Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Sensorless parameter estimation of VFD based cascade centrifugal

pumping system using automatic pump curve adaption method
∗ ∗
Arun Shankar V.K. a,e , Umashankar Subramaniam b , , Rajvikram Madurai Elavarasan c , ,
Kannadasan Raju d , Paramasivam Shanmugam e
a
School of Electrical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India
b
Department of Communications and Networks, Renewable Energy Laboratory, College of Engineering, Prince Sultan University,
Riyadh 12435, Saudi Arabia
c
Clean and Resilient Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University, Galveston, TX 77553, USA
d
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Chennai 602117, India
e
Danfoss Drives (R & D), Chennai, India

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Sustainable Development Goal 7 necessitates efficient energy utilization and aligning energy
Received 24 September 2020 efficiency targets to industrial machines would pave a way for prospective developments. Pumps
Received in revised form 24 December 2020 are inevitable in commercial and industrial sectors and they contribute to nearly 22% of the global
Accepted 2 January 2021
industrial energy utilization. Attesting the fact, this paper focuses on the energy-efficient operation of a
Available online xxxx
pumping system by governing the speed using Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs). This is accomplished
Keywords: by modeling the pump performance curves by estimating the parameters like flow rate and pressure
Automatic pump adaptation values for automatic adaptation in VFDs. With the aid of the manufacturers’ datasheet and the
Centrifugal pumps operating state of the pump, the pump performance curve is estimated automatically. The pump
Energy efficiency operating point is attained from pump parameters and motor rotational speed without using the
Parameter estimation
sensors (sensor-less). This proposed methodology is validated through an experimental setup with a
Variable frequency drives (VFD)
1.1 kW Induction motor (IM) based centrifugal pump driven by 2.2 kW Danfoss VFD and the obtained
Sensor-less
Sustainable development goal (SDG) results can be adopted for estimating the operating point of the centrifugal pumps throughout its
operating range. Further, the variations in accuracy between actual and measured flow rate for the
proposed scheme is found to be ranging from −5.29 GPM to 2.03 GPM which is about −0.243% to
0.0713%. Specifically, the pump flow rate estimation accuracy deviation is found to be between 2%–8%
during lower operating flow rates and is within 2% during the higher operating region. Further, the
proposed scheme offers better efficiency than the conventional sensor-based method which constitutes
about 2% deviation in accuracy. Consequently, it empowers Industrial users to perform energy-efficient
optimization for the cascade pumping system.
© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction from 162,500 ZW (2015). Notably, industrial energy demand is

Energy is an indispensable need for both domestic and indus-
trial sectors. The proliferation of the world’s population augments
the energy demand rate every year. Further, the higher stake of
the energy demand met by the conventional sources is one of the
prime cause for severe climatic variations. As the global energy
consumption pattern is expected to upsurge by 30% from 2016
to 2030, the dependency on conventional sources may rise to
a higher extent. Specifically, the Global energy usage pattern as
per the UN and UNICEF is forecasted to be 198,654 ZW in 2030
∗ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: arunshankarvk@gmail.com (Arun Shankar V.K.),
usubramaniam@psu.edu.sa (Umashankar S.), rajvikram787@gmail.com
(Rajvikram M.E.), kannan.3333@yahoo.co.in (K. Raju).
increasing by 1.4% approximately every year.
Globally, about 46% of the required energy in the industrial
sector is consumed by electric motors mainly in the form of
fan and pump loads (Abdelaziz et al., 2011; Waide and Brunner,
2011). Furthermore, the European Commission reported that the
pumping system alone stakes for nearly 22% of the energy which
is supplied by electric motors worldwide (Chuan et al., 2019).
Hence, investigation on energy savings and enhancement of ef-
ficiency in the pumping system becomes an imperative task for
researchers.
The Affinity Laws state that the output of the pumping system
is directly proportional to the speed of the pump. For instance,
when the flow rate is required to condensed by 50%, the pump
speed should be maintained at 50% of the rated speed. During
this operating point, the pumping system consumes only about

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.01.002
2352-4847/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466

not carried out. Also, the adaptation of sensors in the pumping

Nomenclature system increases the complication and capital cost incurred with
the increased power loss that affects the overall efficiency of the
Abbreviations system. Therefore, this work focuses to fulfill these research gaps
ai , b i Experimental coefficient, i = 1, 2 . . . 4. using the effective method for the following objectives;
c Pump characteristic coefficients. • To enhance the accuracy of the system between measured
D Pump impeller Diameter [mm] and original values.
f motor frequency [Hz] • To improve the efficiency of the pumping system.
G Universal Gravitational constant • To evaluate the best operating region of the pumping sys-
g acceleration due to gravity tem.
GPM Gallons Per Minute
One of the effective methods to control the speed of a pump
H Pump Head [m]
motor is by adopting modern control practices through Variable
IM Induction Motor
frequency drives (VFDs) without any energy losses in the control
k Frictional loss coefficient
valve (Kaya et al., 2008; Borsting, 2010). Based on the pump
kPa Kilo Pascal output variable requirement, the reference speed of the con-
l/s Liter per second nected motor is varied electronically. VFD is an electronic power
N Rotational Speed of pump [rpm] converter that produces variable frequency with multi-phase out-
P power input [W] put. By varying the frequency, the motor’s speed, torque, and
PMV Pump motor VFD mechanical power output is controlled based on pump output
Q Flow rate [m3 /h] parameters. Normally, the efficiency of VFD is nearly 97%–98%;
SDG Sustainable development goal energy-efficient motors have above 90% and pumps (centrifugal
UN United nation pumps) have less than 70% efficiency Europump, Hydraulic Insti-
UNICEF United Nations International Children’s tute (2004), Arun Shankar et al. (2017), Izquierdo et al. (2008).
Emergency Fund The total efficiency of the complete system is computed by the
product of the individual efficiency of the components (pump,
V Volume of liquid [m3 ]
motor, and VFD). Therefore, pump efficiency becomes a deciding
VFD Variable Frequency Drives
factor of entire pumping system efficiency (du Plessis et al.,
VVC+ Voltage vector control plus 2013; Du Plessis et al., 2013). Though the customer is more
Superscripts/Subscripts concerned about the pump parameters (flow and pressure), the
VFDs provide only motor operating point information.
1, 2, . . . 3 Sample Values Traditionally, the pump control parameters (like flow rate and
dyn Dynamic pressure) are measured through external sensors and utilized
i Inlet for the frequency converter that estimates the speed and power
mp Motor pump consumed by the pump (Viholainen et al., 2011; Hammo and Vi-
o Outlet holainen, 2005). These external sensors cause additional require-
p Pump ments and dependencies in the pumping system. Furthermore,
st Static the change in the pump operating point has a significant impact
sys system on the system efficiency as the pump output flow rate and pres-
sure influences the pump efficiency and pump input power (Eu-
v VFD
ropump, Hydraulic Institute, 2004). Hence, this work primarily
Greek letters focuses on developing a sensor-less estimation method for induc-
tion motors without additional sensors (Borsting, 2010). With this
ω Angular velocity [rad/s]
evolution i.e. sensor-less pump control method, the estimation
η Efficiency [%] of pump operating region using VFDs is carried out\without ad-
ρ Density of the liquid [kg/m3 ] ditional measurements for flow rate and pressure. Furthermore,
this work focuses on the effectiveness of estimating the pump
parameters using the pump performance curves. The parallel-
connected centrifugal pumps each driven by variable frequency
12.5% of the rated horsepower and results in a higher rate of en- drives (VFDs) are considered for this research work (Viholainen,
ergy saving. Contrarily, the traditional pumping system involves 2014a; Olszewski, 2016; Arun Shankar et al., 2017b). The perfor-
regulating the control valve based on the required pump param- mance of the proposed flow rate estimation method is validated
eters for a fixed speed induction motor (European Commission, through the simulation and experimental results. Estimating the
2001; Binder, 2008; Arun Shankar et al., 2016b). This incurred pump parameters will eliminate the usage of measurement de-
additional losses in the control valve while attaining the required vices and regular maintenance, that in-turn increases the life of
operational region. Therefore, attaining the best operating region the system substantially. The experimental prototype (cascade
for the pumping system is the simplest and effective method pump setup) is installed with an electronically controlled deliv-
for energy savings in any pumping application. Several kinds of ery valve such that various valve positions are considered for
research have been carried out to attain the best operating pa- assessing the effectiveness of the proposed flow rate estimation
rameters of the centrifugal pumping systems for energy-efficient method. The induction motor-based cascade centrifugal pumps
operation. Some of the notable works are tabulated in Table 1. are considered to observe the energy savings in the pumping
On consolidating the above inferences and research gaps, it system. The power quality parameters like voltage and current
is observed that the accuracy of the system with original val- are measured at the input of both the motor terminals for various
ues is not great. Moreover, the combined analysis for efficiency loading conditions (from 50% to 100%). Also, the pump model-
enhancement and accuracy estimation of the pumping system is based pump operating location is identified and presented. The
454
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466

