Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Examples
Lets take a look at two lower flow pumps with different efficiency ranges. These are
real pumps, and I downloaded the pump curves from the manufacturers electronic
catalogs. Figure 1 shows the variable speed curves for a 3x4x13, end-suction pump
(Pump A) operating against an ideal system curve that intersects the center of the BEP
range at 60 hertz. The red dots show the BEP range. The BEP remains at 75 percent
from approximately 465 gallons per minute (gpm) to 530 gpm (a 65-gpm range). At
full speed, the efficiency drops to about 68 percent at 400 gpm.
Figure
1. The variable speed curves for a 3x4x13, end-suction pump (Pump A)
Under VFD control, the efficiency drops to about 71 percent at 400 gpm
(approximately 54 hertz), and at 300 gpm (50 hertz), the efficiency drops to 65
percent. In a variable speed application, designed for flows from 250 to 500 gpm,
pump efficiency will range from 60 percent to 75 percent. Figure 2 shows the
performance curve for a 3x4x12, end-suction pump (Pump B) plotted against the
same system curve. The BEP efficiency is also 75 percent, but the range is more than
twice that of the example in Figure 1425 gpm to 575 gpm (a 150-gpm range). Full
speed efficiency drops just 2 points at 400 gpm and just 1 point when
under VFD control. At 300 gpm, variable speed efficiency remains at 71 percent. In a
variable speed application designed for the same range of flow as the example in
Figure 1 (250 to 500 gpm), Pump Bs efficiency ranges from 68 percent to 75 percent.
Figure
2. The performance curve for a 3x4x12, end-suction pump (Pump B)
Pump B would be the best choice for both across the line (full speed) and variable
speed operation. Its increased breadth of efficiency provides a better chance of
actually hitting the BEP when operating at full speed. It will also offer an overall
higher efficiency when operating at variable speed. If you look at pumps across the
industry, you will find many examples in which this holds trueespecially with lower
flow pumps. We have many choices when selecting pumps. Take your time and
compare several models and manufacturers.
- See more at: http://www.pumpsandsystems.com/topics/pumps/centrifugalpumps/breadth-efficiency#sthash.xYQOHRH3.dpuf
ADVERTISEMENT
Figure 1
After entering the required data, the calculator will produce a number of results
including the BHP required, wire-to-water efficiency and annual energy cost. KW and
cost per thousand gallons pumped are also displayed. When you compare two
different pump/motor combinations and enter the cost of each, the calculator will
produce a simple payback analysis that displays annual savings and payback in years.
Payback is simply the pump/motor cost differential divided by annual savings.
Although a present value analysis may be needed in some instances, simple payback
will usually provide the information needed to make a selection decision.
- See more at: http://www.pumpsandsystems.com/topics/motors/calculatingenergy-savings-and-payback#sthash.mz6wJrFL.dpuf
As simple as this may seem, it can still get a bit complex because the
units used by our English system of measurement can be quite
different for each form of energy. Fortunately, the use of constants
brings equivalency to these otherwise diverse quantities.
A common example of such a machine is the heat engine, which
uses energy in the form of heat to produce mechanical energy. This
family includes many members, but the internal combustion engine is
one with which we are all familiar. Although this machine is an
integral part of our everyday lives, its effectiveness in converting
energy is far less than we might expect.
The efficiency of the typical automobile engine is around 20 percent.
To put it another way, 80 percent of the heat energy in a gallon of
gasoline does no useful work. Although gas mileage has increased
somewhat over the years, that increase has as much to do with
increased mechanical efficiency as increased engine efficiency itself.
Diesel engines do a better job but still max out around 40 percent.
This increase is due, primarily, to its higher compression ratio and the
fact that the fuel, under high pressure, is injected directly into the
cylinder.
Advertisement
In the pump industry, much of the work involves two extremely
simple, yet efficient, machinesthe centrifugal pump and the AC
induction motor. The centrifugal pump converts mechanical energy
into hydraulic energy (flow, velocity and pressure), and the AC motor
converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.
Many medium and larger centrifugal pumps offer efficiencies of 75 to
93 percent and even the smaller ones usually fall into the 50 to 70
percent range. Large AC motors, on the other hand, approach an
find a suitable starting point for the design. That starting point is
specific speed. Next month, we will investigate specific speed and
how it can predict the performance of a particular impeller.
Where Can You Learn More?
There are many great pump books available today, but one of the
classics is now available as a free download at Google Books.
Pumping Machinery was authored by Arthur M. Green, a professor of
mechanical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and was
published by John Wiley & Sons over 100 years ago. It begins with a
comprehensive history of pumps and ends with a detailed review of
centrifugal pumps and their advances over the previous twenty years.
