Articles

Improved fuel efficiency of diesel irrigation

pumpsets in India
G.J. Bom and D. van Raalten
Arcadis Euroconsult, P.O. Box 441, 6800AK, Arnhem, the Netherlands

S. Majundar
Community Development and Human Interest (CDHI), Pandapara Bowbazar, Jalpaiguri-735101
West Bengal, India

R.J. Duali
Siliguri (Agri-Mech) Circle, Water Resources Investigation and Development Department
Government of West Bengal, Hakim Para, Najrul Sarani, Siliguri, Darjeeling, West Bengal, India

B.N. Majumder
Jalpaiguri (Agri-Mech) Division, Water Resources Investigation and Development Department
Government of West Bengal, Neear Raj Bari, P.O. Raikot Para, Dist. Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, India

A number of modifications were developed and introduced on 5-hp/1500-rpm pumpsets. These modi-
fications resulted in a reduction in fuel consumption of about 50%, while retaining the same dis-
charge. The average cost of these modifications is Indian rupees (Rs) 300 and they can be
implemented by the farmers themselves or by local mechanics. India has some 6.5 million diesel
irrigation pumps, of which an estimated 2.6 milion are of this 5-hp/1500-rpm type. Since dissemi-
nation of these modifications began in 1997, about 500 pumpsets have been modified and about
1200 improved-design 2.5-hp pumpsets have been procured and are being put into operation.

1. Introduction
The large number of diesel irrigation pumps in India (6.5
million) according to the latest estimates [Ground Water
Development Report, 1986] and an annual growth of
about 200,000 pumpsets, justifies a close investigation of
their fuel efficiency. An earlier paper in Energy for Sus-
tainable Development, Vol. III, No. 5, January 1997, de-
scribed a total package of improvements for fuel-saving,
including modifications on the pumpset, improved well
filters and improved water conveyance techniques. The
present paper goes into more detail of the technological
aspects of the modifications on engines and pumps and
describes the introduction of a new 2.5-hp pumpset.
(Pumps in India are usually rated in horse power or hp.
1 hp = 746 W.) By comparing the energy input (fuel) and
the output in terms of water lifted against a given head,
for the standard 5-hp pumpset (Petter type), it became
obvious that these diesel pumpsets operated at a low ef-
ficiency. The following modifications were then tried and
the effects on fuel efficiency measured:
• introduction of flow restrictor in cooling system
• reduction of engine speed
• removal of the checkvalve/footvalve
The impact of these modifications and their technological
aspects is presented in the following paragraphs.
These pumpsets are used on shallow tubewells (STWs)
and pump dugwells (PDWs). The modifications for both
applications are the same except that in the case of the
PDW the footvalve is removed and in the case of the STW
the checkvalve between the pump and the tubewell is re-
moved.
2. Research methodology
Under the North Bengal Terai Development Project
(NBTDP), an investigation of the fuel efficiency of the
ubiquitous 5-hp/1500-rpm diesel pumpsets was under-
taken. After observing on a small number of diesel
pumpsets in the field that the fuel efficiency was low, a
comprehensive survey [Sinha and Talukdar, 1996] was
carried out on 41 existing pumpsets in three districts in
North Bengal.
The findings of this survey confirmed the first obser-
vations, i.e., an average fuel consumption of 1 l/h for a
discharge of 10 l/s and a total head of 6 m. The total head
was established by fitting a vacuum gauge on the suction
side and assuming 0.6 m delivery head as counted from
the pump centre-line.
A test site was then built with a closed well, from which
the water could be recirculated at any given level. A test
pumpset (new) was installed on this well, with the fuel
supplied through a burette so that the fuel consumption
could be accurately measured. A series of modifications
aiming to improve the fuel efficiency were then tried, i.e.,
• flow restrictor/drum cooling

