ASRAC Pumps Working Group

Setting Efficiency Levels

A
2

Background and Introduction

Efficiency Levels

 An Efficiency Level (EL) can be described as a “possib

standard level” that can be evaluated and analyzed t

determine if it is economically justified.

 In a typical rulemaking, DOE establishes and evaluat

multiple ELs for each equipment class under conside

 In this case, the working group may participate in esta

the ELs to evaluate.

 After reviewing the energy savings and economic an

results for the ELs under consideration, the working 

select an EL to propose to ASRAC as the minimum en

conservation standard level for each equipment clas
3

EU Methodology

EU Methodology ‐ Review

• Before we look at the method and metric that is bein

pursued as part of this working group, we will review 

methodology and standards, which serve as an exampossible means of evaluating prospective efficiency l
4

EU Lot 11 Methodology

The Metric: MEI (Minimum Efficiency Index)

 Market‐based index that simply represents how well a pu

efficiency compares to the marketplace as a whole

o MEI 10 indicates the pump is better than the bottom 10%, 

indicates better than the bottom 40%, and so on.

o In other words, a standard set at MEI 10 cuts off 10% of pu

while a standard set at MEI 40 cuts off 40% of pump mode

So how do we determine how a given pu

compares to the market using this metho
5

EU Lot 11 Methodology

Step 1: Define the Efficiency Surface Due to size and geometry differences, every pump in the marke

have a different maximum attainable efficiency

 Based on extensive research, the EU found attainable efficiency 

strong function of flow (Q) and specific speed (ns*)

 This research defined the “Efficiency Surface” by the average ef

in the EU marketplace for all pumps within scope as a function 

specific speed.

 Thus, all pumps falling on the MEI surface are of equal relative e

o This allows pumps of varying flows and specific speeds to be co

an even playing field.

* ns = (nQ1/2)/H3/4
6

EU Lot 11 Methodology

Step 2: Use the Surface to Define MEI Levels Translate the efficiency surface up and down to create ELs that remove or “cut off” p

marketplace

o Translate down to cut off fewer pumps (Higher C‐Value)

o Translate up to cut off more pumps (Lower C‐Value)

 The translation is done by using the “C‐Value”

Cut off at 

C = 132.2

Cu

C = 

US Market Data*

*Note: C‐Values are approximate and for

illustrative purposes only

η஻ா௉,ெூே	ோாொ ൌ 88.59ln Ns ൅ 13.46ln Q െ 11.48ln Ns ଶ െ 0.85ln ܳ ଶ െ 0
7

EU Lot 11 Methodology

Results: EU Lot 11 “Efficiency Levels” Each “efficiency level” targeted a constant failure rate for 

equipment class

 The failure rate for each equipment class and “EL” was ach

selecting a C‐value to move the MEI surface to a position t

off the appropriate amount of pumps

 Each “EL”, or MEI level, was considered as a possible stand

“EL” 1 “EL” 2 “EL” 3 “EL” 4 “EL” 5 “EL” 6 “EL” 7 “EL” 8 

MEI 5 MEI 10 MEI 15 MEI 20 MEI 30 MEI 40 MEI 50 MEI 60 
8

Potential Methodology for Working Group

Potential Standard Setting Methodology

• Now we will look at the potential ELs to be evaluated 

of this working group and how their accompanying Ccould be set using the previously described method
9

Potential Methodology for Working Group

Potential Efficiency Levels Similar to the EU, ELs can be set by targeting a failure rate 

equipment class

 Each EL would then be analyzed to determine whether a sta

that level would be economically justified

 We can evaluate additional, intermediate levels later, as n

Potential Efficiency Levels for each Equipment Class

Efficiency Level EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 

% of Models “Cut‐

Off” or Failing 10% 25% 40% 55% 70% 

Next, we must determine the C‐Values for eac

equipment classes at each efficiency level
10

Potential Methodology for Working Group

Determining C‐Values Using the PER Metric We first start by looking at how our metric, PER, is constructed

PER ൌ 	 ߱଴.଻ହ ௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,బ.ళఱ ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,బ.ళఱൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,బ.ళఱ +߱୆୉୔ ௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,ಳಶು ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,ಳಶು ൅߱ଵ.ଵ ௉೓೤೏ೝ

ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,భ.భ

 When considering setting efficiency levels, only the minimum re

efficiency at BEP and partial BEP are variables, for a given pump

 From the EU efficiency surface, we know that for a given pump 

Min.Req.ݑ݌ߟ݉݌,ܧܤܲ = f(C)

