TITLE: DEVELOPMENT OF A SMART PUMPING SYSTEM

Authors:

A.E. Stavale, Sr. Project Manager, Author#1

Phone: 315-568-4021
E-Mail: [email protected]
J.A. Lorenc, Sr. Research Engineer, Author #2
Phone: 315-568-7178
E-Mail: [email protected]
E.P. Sabini, Director Technology, Author #3
Phone: 315-568-7523
E-Mail: [email protected]

Fax (for all): 315-568-7709

Company (for all): ITT Industries, Fluid Technology Corp.-Industrial Pump Group,
Seneca Falls, New York 13148

SYNOPSIS

A smart pumping system was successfully developed in response to a challenge by a major

chemical user to reduce the total cost of pump ownership. The system is fault tolerant and will
significantly reduce all major components of life cycle cost.

1
 DEVELOPMENT OF A SMART PUMPING SYSTEM
ABSTRACT
In today’s global economy, process plants are under constant pressure to reduce costs. Users can no
longer afford their attempts to make pumps bulletproof by upgrading component specifications. The
development of a smart pumping system was fostered by a challenge from a major chemical user to
reduce the total cost of pump ownership. A smart pumping system was successfully developed that can
react and adjust itself to system changes without manual intervention.

The system is fault tolerant by virtue of the control software, which will not permit the pump to operate
outside user specified ranges, or under conditions that typically cause pumps to fail. A variable speed
controller can match pump output to exact system head requirements, without the need for energy
consuming control valves. The smart pumping system can significantly reduce all major components of
life cycle cost.

Field-testing proceeded without incident after initial installation problems were resolved.

INTRODUCTION
To survive in the global marketplace, process plants are under constant pressure to move liquids both
reliably and inexpensively. Today many plants have cut back on operating and maintenance personnel
and are often left with inexperienced people. This presents a dilemma; users can no longer afford their
attempts at making pumps bulletproof (Swalley, 1999) and the exodus of experienced personnel only
serves to exacerbate their predicament.

As a result, a major chemical user issued a challenge to drastically reduce the total cost of pump
ownership in their plants. They presented a specification for the desired performance of this “futuristic”
pump, covering the following key items:

• 50,000 hour Mean Time Between Failure

• Ability to survive 10,000 start-stops

• Able to run dry

• Operating temperature range –100°F to 700°F

• Capacities to 7500 gpm, heads to 1075 ft

• Pump to be unaffected by 2 years non-operation

• Easy to decontaminate

• Operation on 50 or 60 Hz

• Standardized connections and locations

• Technical and service support as needed

• First cost 25% less than equipment replaced (pump, seal, motor, baseplate, coupling and guard)

• Rebuild cost less than 50% of new assembly

The above items can be segregated into those that can be handled by proper pump selection, materials
and construction and those that are more challenging to today’s state-of-the-art pump design. This paper
will focus on the design challenges (shown in Italics) and presents a novel approach to reducing the total
cost of pump ownership.

2
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Heavy Duty Pump

Nearly all of the design challenges identified above either directly or indirectly have an influence on
increasing the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of a pump. One approach to increasing MTBF might
be to design a heavier duty pump, one with a larger shaft and bearings, more liberal internal clearances
and thicker casing. However, clearly this approach is at odds with the requirement that the first cost be
25% less than the equipment being replaced. A heavy-duty close coupled Vertical Inline (VIL) pump could
be designed which will eliminate the cost of the pump coupling, coupling guard and baseplate. It would
also eliminate any maintenance costs relating to coupling mis-alignment and excessive nozzle loads due
to poor baseplate/foundation stiffness. Installation costs could also be reduced due to the elimination of
baseplate setting and grouting work. Although this approach appears to make for a more robust pump
design and contributes to some reduction in initial cost, maintenance cost and installation cost, it does not
address pump failures caused by operator error or system upsets. A pump with an extra heavy shaft and
bearings will fail just as quickly as a standard pump when operating in a dry run condition or against a
closed suction or discharge valve.

The two primary causes of failures in centrifugal pumps relate to bearings and seals. There are many
reasons for failures of these components. Some are application related such as operation outside
specified flow regimes and inadequate NPSHA. This can result in increased vibration, bearing loads,
shaft deflection, recirculation damage and a poor seal chamber environment that is counterproductive to
long seal life. Other reasons relate to improper installation techniques that can cause alignment problems
due to pipe strain and poor baseplate and foundation stiffness. Clearly, many technical articles, books
and manufacturers guidelines exist today, which promote proper pump application and installation. Yet
the norm in MTBF for chemical process pumps is only about 24 months. This is well below the MTBF for
the refining industry, which approaches 5 years (Erickson, et. al., 2000). Logic would indicate that MTBF
could be improved further by designing the pump to be more fault tolerant. Fault tolerance protects the
pump from damage if it is forced outside the desired operating envelope. This protection can be achieved
through a combination of mechanical design, materials of construction and protective devices.

Another opportunity to reduce the total cost of ownership is to minimize energy consumption. Advances in
hydraulic design and computerized tools such as Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) have significantly
reduced the opportunities for further improvement in pump efficiency. However, many articles have been
written concerning the significant opportunity to reduce energy consumption with variable speed
operation. It is not unusual to achieve a 50% reduction in energy consumption and an increase in pump
reliability when using a variable frequency drive (Hovstadius, et. al., 2000). Maintenance and operating
costs are two of the largest opportunities for reducing the total cost of pump ownership and cannot be
ignored. For this reason the heavy-duty pump design concept was removed from further consideration.

