Impact of Pump Wear on Efficiency

Simon Bunn CTO - Derceto

Copyright AWWA 2010

Background Information
The more than 60,000 water systems and 15,000 wastewater systems in the United States are among the countrys largest energy consumers, using about 75 billion kWh/yr nationally 3 percent of annual U.S. electricity consumption.
Electric Power Research Institute, Energy Audit Manual for Water/Wastewater Facilities, (Palo Alto: 1999), Executive Summary

Thats $10 billion in energy costs per year!

Typical Energy Use in Water Utilities

Pump Life-Cycle Costs

Electricity, 95%

Maintenance, 4% Purchase Price, 1%

Improving pump efficiency

A major European Union study of pumps1 recommended: Select pumps according to duty requirements Measure pump performance regularly Replace or refurbish poorly performing pumps Polish or coat pump surfaces Use automatic pump scheduling / pump selection software targeting efficiency
1. European Commission, Study on improving the energy efficiency of pumps, February 2001, AEAT-6559/ v 5.1

Refurbish or replace?
Pump Installed Duty As new Pump efficiency As new motor efficiency Present Pump Efficiency Potential Savings Present Input Power Price of Electricity Present running cost 1963 250l/s @ 48 m 82% 92% 70% 14.60% 182.7 kW 10 Cents / kW hr $160,045/year

Potential input power 155.95 kW Potential running cost $133,610 Saving $26,435/year

New pump efficiency New motor efficiency New input power New running cost Saving

84% 96% 145.9 kW $127,801 $32,244

Best Efficiency Point

Effect of Wear on Pump

70

60
50

Head

40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Flow

Pump installed 2000

What do the affinity laws predict?

8.33 HPout2 33000 eff2 speed2 3 HPin2 HPin1 * ( ) speed1 speed2 2 speed2 2 8.33 Head1 * ( ) * Flow1 * ( ) * speed1 speed1 33000 speed2 3 HPin1 * ( ) speed1 8.33 Head1 * Flow1 * 33000 eff 1 HPin1 Head2 * Flow2 *

Peak Eff1 = Peak Eff2

But when we measure efficiency...

90% 80% 70% 60%

13%

Efficiency

50%

40%
30% 20% 10% 0% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Flow

And an older pump...

45 40 35 30

Head

25
20 15 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500

Flow Pump installed 1988

..with its peak efficiency

90% 80% 70% 60%

Efficiency

50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

25%

0%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Flow

Real Efficiency of a Pump

100% 90% 80% 70%

Efficiency

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

max eff ratio vs head ratio

100%

120%

140%

head ratio

Results obtained with 95 pumps, still poor correlation UK based WRC working on similar study with 4000 pumps; results expected to be published 2010

So water pumps do wear!

A quick rule of thumb; 1% deterioration on head/flow curve per year Though it tends to be faster for the first few years, e.g. Monroe County found 10% drop in the first 6 years ..and slower towards the end as pumps are corroded, pitted, have tuberculation and reach around 40% efficiency Leads to; Equivalent % drop in peak efficiency

What does efficiency mean?

3 ways of calculating efficiency
Power in / Power out (Pump station) Weighted Average Efficiency (Average value of each pumps efficiency weighted by the flow), should be the same value as Power in / Power out (Pump station) Volume of water moved per energy unit spent

The last way allows the comparison of the different solutions (Pump1, Pump2 or Pump1 // Pump2 ) in terms of kWh spent It also effectively handles distortions created by velocity head

Best Efficiency Point - reality

BEP BEP

$ $$

$$

Parallel Pumps Efficiency

1 pump: 6.3MGD @ 50 ft, efficiency 70% 2 pumps: 10.4MGD @ 90 ft, efficiency 85% So running two pumps makes them run efficiently, but look at the change in lift. Calculating actual energy required to deliver the water, which is really what matters: 1 pump used 223 kWh/MG 2 pumps used 332 kWh/MG, 50% more energy used

Parallel Pumps Efficiency

For example, if running one pump alone in a given pump station has a ratio of 250 gallons per kWh and running two pumps in parallel is equivalent to 300 gallons per kWh, running two pumps will be more efficient. This ratio could be calculated by dividing the flow at operating point by the input power for this flow (volume/energy flow/power). The solution with the biggest ratio is the one that carries more water per energy unit spent.

Parallel Pumps Efficiency

Case 1: two identical pumps

Parallel Pumps Efficiency

Here it is more energy efficient to run the two pumps in parallel, the pumps will also run closer of their BEP.
Overall pump station efficiency Pump 2 or Pump 3 efficiency running alone Pump 2 or Pump 3 alone 80.55%

77.78%

16.98 G/(HP x min)

Pump 2 and Pump 3 run together

17.09 G/(HP x min)

Parallel Pumps Efficiency

Case 2: Pump 1 and Pump 2 (Two Non-identical Pumps)

Parallel Pumps Efficiency

Here it is more energy efficient to run the Pump 1 only or both pumps in parallel but never use Pump 2 alone.
Overall pump station efficiency P1s efficiency while running alone P2s efficiency while running alone P1s efficiency while p1//p2 P2s efficiency while p1//p2 Pump 1 alone Pump 2 alone Pump 1 // Pump 2 69.23% 68.4% 57.6% 73.68% 66.62% 33.9 G/(HP x min) 30.4 G/(HP x min) 31.9 G/(HP x min)

