SS symmetry

Article
LCA/LCC Model for Evaluation of Pump Units in
Water Distribution Systems
Mitar Jocanovic 1 , Boris Agarski 2 , Velibor Karanovic 1 , Marko Orosnjak 1 ,
Milana Ilic Micunovic 2 , Gordana Ostojic 1 and Stevan Stankovski 1, *
1 Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department for Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Novi
Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; [email protected] (M.J.); [email protected] (V.K.); [email protected] (M.O.);
[email protected] (G.O.)
2 Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department for Mechanical Engineering, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi
Sad, Serbia; [email protected] (B.A.); [email protected] (M.I.M.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 7 August 2019; Accepted: 10 September 2019; Published: 18 September 2019


Abstract: In this multidisciplinary research, an LCA/LCC model is developed for assessing the
costs, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the pump unit lifecycles in
drinking water distribution systems (WDS). The presented methodology includes the pump, motor,
and variable frequency drive monitoring as a system (pump unit), through their life-cycle stages: the
manufacturing stage, the exploitation stage, and the disposal stage at the end of their life-cycle. The
developed model also analyses other processes such as the maintenance, testing, and reconstruction
of the pump unit. Demonstration of the presented methodology was performed using the pump
unit of an operating WDS system in different scenarios, in order to illustrate the proper application
of this model. The obtained results show that the application of pump units is justified in terms of
energy consumption. The results also show that 93%–94% of the consumed energy and the LCC
costs are related to the pump operating costs, while the rest are related to auxiliary operations. The
findings show that various countries can have considerably different prices of electrical energy and
different GHG emissions that depend on the source of electric energy. The implemented model
incorporates some of the symmetries that are commonly found in the mathematical models of water
distribution systems. Finally, the results of pump unit exploitation within the WDS have been used
to show the impact of such plants on different levels of energy consumption, GHG emissions, and
LCC production.

Keywords: water distribution systems; energy consumption; GHG emissions

1. Introduction
Water distribution systems (WDS) consist of several pumps powered by electric motors. Pump units
(PUs), which consists of pump, motor, and variable frequency drive (VFD) are major consumers of electric
energy within WDS. Therefore, WDS pumps have been analyzed to improve and achieve optimum
efficiency of WDS with the minimum cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the European
Union countries, the electric motor drive is the most represented drive-in industry, representing 70% of
total electricity consumption [1]. About 95% of WDS energy is used up on the processing of raw and
processed water [2,3]. WDS pumps are often designed for longer periods of exploitation, usually 10 to
20 years, and there are systems which extend that period to even 30 to 40 years. Such systems are often
inefficient because the pumps are oversized to begin with, have no frequency control, and often pressure
and flow ratio is valve-controlled. Energy consumption is the best indicator of pump performance and
WDS sustainability. PUs are primary consumers of electric energy within WDS, which results in the

Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181; doi:10.3390/sym11091181 www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry

Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 2 of 21

Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 24

consumption of specific natural resources in the form of fossil fuels (coal, gas) or nuclear energy, produced
fossil fuels
at nuclear power(coal, gas)
plants. Inputor energy
nuclear consumption
energy, producedcan be atevennuclear power
up to five plants.
times Input energy
the amount needed to
supply a real WDS, while this ratio in ideal systems, where there is no leakage, is about 3.72 timesratio
consumption can be even up to five times the amount needed to supply a real WDS, while this [4]. As
in ideal systems,
a by-product where
of thermal andthere is no power
nuclear leakage,plants,
is about 3.72 timeswaste
hazardous [4]. Asanda by-product of thermal
gas emissions and
are generated,
nuclear
resulting in power plants, amount
an increased hazardous waste and gas
of problematic COemissions are generated, resulting in an increased
2 [5].
amount of problematic CO 2 [5].
Loss et al. [6] compared the traditional open-cut and pipe bursting systems for relining
Loss et al. [6] compared the traditional open-cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water
water pipelines with lifecycle assessment (LCA) and found that the pipe bursting technology
pipelines with lifecycle assessment (LCA) and found that the pipe bursting technology generates
generates lower environmental impacts in most of the impact categories. Uche et al. [7] provided a
lower environmental impacts in most of the impact categories. Uche et al. [7] provided a
comprehensive approach with LCA in water management use in a Mediterranean water-stressed region.
comprehensive approach with LCA in water management use in a Mediterranean water-stressed
They demonstrated
region. that the diversification
They demonstrated of water supply
that the diversification alternatives
of water considerably
supply alternatives increases the
considerably
environmental
increases theimpact. Fantin et
environmental al. [8] Fantin
impact. performed
et al. a[8]
comparative
performed aLCA to evaluate
comparative LCA the
toGHG emissions
evaluate the
of tap and bottled water and showed that tap water always has
GHG emissions of tap and bottled water and showed that tap water always has the bestthe best environmental performance,
even in case of high-energy-consuming
environmental performance, even in case technologies for drinking water
of high-energy-consuming treatments.
technologies Changwater
for drinking et al. [9]
developed
treatments.theChang
modeletforal.optimization
[9] developed of thewater
modeldemand management
for optimization of waterand applied
demand it on transferring
management and
applied
water demand it onattransferring water demand
storage facilities, aimingattostorage
lower thefacilities,
energy aiming
const.to lower the energy const.
TheTheuseuse of LCA
of LCA and
and lifecyclecost
lifecycle cost(LCC)
(LCC) in
in WDS has hasbeen
beenaapoint
pointofofinterest over
interest thethe
over recent years
recent years
because it deals with the issue of PU optimization and the WDS as
because it deals with the issue of PU optimization and the WDS as a whole, for which reason a whole, for which reason somesome
authors
authors areare moremore concernedwith
concerned withthis
thisissue
issue[10–14].
[10–14]. In In previous
previousresearch
researchofofLCA/LCC
LCA/LCC of WDS,
of WDS,nonenone
of the authors investigated the complete WDS with pump, motor, and
of the authors investigated the complete WDS with pump, motor, and VFD. Research presented in VFD. Research presented in
this paper provides an LCA/LCC model for evaluation of GHG emissions, energy consumption, and
this paper provides an LCA/LCC model for evaluation of GHG emissions, energy consumption, and
lifecycle cost associated with the lifecycle of the pump, motor, and VFD within the WDS.
lifecycle cost associated with the lifecycle of the pump, motor, and VFD within the WDS.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
A new model of LCA/LCC for evaluation of PUs in WDS (Figure 1) has been developed by
A new model of LCA/LCC for evaluation of PUs in WDS (Figure 1) has been developed by combining
combining various existing solutions [15], related to the WDS pumps and the model designed for
various
LCAexisting solutions
assessment in WDS[15],pipeline
related production
to the WDS[16].
pumps
Theand the model of
development designed
LCA/LCC for model
LCA assessment
involved in
WDS pipeline production [16]. The development of LCA/LCC model involved multidisciplinary
multidisciplinary research requiring mechanical, process, fluid, and environmental engineering, research
as
requiring mechanical,
well as the economy. process, fluid, and environmental engineering, as well as the economy.

