See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291425318

Selection of Pumping Configuration for Closed Water Distribution Systems

Article  in  Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management · January 2016

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000635

CITATIONS READS

3 311

2 authors:

Tom Walski Enrico Creaco

Independent Researcher University of Pavia
122 PUBLICATIONS   2,205 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   751 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RTC of sewer systems View project

RTC of water distribution networks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Enrico Creaco on 06 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 Selection of Pumping Configuration for Closed Water Distribution Systems

3 Tom Walski1 and Enrico Creaco2

5 Abstract

6 This paper provides an insight into the selection of the most suitable configuration for closed

7 distribution systems (i.e., systems with no storage capacity). The analysis is developed using the

8 WaterGEMS software and considering a wide ranges of operational scenarios in terms of flows

9 and required heads. For each scenario, various design configurations are considered and

10 compared. Results show that using more than a minimum of pumps can have lower operational

11 and total costs, thanks to the pumps operating closer to their best efficiency point. Small

12 additional benefits in terms of operational and total costs may be obtained as a result of the

13 introduction of the variable speed drive in at least one of the station pumps. Similar costs are

14 obtained in the configuration where large pumps are flanked by a small “jockey” pump operating

15 at low demand times. The design solution made up of large pumps fitted with a downstream

16 hydropneumatic tank also represents a valid alternative option from the economical viewpoint

17 for small flows.

18

19 Keywords: closed distribution systems, fixed speed pumps, variable speed pumps, economic

20 analysis.

21

1
Bentley Fellow, Bentley Systems, Incorporated, 3 Brian’s Place, Nanticoke, PA 18634, USA.
E-mail: Tom.Walski@bentley.com
2
College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, North Park
Road, Exeter EX4 4QF – UK. Email: E.F.Creaco@exeter.ac.uk
22 Introduction

23 The usual standard for pumping station design is that “With any pump out of service, the

24 remaining pump or pumps shall be capable of providing the maximum daily pumping capacity of

25 the system.” (GLUMRB, 1992). This standard has worked well and provides for acceptable

26 system reliability. There are essentially two types of water distribution systems: systems with

27 storage which allows pumps to be turned off and closed (dead end) systems which must run at

28 least one pump at all times or else pressure would be lost.

29 Systems with storage have a great deal of benefits in that they provide reliability in case of

30 power outages, can better dampen transients, can meet peak demand requirements such as during

31 fires and other emergencies and enable pumps to be run at efficient operating points to minimize

32 energy use. However, a system with storage is not always used because of cost, lack of

33 acceptable tank sites or aesthetic considerations.

34 Systems without storage are often referred to as closed or dead-end systems. Pumps in closed

35 systems have some serious drawbacks in that they must meet the current demand which can vary

36 widely, making it difficult to keep the pumps running at an efficient operating point. When

37 constant speed pumps are used, there is a risk of over-pressurizing the system. The outflow can

38 be throttled to reduce pressure or water can be recirculated to the suction side of the pump. All of

39 these approaches tend to waste energy. Variable speed pumping, using variable frequency drives

40 (inverters), eddy current drives or some other technology, can reduce the waste in energy but it is

41 still not possible to ensure that the pumps will run at an efficient operating point. Variable speed

42 pumps can be expensive, with the drives costing almost as much as the pumps themselves.
43 From the standpoint of initial costs, the least expensive solution for a station is almost always

44 two pumps, each of which can deliver the peak design flow. Constant speed pumping is usually

45 less expensive than variable speed pumps in terms of initial cost.

46 While the two pump solution may be the least costly in terms of initial cost, when running pumps

47 continuously, energy costs are always much greater than initial cost in terms of present worth

48 life-cycle costs. Therefore, spending a little extra initially to save energy is usually justifiable, in

49 order to reduce costs in the long term.