32 Energy for Sustainable Development ! Volume V No. 3 ! September 2001

 Articles

• reduced speed
• removed footvalve.
Each modification was introduced successively in the
same sequence as shown in Figures 1 and 2, reading from
left to right.
Both the characteristics of the shallow tubewell and the
dugwell used for testing were such that the total head for
the pump was higher than was the case in the field survey.
This was not deliberate; it just so happened.
The pressure drops in the system were measured by
using a vacuum gauge on the suction side and a pressure
gauge on the delivery side. For STW, the dynamic water
level was ascertained by an observation well 0.3 m from
the test well. For measuring low values of pressure, a
flexible transparent tube filled with water was used. The
individual friction losses for different components were Figure 1. Fuel consumption versus discharge for each modification on the
established by taking the pressure readings with and with- STW test pump. Dynamic water level 3.5 m.
out these components.
For measuring the flow, the time to fill a 100-l tank
was measured with a stopwatch.
After completing the experiments, the modified
pumpset was run for 600 hours to check if there would
be any long-term negative effects of the modifications, in
particular for the increased engine temperature. This test
was completed successfully. Next, 11 pumpsets (5 STWs
and 6 PDWs) owned by farmers were modified and then
operated by the farmers for one week (during the irriga-
tion off-season). This confirmed that the fuel savings were
between 45% and 60% and that the farmers had no dif-
ficulties in operating modified pumpsets. At present the
modification technology is being disseminated in the
North Bengal area through training, demonstration, media
involvement, etc.

3. Effects of the modifications

The effects of the modifications on the test pumpset are
shown in Figure 1 for STW and Figure 2 for PDW.
For both applications it can be observed that the lower
discharge caused by the decrease in speed is compensated
by the increase in flow due to the removal of the
footvalve/checkvalve. The total savings in fuel consump-
tion per unit of water pumped are 50 % for STWs and
45 % for PDWs.
4. Fuel-to-water efficiency
The fuel-to-water efficiency of the PDW pumpset before
modification can be calculated as follows:
Energy content of 1 litre (l) of diesel is about 36,000 kJ.
Hydraulic output is 12.7 l/s ×10N ×3600 s ×4.4 m=2012kJ
Efficiency is 2012/36000 = 5.6 %.
Ideally, there should be no friction losses between the
dynamic water level (DWL is static water level plus draw-
down) and the pump. Therefore, to calculate the overall
fuel-to-water efficiency, including the well, the DWL
should be used in calculating the hydraulic output. Figure
3 shows the overall fuel-to-water efficiencies of STWs
and PDWs, before and after modification.
The overall fuel-to-water efficiency of the STW is con-
siderably lower than that of the PDW. This is due to high
Figure 2. Fuel consumption versus discharge for each modification on the
PDW test pump. Dynamic water level 4.4 m.
well entrance resistance (filter losses) during pumping.
The well quality plays an important role here. This has
been the subject of a separate study [Bom and van Steen-
bergen, 1997].
5. Technological aspects of the modifications
5.1. Cooling
The present practice in India is to cool the engines by
passing some of the pump water through the engine jacket
and cylinder head. Given the rate of the cooling water
flow, its temperature and the actual heat developed by the
engines, this method of cooling results in overcooling,
i.e., the engine temperature remains about 30ºC instead
of the prescribed 70-80º. Farmers also hold the view that
if cooling is good, more cooling must be better!
This low operating temperature causes high fuel con-
sumption through (1) increased thermal losses, (2) in-
creased gas leakage past the piston rings, and (3)
incomplete combustion. It furthermore leads to carbon de-
posits on the cylinder head, valves and nozzle, necessi-
tating more frequent decarbonizing.