Figure 1. LCA/LCC model for evaluation of PU in WDS. PU: pump unit. WDS: water distribution
system. GHG: greenhouse gas. VFD: variable frequency drive.
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 24

Figure 1. LCA/LCC model for evaluation of PU in WDS. PU: pump unit. WDS: water distribution
Symmetry 2019,
system. 11, 1181
GHG: greenhouse gas. VFD: variable frequency drive. 3 of 21

First, according to the developed LCA/LCC model shown in Figure 1, the functional unit is
First, according to the developed LCA/LCC model shown in Figure 1, the functional unit is
defined. Afterward, the leading lifecycle stages are defined for the WDS pump. Inventories for each
defined. Afterward, the leading lifecycle stages are defined for the WDS pump. Inventories for each of
of the lifecycle stages are assembled, where the inventory for use stage requires special attention
the lifecycle stages are assembled, where the inventory for use stage requires special attention because
because of the calculations for energy consumption. Lifecycle inventories provide input data for LCA
of the calculations for energy consumption. Lifecycle inventories provide input data for LCA and LCC,
and LCC, and final results are obtained for GHG emissions, energy, and lifecycle costs. The following
and final results are obtained for GHG emissions, energy, and lifecycle costs. The following part of the
part of the methodology describes the developed LCA/LCC model in more detail.
methodology describes the developed LCA/LCC model in more detail.
2.1.
2.1.Methodology
MethodologyofofLCA
LCAfor
forPumps/Motors
Pumps/MotorsWDS
WDS
The
TheLCC
LCCanalysis
analysisofofthe
thefrequency-controlled
frequency-controlledpumps/motors
pumps/motorsininaaWDS WDSisisbased
basedon
onaamodel
modelthat
that
includes
includes several costs“groups”
several costs “groups”that that
cancan be broken
be broken down down into three
into three parts: parts: production,
production, use, anduse, and
disposal.
disposal. The presented
The presented formula, formula,
developeddeveloped by [17]
by [17] was usedwas used to
to define thedefine the new model:
new model:

Production Use Disposal

(1)
𝐿 = 𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶
z }| { z }| { z }| {
LCC = Cic + Cin + Ce + Co + Cm + Cs + Cenv + Cd (1)

whereCCicicare
where areinitial
initialcosts,
costs,purchase
purchaseprice
price(pump,
(pump,pipes,pipes,auxiliary services);CCininisisinstallation
auxiliaryservices); installationand
and
commissioningcosts
commissioning costs(including training);CC
(includingtraining); areenergy
e eare energycosts
costs(predicted
(predictedcost costfor
forsystem
systemoperation,
operation,
includingpump
including pumpdriver,
driver,controls,
controls,andandany
anyauxiliary services);CCo oare
auxiliaryservices); areoperation
operationcostscosts(labor
(laborcost
costofof
regularsystem
regular supervision);CCmmare
systemsupervision); aremaintenance
maintenanceand andrepair
repaircosts
costs(routine
(routineand andpredicted repairs);CCs s
predictedrepairs);
aredowntime
are downtimecosts costs(loss
(lossof production);CCenv
ofproduction); envareareenvironmental
environmentalcostscosts(contamination
(contaminationfrom frompumped
pumped
liquidand
liquid andauxiliary equipment);CCd disisdecommissioning/disposal
auxiliaryequipment); decommissioning/disposalcosts costs(including
(includingrestoration
restorationofofthe
the
local environment and disposal of auxiliary services). All parameters in formula
local environment and disposal of auxiliary services). All parameters in formula (1) are expressed in (1) are expressed
in (€).
(€).
Thelevel
The levelofofsustainability
sustainabilityofofaaWDS WDSisisobtained
obtainedwhen
whenobserving
observingthe thetotal
totalvalue
valueofofthetheLCC
LCC
calculatedinin(€),
calculated (€),the
thetotal
totalamount
amountofofconsumed
consumedenergy,energy,measured
measuredinin(MWh),(MWh),and andthe theGHG
GHGgasgas
emissionscalculated
emissions calculatedinin(t-CO
(t-CO2-eq)
2 -eq)as
asaaconsequence
consequenceofofenergyenergyconsumption.
consumption.
Fromthe
From theformula
formula(1), (1),the
theauthors
authorshave
havedefined
definedthe theLCA
LCAmodel,
model,which
whichshowsshowsthethethree
threeboundary
boundary
stagesin
stages in the lifecycle
lifecycle ofofaaPU PUinina WDS
a WDS system—Figure
system—Figure 2, where inputinput
2, where and output elements
and output are energy
elements are
and CO
energy and
2 gas
CO emissions.
2 gas emissions.

PUlifecycle
Figure2.2.PU
Figure lifecyclestage
stageininWDS.
WDS.

From this
From this formula
formula(1),
(1),other formulas
other for for
formulas the total necessary
the total (consumed)
necessary energy energy
(consumed) and gasand
emission
gas
for the production, operation, and disposal of the PU have been derived. Thus, the new
emission for the production, operation, and disposal of the PU have been derived. Thus, the new formula for
the total energy consumption will be as follows:
formula for the total energy consumption will be as follows:

Etot = Eic + Ein + Ee + Eo + Em + Es + Eenv + Ed (2)

Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 4 of 21

New formula for total GHG emissions is:

Gtot = Gic + Gin + Ge + Go + Gm + Gs + Genv + Gd (3)

where parameters related to the specific consumption of energy per stage of the lifecycle of PU are
expressed in (kWh), while the GHG emissions are expressed in (kg-CO2 -eq).

2.1.1. Production Stage

The production process of a specific component (pump, motor, frequency controller) implies the
consumption of adequate material assets for production, expressed through capital expenditure and
GHG emissions.
Accordingly, formulas have been created, and the defined LCA model was used to calculate the
coefficient values for energy consumption in PU production and at the same time, the coefficients
values related to GHG emissions during production.
The formulas for energy consumption and GHG emissions are calculated using (5):
 
Eprod = Eic + Ein = kprod, pump Wic, pump + kprod. motor Wic, motor + kprod. VFD Wic, VFD + Ein (4)
 
Gprod = Gic + Gin = gprod, pump Wic, pump + gprod. motor Wic, motor + gprod. VFD Wic, VFD + Gin (5)

where kprod, index stands for the factor of energy consumption per unit (kWh/kg); gprod, index represents
the factor of GHG emissions (kg-CO2 -eq./kg); and Wic, index is the weight ratio of the material (steel,
copper, aluminum, paint...) in a component (kg). Energy consumption and GHG emissions factors
relate only to the production process of the materials themselves and their processing to obtain a
certain component. The Ein and Gin parameters define the energy consumption and GHG emissions
during the installing, testing, and transporting the pump, electric motor, and VFD, which, however,
will not be dealt with in this section.

2.1.2. Use Stage

During the exploitation, for each of the components of a PU, working parameters are defined for
WDS. In addition to their operation, the following essential parameters, related to the pump/motor
drive unit, are also monitored:
Cuse = Ce + Co + Cm + Cs (6)

where: Ce stands for the energy consumption of the electric motors of the pumps as well as other
components in the system, such as the frequency controller. Energy consumption is predominant in
LCC calculation, especially if the pumps are performing over 2000 operating hours on average on an
annual basis. Co stands for the costs related to pump system management (i.e., PU monitoring). In the
operation of nonautomated systems, it is necessary to engage workers to monitor PU performance
and to perform corrections in the system operation. In fully automated systems, this parameter can
be reduced according to daily needs. Also, it can be reduced by a number of system adjustments to
a certain period (once a year, twice a year, or more years), depending on the use of PU in WDS. Cm
is a parameter related to PU maintenance and servicing. Servicing can be scheduled according to
the number of operating hours of the drive unit or according to the monitoring, such as vibration
diagnostics. However, it has been proven in practice that servicing intervals are impacted by various
factors such as load variation (flow—Q, pressure—p, and revolution per minute—n), the number of
start-ups and shutdowns, and other factors related to working fluid (water purity and temperature).
The maintenance can be planned depending on the ability to monitor operating parameters and
pump/motor vibration. Cs is a parameter related to the occurrence of losses within a WDS when the
system is not working. Fundamentally, WDS systems are always designed with at least one spare
parallel pump in the system, which can replace one system failure. The initial investment is somewhat
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 5 of 21

higher, but the cost of unplanned maintenance is reduced to the repair costs of the pump that failed,
without the occurrence of any production losses. The costs related to production losses depend on the
downtime interval and depend on a specific case and WDS. All parameters related to Cuse calculation
are expressed in (€).
A new formula has been derived from formula (6), which specifies in more detail specific actions
related to the calculation of energy consumption and GHG emissions during the use of PU and VFD.
   
