Case Study-Al Bab-Tadef PS Perfromance Feasibilty

AL BAB TADEF IRRIGATION PROJECT
Technical evaluation and Feasibility study of Pumping stations performance

Study prepared by Ghassan Al Salem
28/5/2011
INDEX
1. 2. 3. General Description of the pumping plant
2.1. Design Data
3 3
3
Plant Operation evolution

3.1. 3.2. 3.3. Historical sequence of problems Operation parameters Causes of Problems:
4
4 4 5
4.
Technical measures taken by the administration and its suitability

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. Operating the plant in manual regime Casting pump foundation with concrete: Erecting a concrete slab extending over the suction openings (Beginning of 2009) Installation of air release valves at pump casing crown Repair of impellers Installation of weed screen at PS1 Inlet Installation of control system
7
7 7 7 7 7 8 8
5.
Extra implementation Costs in plants at actual operation regime

5.1. 5.2. Losses due to reduced efficiency after repair Losses caused by Partial valve closure
8
8 10
6.
Other technical remarks

6.1. 6.2. 6.3. Discharge valves non return valve Pump packing
12
12 13 13
7.
technical Recommendations and proposals for improving performance

7.1. 7.2. 7.3. immediate maintenace measures Measures during maintenance period Measures required for reducing energy loss
13
13 14 14
8.
Conclusions
23
Page 2 of 24
CASE STUDY-AL BAB-TADEF PS PERFROMANCE FEASIBILTY.DOCX
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL EVALUATION

For the performance of the Pumping stations At Al Bab-Tadef Irrigation development project
1. GENERAL
The purpose of this report is the evaluation of the technical performance, feasibility of pumping process, determining the causes of problems occurred during start up and recommending optimum operation method Project Owner: Ministry of Irrigation, General Establishment for Land Development Function of the pumping plant: elevating water from Maskaneh west irrigation Channel to a number of elevated and ground tanks to provide for the irrigation of 6700 ha in Al Bab Tadef area This study is based on the measurements made at the first and second pumping station and the results are generalized to the third PS
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PUMPING PLANT

According to adopted design, the water is pumped using 3 pumping stations on different levels according to levels of irrigated areas using main pumps for providing the main flowrate and secondary pumps to supply partial demand required at each pumping level and according to served area. The pumps used are of the double suction type
2.1. DESIGN DATA
Unit PS1 PS2 PS3 Description
Area served by the plant Design flow Total Static head< Number of main pumps (Op-Std.by) Number of secondary pumps Main pump design flow Secondary pump design flow NPSHR at pump design flow Min. Suction level Max suction level Min Discharge level Max Discharge level Pressure line length Pressure line size
Table 1
Ha 3 m /s mWC No No 3 m /s 3 m /s mWC mASL mASL mASL mASL m mm
6700 5.17 61.83 4(3+1) 2 1.25-1.4 0.62-0.7 8 366.19 367.17 425.6 428.02 3509 1x1400
Group 1 3.8 62.76 3(2+1) 2 1.23-1.35 0.61-0.7 8 419.24 421.24 479.7 482.00 3258 1x1200
5945
Group 2 0.71 45.6 3(2+1) I 0.22-0.30 I 8 419.24 421.24 Direct Direct Direct 1x800
3061 2.31 45.43 4(3+1) 2 0.5-0.65 0.25-0.32 8 471.57 473.57 515.00 517.00 512.00 1x1000
Page 3 of 24
3. PLANT OPERATION EVOLUTION