Energy for Sustainable Development ! Volume V No. 3 ! September 2001 33

 Articles
Figure 3. Overall fuel-to-water efficiencies, before and after modification
Figure 4. Schematic view of a thermosiphon cooling system
To increase the engine operating temperature, two op-
tions were open: throttling the cooling water flow to a
point where the desired temperature is reached, or intro-
ducing a thermosiphon drum-cooling system (20-l drum)
(Figure 4). At first it was believed that drum-cooling was
the better choice. However, after about a year and a half
of disseminating drum-cooling, it was observed that (1)
farmers were worried about the vapour coming from the
drum, thinking their engine was overheating, (2) drums
34 Energy for Sustainable Development
Figure 5. Schematic view of flow-restrictor cooling
Figure 6. Flow restrictor in cooling loop
started to leak through corrosion, requiring investment for
a new drum, and (3) new drums were increasingly difficult
to find.
New experiments were then done with a flow restrictor
(Figures 5 and 6). This showed that this system is reliable,
cheap and practical. Subsequent dissemination showed it
! Volume V No. 3 ! September 2001
 Articles
Figure 7. Friction losses for PDW before and after removing the footvalve plus discharge nozzle
gained better acceptance by the users than drum-cooling
did. Since then drum-cooling has been only promoted for
pumpsets pumping from open water, often containing silt.
The silt, when run-through cooling is used, tends to ac-
cumulate in the cylinder jacket, eventually blocking the
flow and causing overheating.
The nozzle at the pump discharge could be dropped
because it serves no useful purpose and the function of
creating back pressure for the flow-through cooling has
been taken over by using a so-called half-pipe in the pump
housing. This half-pipe sticks through the pump casing
into the flow and converts some of the velocity energy
into pressure, with no measurable effect on the discharge
head.
The nozzle, however, was found to create 0.5 m addi-
tional head to the pump. This may not seem important
but it should be noted that at a water depth of 2 m, 0.5
m means 25 % extra head and hence roughly 20 % less
water for the same fuel consumption (assuming that there
would be no other friction losses).
There is also a psychological aspect to this nozzle be-
cause, as it converts flow into pressure, the water squirts
from the pump at a higher velocity and thus gives the
impression of a higher discharge, whereas, in fact, it re-
duces the discharge.
5.2. Footvalve/checkvalve
PDW pumps have a footvalve so that the pump can be
Energy for Sustainable Development
primed by filling water from the discharge end. During
the experiments, it was found that the friction in the
footvalve imposed 2.6 m of extra suction head on the
pump (Figure 7). The removal of this footvalve plus the
discharge nozzle (as discussed above) reduced the friction
losses from 3.6 m down to 0.5 m. A handpump was
mounted on the discharge side for priming. It has been
found that the friction loss of footvalves varies signifi-
cantly, depending on design, rubber or leather flap and
flap condition. Advising replacement of a bad footvalve
by a good one could be considered, but this would intro-
duce logistical difficulties (where to find a good
footvalve, what is a good footvalve?) and it would also
make the “modification message” less clear-cut. It was
therefore decided to keep it simple and just do away with
the footvalve.
For STW the situation is roughly the same: removing
the checkvalve and nozzle reduces the friction loss from
6.5 down to 4 m. The remaining loss of 4 m is largely
due to well entrance losses. See Figure 8 for details.
5.3. Engine speed and pump speed
A prerequisite for diesel engines to operate with a good
fuel efficiency is that they run at a high load factor, i.e.,
that the actual horsepower delivered is close to what the
engine can potentially supply[1].
The hp that can be supplied by an engine is directly
related to the engine speed, i.e., the higher the rpm, the
! Volume V No. 3 ! September 2001 35
 Articles

Figure 8. Friction losses for STW before and after removing the checkvalve and discharge nozzle

Figure 9. Relationship between horsepower, rpm and load factor Figure 10. Relationship between load factor and fuel efficiency