Euse = Ee,motor + Ee,VFD + ew ( ftest ctest ) + fmain, pump cmain, pump
(7)
+( fmain, motor cmain, motor ) + coverhaul Noverhaul ))T
  
Guse = (Ge,motor + Ge,VFD + gw ( ftest ctest ) + fmain, pump cmain, pump
(8)
+( fmain, motor cmain, motor ) +coverhaul Noverhaul ))T
where Ee,index stands for the energy consumption during operation motor+VFD (MWh/year(s)); Ge,index
stands for the GHG emissions during operation motor+VFD (kg-eq-CO2 /year(s)); ew stands for the
work-energy conversion factor (kWh/€); gw represents the work-GHG emissions conversion factor
(kg-CO2 -eq); ctest is the pump/motor test cost rate (€/test); cmain,index stands for the pump/motor
maintenance cost rate (€/h); ftest stands for the number of tests per year (test/year); fmain,index stands
for the number of hours per year on maintenance of the pump/motor (h/year); coverhaul stands for the
overhaul cost rate (€); Noverhaul stands for the number of overhauls during the planning period (-); and
T is the planning period (year(s)).

2.1.3. Disposal Stage

In the end-of-life process of WDS components such as PU and VFD, only the recycling process is
considered, since the mentioned components have no significant impact on the environment, except
for the recycling process.
According to the LCC formula, where the environmental impact costs are neglected, and only the
recycling process costs are included in the calculation, the disposal costs can be calculated as follows:

Ceol, disp = Cenv + Cd = Cd (9)

Formulas for energy consumption and GHG emissions during recycling are the following:

Eeol, disp = erec Wtmm (10)

Geol, disp = grec Wtmm (11)

where erec stands for the recycling-energy conversion factor (kWh/kg); grec stands for the GHG
emissions-energy conversion factor (kg-CO2 -eq/kg), and Wtmm stands for the total mass of the materials
(cast iron, steel, copper, aluminum, PVC, bronze, etc.) in (kg).

2.2. Functional Unit

The functional unit for a WDS is the total volume of water pumped during one year, measured
in (m3 ). The main task of WDS is to deliver a sufficient amount of drinking water over a given time
interval. The total volume of water distributed (m3 ) on a daily, monthly, or annual basis typically
varies due to weather and time of the year (summer–winter), or due to a consumption resulting from
increased activities in industry or agriculture or other factors (holidays, etc.). Typical values in water
consumption are usually the average values. The maximum consumption value can be determined by
adding 10%–30% [18] of an average observed consumption (on a daily, monthly, or annual basis) or
the measured current consumption. Depending on the WDS type (branched- or grid-type network
configuration) it is necessary to determine peak loads. The most precise data on any process including
the distributed quantity of water can be obtained when the existing system is equipped with monitoring
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 6 of 21

and data acquisition devices [19]. By measuring the volumes of water being distributed as well as
the pressures, the data are gathered allowing the analysts and engineers to adequately respond and
adjust the current WDSs’ PU, to achieve a more efficient system and lower energy consumption. In
order to prevent variations in the distributed water volumes during a given period, it is necessary
to provide the possibility of optimization and correction of PU during the lifecycle of WDSs’ PU in
frequency-controlled systems.
In order to determine the pump/motor performance in a WDS, three fundamental indicators
should be used: pump head, system pressure, and the number of operating PU’s. According to these
values, the diagram of the parallel operating pumps will be drawn for two basic scenarios.

2.3. Energy Consumption in the Use Stage—Ee

Pump and motor energy consumption data are essential for defining the best ratio of the drive
unit fuel consumption (kWh) and the amount of produced water that is pumped into the WDS by the
frequency-controlled pumps. The optimization period of the PU is set daily. The number of pumps to be
used for a particular WDS is calculated according to the real daily consumption period and the average
consumption on a monthly and annual basis for other exploitation variants of frequency-controlled
motors in a WDS. Also, a 24 h time interval is used to calculate the costs of consumed electrical energy
because the pumps are set to operate during that time interval. What matters most in a WDS is
establishing a balance between the costs of production and the quality of drinking water distribution.
In the energy consumption model for a real PU, the consumption of electricity based on the two-tariff
options of the electricity pricing is included when an electricity distribution system provides lower
and higher tariffs of electrical energy (electricity generated mainly with dirty technologies), as well as
in the second case, the consumption of electricity generated by various production systems (so-called
“green” energy generated by wind generators, solar energy, photo panels, etc.). When it comes to an
electricity distribution system that has an average tariff for electrical energy during the entire day, the
formula is simplified and takes into account only the single electricity tariff.
The cost of energy consumed during 24 h based on two-tariff options can be represented by the
following formula:
Xj Xl
Ce = SPn En [PC(i, j)] + SPd Ed [PC(k, l)] (12)
i=1 k = j+1

where the SPn stands for the night tariff in (€/kWh), i stands for the start of the night tariff interval (h), j
stands for the end of the night tariff interval (h), PC (i, j) stands for the number of (combinations) of
the pumps in operation during the night mode, SPd stands for the day tariff (€/kWh), k stands for the
start of the day tariff interval (h), l stands for the end of the day tariff interval (h), PC(k,l) stands for the
number of (combinations) of the pumps in operation during the day mode, En and Ed stand for the
consumed electricity during the night/day operation mode of pumps/motors (kWh). Time intervals
can be defined depending on the power of the electric motor drive and the pump capacity affecting the
speed of electric energy withdrawal from the electricity grid. Parameter E can be calculated as the
product of the multiplication of the flow and the pressure supplied by one pump with the inclusion of
appropriate pump and motor efficiency coefficients. Therefore, current energy consumption on an
hourly basis can be calculated as follows:
n n
X P(t) X γQ(t)H (t) 60
E= ∆t = ∆t (13)
η(t)tot η(t)pump η(t)motor 3600
t=1 t=1

where t stands for the number of pump/motor operation cycles during one day; P(t) stands for the
pump drive energy (kW); γ stands for the water density (N/m3 ); Q(t) stands for the pump flow rate
(m3 /s); H(t) stands for the pump head (m); η(t)tot = η(t)pump × η(t)motor stands for the total efficiency,
pump efficiency, and motor efficiency; ∆t stands for the time interval of the pump/motor operation,
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 7 of 21

expressed in (min). Formula (13) can be used for a pump operating within the system of either different
or the same pump volumes. It should be noted that the frequency-controlled motors of each of the
WDS pumps are adjusted to work under the same revolutions per minute in the modes with two or
more parallel operating pumps in a WDS.
Daily consumption diagrams are particularly important when designing primary and secondary
water supply networks, especially the pump stations and tank facilities. In such WDSs, the shortest
water consumption cycle is expressed as one day when the consumption is at the peak during the year,
which implies the synchronization of components operation in a WDS (pump stations and tanks) with
similar supply conditions occurring every 24 h.
Water demand (consumption) patterns are usually obtained through monitoring at delivery
locations (critical points in the network, the pressure of the amplification station, tanks, control points
with permanent or mobile equipment). In this way, actual consumption data are obtained, because
this approach allows separation of various consumptions, while on the other side, excludes the losses
caused by leakage.
For WDS water supply, an energy equation can be used for calculating the pump head, starting
from the water level in the source (pump tank), through any pump “i”, up to the pump station outlet:

Hpi = (Hout − Hsource ) + ∆hip + ∆his( j) + ∆hm(i,j) = (Hout − Hsours ) + ∆hi( j) = Hci ( j) (14)

where Hpi stands for the pump head “i” (m); Hout stands for the piezometric height at the output of
the pump station (m); Hsource stands for the water level at the source (m); ∆hip are losses in the pump
“i” pipeline (depends on the characteristics of the suction and displacement pump pipework and
the flow through the pump); ∆his( j) are losses in the collector pipe for the pump “i” (depends on the
characteristics of the collector pipe, the number and arrangement of the pump “j” in parallel operation
with pump “i”, and of all the flow of active pumps); ∆hm(i,j) are losses in the main (pressure) pipeline
(depend on the characteristics of the main pipeline and the total flow of all the pumps currently in
operation); ∆hi( j) are total pump losses “i” in parallel operation with pumps “j” from suction ring
pump to outlet from pump station; Hci ( j) stands for the pipeline characteristics for the pump “i” from
the water level of the wall and fill to the output from the pump station.

