Você está na página 1de 34


Systems Approach to Pumping Operating characteristics Interface of Pump and system characteristics Parallel and series operation of Pumps & Fans Pumps for hydraulic power packs Application of variable speed drive for energy saving in pumps and fans Energy saving opportunities Case studies


WELL DESIGNED PUMPING SYSTEM Motor Input 10% 100% Motor Losses Motor Eff. 90% 90% pump input 13.5 % Pump Pump Eff. Losses 85% 76.5% pump output Head loss in valves 20% PRACTICALLY OBSERVED PUMPING SYSTEM Motor Input Causes for low efficiency 100%

Motor Eff. 85% 85% pump input PumpEff. 70%

15% Motor Losses

*Over sized motors *Low efficiency Designs

25.5 % Pump 59.5% pump output Losses

*Oversized/Undersized pump *Low efficiency Designs

Head loss in 15.3% valves 50% 29.75% Throttling 29.75% pump outputThrottling * Large factor of safety leads Losses 61.2 % output Losses to selection of high head pumps Losses due to Leakage,extra flow 50% 14.8% output 14.8 % Wasted Energy *No f low measurement * poor maintenance * No flow measurement *Cheap water

Losses due to Leakage,extra f low 20%

49 % output 12.2 % Wasted Energy Losses due to extra water use 20% Useful energy 40%

Losses due to extra water Useful energy use 50% 7.4%


Optimising The Use Of Water Selection Of Pumps To Match Head / Flow Requirements Number Of Pumps In A System Use Of Variable Speed Drives Optimizing Pipeline Sizes Maintenance Monitoring & Control Electric Motor


Pump & System Curves

Pump Curve

System Curve

Operating Point

Fan Curves

Surge Line


The valves and dampers are fully open and the pump/fan is operating at either higher flow or lower flow The actual operating point of the pump or fan is near its best efficiency point. However this operation has been achieved by closing of valves or dampers. The pump is operating at the specified head and flow condition, but study of the pump/fan performance characteristic reveals that the best efficiency point of that pump/fan is not at this condition. The pump or fan is itself of very poor efficiency

Pump/Fan Efficiency Estimation

Efficiency ( PUMP)=

Q g H Pshaft 1000

Q = Flow, cu.m/s = Density, kg/cu.m g = 9.8 m/s2 H = Head in metres of FLUID column
Q(CFM) x H (inches of Water Column) Efficiency (blower) = -----------------------------------------------------Pshaft (HP) x 6356

Specific Speed
Specific Speed Nsm (metric)

N Q H 0.75

In metric units, flow Q is m3/sec, N is speed in R.P.M. and Head is in meters.


Comparison of Efficiencies of Different Fan Designs

Type of Impeller Efficiency with Efficiency with Clean Air Dust Laden Air % % 55 - 60 60 - 65 50 - 55 55 - 70 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80

Open Radial Closed Radial

Radial with Inducer & Diffuser 70 - 75 Airfoil Backward Curved 80 - 90 75 - 85

NPSH (Net Positive Suction Head) & CAVITATION

NPSH is the total suction head in METRE, determined at the suction nozzle and corrected to datum, less the vapor pressure of the liquid in feet absolute. NPSH is simply a measure of the amount of suction head AVAILABLE/REQUIRED to prevent this vaporization at the lowest pressure point in the pump. Cavitation is a term used to describe the phenomenon, which occurs in a pump when there is insufficient NPSH Available. When the pressure of the liquid is reduced to a value equal to or below its vapor pressure the liquid begins to boil and small vapor bubbles or pockets begin to form. As these vapor bubbles move along the impeller vanes to a higher pressure area above the vapor pressure, they rapidly collapse. This action may be progressive, and under severe (very high suction energy) conditions can cause serious pitting damage to the impeller.


Description Water flow required Water velocity Size of pipe line (diameter) Hazen-Williams coefficient., assumed Pressure drop in pipe line/metre Length of cooling water pipe line m m m m units m3/hr m/s mm Header diameter, inches 2.0 14.5 2.1 50 100 0.1690 100.0 3.0 14.5 0.9 75 100 0.0235 100.0 6.0 14.5 0.2 150 100 0.0008 100.0

No. of 900 bends (L/D = 30)

Equivalent pipe length for 10 nos. bends No. of gate valves ( L/D = 13) Equivalent pipe length for 4 nos. valves

15.0 4.0 2.6

22.5 4.0 3.9

45.0 4.0 7.8

Total equivalent length of pipe

Total frictional head loss in pipes/fittings Pressure drop across heat exchanger Static head requirement, assumed Total head required

m M M M

19.9 5 5 29.9

3.0 5 5 13.0

0.1 5 5 10.1

Parallel operation
1 Pump Curve Head

Original System Curve

Modified System Curve

2 Pump Curve





With original system curve increase in flow was 10%. With Modified system curve flow increased by 60%

Case Study: Parallel Operation Of PumpsSwitching Of Redundant Pump

2 nos. pumps (rated head 32.5 m, flow 80 cu.m/hr) operating in parallel. Power input to two pumps was 24 kW. One pump was switched off; power consumption of one pump was 13.8 kW.

