Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

A novel method to determine the optimal operating point for centrifugal

pumps applied in photovoltaic pumping systems
Wanderley Sena dos Santos a, Pedro Ferreira Torres b, *, Alaan Ubaiara Brito c,
Alex Renan Arrifano Manito b, Gilberto Figueiredo Pinto Filho d, Weslley Leão Monteiro a,
Wilson Negrão Macêdo a
a
Grupo de Estudos e Desenvolvimento de Alternativas Energéticas, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Brazil
b
Instituto de Energia e Ambiente, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
c
Departamento de Engenharia Elétrica, Universidade Federal do Amapá, Macapá, Brazil
d
Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Every centrifugal pump has an optimum efficiency duty point, known as Best Efficient Point (BEP), which is
Photovoltaic pumping systems usually specified by the manufacturer. In conventional pumping systems, the centrifugal pump must operate at
Duty point selection the rated speed and as close as possible to the BEP for optimal performance. This design approach, based on the
Pump sizing method
BEP concept, is suitable only when the centrifugal pump is supplied by sources that can maintain the pump’s
Solar operating duty point
operation at the rated frequency (50 Hz or 60 Hz) and voltage (220 V or 380 V). In photovoltaic pumping
systems, the conventional centrifugal pump works at different speeds according to the availability of solar
irradiance. Therefore, the BEP concept does not offer the best performance in terms of efficiency. This paper
presents a method to determine the operating point that provides maximum efficiency for a given photovoltaic
pumping system composed of a conventional centrifugal pump driven by a power control system. This point,
referred to as Solar Best Efficiency Point (SBEP), is calculated considering the entire operating range of the pump
for a given irradiance and photovoltaic cell temperature profile. According to the results, the SBEP operation,
compared to the BEP operation, can increase the daily efficiency of the photovoltaic pumping system by up to
6.7%, depending on the centrifugal pump used. Furthermore, the theoretical approach developed in this paper
shows that the selection of the motor-pump set cannot be based solely on the pump’s characteristics, as the motor
quality significantly influences system performance.

1. Introduction
Agricultural production has increased over recent decades to meet
rising food demand driven by both population growth and changes in
diets (OECD, 2017). Water and energy are the key drivers of agricultural
production, while the world is facing severe energy and water crisis (Li
et al., 2017). In several locations worldwide, despite the abundance of
water resources, a considerable part of its population lacks reliable ac­
cess to water. For instance, riverside populations in the Amazon devote a
significant part of their time to transport water for consumption and
domestic use. Although often surrounded by water, these populations
have limited access to energy sources needed for water pumping (Dos
Santos et al., 2020). PV water pumping technology is also recognized as
a sustainable and environmentally friendly solution to provide water
both for agricultural and domestic use (Fedrizzi et al., 2009; Allouhi
et al., 2019; Dos Santos et al., 2020).
Despite the numerous advantages of deploying PVPS in off-grid re­
gions, the capital cost of such systems can be a limiting factor for its
successful implementation. Furthermore, the solar resource variability
makes system planning and sizing not a trivial task, commonly incurring
in inefficiently sized systems that do not take full advantage of the
available resource. In this sense, sizing methods for PVPS that can
optimally select equipment and installation is an important research
topic that is currently being addressed by several groups worldwide. By
determining the optimal duty point of a pump in a PVPS application, the
improvement in the system’s efficiency not only makes the investment
more attractive but also guarantees the reliability needs of the
installation.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pftorres@iee.usp.br (P. Ferreira Torres).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.04.005
Received 13 August 2020; Received in revised form 30 March 2021; Accepted 1 April 2021
Available online 28 April 2021
0038-092X/© 2021 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Sena dos Santos et al.
The structural outline of a PVPS has three main components: a
photovoltaic generator (PVG), a power control system (PCS), and a
dynamic system composed of a motor and a pump (Benghanem et al.,
2018; Li et al., 2017). Storage components may also be used, such as
batteries for electric charge storage or a reservoir for water storage (Li
et al., 2017). However, in most situations, batteries are rarely employed,
being the water reservoir the only storage component. The nonlinear
relation between the water flow rate and solar power has led to specific
PCS development for PVPS applications. Industry-made PCS for PV ap­
plications are designed to operate with a specific motor pump or a
limited set of motor pumps, which usually limits the number of available
options to the system designer given the restrict number of manufac­
turers, especially in regional markets in developing countries. Such
systems are generally available in a self-contained set of equipment (or
“kits”) in the international market, composed by imported components
that are difficult to replace and maintain locally, making the replace­
ment of defective parts a costly and time-consuming process.
The use of standard industrial-use Frequency Converter (FC), also
called Variable-speed Driver, as a PCS in PVPS applications has been the
subject of many studies as an alternative to drive conventional centrif­
ugal motor-pump without the need of electrical energy storage (Alonso
Abella et al., 2003; Brito and Zilles, 2006; Dos Santos et al., 2020;
Fernández-Ramos, 2010; Maranhão et al., 2015; Maranhão et al., 2016).
This system is also known as directly coupled PV pumping systems
(Chandel et al., 2017), which implies an appropriately sized water
reservoir to meet the water demand when solar radiation is insufficient.
This configuration is a viable alternative to the equipment designed
specifically for photovoltaic pumping (Alonso Abella et al., 2003; Brito
and Zilles, 2006; Chandel et al., 2017; Fernández-Ramos, 2010; Valer
et al., 2016). Such configuration adopts equipment present in a well-
consolidated market, with a high degree of reliability and a wide
range of manufacturers and power ratings, which is the case for both
industrial FC and motor-pump sets. Also, both FC and centrifugal motor-
pump sets are more accessible in the local market of developing coun­
tries, which simplifies the replacement and maintenance of the PVPS
(Valer et al., 2016) - except for relatively large-scale systems, where such
equipment are usually imported. As a drawback, such configuration has
a more complex sizing process given the larger range of possible com­
mercial solutions. The variability of irradiance, the nonlinear behavior
of efficiencies and flow with irradiance, the sensitivity of the system
performance with head, and the size of the PVG to supply a given water
demand are the main parameters that significantly affect the design and
optimization of the PVPS. According to Odeh et al. (2006), a designer
will not ensure an accurate and optimized design by considering only the
manufacturers’ standard characteristics. However, as presented in this
work, detailed methodology leads to correct sizing, decreasing the re­
sults’ percentage error. This paper proposes a novel methodology that
can substantially assist in PVPS sizing, considering local resource par­
ticularities, and that can be used for any direct-coupled PV pumping
configuration.
In a conventional pumping system, the centrifugal motor-pump is
powered by the electric power grid or diesel generators, which makes it
operate at a constant frequency (50 or 60 Hz) and water flow. The
intersection of the system’s head-flow (H-Q) curve with the pump’s H-Q
curve defines the operating point. These curves depict the behavior of
the hydraulic system (piping and accessories) and the pump regarding
the equivalent head height (H) and flow rate (Q).
Every pump is designed to operate at a maximum efficiency point
known as Best Efficient Point (BEP). It is particularly important to
evaluate whether the operating point of the pump is close to the BEP to
improve the efficiency of the pumping system. At this point, the con­
version of mechanical energy from the electric motor into hydraulic
energy by the pump is optimal. However, variations in the motor-pump
frequency cause changes in the pump curves and consequently changes
in the BEP.
In a PVPS, the conventional centrifugal motor pump works at
47
Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59
different speeds and water flow according to the operational head and
the power supplied by the PVG. Therefore, the choice of the point of
operation that corresponds to maximum efficiency should contemplate
the entire operating range of the PVPS. Yadav et al. (2019) identify the
shortcomings in the conventional design method based on the Best Ef­
ficiency Point (BEP) concept that is applicable for fixed frequency and
voltage pumps. Thus, a detailed approach is still necessary for sizing and
optimizing a PVPS, so that contemplates all the particularities that the
application requires.
The effects of manometric height relative to the point of operation on
PVPS performance have been the subject of several studies (Boutelhig
et al., 2012; Benghanem et al., 2014; Benghanem et al., 2018; Moked­
dem et al., 2011; Yadav et al., 2019). In-depth experimental in­
vestigations of the energy efficiency of a PVPS based on solar radiation,
cell temperature, and operational heads have been used to improve the
sizing process (Allouhi et al., 2019; Belgacem, 2012; Boutelhig et al.,
2012; Benghanem et al., 2014; Benghanem et al., 2018; Mokeddem
et al., 2011; Yadav et al., 2019). However, the different methodologies
for PVPS sizing proposed in prior works rely on experimental tests that
are time-consuming, expensive, and often have their application limited
to systems and conditions similar to those tested.
The study carried out by Yadav et al. (2019) experimentally proves
that the model based on weighted system efficiency and Solar Opera­
tional Duty Head (SODH) increases the performance of PVPS by
approximately 9%, consistently achieving higher efficiencies in any
season or under any climatic conditions. Benghanem et al. (2014) and
(2018) presented an empirical model that can predict the flow rate for
any head with good accuracy, but this model is limited to only one
SQFlex submersible pump. Mokeddem et al. (2011) investigated a PVPS
operating under two head levels, where the DC centrifugal motor pump
efficiency never reached 30%.
A study that dispenses conducting experiments for predicting the
performance of a photovoltaic pumping system is presented in Salilih
et al. (2020a). The authors analyze the performance of a DC system from
PV panel specifications and pump performance curves. The performance
equation related to the pump’s flow rate with pump head and power
input to the pump is modeled from the manufacturer’s performance
curve with the curve fitting technique. The authors evaluated the
pumping system’s performance for different head heights (50 m, 60 m
and 70 m). The work uses the SQFlex type PV powered pumping system
which comprises a centrifugal pump of type SQF 3A-10 N that is dedi­
cated to applications with the photovoltaic energy source. In this case,
the manufacturer provides the input power-flow and input power-
efficiency curves for various manometric heads. However, this infor­
mation is rarely for conventional pumps (i.e., nonspecific for PV appli­
cations), making the proposed methodology limited to pumps
specifically dedicated to photovoltaic applications.
In Belgacem (2012), four submersible pumps of the same model were
evaluated in four different locations in the Kairouan area. A series of
experimental simulations were performed with head variations from 60
to 85 m. The PVPS starts pumping when the inverter’s output frequency
and voltage achieve 35 Hz and about 60% of rated voltage at asyn­
chronous speed, respectively. This indicates that to find the ideal head
for a PVPS is not an easy task. Odeh et al. (2006) also reported the
difficulty of finding the ideal manometric height for a PVPS. Simulations
and analyses were undertaken to discern the influence of mismatch of
pump characteristics and the hydraulic system characteristics on the
PVPS performance. It is reported that the matching of water well system
and pump head-flow rate characteristics is one of the significant design
parameters that affect performance ratio. Performance ratios (i.e., the
ratio between system efficiency at a given head over efficiency at
optimal condition) decrease as head changes from the optimum. A 61%
reduction in system efficiency (from 3.86% to 1.49%) is observed when
the pump operates at a manometric head of double its optimum head
(from 28 m to 56 m).
Bouzidi (2013) uses a method based on the determination of the
W. Sena dos Santos et al. Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59