Computer Controlled /Artificial Intelligence Pump

A novel concept considered was to design a system rather than a pump. This system would consist of a
standard centrifugal pump, a variable speed drive, instrumentation, a microprocessor and special
software. There are several objectives that this system would be expected to accomplish. If a variable
speed drive is employed, operating costs could be reduced significantly by eliminating the pressure drop
across a control valve. Fault tolerance could also be built into the pumping system by developing special
software that would interact with instrumentation signals that sense process conditions. The software
would require the ability to recognize and prevent the pump from operating under damaging conditions.
Finally, if a method could be developed to use the pump casing as a flow-measuring device; in many
applications the need for a separate flow meter would be eliminated.

The total cost of pump ownership could clearly be reduced by decreased energy and maintenance costs.
Additionally, the opportunity to eliminate equipment such as a control valve, external flow meter, separate
starter and recirculation line piping could also decrease initial and installation costs. There would be

3
additional costs associated with the purchase and installation of a variable frequency drive and
instrumentation; however it was expected that the aforementioned savings could offset these costs in
many cases. It was concluded that this concept approach had merit since it worked at significantly
reducing all of the major components of the total cost of pump ownership.

VISION OF A SMART PUMPING SYSTEM

What It Should Do
A smart pumping system must be capable of knowing when to adjust itself to system changes without
manual intervention and must match pump output exactly to system head requirements. If upstream
conditions change due to a system transient the pump should either increase or decrease its speed in
order to maintain a constant output. A side benefit of this concept virtually eliminates the need to add
safety margins that can result in oversized pumps.

The system must be capable of recognizing and safeguarding itself from operating under conditions that
may adversely affect its life. Conditions such as dry running, operation against a closed suction or
discharge valve and inadequate NPSH must all be recognized and reacted to before damage occurs. The
smart pumping system must also be capable of understanding when the system transient or unusual
operating condition has cleared, thereby allowing normal pumping operation to resume.

Control modes should be flexible enough to offer system control over a wide range of applications.
Control modes should be capable of maintaining constant values of speed, capacity, pressure, level,
temperature or pH.

How It Should Protect

Some of the more common causes of pump failures are attributed to the following upset conditions:

• Dry running caused primarily by closed suction valves. Dry running is also common in batch and
transfer applications.

• Prolonged operation below minimum flow.

• Cavitation due to insufficient NPSH available.

• Heat build-up and subsequent liquid vaporization due to a closed discharge valve.

Smart pumping systems should be capable of detecting and reacting to all of these conditions. The
following safeguards should be available to protect the pump against operating under adverse conditions.

NPSH Monitor
An NPSH margin tailored to the particular application should be specified as one of the protective
parameters in the software. If the measured suction head drops below this margin the smart pumping
system can either alarm, alarm and control or alarm and fault depending on user requirements. The alarm
and control mode would reduce the pump speed just enough to maintain the specified NPSH margin
requirements. However, once the transient has cleared the pump must recognize it and resume normal
pumping operation.

Flow Monitor
A low flow monitor will detect a dry running condition, operation below minimum flow or against a closed
suction or discharge valve. If flow cannot be maintained, user settings can be selected to alarm, alarm
and control or alarm and fault as described earlier. Magnetic drive pumps can especially benefit from this
dry run protection (Stavale, 1995). The success of power monitors and current monitors has been
mediocre at best when used for dry run protection in sealless pumps since these devices depend heavily
on proper settings by the user.

4
Other Safeguards
Other safeguards must be available to warn and protect against overpressure, overtemperature,
overcurrent and overspeed. Setpoints can be selected to restrict operation to user specified ranges.

Smart pumping systems should also incorporate self-diagnostic features to compare current pump
performance to the as new factory performance. An alarm setting will advise the user when the actual
performance degrades past a certain preset value. This will give ample warning to the user to schedule
planned maintenance on the unit during the next outage. If a fault history and time stamp is provided it
will enable the user to accurately determine system behavior at the time of the fault. This will facilitate
troubleshooting and remedying of system upsets.

VALUE PROPOSITION
As stated earlier the value of smart pumping systems to the user is in the reduction of the total cost of
pump ownership or total life cycle cost. Total life cycle cost encompasses the following major
components:

• Operating Cost

• Maintenance Cost

• Plant Downtime and Loss of Production

• Initial Cost

• Installation Cost

• Operating Cost

• System Curves

A system curve is comprised of a static component and a dynamic component. The static component of
the system curve does not change with flow rate. The dynamic component is essentially proportional to
the square of the rate of flow. It is also a function of other variables such as pipe configuration/size,
surface roughness, quantity and type of fittings/valves and fluid viscosity. These can be represented by a
single system constant and the dynamic or frictional head can be expressed as:
2
Hf = K Q

The dynamic head constant K is a constant for a given system. However, if a control valve position
changes in the system the constant K will also change.

Conventional Systems
Figure 1 shows a typical control scheme for a conventional pumping system. Note the system curve
includes a static component of 6 meters (20 ft). This is the change in elevation between the suction and
discharge source. In this type of system the pump operates at a fixed speed and the pump performance
curve is based on an impeller diameter pre-selected to match the system requirements as closely as
possible. It should be noted that it is common practice to add a safety margin to the design point where it
is difficult to accurately define system losses. This can result in an oversized pump that runs out too far
on the curve and absorbs too much power.