50 The loss of efficiency in pumping is related strongly to the extent to which the normal flows

51 differ from the peak flow. If the pump always ran at peak flow, then a single constant speed

52 pump would work well. However, normal flows vary widely and are usually a fraction of the

53 peak flow. That is the nature of “peak” flow. During a normal day, flows can vary from 25 to 75

54 percent of peak flow with peak flow only reached on rare peak times on peak days. In the early

55 buildout of the pressure zone being fed by the pump station, the demand may only be a tiny

56 fraction of the peak flow. Even with variable speed pumping, it is impossible to run pumps

57 efficiently when the speed is turned down significantly. While variable speed drives can have

58 efficiencies nearing 100% at full speed, the drives themselves also contribute to the loss of

59 efficiency as pumps slow down.

60 Use of smaller pumps can enable the pumps to run at speeds closer to their best efficiency. Of

61 course, this means that two pumps in a station cannot meet the standard that design flow must be

62 met with the largest unit out of service. Therefore, if smaller pumps are used, at least three

63 pumps must be used at any station where the total flow of two pumps sized can meet the design

64 flow. Use of three pumps increases initial costs but as will be shown later, the savings in energy

65 costs can more than justify a third pump.

66 While there are numerous manuals and other publications on energy management in water

67 utilities (AWWA, 2015; Leiby and Burke, 2011; US EPA, 2009; Walski, 2011; WEF, 2009), the

68 question of pump selection in closed systems has not been extensively studied. Nevertheless,

69 engineers must deal with this type of design problem frequently.

70 Walski (2001) presented an analysis showing that when the average flow is significantly less

71 than the peak design flow, three smaller pumps will have a lower life-cycle cost than two larger

72 pumps, even when equipped with variable speed drives. When the flows were very low, a

73 constant speed pump with a hydropneumatic tank would have the lowest life-cycle cost. The

74 analysis was limited to smaller pump stations with a design flow less than 30 L/s (500 gpm) and

75 a head difference between the suction and discharge side of the pump of 37 m (120 ft). The

76 present paper extends the conditions analyzed to a much wider range.

77 Walski, Wu and Bowdler (2006) showed that for an example small pressure zone, two large

78 pumps with variable speed drives were more energy efficient only when the average flow was

79 close to the peak flow. Otherwise, three pumps were more efficient.

80 The present paper seeks to perform a more general analysis of several different alternative design

81 configurations for a closed system pump station. Life-cycle costs are compared over a wide

82 range or flows and heads across seven different design approaches.

83

84 Methodology

85 In this study, nine alternative hydraulic configurations of pumping stations into a closed water

86 distribution system were evaluated in terms of life-cycle costs. Given a design flow of Q, the

87 alternative configurations included:

88 1. two constant speed pumps each with flow Q,

 89 2. two variable speed pumps each with flow Q,

90 3. three constant speed pumps each with flow Q/2,

91 4. two constant speed pumps each with flow Q and one constant speed with flow Q/4,

92 5. three variable speed pumps each with flow Q/2,

93 6. two constant speed pumps each with flow Q/2 and one variable speed pump with flow Q/2,

94 7. two constant speed pumps each with flow Q plus hydropneumatic tank to enable pumps to

95 cycle,

96 8. four constant speed pumps each with flow Q/3,

97 9. five constant speed pumps each with flow Q/4.

98 In particular, configurations 1-7 enabled comparison of the total costs associated with pumping

99 stations made up of 2 and 3 pumps, which are the configurations most frequently selected by

100 engineers. Configurations 8 and 9, instead, provided insight into the effects of more than 3

101 pumps.