Fig. 1. H–Q pump curve and characteristic points.

annual Loss of Power Supply Probability (LPSP) to characterize the PVPS

design. The results show that the size of the storage tank influences the
system’s reliability and need attention. Muhsen et al. (2018) propose a
multi-criteria decision-making method for sizing PV water pumping
systems. The proposed system presented an annual 0.04% LPSP.
As can be observed, the challenge of dimensioning PVPS involves
several variables, among which stand out: the solar radiation incident on
the PVG, PV cell temperature, operational manometric height, mismatch
of pump characteristics, and the hydraulic system characteristics. To
assist in the sizing and specification process of a PVPS, the basic prin­ Fig. 2. Typical hydraulic installation.
ciple used is that the operating point (duty point) should be positioned
to the right of the BEP (Europump and Hydraulic Institute, 2005), as
discussion; section 7 presents paper conclusions.
shown in Fig. 1.
The method proposed by Almeida et al. (2018) begins by considering
the pump’s H-Q curves with a high slope and the duty point in the right- 2. Characteristics curve of the hydraulic system
hand third of the curve to assure a wide range of operating frequencies.
These rules consider the fact that, in PVPS applications, the centrifugal In a hydraulic system, the total head (he) against which the pump
pump usually operates at frequencies below the rated frequency (50 Hz must operate is given by the sum of the static head (Hs), the drawdown of
or 60 Hz). Similar operation is found in a directly coupled vapor the water level, and the friction losses (Acakpovi et al., 2012). Fig. 2
compression solar refrigeration system, where the PV power source is illustrates the different water heads in a typical pumping application.
directly coupled to a variable speed DC compressor and the performance Equation (1) represents the system’s H-Q curve, as given by several
is also affected by the variable operating speed (Salilih and Birhane, works in the literature (Ahonen et al., 2012; Betka and Moussi, 2004;
2019; Salilih et al., 2020b). Therefore, the average daily efficiency of the Nesbitt, 2006):
PVPS can increase by selecting a duty point that makes the system H = he + kQ2 (1)
operate with lower efficiencies at rated frequency but with higher effi­
ciencies at frequencies below the rated frequency. where k is the total friction loss.
Given the concepts and experimental studies presented above, this According to Equation (1), the total friction loss in a hydraulic sys­
paper details a method to determine the operating point that provides tem (considering losses in the pipeline, elbows, valves, etc.) is propor­
maximum efficiency for a given PVPS composed of a conventional tional to the square of the flow rate. The friction losses are usually
centrifugal pump driven by a PCS, which can be a commercial general- insignificant when compared to the total head. It is common practice to
purpose FC or a driver especially designed for PV application. Such an consider 2–5% standard friction loss for a well-designed distribution
operating point is referred to in this text as SBEP (Solar Best Efficiency system (Foster et al., 2009). In PV powered water pumping systems, it is
Point). Given irradiance and PV cell temperature profile as inputs,
analytical equations are used to evaluate the entire operating range of
the centrifugal pump. In this new approach, to maximize PVPS effi­
ciency, the duty point in Fig. 1 should be as close as possible to the SBEP.
The proposed method allows evaluating not only the performance of
the system but also the daily volume pumped, considering the equip­
ment specifications and the conditions of a given location. A case study
shows that efficiency cannot be the only criterion used in the sizing
process of a PVPS.
The paper is structured as follows: section 2 presents a brief
description of the hydraulic installation, introducing its representative
head-flow equation (H-Q curve); section 3 shows the development of
analytical equations for the centrifugal pump operating at different
speeds; section 4 discusses the PVPS configuration and modeling; sec­
tion 5 presents the development of the proposed method to determine
the SBEP of a PVPS; the proposed methodology is applied in the cen­
trifugal pump selection as shown in section 6, followed by results Fig. 3. System with negligible friction losses.