5
 60

50

Total Head, m
40 B
A
30

20

10

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250
Capacity, m3/hr

Figure 1. Conventional Pumping System Control.

The total system head curve intersects the pump head-capacity curve at point “A” with the control valve
3
wide open. The design flow for this system is about 640 m /hr (2800 gpm) so the friction head (point “B”)
must be increased to about 37 meters (120 ft) in order to operate at this point. The most common
method of varying the capacity in a conventional system is to introduce a variable resistance device that
will alter the system friction curve; this is the main function of a control valve. Control valves are throttling
devices, which use some of the available pumping energy to control the process. The amount of
consumed energy will vary depending on the method of control, valve sizing and the operating point. In
the U.S., a common control valve standard (PIP PCECV001) specifies that the control valve shall be 50-
80% open at design flow, at least 10% open at minimum flow and no more than 90% open at maximum
flow. Other methods base the amount of pressure drop on past plant practice or rules of thumb.

Variable Speed Systems

In a variable speed system the controller will match the pump output to system head requirements without
the need for a control valve. Safety factors and pressure margins typically built into dynamic head
systems can be eliminated and in some cases result in a lower cost pump selection. Since the smart
pumping system can adjust the pump speed to suit the required system conditions only one impeller
diameter need be stocked. This offers the benefit of lower inventory cost. In variable speed systems the
design point no longer needs to be based on a fixed speed. This yields a larger number of selections over
a given pump range with a better chance of operating at or near the best efficiency flow. Variable speed
control is most effective and efficient in all friction head systems. The effectiveness diminishes somewhat
for applications having high static head and low dynamic head, since the intersection of the pump and
system curve moves further to the left of the best efficiency flow (Casada, 1999). Careful selection is
required for these applications to avoid operation below minimum allowable flow and possible
deadheading.

Figure 2 shows a variable speed system with system curve “A” identical to that shown in Figure 1. Head-
3
Capacity curves are shown at various speeds. If the desired operating flow is 640 m /hr (2800 gpm) it is
shown that the pump can operate at a substantially lower speed and head. In this example, the savings of
the variable speed system over a conventional system is represented by the difference in head between
points “B”
(Figure 1) and “C” (Figure 2). This difference in system head requirements can often translate to
thousands of dollars in annual energy savings over the life of a pump.

6
 60

50

Total Head, m
40
A
30
1.0N
C
20
.9N

.83 N
10
.7N
.6N

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250
Capacity, m3/hr

Figure 2. Variable Speed Pumping Control.

Maintenance Cost
As mentioned earlier, the primary components in pump failures are bearings and mechanical seals.
Excessive vibration, excessive loads and/or poor lubrication are the primary causes of failure for these
parts. Designing a pump with a larger shaft and bearings may appear to be more robust but does not
guarantee longer life. Many failures can be attributed to operator error and application factors. Operating
range, impeller diameter, operating speed and protection against system upsets all have an effect on the
overall reliability of a pump.

Operating Range
A centrifugal pump is designed to operate most reliably at one capacity for a given speed and impeller
diameter. This capacity is usually at or near the best efficiency flow. As pump operation moves away from
this optimum capacity, turbulence in the casing and impeller increases. As a result hydraulic loads, which
are transmitted to the shaft and bearings, increase and become unsteady. These loads are related to the
impeller diameter in a cubic manner. The severity of these loads can have a negative effect on reliability.

Impeller Diameter
Impeller diameter affects reliability by the loads that are imposed to the shaft and bearings as the impeller
vanes interact with the volute cutwater. These loads are also related to the impeller diameter in a cubic
manner. Maximum or near maximum impeller diameters result in a less than optimum gap between the
cutwater and impeller. As each vane passes the cutwater a large pulse is produced which results in an
accompanying unsteady deflection of the pump shaft. These unsteady deflections can be very damaging
to mechanical seals. There is an optimum cutwater gap that will limit these unsteady deflections. With
larger than optimum gaps the damaging cutwater effect is minimized but the effects of suction and
discharge recirculation become of more concern, especially if vane overlap is lost due to large impeller
trims.

Operating Speed
Operating speed affects pump reliability through rubbing contact and wear in seal faces, reduced bearing
life due to increased loads, lubricant breakdown due to excessive heat and wetted component wear due
to abrasives in the pumpage.

In addition, an increased operating speed can easily push a low suction energy pump into a high suction
energy region (Budris, 1993) with accompanying noise, vibration and possible cavitation damage. The
onset of high suction energy levels in pumps is directly related to operating speed, suction specific speed,

7
specific gravity and the thermodynamic properties of the liquid being pumped, as well as impeller
geometry and operating point.

Quantification of Reliability Improvements

The protection that smart pumping systems offer will no doubt translate to extended meantime between
failure and improved life cycle maintenance cost. One method of quantitatively predicting these life cycle
cost savings is outlined by Bloch and Geitner (1994). In this method, reliability factors for operating
speed, operating point and impeller diameter are assigned values between 0 –1, where higher values
indicate more reliable selections. A reliability index, which is the product of the three reliability factors, can
then be compared to pumps of similar design to give an indication of overall reliability. Note this method is
only valid for comparing pumps of similar design since it does not take design characteristics into
consideration. An independent test program generally confirmed the validity of these published reliability
factors and offers recommendations for improvement (Erickson, et. al., 2000).