3.1. HISTORICAL SEQUENCE OF PROBLEMS
The plant started operation by the local staff on 18/03/2007; the start up was accompanied by a group of problems summarized as follows: Vortices in PS1 suction basins entrained Air in pumped water Vibration in Pumps One of pumps packing does not pass cooling water One of the non-return valves has a defected piston Cavitation and wear in pumps impellers (Figure 1- Cavitation in pump impeller)
Figure 1- Cavitation in pump impeller
Those phenomena have a very bad effect on pump performance as they cause wear in moving and fixed parts of the pump and reduce the plant efficiency in general due to the reduction in pumped water quantity against same consumed power Those problems or part thereof continued during the years 2008-2009 when the administration has applied some solutions to the problems, this shall be discussed in the following clause 5 in detail
3.2. OPERATION PARAMETERS
The following operation parameters were collected during the site visit on 8/04/2011, in addition to some measurement which were carried out by the administration during the preparation of this study; According to this data we indicate the following
3.2.1. OPERATION POINTS AT SITE VISIT DATE
Depth cm PS1, 3 Pumps operating Pump1 Pump2 Pump3 PS2, 2 main Pumps +1 sec. Main pump Secondary Pump Table 2 293 293 293 250 250 W.L MASL 366.25 366.25 366.25 419.48 419.48 Current A 117 117 117 122 68 Power kW 1170 1170 1170 1220 684 Flow 3 m /hr 4200 4200 4200 4350 2300 Pressure bar 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.4 8.4
Page 4 of 24
3.2.2.
OPERATION POINTS BEFORE AND AFTER REPAIRS
Pumps operated at the points shown in the following table before and after the repairs
PS2 Main Pump before repair Main Pump after repair Table 3 W. Depth cm 250 250 Current A N.A N.A. Power kW 1240 1200 Flow m3/hr 4300 4400 Pressure bar 8.4 8.4
3.2.3.
PRESSURE UP AND DOWNSTREAM THE PUMPS
The Administration has provided us, thankfully, the pressure readings upstream and downstream the control valves according to number of operating pumps, this is shown in the following table
No of operating pumps Pressure Upstream valve (bars) PS1 Pressure downstream valve (bars) Pressure Upstream valve (bars) PS2 Pressure downstream valve (bars) Table 4 1 5.9 6.0 2 6.18 6.8 8.17 8.4 3 6.7 8.0 4 7.29
3.2.4.
IRRIGATION PROGRAM
Mar 1,906 Apr 7,652.3 May 6,469.1 June 4,755.6 July 8,176 Aug 8,483 Sep 6,464 Oct 2,520
Month Pumped volume 1000m3 Table 5
3.3. 3.3.1.
CAUSES OF PROBLEMS: VORTICES AND ENTRAINED AIR
The design did not take into consideration the critical submersion depth (hc)<in the design of the suction basin. (hc) was calculated for PS1 and was found to be equal to 3.74m, which is greater than the available submersion depth at Normal Water level (0.77m) and also greater than available depth at max. water level (1.75m), this caused vertices to occur on water surface, which in turn, cause the air to enter to suction pipe resulting in noises and vibrations during pumping
3.3.2. VIBRATION IN PUMPS
Vibration in pumps may occur due to the following reason Bad fixing of pumps Cavitation Entrained air in pumps Misalignment of pump and motor or changes in alignment by time because of bad fixing
CAVITATION
Most of those reasons existed during the first operation period

3.3.3.
Based on information given by operating staff, which indicated that at the start up, the pressure at pump outlet was 6.22 bars; According to pump curve, the pump operated at flow rate 5900 m3/hr, which is located near the rightmost side of the curve, and the corresponding NPSHR is in the range of 11.57 m.
Page 5 of 24
This value is not available according to suction conditions in the station, and which is calculated as shown in the following Table 8
Description Data Input No of Operating Pumps Flow rate Water temp Water specific weight at working Temp Gravity Acceleration Discharge pressure Gauge correction Suction Pipe size Discharge Pipe size Suction Pipe Length Vapor pressure @ 20C Atmospheric pressure @350 mASL Zero Reference level water depth from Tank bottom Suction pipe centerline depth Suction opening radius Discharge pipe depth from Ref. 0.00 Impeller Eye depth below ref 0.00 Friction Factor Suction local losses factor Discharge local losses factor up to Gauge Efficiency to test curve @ head Net positive suction Head Required Measured Motor Power Shaft Power to test curve Motor efficiency Pressure @ collector Voltage Current Cos phi Calculated power kW Table 6 General calculations Tank Bottom level Water level in Basin Pump Discharge pipe Centerline level Impeller eye level Suction pipe Area Discharge pipe Area Table 7 NPSHA Calculations Velocity in suction pipe Suction Velocity head Available positive head Friction losses in pipe Suction Local losses Suction total losses Net positive suction Head Available NPSH difference Table 8 Symb n Q T S.G g Pd gc Ds Dd Ls Hvp Pa LVL0 H1 H2 Rs H3 H4 f Ks Kd tpc NPSHR Pm Pact m Pd1 U I Cos() Pc Unit PS1 1 4,200 20 998.000 9.806 8.20 0.50 1000 800 20 0.24 9.89 367.52 2.93 3.50 0.70 2.70 2.09 0.0104 0.99 0.90 88.49% 5.28 1,170 1106.42 94.1% 5.90 6000 117 0.962 1170 Reference
m3/hr C kg/m3 2 m/s Bar m mm mm m m m mASL m m m m m
Measured Estimated Physical Physical Measured Measured Drawings Drawings Drawings Physical Physical Drawings Measured Drawings Drawings Drawings Drawings Chimbar Bohl Pg 137-bild 4.71 Curve Curve Measured Curve Data Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured
% mWC kW kW % Bar V A kW
LVL1 LVL2 LVL3 LVL4 As Ad
mASL mASL mASL mASL m2 m2
363.32 366.25 364.82 365.43 0.79 0.50
LVL0-(H2+Rs) LVL1+H1 LVL0-H3 LVL0-H4 2 Ds ./4 2 Dd ./4
Vs Hv Hz Hfs HLs Hs NPSHA
m/s mWC mWC mWC mWC mWC mWC mWC
1.49 0.113 0.82 0.023 0.111 0.135 10.45 5.18
Q/As Vs2/2g LVL2-LVL4 f x Ls / Ds x Hv Ks x Hv Hfs + HLs =Ha+Hz-Hs+Hv-Hvp NPSHA-NPSHR
Page 6 of 24
It is known that the condition to operate the pump safely is to have an NPSHA>NPSHR+(0.51.5)m; the operation of the pump at the rate of 5900 m3/hr is a result of the hydraulic considerations in the design of the pumping station, this point will be discussed further in the following clause 7
4. TECHNICAL MEASURES TAKEN BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND ITS SUITABILITY