48
W. Sena dos Santos et al. Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59

Fig. 4. Schneider SUB 15–0.5cv pump H-Q and ηP-Q curves.

recommended to use larger piping than what would be used in a con­ (Carlson, 2000; Anton e Aldea, 2014) and (7) (Walski et al., 2003;
ventional water system to maintain friction losses as low as possible Ulanicki et al., 2008):
(Ghoneim, 2006). Fig. 3 shows that in systems with insignificant friction
H(Q) = a1 Q2 + b1 Q + c1 (6)
losses, the water flow effects tend to be minimized. Thus, the H-Q curve
can be approximated by Equation (2):
ηP (Q) = a2 Q3 + b2 Q2 + c2 Q + d2 (7)
H ≈ he (2)
The coefficients a1, b1, c1, and a2, b2, c2, d2 can be obtained by
interpolating the data given by the manufacturer. Equations (8) and (9)
3. Centrifugal pump modeling
shows the parameters obtained for the motor-pump Schneider SUB
15–0.5cv. In these equations, H is given in meters of water column, Q in
Both the H-Q curve and the efficiency versus flow rate curve (ηP-Q)
cubic meters per hour (m3/h), and ηP as percentual.
characterize the performance of centrifugal pumps. The manufacturer’s
data sheet provides these curves at rated pump speed. However, in H(Q) = − 1.404Q2 − 0.909Q + 50.914 (8)
PVPS, the centrifugal pump operates at different speeds as the available
solar resource varies. Such variable speed operation obeys the affinity ηP (Q) = − 0.461Q3 − 2.678Q2 + 29.433Q + 2.25 (9)
laws that equate the pump’s mechanical input power (Pp), the flow rate,
Equations (3) and (4) can be rearranged as functions of rated fre­
water head, and pump rotating speed (N) (Alonso Abella et al., 2003).
quency (fN) and operating frequency (f), given that f = 1/N, hence:
Consider a pump rotating at speed N1, at an operating point (H1, Q1).
( )
A new operating point (H2, Q2) can be reached by changing pump speed fN
Q= Qf (10)
to a new value N2, in such a way that the efficiency remains the same, f
given that:
( )2
fN
Q1 N1
= (3) H= Hf (11)
Q2 N2 f

( )2 Substituting the values of Q and H, given by Equations (10) and (11),

H1
=
N1
(4) into the equation H = H(Q) one can obtain Equation (12):
H2 N2 ( )2 (( ) )
fN fN
( )3 Hf = H Qf (12)
PP1 N1 f f
= (5)
PP2 N2 The right-hand side of Equation (12) can be calculated by
Fig. 4, adapted from a motor pump manufacturer datasheet substituting the value of Q, given by Equation (10), into Equation (6):
(Schneider motobombas Curvas-SUB-15, 2020), shows the H-Q and ηP-Q (( ) ) (( ) )2 (( ) )
fN fN fN
curves for the Schneider SUB 15–0.5cv at rated speed (60 Hz supply H Qf = a1 Qf + b1 Qf + c1 . (13)
f f f
frequency). The BEP is given at H = 35 mwc (meters of water column),
(( ) )
Q = 3 m3/h. At these conditions, the maximum efficiency is close to
Substituting the value of H ffN Qf , given by Equation (13), into
54%.
The water head and pump efficiency can be expressed as functions of Equation (12) and solving for Hf , gives:
the water flow, i.e. H = H(Q) and ηP = ηP(Q), as shown in Equation (6)

49
W. Sena dos Santos et al. Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59

(PPV, in Watts) is equal to the maximum PV power available (PMP, in

Watts) for a given irradiance and temperature condition. In other words,
the maximum power (PMP) available at the PVG terminals could be
calculated by a single empirical equation based on module character­
istics under the radiation and temperature conditions considered. Mar­
ion (2008) describe the PV generator model used in this work, given by
Equation (20):
G
PPV = PMP = PMP,n [1 − γMP (Tc − Tn ) ] (20)
Gn
where PMP,n is the PV generator rated power (given in Wp); G is the
incident irradiance at the PV generator plane (W/m2); Tc is the PV cell
temperature (◦ C); γ MP is the thermal coefficient for power derating
(%/◦ C). The variables indicated with sub-index “n” are given under
standard test conditions (STC: G = 1,000 W/m2, Tc = 25 ◦ C and 1.5 air-
mass). Note that for Equation (20) to hold true it is assumed that the PCS
is embedded with a maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithm
Fig. 5. H–Q and ηP-Q curves for the pump Schneider SUB 15–0.5cv, given at 60 which ensures that the PVG will always operate at its maximum power
Hz and 50 Hz.
for a given operational condition and other nonideal conditions are
( ) ( )2 disregarded, such as dirt and shading.
f f The ratio between the total hydraulic output power and the total PV
Hf = a1 Qf 2 + b1 Qf + c1 (14)
fN fN input power defines the efficiency of the PCS + motor-pump set (ηS).
Those quantities are time-variant according to the irradiance profile.
The efficiency can be obtained in a similar process:
Thus, Equation (21) is used to calculate the setup efficiency:
( )3 ( )2 ( ) ∑
f f f
ηP = a2 N Qf 3 + b2 N Qf 2 + c2 N Qf + d2 (15) ρg n Hj Qj
f f f ηs = ∑n j=1 (21)
j=1 PPVj
Equations (14) and (15) can be further generalized for any combi­
where n is the total number of samples given in the measurement
nation of Q and f, as given by (16) and (17):
interval, PPV is the PV power, which is considered to operate at the
( ) ( )2
f f maximum power point (PMP), given by Equation (20). ρ and g are the
H(Q, f ) = a1 Q2 + b1 Q + c1 (16)
fN fN water density and acceleration of gravity, respectively.
Pump efficiency (ηP) is defined as the ratio between the hydraulic
( )3 ( )2 ( )
fN fN fN output power (PH) and the mechanical input power (PP), as shown in
ηP (Q, f ) = a2 Q3 + b2 Q2 + c2 Q + d2 (17) Equation (22) (Alonso Abella et al., 2003):
f f f
For the Schneider SUB 15–0.5cv motor-pump (fN = 60 Hz) the water ηP =
PH ρgHQ
= (22)
head and efficiency specific equations are given in Equation (18) and PP PP
Equation (19). Fig. 5 graphically represent these two equations for the The motor electrical input power can be obtained from motor effi­
frequencies of 60 Hz and 50 Hz. It shows that the efficiency curve moves ciency (ηM) and the pump’s mechanical input power (Alonso Abella
to the left as frequency reduces, while the water head curve moves et al., 2003):
downwards. The BEP at 60 Hz is given at H = 35 mwc and Q = 3.1 m3/h,
while at 50 Hz it is given at H = 25 mwc and Q = 2.5 m3/h. PM =
PP
(23)
( ) ( )2
ηM
f f
H(Q, f ) = − 1.404Q2 − 0.909 Q + 50.914 (18) Equation (24) relates the pump’s input power to PV generated
60 60
power:
( )3 ( )2 ( )
60 60 60 PP = ηPCS ηM PPV (24)
ηP (Q, f ) = − 0.461 Q3 − 2.678 Q2 + 29.433 Q + 2.25
f f f
The PCS’s efficiency (ηPCS) can be modeled as a function of its
(19) loading, in which higher values are usually found when the PCS operates
above 20% of its rated power. From the efficiency curve of a given PCS,
4. PVPS configuration and modeling ηPCS can be calculated using linear regression models. However, in a
PVPS the pump operates only after a certain PV input power threshold,
Fig. 6 shows the configuration of the modeled PVPS. The system, that is typically above the 20% of PCS’s rated power. Given that, ηPCS
which represents the most common configuration found in direct- can be considered to be constant along a PVPS operating period.
coupled PV pumping applications, is composed of a PVG, a PCS, an in­ Therefore, in this work, PCS’s efficiency is considered constant and
duction motor, and a centrifugal pump. equal to 95% (Alonso Abella et al., 2003; Burt et al., 2008; López-Luque
In this work, it is assumed that the PVG power delivered to the PCS et al., 2015), thus:
PP = 0.95ηM PPV (25)
Motor efficiency can be modeled according to Equation (26) (SISIFO
user manual; Muñoz et al., 2015):
p
ηM = (26)
p + k0 + k1 p + k2 p2
where p is the ratio between the motor mechanical output power (PP)
Fig. 6. Typical configuration of a direct-coupled PVPS. and the motor rated mechanical output power (PNOM), given by Equation