Plant Downtime and Loss of Production

Even a properly selected pump with materials of construction suitable for the application is no guarantee
of long life. As described earlier, smart pumping systems must also be fault tolerant. This protects the
pump against operator abuse, improper startup, operation in damaging flow regimes, dry running,
inadequate NPSH, overpressurization, overtemperature, overtorque, overspeed and underspeed. These
upsets often result in unplanned premature equipment failure with consequential plant downtime and loss
of production.

It should be noted that the added protection that fault tolerance provides is not quantified in the Bloch and
Geitner (1994) method.

Initial Cost
Initial cost is the smallest of the life cycle cost components but usually receives the greatest focus during
the procurement cycle. Many users become pre-dispositioned at the sound of the words “smart pumping
system” and “variable speed controller” when they think of cost. However, if the total initial cost of a smart
pumping system is compared to that of a conventional system it can be shown that smart systems can be
very competitive in price. When compared to total life cycle cost, these systems can have an
overwhelming advantage.

As mentioned earlier in this paper, smart pumping systems continuously monitor both pump and system
conditions and match pump output to system requirements, exactly. Since the smart controller is a
variable speed device there is often no need for an automatic control valve in the system. One
manufacturer has a patented method of measuring process flow internal to the pump discharge nozzle. In
many applications this could eliminate the need for a separate external flowmeter in the system.
Additionally, smart controllers have integral starters thereby eliminating the need for a separate starter.

One of the many safeguards built-in to smart controllers is to protect against operation below minimum
flow. Operation can be restricted to user specified ranges. Depending on system design, recirculation
lines and valves can also be eliminated. Since added safety margins are not required when controlling
with a variable speed system, in some cases a smaller pump can be used. The added fault protection and
safeguards may also eliminate redundant systems in some applications.

8
Installation Cost
By reducing the amount of equipment in a system both installation and maintenance costs are decreased.
The installation costs associated with piping, air lines, wiring and communication lines can all be
decreased by eliminating a control valve, flowmeter, separate starter and recirculation line valve and
piping.

PROTOTYPE EVALUATIONS
Early concept approaches were required to help define what the product should be. Three separate
concepts were evaluated:

• The Proof of Concept (POC) unit utilized a laptop PC communicating with a 10-channel data
acquisition system and a 1 hp 230 VAC commercially available VFD.

• A Black Box (BB) unit that incorporated a custom 8 input channel / 2 output channel PC board having
basic computing capability similar to a programmable logic controller (PLC). A 10 hp 460 VAC
commercially available VFD was also used.

• A 5 input channel/2 output channel custom programmed Smart VFD (3 hp 460VAC).

Proof of Concept
The POC was connected to a one-half scale model end suction pump. The centrifugal pump was
mounted on a rigid baseplate and coupled to a .86 kW 3420 RPM, 230VAC electric motor. The VFD
controlled the speed of the motor. The baseplate was mounted on a portable bench. The pump was
piped to a 15-gallon clear cast acrylic tank with clear acrylic tubing as shown in Figure 3. A hand-
operated ball valve was installed at the pump discharge to artificially change system friction. An
additional hand-operated valve was piped to the pump suction to vary the NPSHA.

Figure 3. Proof of Concept Model.

The Proof of Concept unit focused on pump sensing, pump control/management, fault tolerance and
condition monitoring. The unit logged the following data:

9
• Differential Pressure measured across the casing throat and the discharge flange. (psid)

• Discharge Pressure. (psia)

• Suction Pressure. (psia)

O
• Fluid Temperature ( F)

• Pump Speed (RPM)

O
• Mechanical Seal Face Temperature. ( F)
O
• Seal Chamber Temperature. ( F)

• Outboard Bearing Vertical Vibration. (in/sec)

O
• Bearing Housing Oil Temperature. ( F)

• Water Concentration in Bearing Housing. (PPM)

The model pump was tested for Head, BHP, NPSHR and differential pressure (dP) vs. Capacity at four
different speeds (3600, 2800, 2000, and 1200 RPM). The dP was measured across the casing throat
and discharge flange and was used along with speed and fluid temperature (sp. gr.) to characterize flow
over the entire operating range of the pump. Subsequent testing showed that the flow accuracy for this
unit was within • 1% for operation between 40 and 115 percent of BEP and better than 5% over the entire
operating range (0 to 140% of BEP).

The pump curves, flow characterization and fluid properties were loaded to a Quick Basic (QB4.5)
program. These curves established a baseline to which the pump performance could be compared. A
custom control algorithm was developed to control flow and pressure. This eliminated the need for
proportional-integral-derivative (PID) loops in the program. This algorithm was originally developed to
control a pump with a flat or drooping head-capacity curve operating against a flat system curve. The
POC controlled constant flow or pressure under any induced system friction changes. The QB4.5
program acquired data and updated the VFD at rates ranging from 1 to 2 Hertz.

Once control was established the program compared the head that the pump was producing at a given
flow and speed to its baseline value. An alarm “Renew Clearances” was programmed to warn of a 10
percent loss in head.

