Energy 45 (2012) 588e594

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Variable-speed technology used in power plants for better plant economics

and grid stability
Wei Wang*, Jizhen Liu, Deliang Zeng, Zhongwei Lin, Can Cui
State Key Laboratory of Alternate Electrical Power System with Renewable Energy Sources, School of Control and Computer Engineering, North China Electric Power University,
Beijing 102206, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this research is to simultaneously reduce energy requirements along with rapid and
Received 30 January 2012 broad load ranges using variable-speed pumps (VSPs) in thermal power plants. This paper proposes
Received in revised form a novel algorithm to calculate the operating points of VSP. A case study on the operation optimization of
19 July 2012
condenser cooling water pump shows that VSP is far superior to fixed-speed pump in terms of energy
Accepted 20 July 2012
Available online 11 August 2012
savings. Vacuum adjustment system is established to improve the capability of thermal power plants in
executing rapid load changes. The authors also bring forth a proposal to establish an automatic variable-
speed control system to ensure safety, economy, and stability of the units and grid operations.
Keywords:
Variable speed
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Condenser cooling water pump
Optimum condenser pressure
Energy savings
Load changes

1. Introduction
With the economy progress and its modernization, China has
become the largest energy consumer in the world, and its primary
energy demand is expected to more than double from 2005 to 2030
[1]. For this reason, China is confronting energy demands that are
currently larger than most countries. Furthermore, China is already
the largest carbon emitter and therefore it is currently facing
international pressure to lower overall emissions. To meet this
challenge the Chinese government is taking extensive measures to
reduce coal burning, such as developing renewable energy sources,
reducing pollutant discharge, and improving generation cycle
efficiency in traditional thermal power plants.
One efficient approach in improving thermal power plant cycle
efficiency is to optimize the operation of the condenser cooling water
pump (CCWP), used to provide cooling water for the condenser [2].
This pumping system’s (CCWP) operation significantly influences both
electric power output and auxiliary power consumption. Heat losses
from thermal power plant cycles are caused mainly from heat rejec-
tion by the condenser [3]. Fig. 1 shows a typical steam water cycle of
a condensing steam turbine power unit. Condenser pressure, as the
final parameter of the Rankine cycle [4], greatly affects the unit power
output of thermal power plants. In addition, condenser pressure is
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ86 (0)10 61772965; fax: þ86 (0)10 61772849.
E-mail addresses: wwang@ncepu.edu.cn, ncepuww@163.com (W. Wang).
determined only by the cooling water flow rate under the same
boundary conditions, i.e., the same steam flow and cooling water
temperature. Therefore, increasing the cooling water flow rate will
lead to an increase not only in the steam turbine power output, but also
in the CCWP power consumption. When the difference between the
two kinds of increased power reaches its maximum, the cooling water
flow rate is optimum. Consequently, operating the CCWP at optimum
cooling water flow rate is crucial in ensuring plant maximum effi-
ciency and minimum operating cost [3]. Two kinds of CCWPs are
usually employed in thermal power plants. One is the fixed-speed
pump (FSP), which adjusts the total cooling water flow through the
number of running pumps, and the other is the variable-speed pump
(VSP), which alters the water flow using converter speed adjustment.
Ref. [2] introduces the FSP operation optimization in thermal
power plants, which largely determines energy savings. However,
FSP only supplies few discrete flow points for control making it
almost impossible to attain optimal condenser pressure. Compared
with FSP, VSP has many advantages, such as its ability to provide
variable cooling water flow for the condenser and to achieve more
energy savings without incurring throttling loss [5]. Instead of
losing mechanical energy from the use of a throttle valve, power
plants could run pumps slower, which are more efficient resulting
in less pump wear and tear, providing higher availability and lower
maintenance costs. By simply controlling the pumps, significant
energy savings can be achieved by running at variable
speedsdover 50% in some cases [6,7]. Approximately 23,532 MWh

0360-5442/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.07.040
 W. Wang et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 588e594 589

characteristics represented by the piping head loss curve shown in

Fig. 2. The intersection between the pump characteristic curve and
the piping head loss curve is the operating point of the pump [16].
The consumed pump power calculated by Eq. (1) is simply the
rectangular area surrounded by the axes and the operating point
of the pump, therefore Fig. 2 also shows that variable-speed
regulation saves more energy than throttling for pump flow
adjustment, i.e.,

