpipingnetwork.
Figure 2-1 Sketch of CEV flow regulator installed in well. Sketch provided by Mosbaek.
TheCEVsverifiedhaveinflowinthebottomoftheregulator,asshowninFigure2‐1.Thisistoensureproperandequalhydraulicconditions.Furthermore,inastandardinstallationMosbaekwillensurethatinletandoutletarelocatedatthesamelevelinthewell(asdepictedonFigure2‐1)inordertobeabletocontrolthewaterlevelriseinthewelloptimally.
Figure2‐2showstheflowthroughaCEV.Inthe100%casethemaximumoutlet(Qdesign)ismettwice‐firstwherethevortexisformed(thebumponthegraph)andthenatthespecifiedHdesign,whereHdesigniscalculatedfromtheinvertofthedischargepipetothemaximumwaterlevelinthewell.A78%case(asmallerCEVinawellwithsameheight)withthesameHdesignisalsoshown;herethebumpoccursataflowof78%ofQdesign.
Verification Report Mosbaek 9
Figure 2-2 Graphic showing the general vortex brake effect on water outflow, with CEVs operating at 78% and 100% efficiency and water inflow to well larger than outflow though CEV (well is filling up). Graph provided by Mosbaek.
Theoptimalsolution(100%),whereQbumpequalsQdesign,giveslessrestrictionatlowheadsal‐lowingabetterflowduringnormaloperatingsituationsandtherebylessriskofblockingdown‐stream.
2.2 Intended application Theintendedapplicationofthetechnologyforverificationisdefinedintermsofthematrixandthepurpose.
2.2.1 Matrix/matrices TheCEVisforstormwaterandcertaintypesofindustrialwastewaters.TheCEVisinstalledbe‐forethecombinedsystem(withstormwaterandwastewater),andistherebyrestrictingtheamountofstormwaterintothecombinedsystem.Theverificationthereforeonlycoversthema‐trixstormwater.
2.2.2 Purpose(s) Thepurposeofthetechnologyistostorestormwateratappropriateplacesbeforeenteringthepipingsystemduringstormwaterevents.TheCEVisinstalledinwellsandbasinsdependingonthepipingnetwork.
10 Verification Report Mosbaek
2.3 Verification parameters definition Thereisnoregulationtofulfilforthistechnology.Theinitialclaimsfromtheproposerarematchingtheclaimsfromothervendors.Noneedhasbeenfoundtoaddanyadditionalperfor‐manceparameterstothoseinitiallyselectedbytheproposer.
MosbaekhastwotypesofclaimsfortheirCEVs,bothdescribedbelow.
2.3.1 Flow at Hbump and Hdesign MosbaekhasspecifiedtheperformanceoffourselectedmodelsoftheCEVthroughperformancegraphsandspecifiedthefollowingspecificclaims(fordetails,pleaseconsultAppendixB):
100%model: Qdesign±5%ismetatHbumpandHdesign
X%model: X%ofQdesign±5%ismetatHbump
Qdesign±5%ismetatHdesign
SpecificvaluesforeachofthefourselectedCEVsarelistedinTable2‐1.
Table 2-1 Specific performance claims from the proposer on Qbump and Qdesign.
CEV model Qbump (l/s) Qdesign (l/s) CEV1.4l/[email protected]–100% 1.4±5% 1.4±5%
CEV4.9l/[email protected]–100% 4.9±5% 4.9±5%
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–78% 8.2±5% 10.5±5%
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–100% 10.5±5% 10.5±5%
2.3.2 Flow reduction at Hdesign MosbaekhasfurtherspecifiedtheirclaimedreductionoftheflowatHdesigncomparedtoawellwithnoflowregulator(equaltoaholeinastraightwall,withnoadditionalpiping).
Mosbaekclaimsthefollowing:
AMosbaekCEV100%modelcanreducetheflowbyafactorof4.25atQdesign
PerformingtestswherethetestwellisfilleduptoHdesignwithnoCEVwillrequireveryhighwaterflow.ThereforthisclaimwillbeverifiedusingonlythesmallestofthefourCEVsusedinthetests.SpecificperformanceclaimislistedinTable2‐2.
Table 2-2 Specific performance claims by the proposer on flow reduction compared to no CEV installed in well.
CEV model Orifice diameter (Ø) Flow reduction factor at Hdesign (mm) CEV1.4l/[email protected]–100% DiametercorrespondingtoCEV
1.4l/[email protected]–100%outlet
4.25
Verification Report Mosbaek 11
3 Evaluation DetaileddescriptionsofthetestdesignandtestresultsarefoundintheTestPlan(AppendixC)andTestReport(AppendixD).
3.1 Calculation of verification parameters performance DetailedinformationonhowtocalculatetheverificationparametersareincludedintheSpecificVerificationProtocolinAppendixB.