Transients caused by quickly opening and closing valves resulted in pump system instabilities because of
the slow 1 to 2 Hertz update rate. The update rate was limited by the speed of the PC and the 10-
channel data acquisition system

Any VFD can control a pump to maintain constant flow, pressure etc. What would differentiate this
pumping system from any other is its fault tolerance. The unit was programmed to react to the most
common causes of system induced pump failure. The unit constantly monitors and calculates flow and
NPSHA and compares these values to the baseline NPSHR. The program incorporated a 3-foot NPSHA
margin above the pump NPSHR to trigger an alarm. The pump was programmed to slow down just
enough to maintain the required 3-foot margin. Once the condition corrected itself the pump
automatically resumed operation at the proper set point. The unit was also programmed to alarm and/or
react to a low flow, a closed suction valve or closed discharge valve condition. The pump will react to
these faults by slowing down to a predetermined speed where damage will not occur. Again once the
condition corrected itself the pump automatically resumed operation at the proper set point. The unit was
also programmed to shut down automatically on over-pressure or over-temperature condition (safety
related).

The POC unit also logged, alarmed and reacted to a variety of condition monitoring sensors. The unit
trended bearing lubricant temperature and overall vibration. An abrupt change in vibration or temperature
for a given set point would trigger an alarm.

10
Seal chamber pressure and seal face temperature was also monitored. An increase in seal face
temperature would result in a corresponding increase in the vapor pressure of the fluid. If the vapor
pressure exceeds the seal chamber pressure, fluid flashing at the seal faces would occur with potential
seal damage. A protective alarm/fault was programmed in the software for this condition. This fault could
occur when the pump is cavitating, running dry, or operating below its recommend minimum thermal flow.
It should be noted that the program and controller reacted within one to two seconds to all induced faults;
as a result we were unable to induce bearing or seal problems.

Water concentration in the oil was also constantly monitored. The unit was set to trigger an alarm with
water concentrations greater than 180 PPM (ISO 68 oil).

Black Box
The QB4.5 program used on the POC was rewritten in C++ and down loaded to the BB unit. The
condition-monitoring portion of the program was not incorporated due to I/O limitations.

The original BB program did not contain the custom flow/pressure control algorithm. Instead control was
carried out using standard PID loops. These loops at best were not as stable as the custom algorithm
and in need of constant tuning as the system parameters changed. The program was then updated to
the control algorithm.

This unit had an update rate of 3 to 4 Hertz and performed very similarly to the POC. Consequently it
experienced the same instability problems as the POC due to quick opening and closing of valves.

Smart VFD
The program was rewritten in assembly language and loaded onto the Smart VFD. It was decided that
condition monitoring would be made available later as an optional add-on to the system. The concept of
the smart pumping system was to protectively react to a fault and greatly reduce the risk of pump failure.
Condition monitoring should be available for users who choose not to react to a fault protectively. It would
also be useful in detecting non-system-induced faults; e.g., poor alignment or excessive piping loads.

Transients did not effect operation. The drive reacted to all system induced faults in a very stable
manner. Extensive fault testing was carried out with no mechanical seal or bearing problems
encountered.

The unit met its desired goals of sensing, managing and controlling the pump. This unit helped define the
final product specification.

TEST VALIDATION: CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS

Response Time
A poorly designed automatic control system will exhibit overshoot, undershoot or porpoising (oscillation)
about the setpoint. In a proportional controller the output signal is proportional to the difference between
the setpoint and actual conditions. The gain adjustment is an inverse function of the controller
proportional band. Figure 4 shows a typical system response curve to a sudden change in load with low
gain adjustment (wide proportional band) i.e., the system response to the error signal is small. Figure 5
shows a typical system response curve to a sudden change in load where porpoising occurs. This system
has a high gain adjustment (narrow proportional band) i.e., the system response to the error signal is
high. Note in systems with proportional action only there is always some residual offset (Wachstetter,
1994). Testing of the initial POC and BB concept designs previously described had many of these
problems even when PID loop controllers were used.

11
 Setpoint

Offset

Process Variable
Wide Proportional Band

Time

Figure 4. Proportional Control with Offset

Process Variable

S etpoint
Offset

Narrow P roportional B and

Time

Figure 5. Proportional Control with Porpoising.

12
It wasn’t until the VFD based smart pump concept was developed that a successful optimization of the
pump hydraulic response characteristics, the motor dynamic response characteristics and the VFD
response was achieved. This optimization was partially attributed to an increased update rate of process
signals that the VFD offered when compared to the initial prototypes. The stability was made
independent of the system that the pump was operating in by developing proprietary control algorithms.
Figure 6 shows the typical system response possible when using the proprietary control algorithm
coupled with an increased update rate of the process signals. It should be noted that major changes or
upsets in a pumping system that could cause a PID loop controller to become unstable and necessitate
re-tuning would not affect the algorithm-based control.

Setpoint
Process Variable

Algorithm Control

Time

Figure 6. System Response with Algorithm Control.

Ground Fault Loops

Ground loops presented another challenge. Whenever there is three phase power present (motor voltage
and current) along with 4-20 milliamp (mA) instrument signals there exists the potential for ground loops.
This is especially true for voltages generated using Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) variable speed drives.
The first ground loop problem occurred with metal diaphragm pressure transmitters that exhibited erratic
signals but only when the VFD was delivering electrical power to the motor. Even though the cabling
from the VFD to the motor was grounded per manufacturer’s recommendations, the high switching
frequency of the VFD would create a voltage potential in the motor/baseplate/pump. This high frequency
voltage potential would return to the variable frequency drive not only through the motor power lead
ground but also through the metal diaphragm pressure transmitters. It was found that the EMI capacitor
in the transmitter was acting as a short circuit at the high switching frequency thereby allowing the voltage
to modulate the 4 –20 mA signal. This was resolved by switching to a different transmitter design.