Q rgH
Pp ¼ (1)
h

where Pp is the pump power consumption, Q is the cooling water

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a condensing steam turbine power unit cycle.
of energy can be saved annually from chilled water supply pumps,
condenser pumps, and cooling tower fan motors by matching their
required speeds using variable-speed drives for a 60% speed
reduction. In addition, approximately 2,426,769 kg of CO2 emission
can be reduced using variable-speed drives for 60% speed reduc-
tions [8]. Therefore, this paper proposes to employ VSP as CCWPs in
thermal power plants and optimize the operation of CCWPs to
reduce energy consumption and improve power plant efficiency.
In addition to energy savings in thermal power plants, VSP
contributes to rapid load changes on broad range in thermal power
plants because cooling water flow rate largely influences the elec-
tric power output. Accordingly, the continuous cooling water flow
provided by VSPs could reduce electric energy fluctuation,
providing much benefit for grid stability. In China, the requirement
of rapid load changes in thermal power plants is more urgent
because by the end of 2011, 72.5% of China power has been sourced
from thermal power. Condensate throttling [9], proposed by Laus-
terer, is quite effective for a short and rapid increase of electric
power output in thermal power units. However, it offers no feasible
plan for decreasing electric power output.
Determining the operating points of VSP, including the flow rate,
head, power, and efficiency, is very important. A majority of liter-
ature [10,11], has taken advantage of the affinity laws [12,13], which
are commonly used to express relationships between variables in
pump performance and power analysis, to search for VSP operating
points. However, the affinity laws can only be applied to pumps
whose pipeline characteristics have negligible static head [14,15],
and they are not suitable for most CCWPs in power plants with high
static head. This paper proposes a novel method to determine the
operating points of VSP to achieve CCWP operation optimization as
well as quick and broad unit load changes in thermal power plants
volumetric flow rate supplied by the pump, r is the density of
cooling water, g is the acceleration due to gravity, H is the pump
head, and h is the pump efficiency.
The pipeline characteristics of a pump with negligible static
head described in Eq. (2) are quadratic curves going through the
origin of the coordinates. Pumps with these pipeline characteristics
are only suited for the affinity laws. The points satisfied by Eq. (2),
i.e., the affinity points, have equal pump efficiency. However,
majority of pumps used in power plants have static head, and their
pipeline characteristics are characterized by Eq. (3)
H=Q 2 ¼ K (2)
H ¼ H0 þ kQ 2 (3)
where k is a constant and H0 is the net head.
The characteristic curve of a pump operated at rated speed,
similar to the parabolic curve, can be fitted to a second-order
polynomial expression as shown in Eq. (4) [17], i.e.,
H ¼ aQ 2 þ bQ þ c (4)
where a, b, and c are constant, and moreover, a, b < 0.
We assume that the operating point of the pump at rated speed
expressed by nR is the point R (QR, HR), and QR, and HR are the pump
flow and pump head, respectively. When the pump speed changes
to nI, the operating point transfers to point I (QI, HI). QI and HI are the
pump flow and pump head, respectively, after the pump speed is
50
Pump characteristics in rated speed
45 Pump characteristics in variable speed
Rated piping head loss curve
Piping head loss curve with throttling
40

that employ VSP as CCWP.

35 H A
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 proposes a novel A

algorithm to determine the operating points of VSP. The CCWP 30 H

E
E
operation optimization and a case study are presented in Section 3,
Head/m

which demonstrates the advantages of VSP in energy savings 25

compared with FSP. Section 4 presents the potential of VSP to perform H ’
A
20
rapid and broad load changes in thermal power plants and presents
’
a variable-speed control system to ensure safety, economy, and effi- 15
A

ciency in unit operation. Finally, conclusions are given in Section 5.

10

2. Algorithm of VSP operating points

5
QA Q
E
2.1. Operating point of a single VSP 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Flow/(m3/s)
The operating point of a centrifugal pump is determined not
only by the pump characteristics but also by the pipeline Fig. 2. Comparison analysis between the VSP and throttling pump.
590 W. Wang et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 588e594

