6.

1
Case Study: Energy
Efficiency Best Practice
Pumping Systems

Murray Goulburn
Co-operative Koroit Plant
Best Practice Guide
Pumping Systems

Introduction
Murray Goulburn Co-operative was formed in 1950 and has
grown to become the largest processor of milk in Australia
and the nation’s largest exporter of processed food. With eight
plants located throughout Victoria, Murray Goulburn processes
over 35% of the nation’s milk supply into quality products
which are sold on both domestic and export markets.
The processes used to manufacture market, powdered
milk and cheese products are relatively energy intensive,
so the company has always strived to maximise its energy
performance. This has typically included selection of the
most efficient process plant, steam, refrigeration and
compressed air systems. As a part of the overall plant energy
improvement programs, the engineering group implemented
a pump system upgrade to improve the energy performance
of identified systems in the plant. The program involved
detailed analysis of existing milk separation pump systems to
determine if pump flows matched the required system duties.
At the Koroit processing facility, Murray Goulburn recognised
that these pump systems were operating at below optimum
and were inefficient and costly to operate. So, as a part of
the company’s ongoing plant upgrade, they undertook a
comprehensive program to improve on this. Subsequent to
the review, they have installed correctly sized pumps on this
system, an initiative which has exceeded expectations.
This approach can be readily replicated in many production
plants utilising similar multiple process pumps. In many of these
plants, multiple pump systems operate in series at suboptimum
operating conditions. Whilst every application will be different,
there is real potential to undertake similar process analysis to
improve individual plant operation.
Key outcomes and benefits
The key outcomes and benefits of an upgrade to the system
are as follows:
• reduced pump system running costs by 42% for separator
bank no.1
• reduced carbon emissions through lower power consumption
• improved process control
• reduced piping system component wear by reducing
friction losses through the system.
Return on investment
The total cost of replacement equipment was $24,878
(pumps, modifications and controls).
The savings achieved included:
Annual energy savings $6029
Annual GHG^ reduction $1840*
Total savings $7869
^ Greenhouse gas

The project * Carbon savings based on Scope 2 and nominal value of $20/tonne carbon equivalence

The objective was to review the installed power base of

The payback period for the project was 3.2 years.
centrifugal pumps fitted on two milk separator pre-heater
banks in order to identify potential energy savings. Description Before After pump Reduction
Both separator pre-heater systems were reviewed to modification upgrade achieved
document the manufacturer’s model and motor size for the Overall electricity 421,789 346,429 75,360
installed pumps. The milk distribution pipe lines and installed use by all pumps
equipment were also assessed to enable system pressure for both separators
drops to be established at the required production flow rates. (kWh/year)
Annual running cost $33,743 $27,714 $6029
Technology (@$0.08c/kWh)
Annual carbon 515 423 92
The project demonstrated that significant energy savings in emissions - Scope 2
(tonnes CO2 equivalence)
pump systems are possible through the use of readily available
technology if detailed process analysis is undertaken prior to Annual value of $10,300 $8460 $1840
plant reconfiguration. carbon emissions
(assumed $20/tonne)

2
 Best Practice Guide
Pumping Systems

Analysis The following table shows the differences between the

required system pressure and the pressure being generated
The two separator banks reviewed were initially designed by each pump. From this information and measured power
to have identical capacities; however, analysis of pressure details recorded at site, an assessment of the suitability of
drops and power absorbed indicated large differences each pump duty was made.
between these two systems. The large differences in
Separator bank no. 1 test results
pressure drops on these systems caused significant control
problems, with operators having to throttle valves to obtain Pump no. Pump Pump Pump System
balance in feed to each unit. The project involved reviewing rating flow rate discharge pressure
pump units and system requirements to look for units that (kW) (m3/hr) (m) drop (m)
could be changed and still maintain product and clean-in- 1 7.5 76 22.5 22.5
place (CIP) capacities.
2 22 76 62 21
The calculations for the pressure drop in each of the 3 11 38 42 42.4
systems were based upon the following required process 4 15 38 52 42.3
parameters:
5 11 90 21 12.3
• whole milk flow rate at 76,000L/hr
• feed rate to each separator at 38,000L/hr 6 5.5 68.4 12 19
• skim milk flow rate from the separators at 34,200L/hr
• combined skim milk flow rate at 68,400L/hr These tests indicated that there is some potential to
• CIP flow rate of 39,000L/hr per separator bank. optimise the operation of selected pumps within this system.
The main focus of the review was to determine potential for: The following summary gives an indication of where these
• reduction in the size of existing motors with smaller pumps were modified or changed.
capacity motors having the same frame sizes • Pump 1: the two separator banks reviewed were initially
• replacement of complete pumps with smaller units designed to have identical capacities; however, analysis
• modification of some existing pump units. of pressure drops and power absorbed indicated large
For separator bank no.1 differences.
The following schematic shows the pump and system • Pump 2 discharge pressure was far in excess of that
design for this separator. Each of the pumps and the required by the system pressure drop. Previously during
associated system they serve were checked to ascertain the operation of the system it was necessary for the
if pump flows could be changed to better match the operators to throttle back on the discharge valve to get the
system requirements. appropriate feed to each separator. The pump power was
previously measured at 20.8kW during normal operation
and discharging approximately 6.2 bar. It was decided to
resize this to a smaller unit.

