A S H RA E

JOURNAL

The following article was published in ASHRAE Journal, December 1999. Copyright 1999 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc. It is presented for educational purposes only. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE.

Pumping Energy And Variable Frequency Drives

By Michel A. Bernier
and

Bernard Bourret

Ptheo is in kW (hp) Q is the volumetric flow rate in liters/sec (USGPM) H is the head developed in meters of fluid (feet of fluid) SG is the specific gravity of the fluid being pumped The denominators are simply conversion factors to obtain units of kilowatts and horsepower. Shaft power, Pshaft The amount of power required at the drive shaft of the pump differs from Ptheo due to mechanical inefficiencies that are caused by friction and shock between the impeller and the fluid. The shaft power, Pshaft, is thus given by:

ariable frequency drives (VFD) are used routinely to vary pump speed. The pumpVFD combination offers an attractive energy conservation measure for cases where there is a need to vary the flow in a fluid distribution system.
As shown in Figure 1, there are four different power levels, Ptheo, Pshaft, Pm, and Pin, that can be evaluated in a variable speed pump system. Even though the input power requirement for the whole system, Pin, is the most significant from an energy standpoint, the energy analysis of a variable speed pump system often stops at Pshaft, the power required at the shaft of the electric motor. This simple analysis leads to statements such as the power required for variable speed pumps varies as the cube of the speed (or flow rate). It is true, according to the well-known pump laws that the theoretical power requirement of a pump, Ptheo, varies as the cube of the speed in a closed system. However, this statement does not account for inefficiencies in the electric motor, in the VFD and in the pump itself, all of which may vary with speed. The sum of these inefficiencies leads to a reduction in the overall wire-to-water efficiency particularly at part load and low speeds. The end result, as will be shown in this article, is that Pin is significantly different from Ptheo and Pshaft and that it does not vary with the cube of the speed, especially when the electric motor is oversized. Another objective of this paper is to quantify the cumulative effects of these inefficiencies on the annual energy consumption for various flow rate variation profiles.

Pshaft =
where,

Ptheo

(2)

p is the pump efficiency The values of p and Pshaft are usually plotted along with the pump characteristic curve (Head vs. Q) as shown in Figure 2. In the case of Figure 2, p varies from 68% near the best efficiency point to 45% near the extremities of the characteristic curve. It is worth recalling that, although the characteristic curve applies for any fluid (except extremely viscous fluids), values of Pshaft are plotted for a fluid with a SG =1 (i.e., water at 15C [60F]). The electric motor is generally selected so that it will never be overloaded over its operating range. For example, with reference to the characteristic curve presented in Figure 2, if the nominal operating conditions are Q = 35.8 l/sec (565 gpm) and H = 70.5 m (231 ft), for SG = 1 and p = 68%, then Pshaft = 36.3 kW (48.5 hp). In this case a 37.5 kW (50 hp) motor might be a good choice. However, if for some reason the pump operates at the right of this point, there is a risk of overloading the motor since a Pshaft greater than 37.5 kW (50 hp) might be required. Thus, a 56 kW (75 hp) electric motor might be the safest selection as it provides a non-overloading condition. However, oversizing can About the Authors
Michel Bernier, Ph.D., eng., is a professor at Ecole Polytechnique de Montral in the department of mechanical engineering. Bernard Bourret, Ph.D., is a professor at the Institut National des Sciences Appliques, Toulouse, France.
ASHRAE Journal 37

Power Theoretical power requirement, Ptheo The theoretical pumping power required is defined by the following equation:
Ptheo Q H SG = 102 Q H SG in I - P units = 3960

(1)

where,
December 1999

Figure 1: Typical pump-motor-VFD arrangement showing four power levels. Figure 2: Typical pump performance curves.

Figure 3: Typical efficiencies for high-efficiency motors and VFD as a function of % of nameplate load (for motors) or % of nominal speed (for VFD).

increase energy consumption as will be shown later. Power to the electric motor, Pm The electric power required to feed the electric motor, Pm, is given by:

Figure 4: Non-dimensional pumping power as a function of % of flow for four different cases.