altered. However, points I and R are not affinity points; thus, they
do not satisfy the affinity laws.
Here, the approach to obtain the VSP operating point with static
head is presented.
In Fig. 3, we align the origin of the coordinates and point I (QI, HI)
with a quadratic curve expressed in Eq. (2), which is simply the
pipeline characteristic curve without static head. Therefore, the
flow and head of point I (QI, HI) satisfy Eq. (5), i.e.,
HI ¼ H0 þ kQI2 :
The crossover point between the rated-speed pump and the
pipeline characteristic curves without static head is point I 0 ðQI0 ; HI0 Þ,
which is positioned at the right of affinity point I in Fig. 3. Thus,
point I (QI, HI) and I 0 ðQI0 ; HI0 Þ satisfy the affinity laws, as shown by Eq.
(6); a is the ratio between speeds nI and nR.
operating point I (QI, HI) at reduced speed nI has the same efficiency
as that at point I 0 ðQI0 ; HI0 Þ at rated speed. Thus, the pump efficiency at
reduced speed can be calculated using Eq. (10), i.e.,
 
h ¼ h QI0 : (10)
However, variable-speed pumps may not address every flow
rate requirement in a power plant. Usually, pump speed can be
increased over 100%, and a majority of pumps provide speeds of up
to a maximum of 120%. However, most pumps should be set to
(5)
ramp up to a lower limited speed, usually around 50% of the rated
speed, to keep the pump efficiency at the maximum [5]. Therefore,
the limitation of VSP consists of the converter speed ratio,
expressed as
nmin  n  nmax : (11)

2
2
HI QI nR 2.2. Operating points of VSPs connected in parallel
¼ ¼ ¼ a2 : (6)
HI0 QI0 nI
Sometimes, CCWP are required to operate in parallel to increase
Furthermore, since point I 0 ðQI0 ; HI0 Þ, located in the pump char-
the pump flow rate. The total flow of the pumps in parallel is the
acteristic curve, satisfies Eq. (4), the following can be obtained:
sum of each pump’s flow, whereas all pumps in parallel have the
same head. Considering two pumps in parallel, for example, we
HI0 ¼ aQI02 þ bQI0 þ c: (7)
assume that the characteristics of the two VSPs working at the
Combining Eqs. (6) and (7), Eq. (8) can be obtained as the rated speed are separately described in Eqs. (12) and (13). We
following relation: assume that the two pumps are operating at speeds a1 and a2
respectively, and their pipeline characteristics are expressed by Eq.
HI ¼ aQI2 þ baQI þ ca2 : (8) (3). According to Eq. (8), the characteristics of the two CCWPs can
be expressed as Eqs. (14) and (15)
The head and the flow of the pump operating point I (QI, HI) at
reduced speed nI can be obtained by combining Eqs. (5) and (8). The H ¼ a1 Q 2 þ b1 Q þ c1 (12)
curve characterized by Eq. (8) is simply the pump characteristic
curve at reduced speed nI, and the curve characterized by Eq. (5)
describes the pipeline characteristics with static head. H ¼ a2 Q 2 þ b2 Q þ c2 (13)
Eq. (9) is the pump efficiency characteristic curve when the
pump is at full pump speed, which is expressed by, H ¼ a1 Q 2 þ b1 a1 Q þ c1 a21 (14)

h ¼ hðQ Þ: (9)
H ¼ a2 Q 2 þ b2 a2 Q þ c2 a22 : (15)
Unfortunately, pump manufacturers seldom supply the pump
efficiency curve at reduced speed. Here, we will present the pump From the definition of pumps in parallel introduced above, the
efficiency calculation process at reduced speed. As discussed above, operating point of the two pumps is determined by the solving the
following equation system:
8
>
< H ¼ H0 þ kðQ1 þ Q2 Þ2
H ¼ a1 Q12 þ b1 a1 Q1 þ c1 a21 (16)
50 >
: H ¼ a Q 2 þ b a Q þ c a2
Pump characteristics in rated speed 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
45 Pump characteristics in variable speed
Pump piping head loss curve Eq. (16) is also subject to
40 Equal efficiency curve with affinity points
8
>
> H  H0 !
>
>
35 >
> b2
>
< H  c1  1 a21 :
I’ 4a1 (17)
30
> !
>
>
Head/m

>
> b22
25 >
> H  c2  a2
R : 4a2 2
I
20
The solution of Eq. (16) can be easily determined using
15 graphic method. The first step is to determine the characteristics
of the parallel pumps. The characteristic curve is composed of
10
these points, whose ordinate is the intersection of the pumps’
5
head, and the abscissa is its corresponding flow sum. We assume
that the pipeline characteristics are fixed when the pumps are in
0 parallel. Therefore, the intersection point of the parallel pumps
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
and the characteristic curves of the pipeline are simply the
Flow/(m3/s)
operating point of the pumps in parallel, i.e., the solution to
Fig. 3. Characteristics of a single VSP. Eq. (16).
 W. Wang et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 588e594 591