You will be impressed at the level of knowledge possessed by the
author. The number of illustrations is amazing and accounts for a
significant portion of its 725 pages. This one gets an A+ rating from
me.
design similar higher and lower flow pumps because the specific
speed of a pump is independent of its size.
An Index Number
As Terry Henshaw stated in Centrifugal Pump Specific Speed
(Pumps & Systems, September 2011), the definition of specific speed
can be confusing. It is best to think of it as an index number that can
predict certain pump characteristics. Viewed this way, specific speed
can be useful when selecting a pump for a particular application and
predicting premature failure due to off best efficiency point (BEP)
operation.
Those between radial and mixed flow (1,700 to 3,500) are known as
Francis vane impellers. This design discharges radially, but the
transition from inlet to outlet is more gradual and results in the
highest efficiency. The cross sectional pictures in Figure 1 show that,
as specific speed increases, the impeller inlet or eye diameter
increases and eventually approaches or equals that of the vane
outlet. The flow passages also increase in size at a corresponding
rate.
Pump Design
While this is a nice comparison, pump designers may question its
usefulness. An equation (shown below) that relates specific speed
and its corresponding geometry to real application values of head,
flow and rotational speed was developed.
Advertisement
Ns = n x Q / H0.75
Where:
Ns= specific speed
n= pump rotational speed (rpm)
Q= flow (gallons per minute)
H= head (feet)
Power Curve
Specific speed provides another predictionthe characteristics of the
power curve. At specific speeds below 4,000, power drops as flow is
reduced and is at its minimum at shut off head. The power curve
remains relatively flat, across the head-capacity curvebetween
4,000 and 4,500and rises toward shut off at specific speeds of
5,000 and higher. At speeds above 9,000, the power curve becomes
extremely steep and almost parallels the head-capacity curve.
Impeller Dimensions
Once geometry is chosen for the impeller, the pump designer can
conduct a mathematical analysis that will allow him to derive all the
impeller dimensions and angles needed to meet the design point.
This is an arduous task. To review a comprehensive example of how
this is done, see pages 2.23 - 2.31 of the second edition of the Pump
Handbook (McGraw-Hill).
Conclusion and Other Resources
The Ns ranges cited in this column are not cast in stone. They can be
narrower or wider or vary based upon the design characteristics of a
pump. They are, however, a good rule of thumb.
Also, flow would always be exactly parallel to the vane surfaces, but
that does not happen either. Oddly enough, if the designer follows
some well-documented rules, impeller vane efficiency losses remain
relatively flat (about 2.5 percent) across a specific speed (Ns) range
of 500 to 7,000.
Disk friction, which is caused by contact between the fluid and the
impeller shrouds and hub surfaces, can reduce impeller efficiency
another 4 to 15 percent at specific speeds below 2,000 but
decreases to 2 percent or less at a specific speed of 3,000 and
higher. Depending on its design, the impeller can reduce overall
pump efficiency by as little as 4.5 percent or as much as 17.5
percent.
The volute also plays an important role in pump efficiency. At specific
speeds below 2,000, friction losses range from 1 to 2.5 percent, but
losses can approach 10 percent at a specific speed of 5,000 and
higher. Typically, volute design begins with the throat (see Figure 1).
Advertisement
Its cross sectional area will determine the flow velocity out of the
volute. Flow through the throat and other portions of the casing
follows the law of constant angular momentum. Therefore, the
Advertisement
Mechanical Efficiency
The final piece of the pump efficiency puzzle is that of mechanical
losses, although some of these losses are not always included in
published efficiency curves. In the case of a frame-mounted pump,
these losses are caused by the shaft bearings and the mechanical
seal or packing. For close-coupled pumps, bearing losses are figured
into the motor efficiency. Again the rule of thumb follows that of
volumetric efficiency, and losses increase as flow and/or specific
speed decrease.
show how a pump curves breadth of efficiency can affect both fixed
and variable speed operation.
Advertisement
Figure 2. The same pump from Figure 1 with four speed curves
Note:
In Part 2 of this series, Centrifugal Pump EfficiencySpecific
Speed (March 2012), I forgot to mention that parts of Europe use an
alternative method when computing specific speed (Ns) for double
suction pumps.
The European method uses half the BEP flow. In the U.S., we use full
flow regardless of the pump design. When Ns is calculated using half
the BEP flow, the result equals 0.707 that of the full flow calculation.
Pumps & Systems, May 2012
About the Author
The blue curve (Ns = 3,600) also rises continuously but exhibits a 55
percent increase in head. The red curve (Ns = 5,700) is extremely
steep, and the head increases by 100 percent from BEP to shut off.
Steeper curves usually offer a greater range of control when
operated under variable speed control against some fixed elevation
or pressure head. These pumps can be problematic when running in
parallel or starting against varying system head conditions. The
green curve (Ns = 2,500) rises continuously as it approaches shut off,
and the head increases by about 35 percent from BEP to shut off.