Pm =

Pshaft

(3)

where m is the efficiency of the electric motor. Typical motor efficiencies as a function of nameplate loading are given in Figure 3 (the efficiency curve for VFD presented on the same figure will be discussed shortly). The curve for m is the curve for high-efficiency motors presented in the 1996 ASHRAE HandbookHVAC Systems and Equipment1 and corresponds closely to information given elsewhere.2,3,4 Strictly speaking, these curves only apply to large size motors (>25 hp), as small horsepower motors experience a somewhat lower nominal efficiency2. As shown in Figure 3, motor efficiency is almost constant for part load operation above 50% and decreases significantly for a part load below 25%. Electrical power requirement, Pin The required electrical power at the inlet of a pump-VFD configuration is given by:

where VFD is the efficiency of the VFD. The denominator of Equation 4 represents the so-called wire-to-water efficiency. Values of VFD are given in Figure 3 as a function of percentage of nominal speed (actual motor speed/nominal motor speed) for a high-efficiency VFD.1,4 The curve extends from a speed ratio of 20% to a speed ratio of 100% where, as shown on Figure 3, VFD is slightly less than 100%.

Pin =
38

Ptheo VFD m p
ASHRAE Journal

(4)

Variation of Pin for a Closed System In a closed system, the system curve (head vs. flow rate) is usually described by a parabola going through the origin such as the one presented in Figure 2. For open systems, or for systems that maintain a pressure differential across the supply/ header, the system curve does not go through the origin. Such cases have been treated elsewhere using an approach similar to the one presented here.5,6 In closed systems, if one assumes that the head varies as the square of the flow (head Q2), then Ptheo will be proportional to Q3. If it is further assumed that VFD, m, and p are independent of flow rate (or alternatively speed) than the classic pump law is valid and Pin will be proportional to Q3. In reality, VFD and m, will vary with pump speed as was shown earlier. Pump efficiency will also vary slightly with pump speed; it can decrease, or in some cases increase, as pump speed is reduced. In the following analysis the pump efficiency is assumed to be constant over the range of pump
December 1999

PUMPS
speed considered. The variation of Pin as a function of pump speed has been plotted in Figure 4 for four different cases. The values of Pin have been non-dimensionalized using the power requirement at the shaft at the nominal operating conditions, Pshaft,nominal, which is a known quantity. The bottom curve in Figure 4 represents the cubic variation of Pin/Pshaft,nominal as a function of flow rate given by the classic pump law. The other three curves account for the variation of m and VFD with speed. One of these three curves is for a properly sized motor, i.e., one that matches Pshaft at the nominal operating conditions, and the other two are for motors oversized by 50% and 100%, respectively. First, note that Pin/Pshaft,nominal is slightly higher than one in all cases at the nominal operating conditions (100% flow) because m and VFD are slightly smaller than 100% at these conditions. As the speed (or flow) is reduced, the value of Pin/Pshaft,nominal for both the properly and oversized motors differ significantly from the cubic variation given by the pump law. For example, at 50% of nominal flow the value of Pin/Pshaft,nominal given by the pump law is 0.139 while it is 0.226, 0.289, and 0.354 for the properly sized and oversized motors, respectively. Thus, the inefficiencies associated with m and VFD are important and they need to be accounted for to get the true amount of power required by a pump-VFD arrangement. Note that the value of Pin/Pshaft,nominal reaches somewhat of a plateau for the properly sized motor when the speed is below 40% of its nominal value. This can be explained by the fact that the decrease in Ptheo caused by a variation of both Q and H (Equation 1) is compensated by a decrease in the values of m and VFD (Figure 3). As for the case of the oversized motors, Figure 4 shows that the value of Pin/Pshaft,nominal increases as the flow is reduced below 30%, indicating that the decrease in the value of m and VFD exceeds the decrease in Ptheo. These last two observations seem to indicate that there is no further energy saving when pump speed is reduced below 30% to 40% of its nominal speed. It is important to review the assumptions under which Figure 4 was obtained. First, it was assumed that m and VFD vary with speed according to the curves presented in Figure 3 where the curve for m is representative of large size (>25 hp) highefficiency motors. Secondly, the variation of Pin/Pshaft,nominal is independent of pump efficiency since it was assumed that pump efficiency is constant over the speed range studied here. Of course, Pin will vary with pump efficiency as Pshaft,nominal depends on pump efficiency. The curves in Figure 4 can be used to predict Pin in a closed system at any operating conditions. For example, if Ptheo = 26.3 kW (35 hp), p = 70% and a 50% oversized motor is selected, then Pshaft,nominal = 37.5 kW (50 hp) at the nominal operating conditions and Pin will be equal to 0.289 37.5 = 10.8 kW (14.5 hp) when the flow is reduced to 50%. The value of 0.289 is the value of Pin/Pshaft,nominal taken from Figure 4 for a 50% oversized motor operating at 50% of nominal flow rate.