Table 1
Existing reports relating to validation and energy performance.
Ref no Method adopted Descriptions Research gaps
Gu et al. (2019) Clocking effect • Studied the clocking position of the pumping system to • The accuracy of the proposed
enhance the energy efficiency using the incompressible scheme was not demonstrated.
Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes equation (RANS). • The clocking position leads to extra
• The efficiency of the system was increased up to 2.61% flow losses in the circular casing of
in the design condition. the worst scheme.
Kara Omar et al. (2017) Theoretical loss model • The head and efficiency of the pumping system were • Some results display outsized
promptly projected with a set of loss models by iteratively differences due to both experimental
computing for S1 and S2 stream surface. errors and those in calculations of all
• The accuracy of the proposed method was established types of losses.
between predicted and experimental results and found to
be 15%.

Barbarelli et al. (2016)
Huang et al. (2020)
Jin et al. (2019)
Shahram and Ahmad (2008)
Wang and Chen (2015)
One-dimensional • Analyzed the energy performance of the centrifugal • The estimation error was found to
numerical code pump for a wide range of speed and the estimated error be great about 20%.
percentage was about 5% to 20%.
Hybrid neural network • The hybrid neural network displayed an improved • Though the experimental results
accuracy particularly at the extremely large or small flow were validated with original values,
rates when compared with the theoretical loss model. energy enhancement was not
demonstrated.
Pressure pulsation • Presented a numerical simulation and experimental study • Energy enhancement was not
measurement of external characteristics and pressure pulsation of a discussed.
submersible tubular pumping system.
• The simulated results were in good agreement with
experimental results.
Statistical empirical • Suggested two statistical correlations to attain the head • Failed to attain a universal
model and power of the pump used as turbines. These validation due to the change of
correlations are achieved using second and third-order reference value and coefficient of the
polynomials taken from statistical calculus. polynomial.
Direct optimal control • It can directly get the optimal rotation frequencies of • Variable speed pump consumed
strategy each variable speed pumps with the least total power more power for a larger heat transfer
consumption under specific system requirements and rate.
constraints.

modeling of pump equations and control method is performed
in MATLAB and LabVIEW environment. Various parameters (like
valve position, speed, etc.,) responsible for the pumping system
accuracy are investigated through the experimental setup and the
results are presented for comparison.
The article is structured as follows; in Section 1 the energy
consumption of pumping systems and the necessity behind the
estimation of pump performance parameters are briefed. In Sec-
tion 2 the pump performance curve modeling through mathe-
matical equations is realized. Section 3 explains the proposed
control method for estimating the pump performance parameters
from the pump curves. The simulation and experimental results
of the proposed control methods are explained in Section 4. It is
followed by the discussion and conclusion.
2. Pump performance curve modeling
In this segment, modeling of the pumping system and its
properties are analyzed by considering three parallel-connected
centrifugal pumps (Fig. 1). These centrifugal pumps are driven by
variable speed fed induction motor drives. The performance curve
for the centrifugal pump at rated speed is normally provided by
the pump manufacturer (Ahonen et al., 2010) and it is drawn
for different parameters namely flow rate versus head, power,
and efficiency of the pump. The sample pump performance curve
(datasheet) extracted from the pump manufacturer is illustrated
in Fig. 2. Further, the relation between the pump parameters (like
flow rate versus pressure, and power) for a given pump rotational
speed is expressed in the pump performance curve as shown in
Fig. 3. It represents the amount of head/ pressure and power
consumed for the flow rate achieved at the given speed of the
pumping system.
Moreover, the efficiency of individual components namely
pumps or combined model of motor-pump is also provided by the
manufacturer for various speeds and its associated flow rate. The
455
hydraulic impedance exhibited by the pumped liquid is modeled
as the system curve that contains the combined resistance of
bends, pipes, and valves in the centrifugal pumping system. It
is broadly classified as the static and frictional losses in the
pumping unit. The intersection point of the system curve and
the pump performance curve is known as the pump operating
point. It expresses the developed head (H) and the output flow
rate (Q ) delivered by the pumping system. The head developed
at the delivery side of the pumping system is computed using
Eq. (1) (Viholainen, 2014a).
∆p po − pi
H= = (1)
ρg ρg
Where ∆p defines pressure difference, p0 stands for outlet
pressure, pi defines inlet pressure and ρ defines the density of
the liquid, and g defines acceleration due to gravity. The total hy-
draulic system (Hsys ) curve represents the sum of static (Hst ) and
dynamic head (Hdyn ) loss in the pumping system (Arun Shankar
et al., 2016a) which is shown in Eq. (2). It expresses the relation
between the pressure to be developed to overcome the hydraulic
resistance and the flow rate developed in the system (where k is
a constant).
Hsys = Hst + Hdyn (2)
Hst = const , Hdyn = k · Q 2
(3)
While transferring the water from one reservoir (suction) to
another reservoir (delivery), it acts as an open-loop hydraulic
system that has both static and dynamic head (Eq. (3)). On the
other hand, the closed-loop hydraulic system circulates the water
in a closed path, and it exhibits a null static head as expressed
in Eq. (4) (Viholainen, 2014b) (where Hdyn′ states the dynamic
head).
Hsys = Hdyn , ∵ Hst = 0 (4)
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466