Advertisement
Flatter curves work fine in across-the-line applications as long as the
static or pressure head remains relatively constant. They also work
Breadth of Efficiency
For example, a 2 x 2.5 x 8 centrifugal pump with a BEP efficiency of
70 percent at 200 gallons per minute (GPM) drops to 63 percent at
flows below 190 GPM or over 210 GPM. Since pumps seldom
operate at BEP, a wide range of high efficiency can allow for design
errors and potential changes in the system.All pumps reach their
peak efficiency at BEP, but the range of peak efficiency can vary
significantly from model to model. Some pumpsespecially lower
flow modelsexhibit a narrow BEP range, and once flow is out of
that range, efficiency drops quickly.
Figure 2 shows the variable speed curves for a pump with a specific
speed of 1,654. It exhibits a rise in head toward shut off of about 30
percent and a wide range of high efficiency.
Advertisement
Figure 2. Variable speed curves for a pump with a specific speed of 1,654
When running across the line (60 hertz curve), this pump will
maintain its BEP efficiency of 86 percent from 1,500 to 1,750 GPM.
The head change across this range is about 17 feet and allows for
incorrect duty point head calculations, as well as aging of the system.
It still performs at 85 percent from 1,375 to 1,875 GPM and will
maintain 84 percent from 1,250 to 1,900 GPM.
If this pump were operating in a variable speed application, against
the system curve shown in red, its control range would be about 12
hertz (49 to 60 hertz), and it would maintain 86 percent efficiency
from 1,375 to 1,625 GPM. Efficiency would still be at 85 percent
down to 1,250 GPM and would remain at a robust 84 percent down
to 1,050 GPM. This high efficiency across the range of flow enhances
the power reduction due to a change in speed.
Next month, I will end this series by looking at some examples of
when pump efficiency is important and when it is not so important.
About the Author
Figure 2. The same pump from Figure 1 with four speed curves
Note:
In Part 2 of this series, Centrifugal Pump EfficiencySpecific
Speed (March 2012), I forgot to mention that parts of Europe use an
alternative method when computing specific speed (Ns) for double
suction pumps.
The European method uses half the BEP flow. In the U.S., we use full
flow regardless of the pump design. When Ns is calculated using half
the BEP flow, the result equals 0.707 that of the full flow calculation.
Pumps & Systems, May 2012
About the Author
Joe Evans is responsible for customer and employee education at
PumpTech, Inc., a pump & packaged system manufacturer and
distributor with branches throughout the Pacific Northwest. He can
be reached via his website www.PumpEd101.com. If there are topics
that you would like to see discussed in future columns, drop him an
email.
Centrifugal Pump EfficiencyWhen Is Efficiency Important?
by Joe Evans, Ph.D., PumpTech, Inc.
Where:
P
= Hydraulic power
Advertisement
Advertisement
will not run continuously is the actual flow rate required. Does the end
user really need 3,000 gallons per minute, or can the same results be
achieved by running a 2,000-gallon-per-minute pump longer?
If you have the same head and efficiency at these two flow rates, the
cost per thousand gallons pumped is the same for both. In most
cases, reducing flow by 1,000 gallons per minute will result in a
substantial decrease in friction head. Since BHP is directly
proportional to head, an end user could see a substantial reduction in
the cost per thousand gallons pumped with the lower volume pump.
Figure 2 shows the H/Q curve for a 4-inch, vortex wastewater pump.
At 800 gallons per minute, its hydraulic efficiency is just 48 percent. A
standard 4-inch, non-clog pump with similar performance would have
an efficiency of 68 to 75 percent20 to 27 points better. The reason
for the lower efficiency is that vortex action is a two-step process, and
the overall efficiency is the product of the two individual efficiencies.
However even though efficiency is much lower than normally desired,
there is an extremely positive side. Almost anything that enters the
suction of a vortex pump will exit its discharge.
This is because the vortex impeller is recessed and seldom contacts
any of the solids or other material in the pumpage. This can be
beneficial when smaller wastewater pumps are required. The more
efficient 4inch, non-clog pump can plug frequently when rags and
stringy material are present, and this often results in removing the
pump from service for cleaning on a weekly basis.
In these applications, a vortex pump can be far more reliable, and the
maintenance cost savings is much greater than the additional energy
costs due to lower efficiency. One of the seminars I present to
specifying engineers is titled How Lower Pump Efficiency Can
Reduce Costs. It usually gets their attention.
If a pump is run by a gasoline engine, the case could be made that
the pumps efficiency is not too important. Although an 80 percent
efficient pump should save quite a bit of energy over one that is 65
percent efficient, the gas engine (approximately 20 percent) brings
their totals down to 16 percent and 13 percent respectively.