However, directly obtaining the solution of Eq. (16) using the 50

analysis method is difficult. In this paper, we provide a procedure Pump characteristics in rated speed
based on the simple dichotomy method. Using Eq. (16), a function 45 Pump characteristics in variable speed 1
that includes only one parameter, i.e., the pump head (H), can be Pump characteristics in variable speed 2
Pump characteristics of two VSPs in parallel
obtained as 40
Pump piping head loss curve
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H  H0 35
 H11 ðHÞ  H21 ðHÞ ¼ 0 (18)
k
30

Head/m
where
25
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
b1 a1  b21 a21  4a1 c1 a21  H
H11 ðHÞ ¼ Q1 ¼ (19) 20
2a1
15
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
b2 a2  b22 a22  4a2 c2 a22  H
H21 ðHÞ ¼ Q2 ¼ : (20) 10
2a2
5
Eq. (18) is an increasing function. Moreover, when the pump 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
head (H) becomes the minimum and the maximum value intro- Flow/(m3/s)
duced to Eq. (17), Eq. (18) will have an opposite sign. Therefore, only
Fig. 5. Operating point of VSPs connected in parallel.
one solution of Eq. (18) exists when the section is introduced to Eq.
(17), which can be obtained by the algorithm shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4 shows that Hmin is the lower limit of the section subjected
to Eq. (17), Hmax is the upper limit of the section, and d is the  
max DPT  DPp  
required accuracy of the solution. From the above discussion, the ¼ max ðPTi  PT0 Þ  Ppi  Pp0
pump head (H) can be achieved. The flow of each pump can be    
¼ max PTi  Ppi  PT0  Pp0 (21)
calculated using Eq. (16). Fig. 5 shows an example to determine the  
¼ max PTi  Ppi
operating point of parallel VSPs.
¼ max NEP

3. CCWP operation optimization and case study
The objective function of the CCWP operation optimization is
the difference between the increased electric power and consumed
pump power, equivalent to the net earning power (NEP) of the
system, i.e., the difference between the turbine power output and
the consumed CCWP power, expressed as Eq. (21)
where DPT is the increment of the turbine power, DPp is the
increment of consumed CCWP power, PTi is the current turbine
power, Ppi is the current pump power consumption, PT0 is the
reference turbine power, and Pp0 is the reference consumed CCWP
power.
When the main steam flow rate and environmental factors are
fixed, the electric power output is determined by the condenser
pressure, which depends on the cooling water flow rate. The rela-
tionship between the electric power output and condenser pres-
sure is shown in Fig. 6 and Eq. (22). The relationship between the
condenser pressure and cooling water flow rate is expressed by Eq.
(23) [2]

PT ¼ f ðD0 ; pk Þ (22)

pk ¼ gðD0 ; E; Q Þ (23)

where PT is the steam turbine power, D0 is the main steam flow, pk is

the condenser pressure, E is the set of entire environmental
conditions, and Q is the total flow of the pumps in parallel.
Some constraints are also present that contain both the single
VSP’s limitations expressed in Eq. (11) and the parallel-pump
limitations expressed in Eq. (17). Two additional constrains are
necessary and are presented as follows:

(1) The total flow of the pumps in parallel should be larger than the
summation of the lowest flow of each pump and lesser than the
summation of the highest flow of each pump.
(2) The condenser pressure, one of the state variables, should be
located between the shut-off and alarm pressures because
a condenser pressure higher than the alarm pressure will be
detrimental to the units’ safety and economy. On the other
hand, a condenser pressure lower than the shut-off pressure
will lead to the increase in the extraction flow of the low-
Fig. 4. Flowchart showing how to obtain the characteristics of VSPs in parallel. pressure heater, which would finally lessen the turbine
592 W. Wang et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 588e594