Figure 5: Number of hours at each speed for four utilization scenarios.

Figure 6: Relative yearly energy consumption for four utilization scenarios. An energy consumption of 100 corresponds to the energy consumption obtained by assuming that Pin (speed)3.

Energy Consumption So far the analysis has concentrated on power values and it
December 1999

was shown that the electrical power required was significantly higher than the one predicted by the pump law. In the following energy consumption analysis, four different utilization scenarios will be examined, each totalling 8,000 hours of operation per year. These scenarios are presented in Figure 5 where the number of hours at each speed are presented. The relative yearly energy consumptions are presented in Figure 6 for properly sized and oversized motors. An energy consumption of 100 corresponds to the case where Pin is assumed to vary as the cube of the speed. The results presented in Figure 6 indicate that the estimation of yearly energy consumption based on the pump law (Pin speed3) can underestimate the true yearly energy consumption. The underestimation ranges from 7% for a properly sized motor with Scenario 4 (mostly high flow rates) to 74% for a 100% oversized motor operating under Scenario 3 (mostly low flow rates). As expected, the relative yearly energy consumption increases when mostly low flow rates are used since, as indicated in Figure 4, the motor and the VFD are relatively inefficient at low speeds.
ASHRAE Journal 39

Conclusion This article examined the cumulative effects of deteriorating values of motor and VFD efficiencies (m and VFD) as the speed of a pump is reduced in a closed fluid distribution system. Using published values of m and VFD, it was shown that the power required at the inlet of a pump-VFD configuration is significantly higher, especially for oversized motors, than the power predicted by the classic pump law that states that Power (speed)3. Non-dimensional power curves have been constructed (Figure 4) to calculate power requirements, relative to the shaft power at nominal operating conditions, as a function of flow rate. These curves can be used for any closed systems where pump efficiency at the nominal operating conditions can be assumed to remain constant when speed is reduced and where motor and VFD efficiencies obey the curves presented in Figure 3. Finally, yearly energy consumptions were evaluated for four different utilization scenarios. It was shown that energy consumption can be significantly higher than the energy consumption predicted by the Power (speed)3 relationship, especially when mostly low flow rates are used. References
1. 1996 ASHRAE HandbookHVAC Systems and Equipment. Chap-

ter 38, Centrifugal pumps. 2. 1979. Gould E-plus Energy-Efficient Motor Selection Guide, Bulletin 3307. 3. Stebbins, W. L. 1996. Motor efficiency and performance. Practical Guide to Electrical Engineering for HVAC&R Engineers, Supplement to ASHRAE Journal, November. 4. Hydro-Qubec. 1993. Guide technique Systmes de pompage. 5. Wood, W.R. 1987. Beware of pitfalls when applying variablefrequency drives. Power, February. 6. Bernier, M.A. and N. Lemire. 1999. Non-dimensional pumping power curves for water loop heat pump systems. ASHRAE Transactions 105(2):1226.

Please circle the appropriate number on the Reader Service Card at the back of the publication. Extremely Helpful ........................................................................................................ 454 Helpful ........................................................................................................................ 455 Somewhat Helpful ...................................................................................................... 456 Not Helpful ................................................................................................................. 457

Advertisement in the print edition formerly in this space.

40

ASHRAE Journal

December 1999