102 The cost analysis included energy costs and pumping mechanical and electrical equipment costs.

103 It was assumed that building structural costs and operation and maintenance labor and

104 mechanical repairs would be roughly independent of the configuration. Hereinafter the equations

105 that enable evaluation of the costs of the various elements installed are reported. These equations

106 were derived by applying multiple linear regression technique to data reported on manufacturers’

107 catalogues. In particular, the cost of pumping mechanical and electrical equipment can be given

108 by:

109 Cpumps ($) = 140 (Qp)0.7 (H)0.4

110 where Qp = flow from individual pump, L/s and H = pump head, m. The previous equation is

111 compliant with the findings of Walski (2012) in terms of exponent values for Qp and H.
112 The additional cost for variable speed pumping is based on a variable frequency drive (inverter)

113 although other technology could be used (e.g. eddy current drives). The cost for a variable

114 frequency drive for a variable speed pump can be given by:

115 CVFD ($) = 2813 (Qp H)0.68

116 The cost of a hydropneumatic tank can be given by

117 Ctank ($) = 365 V0.62

118 where V = volume of tank, m3. Cost obtained through the previous equation has to be increased

119 by 50% to account for installation expenses.

120 Hydropneumatic tanks are usually not built greater than 20 m3 because any larger size could not

121 be transported easily to the site for installation. Instead, multiple tanks would be used which is

122 usually not cost effective in large systems.

123 The costs assume that costs such as land, building structure, SCADA equipment, maintenance

124 labor and other similar costs do not vary significantly between configurations. Therefore, the

125 costs that vary significantly between configurations would include pump mechanical and

126 electrical equipment, tanks (if needed) and most importantly energy.

127 Cost varies widely between locations and the details of design in terms of type of pump, details

128 of pump curves, available voltages, extent to which equipment can be located outdoors,

129 variations in energy tariff, seasonal and long term variation of demand, type of structure,

130 requirement for backup generators and other factors. However, those contingencies should affect

131 each configuration to roughly the same extent so that the analyses in the paper should be

132 relatively general. Nevertheless, design engineers should verify local costs when making

133 decisions with regard to pump station configuration.

134 Calculations of this work concerned scenarios featuring various values of design flow Q and

135 head H and included the following steps:

136 1 – design of each of the 9 configurations indicated above and assessment of installation costs;

137 2 – implementation of each design configuration into a hydraulic model;

138 3 – calculation of daily energy costs with the WaterGEMS program (Bentley Systems, 2014);

139 4 – calculation of operational costs during a reference period of time; conversion into present

140 value and derivation of total costs in an Excel spreadsheet.

141 In the applications, it was taken into account that the variable speed drives are not perfectly

142 efficient and tend to lose efficiency as the speed decreases. The values reported in Table 1 were

143 used to account for this although the loss of efficiency tends to be greater for smaller drives. For

144 variable speed pumping, the pumps were controlled to maintain a head at the discharge point of

145 the pump station.

146 The applications were carried out in three phases, considering ranges of flow and pressure values

147 that can usually be encountered in dead end systems.

148 In the first phase, costs were calculated over a wide range of average flows including 1.25, 2.5,

149 12.5, 25, 50, 100, 200 L/s (0.33, 0.67, 3.3, 6.7, 13.3, 26.6, 53.2 cfs). Two head values, equal to

150 25 m and 40 m (82 and 131 ft) respectively, were considered. The diurnal demand pattern used

151 for the first phase is pattern 1 shown in Figure 1. Since the peak demand multiplier in pattern 1 is

152 equal to 2, the previous average flows lead to the following values of maximum daily flow: 2.5,

153 5, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400 L/s (0.67, 1.34, 6.7, 13.4, 26.6, 53.2, 106.4 cfs). In all cases, design flow

154 was obtained by multiplying the maximum daily flow by 2. Cost comparisons were based on the

155 initial cost of mechanical and electrical equipment plus the present worth of energy cost for a 10
156 year period. Results are presented with a discount rate (interest rate) of 3%. An energy cost of

157 0.10 $/kWh was used for all runs.

158 A second phase followed in order to analyze the extent to which the choice of diurnal demand

159 pattern affects results. In this part, costs were calculated in only one scenario, which considered

160 an average flow equal to 7.5 L/s (2 cfs) and pattern 2 in Figure 1 (with peak demand multiplier

161 equal to 3.33). This resulted in a maximum daily flow and in a demand flow equal to 25 L/s and

162 50 L/s respectively. In this case, a single head value equal to 40 m (131 ft) was considered. Costs

163 were calculated as in the first part of the work, i.e. by considering mechanical and electrical

164 equipment plus the present worth of energy cost for a 10 year period, as well as discount rate

165 equal to 3% and energy cost of 0.10 $/ kWh.