Fig. 1. Cascade Pumping system — layout.

Fig. 2. Pump Performance curve — data sheet.

This comprehensive system and its properties have been taken with respect to change in flow rate values (dQ ) for accurate
as a base case for the proposed pump curve adaptation method estimation. As per the affinity laws of the pump (see Eq. (5)),
that has been discussed in the following section. the parameters defining the pump performance varies with the
change in the rotational speed of the pump.
3. Proposed pump curve adaptation method ( )2 ( )3
Q1 N1 H1 N1 P1 N1
= = = (5)
The pump curve adaptation method is derived from the per- Q2 N2 H2 N2 P2 N2
formance curves of the manufacturer data. The flow rate of the Where the subscripts (1 and 2) represent the pump number,
pump is estimated from the power curve for a given speed. The P terms the power drawn, and N states the rotational speed. The
change in power curve value (dP) should be increasing constantly motor and pump modeling equations are used to estimate the
456
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466

c2 , c3 , and c4 states the efficiency constants. From the QH curve

(modeled as a polynomial equation), the pump operating point
is identified. The operating flow rate and pressure are identified
from the pump performance equations by substituting the affinity
laws in the above equations, as shown in Eqs. (11) and (12).
( )3 ( )4 ( )3 ( )2
N1 N1 N1 N1
P 2 = b1 Q24 + b2 Q23 + b3 Q22
N2 N2 N2 N2
( )
N1
+ b4 Q2 + b5 (11)
N2
( ) ( ) ( )2
N1 N2 N2
P 2 = b1 Q24 + b2 Q23 + b3 Q22 + b4 Q2
N2 N1 N1
( )3
N2
+ b5 (12)
N1
Where, P2 defines the estimated power, and the term b1 , b2 ,
b3 , b4 , and b5 states the coefficients of power. Thus, the power
consumed by the pump at a given rotational speed is estimated
Fig. 3. Centrifugal pump performance curve.
by knowing the current rotational speed and the corresponding
flow rate delivered. From the system parameters (pipes inter-
nal roughness, bends, and joints), the hydraulic system curve
pump rotational speed and power drawn. Then, the pump perfor- is identified. Also, the system curve is modeled from the static
mance curves are transformed into instantaneous equations with and dynamic head loss of the pumping system. The overall pro-
the pump parameters like flow rate and pressure. The operating cess of pump parameter estimation from performance curves is
point of the centrifugal pump is identified at the intersection described in Fig. 4.
point of the pump QH curve and the system curve. The pump Initially, it involves the sampling of the performance curves
performance curve for the pump alone is modeled as polynomial such as QH, QP, and Qη curves and the model as a fourth-
equations. The pump performance equation for head developed order polynomial equation. This process is repeated for a random
(H), power consumed (Pp ), and efficiency (ηp ) are given in terms number of centrifugal pumps with power ranges from 0.46 kW
of flow rate which is shown in Eq. (6) to Eq. (8) (Tamminen et al., to 90 kW. Then the coefficients (a3 , a2 , a1 , and a0 ) of each param-
2013). eter namely head, power, and efficiency for all the pump power
H = a4 Q 4 + a3 Q 3 + a2 Q 2 + a1 Q + a0 (6) ratings can be defined and are given in Table 2 and Fig. 5. Further,
4 3 2 the equations modeled from the coefficients remains the baseline
P p = b4 Q + b3 Q + b2 Q + b1 Q + b0 (7) for the pump parameter estimation. For a given power rating of
ηp = c4 Q + c3 Q + c2 Q + c1 Q + c0
4 3 2
(8) the pump, the corresponding pump performance curves (Head,
power, and efficiency) are first initialized from the co-efficient
Also, the power consumed (Pmp ) and the efficiency (ηmp ) of the
database.
motor pump together is given by Eq. (9) and Eq. (10).
The modern frequency converters estimate the rotational
Pmp = b4 Q 4 + b3 Q 3 + b2 Q 2 + b1 Q + b0 (9) speed and power drawn by the motor. For the given rotational
speed input from the drive, a specific QH curve is identified
ηmp = c4 Q + c3 Q + c2 Q + c1 Q + c0
4 3 2
(10)
and the equation is solved across the system curve. The roots
Where, a0 , a1 , a2 , a3 and a4 terms represents the head con- obtained are the flow rate and head developed by the pump at
stants, b0 , b1 , b2 , b3 and b4 defines the power constants and c0 , c1 , that mentioned speed.

Fig. 4. Block diagram for automatic pump performance curve adaptation.

457
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466

Fig. 5. Co-efficient of centrifugal pump performance curve versus Power rating (a) Third-order coefficient a3 (b) Second-order coefficient a2 (c) First order coefficient
a1 (d) Constant term a0 .

