A S H RA E JOURNAL

The following article was published in ASHRAE Journal, December 1999. Copyright 1999 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning 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 Ptheo is in kW (hp)
and Q is the volumetric flow rate in liters/sec (USGPM)
Bernard Bourret H is the head developed in meters of fluid (feet of fluid)
SG is the specific gravity of the fluid being pumped

V ariable frequency drives (VFD) are used
routinely to vary pump speed. The pump-
VFD combination offers an attractive en-
ergy 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 stand-
point, the energy analysis of a variable speed pump system of-
ten 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 quan-
tify the cumulative effects of these inefficiencies on the annual
energy consumption for various flow rate variation profiles.
Power
Theoretical power requirement, Ptheo
The theoretical pumping power required is defined by the
following equation:
Q H SG Q H SG
Ptheo = = in I - P units
102 3960
where,
December 1999
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:
Ptheo
Pshaft = (2)
p
where,
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 refer-
ence to the characteristic curve presented in Figure 2, if the nomi-
nal 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.
(1)
Bernard Bourret, Ph.D., is a professor at the Institut National des Sciences Appliques,
Toulouse, France.
ASHRAE Journal 37
Figure 1: Typical pump-motor-VFD arrangement showing
four power levels.
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:
Pshaft
Pm = (3)
m for a high-efficiency VFD.1,4 The curve extends from a speed
where m is the efficiency of the electric motor. Typical motor
efficiencies as a function of nameplate loading are given in Fig-
ure 3 (the efficiency curve for VFD presented on the same fig-
ure will be discussed shortly). The curve for m is the curve for
high-efficiency motors presented in the 1996 ASHRAE Hand-
bookHVAC 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 horse-
power 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:
Ptheo
Pin = (4)
VFD m p speed is reduced. In the following analysis the pump effi-
38 ASHRAE Journal
Figure 2: Typical pump performance curves.
Figure 4: Non-dimensional pumping power as a function
of % of flow for four different cases.
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)
ratio of 20% to a speed ratio of 100% where, as shown on Fig-
ure 3, VFD is slightly less than 100%.
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 sys-
tems 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 propor-
tional to Q3. If it is further assumed that VFD, m, and p are
independent of flow rate (or alternatively speed) than the clas-
sic 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
ciency 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 prop-
erly sized motor, i.e., one that matches Pshaft at the nominal op-
erating 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 Figure 5: Number of hours at each speed for four utiliza-
50% of nominal flow the value of Pin/Pshaft,nominal given by the tion scenarios.
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 Figure 6: Relative yearly energy consumption for four utili-
value of m and VFD exceeds the decrease in Ptheo. These last zation scenarios. An energy consumption of 100 corre-
two observations seem to indicate that there is no further en- sponds to the energy consumption obtained by assuming
ergy saving when pump speed is reduced below 30% to 40% of that Pin (speed)3.
its nominal speed.
It is important to review the assumptions under which Fig- was shown that the electrical power required was significantly
ure 4 was obtained. First, it was assumed that m and VFD vary higher than the one predicted by the pump law. In the following
with speed according to the curves presented in Figure 3 where energy consumption analysis, four different utilization scenarios
the curve for m is representative of large size (>25 hp) high- will be examined, each totalling 8,000 hours of operation per
efficiency motors. Secondly, the variation of Pin/Pshaft,nominal is year. These scenarios are presented in Figure 5 where the num-
independent of pump efficiency since it was assumed that pump ber of hours at each speed are presented. The relative yearly
efficiency is constant over the speed range studied here. Of energy consumptions are presented in Figure 6 for properly
course, Pin will vary with pump efficiency as Pshaft,nominal depends sized and oversized motors. An energy consumption of 100
on pump efficiency. corresponds to the case where Pin is assumed to vary as the
The curves in Figure 4 can be used to predict Pin in a closed cube of the speed.
system at any operating conditions. For example, if Ptheo = 26.3 The results presented in Figure 6 indicate that the estima-
kW (35 hp), p = 70% and a 50% oversized motor is selected, tion of yearly energy consumption based on the pump law (Pin
then Pshaft,nominal = 37.5 kW (50 hp) at the nominal operating con- speed3) can underestimate the true yearly energy consump-
ditions and Pin will be equal to 0.289 37.5 = 10.8 kW (14.5 tion. The underestimation ranges from 7% for a properly sized
hp) when the flow is reduced to 50%. The value of 0.289 is the motor with Scenario 4 (mostly high flow rates) to 74% for a
value of Pin/Pshaft,nominal taken from Figure 4 for a 50% oversized 100% oversized motor operating under Scenario 3 (mostly low
motor operating at 50% of nominal flow rate. flow rates). As expected, the relative yearly energy consump-
tion increases when mostly low flow rates are used since, as
Energy Consumption indicated in Figure 4, the motor and the VFD are relatively
So far the analysis has concentrated on power values and it inefficient at low speeds.
December 1999 ASHRAE Journal 39
Conclusion ter 38, Centrifugal pumps.
This article examined the cumulative effects of deteriorat-
2. 1979. Gould E-plus Energy-Efficient Motor Selection Guide, Bul-
ing values of motor and VFD efficiencies (m and VFD) as the
letin 3307.
speed of a pump is reduced in a closed fluid distribution sys-
tem. Using published values of m and VFD, it was shown that 3. Stebbins, W. L. 1996. Motor efficiency and performance. Practi-
the power required at the inlet of a pump-VFD configuration is cal Guide to Electrical Engineering for HVAC&R Engineers, Supple-
significantly higher, especially for oversized motors, than the ment to ASHRAE Journal, November.
power predicted by the classic pump law that states that Power
4. Hydro-Qubec. 1993. Guide technique Systmes de pompage.
(speed)3. Non-dimensional power curves have been con-
structed (Figure 4) to calculate power requirements, relative to 5. Wood, W.R. 1987. Beware of pitfalls when applying variable-
the shaft power at nominal operating conditions, as a function frequency drives. Power, February.
of flow rate. These curves can be used for any closed systems
6. Bernier, M.A. and N. Lemire. 1999. Non-dimensional pumping
where pump efficiency at the nominal operating conditions can
power curves for water loop heat pump systems. ASHRAE Transac-
be assumed to remain constant when speed is reduced and where
tions 105(2):1226.
motor and VFD efficiencies obey the curves presented in Fig-
ure 3.
Finally, yearly energy consumptions were evaluated for four
different utilization scenarios. It was shown that energy con-
sumption can be significantly higher than the energy consump- Please circle the appropriate number on the Reader Service Card at the back of the publication.
tion predicted by the Power (speed)3 relationship, especially Extremely Helpful ........................................................................................................ 454
when mostly low flow rates are used.
Helpful ........................................................................................................................ 455
References Somewhat Helpful ...................................................................................................... 456
1. 1996 ASHRAE HandbookHVAC Systems and Equipment. Chap- Not Helpful ................................................................................................................. 457

Advertisement in the print edition formerly in this space.

40 ASHRAE Journal December 1999