4.1. OPERATING THE PLANT IN MANUAL REGIME
Based on recommendations proposed to the administration, the pumps were operated by applying a manual control regime in the year 2008; this was achieved by sliding the operation point from the rightmost end of the curve which was causing cavitation, to another operation point by partially closing the discharge side valve thus creating an extra local loss in the valve and force the pump to operate at a point where there is no cavitation This measures is considered to be good solution to save the pumps, but this came at the account of the pumping economy as an unjustified extra cost of energy should be paid to overcome an artificial loss created to solve a mechanical problem resulting from design considerations. Clause 5 demonstrates the extra cost resulting from applying such a solution. In addition, the use of butterfly valve for flow control is an impractical application due to high potential of cavitation in the valve components as explained in clause 6-1 hereinafter.
4.2. CASTING PUMP FOUNDATION WITH CONCRETE:
The fixing of pump foundation by casting concrete is an excellent technical solution, this has resulted in increasing the structure inertia and stabilized the operation, especially that other reasons such as entrained air and cavitation were eliminated. Also this solution has resulted in maintaining the pump alignment during operation which will save the rotating parts of the pump (Sleeves, bearings, wear rings, etc)
4.3. ERECTING A CONCRETE SLAB EXTENDING OVER THE SUCTION OPENINGS (BEGINNING OF 2009)
This solution has reduced the flow velocity of the incoming water which resulted in increasing the pressure within its bulk and eliminating the vortices and entrained air
4.4. INSTALLATION OF AIR RELEASE VALVES AT PUMP CASING CROWN
Also, this measures is a good solution to evacuate accumulated air which is produced naturally due to local circulation in suction pipes during pump operation, even after solving the Vortices problem in suction basin
4.5. REPAIR OF IMPELLERS
The administration has repaired the impellers by coating with Belzona (Figure 2-Impeller after repair) in order to be able to operate the pumps and operate the plants
Page 7 of 24
Figure 2-Impeller after repair There are few reservations on repairing the impellers of such size and importance resumed in the following This material is used to repair the roughened surfaces subject to cavitation and erosion for the purpose of increasing the smoothness of the surface. This material has good resistance in locations with slow flow velocity, but it was used to repair holes extending through the whole thickness of the impellers without any metallic material to hold it in place, this is an unconventional use of this material and there is a high potential for the collapse of such repair in the holes areas As shown in the repaired impeller picture, the vanes ends are not neat and have not been properly machined; this results in local vortices at entrance area especially that it is a high velocity area, and as Belzona has bad resistance to high velocities, this area is subject to accelerated wearing. It is not possible to restore the impeller to its initial dimensions and surface curvature which will lead to a change in the pump performance. The change in pump efficiency after repair according to available data is shown in Table 1, the lost power calculations due to repairs are shown in the following Table 9, clause <5.1
INSTALLATION OF WEED SCREEN AT PS1 INLET INSTALLATION OF CONTROL SYSTEM
4.6. 4.7.
This is a good practice for protecting the pumps from weeds and floating objects. The system comprises pressure sensors, electrical valves and PID (controller), it was put to operation at the beginning of this year 2011 This measures is similar to manual operation from the hydraulic point of view, but it provides automatic control of the valve based on the set pressure, the extra cost of operation resulting from the extra power loss to overcome local losses in the valve is unjustified
5. EXTRA IMPLEMENTATION COSTS IN PLANTS AT ACTUAL OPERATION REGIME