Case Study 1: Austin TX Power Plant

Reported by Department of Energy1 in 2005 Two 1000-horsepower cooling water pumps Tested in 1978, at 88% efficiency Tested in 2005; 50% and 55% efficient New impellors, diffusers, shrouds and shafts Retested, now both at 85% efficiency Increased generation capacity due to more cooling Saved 43,000 tons CO2 first year Annual savings of $1.2m per year, 11 month payback
1. US Department of Energy (DOE), 2006. Pumping System Improvements Save Energy at Texas Power Plant. Energy Matters, Spring, 2006.

Case Study 2: Monroe County (NY)

We never thought that roughness of internal pump surfaces could be costing us so much money After running tests on pumps in our distribution system, our engineers were shocked to find that many were operating 15% to 25% below the manufacturers specifications Paul Maier Monroe County Water Authority.

Case Study 2: Monroe County (NY)

Pump efficiency in 2000 was 88%, by 2006 it was 77.8% Refurbishment plus coating took it back to 88% The more the pump is used the faster the payback

Variable Speed Drives

Affinity laws say that changing impeller diameter and rotational speed has the same effect According to Schneider Electrics manual, variable speed drive allows pump to be driven at high efficiency no matter what speed is used A presentation from the website www.energymanagertraining.com says that reducing the speed of the pump of 50% results in a 1 or 2% reduction of the peak efficiency According to Haestads Advanced water distribution modelling and management the affinity laws are right

Variable Speed Drives

This is from a major pump test company

Peak Efficiency Speed

Variable Speed Drive - Fast

Fast Speed (1500 RPM) Efficiency
90
Pump Curve

90%
Efficiency Curve

80

80%

70

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Total Dynamic Head (m)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Flow (l/s)

Efficiency (%)

Variable Speed Drive Mid Speed

Mid Speed (1440 RPM) Efficiency
90 80 70 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%
30% 20%

Pump Curve
Efficiency Curve

Total Dynamic Head (m)

60 50 40
30 20

10 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000

10% 0% 1200

Flow (l/s)

Efficiency (%)

Variable Speed Drive Slow Speed

Slow Speed (1350 RPM) Efficiency
90
Pump Curve

90% 80% 70% 60%

80 70

Efficiency Curve

Total Dynamic Head (m)

60

50 40 30 20 10 0

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Flow (l/s)

Efficiency (%)

Single Objective : Cost Minimisation

Five key cost reduction methods are employed
Electrical load movement in time, to maximise utilisation of low cost tariff blocks Electricity peak demand reduction. Utilisation of lowest production and chemical cost sources of water. Utilisation of shortest path between source and destination Energy efficiency improvements from pumps and pumping plants.

Of these, energy efficiency improvements produced the most unexpected outcome.

Case Study 3: East Bay MUD

EBMUD Aquadapt Pump Efficiency Improvements by Original Efficiency, 2003-2008
25%

20%

Average Efficiency Improvement (%)

15%

10%

5%

0% 45 - 55% 55 - 65% 65 - 75% 75 - 85%

Original Average Efficiency Range (%)

Pump station efficiency improved universally

EBMUD Aquadapt Pump Efficiency Improvements, 2003-2008
90.0% 80.0%

Percentage of Pump Stations

70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 45 - 55% 55 - 65% 65 - 75% 75 - 85% Pre-Aquadapt Post-Aquadapt

Pump Efficiency

Pumps operate more efficiently

Real-time pump curve data

In this example a pump is running well on its curve and at peak efficiency

Flat pump curves can be a problem

Derceto AQUADAPT Utility Case Studies USA

Aquadapt Client Total Utility Population
400 k

Energy Cost Savings

14%

Approx Annual Savings

$ 745 k

Efficiency Gains
6%

Annual GHG Reduction (metric ton)

4,800

WaterOne KS Full System May 2006 Eastern Municipal Water District CA Stage 1 - August 2006 Eastern Municipal Water District CA Stage 2 September 2007 East Bay Municipal Utility District CA Stage 1 August 2004 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission MD Full System May 2006 Regional Municipality of Peel *1 ON Full System September 2010 Gwinnett County Dept. of Water Resources GA Full System December 2009

700 k

10%

$120 k

8%

300

15%

$190 k

8%

240

1.3 M

12%

$360 k

6%

800

1.8 M

11%

$865 k

8%

4,500

1.2 M

10%

C$1.6 M

6%

5,600

800 k

8%

$460k

6%

2,300

* Factory Tests Complete Projects being installed now

Conclusions
You have to be able to measure something before you can aim to improve it Potable water pumps do wear and this wear can have major implications for efficiency More than 90% of all purchased power by Water and Wastewater Utilities is used by pumps With 3% of all generation power going to Water and Wastewater utilities, getting pumps operating well should be a key goal Payback for these types of projects is exceptionally good, 3 months to 2 years typically

Thank You
Simon Bunn sbunn@derceto.com Wes Wood wwood@derceto.com