3.2 Evaluation of test quality
3.2.1 Control data TestsystemcontrolincludedleakagetestandforCEV1.4l/s@H=1.00m–100%investigationofthevariationwasincludedfortestscarriedoutwithidenticalinletflows.Thevariationwasmin‐imalandfarlessthan10%,whichmeans‐accordingtotheVerificationProtocol(AppendixB),section5.1.4‐thattriplicatetestswerenotneededfortheremainingCEVs.
Testperformanceauditincludedreviewofcalibrationcertificatesforpressuretransducersandflowmeters.TheyarevalidandcanbefoundinAppendixtotheTestPlan(AppendixC).Inaddi‐tioncalibrationtestswereperformedofpressuretransducersonbothinletandoutletside.
Theoutflowcouldnotbemeasureddirectlyduetoairandcirculationintheoutlet.Insteadmeasurementofheadintheoutlettankandoftheoverflowfromtheoutlettankwheremeas‐ured.Thecalculationtwodifferentmethodswerelisted,seeAppendixBsection6.1Calculationofperformanceparameters.Method2wasexpectedtomostprecise,whilemethodshouldbeusedforcontrol.Formethod1thetimeserieshadtobesubjectedtointensiveaveragingtogetreadableresults.Acomparisonbetweentheresultsobtainedbymeansofmethod1andmethod2foroneofthemodeltestshasbeenperformed.TheresultsareshownintheAppendixDoftheTestReport(AppendixDtothisreport).Itappearsthatthereis,apartfromthefluctuations,agoodagreementbetweenthetwomethods.However,sincethequalityoftheresultswithmeth‐od2wasveryreliableand,whiletheresultsobtainedbymeansofmethod1aresubjecttolargefluctuations,itwaschosentousemethod2only.
3.2.2 Audits Duringtestingandinternaltest,asystemauditwasperformedbyJesperFuchsfromDHIon29September2014.TheverificationbodyETADenmark,representedbyPeterFritzel,performedatestsystemauditon2October2014.
Conclusionsoftheinternalaudit(JesperFuchs):
“Thetestisperformedinaccordancewiththetestplanandcarriedoutinasafemanner.Han‐dlingandstorageofdataissafe”.
ConclusionsoftheauditbyETADenmark(PeterFritzel):
“Thereisconsistencywiththetestplanandhandlingofmeasurementsiscarriedoutinasafemanner”.
ThefullauditreportscanbefoundinAppendixE.
12 Verification Report Mosbaek
3.2.3 Deviations Therewerefourdeviationstothetestplan.ThedescriptionofthesecanbefoundinfullinAp‐pendixCoftheTestReportincludedasAppendixEtothisreport.Asummaryofthedeviationsisasfollows:
1. Insteadofestablishingthezerolevelintheinlettankforeachtest,acommonzeroscanwasperformedforeachCEVtype.Thiszeroscanwascarriedoutasanindividualtestinsteadofanintegratedpartofeachtest.
2. ThelowestinflowinthetestswithCEV1.4l/[email protected]‐flow,1.79l/sinsteadof1.9l/s.Withgoodaccuracytheinletflow,whichwillresultinawaterlevelriseof0.5mm/s,canbefoundbyinterpolation.Suchinterpolationshowsthataninflowofapproximately2.8l/swillresultinawaterlevelriseof0.5mm/s.ThecorrespondingQbumpwouldbeapproximately1.28l/s(seeFigure3.8inTestReport(AppendixE)).
3. Forall100%CEVsthelargestinflowsgavelargerwaterlevelrisethan1.5mm/s,whichwasthelargestwaterlevelrisetobetestedandapredefinedoperationalparameter.Duringthetestattemptwasmadetocomecloseto1.5mm/s,butduetothecharacterofthecurve,withtherapidbump,itwasdifficultinadvancetoestimatethewaterlevelrise.Withgoodaccuracytheinletflows,whichwillresultinawaterlevelriseof1.5mm/s,canbefoundbyinterpolation.Doingthisisitnicetohaveameasuredvaluesofwaterlevelriseisabove1.5mm/s.Interpolationsshowfor:
• CEV1.4l/s@1.0mthatsuchawaterlevelrisewouldbeobtainedforaninflowofapproximately6.1l/s.ThecorrespondingQbumpwouldbeapproximately1.44l/s(seeFigure3.8intheTestReport(AppendixE))
• CEV4.9l/s@1.5mthatsuchawaterlevelrisewouldbeobtainedforaninflowofapproximately9.2l/s.ThecorrespondingQbumpwouldbeapproximately4.93l/s(seeFigure3.12inTestReport(AppendixE))
• CEV10.5l/[email protected]‐flowofapproximately13.9l/s.ThecorrespondingQbumpwouldbeapproxi‐mately10.4l/s(seeFigure3.16inTestReport(AppendixE))
4. Thetestwiththeorificewascarriedoutwithalargerinflowthanpredefined.Thiswasdone,astheQ–Hrelationforanorificeisindependentofthewaterlevelincrease,whichalsoisdocumentedbycomparingwiththetheoreticalrelation,seeFigure3.23intheTestReport(AppendixE).