A second ground loop problem occurred when the smart system was applied to an end user that had a
nuclear level indicator. Despite the fact that the cables from the VFD to the motor were routed through
solid wall conduit connected at both the motor and VFD, a high frequency voltage potential was detected
in the conduit which was sufficient to disrupt the 0-1 mA DC signal from the level indicator. Grounding
straps or bars welded across each conduit coupling and at the motor and VFD were recommended. This
eliminated the insulation effects of the pipe sealant and created a better path to ground for the high
frequency voltage potential generated in the conduit.

13
Flow Accuracy
As part of the objective of reducing total life cycle cost, a method was developed to measure flow directly
in the pump discharge nozzle. The pump casing is calibrated by relating flow to differential pressure and
rotational speed. As the nozzle area changes from the casing throat to the discharge outlet a differential
pressure is produced similar to a venturi effect. Figure 7 shows a typical dP Vs flow curve at several
speeds for an ASME B73 3x4-13 pump.

ASME B73 3x4-13

Typical dP vs Flow
Differential Head, FT

40
30 1800 rpm
Water

1500 rpm
20
1200 rpm
10
800 rpm
0
0 500 1000 1500
Capacity, US GPM

Figure 7. Typical Curve—Differential Pressure Versus Flow

As expected it was found that the amount of differential pressure available varied by nozzle design and
was also influenced by casting variations. Casting variations between different metallurgies necessitated
that each pump casing be calibrated in order to assure flow accuracy. This concept in flow measurement
is similar in limitation to other differential pressure (dP) measuring devices. These devices have a flow
accuracy of 2-5% depending on size, a rangeability of 3:1 and are limited to clean liquids. As with other
dP measuring devices field accuracy was dependent on good piping practice immediately downstream of
the casing discharge nozzle.

Stable Algorithms for High Static Head Systems

A real concern with applications involving variable speed pumping in high static head systems is that a
reduction in pump speed may cause the pump to operate in a deadhead condition. In high static head
systems as the pump speed decreases, the intersection point between the pump and system curve
moves further to the left of the best efficiency point. If the pump speed is reduced far enough where the
pump total head falls below the system static head, a zero flow condition will result. This can result in
overheating, liquid vaporization and a possible explosive condition.

The smart system was designed so that there are two user-defined parameters that preclude deadhead
operation. The first parameter is the minimum speed of the pump. This parameter is selected such that
the pump generated total dynamic head (TDH) is always greater than the static lift in the system. This
insures that even if the pump is operated at the minimum speed there is sufficient pump TDH generated
to produce flow through the system. The second parameter defines the minimum flow of the pump at the
maximum operating speed. This parameter is used to calculate the minimum continuous flow for the
pump at all other speeds. If the flow at any pump speed falls below the minimum flow calculated for that
speed an alarm and/or fault condition will occur to alert the end user that the pump is operating in a
potentially damaging situation.

14
FINAL DESIGN CONCEPT

Major Components
The final design concept for the smart pumping system consisted of a standard centrifugal pump,
standard variable speed controller, instrumentation, microprocessor and special control software. The
instrumentation includes an absolute suction pressure transmitter, suction temperature transmitter and
sensor, absolute discharge pressure transmitter and a differential pressure transmitter (required only if
flow is measured in the pump casing). If an external flowmeter is used, an analog signal must be provided
to the microprocessor in order to measure flow. The instrumentation senses process conditions and
transmits 4-20 mA signals to the microprocessor. There are five analog inputs and two analog output
signals available which are set-up for 4-20 mA (24 VDC power required). There are also six digital inputs
and three digital outputs available. Control is available by using either analog or digital inputs. The control
algorithm developed in-house was used for capacity and pressure control due to its superior
performance.

The microprocessor resides in the variable speed controller. It stores the pump control software that
enables the controller to sense pump and process conditions and react accordingly. The system is
designed to maintain constant values of speed, capacity, pressure or level and can be controlled by a
local keypad, hard-wired control or through a distributive control system (DCS). The following fieldbus
adapters support communication with the DCS: CS-31, Devicenet, Interbus-S, Modbus, Modbus Plus and
Profibus.

Application Specific Data

Each pump is hydraulically characterized at the factory to identify the entire pump performance envelope
including NPSHR. Fluid characteristics such as specific gravity and vapor pressure are also identified
over the entire temperature range of the liquid being pumped. Next, the pump manufacturer and user
jointly identify the control parameters and alarm/fault settings desired for the application. Table 1 shows a
partial listing of the control parameters and alarm/fault settings required.

Table 1. Typical Control Parameters and Alarm / Fault Settings.

Control Parameter Alarm/Fault Settings

Local or Remote Control TDH Alarm Level
Maximum/Minimum Speed NPSH Monitor
Maximum/Minimum Flow Flow Monitor
Maximum/Minimum Pressure Pressure Monitor
Specific Gravity Constants Pressure Alarm Value
Vapor Pressure Constants Pressure Fault Value
Max. Signal Feedback NPSH Control Time
Control Method Flow Control Time
Suction/Discharge Diameter Pump Shutoff Temperature

All of the pump hydraulic data and fluid characteristics are then processed through a test utility that
calculates the polynomial curve fit coefficients. The utility also gathers and formats user-defined
parameters, control settings and alarm/fault values which are used in the control software. To complete
the process the control software and all application related data are downloaded to the microprocessor
via fiber optic cables.