Table 2
Pump performance coefficients identification.
Head Power Efficiency
Pump model a3 a2 a1 a0 a3 a2 a1 a0 a3 a2 a1 a0
CM1-2 0.08 −1.665 −1.425 25.88 −0.0022 −0.015 0.1002 0.198 0.5833 −9.35 30.57 0.4
CM1-3 0.2899 −3.1 −1.77 38.48 −0.0023 −0.0295 0.1608 0.277 0.7761 −10.28 32 0.2
CM1-4 0.4283 −4.27 −2.278 52.23 −0.0027 −0.039 0.2097 0.384 0.6667 −9.7 31.43 0.2
CM1-5 0.564 −5.326 −3.721 64.7 −0.0032 −0.0518 0.265 0.465 0.73 −9.99 31.66 0.4
CM1-6 0.6878 −6.118 −5.049 77.48 −0.001 −0.0777 0.3326 0.566 0.6911 −9.623 30.93 0.2
CM1-7 0.72 −6.703 −5.703 89.26 −0.0004 −0.0962 0.3926 0.645 0.813 −10.09 31.08 0.4
CM1-8 0.6867 −7.52 −6.417 105.8 −0.0028 −0.091 0.4279 0.743 0.7361 −10.16 32.72 0.2
CM1-9 0.635 −8.145 −6.69 119 −0.004 −0.0955 0.4675 0.837 0.6667 −9.9 32.63 0.4

The static and frictional losses in the hydraulic path decide
the pumping system curve. However, the environmental con-
ditions like the ambient temperature of pump and motor, the
temperature of pumping liquid, change in valve position and
hydraulic paths modify the system curve that impacts the pump
performance parameters estimation. In this work, the parameter
estimation is validated for VVC+ (Voltage Vector Control plus)
based variable speed drive with the pump performance equations
that are modeled in the LabVIEW environment. The operating
point of the pump (i.e., flow rate and pressure developed) can be
identified without the external sensors. However, the rotational
speed and the motor shaft power serve as input for the estimation
of the pump operating point. For the proposed pumping scheme,
the system curve is given by the following Eq. (13) (Ahonen et al.,
2012).
H = −5.1e−3 Q 2 − 0.22Q + 20
Thus, the proposed flow rate estimation method utilizes the
pump performance curve and the system curve to identify the
current operating point of the pump. The flow rate at the delivery
side of the pump is estimated without any external sensors, and
it can be used as the control input. The head developed by the
pumping system is the product of a change in fluid pressure,
liquid density, and pump inlet pressure.
4. Results and discussion
The accuracy of the proposed pump curve adaptation method
is verified with the experimental motor-pump setup and the
operational state of the pump. Further, the sample points are
considered for the estimation of pump performance parameters
(Flow rate and pressure) at different speeds. During the mal-
functioning of the pumping system like cavitation or loss of
prime, the estimated operational state of the pump may not be
precise (Arun Shankar et al., 2018). These harmful pump oper-
(13)
ations alter the pump operating point and therefore QH curve
shape should be modified correspondingly (Ahonen et al., 2014).
Consequently, such harmful pump operations cause oscillations
in flow rate and pressure. Therefore, they are not considered in
458
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al.
Fig. 6. Experimental cascade pumping setup.
Table 3
System parameters.
Parameters Values
Rated Power 1.1 kW
VFD Danfoss (FC202)
Grundfos Pump CM 1–21 ARAV
Rated Speed 2887 RPM
Flow rate 3.1 m3 /h
Maximum operating pressure 25 bars
the pump performance estimation region. However, the occur-
rence of the above-mentioned harmful operations is minimal near
the preferable operating region and hence the estimated values
through the proposed system is highly accurate.
4.1. Description of the system
The experimental prototype consists of the Danfoss frequency
converter (FC202) that uses variable voltage control plus method
in 1.1 kW induction motor based centrifugal pump driven by
2.2 kW Danfoss VFD. The parameter estimation method is imple-
mented in the set up with nominal speed, flow rate, and head and
the values are 3000 rpm, 3 cmph, and 120 m respectively. The
complete specification of the experimental setup is illustrated in
Table 3.
The proposed experimental prototype is a closed-loop parallel
centrifugal pump (three pumps) hydraulic system that contains
a water tank, centrifugal pump, VFD, electronic delivery valve,
and transducers for flowrate and pressure measurement which
is shown in Fig. 6. The frequency converters are used to control
the speed of the individual pumping system in the process control
system. The three parallel pumps transfer liquid from a static tank
to a pool set up and they are switched based on their needs.
The shape of the system curve varies with the change in valve
position and the staging of new pumps. However, the changes
459
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466
Parameters Values
Voltage 415 V
Frequency 50 Hz
Phase 3 Phase
VFD Power 2.2 kW
Power measurement WT 1800
Controller LabVIEW – NI DAQ
in the system curve are acknowledged by the startup measure-
ments before the pump estimation algorithm. The best efficiency
operating point of the single centrifugal pump is defined namely
flow rate (2.5 m3 /h), head range (110 m), speed (3450 rpm), and
efficiency (85%).
The experimental prototype consists of two pressure transduc-
ers (one at the suction and the other at the delivery side of the
pump) that are aligned to measure the differential head devel-
oped by the centrifugal pump. The flow rate sensor is available at
the delivery side to observe the flow discharge rate of the pump.
The Siemens flow meter and the Danfoss pressure transducers
(for measuring differential pressure) are calibrated for flow rate
accuracy measurements that lie within 1% of the tolerance limits
when compared with the published curve. The shaft torque and
the pump speed are estimated by the Danfoss VFD. The VFD drive
parameters are observed and recorded using MCT 10 software.
4.2. Parameters estimation
The rotational speed is estimated in the VFD through an au-
tomatic motor adaptation feature, and the motor input current
is measured through current sensors. Thus, the shaft power and
rotational speed are estimated by the drive throughout the pump
operating region and they are tabulated in Table 4.
From the experimental observation, the relative tolerance of
pump head and consumed power is nearly 0.3% for higher rota-
tional speeds and 2%–3% for lower operating speeds. Thus, the
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466

Table 4
Head and power curve — surface mounted and submersible pumps.
N (%) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Q (m3 /h) 0.013 0.603 1.2 1.81 2.38
H (m) 129.4 126.1 116 95.06 63.63
Power (W) 627.5 850.6 1046 1162 1163
100 Power (HP) 0.632 0.905 1.14 1.27 1.27
η (%) 0.9 30.6 44.9 45.4 43.5
η of PMV (%) 0.7 24.3 36.3 40.2 35.4
NPSH (m) 0.58 0.57 0.62 1.2 2.73
Q (m3 /h) 0.013 0.505 1.01 1.51 2.17
H (m) 105.1 103.9 97.15 83.74 51.9
Power (W) 479.8 634.1 766.9 862.6 880.3
90 Power (HP) 0.464 0.658 0.82 0.934 0.955
η (%) 1 29.1 43.4 45.2 42.9
η of PMV (%) 0.7 22.5 34.6 39.7 34.7
NPSH (m) 0.47 0.46 0.49 0.81 2.26
Q (m3 /h) 0.016 0.4 0.806 1.4 1.93
H (m) 83.33 82.49 78.3 64.47 41.43
Power (W) 359.6 452.6 538.3 627.9 638.4
80 Power (HP) 0.329 0.448 0.556 0.667 0.68
η (%) 1.5 26.8 41.4 45.5 42.9
η of PMV (%) 1 19.8 31.9 39.2 34.1
NPSH (m) 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.71 1.8
Q (m3 /h) 0.009 0.403 0.806 1.2 1.7
H (m) 64.47 63.21 59.86 51.48 32.63
Power (W) 262.7 333.3 400.6 445.7 455.7
70 Power (HP) 0.223 0.314 0.4 0.457 0.47
η (%) 0.9 29.6 44 49.4 43.1
η of PMV (%) 0.6 20.8 32.8 35.8 33.1
NPSH (m) 0.29 0.28 0.31 0.52 1.39