3.3 Verification results
3.3.1 Performance parameters Theverifiedperformanceforthetwoparametersislistedbelow.Theresultsaretransferreddi‐rectlyfromtheTestReport(AppendixE).
3.3.2 Flow at Hbump and Hdesign SpecificperformanceforeachofthefourselectedCEVsislistedinTable3‐1andTable3‐2.
Table 3-1 Verified performance on Qbump. +) Be aware that the results of Qbump are uniquely influenced by Qinflow, see later.*) For this flow the water level rise was only 0.19 mm/s, while the operational requirement was >0.5 mm/s, this is an explanation for the deviation from the expected.
CEV model Inflow in test (l/s)
Qbump (l/s)
Deviation from model characteristics (%)
Verification Report Mosbaek 13
Mean+ Range CEV1.4l/[email protected]–100% 1.79to6.31 1.34 1.22*–1.45 ‐4.3(‐13*–3.6)
CEV4.9l/[email protected]–100% 5.89to9.99 4.74 4.50–5.04 ‐3.3(‐8.2–2.9)
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–78% 8.60to12.97 8.17 7.57–8.74 ‐0.2(‐7.6–6.7)
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–100% 11.32to15.24 10.18 9.75–10.67 ‐3.0(‐7.1–1.6)
Table 3-2 Verified performance on Qdesign. *) based on two tests only.
CEV model Inflow in test (l/s)
Qdesign (l/s)
Deviation from model characteristics (%)
Mean Range CEV1.4l/[email protected]–100% 1.79to6.31 1.43 1.42–1.45 2.1(1.4–3.6)
CEV4.9l/[email protected]–100% 5.89to9.99 4.78 4‐76–4.80 ‐2.4(‐2.9–(‐2.0))
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–78% 8.60to12.97 10.11 10.09–10.12* ‐3.7(‐3.9–(‐3.6))
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–100% 11.32to15.24 10.56 10.55–10.56 0.6(0.5–0.6)
Orifice 13.72 6.36 N/A N/A
PleasebeawarethatthereisauniqueinfluenceofQbumbbyQinflow,seeFigure3‐1.
Figure 3-1 Correlation between Qinflow and Qbump given for all tested CEVs.
3.3.3 Flow reduction at Hdesign PerformancecomparedtoawellwithnoflowregulatorislistedinTable3‐3.
Table 3-3 Verified performance on flow reduction compared to no CEV installed in well.
CEV model Orifice diameter (Ø) Flow reduction factor at Hdesign (mm) CEV1.4l/[email protected]–100% DiametercorrespondingtoCEV
1.4l/[email protected]–100%outlet
4.45
MosbaekCEV1.4l/[email protected]‐100%isverifiedtoreducetheflowbyafactorof4.45atQdesign.
3.3.4 Operational parameters Duringoperationthefollowingparametersweremeasured:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20
Qbump (l/s)
Qinflow (l/s)
CEV 1.4 ‐ 100 %
CEV 4.9 ‐ 100 %
CEV 10.5 ‐ 78 %
CEV 10.5 ‐ 100 %
14 Verification Report Mosbaek
Inflow(l/s)
Waterlevel/pressureinregulatorwell(mH2O/Pa)
Waterlevel/pressureintheoutlettank(mH2O/Pa)
Outletfromtheoutlettank(l/s)
ThesedatahavecreatedcurvesshownintheTestReport,section3Testresults(AppendixE).
Duringthetesttheaveragewaterlevelmustbewithin0.5and1.5mm/s,sincethisiscommonvaluesinrunoffsystems.
3.3.5 Additional parameters
3.3.5.1 User manual Theverificationcriterionfortheusermanualisthatthemanualdescribestheuseoftheequip‐mentadequatelyandisunderstandableforthetypicaltestcoordinatorandtesttechnician.Thiscriterionwasbasedonanumberofspecificpointsofimportance,seeTable3‐4fortheparame‐terstobeincluded.
Adescriptioniscompleteifallessentialstepsaredescribed,iftheyareillustratedbyafigureoraphoto,whererelevant,andifthedescriptionsareunderstandablewithoutreferencetootherguidance.
Mosbaekhasprovided:
CentrifugalvalveCE/Vwetmounted(Generalinformation)
InstallationInstruction.MosbaekFlowRegulators.TypeCEV‐KPS–Sealing
MaintenanceandInspectionInstructions.MosbaekFlowRegulators.TypeCEV‐KPS–Sealing
Table 3-4 Evaluation of user manual.
