Beyond the Flanges

Robert X. Perez

Revisiting the ALPS

was pleased to receive a letter from one of our readers concerning my two-part article Afnity Laws for Pumping Systems (ALPS) (Beyond the Flanges, July-August 2007). To satisfactorily address all of this readers queries, this months column addresses them in detail for the benet of our entire audience.

Overview
APLS is a simplied method of predicting pump and system interactions for the most general system curve relationship: H = Hstatic + KQn, where n can be any exponent. (Normally, n = 2, but any value can be used.) The one key requirement of this analysis is that the pump performance curve be linearized so that it is in the form: H = Ho + mQ, where Ho is the point where a line tangent to pump curve, at the location of interest (Q1, H1), intersects the vertical axis, i.e. the ordinate. The slope m represents the instantaneous slope at the point of interest. The friction only and general system curves are also linerarized at the point of interest. With these simplications, ALPS can arrive at solutions for Qsystem and Hsystem, the expected operating point at the new conditions. To use ALPS, go to Pump-zone.com and click on the PumpCalcs button. Once you enter PumpCalcs, click on the APLS link under the expert calculators. Reader: Robert, I enjoyed perusing your ALPS articles. Once again you present unique insights and a useful analysis for predicting pump operation after a diameter or speed change. I never considered the possibility of confusion concerning where the new operating point should be located after one or both of the above changes to a pump. Figure 2 (in July) and Figure 3 (August), including the effect of system static head, clearly illustrate why the afnitylaw projection is not necessarily the new operating point. Since the pump performance curve is used to estimate Ho for a linear prediction model, I wonder why the pump curve wasnt used to construct a polynomial curve model? The intersection of a model pump curve that passes through (Qaff = r x Q1, Haff = r2 x H1) with the actual system curve may more closely approximate a new operating point (Qsys, Hsys). Of course, a few more points from the existing performance curve are required for a new performance model. So, I used the given data from your article to con22
NOVEMBER 2007

rm the ALPS output and to generate a curve-intersection model. Since the initial performance curve was not shown, additional points were estimated to generate a model curve that is tangent to the linearized performance curve at (Q1, H1). Surprisingly, for both the diameter and the speed change cases, the estimated new operating points (Qsys, Hsys) predicted by both the all-curve and ALPS models are very close! What about other possible models? Besides the above polynomial curve and system curve model, a performance line and system curve model and a performance line and system line model were also developed. The later performance line and system line model would be the same as ALPS except that a linearized afnity curve was not used and it was developed to actually go through, or include, the afnity-predicted point (Qaff = r x Q1, Haff = r2 x H1). The system predictions calculated from the performance line and system curve model are close to the ALPS output, while the system values from the performance line and system line model are the farthest from expected (Qsys, Hsys) values. RXP: You are correct in thinking there are many model combinations that will work satisfactorily. All the methods you mention here are valid as long as you understand how pumps interact with system curves. Lets go through all the possibilities: 1. Theres always the old fashion graphical method that requires the generation of a new pump curve using the afnity laws. You must then plot the system curve along with the new performance curve to see where they intersect. This method can be conducted with pencil and paper or using a spreadsheet program such as Excel. 2. Polynomial method is the most complex of these three. First, you must use the afnity laws to determine where your pump performance will be at the new conditions. Next, you need curve tting software to determine the best t for your new performance data. Finally, you must analytically arrive at the intersection of the performance and system curve. This was the approach I took early on, but I discovered several difculties with this method. I found that most pump curves required 3rd (or higher) order polynomial ts for acceptable curve ts. (Flat pump curves may
PUMPS & SYSTEMS

www.pump-zone.com

Fig. 1-Comparison of Linearized ALPS Model with Polynomial ALPS Model

600 Ho 500 y = -3E-06x3 - 0.0021x2 + 0.1369x + 459.79 R2 = 0.9994 B

closer to the polynomial curve model expectation! Brilliant! Was this intentional? RXP: Brilliant? No, just lucky. The brilliance was supplied by Sir Isaac Newton. By using his calculus, I was able to derive a generalized tool that is both simple and useful.