Pump and system design

Separator bank no 1

3
Best Practice Guide
Pumping Systems

•A
 reconfiguration of the inlet pipe work to the separator
supply pumps also improved the balance between both
of these pumps, reducing the need for throttling of the
butterfly valves.
After the three new pumps were installed on this bank, the
power consumption for these new units was measured and
then compared with the power absorbed by the original pumps.
The before and after comparison is shown in the following table.

• Pump 3 easily met the duty required. Due to the positive Actual power
feed from the system, this pump was being controlled via a used (kW)
variable-speed drive (VSD), with the operators throttling the
Pump Original New pump Original New Annual
inlet valves to obtain the required flow and pressure to the
no. installed installed pumps power
separator. The pump motor was only using around 3.0kW, yet
(kW) (kW) savings
the unit had an 11kW motor fitted. However, it was decided
(kWh)
that, due to the VSD control, changing to a smaller (7.5kW)
motor would not result in significant power improvements. 2 22 11 20.8 10 51,360
4 15 11 7.5 5.7 8640
• Pump 4 is also VSD controlled to meet the duty required.
5 11 7.5 9.0 5.8 15,360
This pump was generating around 5.2 bar at 100%, was
fitted with a 15kW motor and was consuming around 7.5kW Total annual power savings 75,360
at the duty point. The operators were throttling the discharge A similar test procedure was undertaken for separator bank no.
from the system to get the balance in flow to the separator. 2. These tests indicated that the pumps and drives for separator
It was decided that a reduction in the size of this unit would bank no. 2 were correctly sized for the required system duty, so
give better control and allow a smaller motor to be installed. no changes were recommended.

• Pump 5 was oversized compared to a pump providing
similar duty on the other separator bank. This pump was
resized to allow it to perform closer to the required duty
and reduce the power required.
• Pump 6 was positively fed from the separator discharge
and met the duty required, so no changes were made for
this pump.
Modifications made
The following are the changes that were made to separator
system no. 1, with the view to rationalising the power required.
Separator bank no.1
“This project has demonstrated that real power savings can be
made by carefully analysing existing pump and process systems,
and then improving their efficiency by matching the various pumps
to their system duty requirements. Projects of this type help us to
think outside the square and challenge the way we do things. Murray
Goulburn intends to continue to refine its pumping processes to
improve energy efficiency and reduce its carbon footprint..”
Quote from Leon Ryan,
Corporate Energy Manager at Murray Goulburn
Related references
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), US Department of Energy,
May 2006, Boise Paper: Process Pumping System Optimization Saves
Energy and Improves Production. www.eere.energy.gov/industry

Pump Original Motor Modified pump Motor Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), US Department of Energy,
December 2008, Improve the Energy Efficiency of Pump Systems. www.
no. pump frame selection frame eere.energy.gov
1 W+30/80 Hydraulic Institute, May 2006, Improving Pumping System Performance:
132 Remain as installed 132 A Sourcebook for Industry.
145 7.5kW
NSW Agriculture, Agfact E5.11, November 2003, How efficient is your pump?
2 LKH40/235 Replace with LKH
180 160
22kW 45/170 11kW
3 W 55/60
160 Remain as installed 160
180 11kW
4 LKH 30/200 Replace with LKH
160 160
15kW 25/185 11kW
5 ALC 3/155 Replace with LKH
160 132
11kW 45/150 7.5kW
6 W+30/80
132 Remain as installed 132
120 5.5kW
Best Practice Guide
Pumping Systems

For further information and enquiries, please contact:

Sustainability Victoria:
Urban Workshop, Level 28, 50 Lonsdale Street
Melbourne, Victoria 3000
Ph: +61 (03) 8626 8700 Fax: +61 (03) 9663 1007
Email: info@sustainability.vic.gov.au
www.sustainability.vic.gov.au

Energy Efficiency Best Practice Pumping Systems

Murray Goulburn Co-operative Koroit Plant
© Sustainability Victoria 2010.
Sustainability Victoria gives no warranty regarding
this publication’s accuracy, completeness, currency
or suitability for any particular purpose and to the
extent permitted by law, does not accept any
liability for loss or damages incurred as a result of
reliance placed upon the content of this publication.
This publication is provided on the basis that all
persons accessing it undertake responsibility for
assessing the relevance and accuracy of its content.
Energy Efficiency Best Practice Pumping Systems
Murray Goulburn Co-operative Koroit Plant should
be attributed to Sustainability Victoria.
Energy Efficiency Best Practice Pumping Systems
Murray Goulburn Co-operative Koroit Plant is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution‑No Derivatives
3.0 Australia licence. In essence, you are free to copy
and distribute the work, as long as you attribute the
work, do not adapt the work and abide by the other
licence terms. To view a copy of this licence, visit:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/au/

Acknowledgements
Sustainability Victoria would like to acknowledge Arup
for preparing this report and IBM and EDS Australia for
their review of this guide.