Parameter Complete description
Summary description
No description Not relevant
Product
Principleofoperation √
Intendeduse √
Performanceexpected √
Limitations √
Preparations
Unpacking √
Transport √
Assembly √
Installation √
Functiontest √
Operation
Stepsofoperation √
Pointsofcaution √
Accessories √
Maintenance √
Troubleshooting √
Safety
Chemicals √
Power √
Verification Report Mosbaek 15
3.3.5.2 Required resources Thecapitalinvestmentandtheresourcesforoperationandmaintenancecouldbeseenasthesustainabilityoftheproductandwillbeitemizedbaseduponadetermineddesign[3],seeTable3‐5fortheitemsthatwillbeincluded.ThedesignbasisconsistsofoneinstalledCEVinanexistingwell.AllcostitemsrelevantfortheMosbaekCEVsarelisted.Notethattheactualcostforeachitemisnotcompiledandreported.
16 Verification Report Mosbaek
Table 3-5 List of capital cost items and operation and maintenance cost items per product unit.
Item type Item Number/duration
Capital
Sitepreparation None
Buildingsandland None
Equipment TheCEVandmountingfromMosbaekTighteningmaterialandbolts
1
Utilityconnections Rainwatersewersystemandwells 1
Installation Tobeinstalledbysewercontractor 1day
Startup/training
Permits None
Operationandmaintenance
Materials,includingchemicals None
Utilities,includingwaterandenergy None
Labor Regularinspectionanddrainageof
sump/sandcatcher
1day
Wastemanagement Sump/sand AsforotherwellswithnoCEV
Permitcompliance None
EvaluationofthefollowingsubjectshasbeenperformedbasedoninformationgainedfromMosbaek:
• Resourcesusedduringproductionoftheequipmentinthetechnology
TheCEVandtheirmountingareproducedfromstainlesssteel,grade1.4404/316L.
Forthetestedproductsincl.mountingtheweightsare:
CEV1.4l/[email protected]%:5.9kg
CEV4.9l/[email protected]%:11.5kg
CEV10.5l/[email protected]%:21.5kg
CEV10.5l/[email protected]%:25.1kg
80%ofthesteelontheworldmarketisreusedmaterial.ThemainpartofthesteelinDenmarkisimportedfromotherEuropeancountries,whiletherestismainlyfromTaiwan,IndiaandChina.Dependingonthedistancethefreightisbyshiporbytruck.FortheEuropeanmarkedthetransportismainlybytruck.MosbaekpurchasessteelfromDanishdistributorssuchas:DacapoStainless,Lemvigh‐Müller,SanistålandDam‐stahl.
Theaverageenergyconsumptionforthefinalproductis4.1kWh/kg.
• Longevityoftheequipment
Theregulatorsaredesignedtolastaslongastheothercomponentsinasewagesystem,approx.50years.Aregulatorwillnotneedtobereplacedunlessinspectionshowscon‐siderablewearandtear.
• Robustness/vulnerabilitytochangingconditionsofuseormaintenance
Theregulatorisrobusttochangesintemperatureandenvironment.Asteeperslopeonthecharacteristiccurvegivesrobustnesstowardschangesinpressurehead.Largerori‐ficeopening,comparedtoothercompetingsolutions,giverobustnesswithrespecttoclogging.Maintenanceschemeshouldbeadjustedaccordingtochangesinconditionconcerningthequalityofthewater.Maintenanceisavisualcheckoftheconditionoftheregulatorandtoremovesignsofclogging.
Verification Report Mosbaek 17
• Reusability,recyclability(fullyorpartly)andendoflifedecommissioninganddisposal
Aregulatorcanbereusedinanotherlocationwithsimilarconditionsoradjustedtofitotherconditions.Ifreuseisnotpossible,theregulatorcanbesoldasscrapandmoltenintonewsteel.Itis100%isrecyclable.
3.3.5.3 Occupational health and environmental impact Therisksforoccupationalhealthandfortheenvironmentassociatedwiththeuseoftheprod‐uctswillbeidentified.Alistofchemicalsclassifiedastoxic(T)orverytoxic(Tx)forhumanhealthand/orenvironmentallyhazardous(N)(inaccordancewiththedirectiveonclassificationofdangeroussubstances[4])willbecompiled.Thetighteningmaterialusedforinstallationischosenbythesewercontractor.Themainlyusedmaterialissealanttapeorwaterproofsilicone,whicharebothunclassified.
Alloperationsinwellsaresubjecttosafetyrisk,andstandardsafetyprecautionshavetobetak‐enaccordingly.
