Pump Centre Presentation June 09 Ver1

AEMS Case Study on
Energy Saving Operations

and Asset Modifications
By: John C. Whittaker

Operations Manager
+44 (0)1404 812294
Contents:
Introduction
Methodology
Case Study
System Description
Initial Investigation
Primary Recommendations
1st Verification
Review & Additional Remedial Work
2nd Verification
Further Savings
Appendix
© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

Introduction:
Who are Advanced Energy Monitoring Systems Ltd?
 AEMS Established in 1981 by Maurice Yates
 AEMS is now part of the Entity Group (3,500 employees) to further Energy
Management Services in the UK and Overseas
 Pioneers in Life Cycle Costing (1983)
 Developers of the Yatesmeter & associated software
 Experts in enhancing “Fluid Motive Units” & system performance
 Innovators in the pumping field (air & liquid) – 4 DTI Smart Awards
 Experience of testing over 10,000 pumps & blowers worldwide
 Project management and QA of new & refurbished plant

Methodology:
For any investigation into targeted energy reduction in pumping systems,
an element of desktop study and field / site evaluation is required.
Investigation Approach
Desktop Study
Assessment of Cost (£)
Standard KPI (kWh/Ml)
Enhanced KPI (kWh/Ml/m pumped head)
(kWh/Ml/m static head)
Site Investigation
Pump Testing
Multi-pump Monitoring
Analysis of Data
Initial Recommendation

Methodology – 2:
Individual Pump Performance Monitoring
Portable used to determine:
Pump curves
System curves
Flowmeter verification
On a periodic basis

Methodology – 3:
Multi-pump Monitoring – 1
A cascade of Yatesmeters
enable the measurement of both
the individual pump
performance and the system
performance in real time.

Methodology – 4:
90 Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4
89 Total Pumping Cost v Flow
88 15
14 Current Pumping Cost

87
13 Optimum Solo Schedule
86
85 Multi-pump monitoring 12
11
Optimum 2// Schedule
Optimum 3// Schedule

Pump Efficiency (%)
84
enables the data analysis of 10
Pumping Cost (£/Ml)

83 9
the combined operating

8
82
7
81
6
80 effects of the pumps 5
79 4
78 operating in the system 3
2
77
1
76
0
08-May 09-May 09-May 10-May 10-May 11-May 11-May 12-May
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Flow Rate (l/s)
1000 2000
Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4 Total
900 1800
800 1600
700 1400
Parameters logged include:

Flow Rate Per Pump (l/s)
Total Flow Rate (l/s)

600 1200
Individual and total pump head 500 1000
Individual and combined efficiency 400 800
Individual and combined power 300 600
Individual and combined flow 200 400
100 200
0 0
08-May 09-May 10-May 11-May

Methodology – 5:
Multi-pump monitoring enables the summated

performance of the pumping system to be
accurately displayed.
Example of combined efficiency performance

of a non-scheduled pumping system
Example of combined efficiency performance

of a scheduled pumping system

Case Study:
Contents
System Description
Initial Findings
Primary Recommendations
1st Verification & Review
Remedial Work
2nd Verification
Further Savings

Case Study – System Description:
System 1 System 2 System 3

42.4% of 42.9% of 14.7% of
Total Flow Total Flow Total Flow
Pumping system transfers treated 85m Head 55m Head 15m Head
water into 3 systems – 2 systems
are pumping to reservoirs, one
system is a pressure zone.
Original Pumping plant consists of

5 rotor resistor variable speed
pumps and 2 fixed speed pumps.
A B C D E F G
System was operated as a
common manifold only from the 5
variable speed pumps (A – E).

Case Study – Initial Findings:
The pumps (A – E) were operating with

efficiency shortfalls of between 3 to 13%.
At higher operational speeds the pumps

were cavitating.
Operating the pumps into a combined

manifold increased the operational cost
excessively for 2 of the 3 systems.

Kempton AWTW
Current Schedule
Combined Pump Efficiency v Flow
100
90
80
70
Combined Pump Efficiency (%)

60
The combined efficiency of the pumping 50
station was 75% 40
30
20
Current Average Pumping Efficiency = 75.5 %

10
The operational pumping costs was 0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
272.4 kWh/Ml. Station Volume Flow Rate (l/s)
Kempton AWTW
Current Pumping Cost
Total Pumping Cost v Flow
The annualised energy consumption was 350
17,883 MWh. 300
250
Pumping Cost (kWh/Ml)

200
150
100
Current Average Station Pumping Cost = 272.4 kWh/Ml

50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Flow Rate (l/s)

System Splits
Energy
Percentage of total
Consumption Energy Cost (£)
Flow (%)
(MWh)
42.4 7,582 492,830
42.9 7,672 498,680
14.7 2,629 170,885
TOTALS 17,883 1,162,395
Energy Cost based on 6.5p/kWh

Case Study – Primary Recommendations:
1) Separate the common manifold into individual pumping mains.