3. Results
The developed LCA/LCC model for evaluation of WDS was tested in Novi Sads’ WDS. This WDS
consists of five identical pumps, connected in parallel to the main pipeline for distribution of drinking
water for the city of Novi Sad (approximate population of 300,000). The pumps were installed in the
WDS in 2009, and by 2018 there was one overhaul on each electric motor when the bearings were
replaced (the overhauls were performed when needed, i.e., at the time when the damage occurred, the
pump was stopped and the overhaul was done). The pumps were initially coated on the inside with
an epoxy coating, and the pump impellers were made of stainless steel to prevent corrosion. By 2018,
the pumps had performed on average 35,000 working hours. The performance of the pumps over the
observed 12 month period (July 2017 to June 2018) is shown in Figure 3, wherein the observed year, the
pumps performed on average 51.12% of the total time in the year, representing about 4478 (h/year) or
187 (day/year) per pump.
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 8 of 21

Figure 3. Percentage of pump operation in the observed year.

Figure 3. Percentage of pump operation in the observed year.
In order to calculate the energy consumption of the PU, measurements of the amount of water
In order to calculate the energy consumption of the PU, measurements of the amount of water
distributed under a certain pressure at the pump outlet were monitored, because it is the actual quantity
distributed under a certain pressure at the pump outlet were monitored, because it is the actual
of water that the pump supplies to the system, not including either detailed network losses or the
quantity of water that the pump supplies to the system, not including either detailed network losses
extent of the network friction, which were disregarded, because in further analysis the same network
or the extent of the network friction, which were disregarded, because in further analysis the same
is observed with different usage scenarios for frequency-controlled pumps in the WDS. The measured
network is observed with different usage scenarios for frequency-controlled pumps in the WDS. The
values will be used to determine the operating capacity of the pump and the power of the motor (i.e.,
measured values will be used to determine the operating capacity of the pump and the power of the
the daily and total energy consumption over the observed period). It needs to be emphasized that in
motor (i.e., the daily and total energy consumption over the observed period). It needs to be
the WDS, the maximum of four pumps are operating during the water consumption peaks, while the
emphasized that in the WDS, the maximum of four pumps are operating during the water
fifth one serves as a spare. The simulation of demanded consumption and provision of the minimum
consumption peaks, while the fifth one serves as a spare. The simulation of demanded consumption
working pressure was done in the EPANET program [20], according to which the necessary operating
and provision of the minimum working pressure was done in the EPANET program [20], according
parameters (pressure and average flow rate) were determined. The advantage of Novi Sads’ WDS is
to which the necessary operating parameters (pressure and average flow rate) were determined. The
that by using the frequency-controlled pumps connected in parallel, it is possible to adjust the flow,
advantage of Novi Sads’ WDS is that by using the frequency-controlled pumps connected in parallel,
or current water consumption during the day, as well as the pressures that can be adjusted by the
it is possible to adjust the flow, or current water consumption during the day, as well as the pressures
frequency change in the electric motor. Contrary to the study [15], where the observed pump has
that can be adjusted by the frequency change in the electric motor. Contrary to the study [15], where
approximately constant values of the operating point, the operating point of Novi Sads’ WDS changes
the observed pump has approximately constant values of the operating point, the operating point of
during the day depending on whether two, three, or four pumps operate in the system.
Novi Sads’ WDS changes during the day depending on whether two, three, or four pumps operate
The fifth pump is a spare, and the combination of the pumps provides an approximate number of
in the system.
operating hours during the year (Figure 3.). In October, the overhaul of the bearings on the electric
The fifth pump is a spare, and the combination of the pumps provides an approximate number
drive motor of P2 was performed, and it was the last pump to sustain bearing replacement (Figure 3.).
of operating hours during the year (Figure 3.). In October, the overhaul of the bearings on the electric
Bearings of the electric motors operated for about 30,000 work hours on average, which is considerably
drive motor of P2 was performed, and it was the last pump to sustain bearing replacement (Figure
below the designed 100,000 h.
3.). Bearings of the electric motors operated for about 30,000 work hours on average, which is
considerably belowofthe
3.1. Characteristics PUdesigned 100,000
in the Pump h.
Station
The parameters
3.1. Characteristics describing
of PU the characteristics
in the Pump Station of the PU are shown in Table 1. The designed pump
head values and the values of the power required for the pump drive were used to determine and
modelThe
theparameters
curves anddescribing theoperating
to obtain the characteristics of the
points of theuse
PUofare shown
two, three,inand
Table 1. The designed
the maximum of four
pump head values and the values of the power required
pumps in parallel operation, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. for the pump drive were used to determine
and model the curves and to obtain the operating points of the use of two, three, and the maximum
of four pumps in parallel operation, as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 9 of 21
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24

Table 1. Operating parameters of the Pump, Motor,

Table 1. Motor, and
and VFD
VFD [21].
[21].

Parameter
Parameter Unit
Unit Value
Value
Rated
Rated flowflow (L/s)
(L/s) 450
450
Rated
Rated head
head (m)
(m) 5252
Rated
Ratedpower—Motor
power—Motor (kW)
(kW) 315
315
Rated
Ratedpower—VFD
power—VFD (kW)
(kW) 99
Pump Peak efficiency (%) 87.5
Pump Peak efficiency
Motor Peak efficiency
(%)
(%)
87.5
96.3
Motor Peak efficiency
Pump Capital Cost (€/per(%)unit) * 96.3
50.000
PumpCapital
Motor Capital Cost
Cost (€/per unit)* * 50.000
(€/per unit) 40.000
VFD Capital Cost
Motor Capital Cost (€/per unit)* * 40.000
(€/per unit) 28.000
VFDofCapital
* Without the costs Cost installation
transportation, (€/perand unit) * 28.000
testing, or commissioning.
* Without the costs of transportation, installation and testing, or commissioning.

Figure 4.4. Pump

Pumpoperation
operation diagram
diagram in constant-pressure
in constant-pressure maintenance
maintenance modemode at the station
at the pump pump output.
station
output.
According to the formula (14), all the functional flow-dependent losses were calculated ∆hip ; ∆his( j) ;
∆hm(i,j) and ∆hi( j) , using the references [22,23].
Based on the coefficients of local resistances in the suction and discharge pipelines and the flow
through the pump “i”, the following loss values were obtained:

8Q2 8Q2
∆h1,5
p = 4
ξ u + 4
ξp = 9.43Q2 = b1,5
p Q
2
(15)
2
gπ du 2
gπ dp

where du is the diameter of the suction pipeline (value 0.5 m); dp is the diameter of the pressure pipeline
(value 0.35 m); ξu is the total coefficient of local resistance of the suction pipelines of the pumps; ξp
is the total coefficient of local resistance of the pressure pipelines of the pumps; pumps P1 and P5
were defined as the most critical pumps in terms of the length of the pipeline, which is why the loss in
pipelines P1 and P5 are equal and expressed as a loss coefficient b1,5
p = 9.43. For the flow value Q = 400
L/s, total resistance coefficients are ξu = 0.55, i ξp = 1.58.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 10 of 21
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

Figure
Figure 5. Pump operation
5. Pump operation diagram
diagram in
in constant-pressure
constant-pressure maintenance
maintenance mode
mode at
at the
the periphery
periphery of
of the
the city.
city.