3.4 Recommendation for the Statement of Verification
3.4.1 Technology description Thetechnologyverifiedistheverticalcentrifugalflowregulator,CEV(CEntrifugalVertical)fromMosbaek.Theflowregulatortechnologyforextremerainfalleventsisbasedonquicklyreachingthemaximumdischargeflow,whereitcreatesavortexmakingitstayatorbelowthisdischargeflowwhiletheremainingwaterisstoredinthewell.AschematicviewoftheCEVwithinflowinthebottomisshowninFigure3‐2a.
Figure 3-2 A) Sketch of CEV flow regulator installed in well. B) Graphic showing the general vortex brake effect on water outflow, with CEVs operating at 78% and 100% efficiency and water inflow to well larger than outflow though CEV (well is filling up). Both provided by Mosbaek.
Figure3‐2bshowstheflowthroughaCEV.Witha100%model,themaximumoutlet(Qdesign)ismettwice,firstwherethevortexisformed(thebumponthegraph)andthenatthespecifiedHdesign,whereHdesigniscalculatedfromtheinvertofthedischargepipetothemaximumwaterlevelinthewell.A78%modelisalsoshown;herethebumpoccursataflowof78%ofQdesign.
MosbaekhasselectedfourmodelstorepresenttheirCEV‐series.Themodelsare;
CEV1.4l/[email protected]–100%
CEV4.9l/[email protected]–100%
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–78%
18 Verification Report Mosbaek
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–100%
3.4.2 Application
3.4.2.1 Matrix TheCEVisinstalledbeforethecombinedsystem(withstormwaterandwastewater)andisre‐strictingstormwaterinflowtothecombinedsystem.Theverificationcoversstormwater.
3.4.2.2 Purpose Thepurposeofthetechnologyistostorestormwateratappropriateplacesbeforeenteringthepipingsystemduringstormwaterevents.TheCEVisinstalledinwellsandbasinsdependingonthepipingnetwork.
3.4.2.3 Conditions of operation and use Maintenanceisneededregularlyasavisualcheckoftheconditionoftheregulatorandtore‐movesignsofclogging.
3.4.2.4 Verification parameters definition summary Twotypesofparametershavebeenverified:
1. Outflow(l/s)atHbumpandHdesign
2. FlowreductionatHdesign
3.4.3 Test and analysis design Thetestwasdesignedforthisverification.Noexistingdatahavebeenincluded.
3.4.3.1 Laboratory or field conditions Thetestwasperformedatatestset‐upatMosbaek’spremisesinKoege,Denmark,seeFigure3‐3.
ThefigureissuggestedtobeanappendixtotheStatementofVerification.
Verification Report Mosbaek 19
Figure 3-3 Sketch of test set-up.
Theset‐upconsistsofawell(regulatorwell)placedonabase;theCEVregulatorismountedinthiswell.Theregulatorwellisindirectconnectionwithalargediametertank(inlettank),throughapipe,positionedjustoppositetheCEVoutlet.Thewaterlevelsintheregulatorwellandtheinlettankareaccordinglyidentical.Thisset‐upisestablishedinordertosecurethatthe
20 Verification Report Mosbaek
increaseofthewaterlevelintheregulatorwellcanbecontrolledandlimitedstillwithareason‐ablehighflowratetothewell.TheoutletconnectiongoesthroughtheCEVintheregulatorwelltotheoutlettank.Apressuretransducerismountedinthebaseoftheregulatorwell.Onthebaseoftheregulatorwell,aPlexiglasriserismountedinordertofollowthewaterlevelinthewellduringtesting.
Theflowtotheinlettankisfedatthetopofthetankthroughapipeplacedinternallyinthetankbymeansofapump,whichispumpingwaterfromafeedingtank.Theflowfromthefeedingtanktotheinlettankismeasuredbymeansoftheflowmeter.Thewaterlevelinthefeedingtankiskeptconstantbypumpingwaterfromacentralreservoirtothefeedingtank;anoverflowweirensuresthatthewaterlevelinthistankiskeptalmostconstant.Inthisway,itispossibletokeepanalmostconstantpressureheadatthepumpandthusanalmostconstantflow.
Fromtheregulatorwell,thewaterflowsthroughtheCEVtotheoutlettank.Theoutlettankhasapressuretransducermonitoringthewaterlevelinthistank.Theoutletflowfromtheoutlettankismeasuredbymeansofaflowmeter.
3.4.3.2 Matrix composition Theusedwaterisfromanoutdoorreservoir.
3.4.3.3 Test and analysis parameters Thefollowingtest‐runswereperformed.
CEV model Flow 1 Flow 2 Flow 3 Flow 4 Flow 4’ Flow 4’’ CEV1.4l/[email protected]–100% 1.79 3.12 4.80 6.31 6.18 6.25
CEV4.9l/[email protected]–100% 5.89 6.52 8.20 9.99
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–78% 8.60 9.77 11.40 12.97
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–100% 11.32 12.07 13.75 15.24
Orifice 13.72
TestsoftheperformanceatHbumpandHdesignaremarkedinlightorange.