accuracy of power estimation in the pumping system increases
with the increase in pump rotational speed. In most of the VFDs,
the estimation of effective motor power is carried out using motor
input current measurement and motor shaft power is estimated
using input magnitude of torque transducers. The power con-
sumption of the pump is considered as the reference for the flow
rate estimation from the QP Curve and the estimated flow rate
tolerance is found to be less than 1% of the rated flow rate. The
accuracy of the flow rate estimation is significant because it acts
as a process control variable in most of the pumping systems.
The adopted proposed flow rate estimation method is verified,
and the results are validated for the entire operating region
through an experimental setup. Since the pump’s best efficiency
locus is limited, it cannot be operated in the best efficiency region
throughout its operating region. Thus, the accuracy of the pro-
posed estimation method may differ because the pump operating
point is not always expected near the best efficiency region.
The measurements were performed for various rotational
speeds and different valve positions. For a given rotational speed
(say 3450 rpm) and delivery valve position from (1% open to 30%
open), the flow rates are measured by regulating the delivery
valve positions. Similarly, the shaft power values are measured
for the same rotational speed and delivery valve position. The
test results are illustrated in Fig. 7 and the flow rate estimation
is repeated for various speeds from 3450 rpm to 450 rpm (with
200 rpm as interval). From the motor speed and power drawn
approximation of the VFDs, the current pump operating point
is identified and verified using pressure transducers and flow
measurements. Besides, the rotational speed and shaft power es-
timation, the performance of the VFD are validated by measuring
them externally using transducers.
The pump parameters (flow rate and pressure) are measured
for the given reference speed and flow to benchmark with the
characteristic curves provided by the manufacturer. Also, the
process curve is varied for every change in the valve adjustments
to enhance the estimation accuracy of the proposed control. The
test results are obtained for the above measurements with flow
rate (in GPM) and shaft power (in Watts).
460
The rotational speed and power estimation in VFD are sampled
and updated to the controller connected to the VFD at every 1 s.
The voltage and current at the input terminal of the motor and
VFD recorded through power quality analyzer (WT1800) for 100%
and 25% loading are illustrated in Fig. 8(a) and (b) respectively.
Pumps are operated at various frequencies and different valve po-
sitions with drive input and output power quality parameters are
measured through a power analyzer. The shaft power consumed
by the pumping setup at the rated speed of 3450rpm is 3.1 kW
(for 30% valve open) as shown in Fig. 8(b). Operating pumps at re-
duced speed to meet the process requirements exhibit significant
power savings rather than adjusting the delivery valve positions.
Thus, proper sizing of pumps based on the application demand is
highly significant in energy-efficient operation.
4.3. Accuracy of the estimation
For a flow rate reference from 20 GPM to 110 GPM (with
10 GPM intervals), three test runs were executed for validating
the consistency in the flow rate estimation and accuracy of the
control method. Fig. 9(a) shows the VFD sensor-less database
consisting of estimated flow rate, head, and power value for
different rotational speeds (from 20 Hz to 50 Hz).
The percentage difference in flow measurement is calculated
from the ratio of flow difference with respect to actual flow.
The difference in flow measurement in terms of percentage is
tabulated in Table 5. The error in the flow rate estimation method
is found to be 0.25–0.3% at rated speed and 1–1.5% at reduced
speeds as shown in Fig. 9(b).
4.4. Uncertainty analysis of the proposed system
In the lower operating flow rates (less than 50 GPM), the pump
flow rate estimation accuracy deviation is found to be between
2%–8%. Whereas, the higher operating region (70–100 GPM) ex-
hibits lesser estimation error (within 2%). As discussed earlier, the
estimation of the pump flow rate throughout the operating range
can be improved by better modeling of affinity laws exhibited by
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al.
Fig. 7. Pump performance curve (a) Valve position vs flow rate curve. (b) Valve position vs power drawn curve.
the centrifugal pumps. Also, the pump performance estimation
results of the proposed control algorithm are within the accuracy
limits throughout the operating region.
Operating the centrifugal pump away from the best efficiency
region towards the right increases the chance of cavitation. The
performance of the pump during cavitation is tested for a ref-
erence flow rate from 140 GPM to 10 GPM with three test
runs is given in Table 5. Fig. 10 represents the graph plotted
between the reference flow rate and percentage deviation in flow
rate measurement. From Fig. 10 and Table 6, the accuracy of
the flow estimation during cavitation is in the range of 20% to
45% for a flow rate of 30 GPM to 60 GPM. Also, for higher set
flow rates (100 GPM to 140 GPM), the accuracy of the system
remains significantly better ranging from, 1% to 5%. This could be
eliminated by proper sizing of the pumping system concerning
system demand to operate the centrifugal pumps near the best
efficiency region. Moreover, the power estimation accuracy in
461
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466
the preferable operating region is nearly 3%–7% when the power
curve is increased gradually.
The estimation of pump performance parameters provides
significant evidence for measurements and auditing processes
without any sensors. However, since the accuracy of the pro-
posed estimation method varies with the operating point of the
centrifugal pump, it is not preferred for the process control that
requires high accuracy in pressure and flow estimation. Also,
the test results are within the acceptable deviation (+/−5%)
throughout the operating range from 50 to 100 GPM.
4.5. Efficiency of the proposed system
The pumping system comprises three parallel centrifugal
pumps also with reservoirs and piping system, and the basic flow
rate estimation is carried out using QP and QH methods (Pumps,
1999; Savar et al., 2009; Junaidi et al., 2015). Conventionally,
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al.
Fig. 8. (a) VFD input–output voltage and current at reduced load (25%). (b) VFD input–output voltage and current at rated load (100%).
sensors and transducers are used to measure the parameters for
the pumping system to attain the optimal operating point. Be-
sides, in this work, the proposed pump curve adaptation method
is used to estimate the parameters which is derived from the
performance curves of the manufacturer data without adopting
any sensors in a VFD fed parallel pumping system. Due to this,
the overall efficiency of the centrifugal pumping system using
the proposed adaptation curve (sensorless measurement) is esti-
mated and compared with the conventional setup (sensor-based
parameter estimation) at a constant speed (3450 rpm) against
various flow rate (Fig. 11).
462
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466
It is observed that the proposed flow estimation method ac-
complishes better efficiency than the conventional sensor-based
method because of the impact of the adaption curve obtained
from the manufacturer’s data. This leads to enhancing the over-
all efficiency of the pumping system considerably. Notably, it
maintains the elevation throughout the varied flow rate with
approximately 2% greater than the conventional system. It re-
duces the total energy consumption along with the regulation of
the variable flow rate of the proposed estimation method in the
pumping system.
Consolidating the results, the proposed methodology improves
the overall efficiency of the pumping system along with a higher
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al.
Fig. 9. (a) Sensorless database (b) set flow reference vs % difference from the measurement.
rate of accuracy in pump flow rate estimation. Though, the ex-
isting report (Gu et al., 2019) attained the system efficiency
of 2.61%, the adaptation of the clocking effect complicates the
system configuration. Also, the accuracy of the measured value
is not demonstrated. But the automatic adaptation curve method
uses a simpler concept that increases the overall efficiency of
the system by 2%. Moreover, the accuracy of the flow rates is
depicted for various operating regions. The recorded accuracy
deviation ranges between 2 to 8% during lower operating flow
rates and within 2% during the higher operating region. These
accuracy rates are the least compared with existing methodology
i.e. theoretical loss model and one-dimensional numerical code
that offers 5%–20% (Kara Omar et al., 2017; Barbarelli et al.,
2016). Therefore, the proposed method can be used in the energy-
efficient control of pumping systems in large deployment for a
higher rate of energy savings.
5. Conclusions
In this research work, the automatic pump curve adaption
method was adopted for parameter estimation of VFD based cas-
cade centrifugal pumping system without sensors. The proposed
463
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466
method was implemented on a 2.2 kW VFD driven centrifugal
pump-based flow rate process control system. From the observed
results, the following conclusions were made;
• The proposed scheme identified the better-operating re-
gions in the pumping system and the corresponding esti-
mation accuracy. Also, the pump characteristics curves (QH,
QP, and QN) were evaluated from the rotational speed and
motor shaft power.
• The performance of the proposed control method was vali-
dated through the experimental setup and as well as tested
in an industrial process control application for various load-
ing conditions throughout the operating range of the pumps.
• The accuracy of the proposed control method at the best
efficiency region was higher when compared with both the
extreme terminal regions and the pump performance esti-
mation error of the centrifugal pump at the best efficiency
region was less than 2%–3%.
• The sensorless parameter estimation method facilitated to
attain greater efficiency i.e. 2% greater than the conventional
sensor-based system.
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466

