Energy Savings in Pumping System using
Thermodynamic Method
Juned Ansari
NBI-Water, Mechanical Engineer, Energy Auditor
Secure Meters Limited, Flat 11, Second Floor, Nazim Estate, City Chowk, Aurangabad, India-431001
juned.ansari@securetogether.com
junedansari@hotmail.com
Abstract— Today, energy is one of the necessities of life and we
cannot think of life without it. However, we are not able to meet
the rising demand and the gap between demand & supply is
widening. With an increasing population, changing lifestyles and
need for growth, the requirement of energy is at all time high.
This demands a proper check on the energy consuming machines
for better energy efficiency.
Studies show that the power generation efficiency is only between
38-45% [2]. This figure is even lower when you account for
transmission and distribution efficiencies. The overall losses from
the point of generation to the point of use amount to 50%. In
simple terms, for 2 units of energy production, you need to burn
5 units of fuel; and only a single unit is delivered at the point of
use.
India is the sixth largest emitter of green house gases (GHGs),
contributing about 1,228 MMTCO2 i.e. 2% of global emissions,
equivalent to 1.3 tonnes per capita emissions. The largest share,
61%, is contributed by the energy sector [1]. Pumps are found in
abundance in every industry and they run with varying degree of
efficiency. It is important to keep a record of the efficiency of the
pumps to help save energy and the resulting carbon emissions.
This paper discusses the thermodynamic way of accessing the
machine performance. Unlike conventional method, it does not
need a flow meter for efficiency evaluation and hence is more
accurate.
Keywords— Energy Efficiency, Thermodynamic Method, Pump
Testing, Efficiency Evaluation, Secure Meters Limited
I. OVERVIEW
Almost 70% of the world’s electricity is consumed by the
industry horses more commonly known as Motors. Out of this,
70% is used to drive rotodynamic machines, which are
primarily pumps, blower, fans and compressors. These
machines operate with varying degrees of efficiency between
20 and 90%. The greater the inefficiency of the machine, the
greater is the energy wasted. It therefore, becomes important
to test, evaluate and monitor the energy consumption of these
machines and their system in a plant.
To fulfil this need, two methods have been commonly used in
industries. The first and the most common is the conventional
method (which measures the output and input energy). The
second one; a more practical approach, is the thermodynamic
method (which accesses the losses). This paper talks about the
performance monitoring of pumps using thermodynamic
method. It is important to note that the same method can be
applied effectively for monitoring of blowers, compressors &
hydro turbines with ease.
II. INTRODUCTION
Centrifugal pumps are found operating at varying degrees
of efficiency, leading to performance shortfall. Over the life of
the pump, energy consumption is the biggest contributor (90-
95%) to the total “Life Cycle Cost” of the machine. Even if a
pump is operating at 70% efficiency, 30% of the energy fed to
it is wasted in the form of heat, noise & vibration. For a
100kW machine, 30 kW is simply unavailable for any useful
work. On many occasions, over the life cycle of the pump, the
value of the energy loss is more than the cost of the machine
itself.
Obviously, only a certain part of the wasted energy (as no
machine can be 100% efficient) can be saved by testing,
monitoring and timely corrective action on the pumps. Pump
performance testing and monitoring reveals the asset
condition and helps in averting catastrophic failures. A
number of pumps when simultaneously monitored (Multi
Pump Monitoring), will give an insight as to how the station is
being operated and reveals any operating malpractices.
Besides reducing energy consumption and implementing
energy efficiency, a production plant is equally concerned
about minimizing the downtime, to minimise the direct impact
on the total plant specific energy consumption.
III. THERMODYNAMIC METHOD
Unlike conventional method involving flow measurement
for efficiency evaluation, the thermodynamic method
measures the inefficiency of the machine by accessing the
losses across the machine, making the readings more reliable.
This makes the method ideal and suitable for even smaller
machines. The method is based on the first law of
thermodynamics and requires differential pressure &
temperature measurement across the machine to evaluate the
efficiency. When this is combined with power measurement,
flow can be accurately back calculated. The basic equations
are as shown below:
1 Pi ×ηm ×η p
ηp = Q=
 Cp × ∆T  ρ×g×H
1+ 
 g × H 
Where,
Cp= Specific Heat of the fluid (KJ/Kg-K) Design
Values
Measured
Values
∆T= Differential temperature across the pump in mK (milli Parameters Parameters
Kelvin) Flow (m3/h) 1,035 Flow (m3/h) 1,378
H= Pump Head in meters (m) Head (m) 42 Head (m) 20.5
Pi= Input Power to the Motor in kW BEP (%) 87 Efficiency (%) 51.3
ηp= Pump efficiency (%) Fluid Water Fluid Water
Rated Power (kW) 160 Input Power (kW) 156.2
Q= Pump Flow Rate in m3/s
Rated Speed (RPM) 1487 Speed (RPM) 1487
NPSH available (m) 7.5 NPSH required (m) 8.2
This method has been widely used on more than 12,000
pumps across the world and the results are overwhelming, as Table. 1 Design and Measured Parameters
discussed in the next section.