TestoftheflowreductionatHdesignisdonebycomparingtheresultsfromthehatchedtestruns.
TherepetitionofCEV1.4l/[email protected]–100%(darkbluemarking)isdonetoseeifthereismorethan10%variationbetweenrunswiththesameflow.Therewasverylimitedvariation;there‐foretherepetitionwasnotdoneforothertestruns.
3.4.3.4 Test and analysis methods summary TheinflowandoutflowfromtheCEVwasmeasuredbytheuseofflowmetersandpressuretransducersasdescribedabove.
3.4.3.5 Parameters measured Inflow(l/s)
Waterlevel/pressureinregulatorwell(mH2O/Pa)
Waterlevel/pressureintheoutlettank(mH2O/Pa)
Outletfromtheoutlettank(l/s)
OutflowfromCEViscalculatedbyusingthefollowingequation:
∆ 1000
∆
Verification Report Mosbaek 21
Qoutflow:FlowoutofCEV(l/s) Qoverflow:Overflowfromtheoutlettank(l/s) Aout:Surfaceareaintheoutlettank+riser(m2) Hout:Pressureheadintheoutlettank(mH2O) Δt:TimeforchangingHoutwithΔHout(s)
3.4.4 Verification results
3.4.4.1 Performance parameters TheresultsoftheverificationwithregardstoflowatHbump(Qbump)andatHdesign(Qdesign)arelistedinthetable.
Basedontheresultsfromatestwith1.4l/[email protected]‐100%andacorrespondingorifice,itcanbestatedthatMosbaekCEVsareverifiedtoreducetheflowbyafactorof4.45atQdesign.
CEV model Qbump Qdesign Mean+ and range
(l/s) Deviation from model charac-
teristics (%)
Mean and range (l/s)
Deviation from model character-
istics (%) CEV1.4l/[email protected]–100% 1.34(1.22*–1.45) ‐4.3(‐13*–3.6) 1.43(1.42–1.45) 2.1(1.4–3.6)
CEV4.9l/[email protected]–100% 4.74(4.50–5.04) ‐3.3(‐8.2–2.9) 4.78(4.76–4.80) ‐2.4(‐2.9–(‐2.0))
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–78% 8.17(7.57–8.74) ‐0.2(‐7.6–6.7) 10.11(10.09–10.12)# ‐3.7(‐3.9–(‐3.6))
CEV10.5l/[email protected]–100% 10.18(9.75–10.67) ‐3.0(‐7.1–1.6) 10.56(10.55–10.56) 0.6(0.5–0.6)
Orifice N/A N/A 6.36 N/A
+) Be aware that the results of Qbump are uniquely influenced by Qinflow
*) For this flow the water level rise was only 0.19 mm/s, while the operational requirement was >0.5 mm/s, this is an explanation for the deviation from the expected.
#) Based on two tests only.
3.4.4.2 Operational parameters Noadditionaloperationalparametersthantheperformanceparametersweremeasured.
ThissubchapterwillthereforenotbeincludedintheStatementofVerification.
3.4.4.3 Environmental parameters Noadditionalenvironmentalparametersthantheperformanceparametersweremeasured.
ThissubchapterwillthereforenotbeincludedintheStatementofVerification.
3.4.4.4 Additional parameters Theusermanualandotherdescriptionsweredescribedascomplete.
ApplicationoftheCEVdoesnotgiverisetoanyspecialriskorcontacttohazardoussubstances.Thoughinstallationinthewellissubjecttosafetyriskasalloperationsinwells,andstandardsafetyprecautionsthereforehavetobetakenaccordingly.
TheCEVsareproducedofstainlesssteel.Today80%ofthestainlesssteelonthemarkedisre‐cycled.ItisimportedfromEuropeandcertainplacesinAsia.ThetestedCEVscontainfrom6‐25kgstainlesssteel,and4.1kWh/kgsteelisusedintheproduction.TheCEVsarereusableor100%recyclable.Theyhavealifetimeof50years.TheaboveinformationisobtainedfromMosbaekA/S.
22 Verification Report Mosbaek
3.4.5 Additional information TheCEVisdesignedtobeeffectivewithinaflowrangeuntilacertainamountofwaterisstoredintheconnectedwellorbasin.Thismeansthatifastormwatereventexceedsthedesigncrite‐ria,thewellorbasinwheretheCEVislocatedwillfloatover.Thissituationisnotincludedintheverification.
TheCEVisdesignedwiththelargestpossibleopeningatthegivenhydraulicsituation.TheCEVismostofteninstalledasdetachableandifrequired,obstaclescanberemovedinthisway.Atlo‐cationswithmanyobstaclesinthewater,theCEVcanbeequippedwithagrid.Alltestsarecar‐riedoutwithwaterwithoutobstacles.