Table 5
Percentage difference in flow measurements for normal conditions.
Test run Speed Input Input Shaft Actual Measured Actual Set Flow Flow % Difference in flow
(RPM) power current power Flow flow (GPM) pressure (GPM) difference(Actual measurement (Flow
(Watts) (A) (Watts) (GPM) (Bar) flow — Measured difference/Actual
flow) flow)
3448 2610.3 11.561 2605.48 101.89 101.58 30.92 140 0.3059 0.0030
3446 2609.8 11.556 2602.39 102.22 101.22 30.94 130 0.9987 0.0099
3448 2607.7 11.588 2601.72 102.76 101.55 30.83 120 1.2076 0.0119
3449 2606.4 11.58 2597.02 102.85 101.22 30.83 110 1.6327 0.0161
3342 2369.1 10.504 2374.80 99.94 98.32 28.87 100 1.6163 0.0164
3020 1749.4 7.725 1764.07 89.78 88.75 23.65 90 1.0262 0.0116
Test run 1 2678 1231.2 5.423 1242.43 79.95 78.68 18.48 80 1.2690 0.0161
2340 835.6 3.686 838.62 69.90 68.27 13.96 70 1.6299 0.0239
2018 552.8 2.455 544.31 59.90 58.61 10.33 60 1.2884 0.0220
1693 342.4 1.559 324.98 49.72 49.03 7.14 50 0.6925 0.0141
1332 185.9 0.933 165.05 40.31 38.48 4.18 40 1.8274 0.0475
980 93.6 0.609 73.83 30.04 28.32 1.95 30 1.7164 0.0606
777 59 0.555 40.01 17.04 21.62 0.65 20 −4.5809 −0.2119
3449 2590 11.519 2575.05 100.51 100.73 31.29 140 −0.2231 −0.0022
3441 2591.6 11.517 2581.44 100.70 100.74 31.24 130 −0.0429 −0.0004
3444 2595 11.53 2592.22 101.44 100.81 31.19 120 0.6321 0.0063
3449 2596.9 11.541 2589.53 101.58 100.73 31.17 110 0.8547 0.0085
3369 2420.9 10.742 2431.26 99.84 98.60 29.57 100 1.2412 0.0126
3038 1783.8 7.878 1801.10 90.17 89.16 24.02 90 1.0125 0.0114
Test run 2 2697 1254.4 5.526 1264.28 79.89 78.98 18.88 80 0.9056 0.0115
2354 850.1 3.746 849.69 70.01 68.77 14.20 70 1.2409 0.0180
2028 559.4 2.493 554.39 59.90 58.98 10.47 60 0.9184 0.0156
1695 344 1.579 327.38 50.02 48.98 7.15 50 1.0436 0.0213
1332 186.1 0.932 165.09 40.07 38.28 4.17 40 1.7896 0.0468
996 96.6 0.616 77.66 30.51 28.48 2.07 30 2.0319 0.0713
764 59.4 0.557 42.59 16.44 21.73 1.34 20 −5.2932 −0.2436
3450 2587 11.5 2566.38 100.44 100.62 31.29 140 −0.1765 −0.0018
3446 2580.8 11.47 2562.70 100.84 100.87 31.33 130 −0.0302 −0.0003
3443 2589.1 11.506 2583.59 101.24 100.73 31.17 120 0.5060 0.0050
3450 2597.5 11.539 2587.70 101.62 100.62 31.16 110 0.9964 0.0099
3375 2430.3 10.781 2434.94 99.84 98.37 29.69 100 1.4712 0.0150
3049 1794.8 7.928 1807.69 89.89 89.44 24.28 90 0.4472 0.0050
Test run 3 2705 1264.2 5.569 1275.10 80.08 79.12 19.02 80 0.9558 0.0121
2359 853.1 3.763 854.08 70.01 68.85 14.27 70 1.1609 0.0169
2032 562.2 2.497 553.02 59.85 59.04 10.56 60 0.8108 0.0137
1701 347.2 1.593 328.40 49.82 49.04 7.23 50 0.7776 0.0159
1332 185.7 0.954 163.33 39.91 38.23 4.17 40 1.6811 0.0440
986 94.1 0.613 75.39 29.93 28.06 1.98 30 1.8654 0.0665
777 58.1 0.55 43.06 16.74 21.79 1.29 20 −5.0521 −0.2319

Fig. 10. Cavitation — set flow reference vs % difference from the measurement.