36 Energy for Sustainable Development ! Volume V No. 3 ! September 2001

 Articles
higher the potential hp output and vice versa.
For typical conditions in which the 5-hp/1500-rpm ir-
rigation pumpsets work in India, the required power
hardly ever exceeds 2 hp and consequently, the load factor
is often no more than 40 %. Figure 9 shows the relation-
ship between engine hp, speed and load factor. In this
case it is assumed that the pump requires 2 hp. If the
engine is run at 1500 rpm, the load factor is 40%. If,
however, the engine speed is reduced to 1000 rpm, the
load factor improves to 60 %. Figure 10 shows a typical
relationship between load factor and fuel efficiency. Fuel
efficiency here is expressed as a percentage of the best
specific fuel consumption a given engine can attain. It
can be seen that if the engine runs at 1500 rpm and a
load factor of 40%, the fuel efficiency is 14% lower than
if, for the same power requirement, the speed is reduced
to 1000 rpm and the load factor becomes 60 %.
It follows from these diagrams that if the speed of the
engine could be reduced further, the fuel efficiency could
be improved by another 10 %. This was tried, but unfor-
tunately it was not possible to run this type of engine at
less than 1000 rpm, probably due to the design of the fuel
injection pump.
An additional advantage of a reduced engine speed is
that, other factors remaining equal, the wear on the en-
gine, which is related to the cumulative rotations rather
than the operating hours, is also proportionally reduced.
This implies that it may be expected that the service life
of the engine will be extended by about 40 % owing to
the 30 % decrease in speed. An engine that would nor-
mally last 8 years may now be expected to last 11 years.
This argument is supported by the general consensus in
India that low-speed engines last longer than high-speed
engines.
5.3.1. Pump speed
Because the engine and the pump are coupled directly, a
reduction in engine speed means an equal reduction in
pump speed. The pumps commonly used with the 5-hp
engines[2] have a duty point (best efficiency) at 16 l/s and
16 m total head. The actual discharge in the field was
measured to be 10-12 l/s. Consequently, these pumps op-
erate at less than optimum efficiency. The pump cannot
deliver more water than 10 l/s because the well capacity
is the limiting factor. Even if this limitation were absent,
the suction head can never be more than, say, 8.5 m and
in the absence of a delivery head, the total head can never
be more than say 9 m. Consequently, it makes no sense
to install pumps with a duty point at 16 m total head!
The best efficiency of these pumps is about 75 % and
at 10 l/s it is reduced to about 58 %. However, a reduction
of speed, while retaining the same discharge of 10 l/s,
actually improves the efficiency because, broadly speak-
ing, the reduced discharge from the duty point (10 instead
of 16 l/s) is then matched with a proportional reduction
in peripheral velocity of the impeller (1000 rpm instead
of 1500 rpm). This reduced speed improves the matching
of the relative water velocity angle at the entrance and
exit of the impeller with the actual angle of the impeller
vanes and thus reduces losses. From Figure 11, it can be
Energy for Sustainable Development
seen that the pump efficiency improves by about 10 %
through reduction in speed.
The total fuel efficiency improvement of 25 % for
speed reduction is thus partly due to the engine operating
at a higher load factor and partly due to the improved
pump efficiency.
6. Economics and farmers’ acceptance
It is one thing to develop technical improvements. If they
require hefty investments, they are not likely to have
much impact. The modifications as presented in this arti-
cle are neither costly nor complicated. The average cost
of modifying a PDW for 50 % fuel saving is Rs 300 and
for STW only Rs 150. PDWs are more costly to modify
because a handpump for the priming must be purchased;
for the STWs the handpump is already present. (Rs 42 =
1 US$, May 2000.)
The cost of a handpump for priming is Rs 150. This is
the cost of a priming pump as developed by the project.
It works better, can take some back pressure as may be
caused by using lay-flat hose, and is lighter and cheaper
than the common cast iron (CI) handpumps.
At a diesel cost of Rs 15/l and a 50 % saving, the pay-
back time for modifying a PDW is 40 running hours and
for a STW only 20 hours. Assuming that these pumpsets
are on average operated for 500 hours a year, the farmer
will save Rs 3750 annually after modification.
The low investment for and simplicity of the modifi-
cations make it possible to introduce these changes on a
large scale through promotion only; subsidies will not be
required. This is confirmed by the results of the promotion
and demonstration campaign launched in West Bengal,
where farmers are keen on implementing the fuel-saving
measures.
7. Implications for new pumpsets
Every year, an estimated 200,000 new pumpsets come on
the market in India and it would seem logical that these
pumpsets should in the future already be fuel-efficient and
not need to be modified later.
Considering the actual maximum hp requirement, well
capacities and static water levels, it is obvious that the
present 5-hp/1500-rpm pumpset is too big. Recognizing
this, the NBTDP contacted a number of principal manu-
facturers to explore the possibilities of redesigning the
pumpset so that it would better fit the requirements. Even-
tually two manufacturers responded favourably (BSA or
Baldev Singh Agricultural Products in Agra and Kirloskar
in Pune). Of these, BSA was the first and its pumpsets
have been in the field for the past two years. (See Figure
12.) Kirloskar has only just completed the development
and there is, at the time of writing this article, not yet
any field experience.
Table 1 shows the differences between the new 2.5-hp
pumpset as made by BSA and the common 5-hp
pumpsets.
The new 2.5-hp pumpset has a better fuel efficiency
than the present pumpset modified because the pump’s
duty point is closer to the actual working point and it is
! Volume V No. 3 ! September 2001 37
 Articles