Industrialwastewaterandbackwater(backwardsflowthroughtheCEV)arenotincluded,norarerapidchangesinheadandflow.Suchchangesmayoccurinspecialsituations(e.g.ifpumpsarestartedorstopped).
Characteristicsobtainedfromtheexperimentsareonly100%validforapplicationswhichhavefullgeometricsimilaritywiththesetupdefinedinFigure3‐2a.Forapplicationswithgeometrieswhichdifferfromthisfigure,theactualcharacteristiccandeviatefromthecharacteristicfoundfromtheverificationexperiment.
3.4.6 Quality assurance and deviations Priortotestingwasperformedleakagetestandreviewofcalibrationcertificatesforpressuretransducersandflowmeters.Inaddition,calibrationtestsofpressuretransducerswereper‐formedonbothinletandoutletside.Duringtesting,internalandexternaltestsystemauditswereperformedbyDHIandETADanmark.
Verification Report Mosbaek 23
4 Quality assurance Thepersonnelandexpertsresponsibleforqualityassuranceaswellasthedifferentqualityas‐surancetaskscanbeseeninTable4‐1.AllrelevantreviewsarepreparedusingtheDANETVre‐viewreporttemplate[5].Auditduringtestinghasbeenperformed.
Table 4-1 QA plan for the verification
Internal expert Verification body
Proposer External experts
Initials MJK MTA PF Mosbaek TL/IW
Tasks
Specificverificationprotocol Review Reviewandapprove Review
Testplan Review Approve Reviewandapprove
Testsystemattestsite Audit
Testreport Review Review
Verificationreport Review Review Review
StatementofVerification Acceptance Review
InternalreviewwasconductedbyMortenJustKjølby(MJK)andatestsystemauditwascon‐ductedfollowinggeneralauditproceduresbycertifiedauditorPeterFritzel(PF).OnlytheverificationprotocolandverificationreportrequireexternalreviewaccordingtoEUETVpilotprogrammeGVP[1].Fortheverificationprotocol,externalreviewwasperformedbyTorbenLarsen(TL),whiletheverificationreportandStatementofVerificationhavebeenre‐viewedbyIanWalker(IW).Theverificationbodyhasreviewedandapprovedthetestplanandreviewedthetestreport.ThereviewswereperformedbyMetteTjenerAndersson(MTA),whiletheapprovalwasgivenbyPeterFritzel(PF).
24 Verification Report Mosbaek
Verification Report Mosbaek 25
5 References 1. EUEnvironmentalTechnologyVerificationpilotprogramme.GeneralVerificationProtocol.
Version1.1–July7th,2014.2. ETADanmark.ETV–Verifikation.I30.11,EnvironmentalTechnologyVerification.20‐11‐2013.3. Gavaskar,A.andCumming,L.:CostEvaluationStrategiesforTechnologiesTestedunderthe
EnvironmentalTechnologyVerificationProgram.2001.Battelle.4. EuropeanCommission:CommissionDirectiveonclassification,packagingandlabellingof
dangeroussubstances.2001/59/EC.2001.5. DANETVTestCentreQualityManual,2013.08.13
26 Verification Report Mosbaek
Verification Report Mosbaek
A P P E N D I C E S
Verification Report Mosbaek
Verification Report Mosbaek
A P P E N D I X A
Terms and definitions
Verification Report Mosbaek
Verification Report Mosbaek A-1
ThetermsanddefinitionsusedbytheverificationbodyarederivedfromtheEUETVGeneralVerificationProtocol,ISO9001andISO17020.
Term DANETV Comments on the DANETV approach
Accreditation MeaningasassignedtoitbyRegulation(EC)No
765/2008
ECNo765/2008isonsettingouttherequire‐
mentsforaccreditationandmarketsurveil‐
lancerelatingtothemarketingofproducts
Additionalparameter Othereffectsthatwillbedescribedbutare
consideredsecondary
None
Amendment Isachangetoaspecificverificationprotocolor
atestplandonebeforetheverificationortest
stepisperformed
None
Application Theuseofaproductspecifiedwithrespectto
matrix,purpose(targetandeffect)andlimita‐
tions
Theapplicationmustbedefinedwithapreci‐
sionthatallowstheuserofaproductverifica‐
tiontojudgewhetherhisneedsarecomparable
totheverificationconditions
DANETV Danishcentreforverificationofenvironmental
technologies
None
Deviation Isachangetoaspecificverificationprotocolor
atestplandoneduringtheverificationortest
stepperformance
None
Evaluation Evaluationoftestdataforatechnologyproduct
forperformanceanddataquality
None
Experts Independentpersonsqualifiedonatechnology
inverification
Theseexpertsmaybetechnicalexperts,QA
expertsforotherETVsystemsorregulatory
experts
Generalverificationprotocol
(GVP)
Descriptionoftheprinciplesandgeneralpro‐
ceduretobefollowedbytheEUETVpilotpro‐
grammewhenverifyinganindividualenvi‐
ronmentaltechnology.