Hence the reduction in flow was only 3% . Thus it was established that the required water flow could be maintained by a single pump.
One pump was switched off, saving 10.2 kW i.e. 80,000 kWh/annum. During the following summer season, the operation could be maintained with a single pump.

No. of Blowers in operation m3/hr Single Two in parallel 134177 239603 Air Flow % 100 179 Motor input power kW 51.7 91.3 % 100 177

System design and performance is highly situation and application specific and no generalizations are possible


Trimming/Changing impellers.

For existing pumps, if they are oversized and throttling method is used to control flow, availability of smaller impellers must be examined.

In cases where the mismatch between the system and the pump is small, trimming (reduction of impeller diameter by machining) of impellers can shift the pump head/flow characteristics downward to match the system head.

Case Study- Impeller sizing

Original Impeller diameter, mm Head, m Flow, m3/hr (per pump) Motor input, kW (per pump) Power savings for 3 pumps, kW Energy savings, kWh 342 35.0 380 52.7 After Trimming 307 28.0 380 37 47.10 376800

Money saved, Rs.

Investment, Rs. Payback, days

1507200 (37500 $)
75000 (1875 $) 18


Change of Speed
This is a very convenient method of matching the pump/fan characteristic with the system characteristic. The following relations are generally true for pumps & fans. Flow N Head N2 Power N3

Pump control by varying speed: Pure friction head

Reducing speed in the friction loss system moves the intersection point on the system curve along a line of constant efficiency The affinity laws are obeyed

Pump control by varying speed: Static + friction head

Operating point for the pump moves relative to the lines of constant pump efficiency when the speed is changed The reduction in flow is no longer proportional to speed A small turn down in speed could give a big reduction in flow rate and pump efficiency At the lowest speed illustrated, (1184 rpm), the pump does not generate sufficient head to pump any liquid into the system

Case Study: Blower Speed Reduction at a Chemical Plant by Change of Pulley Ratio

For the SFD ( Spin Flash Dryer) blower, inlet damper was 40% closed in order to control dust collection performance. It was felt during the audit that this blower is probably oversized for the existing requirement. Blower speed was 2350 rpm power consumption was about 51.3 kW. After conducting trials to ensure optimised production and quality, a 12 pulley has been put on the motor and 8.75 pulley on the blower so that blower now operates at 2000 rpm. Now the dampers are also kept fully open. Power input to the motor is now 35.3 kW. This is a reduction of 16 kW. Annual energy saving of 112,000 kWh is being achieved. I.e. Rs 5.0 lakhs/annum. ( 12,500 $/year) Investment is about Rs 5000/- ( 125 $) with payback period of 10 days.

Case Study: Use of Variable Frequency Drive For Cooling Tower Pump

In the existing system, the return water line of the cooling was throttled to control the flow. After installation of an inverter to control the motor speed, this valve was fully opened, thus eliminating the throttling losses. Motor Rating : 125 hp, 415 V, 170A, 2975 rpm. Throttled Condition : Valve only 20% open

Power (with throttling) : 53.5 kW

With inverter at frequency of 44 Hz, valve fully Open Power (With inverter) = 40.0 kW Savings = 13.5 kW The annual savings are about 1,16,000 kWh i.e. Rs. 4.66 lakhs ( 11650 $) per annum. The investment in the inverter was Rs. 5 lakhs (12500 $), giving a payback period of 13 months.

Case study: Replace existing 2 pole motor with a 4 pole motor to reduce pump speed and avoid throttling

The pump is used for cooling water circulation in condenser of steam-ejector vacuum pumps. The pump is of 12.5 HP and the power measured was 8.4 kW with suction valve partially closed. The discharge valve was also throttled. The existing 2-pole (2900 rpm), 12.5 HP motor was replaced with a 4 pole (1450 rpm), 5hp motor to reduce the speed by 50% and the suction and discharge valves were fully opened. Power input was measured to be 2.4 kW, i.e. a reduction of 6.0 kW has been achieved. For 7000 hrs/annum this is a saving of about 42,000 kWh/annum i.e. Rs. 2,10,000/- (5200 $) per annum. No investment was required since the spare motor was already available in the plant.