Local resistance losses of the discharge pump station pipeline were calculated according to the
According to the formula (14), all the functional flow-dependent losses were calculated ∆ℎ ;
following formula:
∆ℎ ( ) ; ∆ℎ ( , ) and ∆ℎ( ) , using the references [22,23].
8Q2(i,j)
Based on the coefficients of local
∆hm(i,j) = resistances
ξm =in0.244Q
the suction
2
= and
bm(i,jdischarge
2 pipelines and the flow
2 4 (i,j) ) Q(i,j) (16)
through the pump “i”, the followinggπ lossdpres
values were obtained:
where dpres stands for the diameter of8𝑄 the pressure8𝑄pipeline pump station (value 0.9 m); ξm stands for
∆ℎ , = 𝜉 + 𝜉 = 9.43𝑄 = 𝑏 , 𝑄 (15)
𝑔𝜋 𝑑
the total coefficient of local resistance 𝑔𝜋 𝑑 in pump station pipeline; Q(i,j) stands for the
of the pressure
total flow generated by the pumps “i” and “j”, which are currently in operation; bm(i,j) stands for the
where du is the diameter of the suction pipeline (value 0.5 m); dp is the diameter of the pressure
coefficient of losses and amounts bm(i,j) = 0.244.
pipeline (value 0.35 m); ξu is the total coefficient of local resistance of the suction pipelines of the
Coefficients of local resistances in the collection pipeline were calculated for the following pump
pumps; ξp is the total coefficient of local resistance of the pressure pipelines of the pumps; pumps P1
combinations:
and P5 were defined as the most critical pumps in terms of the length of the pipeline, which is why
the loss
(a) in pipelines
P1 pump P1 andoperation
is in parallel P5 are equal and
with P2,expressed a loss coefficient 𝑏 , = 9.43. For the flow
P3, and P5aspumps:
value Q = 400 L/s, total resistance coefficients are ξu = 0.55, i ξp = 1.58.
Local resistance losses (2Q)2
8Q2 of the8discharge pump )2
8(3Qstation 8(3Q)2 were calculated
pipeline according to the
∆h1s(2,3,5) = 4
ξs1 + 4
ξ s2 + 4
ξs3 + 4
ξs5 = 1.82Q2 = b1s(2,3,5) Q2 (17)
following formula: gπ d 2 gπ d2 2
gπ d 2
gπ d
s1 s2 s3 s5
8𝑄( , )
(b) P5 pump is in parallel∆ℎ ( , ) = with P1,𝜉P2,
operation =and
0.244𝑄(, ) =𝑏
P3 pumps: ( , ) 𝑄( , ) (16)
𝑔𝜋 𝑑
where dpres stands for the diameter5 of the pressure8Q2 pipeline pump station (value 0.9 m); ξm stands for
∆hs(1,2,3) = 4
ξs5́ = 0.4Q2 = b5s(1,2,3) Q2 (18)
the total coefficient of local resistance of the gπ pressure
2 d in pump station pipeline; Q(i,j) stands for the
s5́
total flow generated by the pumps “i” and “j”, which are currently in operation; 𝑏 ( , ) stands for the
coefficient
(c) Finally,ofwhen
lossesP5and amounts
pump is operating = 0.244.
𝑏 ( , )independently, the loss is calculated according to the following
Coefficients
formula: of local resistances in the collection pipeline were calculated for the following pump
combinations: 8Q2
∆h5s() = 4 s5
ξ .. = 1.45Q2 = b5s() Q2 (19)
(a) P1 pump is in parallel operation with gπ2 dP2, P3, and P5 pumps:
s5́
8𝑄 8(2𝑄) 8(3𝑄) 8(3𝑄)
∆ℎ ( , , ) = 𝜉 + 𝜉 + 𝜉 + 𝜉 = 1.82𝑄 = 𝑏 ( , , )𝑄 (17)
𝑔𝜋 𝑑 𝑔𝜋 𝑑 𝑔𝜋 𝑑 𝑔𝜋 𝑑
(b) P5 pump is in parallel operation with P1, P2, and P3 pumps:
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 11 of 21

where ds1 , ds2 , ds3 , ds5 , ds5́ are diameters of collecting pipelines; ξs1 , ξs2 , ξs3 , ξs4 , ξs5́ , ξs5.. , are
the total coefficients of local resistance of the collecting pipelines; ds1 = 0.45 m; ds2 = 0.6 m; ds3 =
0.7 m; ds5 = 0.8 m; ds5́ = 0.5 m; i ξs1 = 0.19; ξs2 = 0.37; ξs3 = 0.033; ξs5 = 0.235; ξs5́ = 0.3; ξs5.. = 1.1.
According to formulas (15)–(18), from the pump inlet to the outlet of the pump station in the
pump flow function, and related to pumps P1 and P5 when operating in parallel with pumps P2 and
P3, total losses were calculated as follows:

∆h1(2,3,5) = b1p Q2 + b1s(2,3,5) Q2 + bm(1,2,3,5) (4Q)2 = (9.43 + 1.82 + 3.9)Q2 = 15.15Q2 (20)

∆h5(1,2,3) = b5p Q2 + b5s(1,2,3) Q2 + bm(1,2,3,5) (4Q)2 = (9.43 + 0.4 + 3.9)Q2 = 13.73Q2 (21)

For the pump flow of Q = 400 L/s per pump, the losses obtained according to (20) and (21) were
2.42 m and 2.2 m. Since the selected pumps achieved 58 m head with the given flow, the difference
between these losses was negligible (only 0.22 m) so it was not included in further analysis. Total
losses in the pump flow function, for any pump in parallel operation with three other pumps, were
calculated on the basis of the mean value:

(15.15 + 13.73) 2
∆hi(+3) = Q = 14.44Q2 (22)
2
In case of single-pump operation, the maximum flow that can be reached by one pump is
considered to be the maximum flow generated by pump P5. Therefore, for the modelling of any
single-pump operation, the P5 pump losses will be used, and its formula, based on (15), (16), and (19),
will be as follows:

∆h5() = b5p Q2 + b5s() Q2 + bm(5) Q2 = (9.43 + 1.45 + 0.244)Q2 = 11.12Q2 (23)

According to formulas (14), (22), and (23), the diagram of pumps exploitation was drawn for one,
two, three, or maximum four pumps in parallel operation; for two exploitation variants:
(a) the pumps in the pump station maintain constant pressure at the outlet from the pump station
and allow tank filling at a certain height point;
(b) the pumps in the pump station maintain constant pressure on the outskirts of the urban area with
a minimum set pressure of 3.5 bar.

3.1.1. Pump Exploitation—Option “a”

Figure 4 shows possible working points of the pumps when the pump station operates in the
set pressure maintenance mode at the pump station outlet, which enables the tank filling at the piezo
metric height of Hout1 = 132 m, and the suction level of the pump is at the minimum height of
Hsource1 = 76.2 m or Hstatic1 = Hout1 − Hsource1 .
Based on formulas (14) and (17), the characteristic of the pipeline Hci (+3) is modeled, which
indicates the operation of four pumps in parallel operation is as follows:

Hci (+3) = Hstatic1 + 14.44Q2 (24)

Figure 4 also marks Hci () characteristic of the pipeline when one pump is in operation and the
pump station level is maximum at the level Hsource2 = 80.2 m, and the piezo metric height at the outlet
is maintained at the level of Hout2 = 128 m; where Hstatic2 = Hout2 − Hsource2 .

Hci () = Hstatic 2 + 11.12Q2 (25)

Numbers in Figure 4 indicate possible operating modes of frequency-controlled pumps in different

pump operation combinations: point 1—parallel operation of four pumps with Hstatic1 ; point 2—parallel
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 12 of 21

operation of four pumps at n ≈ 0.91no , operation of the pumps with minimum flow; point 3—one
pump in operation at n = 0.85no and with Hstatic2 ; points 4, 5, 6, and 7 represent the pump operation
combinations with different piezometric heights of pump suction in the pump station and outlet
pressure from the pump station towards the tank.
The framed area a-b-c-d in Figure 4 provides a safe filling level of 50.5 m high-pressure tank under
all possible regular WDS operating conditions. The number of pumps turned on/off is defined on the
basis of the number of revolutions per minute and the minimum allowed flow of the pump, which is
defined by the operating frequency of the electric motor, pressure at the reference point in the city, and
level meters in the tank of the source and the elevated tank.

3.1.2. Pump Exploitation—Option “b”

Under conditions when the pump station is operated according to the pressure in the reference
node on the outskirts of the urban area, the pressure at the outlet from the pump station will not be
constant and will vary depending on the current flow or consumption. In other words, the value of
Hout in Equation (14) is not constant and varies with the flow.
The dependence of Hout (Q) is determined indirectly based on the data obtained from simulations
on the WDS hydraulic model. For this purpose, the diagrams of pump station flow and pressure at
node 94 were used in conditions when the piezometric height at the outlet of the pump station is
maintained at 120 m a.s.l—Figure 6a and 128 m a.s.l—Figure 6b.
Under condition when the pressure at node 94, on the periphery of the city, is constant and equals
35 m, and based on the consumption diagram, Table 2 was created, showing the values of the Hout (Q)
of the pump station depending on the flow performed by the pump station.