Losses in plants are an outcome of two factors:
5.1. LOSSES DUE TO REDUCED EFFICIENCY AFTER REPAIR
According to current operation set-points, PS1 is operating at the following point
Page 8 of 24
Flowrate of 4200 m3/hr Pressure at pressure gauge installed downstream the discharge taper equals 8.2 bars Consumed motor power of 1170 kW Motor efficiency of 94.1% according to contractor guaranteed values
The calculated efficiency and head of the pump at current operation setup are 86.14% and 83.06 m respectively. Compared to curve values there is a loss of efficiency equal to 2.35% and in head equal to 2.78m according to the following Table 9
Description Generated head calculations Discharge measured Head Discharge Corrected Head Velocity in Discharge pipe Discharge Velocity head Losses In discharge up to gauge location difference between Pipe C/L and water Generated head Power losses Due to repair Motor net output Pump Hydraulic power Power required (test curve efficiency) Pump Calculated efficiency Pump head @ Q acc. To test curve Lost Head due to Impeller repair 3 3 Lost Power /10 m @ Motor eff. 94.1% Total Demand Volume Total Irrigated area A Irrigated Area by PS1 Pumped volume from PS1/year Irrigated Area by PS2 Pumped volume from PS2/year Irrigated Area by PS3 Pumped volume from PS3/year Total lost Power/season in PS1 Table 9 Symb Hdm Hdc Vd Hvd Hd Hps Hp Pm_net Phyd Ptc P Hpc HL PL1000 V Ar A1 V1 A2 V2 A3 V3 P1 Unit mWC mWC m/s mWC mWC mWC mWC kW kW kW mWC mWC 3 3 kw/10 m 3 3 10 m /yr Ha Ha 3 3 10 m /yr Ha 3 3 10 m /yr Ha 3 3 10 m /yr k.W.h PS1 83.61 84.11 2.32 0.275 0.247 -1.43 83.059 1101.0 948.3 1071.6 86.14% 85.75 2.70 9.0396 46,426 6,656 755 46,426 2,840 41,160 3,061 21,351 419,673 Reference Hd+GC Hdm O 10.196 Q/Ad Vd2/2g KdxHvd LVL3-LVL2 Hdc+Hps+Hs+Hd P x Etm Q x Hp x SGx g/3.6x106 Phyd/Etpc Phyd/Pmnet From Curve Hpc-Hp HL x SGx g/3.6x106/Etp/m Data Data Data Calculated Data Calculated Data Calculated PLxV1
According to above calculations, the total lost energy in PS1 due to reduced efficiency after repairs is equal to
419,673 M.W.hr in PS1

The ratio of consumed energy in each plant to the total energy is estimated based on the following table:
Description Total irrigated area by station Required head in station Rate of consumed energy to total energy Table 10 Unit Ha M % PS1 6700 80.7 45.32 PS2 5945 83.59 41.62 PS3 3061 50.6 13.07
Page 9 of 24
Considering that the changes in the three plants are similar, the total lost energy in the three plants due to reduced efficiency is equal to:
926,081 K.W.hr in three plants during the irrigation season

according to following table
Description Symb
Total lost Power/season in PS2 Total lost Power/season in PS3 Total Losses
Table 11
PL_Total
P2 P3
Unit k.W.h k.W.h k.W.h
PS1 375,590 196,557 991,821
Reference PLxV2xH(PS2)/H(PS1) PLxV3xH(PS3)/H(PS1) P1+P2+P3
Losses in PS1 are calculated based on current operation set point applied by administration; it may vary towards increase-decrease depending on the change in operation parameters
5.2. LOSSES CAUSED BY PARTIAL VALVE CLOSURE
Pump operation points were selected based on the engineer and contractor calculations, the pumps were also supplied based on this basis, it was found out, according to current measurements, that the actual losses in the system are less than the calculated losses, the required pressure in the collector is 5.9 to 7.29 bars to pass a flowrate of 4200 to 16800 m3/hr in the main pressure pipe respectively. These measurements confirm the measurements made at the startup phase, which showed that the pump operated at 6.22 bars at startup which resulted in operating the pump at the end of the curve (even outside the curve) when one pump was operating; This caused NPSHR to exceed NPSHA by approximately 1.75m as mentioned in clause <3.3.3 and resulted in sever cavitation To overcome this situation, the discharge valve was partially closed and created an extra local loss to a point corresponding to a head of 83.06 m and flowrate of 4200 m3/hr The actual total losses in energy during irrigation season was calculated and found to be varying depending on the number of operating pumps and the pumped volumes as shown in clause 8 The following figure -1 Shows the pump curve, the actual operation points, and the operation point at start-up of the plant and the proposed operation point:
Page 10 of 24
120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 H mWC 75 70 65 60 55 50 Q=5363 m3/hr 45 40 35 30 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Suggested Operation Point Q=5363 m3/hr H=71.15m NPSHR=8.44m
Operation Point at startup Q=6070 m3/hr H=59.5 m NPSHR=12m
120
< Pump Operation Curves