166 A third phase was dedicated to assessing the influence of the discount rate (interest rate) R. For

167 two design configurations of the first part of the work, i.e. configurations 3 and 5 designed in the

168 scenario with Q=100 L/s – H= 40 m, costs were re-calculated considering various values of R

169 within the range 0.0001-0.09.

170

171 Results

172 Model runs were made for a wide range of flows and head as described above. The results in

173 terms of total present worth cost for the first phase of the applications are summarized in Figures

174 2 and 3, for heads equal to 25 and 40 m respectively. In general the present worth of energy costs

175 was on a similar order of magnitude to initial costs for the smaller flow rates. However, as the

176 flows increased, the energy cost could become as much as an order of magnitude larger than

177 initial cost. This is because energy costs are roughly proportional to flow and head while there is
178 a great deal of economy of scale associated with initial cost. (Doubling the pump flow rate does

179 not double the pump purchase cost.)

180 In general, the solutions involving three pumps were superior to those involving two pumps

181 because with the smaller pumps, it was possible to operate the pumps much closer to the pump’s

182 best efficiency point, especially during low flow periods. The savings in energy more than paid

183 for the extra pumping equipment. Use of variable speed pumping, made a very big difference in

184 costs for the two pump configurations but a much smaller difference for the three pump

185 configurations. Very low present worth costs, close to solutions with three pumps fitted with

186 variable speed drive, were obtained in the case of the configurations with two large pumps

187 flanked by a small “jockey” pump. In these configurations, the operation of the small “jockey”

188 pump at low demand times enabled the large pumps to be kept off when they would have been

189 far away from their Best Efficiency Point (BEP). This resulted in a large decrease in the

190 operational costs. Use of a hydropneumatic tank made it possible to greatly reduce the cost for

191 the two pump configuration for small flow rates, resulting in comparable results to the

192 configuration with 3 small pumps fitted with variable speed drive. However, this configuration

193 with hydropneumatic tank was only considered up to the design with Q=50 L/s, which entailed

194 installing a tank volume as large as 20 m3 (maximum feasible volume as was explained above).

195 The good performance of this configuration is a result of the ability to turn pumps off when a

196 tank is involved which is not an option for the other configurations. This is supported by the

197 observation that hydropneumatic tanks are almost never used for storage in large systems while

198 they are almost always used for individual home wells.

199 Apart from adoption of variable speed pumping and installation of the small “jockey” pump or of

200 the hydropneumatic tank, another possibility to reduce the total costs is by adopting
201 configurations with more than 3 pumps, such as configurations 8 and 9 made up of 4 and 5

202 identical pumps respectively. These configurations were very beneficial for two reasons:

203 1 – in the initial phase, water utilities do not have to spend much money to pay for the spare

204 emergency pump;

205 2 –using a large number of pumps ensures that each pump always works close to its BEP.

206 The comparison of configurations 1, 3, 8 and 9 (made up of 2, 3, 4 and 5 identical pumps

207 respectively) shows that there is benefit in increasing the number of installed pumps up to 5.

208 However, the benefit is smaller and smaller as the number of installed pumps increases: in other

209 words, it is large when passing from 2 to 3 pumps, smaller when passing from 3 to 4 or from 4 to

210 5. Furthermore, some aspects associated with the installation of numerous pumps, such as the

211 increased probability of mechanic failure in the pumping station, additional mechanical

212 maintenance or the increased size of the station itself, may discourage practitioners to select

213 configurations with too numerous pumps.