50
W. Sena dos Santos et al. Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59

( ) ( )2
f f
a1 Q2 + b1 Q + c1 − he = 0 (32)
fN fN
Equation (28) and the system of equations given in (31) and (32) are
the basis for the developed algorithm to calculate the pump’s SBEP.

5. Method to calculate the solar best efficiency point

The optimal working point of a centrifugal pump in a PVPS can be

determined using the solar resource data for a given location. Given an
average profile of irradiance and PV cell temperature over time, and a
Fig. 7. Typical Motor Efficiency curve (as a function of the percentage of full- set H of possible operating water heads H = {hemin,…, hei,…hemax}, it is
load). Source: (NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA, 2004). possible to find the working point hei ∈ H that corresponds to the
maximum efficiency of the PCS + motor-pump set.
(27). From the motor efficiency curve provided by the manufacturer (U. Fig. 8 shows the irradiance (measured by an ISET sensor with an
S. Department of Energy, 1997; Burt et al., 2008; Andrade e Pontes, uncertainty of ± 4%) and PV cell temperature (measured by a PT1000
2008; Kostić Mm., 2010), as shown in Fig. 7, it is possible to calculate the sensor with an uncertainty of ± 0.45 ◦ C) for a day in the city of Belém,
parameters k0, k1, and k2 using data interpolation methods. Brazil, in October 2019. Data was sampled every second and integrated
on a minute basis. Fig. 8 also shows the theoretical PV generated power,
p=
PP
(27) calculated using Equation (20) according to the irradiance and PV cell
PNOM temperature profiles. In this calculation, it was considered a PV gener­
At constant rotation speed, the motor efficiency is a function of its ator composed of 17 series-connected PV modules, model Solares S55P,
loading. In most electric motors, the best efficiency’s values are reached with 36 cells and 55 Wp each, totalizing 935 Wp of rated PV power.
between 50% and 100 % of its rated load (U.S. Department of Energy, Table 1 shows the manufacturer specifications for the S55P PV module.
1997; Burt et al., 2008; Andrade e Pontes, 2008; Kostić Mm., 2010). The flowchart presented in Fig. 9 represents the algorithm developed
Fig. 7 shows that as higher the rated power of the motor is, the greater to calculate the water head for maximum ηS, given as inputs the char­
the power range in which it will operate with high efficiency. acteristics of the PV generator, PCS + motor-pump set, and irradiance
From equations (25) and (26) one can obtain: and PV cell temperature profiles.
1- Given G = {G1, G2, ..,Gi, .., Gn-1, Gn} and Tc = {Tc1, Tc2, .., Tci, ..,
p
=
PP Tcn-1, Tcn} the irradiance and PV cell temperature profiles, respectively,
p + k0 + k1 p + k2 p2 0.95PPV where n is the total number of samples, calculate the PV generated
substituting from Equation (27): power profile, PPV = {PPV1, PPV2, .., PPVi, .., PPVn-1, PPVn}, using Equation
(20).
2- From the PV power profile, PPV, calculate, using equations (28)
PP
PNOM PP
=
p + k0 + k1 p + k2 p2 0.95PPV
and rearranging to solve for p:
0.95PPV
k2 p2 + (k1 + 1)p + k0 − =0 (28)
PNOM
Given p obtained from Equation (28), it is possible to find the pump’s
power from Equation (27). Substituting Equations (1) and (17) in (22)
and Equation (1) in (16):
( )3 ( )2 ( )
f f f
ρg(he + kQ2 )Q = (a2 N Q3 + b2 N Q2 + c2 N Q + d2 )PP
f f f
( ) ( )2
f f
he + kQ2 = a1 Q2 + b1 Q + c1
fN fN
It is possible to rearrange and form a system of nonlinear equations to
solve for Q and f:
( ( )3 ) ( )2 ( ( ) )
fN fN fN Fig. 8. Irradiance, PV cell temperature, and PV generator theoretical power
PP a2 − ρgk Q3 + PP b2 Q2 + PP c2 − ρghe Q + PP d2 output profiles.
f f f
=0
Table 1
(29) The manufacturer specifications of the S55P PV module (SunWise, 2011).
( ) ( )2 Characteristics Value
f f
(a1 − k)Q2 + b1 Q + c1 − he = 0 (30) Nominal Max. Power (Pmax) 55 W
fN fN
Opt. Operating Voltage (Vmp) 18.20 V
In hydraulic systems in which friction losses can be neglected (i.e. Opt. Operating Current (Imp) 3.04 A
can be represented by Equation (2)), the nonlinear system of equations Open Circuit Voltage (Voc) 21.85 V
Short Circuit Current (Isc) 3.24 A
can be reduced to:
Temperature Coefficient (Pmax) − 0.5%/◦ C
( )3 ( )2 ( ( ) ) Temperature Coefficient (Voc) − 0.34%/◦ C
fN fN fN
PP a2 Q3 + PP b2 Q2 + PP c2 − ρghe Q + PP d2 = 0 (31) Temperature Coefficient (Isc) +0.05%/◦ C
f f f Nominal Module Operating Temperature 47 +/-2 ◦ C