Table 2. The dependence of the piezometer heights at the outlet from the pump station.

Q (L/s) Hout (m a.s.l) Q (L/s) Hout (m a.s.l) Q (L/s) Hout (m a.s.l) Q (L/s) Hout (m a.s.l)
180 115.7 550 117.4 950 120.5 1350 124.8
250 116.0 650 118.1 1050 121.4 1450 125.9
350 116.4 750 118.8 1150 122.5 1550 126.9
450 116.9 850 119.6 1250 123.5 1650 128.2
* Meters above sea level (m a.s.l.).

Based on the data from Table 2, the curve Equation (26) shows the dependence of piezometric
heights on the flow (obtained by the method of least squares), which connects the obtained
operating points.
Hout (Q) = 115.0618 + 2.6528Q + 3.2518Q2 (26)

By replacing formula (26) with the energy Equation (14), taking into account losses (22) and (23),
the following characteristics of the pipeline are obtained from the water level in the pump station
(source) to the pump station outlet, under conditions when the pump station with four pumps is in
operation and when only one pump is operating:

Hci (+3) = [Hout (4Q) − Hsours1 ] + 14.44Q2 (27)

Hci () = [Hout (Q) − Hsours2 ] + 11.12Q2 (28)

By the linear interpolation of the calculation of losses for the cases when either three or two pumps
are operating, the following formulas are obtained:

Hci (+2) = [Hout (3Q) − Hsours1,2 ] + 13.33Q2 (29)

Hci (+1) = [Hout (2Q) − Hsours1,2 ] + 12.23Q2 (30)

Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 13 of 21

By using Equations (26)–(30), in Figure 5 the operating points of the pumps have been considered
when the pump station operates in the set pressure maintenance mode on the periphery of the urban
area (node 94).
Characteristics of the pipeline (Figure 5) are indicated with Hci (+3) (Hsours1 = 76.2 m), when four
pumps are in operation and the water level in the pump station is Hsours1 = 76.2 m (minimum possible
level). The characteristics of the pipeline when three, two, and one pump is in operation at the same
water level in the pump station are indicated with dashed lines.
Hci () (Hsours2 = 80.2 m) indicates the pipeline characteristics when one pump is in operation and
the water level in the pump station is Hsours2 = 80.2 m (maximum possible level). The dot dash lines
indicate the pipeline characteristics when two, three, and four pumps are in operation at the same
level of water in the pump station (Figure 5).
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24

(a)

Figure 6. Cont.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 14 of 21
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24

(b)
Figure
Figure 6. 6. Consumption
Consumption andand pressure
pressure ratio(simulation
ratio (simulationininEPANET
EPANETsoftware
software[20]):
[20]):(a)
(a)for
forHout
Hout== 120
120 m;
m; (b) for Hout =
(b) for Hout = 128 m.128 m.

Underaccording
Since, condition when
to thethedesign,
pressurethe
at node 94, on
pumps in the
theperiphery of the city,
pump station is constant
operate underandthe
equals 35 m, and based on the consumption diagram, Table 2 was created, showing the values
frequency-controlled revolution per minute in all pumps, the highlighted area in Figure 5, limited of theby
theHcurve
out(Q) of ithe pump station depending on the flow performed by the pump station.
H (H
c() sours2= 80.2 m), H−Q pump characteristic at n , the curve Hi
o (Hc(+3)
= 76.2 m),
sours1
the line a-b-2, and the vertical Q = 180 L/s; represents the area of possible operation modes of the
Table 2. The dependence of the piezometer heights at the outlet from the pump station.
pumps. The line a-b-2 has not been defined in advance, and its position depends on the method of
Q (L/s)
selection Hout (m a.s.l)
of minimum flows Qfor
(L/s)
two,Hout (mand
three, a.s.l)four
Q (L/s)
pumps Hout (m a.s.l) operation.
in parallel Q (L/s) Hout (m a.s.l)
In this example
180 115.7 550 117.4 950 120.5 1350 124.8
of VFD pump/motor application, the number of pumps in operation is defined by measuring the
250 116.0 650 118.1 1050 121.4 1450 125.9
revolution
350
per minute
116.4
and the 750
minimum 118.8flow that pumps
1150
are allowed
122.5
to reach,
1550
which are defined on
126.9
the basis450
of the operating
116.9 frequency
850 of the electric
119.6 motor,
1250 the pressure
123.5 at the reference
1650 point
128.2in the city,
and the level meter in the source tank. * Meters above sea level (m a.s.l.).

Basedand
3.2. Planned on Actual
the data fromConsumption
Water Table 2, the curve Equation (26) shows the dependence of piezometric
in the WDS
heights on the flow (obtained by the method of least squares), which connects the obtained operating
One-hour water consumption recording is commonly accepted and mostly used in practice. The
points.
maximum consumption recorded in that time period is most often represented as hourly (or daily)
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 15 of 21
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 24

Symmetry 2019, 11,

consumption x FOR
peak, asPEER REVIEW
shown in Figure 16 of 24
7, of water for a city having a population of 300,000 consumers,
which also represents the day with the highest consumption in the observed 2017/2018.

Figure 7. Demand pattern in Novi Sad, Serbia [24].

Figure 7. Demand pattern in Novi Sad, Serbia [24].
In Figure 7, the demand for larger
Figure quantities
7. Demand patternofinwater can Serbia
Novi Sad, be noticed
[24]. from 6:00 a.m. until 11:00
p.m. InByFigure
calculating the meanforvalues
7, the demand largeron an annual
quantities basis,can
of water thebewater consumption
noticed is obtained
from 6:00 a.m. at p.m.
until 11:00 the
level In Figure 7,
of 1075 L/s.
By calculating the demand
theFigure
mean8values for
showson larger
thean quantities
maximum of
dailythe
annual basis, water can
consumption be noticed from
for the observed
water consumption 6:00 a.m. until
2017/2018,
is obtained 11:00
which
at the level of
p.m.also
will
1075 By calculating
L/s. be the basis
Figure the
for mean
8 shows values on
the operation
maximum of an annual
the
daily basis, for
PU, according
consumption the water
to the
option consumption
“a” and
observed is “b”
option
2017/2018, obtained atalso
for will
which WDS. the
level
be theofbasis
1075for
L/s.the
Figure 8 shows
operation thePU,
of the maximum daily
according to consumption
option “a” and foroption
the observed 2017/2018, which
“b” for WDS.
will also be the basis for the operation of the PU, according to option “a” and option “b” for WDS.

Figure 8. The relationship between current demand (option “b”) and reservoir supply (option “a”).
Figure 8. The relationship between current demand (option “b”) and reservoir supply (option “a”).
Regarding the diagram in Figure 8, electrical energy consumption for the pumps in parallel
operation
Figurewas
Regarding calculated
8. The diagram depending
therelationship in Figure
between on8, the
current daily water
electrical
demand energy consumption.
(option consumption
“b”) Figures
the 9pumps
forsupply
and reservoir and 10in
(option show the
parallel
“a”).
consumption
operation wasofcalculated
electrical energy for the
depending on pumps
the dailyin combinations of two, Figures
water consumption. three, and four10
9 and pumps
showon thea
dailyRegarding
basis, as the
well diagram
as the in Figure
consumption 8,
of electrical
electrical energy
energy consumption
of one pump for
whenthe
the
consumption of electrical energy for the pumps in combinations of two, three, and four pumps on a pumps
systemin parallel
operates
operation
according
daily was
basis,to calculated
asthe parameters
well depending onofthe
of the options
as the consumption “a”daily water
and “b”.
electrical energy consumption.
of one pumpFigures
when the9 and 10 show
system the
operates
consumption
according to theof electrical
parameters energy
of thefor the pumps
options in combinations
“a” and “b”. of two, three, and four pumps on a
daily basis, as well as the consumption of electrical energy of one pump when the system operates
according to the parameters of the options “a” and “b”.
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 16 of 21
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24

Figure 9. Power consumption of the pump(s) according to the option “a”.