 And leveraging the EU regulation we can also say that

( ܲܧܤ,݌݉ݑ݌ߟ.Req.Min (x 0.947 = ,0.75݌݉ݑ݌ߟ.Req.Min

(ܲܧܤ,݌݉ݑ݌ߟ.Req.Min (x 0.985 = ,1.1݌݉ݑ݌ߟ.Req.Min

 Therefore the only variable remaining when looking at setting a

ܲܧܴா௙௙.	௅௘௩௘௟ ൌ ߱଴.଻ହ

ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,଴.଻ହ

0.947 ∗ ܯ݅݊. ܴ݁ݍ. ߟ௣௨௠௣,஻ா௉ሺܥሻ ൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,଴.଻ହ

൅ ߱୆୉୔

ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,஻ா௉

ܯ݅݊. ܴ݁ݍ. ߟ௣௨௠௣,஻ா௉ሺܥሻ ൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,஻ா௉ ൅߱ଵ.ଵ

ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,ଵ.ଵ

0.985 ∗ ܯ݅݊. ܴ݁ݍ. ߟ௣௨௠௣,஻ா௉ሺܥ

ൌ 88.59ln Ns ൅ 13.46ln Q െ 11.48ln Ns ଶ െ 0.85ln ܳ ଶ െ 
11

Potential Methodology for Working Group

Determining C‐Values (Cont’d) Varying the C‐Value will output a PER value that can b

compared against the calculated PER for a given pum

to determine if the given pump model passes or fails

 A single C‐value results in a different PER value for eac

combination

 We can then look at how many pump models pass or 

each C‐Value

ܲܧܴா௙௙௜௖௜௘௡௖௬	௅௘௩௘௟ ൌ

	߱଴.଻ହ

௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,బ.ళఱ

଴.ଽସ଻∗ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುሺ஼ሻൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,బ.ళఱ

+߱୆୉୔

௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,ಳಶು

ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುሺ஼ሻൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,ಳಶು ൅߱ଵ.ଵ

௉

଴.ଽ଼ହ∗ఎ೛ೠ
12

Potential Methodology for Working Group

Determining C‐Values (Cont’d)We can also rearrange the equation to determine the C‐Value at w

pump model would fail

 A pump model approaches failure when:

Pumpܴܧܲ =݈݁ݒ݁ܮ ݕ݂݂݅ܿ݅݁݊ܿܧܴܧܲ

 Therefore for this analysis:

 Rearranging: Where: Therefore:

ܲܧܴ௉௨௠௣ ൌ	߱଴.଻ହ ௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,బ.ళఱ ଴.ଽସ଻∗ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುሺ஼ሻൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,బ.ళఱ +߱୆୉୔ ௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,ಳಶು ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುሺ஼ሻൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,ಳಶು ߱ଵ.ଵ ௉೓

଴.ଽ଼ହ∗ఎ೛ೠ೘

ߟ௣௨௠௣,஻ா௉ ܥ ൌ 	

߱଴.଻ହ

ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,଴.଻ହ

0.947 ൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,଴.଻ହ +߱୆୉୔

ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,஻ா௉

ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,஻ா௉

߱ଵ.ଵ

ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,ଵ.ଵ

0.985 ൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,ଵ.ଵ

௣௠௨௉ܴܧܲ

ܥி௔௜௟௜௡௚ ൌ െ

ఠబ.ళఱ

ು೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,బ.ళఱ

బ.వరళൈആ೘೚೟೚ೝ,బ.ళఱ

+ఠాుౌ

ು೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,ಳಶು

ആ೘೚೟೚ೝ,ಳಶು

ఠభ.భ

ು೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,భ.భ

బ.వఴఱൈആ೘೚೟೚ೝ,భ.భ

௉ாோುೠ೘೛ ൅ ݂ሺܳ

ߟ௣௨௠௣,஻ா௉ ܥ ൌ ݂ሺܳ, ܰݏ (− ܥி௔௜௟௜௡௚ ൌ 88.59ln Ns ൅ 13.46ln Q െ 11.48ln Ns ଶ െ 0.85ln ܳ ଶ െ 
13

Potential Methodology for Working Group

Determining C‐Values (Cont’d) With the failing C‐Value of every pump model known, we can ev

distribution of C‐Values and select C‐Values that cut‐off the des

of models

10% Fail

C = 132.3

40% Failing

C = 126.86

70% Failing

C = 123.68
14

Potential Methodology for Working Group

Preliminary Results The table below displays preliminary results based on aggregate

manufacturer data representing approximately half of shipment

PRELIMINARY C‐Values for Efficiency Levels

EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 

Equipment Class 10% 25% 40% 55% 70% 

ESCC 1800 132.33 128.59 126.86 125.04 123.68 ESCC 3600 133.06 130.13 128.70 127.23 125.08 

ESFM 1800 131.30 128.18 126.55 124.95 123.47 ESFM 3600 132.71 130.43 128.70 127.53 125.32 

IL 1800 133.91 129.31 127.31 125.76 124.19 IL 3600 140.24 133.83 131.00 129.34 127.35 
15

Potential Methodology for Working Group

Selecting a Standard Level For each EL, the consultant team will provide results for:

 Average Life Cycle Cost (LCC) savings

 Incremental equipment cost Operating cost savings

 Percent of population with net cost, net benefit, and no impact

 National energy savings (NES)

 National net present value (NPV)

 Change in industry net present value (INPV)

 And additional downstream analyses (emissions, monetization, etc.)