4 110% steam load Input parametres

100% steam load
90% steam load
2
Fixed turbine power rate /%

65% steam load

50% steam load
0 30% steam load
Initial
-2

-4

-6
Fitness function calculation &
-8
Initial population evaluation

-10

-12
Maximum evolutional
-14 generation(EG)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Condenser pressure/kPa
Yes EG=EG+1
Fig. 6. Power output characteristics of the condenser pressure.
Algorithm of
No Selection,
Selection & Genetic
power. Therefore, operating the condenser out of the range Crossover, and
between the shut-off and the alarm pressures are not Mutation No
permitted in power plants.
Population
Based on the objective function and the constraints, NEP can be
Evaluation
calculated in reference to Fig. 7 to attain the optimum flow rate of
cooling water supplied by the VSP. In contrast to FSP, VSP provides
continuous cooling water flow rate, and the operation optimization
Yes
of VSP is a class of discrete, nonlinear, and constrained function
optimization problem, which can be solved using heuristic Optimum solution output
algorithms.
In this paper, a case study on the operation optimization of VSP
Fig. 8. Flowchart showing the procedure to attain optimal speed using GA.
is presented making use of genetic algorithm (GA) [18], as shown in
Fig. 8. The optimization results are shown in Fig. 9. Two curves
separately display the cooling water flow rate of the VSP and FSP at the VSP units compared with the FSP units. In small area “C,” the
80% turbine load when operations have been optimized. The NEP difference between the VSP and FSP units is zero, which
column represents the NEP difference between the VSP and FSP indicates that FSP units produce the same effect as the VSP units
units. For the VSP units, one of the two pumps is the FSP, and the under this working condition. In summary, in thermal power
other is the VSP. In area “A” of Fig. 9, even a minimal FSP flow forces plants, the VSP units save more energy than the FSP units. More-
the condenser pressure to exceed its shut-off limit, i.e., out of the over, VSP could save much more energy than FSP because FSP is
operating region of condenser pressure. As a result, we suppose limited by the startestop times.
there is no NEP for FSP units in these abnormal operating condi-
tions, thus the NEP difference between the VSP units and FSP units
is much larger than that in normal operating conditions, as shown
in Fig. 9. The proportion in area “B” is the excess electric power of

Fig. 7. Flowchart of the method employed to obtain NEP. Fig. 9. Operation optimization comparison between FSP and VSP units.
 W. Wang et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 588e594 593

4. Variable-speed control system Other steam

Generator
Variable-speed pumps could substantially contribute to rapid Superheated
HP IP LP ~
load changes in thermal power units because the flow of cooling steam
water provided by CCWP greatly influences the electric power
output. Fig. 6 shows that the positive influence ranges of the
condenser pressure to the unit load reach 1.1%e5.4% of the current
electric power output, and the negative ranges reach 8.8%e14.2%. Vacuum Cooling
Load dispatch water
Moreover, the influence from the condenser pressure on the elec- adjustment
instruction Vacuum inlet
tric power output is almost momentary, as well as the influence of system
protection Condenser
the cooling water flow on the condenser pressure. Therefore, system
Optimal
quickly increasing or decreasing the unit load by adjusting the vacuum Variable speed Cooling
cooling water flow in thermal power plants is effective. Attention system control system for water
CCWP outlet
must be exercised to maintain the condenser between the shut-off
and alarm pressures all the time for safety of the units.
When the units are working steadily, operating VSP at the
optimum cooling water flow rate is necessary to maximize energy
Boiler
savings, as introduced in Section 3. In addition, carrying out rapid Condensate pump
and broad load changes even at the expense of a little larger energy
consumption is sometimes advisable to satisfy the urgent demand Fig. 11. Structure of the variable-speed control system for CCWP.
of load changes in thermal power plants. A “vacuum adjustment
system” is proposed in this paper to improve the speed and three subsystems: the vacuum protection, the optimal vacuum, and
amplitude of unit load changes. Vacuum, defined as the difference the vacuum adjustment systems. When the units are operating in
between the atmospheric and condenser pressure, is commonly a steady-state condition, the optimal vacuum system should be
used in China. Fig. 10 shows the adjustment process of a vacuum selected so that the units will operate more economically. In case
adjustment system. When in stable operation, the power units will the units receive load-change signals, the CCWP vacuum adjust-
operate the condenser pressure based on the line of optimum ment system will be activated to increase or decrease the electric
condenser pressure, as shown in Fig. 10. Once the command for unit power output quickly. In any case, the vacuum protection system
load changes is received, the vacuum adjustment system will be should be working for the safety of the units.
started to operate the unit load up or down. Suppose a load
reduction is required, the vacuum adjustment system will be 5. Conclusions
enabled to calculate the appropriate converter speed, which will
then be sent to the pump converter. Through the variation in Based on mathematical derivation, a novel algorithm to calcu-
converter speed, the condenser pressure is switched into late the operating points of VSP has been proposed in this paper.
pk,opt þ Dpk1 from pk,opt. The load-increase process is similar to the The authors also established an approach to determine the oper-
load-reduction process; the only difference between them is the ating points of parallel VSPs for CCWP. This novel approach saves
decrease or increase in the cooling water flow rate. Thus, vacuum more energy than traditional FSP because it incurs no throttling
adjustment system is an automatic control system whose loss. Moreover, VSP is capable of providing continuous water flow
controlled variable, i.e., electric power output, depends on the load to condensers. CCWP operation optimization was accomplished,
command from the electrical system. and a case study has been given. The results show that VSP is
Based on the overall consideration of unit safety, the supple- superior to FSP in terms of energy savings. Analyses show that the
mentary reliability inherent to parallel pumps, increased economy, cooling water flow supplied by VSP has a considerable potential in
a quick load response capability in broad range of operations, the improving the speed and amplitude of unit load changes. Thus, the
authors propose the implementation of the “variable-speed control authors proposed the implementation of the vacuum adjustment
system for CCWP,” shown in Fig. 11. The system is composed of system. Proposals have also been put forward to establish an
automatic control system, called variable-speed control system, to
70 ensure safety, economy, and stability of the units and grid
The upper limit operations.
60
Acknowledgements
Condenser pressure(kPa)