400 Head (feet) A 300 Hs

Reader: The specic speed (Ns) for both published examples is around 1000. These are low-Ns radial 100 ow impellers. The (Qaff/Q1) = (D2/D1), (Haff/H1) = (D2/D1)2 , and (HPaff/HP1) = (D2/D1)3 afnity rela0 tionships should give a good representation for the 0 50 100 150 200 250 Flow (gpm) published examples. However, pump impellers with Ns values > 3600 rpm 3400 rpm Friction Friction + Static Head Poly. (Friction + Static Head) Poly. (Friction) Poly. (3600 rpm) 1000 may require larger exponents for afnity relaFigure 1 tions involving impeller diameter size changes. For the users of higher Ns pumps, Figure 2.20 in Vertirequire higher order polynomials for a proper t.) I soon cal Turbine, Mixed Flow, & Propeller Pumps by John L. Dicmas decided against this since cubic equations have three solushows relationship curves for diameter ratio exponents as a tions (or roots). I realized not all pump users want to deal function of Ns. There are also techniques for determining these with 3rd and 4th order polynomial equations. exponents from lab tests of the same pump with two different This is not to say this is not a valid approach. I welcome impeller trims. The Hydraulic Institute may recommend conyou or our other readers to provide a user-friendly general solusulting a pump manufacturer before making a diameter change tion using higher order polynomials for performance curves. > 5 percent. The standard afnity law exponents for speed change 3. A model based on a linearized pump curve and a system relationships are good since efciency should remain about curve also works. In fact, I was torn between this model and constant. the linear pump and linear system model. For simplicity, I Based on the above brief analysis for the published examdecided to go with the nal ALPS version Im a big fan of ples, ALPS appears to be a good, non-complex estimator for simplicity. system performance resulting from low-Ns impeller diameter or speed changes that are less than 10 percent. It was interesting 4. Finally, ALPS classic was developed as a practical eld tool to see an exponent other than 2 used for a system curve. for pump users that requires only a pump curve, straight edge, and some basic knowledge about the system condiRXP: tions. You can consider ALPS to be a screening tool. If you I asked Pumps & Systems Contributing Editor Joe Evans are surprised by the initial results, you can conrm or rene to respond to your comments. He says, . . . my experience has those results with any of the methods mentioned above. been with pumps with a specic speed that ranges from about For comparison, I plotted all the various analysis meth900 to around 3000. My experience has been that the afnity ods together (see Figure 1) and found they all intersect at laws do a pretty good job at these speeds. I also nd nothing approximately the same point. This suggests to me that the in the Pump Handbook that mentions the afnity laws change linear ALPS model will probably provide a solution within with respect to specic speed. engineering accuracy ( 5 percent) for most applications. If a I agree with Joes comments. We both agree that the classic more accurate answer is required, theres no reason why one afnity laws are good engineering approximations for pumps of the other ALPS models cannot be used. with specic speeds between 900 to 3000. This should cover most pumps used in our industry. Reader: The ALPS new performance line falls below (Qaff, Haff); Reader: it does not pass through. It appears this may be the result of Within the Appendix derivation, the Q system equautilizing a linearized afnity curve. The Qaff = r x Q1 derivation tion (before simplication) shows a r (A C) term in substitution intersects the linearized afnity curve below Haff. the numerator. I assume this should actually have shown + However, this lower positioning of the ALPS new performance r (A C). line actually positions the predicted (Qsys, Hsys) intersection
200

PUMPS & SYSTEMS

www.pump-zone.com

NOVEMBER 2007

23

Beyond the Flanges

RXP: You are correct! I am amazed you found this typo. It should read: Reader: An additional thought concerning the August ALPS article: On page 24, the rst caveat contains the restriction ALPS can only be applied to a single pump riding on a system curve . . . I assume the term single pump is meant to exclude cases where several pumps may be running in parallel OR series. Of course, a pump in series application might also be interpreted to include a single pump with multiple stages. Only if all the impellers of a multistage single-pump system are identical and trimmed the same will a diameter ratio change be okay to use in the current ALPS analysis. However, it may be common practice not to trim the upstream impellers, if possible, so that NPSH requirements arent affected. In that non-identical trim situation, you probably would not use ALPS. A speed ratio change should certainly be okay to use for this multistage single pump example. RXP: You are correct in stating that ALPS may be used to predict the effects of small speed changes in multistage pumps. I guess when I wrote this caveat I was thinking more about multistage impeller trimming. As you know, it is more desirable to destage (as opposed to trimming) to reduce head requirements in multistage pumps. Destaging is a more energy-efcient modication. As you mentioned, for ALPS to be valid you must trim all impellers equally, which is rarely done. I hope I have satised all your questions. Thanks again for your interest in the ALPS methodology and your insightful feedback. P&S Robert X. Perez, the website editor for PumpCalcs.com, has over 25 years of rotating equipment experience in the petrochemical industry, holds a BSME from Texas A&M University in College Station, a MSME degree from the University of Texas at Austin, a Texas PE license, and is an adjunct professor at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, teaching the Engineering Technology Rotating Equipment course. He can be reached at rxperez@pumpcalcs.com.
PUMPS & SYSTEMS