51
W. Sena dos Santos et al. Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59

Fig. 9. Flowchart of the proposed method to determine the SBEP of a PVPS.

and (27), the power profile at pump’s shaft, Pp = {Pp1, Pp2, .., Ppi, .., Ppn-1, H-Q curve points move along quadratic curves of the same efficiency
Ppn}. (iso-efficiency curves) towards the origin of the coordinates due to af­
3- Calculate the water flow set, Qj = {Qj1, Qj2, .., Qji, .., Qjn-1, Qjn}, by finity laws. Fig. 10 shows the iso-efficiency curves (Iso1 and Iso2) fol­
solving equations (31) and (32) for each water head in the set H = {hemin, lowed by the extreme points (P1 and P2) of the pump‘s H-Q curve
…, hej,…hemax}, which is arbitrarily defined according to user criteria. supplied by the manufacturer (Schneider SUB 15–0.5cv at 60 Hz) for
Following that, calculate the system’s average efficiency (ηsj), using different operating frequencies. Values of Q calculated by the algorithm
Equation (33). which are outside the region comprised between the iso-efficiency
∑ curves (Iso1 and Iso2) must be disregarded as they are points not defined
ρgh n Q
ηsj = ∑ejn i=1 ji (33) by the manufacturer’s curve.
i=1 PPVi The following example shows some results obtained using the
4- Obtain the water head that corresponds to maximum efficiency method to calculate the SBEP and its performance compared to the rated
(ηMAX). BEP. The algorithm inputs were: the daily profiles presented in Fig. 8,
When there is a change in frequency (angular velocity), the pump’s the characteristics of the centrifugal pump given by Equations (18) and

52
W. Sena dos Santos et al.
Fig. 10. H-Q curves for various frequencies and the limiting iso-effi­
ciency curves.
Fig. 11. ηS according to the equivalent head.
Fig. 12. H–Q pump curve: BEP and SBEP points.
(19), and the previously shown 935 Wp PV generator. For this example,
it was considered a typical efficiency curve for a 0–1 hp induction motor,
as presented in Fig. 7, as well as the motor’s rated efficiency given by the
manufacturer. To characterize the efficiency as a function of motor’s
loading, parameters k0, k1 e k2 were calculated and are represented as
follows:
53
Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59
Fig. 13. ηS for operation at HBEP and at HSBEP.
Fig. 14. ηS as a function of PV power.
p
ηM = (34)
p + 0.331202 − 0.16555p + 0.396851p2
Fig. 11 shows ηS for the setup used in this example, for a given set of
equivalent heads H = {18, 19, 20, …, 35}.
As shown in Fig. 11, the optimal working point for this setup occurs
at an equivalent head of HSBEP = 27 mwc. At this point, ηS,SBEP = 25.95%
(SBEP), while the efficiency at the manufacturer recommended head of
HBEP = 35 mwc is ηS,BEP = 23.51% (BEP). It is possible to compare the
SBEP and the BEP in the pump’s H-Q curve, presented in Fig. 12.
Fig. 13 shows the PV generation and the ηS, for both HBEP and HSBEP,
for a complete pumping day with the same PV generation profile pre­
sented in Fig. 8. It is possible to observe a considerable improvement in
efficiency when the system operates in low PV generation periods.
Fig. 14 shows that for PV outputs up to 750 W, ηS at 27 mwc is higher
than at 35 mwc. This performance is in agreement with what was
observed by Benghanem et al. (2014), Salilih et al. (2020a) and Odeh
et al. (2006). In these works, it was noted that the PVPS presented better
efficiency at a small equivalent head under low irradiance conditions. In
periods of higher irradiance, PVPS operating at a higher equivalent head
showed better efficiency.
Figs. 15 and 16 show the volume of pumped water for different pump
operating frequencies. Also, the total volume of pumped water is pre­
sented for both HBEP and HSBEP, respectively.
It is possible to observe that for an equivalent head of 27 mwc, the
pump operates from 44 Hz to 60 Hz, while at 35 mwc, the system starts
W. Sena dos Santos et al. Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59

Fig. 15. Operating frequency distribution at HSBEP (a) in percentage and (b) absolute values.

Fig. 16. Operating frequency distribution at HBEP (a) in percentage and (b) absolute values.

Fig. 18. PV generation and water flow for pump operation at HBEP and HSBEP.

to operate at 50 Hz and works up to 61 Hz. At HSBEP, most of the volume

Fig. 17. Water flow versus frequency (Q-f) for pump operation at HBEP was pumped when the pump operated at 57 Hz, pumping a total of 4.56
and HSBEP.
m3, or 23% of the total volume pumped on the period. At HBEP, most of