 After reviewing the analyses and any requested revisions, the working 

review the results and determine which EL (C‐Value) to select as the en

conservation standard for each equipment class.

 As proposed, the energy conservation standard will be a formula that is a f

specific speed, and hydraulic power.
16

Potential Methodology for Working Group

Comparing Your Pump to the Standard Level Calculate ܲܧܴPump according to the methodology described in the 

procedure.

 For example, by measuring shaft input power at multiple load points and applyi

motor losses.

 Use the energy conservation standard formula to determine the ܲܧ

specific to your pump model’s hydraulic characteristics.

 For example for an ESCC 1800 pump with a standard set at EL 3, the C value is 1

 Ns, Q, and ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,௜ are values derived from the testing the pump model in q

according to the test procedure

 ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,଴.଻ହ is assigned based on the test procedure rules

 Compare ܲܧܴPump to ܲܧܴௌ௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ (assuming no denominator):

 If ܲܧܴPump > ܲܧܴௌ௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ, it fails If ܲܧܴPump ≤ ܲܧܴௌ௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ, it passes

ܲܧܴௌ௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗൌ

1

88.59ln Ns ൅ 13.46ln Q െ 11.48ln Ns ଶ െ 0.85ln ܳ ଶ െ 0.38 ln ܰݏ ∗ ln 

ൈ ߱଴.଻ହ

ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,଴.଻ହ

0.947 ൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,଴.଻ହ

+߱୆୉୔

ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,஻ா௉

1.0 ൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,஻ா௉ ߱ଵ.ଵ

ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,ଵ.ଵ

0.985 ൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,ଵ
17

Determining Max Tech
18

MAX AVAILABLE and MAX TECH Configuration

 MAX TECH is defined as the highest efficiency level that is tech

feasible

• This efficiency level does not need to currently exist in the marke

 MAX AVAILABLE is defined as the highest efficiency level that is 

available in the marketplace

 DOE must select a MAX TECH efficiency level and analyze costs 

with improving efficiency from the baseline through this MAX T

 Based on information gathered by DOE, there is wide consensu

Manufacturers as well as the EU Lot 11 Commission that pump

hydraulic bare pump) are a mature technology, with all availab

options already existing in the marketplace

• Therefore, MAX TECH is already available in the marketpla

MAX TECH = MAX AVAILABLE

Market and Technology Assessment
19

Defining Max Tech: Additional Considerations

 Due to the nature of the MEI efficiency surface, we must evalu

specific pumps (by Q and Ns) are cut‐off at each efficiency leve

that higher ELs do not inadvertently remove specific utility from 

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

Significantly

more efficiency

variability at

lower flows

Sig

lowe

va

hig
20

ESCC 1800 RPM – By Flow

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

 PER 85 may significantly impact many high‐flow pumps
21

ESCC 1800 RPM – By Specific Speed

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

 PER 85 may significantly impact many high‐Ns pumps
22

ESCC 3600 RPM – By Flow

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

 PER 70 may significantly impact many high‐flow pumps
23

ESCC 3600 RPM – By Specific Speed

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

 PER 70 may significantly impact many high‐Ns pumps
24

ESFM 1800 RPM – By Flow

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

 PER 85 may significantly impact many high‐flow pumps
25

ESFM 1800 RPM – By Specific Speed

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

 PER 85 may significantly impact many high‐Ns pumps
26

ESFM 3600 RPM – By Flow

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

 PER 70 may significantly impact many high‐flow pumps
27

ESFM 3600 RPM – By Specific Speed

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

 PER 85 may significantly impact many high‐Ns pumps
28

Inline 1800 RPM – By Flow

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

 PER 70 may significantly impact many high‐flow pumps
29

Inline 1800 RPM – By Ns

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient

 PER 70 may significantly impact many high‐Ns pumps
30

Inline 3600 RPM – By Flow

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient
31

Inline 3600 RPM – By Ns

Market and Technology Assessment

More Efficient Less Efficient
32

Max Tech Conclusions Under the current structure of the efficiency surface:

• PER 85 is beyond Max Tech

- For high Flow and/or Specific Speeds, efficiencies specified by PER 85 

achievable with current technology.

• We request feedback on whether PER 70 is beyond max tech.

 Alternatives:

• Adjust the shape of the efficiency surface so that it gets flatter fro

higher ELs

- This could allow you to select a higher surface as Max Tech

- Pump manufacturers have requested to maintain the same surface fo

• Use the same surface shape for all ELs but divide pump types into 

equipment classes based on Ns and Q

- Lower flows/Ns would have different C‐Values for Max Tech than wo

flows/Ns

Market and Technology Assessment