110 Actual Operation Point Q=4200 m3/hr H=83.06 m NPSHR=5.28m =88.49% NPSHR=8.44m Saved Head 11.91m Flowrate = 5363 m3/hr Efficiency 87.49 80
100
90
H=71.15m
70 Efficiency %
60
50
40
Q m3/hr 6,000 6,500
5,500
30 7,000
Figure 3 - Pump operation curves
Page 11 of 24
NPSHR x10 mWC
6. OTHER TECHNICAL REMARKS

6.1. DISCHARGE VALVES
The use of a butterfly valve as a control valve is not recommended as the partial closure shall force the flow to pass through a small cross section, thus increasing the flow velocity; this in turn, shall result in a pressure drop on the downstream face of the disk causing: Cavitation on the downstream face of the valve disk Excess torsion on the valve shaft causing wear of the gear box
Cavitation areas
Figure 4 For those reasons, it is not recommended to use this type of valve for control The following Figure 5 shows the opening ratio (23%)at a flowrate of 4200 m3/hr under a deferential pressure of 22.4 m According to Figure 6 It is clear that the valve will be subject to wear due to cavitation
Opening degree @ 4200 m3/hr flow and P=22.4 m Flowrate m3/hr
Opening %
Page 12 of 24
Figure 5
Cavitation no. @ 23% opening
Cavitation Number
Opening %
Figure 6
Remark: the area where the cavitation no. in the valve (Red curve) is greater than the audible, visible and full cavitation lines is considered as cavitation area. At an opening degree of 23% all cavitation lines are below the red line, which means audible, visible and full cavitation will occur.
6.2.
NON RETURN VALVE
Hydraulic piston of one or more non-return valves required repair and calibration, it is very important to calibrate the NRVs pistons to facilitate the self-opening of the valve. This should be calibrated according to manufacturers recommendations by modifying the location of the counterweight and the piston throttling valve.
6.3. PUMP PACKING
One of the pump packing is not passing cooling water, this will cause overheating of bearing areas. This should be repaired to guarantee proper cooling of the bearing area
7. TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE

7.1.
IMMEDIATE MAINTENACE MEASURES
Page 13 of 24

7.2.
Calibrate NRVs on pump discharge pipe (Counter weight and hydraulic piston Repair of packing of pump in PS1
MEASURES DURING MAINTENANCE PERIOD
Check the control valve for cavitation evidence on valve disk and body Check repaired pumps impellers and durability of Belzona Installation of the following instruments if not available Accurate pressure gauges in the following locations Directly at the centerline of the pump suction flange Directly at the centerline of the pump discharge flange at the centerline of the main pressure pipe Level measurement in suction and discharge basins
The purpose of those measurements is to evaluate the performance of the pumps and calculating the actual losses in system accurately according to flowrate
7.3. MEASURES REQUIRED FOR REDUCING ENERGY LOSS
Before making future decisions to be applied to improve the plant performance, measurements of different operation parameters should be carried out during at least one irrigation season, readings should be made at every change, start and stop of all pumps including direct irrigation pumps The records should be made for the following parameters:
7.3.1.
Tag of each operating pump Pressure at pump discharge flange Pressure at pump suction flange Pressure at the beginning of the main pressure pipeline Variation in water level at suction basin Variation in water level at discharge basin (the levels of PS2 suction basin should be transmitted to PS1 and in PS3 to PS2) Power withdrawn from the motor Enhanced Power factor Withdrawn current Actual voltage
IMPROVING EFFICIENCY
It is recommended to replace the impellers by new impellers of the same material, as the change to a higher grade will not contribute to eliminating the cavitation and this phenomenon should be eliminated by applying different approach. Due to the great effect of the efficiency on pumping cost, especially in a plant of this size, it is advised to replace the impellers by original impellers made by the manufacturer in order to guarantee the efficiency and to warrant the performance of the pump unless there is another supplier who can guarantee the test curve efficiency as minimum and guarantee the performance of the pump.
7.3.2. REDUCING LOCAL LOSSES IN DISCHARGE VALVE
A program was developed to calculate the consumed energy required during the irrigation season, the following figure shows the user interface of the program
Page 14 of 24
PS1 Operation System Motor Power Total Consumed Power No of Operating pumps Month Volume Op. hrs Daily Op. hrs D1/D or N1/N D 790.00 RPM All May 2 5 6,469,100 603 19.46 100.00% 988.00 Variable N 31 744 Lost Power/Pump Total Lost power % lost power Net kW/m3 Motor efficiency Pg Pg Gauge correction Level 366.25 Min. Hs NPSHA-NPSHR 2.00 2.00 Level 364.82 f Q pipe f Ds L= = 4.60E-02 = 1.00E-06 mm m/s
2
1,239.52 kW 2,479.05 kW 137.48 kW 274.96 kW 11.1% 0.231 94.1% 71.61 6.97 0.50 m Bar m
Recommended flow 1,495,304 QBEP Qmin
5363
m3/hr
Start
4750.00 4347.51
m3/hr m3/hr (24 hrs operation)
Level P Gauge correction P @ Collector P @ Collector 7.85 1.00 63.41 6.22 mWC m mWC Bar H Hst 0.0111 10725 1400 3509 3.496 27.89 1.94 5.99 62.95 m/s mWC mWC m3/hr mm m
421.24 mASL
56.42 54.99
0.0104 1000 20.00 1.90 0.21 0.99 0.220 mWC QPump Ns [m] m/s NPSHA NPSHR Hpump Curve pump curve 10.44 8.44 70.80 88.49% 5363 5363 49.40 m3/hr mWC mWC mWC Dd Vd Kd Hd 800.00 2.96 3.90 1.75 mWC mm m/s
D pipe L pipe K pipe Kf pipe V pipe H pipe Total Head
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.8704 0.8754 0.8704 0.8704 0.8866 0.8932 0.8704 0.8704
Vs Kfs Ks Hs
Trim
98.74%
Figure 7
Page 15 of 24
The total consumed energy required for PS1 during the irrigation season when pump operates at current designated flow rate of 4200 m3/hr and at calculated efficiency is shown in the following Table 12
Q Pump 4200 m3/hr - N=988 rpm (Reduced=781.73 mm) 1xPumps Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 530,741 2xPumps 530,741 3xPumps 530,741 2,130,845 1,801,373 1,324,235 2,276,673 2,362,160 1,799,953 701,714 12,927,696 991,821 All pumps
Month
1,324,235
Total
701,714
701,714
Total losses under current operation conditions
Table 12 The above table is shown in graphical form in the following Chart
3,000 2,277 2,362 Energy Lost in 3 plants Monthly Pumping Energy K.W.hr 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Mar Apr 1xPumps May Jun Jul 3xPumps
Chart 1
14,000 991,821 kW.hr 2,131 Pumping Energy in 1000 kW 12,000 1,800 10,000 12,927.70 702 702 702 Aug Sep Oct Total All pumps 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Month 2xPumps
1,801 1,324 1,324
It is proposed to use one of the following methods to reduce losses in valves:

7.3.2.1. CHANGE OF PUMP OPERATION POINT
The purpose of the pumping process is to supply the maximum volume of water with minimum required head, this implies that minimizing the required head and increasing the flowrate is the right approach to reach an economical cost of pumping, at the same time, consideration should be made not to operate the pump in under cavitation conditions This can be achieved by shifting the operation point to the right side of the curve. Two operation pints were investigated
Page 16 of 24
531 531 531

a. Operating the pump at best efficiency point
Operation at BEP Q =4750 m3/s 1xPumps 2xPumps 491,181 491,181 1,667,102 1,225,529 1,665,788 649,410
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 649,410 Total Saved energy in PS1 Total Annual Saved energy in 3 Plants kW.hr Total Annual Savings in Syrian Pounds (3.00 SP / kW.hr)
3xPumps 491,181 1,972,015 1,667,102 1,225,529 2,106,974 2,186,088 1,665,788 649,410
All Pumps
Month
11,964,086 963,610 2,277,316 6,831,948
Table 13 The total consumed energy required for PS1 during the irrigation season when pump operates at Best efficiency point is shown in the following Chart 2
3,000 Energy Saving in 3 plants 2,277,316 kW.hr 2,107 2,186 2,500 1,972 Monthly Pumping Energy 1,667 1,667 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Mar Apr May Jun 2xPumps Jul Aug Sep All Pumps Oct Total 1xPumps 3xPumps
Chart 2
14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 11,964.09 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Month
b.
operating the pump at maximum possible flowrate
The other possibility is to operate the pump at the maximum possible flowrate by shifting the operation point to the leftmost side of the curve without causing cavitation by opening the valve to the maximum possible opening it is advisable to operate the pump at a point where the NPSHA NPSHR 2m, this will guarantee sufficient positive pressure without cavitation According to Figure 3 - Pump operation curves, to achieve a suction pressure of +2 m, the pump should operate at a flowrate of 5363 m3/hr, where NPSHR is 8.44m and NPSHA is 10.44 m, the pump head in this case is 71.15 m
Page 17 of 24
Pumping Energy in 1000 kW
1,226 1,226
1,666 1,666 649 649 649
491 491 491
This can be realized by changing the pressure set point at the discharge valve to a value of 6.84 bars In all cases, the performance of the pump should be closely monitored during valve opening for vibration and cavitation.
As a better Measures, and in order to guarantee the pressure in the suction pipe above the 2 m set point, it is recommended to control the discharge valve using a pressure sensor with a range from -5 to +5 m, installed at the suction side and the valve shall continue to open until the suction pressure is in the range of 2 m., by this we guarantee the maximum flowrate without cavitation
As mentioned above, it is always necessary to monitor the pump operation during the first calibration Calculation of energy saving when operating the pump at 5636 m3/hr
Q Pump 5363 m3/hr Impeller Dia=790@N=988 rpm 1xPumps Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 440,563 2xPumps 440,563 1,768,795 1,495,304 1,099,236 3xPumps 440,563 1,768,795 1,495,304 1,099,236 1,889,846 1,960,808 1,494,125 582,487 10,731,165 2,196,531 5,191,098 15,573,295 All pumps
Month
582,487 Total
1,494,125 582,487
Saved energy in PS1 Total Annual Saved energy in 3 Plants kW.hr Total Annual Savings in Syrian Pounds (3.00 SP / kW.hr) Table 14
The total consumed energy required for PS1 during the irrigation season when pump operates at 5363 m3/hr is shown in the following Chart 3
Page 18 of 24