54
W. Sena dos Santos et al. Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59

Table 2 procedure presented in this section would be similar with any other tool.
Pumps preselected by the PumpTutoNG tool for the working point P1. The tool presents a list of suitable pumps for the working point P1 (H1,
Model Speed Frequency ηP PP,rated Q1), sorted according to ηP, as shown in Table 2. Note that all pumps
(rpm) (Hz) (%) (kW) operate at a rated frequency of 50 Hz. Fig. 19 shows the H-Q and ηP-Q
Pump E4XED30/8 + 2815 50 64.3 0.6 curves of the four preselected pumps. Therefore, an initial, however
0 MC4075-6 V incomplete, assessment would lead to the selection of the most efficient
Pump E4XED25/9 + 2815 50 58.9 0.5 pump at P1, which is pump 0 (ηP = 64.3% at Q = 3 m3/h and H = 41
1 MC4075-6 V mwc; ηP = 68.7% at Q = 4 m3/h and H = 35 mwc).
Pump CVX051/8 + 2885 50 56.4 1.0
2 E0110T212-V
Following the SBEP calculation procedure, the parameters of each
Pump CVX031/10 + 2885 50 55 0.7 pump and its respective motor were calculated to find the equations for
3 E0075T212-V H(Q), ηP(Q), and ηM(p), as shown in Table 3. These equations are used in
the simulations for the preselected pumps.
The SBEP can be calculated using the PV generation, motor, and
the volume was pumped when the pump operated at 58 Hz, pumping a
total of 4.4 m3, or 32% of the total volume pumped on the period. For the
simulated PV generation profile, approximately 20 m3 was pumped at Table 3
HSBEP and 14.6 m3 at HBEP. Parameters obtained for pumps and motors equations.
Fig. 17 shows the water flow as a function of the pump’s rotating
Pump H(Q) = ηP (Q) = a2 Q3 +
frequency, and Fig. 18 shows the water flow and the PV generation a1 Q2 +
ηM =
b 2 Q 2 + c2 Q +
profile during an entire pumping day, for both operations at HSBEP and p
b1 Q + c1 d2
p + k0 + k1 p + k2 p2
HBEP.
0- E4XED30/8 + a1 = -1.0660 a2 = -0.3044 k0 = 0.331202
MC4075-6 V
6. Selection procedure of centrifugal pumps for PVPS b1 = 0.8605 b2 = -1.2495 k1 = -0.16555
c1 = 48.0206 c2 = 24.3011 k2 = 0.396851
The method proposed in this work can be used to select the pump d2 = 11.2077 PNOM = 550 W, ƞM, NOM
that best fits the requirements of a given PVPS. To demonstrate its = 64.0%
1- E4XED25/9 + a1 = -2.3473 a2 = -0.4014 k0 = 0.331202
application, the traditional method for pump selection is firstly applied
MC4075-6 V
to obtain an initial set of pump options that can be used. Then, for each b1 = 1.1654 b2 = -4.6377 k1 = -0.16555
possible preselected pump, the performance of the pumping system is c1 = 55.6250 c2 = 33.4638 k2 = 0.396851
analyzed using the proposed methodology for obtaining the SBEP. The d2 = 10.8191 PNOM = 550 W, ƞM, NOM
= 64.0%
following example is used to describe the pump selection procedure.
2- CVX051/8 + a1 = -0.6684 a2 = -0.1537 k0 = 0.157292
Given a daily water demand of approximately 20 m3 to be pumped at E0110T212-V
a flow rate of Q1 = 3 m3/h in a system with total head H1 = 35 m, the b1 = 2.5416 b2 = 0.3905 k1 = -0.23588
pump must operate for approximately 6 h and 40 min at nominal fre­ c1 = 48.2473 c2 = 10.2919 k2 = 0.281973
quency to deliver the required volume. In this example, the PV gener­ d2 = 25.4428 PNOM = 1100 W, ƞM,
NOM = 82.7%
ation, the irradiance and PV cell temperature profiles are the same as
3- CVX031/10 + a1 = -2.2925 a2 = -0.2373 k0 = 0.262663
shown in Fig. 8. E0075T212-V
As an example, the PumpTutorNG tool provided by the manufacturer b1 = 1.9325 b2 = -4.0591 k1 = -0.33823
Caprari (Caprari S.P.A.) was used as an initial step to define the set of c1 = 60.3466 c2 = 29.6800 k2 = 0.314727
d2 = 9.3625 PNOM = 750 W, ƞM, NOM
pumps that can be applied. It is important to note that tools from other
= 80.7%
manufacturers can also be used to select the most suitable pump, the

Fig. 19. H-Q and ηP-Q curves obtained from the PumpTutorNG tool for the pumps at P1.

55
W. Sena dos Santos et al. Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59

Table 4
HBEP, HSBEP,ηS,BEP, ηS,SBEP, ηS,1 and total volume pumped at BEP, SBEP and H1 = 35 m.
Pump H (m) Efficiency (%) Volume (m3/day)

BEP SBEP BEP SBEP H = 35 m BEP SBEP H = 35 m

0- E4XED30/8 + MC4075-6 V 34.34 26 31.26 33.54 30.84 18.59 26.34 17.99

1- E4XED25/9 + MC4075-6 V 41.85 34 27.76 29.14 29.12 13.55 17.50 16.99
2- CVX051/8 + E0110T212-V 40.28 26 35.57 42.25 38.62 16.51 33.18 22.53
3- CVX031/10 + E0075T212-V 44.00 38 32.61 33.71 33.62 15.13 18.11 19.61

Fig. 20. Pumps H–Q curves: P1, BEP, and SBEP points.
PVPS whose pumps have curves with higher slope (pumps 1 and 3) will
provide a more spread efficiency profile, implying smoother efficiency
variations. On the other hand, PVPS whose pumps have curves with
lower slopes (pumps 0 and 2), will present more pronounced efficiency
variations. This holds true in systems where centrifugal pumps work at
variable speed, such as PVPS.
Fig. 20 shows that pumps 1 and 3 are the ones that have the SBEP
closest to P1 and, as a consequence, the difference between ηS,1 and ηS,
SBEP is small when compared to pumps 0 and 2 (0.02% for pump 1,
0.09% for pump 3, 2.7% for pump 0 and 4.69% for pump 2). The dif­
ference between the total volume pumped follows this same character­
istic, as shown in Fig. 22.
Fig. 23 shows the amount of water pumped for each operating fre­
quency class and the volume accumulated throughout the day, given
operation at H1. Pump 2 is the one with the lowest operating range (42
Hz to 46 Hz) and, therefore, its operation does not reach the nominal
frequency of 50 Hz. This indicates that the PV power used in the simu­
lation (935 Wp) is below the minimum required for the proper operation
of this given pump.
From Fig. 20, pumps with steeper H-Q curves (pumps 1 and 3) are
those with the highest operating ranges in terms of frequency (Fig. 23(b)
and 23(d)). Pump 3 operates in the broadest range (38 Hz to 50 Hz). The
use of pump 2 corresponds to the best setup efficiency even though it
works most of the time at frequencies lower than the other pumps
evaluated, as it operates below its capacity due to the undersized PVG.
The system using pump 2 meets the daily water demand of 20 m3 at the
working point of H = 35 m, so it is the pump that must be selected.
The previous results demonstrate that the motor quality in the PVPS
setup highly influences overall system performance. Therefore, the
motor-pump selection cannot be based solely on the pump’s perfor­
mance. Almeida (2018) suggests that pumps with an H-Q curve with
higher slopes should be preferred, assuring that the selected pump can
work at a wide range of frequencies and higher efficiencies for a certain
PVPS. But, according to the results presented in this paper, this state­
ment is valid only for large systems where the efficiency curves of the
electric motor do not differ significantly. However, in small-sized
pumping applications, where the motor efficiencies vary significantly,
a more careful analysis needs to be used, as demonstrated in this work.

7. Conclusions

This paper presented a method to determine the optimal duty point

Fig. 21. Daily setup efficiency as a function of the equivalent water head.
pump inputs. Table 4 summarizes the results obtained, including the
calculated HBEP and HSBEP for each preselected pump. The PVPS with
pump 2 has the best setup efficiency at H1 (ηS,1 = 38.62%). Fig. 20 shows
the curves generated from the parameters shown in Table 3, highlighting
the operational points P1, BEP, and SBEP.
In a PVPS, the slope of the H-Q Pump’s curve has a direct influence
on the average daily efficiency (ηS). Fig. 21 shows the ηS efficiency
profile as a function of the equivalent head for the preselected pumps.
of a PVPS that allows the detailed evaluation of its performance based on
characteristics of conventional centrifugal pumps as well as local cli­
matic information. The presented methodology makes it possible to
analyze the performance of the PCS + motor-pump set for different
manometric heads and to evaluate the performance of the PVPS for a
given profile of irradiance and PV cell temperature.
Although some works indicate that the PVPS’s duty point must be to
the right of the BEP provided by the pump manufacturer, this qualitative
information is imprecise and does not allow comparison between
different manufacturers and pump models. The method presented in this
paper makes it possible to find the best duty point more precisely,
considering the performance of the PVPS, in addition to quantifying the
volume of water pumped.
Designers can use the modeling presented in this paper to identify the

56
W. Sena dos Santos et al. Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59

Fig. 22. PV generation and water flow in a complete pumping day at HSBEP and H1: (a) pump 0, (b) pump 1, (c) pump 2 and (d) pump 3.