214 Results relative to the second phase of the applications are reported in Figure 4. The total costs of

215 the 7 configurations designed considering Q=50 L/s, H=40 m and pattern 2 are compared with

216 those designed considering Q=50 L/s, H=40 m and pattern 1 on the one hand and Q=50 L/s,

217 H=25 m and pattern 1 on the other hand. The figure shows that, ceteris paribus, a decrease in the

218 average flow, like that corresponding to adoption of pattern 2 instead of pattern 1, leads to lower

219 total costs. Since the installation costs for each configuration are the same (design flow does not

220 change), this difference is ascribed to a reduction in operational costs. This reduction is larger for

221 configurations 4, 7, 8 and 9. The reason for the reduction in configuration 4 is that, when the

222 average flow is reduced, the small “jockey” pump in the station works alone for a longer period

223 of time in the day. The reduction in configuration 7 is ascribed to the fact that, when the average
224 flow is reduced, the pumps can be kept off for a longer time in the day, taking advantage of the

225 storage in the tank. Finally, the reason for the reduction in configurations 8 and 9 is that, when

226 the average flow is reduced, a lower number of pumps, all operating close to their BEP, is active

227 on average in the system. The reduction in total cost derived from the change in pattern never

228 equals that caused by the reduction in head from 40 m to 25 m (which also entails changing

229 installation costs).

230 The effect of discount rate on the relative importance of initial vs. operating cost is well known.

231 Higher values tend to reduce the importance of future operating costs. This is illustrated in

232 Figure 5 relative to the third part of the applications. With a low discount rate, the solution with

233 the lower energy cost (configuration 5 - three variable speed pumps) is significantly better than

234 the constant speed solution (configuration 3 - three constant speed pumps). However, as the

235 discount rate increases, the present worth of the advantage of the variable speed pumps is

236 diminished, though never reduced to 0.

237

238 Discussion

239 The key to pump selection to minimize energy use in a closed distribution zone is to select

240 pumps which will operate most of the time at or near their best efficiency point (BEP). However,

241 in a closed system with no floating storage, the pump must discharge the exact demand in the

242 system and must therefore move to operating points away from the BEP. Pump selection should

243 be driven based more on actual average flows than peak flows since life-cycle costs are driven by

244 energy more so than initial equipment costs.

245 The operating point for pumps in a closed system can still be determined as the intersection of

246 the system head curve and the pump head characteristic curve but the system head curve is more

247 nearly vertical in this type of system (Walski, Hartell and Wu, 2010).

248 The relationship of efficiency to flow for a constant speed pump is shown in Figure 6. The

249 chance of the demand occurring at the BEP of 100 L/s is small. The efficiency at, for example, a

250 flow of 50 L/s would be 53%. In addition, when the demand is less than 100 L/s, the head

251 produced and its energy is high while when it is greater than 100 L/s, it is not producing

252 adequate head. Having several smaller constant speed pumps reduces but does not eliminate this

253 problem.

254 For a variable speed pump, the pump curves shift to meet the target head which in this case is 40

255 m (see Figure 7). Let us consider the case where the demand is 50 L/s at 40 m. The head and

256 discharge change with pump speed to a relative pump speed of 0.9 (full speed = 1.0). The

257 efficiency is essentially the same as a constant speed pump, although the discharge head and

258 energy used would be less.

259 The results of this analysis show that having more pumps in a station enables the pumps to run

260 closer to their peak efficiency points, even though the initial costs may be greater. They also

261 show that the present worth of energy cost is very likely to be much higher than the initial cost

262 for the pumping station mechanical and electrical equipment.

263 The configuration with the hydropneumatic tank may be the best solution for smaller systems. It

264 is especially attractive in that the tank can provide some storage during a power outage and allow

265 time for a backup generator to start. Systems without storage will almost always have some time

266 and customers where the pressure drops to zero (Walski, Sharkey and Pflanz, 2011). The tanks

267 also have value in dampening transients when flows change. Hydropneumatic tanks are also
268 preferred in systems where there are extended periods of low demand such as camp grounds, golf

269 courses, ski resorts stadiums and other places where there are seasonal periods with little or no

270 water use.