Figure 11. Pump curves for 1500 and 1000 rpm

much easier to transport (less than half the weight). (See Table 1. Comparison between 5hp and 2.5hp pumpsets
Figure 13.) Other, less dramatic, improvements are (1) it
requires no discharge bend as the hose nipple (cast inte- 2.5-hp pumpset 5-hp pumpset
grally with the pump casing) is already horizontal, and Engine : Diesel Diesel
(2) there is a 1.25″ (32-mm) connection provided on the
pump casing to receive the priming pump. 2.5-hp/1000-rpm 5-hp/1500-rpm
The Kirloskar 2.5-hp pumpset is of a different design Cooling : Run-through with Free run-through
but the main features are similar. flow restrictor
The first 2.5-hp pumpsets arriving in the field were well
Pump : Duty point 16 l/s and 16-m head
received by the farmers and the subsequent experience 12 l/s and 9-m head
was very positive. At present 800 2.5-hp pumpsets have
been supplied through the NBTDP and orders for another 1000 rpm 1500 rpm
600 or so have been placed by district administrators for
Discharge
various projects in North Bengal. outlet : Horizontal Vertical

8. Impact on national level Fuel consumption

at 12 l/s and
It is probable that for 5-hp pumpsets, the fuel efficiency
9-m head : 0.5 l/h 1.0 l/h
can on average be increased by 50 % through modifica-
tion, given the 40-60 % savings obtained in North Bengal. Weight : 100 kg 220 kg
The impact on national level in India will then be as in
Table 2. lution, especially the emission of the greenhouse gas CO2.
Difficult to express in monetary terms but nonetheless Assuming furthermore that the proportion between the
equally important is the substantial reduction in air pol- diesel consumption of irrigation pumps and the total

38 Energy for Sustainable Development ! Volume V No. 3 ! September 2001

 Articles

Figure 12. A 5-hp and a new 2.5-hp pumpset

Table 2. Figures on potential nationwide impact of fuel-saving are also the so-called slow-speed engines which, through
measures on 5-hp pumpsets [TERI, 1996] a flatbelt transmission, drive centrifugal pumps. Out of
the total of 6.5 million pumpsets, these slow-speed
Assumed number of 5-hp/1500-rpm diesel 2.6 million
pumpsets in India
pumpsets constitute an estimated 60 %, or 3.9 million
units. All these pumpsets are cooled through by passing
Assumed average present fuel consumption 1.1 l/h pump water through the engine without restriction and are
therefore generally overcooled. Fitting a flow restrictor
Assumed average annual running hours 500
will probably improve the fuel efficiency by 12-13 %, the
Total annual high speed diesel consumption by 1.4 billion l same as for the high-speed pumpsets.
these pumps It has been observed in the field that most of the slow-
speed pumpsets discharge about 10 l/s, whereas the pumps
Potential annual saving 0.7 billion l
are 3″ or 4″, designed for 16 and 23 l/s respectively. There
Total overall annual consumption of high speed 28 billion l thus appears to be the potential to increase the pump ef-
diesel in India ficiency by 20-30 % through fitting another impeller de-
signed for the actual operating conditions.
Saving as a percentage of the total consumption 2.5 %
Speed reduction of the engine will also contribute to
Potential saving on high speed diesel import 8% an improved efficiency, but not as much as for the high-
speed pumpsets because the farmers generally have re-
Potential saving per annum Rs 42 billion duced the speed already themselves. Altogether it seems
reasonable to expect that by optimizing the cooling and
consumption for all diesel requirements is reflected in the the impeller, 25-50 % fuel can be saved. This assumption
transportation needs for diesel, it can be argued that both the however still needs to be confirmed by testing the pro-
tanker traffic and the diesel needed to power these tankers or posed measures.
trains will be reduced by 2.5 %. In other words, savings on
the direct fuel requirements of irrigation pumps also create 10. Checklist for modifying pumpsets
savings in the energy required for distribution of the fuel. • Install flow restrictor valve, with maximum bore about
5 mm.
9. Potential for fuel efficiency improvements of • If no half-pipe is fitted, make one and fit it.
other pump types in India • Weld a 1.25″ bend onto the delivery bend, to receive
Other than 5-hp/1500-rpm pumpsets (high-speed) there the priming pump