3,000 Energy Saving in 3 plants 2,500 Monthly Pumping Energy 1,769 1,769 1,890 1,961 2,000 1,500 1,000 441 441 441 5,191,098 kW.hr
Technical evaluation and Feasibility study of Pumping stations performance 12,000 10,000 8,000 1,494 1,494 10,731.17 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Total Month
500 -
Mar
Apr
May 1xPumps
Jun Jul 2xPumps

Chart 3
Aug 3xPumps
Sep Oct All pumps
7.3.2.2. CHANGE OF IMPELLER DIAMETER
If sufficient measurements were made according to requirement of clause 7 < .3 the required head can be calculated, subsequently the impeller diameter trim can be decided to reduce consumed energy, knowing that the increase of surface roughness in the pipe surface by time, (During the next 10 to 20 Years), which will require more pressure, can be covered by increasing the operation hours in the future (The pumps will operate at an operation point with higher head and less flow, which will require more operation hours to provide the irrigation demand) In General, it is not recommended to reduce the impeller diameter by maximum 5% maximum of original diameter in order to maintain acceptable efficiency, it can be considered that the efficiency shall be constant at this trim within a negligible error. The total consumed energy required for PS1 during the irrigation season when pump operates with a reduced impeller diameter of 750.5 mm instead of 790 mm is shown in the following Table 15
5% impeller trim (D=750.5 mm) N=988 1xPumps Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Total 367,468 2xPumps 389,383 1,321,592 971,536 3xPumps 417,720 1,677,080 1,417,770 1,042,239 1,791,855 1,859,137 1,416,652 552,284 9,795,064 3,132,632 7,403,403 22,210,209 All pumps
Month
485,845
1,320,550 514,819
Saved energy in PS1 Total Annual Saved energy in 3 Plants kW.hr Total Annual Savings in Syrian Pounds (3.00 SP / kW.hr) Table 15
Page 19 of 24
1,495 1,495 1,099 1,099
582 582 582
It is worthy to indicate that the pump operation curves with the new impeller size should be obtained by the manufacturer to carry out an exact calculation of consumed energy Also, the above table clearly indicate that operating less number of pumps for longer periods of time is more feasible than operating many pumps for shorter time despite of the losses in valves due to valve closure to avoid cavitation, so it is advisable to operate the minimum number of pumps for longer periods In all cases, the number of required pumps is related to many factors, such as water demand, reservoir volumes power availability, water levels in suction and discharge tanks The above table is shown in graphical form in the following
3,000
Energy Saving in 3 plants 7,403,403 kW.hr
12,000 10,000 1,677 1,792 1,859 8,000 1,321 1,417 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Month Pumping Energy in 1000 kW
2,500 Pumping Energy K.W.hr 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Mar Apr May Jun 1xPumps 2xPumps Jul Aug 3xPumps Sep Oct All pumps Total 367 389 418
1,322 1,418
972 1,042
7.3.2.3. CHANGING PUMPING SPEED
Chart 4
One of the proposed technical solutions to reduce losses in valves, is to reduce pump rotating speed to cope with required head The effect of changing pump speed is hydraulically similar to changing impeller diameter except that it has the following advantages Maintaining the impeller diameter to produce any extra required head if necessary (Better maneuverability) Maintaining the efficiency at its optimal values as the change in diameter will reduce the efficiency due to local circulation caused by reduced diameter, and because the losses inside the pump are inversely proportional to rotation speed
The pump speed can be change by changing the electrical frequency using Variable frequency drives (VFD) The minimum rotation speed, which gives the least cost of pumping, was estimated to be the equivalent to the minimum impeller trim on the pump commercial curve, i.e. by reducing the speed by approximately 13%
Page 20 of 24
486 515 552
9,795.06
The total consumed energy required for PS1 during the irrigation season when pump operates at 860 rpm speed is shown in the following Table 16 The decision to install VFDs should be made taking into consideration the following factors: Pump operation characteristics at 860 rpm (Q, H, , NPSHR) which should be supplied by the manufacturer Ability of the existing motor to run at 860 rpm without considerable reduction in efficiency The initial and O&M cost and Power loss of the VFD Saved energy during the lifetime of the plant
Impeller D=790, N=860 rpm 1xPumps 2xPumps 355,475 370,311 923,952
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 469,987 Total Saved energy in PS1 Total Annual Saved energy in 3 Plants kW.hr Total Annual Savings in Syrian Pounds (3.00 SP / kW.hr) Month
489,603
3xPumps 390,253 1,566,805 1,324,545 973,707 1,674,032 1,736,891 1,323,501 515,969
All Pumps
9,375,188 3,552,508 8,395,702 25,187,105
Table 16
Cost of lost energy was calculated based on energy unit price of 3.00 SYP/k.W.hr The relatively high savings in energy is a result of two reasons 1- Increasing the useful energy by increasing the flowrate and reducing the head, either by reducing the impeller size or pump speed accompanied by shifting the operation point to a higher efficiency point. Which is the main factor in increasing pumping economy 2- The increase of efficiency after replacing the impellers with original impellers Table 16 is shown in graphical form in the following Chart 5
Page 21 of 24