271 When two different size pumps are used, it is important to set the flow at which the pumps

272 switch to maximize efficiency. Figure 8 shows an example where the switching point between a

273 25 and 100 L/s pump is at 40 L/s. At flows below that, the smaller pump is more efficient. Above

274 that flow, the larger is more efficient. The smaller pump may need a slightly oversized motor if it

275 is to run to the right of its best efficiency point.

276 With a large number of pumps, the operator can select the exact number of pumps to operate near the

277 peak efficiency at all times. For example, In Figure 9, three pumps would be the most efficient number to

278 run at demands between 65 and 85 L/s. The downside of this operation would be frequent pump starts,

279 which can affect motor life, if demands change frequently. There would need to be delay before switching

280 pumps to avoid excessive starts.

281 With the hydropneumatic tanks and the constant speed pump, it is not possible to exactly achieve

282 the design discharge pressure as the tank fills and drains or the pumps move along their curves.

283 With variable speed pumping, the desired discharge pressure can be consistently met.

284 Systems with fire demand much larger than normal demands can require a dedicated fire pump

285 but this pump will almost never be used and its life cycle energy cost will be negligible.

286 With constant speed pumps, it is possible to develop very high pressures during periods of low

287 demand which could lead to increased leakage. If modeling shows this to be an issue, a pressure

288 reducing valve or recycling some flow back to the suction side of the pump may be used to

289 reduce pressure. However, the alternative of recirculating flow would represent a waste of

290 energy that should be considered during design.

291
292 Conclusion

293 There are numerous configurations of pumps that can meet design requirements in a closed

294 distribution system. The least costly from an initial cost standpoint is usually not the least cost in

295 terms of life-cycle costs. When the energy costs are included, the life-cycle costs can usually

296 favor a larger number of smaller pumps. In closed systems, variable speed pumping can

297 marginally reduce life-cycle costs but for small flows, configurations made up of large pumps

298 fitted with a downstream hydropneumatic tank or flanked by a small “jockey” pump may be

299 even more advantageous.

300 Using a large number of pumps is also beneficial from the standpoint of total costs. However,

301 some issues, such as the increased probability of pumping failure, frequent pump starts and the

302 increased size of the station, may discourage engineers from opting for configurations with

303 numerous pumps.

304 Costs and design details vary based on the location and the preferences of the engineers and

305 operators. Values presented in this paper need to be viewed as providing insight into the problem

306 but not as a universal law.

307

308 Acknowledgement

309 The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments on the initial submittal

310 of the paper.

311 Reverences

312 American Water Works Association, 2015, “Energy Management for Water Utilities,” AWWA,

313 Denver, CO.

314 Bentley Systems, 2014, WaterGEMS, Bentley Systems, Exton, PA.

315 Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental

316 Managers (GLUMRB), 1992, “Recommended Standards for Water Works,” Albany, NY.

317 Leiby, V. and Burke, M. (2011) “Energy Efficiency Best Practices for North American Drinking

318 Water Utilities,” Water Research Foundation, Denver, Co.

319 US EPA (2009) “Ensuring a Sustainable Future: An Energy Management Guidebook for

320 Wastewater and Water Utilities,” US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater

321 Management, GS-10F-0337M.

322 Walski, T.M., 2001, “Don’t Forget Energy Cost when Selecting Pumps,” AWWA Annual

323 Conference, Washington, DC.

324 Walski, T.M., 2011, “Practical Tips for Reducing Energy Use,” Computing and Controls in the

325 Water Industry, Univ. of Exeter, UK.

326 Walski, T.M., 2012, “Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimates for Pumping,” J. Water Resour.

327 Plann. Manage., 138(3), 307–310.

328 Walski, T.M., Hartell, W. and Wu, Z. Y., 2010, “Developing System Head Curves for Closed

329 Systems,” J AWWA, 102:9, p. 84-89.

330 Walski, T.M., Sharkey, M. and Pflanz, M., 2011, “What Happens when your Pump Loses

331 Power?” AWWA Distribution Symposium Nashville, TN.

332 Walski, T.M., Wu, Z.Y., and Bowdler, D., 2006, “Finding Thieves in Your Water System,”

333 AWWA Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.

334 Water Environment Federation (WEF), 2009, “Energy Conservation in Water and Wastewater

335 Facilities,” WEF, Alexandria, VA.

336
337 Tables

338 Table 1. Loss of drive efficiency with speed

speed ratio Efficiency (%)