Fig. 23. Operating frequency distribution at H1: (a) pump 0, (b) pump 1, (c) pump 2 and (d) pump 3.

57
W. Sena dos Santos et al.
centrifugal pump that is more appropriate to a given PVPS, overcoming
the issues associated with the traditional pump selection method, which
is based on maximizing the pump’s efficiency at a given rated frequency
and a fixed input voltage. In the method presented in this paper, it is
possible to assess the PVPS efficiency at different heads and over the
entire frequency range of pumping. The results support the information
that, for a given set of motors with similar efficiency characteristics,
pumps with steeper H-Q curves should be preferred, as they allow
pumping to occur over a broader range of frequencies in addition to
ensuring less significant efficiency change under head variations.
The study case involving four commercial centrifugal pumps showed
that pump 3 operates over the broadest frequency range (38 Hz to 50
Hz). However, the use of pump 2 corresponds to the best setup efficiency
even though it works most of the time at frequencies lower than the
other pumps evaluated, as it operates below its capacity due to the un­
dersized PVG. The system using pump 2 meets the daily water demand
of 20 m3, so it is the pump that must be selected.
These results demonstrate that the motor quality in the PVPS setup
highly influences overall system performance, thus the motor-pump
selection cannot be based solely on the pump’s performance. The
methodology presented in this paper is useful to assist in small size
pumping applications where the motor efficiencies vary significantly,
thus requiring more careful analysis.
The results show that the system operation at the SBEP, compared to
the BEP operation, can increase the daily efficiency of the PVPS up to
6.7%, depending on the centrifugal pump used. In this new theoretical
approach, to maximize the system’s efficiency, the duty point selection
should be as close as possible to the SBEP. However, the optimal the
working point can be an unfeasible solution for a given pumping
requirement. In such cases, the designer must select the pump with the
best efficiency and that meets the water demand to be pumped. In the
example used to demonstrate the proposed methodology’s applicability,
the duty point corresponds to a manometric height equal to 35 m and the
daily water demand is 20 m3. Thus, the pump that presented the highest
efficiency and met the required water demand at this duty point was the
pump 2-CVX051/8 + E0110T212-V. Therefore, proper pump selection
must consider not only the SBEP, but also the pumping requirements (e.
g., the daily water demand).
When the pump is selected according to the total head and the vol­
ume of pumped water required, so that it operates as close as possible to
the SBEP, one more important information is needed to support the
pump selection. According to the results, operate the system at SBEP,
when compared to BEP operation, can increase the daily efficiency of the
PVPS while decreases de manometric head significantly (e.g., by 14.28
m for pump 2, Table 4), depending on the centrifugal pump used. This
make pumps operating on the SBEP to have a higher flow rate compared
to the BEP, so the capacity of the well to provide the required flow rate
should be observed. This analysis is important because if the chosen
pump withdraws more water than the well can replace, the drawdown
will certainly increase and may leave the equipment uncovered, which is
very harmful.
Regarding future research on this topic, experimental tests with
pumps from various manufacturers and at different manometric heights
will be carried out to further improve the methodology. Furthermore, a
detailed model for PV generation may be included to cover operational
issues such as dirt and shading.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
58
Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59
References
Acakpovi, A., Xavier, F. F., Awuah-Baffour, R. Analytical method of sizing photovoltaic
water pumping system. 2012 IEEE 4th International Conference on Adaptive Science
& Technology (ICAST), 2012, 25-27 Oct. 2012. pp. 65-69.
Ahonen, T., Tamminen, J., Ahola, J., Kestila, J. Frequency-Converter-Based Hybrid
Estimation Method for the Centrifugal Pump Operational State. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, v. 59, n. 12, pp. 4803-4809, 2012. ISSN 0278-0046.
Allouhi, A., Buker, M., El-Houari, H., Boharb, A., Amine, M., Kousksou, T., Jamil, A. PV
water pumping systems for domestic uses in remote areas: Sizing process, simulation
and economic evaluation. Renewable Energy, v. 132, pp. 798-812, 2019/03/01,
2019. ISSN 0960-1481.
Almeida, R., Ledesma, J., Carrêlo, I., Narvarte, L., Ferrara, G., Antipodi, L. A new pump
selection method for large-power PV irrigation systems at a variable frequency.
Energy Conversion and Management, v. 174, pp. 874-885, 2018/10/15, 2018. ISSN
0196-8904.
Alonso-Abella, M., Lorenzo, E., Chenlo, F. PV water pumping systems based on standard
frequency converters. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, v. 11, n.
3, pp. 179-191, 2003. ISSN 1099-159X.
Andrade, C., Pontes, R., 2008. Three-Phase Induction Motors Energy Efficiency
Standards– A Case Study –. Federal University of Ceará, Brazil, Electrical
Engineering Department.
Anton, A., Aldea, A. Pumping Stations: Solving Algorithm with Inverse Functions.
Procedia Engineering, v. 70, pp. 67-74, 2014/01/01, 2014. ISSN 1877-7058.
Belgacem, B. Performance of submersible PV water pumping systems in Tunisia. Energy
for Sustainable Development, v. 16, n. 4, pp. 415-420, 2012/12/01, 2012. ISSN
0973-0826.
Benghanem, M., Daffallah, K., Alamri, S., Joraid, A. Effect of pumping head on solar
water pumping system. Energy Conversion and Management, v. 77, pp. 334-339,
2014/01/01, 2014. ISSN 0196-8904.
Benghanem, M., Daffallah, K., Almohammedi, A. Estimation of daily flow rate of
photovoltaic water pumping systems using solar radiation data. Results in Physics, v.
8, pp. 949-954, 2018/03/01, 2018. ISSN 2211-3797.
Betka, A., Moussi, A. Performance optimization of a photovoltaic induction motor
pumping system. Renewable Energy, v. 29, n. 14, pp. 2167-2181, 2004/11/01,
2004. ISSN 0960-1481.
Boutelhig, A., Bakelli, Y., Mahammed, H., Arab, A., 2012. Performances study of
different PV powered DC pump configurations for an optimum energy rating at
different heads under the outdoor conditions of a desert area. Energy 39 (1), 33–39.
Bouzidi, B. New sizing method of PV water pumping systems. Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments, v. 4, pp. 1-10, 2013/12/01, 2013. ISSN 2213-1388.
Brito, A., Zilles, R., 2006. Systematized Procedure for Parameter Characterization of a
Variable-speed Drive Used in Photovoltaic Pumping Applications. Progress in
Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 14, 249–260.