Case Study: Use of variable frequency drive on boiler FD fan to avoid damper control

The boiler FD fan was rated 20 HP and the airflow was controlled by discharge damper. Use of a VFD on fan was implemented so that electrical energy at the fan could be saved. In addition to this, there was expectation of improving the boiler efficiency since the VFD can be used for better control of excess air. The energy consumption in the blower per Ton of Furnace oil as estimated was 44 kWh before the retrofit. The damper postion was varied between 50% to 80%. After installing the VFD, the frequency was kept between 31 to 45 Hz with damper fully open. The energy consumption per Ton of furnace oil was reduced to 12 kWh/Ton of F.O. With an average 110 KL furnace oil consumption, the energy saving was 42,000 kWh/annum. i.e Rs 170,000 per annum.(4250 $) Investment was Rs 1.2 lakhs ( 3000 $) Payback period was 8 months.

Replacement by Properly Matched, Efficient Pump or Fan

In cases where the mismatch between the pumps/fans and systems are large, replacement of existing pump/fan by a new, head & flow) pump of good efficiency can lead to significant energy savings.

The pay back periods are generally very attractive as only the pump or fan has to be replaced, the existing electrical motor, switch gear etc. are retained. The drop in motor efficiency due to reduced shaft load of pump is likely to be marginal in most cases and may not warrant change of motor.

Case Study: Replacement of Pumps for Spray Phosphating Plant

All the existing pumps were rated for 25m head and 40 lps flow.
Pump no. Powe r input, kW 19.1 19.4 18.2 18.6 14.3 14.6 16.8 19.1 Discharge pressure, kg/cm2 1.01 1.06 1.19 1.19 1.28 1.28 1.93 1.63 Pressure After valve kg/cm2 1.01 1.06 1.19 1.19 0.90 0.90 0.99 1.14 Actual flow, Lps 62 55 50 50 48 52 42 52 Pump efficy, % Sustem efficy, %

Hot water rinse-1 Knock off degrease-3 Degrease-2 Degrease-4 Phosphating pump-1 Phosphating pump-2 Passivation pump Water rinse-1

34.5% 34.5% 33.9% 33.9% 39.1% 39.1% 39.1% 39.1% 51.6% 36.3% 51.6% 36.3% 58.8% 30.1% 41.8% 29.3%

Water rinse-2
Water rinse-3





77.4% 32.3%
65.9% 29.9%

Case study: continued..

Pump no. New pump specs Power input to new pump kW Power input to existing pump kW Saving kW

Head mWC Hot water rinse-1 14 60

Flow lps 6.7 16.2 9.2

Knockoff degrease-3
Degrease-2 Degrease-4

14 14

60 60

13.4 12.9

19.1 18.1

5.7 5.2

Passivation pump
Water rinse-1 Water rinse-2 Water rinse-3 TOTAL

12 12 12

40 40 40

6.7 7.8 7.7 78.3

14.6 14.2 15.0 132.9

7.9 6.4 7.3 54.6

Total annual energy cost saving was Rs 18.0 lakhs/year (45000 $) Total investment for 8 nos pumps was Rs 5.0 lakhs ( 12500 $).

Case Study: Replacement of existing high head pump with a properly sized pump

When actual operating conditions are widely different (head or flow variation by more than 25 to 30%) than design conditions, replacements by appropriately sized pumps must be considered. In a chemicals factory, the measurements made on the cooling water pump of the Hydrogen Distillation column were as follows :

1. 2.

Pump Specification:

Head : 55.5 m, Flow : 30.6 Ips

Actual Measured: Head = 21 m, Power = 24.3 KW

Replacement of this pump by a new pump of head = 25 m and Flow = 40 Ips (keeping safety margin) saved 9.6KW i.e. about 80,000 KWH/annum. Investment of Rs 50,000/- and saving of Rs 3.0 lakhs/year.

Hydraulic Power Packs

Energy Saving By:

Use Of VFD Use Of Compact Hydraulic Units In Place Of Central Pump

Conventional Systems- Power Packs

Hydraulic systems use fixed-displacement pumps sized to meet peak flow and pressure demands. Constantly running at full speed, pumps in these circuits continuously produce maximum flows at maximum system pressure. But except for a few moments in an operating cycle, most machines only require a fraction of a system's total pressure and flow capabilities. During standby, positioning, pick-and-place, or holding operations, the system's pump consumes maximum energy while the hydraulic system is performs little or no work. As a result, hydraulic system operating efficiency suffers dramatically. This situation is exacerbated if excess flow must be diverted and recirculated through bypass valves and circuits. When this occurs, large reservoirs or heat exchangers usually are used to dissipate the heat from the wasted energy.

Use of VFD

A motor with VFD consumes minimal power when operating at zero speed but transmits enough torque to the pump to maintain full system pressure. To hold pressure under the same conditions, a conventional pump-motor would run at full power, producing full flows that require bypass and cooling to dissipate wasted heat energy. Power Saving of 30% to 70% possible depending on duty cycle

Comparison of conventional power packs and compact power packs

Compact power pack

Centralised power pack

Power Consumption Comparison

Clamping and unclamping of different station

Central System Average of 4.0 kW

Compact Power Pack

Clamp Unclamp

Average of 168 Watts