50 Alarm line
This paper is supported by National Key Basic Research Program
Only 15 minutes operating Load down
40 of China (973 Program) (2012CB215203) and the Fundamental
permitted region pk1 Research Funds for the Central Universities.
30 pk,opt Optimum condenser
Safe region pressure References
20
pk2 [1] Liu W, Lund H, Mathiesen BV. Large-scale integration of wind power into the
Shut-off pressure existing Chinese energy system. Energy 2011;36(8):4753e60.
10 Load up [2] Wei W, Deliang Z, Tingting Y, Zhigang Z, Jizhen L. The optimum running of
circulating water pumps based on estimated condenser pressure. Proceedings
of the Chinese Society of Electrical Engineering 2010;30(14):7e12.
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% [3] Anozie AN, Odejobi OJ. The search for optimum condenser cooling water flow
rate in a thermal power plant. Applied Thermal Engineering 2011;31(17e18):
Load ratio 4083e90.
[4] Holman JP. Heat transfer. 8th International Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill;
Fig. 10. Schematic of the vacuum adjustment system. 1997.
594 W. Wang et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 588e594
[5] Nesbitt B. Variable speed pumps d are they worth the money? Part two.
World Pumps 2001;2001(419):50e4.
[6] Minett S, Fenwick K. The power of variable speed pump benefits. World
Pumps 2000;2000(410):36e8.
[7] Tolvanen J. Saving energy with variable speed drives. World Pumps 2008;
2008(501):32e3.
[8] Saidur R, Hasanuzzaman M, Mahlia TMI, Rahim NA, Mohammed HA. Chillers
energy consumption, energy savings and emission analysis in an institutional
buildings. Energy 2011;36(8):5233e8.
[9] Lausterer GK. Improved maneuverability of power plants for better grid
stability. Control Engineering Practice 1998;6(12):1549e57.
[10] Moreno MA, Planells P, Corcoles JI, Tarjuelo JM, Carrion PA. Development of
a new methodology to obtain the characteristic pump curves that minimize
the total cost at pumping stations. Biosystems Engineering 2009;102(1):
95e105.
[11] Casada D. Energy and reliability considerations for adjustable speed driven
pumps. In. Proceedings from the twenty-first national industrial energy
technology conference, Houston, TX; May 12e13, 1999. p. 53e62.
[12] Chin David A. Water resources engineering. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2000.
[13] Perez Robert X. Affinity laws for pumping systems (ALPS) e part two. Pumps
& Systems 2007:22e4.
[14] Nesbitt B. Variable speed pumps e are they worth the money? World Pumps
2011;2001(418):26e9.
[15] Carlson R. Saudi Aramco, Dhahran. The correct method of calculating
energy savings to justify adjustable frequency drives on pumps; 1999.
p. 275e83.
[16] Ma Z, Wang S. Energy efficient control of variable speed pumps in complex
building central air-conditioning systems. Energy and Buildings 2009;41(2):
197e205.
[17] Tianyi Z, Jili Z, Liangdong M. On-line optimization control method based on
extreme value analysis for parallel variable-frequency hydraulic pumps in
central air-conditioning systems. Building and Environment 2012;47:
330e8.
[18] Bunnag D, Sun M. Genetic algorithm for constrained global optimization in
continuous variables. Applied Mathematics and Computation 2005;171(1):
604e36.