SEPCO CAN SAVE YOU MORE THAN OUR PRODUCTS COST. See how to reduce your water and energy consumption, increase equipment reliability and improve your product yield with SEPCOs high performance sealing solutions. For your business and your own peace of mind, check out SEPCO.

Sealing Equipment Products Co., Inc.

800.633.4770 www.sepcoUSA.com
GFO is a registered trademark of W. L. Gore and Associates.

circle 122 on card or go to psfreeinfo.com

24

NOVEMBER 2007

www.pump-zone.com

5. $31

m fro 00

The Mercoid MPC Junior is a low cost alternating pump control perfect for less demanding applications where all of the features of the MPC are not needed. Pump control is easy with the MPCJR, just connect your process transmitter and program the pump on/off points in the scale range desired. The Junior features local indication, integral power supply for process transmitter, two SPDT pump control contacts, two alarm contacts, optional process retransmission, and optional Modbus communications.
Modbus is a registered trademark of Schnieder Automation.

Series MPC Jr. Pump Controller

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Series MPC Pump Controller

.00 $79
Series 626/628 Industrial Pressure Transmitter

m fro

Accuracies of 1% or 0.25% full scale. Industrial housing allows easy wiring and installation by removing top and piping conduit to the 1/2 female NPT. Optional valve depressor, as the process connection, is perfect for preventing refrigerant loss.

The Mercoid MPC Pump Controller is ideal to control, monitor, and protect pump operations. There m are so many features in the fro 00 . 0 MPC that you can eliminate 0 $6 many components from your pump control system. The MPC is used with any process transmitter and displays the process in any user selectable scale range. Included in the MPC is seal failure monitoring for submersible pumps, pump over-temperature monitoring, pump run time meters, process simulation for test and calibration, pump alternation, process retransmission, integral process transmitter power supply, and more!

Series V4 FLOTECT Vane Operated Flow Switch

3. $24

m fro 75

The W. E. Anderson V4 flow switch is ideal for flow proving in large size pipes. Never worry about leaks since the V4 features a solid bar stock body with no linkage or wearing parts that will create flow points. The switch mechanism can even be replaced without taking the body out of the process so that you dont have to shut down and drain the line. A five vane paddle allows selectability of switching point in 1-1/2 pipe size and up. The V4 is weatherproof, explosionproof, and rated to 5000 psig.

FREE
Call or visit the web to request your copy today!

2008 Dwyer Catalog

Series SBLT2 & PBLT2 Submersible Level Transmitter

m fro 00 0. 5 3 $

Mercoid offers a complete line of submersible level transmitters. The SBLT2 is a slim bullet nose design perfect for clean water applications while the PBLT2 is made with a non-clogging diaphragm for sludge and slurries. Both units are constructed of 316 SS bodies, have lighting surge protection, and feature .25% accuracy. The PBLT2 also features a stand off plate so that it can be dropped into a lift station without suspending it on the cable.

Series UV Ultra-ViewTM Polysulfone Flowmeter

NEW! Series PBLTX and SBLTX Featured in the new 2008 Dwyer catalog.

m fro 00 4. 6 1 $

The UV is a robust industrial flow meter with laboratory grade accuracy and wetted parts. The +/-2% full scale accuracy UV contains no metal wetted parts, making it ideal for usage with chemicals compatible with Polysulfone, Fluoroelastomer and PTFE. Dual scales in a variety of ranges with high temperature and pressure ratings makes the UV the perfect flowmeter for ultra-pure water or chemical applications in water treatment plants.

www.dwyer-inst.com

Copyright 2007 Dwyer Instruments, Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved.

circle 101 on card or go to psfreeinfo.com

www.dwyer-inst.com

Dwyer Instruments, Inc. Michigan City, IN phone: 1-800-872-9141 fax: 219-872-9057 e-mail: lit@dwyer-inst.com