15
FIELD TESTING

Installation
The first unit was installed on a cooling tower service for a hydrogen purification plant (Kratowicz, 2000).
The plant runs automatically and is unattended. The pump that was provided is an ASME B73 8x10-13
pump driven by a 100 HP 1780-rpm motor. The installation consisted of two pumps, one main and an
installed spare. Each of two units are sized to supply approximately 2800 gpm at 120 ft total discharge
head to the cooling water header serving the plant. Although it was intended that both pumps be installed
as smart-pumping units, initial problems with the installation and setup resulted in only one of the units
being configured in this manner. The backup unit was configured as a conventional fixed speed pump.

Startup
The pump was started in speed mode and operated near full speed (1780 rpm) with the pump discharge
throttle valve set at about 55% open. Once the system was stabilized the unit was placed in pressure
control mode with the setpoint equal to the pressure developed at full speed with the valve at 55% open.
The setpoint was reduced in steps by increasing the amount of valve open until the desired downstream
pressure was achieved with the discharge valve wide open. This resulted in a speed reduction of over
300-rpm and a corresponding power reduction of about 40 hp when compared to the installed spare that
was operated in a conventional system.

Operating Experience
The unit has been in unattended operation for nearly 9,000 hrs. During this period there have been no
reported alarms, faults or other problems to date. The calculated energy savings based on 9000 hrs
operation for the smart pumping system in this application is $15,500. The primary goal of the user in this
application was to prove out the reliability of the system before moving into a more aggressive
application. To this end the user is reported to be very satisfied with the performance of the system.

16
LIFE CYCLE COST EVALUATION

Operating Cost Savings

The following life cycle cost evaluation (Stavale, 2000) is based on the cooling tower installation
described in the field test section. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the savings of a variable speed system over a
conventional system for this installation. This is shown as the difference in head between points “B”
(Figure 1) and “C” (Figure 2) and is exemplified in Table 2.

Table 2. Life-Cycle Operating Cost Savings.

Conventional Smart Pumping

System System
Pump Size 8x10-13 (ANSI B73) 8x10-13 (ANSI B73)
3
Rating at design, m /hr (gpm) 639 (2800) 639 (2800)
Rating at design, Total Head, m (ft) 37 (120) 23 (75)
Speed, r/min 1780 1476
Yearly Operation, hrs 8760 8760
Rating at Design, kW (Bhp) 77.3 (104) 47.7 (64)
Equipment Life, Years 15 15
Yearly Energy Use, kW-hr 707,700* 456,400**
Total Energy Use, kW -hr 10,615,000* 6,845,000**
Electricity Cost, $(US) 0.06 0.06
Total Life Cycle Operating Cost, $(US) 636,900* 410,700**
Life Cycle Operating Cost Savings: $(US) 226,200
* Includes motor losses
** Includes motor and VFD losses

Note that the total pump head has been reduced from 37 meters (120 ft) to 23 meters (75 ft). As a
result the pump power has dropped nearly 30kW (40 hp) and operating speed has been lowered by over
300 rpm.

Maintenance Cost Savings

Table 3 shows the effect on life cycle maintenance savings for the cooling tower application using the
Bloch and Geitner method described previously. It assumes an average MTBF for a conventional sealed
pump of 18 months at an average cost per repair of $(US) 2,500. Note the saving shown should be
considered to be conservative since the Bloch and Geitner (1994) method does not take into account
potential savings due to fault tolerance.

Table 3. Life-Cycle Pump Maintenance Cost Savings.

Conventional Smart Pumping

System System
Reliability Index 0.2 0.3
Average MTBF, Months 18 27.1
Equipment Life, Years 15 15
Total No. of Repairs 10 6.6
Total Pump Maintenance Cost (US) 25,000 16,600
Life Cycle Pump Maintenance Cost Savings: $(US) 8,400

17
The difference in pump life cycle maintenance savings for this application represents a 33.5% decrease
when compared to a conventional system and MTBF is extended from 18 to 27 months.

Initial Cost Savings

Figure 8 shows a conventional system with pump/motor, control valve, flowmeter, isolation valves,
recirculation line, DCS and starter. Smart pumping systems integrate the functionality of several of these
pieces of equipment as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 8. Conventional Pump Systems.

Figure 9. Smart Pumping System.

18
Table 4 shows that the life cycle initial cost savings for this cooling tower application compares favorably
with a conventional system.

Table 4. Life-Cycle Initial Cost Savings.

Conventional Smart Pumping

System, (US) System, $(US)
Pump, baseplate, coupling and motor 10,600 10,000
Smart Controller and Instrumentation 0 9,800
Control Valve 4,700 0
Flowmeter 4,300 0
Recirculation Line 0 0
Motor Starter 1,000 0
Total Life Cycle Initial Cost, $(US) 20,600 19,800
Life Cycle Initial Cost Savings: $(US) 800

Installation Cost Savings

Table 5 shows the effect on life cycle installation savings for the cooling tower installation. In this example
pump installation costs are based on 5x initial cost. Installation costs for the control valve, flowmeter and
starter are based on 3x initial cost of these components.

Table 5. Life-Cycle Installation Cost Savings.

Conventional System Smart Pumping

$(US) System $(US)
Pump, baseplate, coupling and motor 53,000 50,000
Smart Controller and Instrumentation 0 3,750
Control Valve 14,100 0
Flowmeter 12,900 0
Recirculation Line 0 0
Motor Starter 3,000 0
Total Life Cycle Installation Cost, $(US) 83,000 53,750
Life Cycle Installation Cost Savings: $(US) 29,250

The difference in pump installation savings for this application represents a 35% decrease as compared
to a conventional system.