Figure 9. Power consumption of the pump(s) according to the option “a”.
Figure 9. Power consumption of the pump(s) according to the option “a”.

Figure 10. Power consumption of the pump(s) according to the option “b”.
Figure 10. Power consumption of the pump(s) according to the option “b”.
In the presented research,
Figure research,
10. the pump station
Power consumption optimization
of the pump(s) was
according notoption
tonot
the performed. However, the
“b”. However,
In the presented the pump station optimization was performed.
calculations suggest possible variant solutions that can make significant savings in electrical energy the
calculations
consumption suggest
as wellpossible
as GHGvariant solutions that
emissions, can make significant savings in electrical energy
In the presented research, the pumpwhich stationtheoptimization
results will show.
was not performed. However, the
consumption as well as GHG emissions, which the results will show.
calculations suggest possible variant solutions that can make significant savings in electrical energy
3.3. LCA/LCC Coefficients
consumption
3.3. LCA/LCC as well as GHG emissions, which the results will show.
Coefficients
In order to carry out the assessment of the lifecycle of a product LCA—which, in this case is a
3.3. In order
LCA/LCC
pump, to carry
and aout
Coefficients
a motor, the assessment
VFD—formulas (4),of(5),
the(7),
lifecycle of aand
(8), (12), product
(13) ofLCA—which,
the operationin this case
model is a
are used,
pump,
using a motor, and a VFD—formulas Tables(4), (5), (7),coefficients
(8), (12), and (13) of the operationformodel are used,
In the coefficients
order shown
to carry out the in
assessment 3–5.of The
the lifecycle of ahave been
product calculated
LCA—which, LCA
in thisvalues
case isper
a
using the coefficients
one PUa (motor, pump, shown in Tables
VFD), while the 3, 4,
testing andand5. The coefficients have been calculated for LCA
pump, motor, and a VFD—formulas (4), (5), (7), (8),reparation coefficients
(12), and (13) have been
of the operation selected
model are on the
used,
values per one PUbasis
once-in-ten-years (motor,
and pump,
the VFD), while the testing and40 reparation coefficients have been
using the coefficients shown in planned
Tables 3,exploitation
4, and 5. The period of
coefficientsyears.
have been calculated for LCA
selected on the once-in-ten-years basis and the planned exploitation period of 40 years.
values per one PU (motor, pump, VFD), while the testing and reparation coefficients have been
Table 3. Conversion factors for the production of components.
selected on the once-in-ten-years basis and the planned exploitation period of 40 years.
Table 3. Conversion factors for the production of components.
Parameter Unit Value
Parameterfactors forUnit
Table 3. Conversion the production Value
of components.
kprod, pump (kWh/kg) 3.15
kprod,
kprod, pump (kWh/kg)
(kWh/kg) 3.15
Parameter
motor Unit Value 2.2
kprod,
kprod, VFDmotor (kWh/kg)
(kWh/kg) 2.2 11.3
kprod, pump (kWh/kg) 3.15
Wic,kpump
prod, VFD (kWh/kg)(kg) 11.3 1107
Wic,kW prod, motor
motor
ic, pump
(kWh/kg)
(kg)(kg)
2.2
1107 2831
Wic,kVFD
prod, VFD (kWh/kg)(kg) 11.3 62.37
Wic, motor (kg) 2831
gprod,Wpump
ic, pump (kg-CO
(kg) 2 -eq./kg) 1107 2.59
Wic, VFD
gprod,W (kg) -eq./kg) 62.37 2.19
(kg-CO
motor
ic, motor (kg) 2 2831
gprod,
gprod, VFD pump (kg-CO 2-eq./kg)
(kg-CO 2 -eq./kg)
2.59 12.85
Wic, VFD (kg) 62.37
gprod, motor (kg-CO2-eq./kg) 2.19
gprod, pump (kg-CO2-eq./kg) 2.59
gprod, VFD (kg-CO2-eq./kg) 12.85
gprod, motor (kg-CO2-eq./kg) 2.19
gprod, VFD (kg-CO2-eq./kg) 12.85
Factors kprod, index and gprod, index have been obtained on the basis of lifecycle inventory (LCI) analysis
of the amount of consumed energy and GHG emissions for the production of each of the components.
Factors kprod, index and gprod, index have been obtained on the basis of lifecycle inventory (LCI) analysis
of the amount of consumed energy and GHG emissions for the production of each of the components.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 17 of 21

Table 4. Conversion factors for the production of components obtained by LCI.

Energy for Emission

LCI Value kprod,index gprod,index
Production GHG
Pump (kg) (kWh) (kg-CO2 -eq) (kWh/kg) (kg-CO2 -eq./kg)
market for cast iron production—GLO* 695 1329.95 1493.11
market for steel, chromium steel 18/8— GLO* 177 1526.91 835.26
market for metal working, average for kprod,pump gprod,pump
177 483.99 339.53
chromium steel production— GLO*
market for bronze— GLO* 25 103.69 153.1 3.15 2.59
market for silicon carbide— GLO* 4 21.59 30.12
market for alkyd paint, white, without solvent,
4 26.13 22.63
in 60% solution state— GLO*
market for casting, bronze— GLO* 25 4.68 1.59
Electrical motor (kg) (kWh) (kg-CO2 -eq/kg) (kWh/kg) (kg-CO2 -eq./kg)
market for metal working, average for steel
1055 2700.21 2263.294
production— GLO*
market for steel, low-alloyed— GLO* 1055 2255.061 2108.202
market for cast iron— GLO* 441 843.90 947.431
kprod,motor gprod,motor
market for copper— GLO* 110 227.63 558.8027
market for epoxy resin, liquid— GLO* 17 0.32 116.254
2.2 2.19
market for aluminum, cast alloy— GLO* 31 87.41 98.72751
market for wire drawing, copper— GLO* 110 80.66 73.55919
market for alkyd paint, white, without solvent,
6 39.20 33.94907
in 60% solution state— GLO*
market for polyvinylchloride, bulk
6 0.09 13.19395
polymerized— GLO*
Variable frequency drive (kg) (kWh) (kg-CO2 -eq/kg) (kWh/kg) (kg-CO2 -eq./kg)
market for electronics, for control units— GLO* 19.845 495.13 550.2368
market for printed wiring board, for power
kprod,VFD gprod,VFD
supply unit, desktop computer, Pb containing— 2.835 134.97 164.7126
GLO*
11.3 12.85
market for metal working, average for steel
14.175 36.28 30.40966
product manufacturing— GLO*
market for steel, low-alloyed— GLO* 14.175 30.29 28.32584
market for polyvinylchloride, bulk
8.505 0.13 18.70243
polymerized— GLO*
market for aluminum, cast alloy— GLO* 2.835 7.99 9.02879
* GLO-global, activities which are considered to be an average valid for all countries in the world.

Table 5. Maintenance, Testing, and Repair Parameters.

Parameter Unit Value

ew (kWh/€) 7.69
gw (kg-CO2 -eq./kWh) 1.077/0.665/0.487 *
ftest (test/year) 0.1
fmain,pump (h/year) 75
fmain,motor (h/year) 50
ctest (€/test) 1000
cmain,pump (€/h) 50
cmain,motor (€/h) 50
coverhaul (€) 15,000
Noverhaul (-) 0.1
T (year(s)) 40
* The coefficient depends on the price of kWh el. energy in EU countries (Serbia, Germany, and Spain).