B. Case Study 2
IV. CASE STUDY This case study deals with a pump in an Indian chemical
Case studies are the success stories for any organization. In company. It shows how design stage miscalculations can spell
this section, we will discuss a few case studies as testimonials big troubles when plant begins actual operation. The pump
for this method of testing pumps and blowers. There are that was tested was not giving the desired flow through the
various reasons associated with underperformance of a system. The table below shows the design and measured
machine. These directly affect the operating efficiency of the parameters.
machine and the system as a whole. Some of these reasons are The significant difference between the two clearly indicates a
listed as under: problem. This pump was taking suction from an open sump
a. Wear and tear of the pump due to ageing with flooded suction. The fluid was then being sent to the
b. Wear and tear of the pump due to improper cooling tower top (approx 16m high) through eight equi-
operational practices spaced nozzles in the cooling tower. The cooled liquid after
c. A bigger pump being run under throttled condition to passing through electrolysis cells returns to the same sump. It
achieve the desired flow was observed that the pressure of the fluid just before the
d. Poor suction conditions nozzle was only 0.65 bar instead of the required pressure of
e. Blockages, leakages, air entrapment 1.65 bar. The pump was selected without considering the
f. Improper pump selection presence of nozzles; hence it failed to provide the desired flow.
g. Cavitation It was recommended to install a bigger impeller in the existing
pump to achieve the desired performance. This measure also
A. Case Study 1 reduced the specific power consumption of the pump as
This case study deals with a pump in an Indian chemical shown in figure below. The pump has been running efficiently
industry. This reveals how operational malpractices lead the for last 09 months without any problems.
pump to operate off BEP (Best Efficiency Point). Besides
poor efficiency, high vibrations were observed in these pumps. Design Measured
Values Values
There were four such pumps arranged in parallel. The pumps Parameters Parameters
were taking suction from the cooling tower sump. The water Flow (m3/h) 569 Flow (m3/h) 269
returned to the cooling tower top after going through the Head (m) 25 Head (m) 27.8
process. The table below shows the design and measured BEP (%) 83 Efficiency (%) 44
parameters for this particular pump. Fluid SG1.3 Fluid SG1.3
It was observed that the pump is running exceptionally to the Rated Power (kW) 90 Input Power (kW) 61
Rated Speed (RPM) 1475 Speed (RPM) 1475
right of the duty point and was prone to high flow cavitation.
Pressure at Nozzle 1.65bar Pressure at Nozzle 0.65bar
Moreover, it was observed that the flow was not reaching the
cooling tower top when the pump was running in solo due to Table. 2 Design and Measured Parameters
the very reason that the pump was not generating enough head
to cope up with the system resistance. Moreover, at the Pre Post Relative
operating point, NPSH available (7.5 m) was less than the Replacement Replacement %age
NPSH required (8.2 m) which caused the pump to cavitate. Performance Performance Change
This was also the reason for high vibration. These brand new Flow Rate (l/s) 74.6 151.2 102.7
Pump Head (m) 27.8 34.0 22.3
pumps; if run under these conditions for long, would
Power (kW) 60.6 98.6 62.7
definitely have caused damaged to the impeller.
Efficiency (%) 43.9 67.4 53.9
The plant manager was instructed to check the flange joints Pumping Cost
and the suction pipe line for any air ingress; as it causes the 225.4 181.2 -19.6
(kWh/Ml)
pumps capacity to deteriorate. It was also recommended to run Saving for Same
more pumps in parallel to achieve the desired flow through the - 458,571 -
Flow (Rs.)
system. This improved the individual pump efficiency to 82%.
Table. 3 Comparison Table
C. Case Study 3
At a thermal power plant in India, a vertical turbine type
circulating water pump was tested. There were 13 such pumps
in the system, each fitted with a fixed speed motor running at
490 RPM. The design duty conditions were 15,000 m3/h at
32m head.
Upon testing, it was found that the pump tested was delivering
16,661m3/h at 24.4m head & 74% efficiency consuming 1,560
kW, while 8 other pumps were also running in parallel. This
operating point was to the right of the design duty point and is
an area prone to high flow cavitation. The recommendation
was to cut in one more pump; it was no surprise that the pump
was now delivering 16,347m3/h at 26.1m head & 79.3%
efficiency consuming 1,533 kW, with 9 other pumps running in
parallel.
Therefore, the recommendation was to run more pumps in
parallel to shift the operating point closer to the duty point.
This action, besides saving energy, would also ensure asset
integrity and increase the working life of the pumps.
V. CONCLUSION
A thorough pump & system testing and analysis can reveal
the operating malpractices and asset condition. Many
problems are not just a result of machine malfunction but
could be because of the system as a whole. Efficiency
improvements and energy savings can be achieved by simple
rescheduling prior to any remedial work. The thermodynamic
method for pump testing delivers accuracy better than ±1%
which has been verified by the Fluid Control Research
Institute (FCRI), India. Many problems get rectified by merely
a rational approach.
Efficiency improvement is directly related with the reduction
in the energy used and resulting carbon footprint. Though per
capita carbon emissions are quite low for India, but with
increasing speed of development, this is bound to get worse.
We recommend getting your pumps, blowers and compressors
tested to attain energy efficiency in real sense.
We do not want to be blamed by the future generations for not
allowing them the use of these scarce resources? Let us
conserve energy, water & environment!!!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to acknowledge the ICEOC organising committee
for giving me a chance to present this paper in this esteemed
conference.
REFERENCES
[1] G Subramanyam: CDM & Energy Efficiency Issues-Opportunities in
India, Electrical India, May’10 issue, Chary Publications Pvt Ltd.
[2] Bureau of Energy Efficiency: Energy Efficiency in Electrical Utilities-
Book 3 for Energy Auditors.