Since the control valve and external flowmeter have been removed from the smart pumping system,
maintenance for these items can also be eliminated as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Life-Cycle Other Maintenance Cost Savings.

Conventional System Smart Pumping System

$(US) $(US)
Smart Controller and Instrumentation 0 2,000
Control Valve 3,200 0
Flowmeter 2,800 0
Total Life Cycle Installation Cost, 6,000 2,000
$(US)
Life Cycle Other Maintenance Cost Savings: $(US) 4,000
19
Total Life Cycle Cost Savings
A summary for each of the major life cycle cost components is shown in Table 7 for a conventional and
smart pumping system for the cooling tower installation.

Table 7. Life-Cycle Cost Summary

Conventional System Smart Pumping System

$(US) $(US)
Life Cycle Operating Cost 636,900 410,700
Life Cycle Pump Maintenance Cost 25,000 16,600
Life Cycle Other Maintenance Cost 6,000 2,000
Life Cycle Initial Cost 20,600 19,800
Life Cycle Installation Cost 83,000 53,750
Total Life Cycle Cost 771,500 502,850
Total Life Cycle Cost Savings: $(US) 268,650

The total life cycle savings for this installation is $(US) 268,650. This represents a 35% saving over a
fifteen-year equipment life. The present value of these savings, assuming a 10% interest rate, is
$148,300 and the difference in initial capital investment is negligible.

CONCLUSIONS
A smart pumping system has been successfully designed that can react and adjust to system changes
without manual intervention. The system is capable of recognizing and safeguarding itself from operating
under conditions that may adversely affect its life. This fault tolerant design has the ability to protect itself
from operating under conditions such as dry running, operation against a closed suction or discharge
valve, operation below minimum allowable flow and cavitation due to insufficient NPSH available. The
system has the ability to recognize when the adverse operating condition has passed and will resume
normal pumping operation when it is safe to do so. Field-testing proceeded without incident after initial
installation problems were resolved.

The system can significantly reduce all major components of life cycle cost. A variable speed controller is
able to match pump output to system head requirements exactly without the need for an energy
consuming control valve. This can reduce operating costs significantly over the life of the pump. The
control software will not permit the pump to operate outside user specified ranges or under conditions that
typically cause pumps to fail. As a result maintenance costs will decrease and MTBF will increase for
these systems. When comparing the cost of smart-pumping systems to conventionally operated systems
all aspects of total life cycle cost should be evaluated.

FUTURE SYSTEMS
The advent of smart pumping technologies for the first time gives the plant the ability to use the pump as:

• An asset sensing device

• An asset maintenance device

• A process controlling device.

Plants finally have the ability to mine the data obtained from these devices and use this information to
optimize entire operations.

The technology is available to automatically write work orders, obtain parts from stock or place parts
orders (as required) once a fault is encountered. Plant personnel will be notified of the problem and given
copies of the work order, pertinent drawings and installation manual.

20
Future systems will incorporate:

• Condition Monitoring capabilities.

• MicroElectroMechanical Systems (MEMS) miniature sensors will be built into pumps and motors.
Artificial intelligence and neural networks will be used to validate sensor readings. If a sensor fault is
detected a virtual sensor will be substituted until the faulty sensor can be replaced.

• Wireless communications of data will become common place.

• Cascaded loop control programs will be part of every drive.

The current trend is to have the control function move from the large centralized distributed control
system (DCS) to the appliance level at the plant floor.

21
 REFERENCES
Bloch, H.P. and Geitner, F.K., 1994, “An Introduction to Machinery Reliability Assessment”, Second
Edition, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas.

Budris, A.R., 1993, “The Shortcomings of Using Pump Suction Specific Speed Alone to Avoid Suction
Recirculation Problems”, Proceedings of the Tenth International Pump Users Symposium,
Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M University, pp. 91-95.

Casada, D., 1999, “Energy and Reliability Considerations for Adjustable Speed Driven Pumps”, Industrial
Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, pp. 53-62.

Erickson R.B., Sabini E.P. and Stavale A.E., Hydraulic Selection to Minimize the Unscheduled Portion of
Life Cycle Cost", Pump Users International Forum 2000, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Hovstadius G., Erickson R.B. and Tutterow V., 2000, Pumping System Life Cycle Costs, An Overlooked
Opportunity?, PumpLines pp.10-12.

Kratowicz, R., 2000, “Less is More”, Fluid Handling Systems Magazine, pp.30-33.

Stavale, A.E., 1995, “Dry Running Tests Utilizing Silicon Carbide Bearings and Polymer Lubricating Strips
with Conductive and Nonconductive Containment Shells in an ANSI Magnetic Drive Pump”, Proceedings
of the Twelfth International Pump Users Symposium, Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M University,
pp. 77-82.

Stavale, A.E., 2000,"Smart Pumping Systems: The Time is Now", Proceedings of PACWEST 2000
Jasper Conference, Pulp and Paper Technical Association of Canada.

Swalley, J.C., 1999, "Bomb-Proof or Best Value", Pumping Technology Magazine, pp. 24-25.

Wachstetter, J., 1994, "Understanding the Principal Control Actions of Single-Loop and Multiloop
Controllers", I&CS Magazine, pp. 45-51.

22