3,000 Energy Saving in 3 plants 8,395,702 kW.hr 2,500 Monthly Pumping Energy K.W.hr 2,000 1,500 1,000 355 370 390 500 Mar Apr 1xPumps May Jun Jul 3xPumps
Chart 5
Technical evaluation and Feasibility study of Pumping stations performance 10,000 9,000 8,000
1,567
1,674
1,737
7,000 1,324 6,000 9,375.19 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0
Aug
Sep
470 490 516
Oct
Total
Month
2xPumps
All Pumps
Page 22 of 24
1,325 924 974

8. CONCLUSIONS
From discussion and calculations shown in this report, one can conclude the following There are some design and execution blunders, which caused operational problems some of those problems are corrected by the administration in a good way There are still minor repair works which needs to be tackled There are major energy losses estimated at 8400 M.W.hr annually caused by 2 reasons The method of impellers repairs which resulted in efficiency loss The difference between the actual operation conditions and the design considerations, forced the administration to operate the pumps at non economical operation points to avoid deterioration of pumps due to cavitation
A considerable amount of energy can be saved by applying one or more of the following solutions I. It is important to change the impellers by new impellers from the manufacturer with the same material, but the decision of changing the impeller diameter should be made in light of operation parameters Modify the operation points as detailed in <7.3.2.1 and monitoring the pump performance during initial change The energy saving due to this solution is based on the selected impeller diameter as follows a. By maintaining the impeller diameter (790 mm) and operating the pump at 5363 m3/hr, the annual saved energy will be 5192 M.W.hr, i.e.
II.
15.57 Million SYP

This proposal should be applied immediately according to clause <7.3.2.1-<b b. By Changing the impeller diameter to 750.5 mm and operating the pump at 5363 m3/hr, the annual saved energy will be 7403 M.W.hr, i.e.
22.21 Million SYP

The manufacturer should be consulted before making the decision to guarantee the efficiencies III. Operating the pump at 860 rpm, in this case, the annual saved energy will be 8369 M.W.hr, i.e.
25.2 Million SYP

It is important to take into consideration the points mentioned in clause <7.3.2.3 when making this decision IV. An irrigation program should be adopted based on operating the minimum no of pumps for the longest period of time, this should be considered as a standard operation practice in addition to recommendations of sub-clause <II above
Page 23 of 24

V.
All measurements of operation parameters and required instruments mentioned in clause <7.3 should be installed and connected to monitor the pump performance in order to make the right technical decisions The cost saving calculated above is based on unit energy price of SYP 3.00/k.W.hr, this calculations should be revised based on actual commercial energy price to reach the real saving
VI.
Finally, we can conclude as follows:
The performance of the plant is acceptable from the mechanical point of view but unacceptable economically, it is vital to take the necessary measures to enhance the operation costs according to this reports recommendations
Page 24 of 24

Case Study-Al Bab-Tadef PS Perfromance Feasibilty

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

Case Study-Al Bab-Tadef PS Perfromance Feasibilty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AL BAB TADEF IRRIGATION PROJECT

Technical evaluation and Feasibility study of Pumping stations performance

AL BAB TADEF IRRIGATION PROJECT

Study prepared by Ghassan Al Salem

AL BAB TADEF IRRIGATION PROJECT

Technical evaluation and Feasibility study of Pumping stations performance

Plant Operation evolution

Technical measures taken by the administration and its suitability

Extra implementation Costs in plants at actual operation regime

Other technical remarks

technical Recommendations and proposals for improving performance