Burt, C., Piao, X., Gaudi, F., Busch, B., Taufik, N., 2008. Electric Motor Efficiency under
Variable Frequencies and Loads. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 134
(2), 129–136.
CAPRARI S.P.A. iPump [Online]. Available in: < https://ipump.caprarinet.net >.
Accessed: March 5th, 2020.
Carlson, R. The correct method of calculating energy savings to justify adjustable-
frequency drives on pumps. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, v. 36, n. 6,
pp. 1725-1733, 2000. ISSN 1939-9367.
Chandel, S., Naik, M., Chandel, R. Review of performance studies of direct coupled
photovoltaic water pumping systems and case study. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, v. 76, pp. 163-175, 2017/09/01, 2017. ISSN 1364-0321.
Dos Santos, W.S., Torres, P.F., Brito, A.U., Galhardo, M.A.B., Macêdo, W.N., 2020.
A novel fuzzy controller for photovoltaic pumping systems driven by general-
purpose frequency converters. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 40,
100758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100758.
EUROPUMP, HYDRAULIC INSTITUTE. Variable Speed Pumping, 1st Ed., Chapter Four -
Pumps. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2005. pp. 15-38. ISBN 978-1-85617-449-7.
Fedrizzi, M., Ribeiro, F., Zilles, R. Lessons from field experiences with photovoltaic
pumping systems in traditional communities. Energy for Sustainable Development,
v. 13, n. 1, pp. 64-70, 2009/03/01, 2009. ISSN 0973-0826.
Fernández-Ramos, J., Narvarte-Fernández, L., Poza-Saura, F., 2010. Improvement of
photovoltaic pumping systems based on standard frequency converters by means of
programmable logic controllers. Solar Energy 84, 101–109. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2009.10.013.
Foster, R., Ghassemi, M., Cota, A., 2009. Solar energy: renewable energy and the
environment. CRC Press.
Ghoneim, A. Design optimization of photovoltaic powered water pumping systems.
Energy Conversion and Management, v. 47, n. 11, pp. 1449-1463, 2006/07/01,
2006. ISSN 0196-8904.
Kostić, M. Analysis of induction motor efficiency class change at partial load. Facta
universitatis - series: Electronics and Energetics, v. 23, n. 3, pp. 333-344, 2010. ISSN
0353-3670.
Li, G.; Jin, Y., Akram, M., Chen, X. Research and current status of the solar photovoltaic
water pumping system – A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v.
79, pp. 440-458, 2017/11/01, 2017. ISSN 1364-0321.
López-Luque, R.; Reca, J., Martínez, J. Optimal design of a standalone direct pumping
photovoltaic system for deficit irrigation of olive orchards. Applied Energy, v. 149,
pp. 13-23, 2015/07/01, 2015. ISSN 0306-2619.
Maranhão, G., Brito, A., Leal, A., Fonseca, J., Macêdo, W., 2015. Using LDR as Sensing
Element for an External Fuzzy Controller Applied in Photovoltaic Pumping Systems
with Variable-Speed Drives. Sensors 15 (9), 24445–24457. https://doi.org/10.3390/
s150924445.
W. Sena dos Santos et al.
Maranhão, G., Brito, A., Pinho, J., Fonseca, J., Leal, A., Macêdo, W., 2016. Experimental
Results of a Fuzzy Controlled Variable-Speed Drive for Photovoltaic Pumping
Systems: A Review. IEEE Sensors Journal 16 (9), 2854–2864.
Marion, B. Comparison of predictive models for photovoltaic module performance. 33rd
IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2008, 11-16 May 2008. pp.1-6.
Mokeddem, A., Midoun, A., Kadri, D., Hiadsi, S., Raja, I. Performance of a directly-
coupled PV water pumping system. Energy Conversion and Management, v. 52, n.
10, pp. 3089-3095, 2011/09/01, 2011. ISSN 0196-8904.
Muhsen, D. H., Khatib, T., Abdulabbas, T. E. Sizing of a standalone photovoltaic water
pumping system using hybrid multi-criteria decision making methods. Solar Energy,
v. 159, pp. 1003-1015, 2018/01/01, 2018. ISSN 0038-092X.
Muñoz, J., Carrillo, J., Martinez-Moreno, F., Carrasco, L., Fernández, L. Modeling and
simulation of large PV pumping systems. Proceedings of the 31st European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, pp. 2933-2936, Hamburg,
2015.
NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. Office of Energy Efficiency technical fact
sheet—Premium-efficiency motors. Catalog No. M144–21/2003E, Office of Energy
Efficiency, Energy Innovators Initiative, Ottawa, 2004.
Nesbitt, B. Handbook of Pumps and Pumping. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 2006. pp.
155-174. ISBN 978-1-85617-476-3.
Odeh, I., Yohanis, Y., Norton, B. Influence of pumping head, insolation and PV array size
on PV water pumping system performance. Solar energy, v. 80, n. 1, pp. 51-64, 2006.
ISSN 0038-092X.
OECD. The Land-Water-Energy Nexus: Biophysical and Economic Consequences, OECD
Publishing, Paris, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279360-en.
Salilih, E.M., Birhane, Y.T., 2019. Modelling and performance analysis of directly
coupled vapor compression solar refrigeration system. Solar Energy 190, 228–238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.08.017.
59
Solar Energy 221 (2021) 46–59
Salilih, E.M., Birhane, Y.T., Arshi, S.H., 2020a. Performance analysis of DC type variable
speed solar pumping system under various pumping heads. Solar Energy 208,
1039–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.08.071.
Salilih, E.M., Birhane, Y.T., Abu-Hamdeh, N.H., 2020b. Performance prediction of a solar
refrigeration system under various operating pressure of evaporator and condenser.
Solar Energy 209, 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.09.033.
SCHNEIDER. Schneider motobombas Curvas-SUB-15. Manufacturer Catalog, 2020.
Available in: < https://schneidermotobombas.blob.core.windows.net/media/
203891/Curvas-SUB-15.pdf >. Accessed: June 12th, 2020.
SISIFO. User manual. Available in: < https://www.sisifo.info/pt/Content/doc/
UserManual_1.5.pdf >. Accessed: March, 5th 2020.
SunWise. SW-S55P Solar Module Datasheet. Available in: <https://s3.amazonaws.com/
ecodirect_docs/ SUNWIZE/SW-S55P.pdf>. Accessed in March, 20th, 2021.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. Determining electric motor load and efficiency. 1997.
Available in: <https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1215875.>.
Ulanicki, B., Kahler, J., Coulbeck, B., 2008. Modeling the Efficiency and Power
Characteristics of a Pump Group. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management 134 (1), 88–93.
Valer, L., Melendez, T., Fedrizzi, M., Zilles, R., Moraes, A. Variable-speed drives in
photovoltaic pumping systems for irrigation in Brazil. Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments, v. 15, pp. 20-26, 2016/06/01, 2016. ISSN 2213-
1388.
Walski, T., Chase, D., Savic, D., Grayman, W., Beckwith, S., 2003. Advanced water
distribution modeling and management. First Edition, Haestad Methods.
Yadav, K., Kumar, A., Sastry, O., Wandhare, R. Solar photovoltaics pumps operating head
selection for the optimum efficiency. Renewable Energy, v. 134, pp. 169-177, 2019/
04/01, 2019. ISSN 0960-1481.