System 1 – Pressure system no saving
System 2 – 55m – 1,416 MWh saving (18.4% reduction)
System 3 – 15m – 1,433 MWh saving (54.5% reduction)
2) Trim pumps (later) A to E for an additional saving of 1,144 MWh
3) Re-commission pumps F & G to operate into System 3.

Case Study – 1st Verification:
PROVEN
The common manifold was separated into individual pumping mains.
System 1 – 36 MWh saving (using pump A instead of pump B)
System 2 – 425 MWh saving (System restrictions prevented full recovery)
System 3 – 1,557 MWh saving (Exceeded initial assumptions)
Total Savings – 2,018 MWh (£131K) – 2 month payback
The 1st Verification demonstrated that substantial operational savings could be achieved
through getting the pumps to operate away from a common manifold arrangement. All
savings achieved with NO capital expenditure.
However, to improve responsiveness to system 3 a decision to install VSDs to the pump

would be beneficial.

Case Study – Additional Remedial Work:
Although the savings for system 3 exceeded initial assumptions, there were further energy
savings to be recovered by converting the fixed speed pumps to variable speed.
Saving through matching the pump flow to system requirement.
Saving through rehabilitation of the mechanical and electrical assets
The remedial work consisted of:
Pump Refurbishment of Pumps F & G
Replacement of the electric motors with EFF1 motors
Installation of Variable speed drives to match system requirement

Case Study – 2nd Verification:
The refurbishment and installation of the
variable speed drives reduced the
energy consumption for the system from
an original
272.4 kWh/Ml (initial baseline)
To
Variable Speed Energy Saving
72.9 kWh/Ml (post scheduling and refurb.)
59 kW (43%) @ 305 l/s
Resulting in a total energy saving of;
1,927 MWh (£125K)
Or
73.3% reduction in system cost!

Case Study – Further Saving Potential:
To date one of the three systems has been improved, there
are still scope to increase the savings of the site.
Convert the existing rotor resistor machines to true VSD

Improve pressure management at the site
Refurbish 3 pumps
Total additional savings 3,400 MWh (£222K)

AEMS Case Study on
Energy Saving Operations
and Asset Modifications
By: John C. Whittaker

Operations Manager
+44 (0)1404 812294
Appendices:
The Appendices for the presentation contain supplemental information
relating to some of the specifics outline in the presentation brief.
Appendix 1 - Thermodynamic principle formula

Appendix 2 - Power measurement
Appendix 3 - Data Analysis Methodology

Appendix 1 – Methods of Measurement:
Yatesmeter Technology – 1
Efficiency = Work Done or Work Out

Effort Work In
Work In = Work Out + Losses
hp = Wo
Wo + Losses
hp = 1
1 + Losses/ Wo

Energy Dissipated as Heat may be expressed, per unit mass, as:-
Losses = Cp.dT.Q
Work Out = g.H.Q
\ Losses = Cp.dT.Q In the equation Q cancels

W.O. g.H.Q
1
Efficiency = 1 + Cp.dT
g.H

Using the Efficiency Eqn. and a measured value for Power, Flow can be
Determined.
Pgr = r.g.Q.H Q = Pgr.hp.hm

hp.hm g.H
Flow measurement:
Q= Pgr.hm
g.H + dT.Cp
The accuracy of the power assessment affects the calculation of flow only.

Appendix 2 – Methods of Measurement (Power):
Two Wattmeter Method – 1

Appendix 2 – Methods of Measurement (Power):
Three Wattmeter Method – 2

Appendix 3 – Data Analysis:
Methodology – 1
The analysis of the field performance data for both the individual pump and
system characteristics are assessed to determine the best opportunities to
reduce the operating cost of the whole pumping system, rather than limiting the
assessment to only the pump.
In order to undertake a comprehensive assessment the following considerations
should be made.
1) Variations in the flow profile for the pumping system for solo and multi-pump
parallel pumping.
2) Determine the intersection of solo and parallel pumping against the system
characteristic.
3) Predict the future performance of the pumping plant remedial work against the
system characteristic.
4) Calculate the present and future operation in kWh/ML/m, and use as basis for
performance verification.