464
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466

Table 6
Percentage difference in flow measurements for abnormal condition (cavitation).
Test run Speed Input Input Shaft Actual Measured Actual Set Flow Flow difference % Difference in flow
(RPM) Power Current Power Flow flow (GPM) pressure (GPM) (Actual flow — measurement
(Watts) (A) (Watts) (GPM) (Bar) Measured flow) (Flow
difference/Actual
flow)
3450 2639.7 11.819 2563.91 101.77 102.81 30.61 140 −1.0351 −0.01
3448 2630.8 11.777 2548.78 102.85 102.36 30.55 130 0.4927 0.00
3449 2628.7 11.765 2582.16 103.22 103.06 30.45 120 0.1573 0.00
3448 2635 11.789 2592.96 103.82 102.71 30.43 110 1.1096 0.01
3312 2333.5 10.435 2312.33 100.11 98.35 27.91 100 1.7606 0.02
2942 1651.3 7.41 1648.45 89.81 87.59 21.80 90 2.2179 0.03
Test run 1 2553 1106.8 5.033 1105.38 80.00 75.62 15.96 80 4.3766 0.06
2185 720.1 3.364 714.27 70.03 64.53 11.36 70 5.4967 0.09
1823 447.3 2.1868 429.79 59.95 53.48 7.57 60 6.4659 0.12
1248 181.95 1.0341 157.78 49.88 35.84 2.48 50 14.0410 0.39
984 105.66 1.0272 90.87 40.34 27.86 1.30 40 12.4791 0.45
868 82.73 0.8535 68.22 29.86 24.31 1.24 30 5.5520 0.23
478 59.3 0.6772 112.16 19.99 13.27 0.18 20 6.7173 0.51
3442 2629.9 11.775 2619.90 106.58 102.73 29.78 140 3.8476 0.04
3449 2630.8 11.777 2628.10 106.75 102.42 29.72 130 4.3319 0.04
3446 2638.4 11.806 2631.54 107.32 102.28 29.62 120 5.0425 0.05
3449 2643.2 11.827 2639.95 107.89 102.65 29.57 110 5.2432 0.05
3193 2100.8 9.396 2112.78 100.00 95.24 25.24 100 4.7597 0.05
2855 1517.6 6.819 1528.39 90.00 85.12 19.99 90 4.8781 0.06
Test run 2 2526 1073.6 4.888 1075.64 79.98 75.19 15.44 80 4.7907 0.06
2195 721.4 3.368 719.35 69.82 64.94 11.51 70 4.8807 0.08
1783 418.9 2.0609 405.92 59.96 52.2 7.04 60 7.7618 0.15
1331 206.7 1.1386 185.12 50.15 38.41 3.22 50 11.7404 0.31
991 106.27 1.032 91.52 40.05 28.15 1.36 40 11.9038 0.42
870 82.55 0.8508 68.45 30.02 24.58 1.24 30 5.4405 0.22
478 59.25 0.6761 112.16 19.99 12.97 0.18 20 7.0173 0.54
3446 2631.4 11.783 2604.55 106.85 103.04 29.71 140 3.8070 0.04
3448 2641.2 11.82 2636.57 107.56 102.84 29.59 130 4.7203 0.05
3448 2641.8 11.822 2638.58 108.18 103.11 29.48 120 5.0685 0.05
3450 2643.2 11.826 2643.65 108.50 103.15 29.41 110 5.3455 0.05
3177 2068.8 9.253 2080.57 99.87 95.04 24.88 100 4.8329 0.05
2833 1481.9 6.662 1496.13 90.03 84.4 19.52 90 5.6298 0.07
Test run 3 2487 1027.3 4.687 1036.32 80.16 73.89 14.74 80 6.2651 0.08
2075 628 2.9643 620.94 69.82 61.66 9.73 70 8.1607 0.13
1651 346.1 1.7444 334.31 59.91 47.9 5.51 60 12.0142 0.25
1244 180.14 1.0231 158.87 50.13 35.76 2.44 50 14.3746 0.40
991 106.31 1.032 91.52 40.02 28.23 1.36 40 11.7921 0.42
871 82.66 0.8517 69.44 29.97 24.5 1.25 30 5.4730 0.22
477 60.12 0.6824 112.45 19.99 13.36 0.18 20 6.6273 0.50

Fig. 11. Efficiency of the conventional sensor-based system and proportional sensorless system.

