Pump ED 101

Lift Station Level Control – Almost Utopia

Joe Evans, Ph.D [Link]

Back in the old days, level control had little or nothing to do with saving energy. In
fact, it was often a necessary evil. Today, that is no longer true - - the VFD offers
the potential for power savings in lift station applications that range from a few
hundred gallons per minute to those that have to move thousands of gallons each
minute.

A Little History

In an ideal world, the flow of wastewater into a wet well would be constant. We
could then size a pump (or pumps) that could run continuously and remove that
entire inflow at the same rate as its entry. The result - - smaller pumps that run
at BEP 24/7. We learned, early on, that this approach would be impractical unless
we could gain total control over the habits of the populace. Although this has been
attempted in other parts of the world, history has taught us that it seldom works.
These revelations led to a less desirable but more practical alternative known as
“pump down”.

Pump down is extremely simple - - when the water in the wet well rises to some
maximum level, a pump starts and pumps the well down to some predetermined
lower level. The pump then shuts down and waits for the water to rise again.
Usually a wet well is sized for some minimum pump run time in order to keep the
number of pump starts within the guidelines of the manufacturer. Some may be
oversized and employ multiple smaller pumps in an attempt to emulate that Utopian
system we envisioned originally. Overall, pump down can be a very effective and
relatively efficient process.

Historically one of the challenges of lift station design, especially high flow ones,
has been keeping pump starts to an acceptable level. In some cases this can be
attained by installing multiple pumps and alternating them with each successive
pump down cycle. Another method is to stage multiple smaller pumps and attempt
balance outflow with inflow (level control). Although both of these methods work
well in many installations, there are times when the necessary wet well volume
becomes unrealistic or the number of staged pumps required cannot be
accommodated. An alternative approach would be to vary the pumping rate by
changing pump speed. This would allow outflow to be closely matched to inflow and
thus reduce, significantly, the number of pump starts.

In the 1960’s, well before the arrival of the VFD, a variable speed technique that
employed a motor that was originally developed for constant torque applications
became available. Figure 1 shows the rotor of the “wound rotor” induction motor.
Rather than the imbedded bars, found in a standard
rotor, it is wound with coils of insulated copper wire that
terminate at a set of slip rings. Brushes, similar to those
found in DC motors, allowed a resistance to be connected
to the coils during motor operation. By varying the
resistance of the rotor coils the slip speed of the rotor
can be altered and that range varies from rated speed
when the coils are shunted to approximately half speed at
some maximum resistance.

The device that was used to vary the resistance seen by the rotor was known as a
“liquid rheostat”. Rube Goldberg died in 1970 but I think he must have spent his
later years helping develop this machine. It consisted of large tank that contained
an electrolyte (salt) solution and movable metal rods that were wired to the rotor
brushes. When the rods were immersed deeper into the solution, resistance was
lowered, due to increased surface area contact, and motor speed increased. When
they were raised resistance increased and speed decreased. A bubbler system
determined the wet well level and controlled a linear motor that raised and lowered
the rods in an attempt to keep the level constant. The heat that was generated by
the increased resistance was removed from the electrolyte solution by a
circulating pump and heat exchanger. Rube would have been proud because it was a
complex contraption and required considerable maintenance but, it met its goal –
dynamic level control and decreased pump starts. The liquid rheostat was popular
in the wastewater industry throughout the 70’s and 80’s and was still in use in the
early 90’s.

VFD Level Control

The liquid rheostat was all about controlling level for the purpose of reducing
motor starts. Even though the required HP was reduced at lower speeds, the heat
generated by the higher resistance tended to cancel any potential energy savings.
Also, in order to keep from stopping the pump, it would often be forced to run at
lower than optimal speeds which resulted in low hydraulic efficiency. Today, we
can achieve level control without these drawbacks and save energy to boot. Lets
compare a pump down and level control application that uses the same pump.