1.0 95
0.9 93
0.8 90
0.7 85
339
340 Figure captions

341 Figure 1. Diurnal demand patterns 1 and 2 (see text).

342 Figure 2. Present worth cost comparison for H=25 m (a). Zoom in peak design flows smaller

343 than 50 L/s (b).

344 Figure 3. Present worth cost comparison for H=40 m (a). Zoom in peak design flows smaller

345 than 50 L/s (b).

346 Figure 4. Present worth cost in the various configurations in three different demand scenarios

347 featuring peak flow Q = 50 L/s.

348 Figure 5. Effect of interest rate on present worth cost for the design with Q=100 L/s and H=40

349 m.

350 Figure 6. Pump head H and efficiency e for Constant Speed Pump.

351 Figure 7. Pump head H and efficiency e for Variable Speed Pump.

352 Figure 8. Identifying flow where pumps should switch.

353 Figure 9. Identifying efficient operating range based on number of pumps

354
355

4.0
pattern 1
demamd multiplier

pattern 2
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (hs)
356

357 Figure 1
 2 000
Present worth 2 pumps
cost (k$)
2 pumps (2 VSP)
3 pumps
1 000 3 pumps (3VSP)
3 pumps (1VSP)
3 pumps (1 small)
2 pumps + hyd. tank
0 4 pumps
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 5 pumps
Peak design flow (L/s)
358

359 (a)
200
Present worth 2 pumps
cost (k$)
2 pumps (2 VSP)
3 pumps
100 3 pumps (3VSP)
3 pumps (1VSP)
3 pumps (1 small)
2 pumps + hyd. tank
0 4 pumps
0 10 20 30 40 50 5 pumps
Peak design flow (L/s)
360

361 (b)
362 Figure 2
 3 000
Present worth 2 pumps
cost (k$)
2 pumps (2 VSP)
3 pumps
2 000
3 pumps (3 VSP)
3 pumps (1 VSP)
3 pumps (1 small)
1 000
2 pumps + hyd. tank
4 pumps

0
5 pumps
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Peak design flow (L/s)
363

364 (a)

200
Present worth 2 pumps
cost (k$)
2 pumps (2 VSP)
3 pumps
3 pumps (3 VSP)
100 3 pumps (1 VSP)
3 pumps (1 small)
2 pumps + hyd. tank
4 pumps
5 pumps
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Peak design flow (L/s)
365

366 (b)

367 Figure 3
 200
Present worth H=40 m - pattern 1
cost (k$) H=25 m - pattern 1
H=40 m - pattern 2

100

3 pumps (1 small)

2 pumps+hydro
3 pumps

2 pumps

4 pumps

5 pumps
3 pumps (1VSP)

3 pumps (3VSP)

2 pumps (2VSP)
368 configurations

369 Figure 4
 250
Present worth 3 pumps
cost (k$) 3 pumps (3 VSP)

200

150
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Interest rate
370

371 Figure 5
 80

Pump Head H; Efficiency e, %

H (m)
70
e (-)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200
Flow (L/s)
372

373 Figure 6
 80

Pump Head H; Efficiency e, %

H (m)
70
e (-)
60 H_VSP (m)
50 e_VSP (-)
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200
Flow (L/s)
374

375 Figure 7
 Pump Head H; Efficiency e, 70 H (m) Large Pump
e (-) Large Pump
60
H (m) Small Pump
50 e (-) Small Pump

40
%

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200
376 Flow (L/s)

377 Figure 8

378
 80

1 Pump
70
2 Pump
3 Pump
60 4 Pump
5 Pump
50
Efficiency, %

40

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250

Flow, L/s
379

View publication stats