465
Arun Shankar V.K., Umashankar S., Rajvikram M.E. et al.
In nutshell, the efficiency of the pumps and the entire sys-
tem is observed throughout the operating region, which en-
ables the users to identify the preferable operating region for
energy-efficient operation.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Arun Shankar V.K.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investi-
gation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing. Umashankar Subramaniam: Methodology, Supervi-
sion, Writing - review & editing. Rajvikram Madurai Elavarasan:
Conceptualization, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, For-
mal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Kannadasan Raju: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writ-
ing - review & editing. Paramasivam Shanmugam: Conceptual-
ization, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research work was supported by Renewable Energy Lab-
oratory, College of Engineering, Prince Sultan University, Saudi
Arabia. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of
Prince Sultan University for paying the Article Processing Charges
(APC) of this publication. The authors acknowledge the technical
inputs provided by by Danfoss Industries Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, India
and Danfoss Advanced Drives Laboratory, School of Electrical
Engineering, VIT, Vellore, India. The authors also thank the Clean
and Resilient Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University,
Galveston, USA for the technical expertise provided.
References
Abdelaziz, E.A., Saidur, R., Mekhilef, S., 2011. A review on energy saving strategies
in industrial sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 150–168. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.003.
Ahonen, T., Tamminen, J., Ahola, J., Kestilä, J., 2012. Frequency-converter-based
hybrid estimation method for the centrifugal pump operational state. IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron. 59, 4803–4809.
Ahonen, T., Tamminen, J., Ahola, J., Viholainen, J., Aranto, N., Kestilä, J., 2010.
Estimation of pump operational state with model-based methods. Energy
Convers. Manage. 51, 1319–1325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.
01.009.
Ahonen, T., Tamminen, J., Montonen, J., 2014. Comparison of electric motor types
for realising an energy efficient pumping system. In: 2014 16th Eur Conf
Power Electron Appl EPE-ECCE Eur. pp. 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EPE.
2014.6910989.
Arun Shankar, V.K., Umashankar, S., Paramasivam, S., 2016a. Performance eval-
uation of fuzzy DTC based PMSM for pumping applications. Indian J. Sci.
Technol. 9 (38), 1–10.
Arun Shankar, V.K., Umashankar, S., Paramasivam, S., Norbert, H., 2016b. A
comprehensive review on energy efficiency enhancement initiatives in
centrifugal pumping system. Appl. Energy 181, 495–513.
Arun Shankar, V.K., Umashankar, S., Paramasivam, S., Norbert, H., 2017. An
Energy Efficient Control Algorithm for Parallel Pumping Industrial Motor
Drives System. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics,
Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES). Chennai, India, 2018, pp. 1–6. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/PEDES.2018.8707618.
Arun Shankar, V.K., Umashankar, S., Paramasivam, S., Norbert, H., 2017b. Real
time simulation of variable speed parallel pumping system. Energy Procedia
142, 2102–2108.
Arun Shankar, V.K., Umashankar, S., Sanjeevikumar, P., Jens Bo Holm-
Nielsen, Blaabjerg. F., Paramasivam, S., 2018. Experimental investigation of
power signatures for cavitation and water hammer in an industrial parallel
pumping system. Energies 12 (2019), 1351–1366.
466
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 453–466
Barbarelli, S., Amelio, M., Florio, G., 2016. Predictive model estimating the
performances of centrifugal pumps used as turbines. Energy 107, 103e21.
Binder, A., 2008. Potentials for energy saving with modern drive technology—a
survey. In: 2008 International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical
Drives, Automation and Motion. IEEE, pp. 90–95.
Borsting, H.Z., 2010. Energy efficient control of a boosting system with multiple
variable-speed pumps in parallel. In: 49th IEEE Conf. Decis. Control. IEEE,
pp. 2198–2203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2010.5717312.
Chuan, W., Xiaoke, H., Desheng, Z., Bo, H., Weidong, S., 2019. Numerical and
experimental study of the self-priming process of a multistage self-priming
centrifugal pump. Int. J. Energy Res. 43, 4074–4092.
Du Plessis, G.E., Liebenberg, L., Mathews, E.H., 2013. The use of variable speed
drives for cost-effective energy savings in South African mine cooling
systems. Appl. Energy 111, 16–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.
04.061.
European Commission, 2001. Study on Improving the Energy Efficiency of Pumps.
Europump, Hydraulic Institute, 2004. Variable Speed Pumping – A Guide to
Successful Applications. Elsevier Advanced Technology, Kidlington.
Gu, Y., Pei, J., Yuan, S., Wang, W., Zhang, F., Wang, P., Appiah, D., Liu, Y., 2019.
Clocking effect of vaned diffuser on hydraulic performance of high-power
pump by using the numerical flow loss visualization method. Energy 170,
986–997.
Hammo, S., Viholainen, J., 2005. Testing the accuracy of pump flow calculation
without metering. World Pumps 2005, 36–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0262-1762(05)70846-4.
Huang, R., Zhang, Z., Zhang, W., Mou, J., Zhou, P., Wang, Y., 2020. Energy
performance prediction of the centrifugal pumps by using a hybrid neural
network. Energy 213, 119005.
Izquierdo, M.D.Z., Jimenez, J.J.S., del Sol, A.M., 2008. Matlab software to de-
termine the saving in parallel pumps optimal operation systems, by using
variable speed. In: 2008 IEEE Energy 2030 Conf., vol. 2. 2008, IEEE, pp. 1–8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ENERGY.2008.4780991.
Jin, Y., He, X., Zhang, Y., Zhou, S., Chen, H., Liu, C., 2019. Numerical and exper-
imental investigation of external characteristics and pressure fluctuation of
a submersible tubular pumping system. Processes 7 (12), 949.
Junaidi, Md Abdul Raheem, LaksmiKumari, N.B.V., Samad, Mohd Abdul, Say-
eedAhmed, G.M., 2015. CFD simulation to enhance the efficiency of
centrifugal pump by application of inner guide vanes. Mater. Today: Proc. 2,
2073–2082.
Kara Omar, A., Khaldi, A., Ladouani, A., 2017. Prediction of centrifugal pump
performance using energy loss analysis. Aust. J. Mech. Eng. 15 (3), 210e21.
Kaya, Durmus, Alptekin Yagmur, E., Suleyman Yigit, K., Kilic, Fatma Canka,
Salih Eren, A., Celik, Cenk, 2008. Energy efficiency in pumps. Energy Convers.
Manage. 49 (6), 1662–1673.
Olszewski, P., 2016. Genetic optimization and experimental verification of
complex parallel pumping station with centrifugal pumps. Appl. Energy 178,
527–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.084.
du Plessis, G.E., Liebenberg, L., Mathews, E.H., 2013. Case study: The effects of a
variable flow energy saving strategy on a deep-mine cooling system. Appl.
Energy 102, 700–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.08.024.
Pumps, R., 1999. Rotodynamic Pumps–Hydraulic Performance Acceptance
Tests–Grades 1 and 2, 9906. ISO, p. 2007.
Savar, Mario, Kozmar, Hrvoje, Sutlovic, Igor, 2009. Improving centrifugal pump
efficiency by impeller trimming. Desalination 654–659.
Shahram, Derakhshan, Ahmad, Nourbakhsh, 2008. Experimental study of charac-
teristic curves of centrifugal pumps working as turbines in different specific
speeds. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 32, 800e7.
Tamminen, J., Viholainen, J., Ahonen, T., Ahola, J., Hammo, S., Vakkilainen, E.,
2013. Comparison of model-based flow rate estimation methods in
frequency-converter-driven pumps and fans. Energy Effic. 1–13. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s12053-013-9234-6.
Viholainen, J., 2014a. Energy-Efficient Control Strategies for Variable Speed
Driven Parallel Pumping Systems Based on Pump Operation Point Monitoring
with Frequency Converters.
Viholainen, J., 2014b. Energy-efficient control strategies for variable speed driven
parallel pumping systems based on pump operation point. Energy Effic. 6,
495–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16941-0.
Viholainen, J., Sihvonen, M., Tolvanen, J., 2011. Flow control with variable speed
drives. World Pumps 2011, 16–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0262-1762(11)
70061-X.
Waide, P., Brunner, C.U., 2011. Energy-efficiency policy opportunities for electric
motor-driven systems. In: International Energy Agency Energy Efficiency
Series.
Wang, Y.-F., Chen, Q., 2015. A direct optimal control strategy of variable speed
pumps in heat exchanger networks and experimental validations. Energy 85,
609–619.