None
Matrix Thetypeofmaterialthatthetechnologyis
intendedfor
Matricescouldbesoil,drinkingwater,ground
water,degreasingbath,exhaustgascondensate
etc.
Operationalparameter Measurableparametersthatdefinetheapplica‐
tionandtheverificationandtestconditions.
Operationalparameterscouldbeproduction
capacity,concentrationsofnon‐targetcom‐
poundsinmatrixetc.
None
(Initial)performanceclaim Proposerclaimedtechnicalspecificationsof
product.Shallstatetheconditionsofuseunder
whichtheclaimisapplicableandmentionany
relevantassumptionmade
Theproposerclaimsshallbeincludedinthe
ETVproposal.Theinitialclaimscanbedevel‐
opedaspartofthequickscan.
A-2 Verification Report Mosbaek
Term DANETV Comments on the DANETV approach
Performanceparameters(re‐
visedperformanceclaims)
Asetofquantifiedtechnicalspecificationsrep‐
resentativeofthetechnicalperformanceand
potentialenvironmentalimpactsofatechnolo‐
gyinaspecifiedapplicationandunderspeci‐
fiedconditionsoftestingoruse(operational
parameters).
Theperformanceparametersmustbeestab‐
lishedconsideringtheapplication(s)ofthe
product,therequirementsofsociety(legisla‐
tiveregulations),customers(needs)andpro‐
poserinitialperformanceclaims
Procedure Detaileddescriptionoftheuseofastandardor
amethodwithinonebody
Theprocedurespecifiesimplementingastand‐
ardoramethodintermsofe.g.:equipment
used
Proposer Anylegalentityornatural,whichcanbethe
technologymanufactureroranauthorised
representativeofthetechnologymanufacturer.
Ifthetechnologymanufacturesconcerned
agree,theproposercanbeanotherstakeholder
undertakingaspecificverificationprogramme
involvingseveraltechnologies.
Canbevendororproducer
Purpose Themeasurablepropertythatisaffectedbythe
productandhowitisaffected.
Thepurposecouldbereductionofnitratecon‐
centration,separationofvolatileorganiccom‐
pounds,reductionofenergyuse(MW/kg)etc.
(Specific)verificationprotocol Protocoldescribingthespecificverificationofa
technologyasdevelopedapplyingtheprinci‐
plesandproceduresoftheEUGVPandthe
qualitymanualoftheverificationbody.
None
Standard Genericdocumentestablishedbyconsensus
andapprovedbyarecognisedstandardization
bodythatprovidesrules,guidelinesorcharac‐
teristicsfortestsoranalysis
None
Test/testing Determinationoftheperformanceofaproduct
formeasurement/parametersdefinedforthe
application
None
Testperformanceaudit Quantitativeevaluationofameasurementsys‐
temasusedinaspecifictest.
E.g.evaluationoflaboratorycontroldatafor
relevantperiod(precisionunderrepeatability
conditions,trueness),evaluationofdatafrom
laboratoryparticipationinproficiencytestand
controlofcalibrationofonlinemeasurement
devises.
Testsystemaudit Qualitativeon‐siteevaluationoftest,sampling
and/ormeasurementsystemsassociatedwith
aspecifictest.
E.g.evaluationofthetestingdoneagainstthe
requirementsofthespecificverificationproto‐
col,thetestplanandthequalitymanualofthe
testbody.
Testsystemcontrol Controlofthetestsystemasusedinaspecific
test.
E.g.testofstocksolutions,evaluationofstabil‐
ityofoperationaland/oron‐lineanalytical
equipment,testofblanksandreferencetech‐
Verification Report Mosbaek A-3
Term DANETV Comments on the DANETV approach
nologytests.
Verification Provisionofobjectiveevidencethatthetech‐
nicaldesignofagivenenvironmentaltechnolo‐
gyensuresthefulfilmentofagivenperfor‐
manceclaiminaspecifiedapplication,taking
anymeasurementuncertaintyandrelevant
assumptionsintoconsideration.
None
A-4 Verification Report Mosbaek
Verification Report Mosbaek
A P P E N D I X B
Specific Verification Protocol
Verification Report Mosbaek
Verification Report Mosbaek
A P P E N D I X C
Test Plan
Verification Report Mosbaek
Verification Report Mosbaek
A P P E N D I X D
Test Report
Verification Report Mosbaek
Verification Report Mosbaek
A P P E N D I X E
Audit reports
Verification Report Mosbaek