Areas Investigated for Energy Reduction Opportunities - 1
10
5
12.5
17.5
Pump Optimisation
Pump Efficiency
Variable Speed / Trim
Pipework Improvements
Correct Re-selection of Pumps
Methodology – Flow Profile Variation
Daily Flowrate Variation
300
The daily flow profile

250
shows the extent of the
variation in flow that the
pumps systems have to 200
cope with. Flowrate
150
This data is then further
analysed to determine
100
the amount of solo and
parallel pumping.
50
0
31-Mar-99 19-Jul-99 06-Nov-99 24-Feb-00 13-Jun-00 01-Oct-00 19-Jan-01 09-May-01 27-Aug-01 15-Dec-01 04-Apr-02
Date
Daily Flows System Ave

Methodology – Flow Histogram
EXAMPLE WPS - Pumping System
No of Days Spent at Various Flow Rates Over the Past 3 Years
50
45
The flow histogram

40
shows the extent of solo
and parallel pumping. 35
30
Frequency (days)
25
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
Flow Rate (l/s)

Pump Optimisation – 1
Pump Optimisation aims to operate

the existing pumping plant in the
most efficient mode of operation.
Improvements vary between 5% -
26%, and involve no capital
investment.
Example System
The initial trial month showed the
operation of system 1 had an
average operating efficiency of
66.9%.
The shortfall in performance was
due to the operation of the fixed and
variable speed pumps in parallel.

Pump Optimisation – 2
After the initial monitoring, a new

operating schedule was recommended
and implemented. This resulted in an
initial improvement of 22.3%, or £38k /
pa.
Pump Optimisation can be implemented
onto any system which operates
combination of pumps in parallel.
Systems to be targeted are systems
which operate variable speed pumps, in
combination with fixed speed or
different pump types / sizes.

Methodology – System Intersection – 1
The intersection of the pump

performance curve with the system
curve is used to determine the
present cost of operation.

Methodology – System Intersection – 2
As well as determining the present cost of

operation, the intersection of the system curve is
used to predict the following effects
Pump Refurbishment improvements
Trim benefits
Variable Speed benefits
New pump selection

Pump Refurbishment
Pump refurbishment should aim to

recover the performance of the pump back
to at-least the original performance

Pump Centre Presentation June 09 Ver1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pump Centre Presentation June 09 Ver1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AEMS Case Study on

Energy Saving Operations

By: John C. Whittaker

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

 AEMS Established in 1981 by Maurice Yates

 Pioneers in Life Cycle Costing (1983)

 Developers of the Yatesmeter & associated software

 Experts in enhancing “Fluid Motive Units” & system performance

 Experience of testing over 10,000 pumps & blowers worldwide

 Project management and QA of new & refurbished plant

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

Portable used to determine:

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

89 Total Pumping Cost v Flow

14 Current Pumping Cost

Optimum 3// Schedule

Pumping Cost (£/Ml)

the combined operating

78 operating in the system 3

Parameters logged include:

Total Flow Rate (l/s)

Individual and total pump head 500 1000

Individual and combined efficiency 400 800

Individual and combined power 300 600

Individual and combined flow 200 400

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

Multi-pump monitoring enables the summated

Example of combined efficiency performance

Example of combined efficiency performance

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

System 1 System 2 System 3

Original Pumping plant consists of

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

The pumps (A – E) were operating with

At higher operational speeds the pumps

Operating the pumps into a combined

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

Combined Pump Efficiency (%)

The combined efficiency of the pumping 50

station was 75% 40

Current Average Pumping Efficiency = 75.5 %

The operational pumping costs was 0

272.4 kWh/Ml. Station Volume Flow Rate (l/s)

The annualised energy consumption was 350

17,883 MWh. 300

Pumping Cost (kWh/Ml)

Current Average Station Pumping Cost = 272.4 kWh/Ml

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

42.9 7,672 498,680

14.7 2,629 170,885

TOTALS 17,883 1,162,395

Energy Cost based on 6.5p/kWh

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

1) Separate the common manifold into individual pumping mains.

2) Trim pumps (later) A to E for an additional saving of 1,144 MWh

3) Re-commission pumps F & G to operate into System 3.

© Advanced Energy Monitoring System Ltd. 2009

System 1 – 36 MWh saving (using pump A instead of pump B)

System 2 – 425 MWh saving (System restrictions prevented full recovery)

System 3 – 1,557 MWh saving (Exceeded initial assumptions)

Total Savings – 2,018 MWh (£131K) – 2 month payback