Figure 2 shows the performance of a 12” non clog, with an manufacturer approved
flow range of 800 – 5500 GPM, in a pump down application. The red horizontal line
at 22.5 feet is the static head seen by the pump when the wet well is full and the
brown line at 32 feet is the maximum head at the end of the pump down cycle. The
cycle begins at 4500 GPM and ends at 3000 GPM and, hydraulic efficiency is
maintained at a healthy 77 to 78% across the entire range of the pump down cycle.

On first glance this appears to be a pretty efficient operation. All pumping occurs
at or very near BEP and hp drops as we approach the end of the cycle. But, if we
divide the hp required at each major flow point by the flow in gpm at that point we
will gain an entirely different perspective. What we learn is that the power
required per gallon pumped increases continuously as the wet well is evacuated. In
our example it is 0.007 hp/gpm at the beginning of the cycle and 0.01 hp/gpm at
the end - - an increase of almost 43%! Now there is nothing wrong with this - - it
is normal for a typical pump down application. But it does indicate that there may
be an opportunity to decrease power consumption.

Figure 3 shows the same pump operating under variable speed control. The colored
curves are the pump HQ curves from 45 to 60hz in 5hz increments and the red
horizontal line is the desired wet well level at a static head of 22.5 feet. The
intersections of the HQ curves and wet well level line are the flow rates at that
particular frequency. As I have mentioned in my previous variable speed columns,
the typical VFD has a resolution of 0.01 hz and an accuracy of about 0.1 hz, so be
aware that there are actually quite a few more operating points than shown here.

The hp required at full flow is the same as before but, the data shown below each
of the other major flow points are a result of reduced operating head and a
leftward migration of hydraulic efficiency due to a reduction in speed. The pump
can operate at flows as low as 2250 GPM (49hz) and not exceed its full flow power
requirement of 0.007 hp/gal. Even at 1500 GPM (47hz), power increases to just
0.009 hp/gal or the 3750 GPM point in the pump down application. As flow
decreases to 750 GPM (45hz, 40%eff, 10.7hp) the power required per gallon
increases to 0.014 hp/gal.

So, how much power savings could we expect if this pump is used in level control
versus pump down? It depends on the pumping range you decide upon. If you can
keep flow above 2250 GPM pumping efficiency, per gallon, will remain at its highest
level and power savings can be substantial. Although not entirely accurate, if you
compute the average hp/gal using several points across the pump down cycle the
result is about 0.0088 hp/gal. At a constant 0.007 hp/gal, level control will
consume about 21% less power per gallon pumped.

One of the advantages of VFD operation is that we do not have to achieve

“perfect” level control and can therefore avoid those higher power areas. If inflow
drops below some acceptable minimum the drive can stop the pump, allow the level
to increase slightly, and then restart the pump a short time later. The restart
begins at a lower frequency (say 30hz) and then ramps up to the desired pumping
frequency. By employing this “soft start” technique, starting current will never
exceed the rated full load current of the motor and the number of starts per unit
of time can be increased substantially.

Not all applications will benefit from level control. Lift stations with just a few
starts per day are typically better suited for pump down. Potential level control
installations include subdivisions and other municipal applications with continuous,
predictable flows during certain periods of the day. Industrial processes and
municipal wastewater treatment are also good candidates.

Although this column has focused on potential energy savings, there are other
advantages that can justify level control. Soft start and stop can prolong both
pump and motor life and first costs can often be reduced due to a smaller wet well
requirement. There is also an inexpensive, variation on level control that can be
applied to smaller pumps. Known as variable fixed speed (VFS) control it utilizes
float switches to vary pumping speed based on inflow. We will take a look at this
particular application in a future column.

Joe Evans is the western regional manager for Hydromatic Engineered Waste
Water Systems, a division of Pentair Water, 740 East 9th Street Ashland, OH
44805. He can be reached at [Link]@[Link], or via his website at
[Link]. If there are topics that you would like to see discussed
in future columns, drop him an email.