Energy for Sustainable Development ! Volume V No. 3 ! September 2001 39

 Articles
Figure 13. The new 2.5-hp pumpsets are easy to transport
• Replace speeder spring on the fuel pump rack by a
weaker one to reduce the speed. In the absence of a
tachometer, reduce the speed as much as possible (by
trial and error), until the engine cuts out. That will be
about 1000-1100 rpm. It is also possible to cut off a
part of the existing spring so as to make it weaker in
effect.
• Remove the checkvalve or footvalve. In case of STW
it may be necessary to cut the length of GI pipe pro-
truding above ground level, and fix a bend plus 90 cm
of flexible suction hose, to connect with the pump.
In case an agency or project should seriously consider
implementing these modifications, it would be advisable
to pay a visit to CDHI, tel/fax (91)-3561-22020, Jal-
paiguri, West Bengal, India to get first-hand information
on the do’s and don’ts of it, including the mechanisms
for dissemination, involvement of local mechanics, etc.
11. Conclusions
• It is a mystery why the pumpsets currently supplied
are designed for a total head of 16 m and a discharge
of 16 l/s as this does not at all correspond with the
40 Energy for Sustainable Development
well characteristics and field conditions on the ground!
• The modifications as developed in North Bengal for
5-hp/1500-rpm pumpsets give 50 % improvement in
fuel efficiency, are technically sound, practical and
economical.
• The same modifications on similar pumpsets in other
parts of India will probably yield similar results.
• The new 2.5-hp pumpsets are much better suited to
the average requirements of shallow water-pumping
than is the 5-hp pumpset.
• It seems likely that the fuel efficiency of the slow-
speed pumpsets can also be improved by 25-50 %
• The level of investment required for the modification
is low enough to allow their introduction without sub-
sidies.
12. Recommendations
For shallow water-pumping, the newly developed 2.5-hp
pumpsets should be promoted instead of the 5-hp
pumpsets. If major demand-side actors such as the Na-
tional Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
(NABARD) should take a lead in this matter, it can be
expected that state government departments will follow.
It should be noted though that it should not simply be
specified that pumpsets must be 2.5-hp. One would then
run the risk of ending up with an unsuitable pumpset.
Instead, one should specify as in Table 1.
The trouble is that the present Bureau of Indian Stand-
ards (BIS) specifications cover diesel engines and water
pumps, but do not cover the combination of a particular
pump and engine and certainly not the combination with
the hydraulic parameters of the well.
It should be investigated how far similar modifications
can also improve the fuel efficiency of the slow-speed
diesel pumpsets, both on shallow-well and deep-well ap-
plication. If feasible, a suitable package of modifications
should be developed and disseminated.
The dissemination of the modification package as al-
ready developed for the 5-hp pumpsets should be pro-
moted in other parts of India besides North Bengal.
S. Majundar can be contacted at Tel/fax:+(91)3651-22020
Notes
1. From data supplied by Gujarat Forgings, manufacturer of Field Marshall engines.
2. From data supplied by Navalram Agro Machineries Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad.
References
Bom, G.J., and van Steenbergen, F., 1997. “Fuel efficiency and inefficiency in private tu-
bewell development”, Energy for Sustainable Development, Vol. III, No 5, January.
Ground Water Development Report, 1986. Groundwater Development in India, Ministry of
Water Resources, Government of India.
Sinha, T.K., and Talukdar, M.K., 1996. Fuel Efficiency Test of Diesel Pumps, Survey carried
out for NBTDP, Report No. NBI.C/Consult/96/188, Consultancy Cell of the Jalpaiguri branch
of the Institute of Engineers, 28 March.
Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), 1996. Teri Energy Data Yearbook, 1996-97.
! Volume V No. 3 ! September 2001