It may be hard to justify a higher initial pump cost for such a small
energy savings, unless the pump is used frequently and for long
periods of time.
Finally, some application design points exist for which reasonable
efficiency cannot be attained, but a pump is still required. Suppose
some million-dollar process line cannot use a positive displacement
pump but, instead, requires a centrifugal pump that can deliver 20
gallons per minute at 3,000 feet of head.
Energy efficiency has become a major focus for the U.S. government, municipalities,
power utilities and the industrial sector, with much of the attention falling on
components such as motors and pumps. For end users, understanding the difference
between component efficiency and system efficiency as applied to motor-driven
equipment is critical for evaluating a total system and making appropriate upgrades.
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) is one standard that users must
understand and comply with to successfully improve system efficiency.
U-frame motor
Design C motor
Motors that are 201 to 500 HP that were not previously covered by EPAct will be
required to comply with energy efficient efficiencies as defined by NEMA MG I,
Table 12-11.
This information and the Tables referenced above are readily available on the
Department of Energy (DOE) website.
ADVERTISEMENT
So, what does the new EISA Standard have to do with system efficiency? Many end
users believe that any system efficiency improvement is the result of an increase in
motor efficiency; however, that is not always the case. For example, consider a
centrifugal pump system operating at a fixed speed. The system requires variable flow
and is controlled by a motor-operated valve. One might believe that replacing the
standard-efficiency motor with the new EISA premium-efficient motor would lead to
an incremental gain in efficiency and a lower operating cost. This seems reasonable,
but more factors must be considered.
In order to meet the EISA standard, motor original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
had to redesign their equipment to achieve the increased efficiency as mandated by
government regulations. To understand what is meant by "increased efficiency," users
must know the definition of a premium-efficiency motor and what affects that
efficiency.
Motor Losses
Losses in a motor include stray losses, rotors, stators, core losses and fan design
(windage).
To make a motor more efficient, a manufacturer must add more or better material.
These additions and adjustments could include more active material such as copper in
the winding, a longer stator, rotor cores and improved electrical steel (silicon steel is
used for the stator and rotor). A low-loss fan design could also be used to reduce
friction and windage losses. To reduce the stray load losses, manufacturing processes
are assured through International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001
procedures.
Some advantages of energy efficient motors are:
ADVERTISEMENT
System Efficiency
Energy-efficient motors can also improve system efficiency, but end users must
consider the following factors:
Motors meeting higher efficiencies tend to run faster than their less
efficient counterparts.
Case Study
The following case study graphically illustrates the impact of a premium-efficient
motor in a centrifugal pumping application.
Users should consider system changes to comply with the new EISA standard.
by William Livoti
this particular load point, that means it operates 70 percent of the timeor
6,250 hours per year.
Columns 1 and 2 in Figure 1 indicate the various components factored into the
system efficiency calculation. Column A is the base condition where the
system operates 50 percent of the time. The component efficiencies for
the VFD and gearbox are at 100 percent because they were not used.
Under the base condition, the total power required is approximately 1,777 HP;
almost 356 HP is being lost (wasted) across a control valve. In addition, the
pump is operating back on the curve at 65 percent efficiency. Under these
conditions, the total system efficiency is 49 percent.
Column B provides the new operating conditions with the addition of a VFD.
The head required has been reduced to 150 feet because the loss across the
valve has been eliminated by reducing the speed of the pump to meet
required system demand. Motor efficiency remains the same, and a 2 percent
loss has been added as a result of heat generated across the drive. Note the
dramatic improvement in the overall system efficiency (81 percent) and the
total operating cost reduction from $414,306 to $187,360. The total cost
savings is $226,946 per year.
Column C addresses the impact on the system by improving the efficiency of
the pump. Nothing else in the system was changed.
Advertisement
The minimal improvement of the overall system efficiency (53 percent) results
from increasing the pump efficiency by 5 percent. The 50 feet of head loss
across the control valve remains, so the total power required is 1,650 HP. This
scenario does not present huge savings based on the cost of a new pump and
installation and potential piping changes. Factor in the ongoing reliability
issues, such as the pump operating back on the curve, and $29,593 would be
difficult to justify.
Column D identifies potential savings when motor efficiency is improved by 2
percent. Again, nothing has changed in the system with the exception of an
additional 5 feet of friction loss across the valve as a result of the reduced slip
in the premium-efficient motor (head increases to the square of the speed). In
this case, the system efficiency remains the same at 49 percent. Note that the
power required for the additional friction has increased to 330 HP. The total
power required was reduced to 1,650.2 HP (a reduction of 127 HP) with a total
savings of $518 per year.
References
1.
2.
Pages
first
previous