Factors kprod, index and gprod, index have been obtained on the basis of lifecycle inventory (LCI) analysis
of the amount of consumed energy and GHG emissions for the production of each of the components.
Table 4 shows the values of material quantities required for the pump, motor, and VFD, the amount of
the consumed energy, and the coefficient of production, obtained as the quotient of total consumed
energy for the material production and the total mass of the component. The EcoInvent 3 LCI database
was used for the processes listed in Table 4.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 18 of 21

Table 5 shows the parameters for the calculation of electrical energy consumption and GHG
emissions when one pump/motor/VFD is operating. To calculate the displayed parameters, the data
obtained from the testing and repairing of the pumps/motors were used. The operation and energy
conversion factors ew were obtained on the basis of the price of consumed kWh per monetary unit and
refer to both the energy prices in the observed environment and the global energy prices 0.13 €/kWh
for 2017/2018. This parameter has variable value and can be adjusted to the current electrical energy
price. The loss-related parameters Cs are not included because in the given example, the losses can
be avoided by an additional pump that replaces any failed pump and provides a higher reliability of
the WDS.
Table 6 shows the parameters related to the recycling of PU and VFD, using the data obtained
from the software (EcoInvent 3 LCI database) and a procedure similar to the one shown in Table 4. All
the factors (energy and GHG emissions) are related to the mass recycling of certain materials (copper,
steel, cast iron, PVC, etc.) of which components are made.

Table 6. Conversion factors for product recycling.

Parameter Unit Value

erec (kWh/€) −2.32
grec (kg-CO2 -eq./kg) −2.13
Wtmm (kg) 2563
Al (kg) 33.83
Steel (kg) 2382.17
Copper (kg) 110
El.scrap (kg) 22.68
PVC (kg) 14.5

Factors erec and grec show that recycling the reusable materials reduces both the energy consumption
and GHG emissions.

4. Discussion
The results obtained in this research include several scenarios for the use of a PU which, according
to the diagram in Figure 3, operates on average 187 days a year. The PU operates in two different modes
when the frequency adjusts to the current water consumption in the system (Figure 10)—scenario
1, and when the pump operates in a relatively balanced mode when it supplies the water tank that
provides a smaller volume of water for consumption (Figure 9)—scenario 2. Both scenarios imply
two-tariff options of the electricity pricing at prices that are valid in Serbia, burning of fossil fuels
and the use of Serbia’s hydropower, with the cheaper night tariff of electrical energy. Scenarios 3
and 4 imply the operation of both systems, but with prices that apply in Germany, as the country
with the most expensive price of electrical energy, which is equal for both night and day tariffs,
amounting to 0.15 €/kWh [25]. Scenarios 5 and 6 include the modes of operation when energy from
the “green” sources (wind generators, solar cells...) is consumed, or when the electricity is cheaper
in the daily operation mode compared with the electricity generated for the night operation mode
(without changing operation modes and pump combinations)—the example of Spain, where the price
of electrical energy in 2017 was 0.1 €/kWh [26]. Table 7 shows the data related to LCC, consumed
energy, and GHG emissions in each of the scenarios obtained by formulas 10 and 11 for the operation
of one pump, 187 h/year at 40 year exploitation period.
 mode (without changing operation modes and pump combinations)—the example of Spain, where
the price of electrical energy in 2017 was 0.1 €/kWh [26]. Table 7 shows the data related to LCC,
consumed energy, and GHG emissions in each of the scenarios obtained by formulas 10 and 11 for
the operation of one pump, 187 h/year at 40 year exploitation period.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 19 of 21
Table 7. Results of costs, energy, and GHG emissions for one pump unit.

CTable
tot1 Gtot1 for one pump unit.
7. Results of costs, energy, and GHG emissions
Ctot40 Etot1 Etot40 Gtot40 Gtot1/Ctot1
Scenario (×103 (t-CO 2-
Ctot1 (×10 3 €)
Ctot40 (MWh)
Etot1 (MWh)
Etot40 Gtot1 (t-CO 2-eq.)
Gtot40 Gtot1 /C2tot1
(kg-CO -eq.)/€
Scenario €)3 €) eq.) -eq.) (t-CO -eq.) (kg-CO -eq.)/€
(×10 (×103 €) (MWh) (MWh) (t-CO 2 2 2
1 173.89 2316.50 945.05 37,627.40 1018.18 40,555.04 5.85
1 173.89 2316.50 945.05 37,627.40 1018.18 40,555.04 5.85
22 179.16
179.16 2527.02
2527.02 1100.47
1100.47 43,844.13
43,844.13 1185.69
1185.69 47,255.53
47,255.53 6.61
6.61
33 241.23
241.23 5010.03
5010.03 945.05
945.05 37,627.40
37,627.40 630.24
630.24 25,037.50
25,037.50 2.43
2.43
44 261.44
261.44 5818.20
5818.20 1100.47
1100.47 43,844.13
43,844.13 733.65
733.65 29,173.91
29,173.91 2.60
2.60
55 220.55
220.55 4182.73
4182.73 945.05
945.05 37,627.40
37,627.40 463.13
463.13 18,352.83
18,352.83 2.09
2.09
6 240.15 4966.89 1100.47 43,844.13 538.92 21,384.69 2.24
6 240.15 4966.89 1100.47 43,844.13 538.92 21,384.69 2.24

InInFigure
Figure11a,
11a,the
thescenario
scenario1 1shows
showsenergy
energyconsumption
consumptionofofthe thePU
PUininoperation
operationaccording
accordingtotothethe
parameters
parameters of the
of flow
the flowmeasurement at the outlet
measurement at thefrom the pump
outlet from station
the pumpand the pressure
station andmeasurement
the pressure
atmeasurement
the node in the at city. Basedinon
the node thethe presented
city. Based onvalues, it can be noticed
the presented values, that
it canenergy consumption
be noticed is
that energy
significantly
consumption smaller in relationsmaller
is significantly to the scenario 2, which
in relation to theexceeds
scenarioscenario
2, which 1 by all parameters
exceeds scenario (GHG
1 by all
and costs). However,
parameters (GHG and scenario 2 allows
costs). However,for the supply2 of
scenario sufficient
allows quantity
for the supply of of
drinking water
sufficient duringof
quantity
the day, in case
drinking waterofduring
a stoppage or failure
the day, in caseand
of adoes not significantly
stoppage affect
or failure and the not
does operating parameters
significantly affect of
the
operating
the system. parameters of the system.
Scenario 2 provides better Scenario 2 provides
distribution of waterbetter
in thedistribution
system withofa water in the
minimum system
reserve
with a minimum
compared reserve
with scenario 1. compared with scenario 1.

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 11.11.(a)(a) Costs,energy,
Costs, energy,
andand GHG
GHG emissions
emissions forfor one
one PUPU according
according toto the
the scenario;
scenario; (b)(b) Emission
Emission
and
and cost
cost ratio
ratio Gtot1/C/C
Gtot1 .
tot1
tot1 .

However,
However, the disadvantage
the disadvantage ofof
scenario 2 is
scenario that
2 is thatthe
thewater
waterlevel
levelshould
shouldbeberaised
raisedtotohigher
highervalues,
values,
and
andthus
thusmore
moreenergy
energyis isconsumed
consumedand andmore
more GHGGHG is is
emitted.
emitted.TheTheother
otherfour
fourscenarios
scenariosarearesimilar
similar
regarding
regardingthetheoperation,
operation,but but for
for different
different areas (scenario 33 and and 44for
forGermany,
Germany,scenario
scenario5 5andand6 for
6
for Spain).
Spain).
Based
Basedononthetheresults
resultsshown
shownininFigure
Figure11a,b,
11a,b,the thefollowing
followingfacts
factscan
canbebe determined:
determined:the thePUPU
supplying
supplyingWDS WDSininSerbia
Serbiaproduces
producesthe thehighest
highestamount
amountofofGHG GHGemissions
emissionsper perspent
spentmonetary
monetaryunit unit
(€)—Table
(€)—Table 7. 7.Compared
Compared withwithGermany,
Germany, which
which hashasone
one ofof
the
thehighest
highest prices
pricesofofelectrical
electricalenergy
energyininthe
the
EU, this ratio is 2.41 (ratio 5.85/2.41, Serbia/Germany) times higher compared with Spain 2.8 (ratio
5.85/2.09, Serbia/Spain), the ratio of scenarios 1, 3, and 5 in Figure 11b, Table 7. Regarding scenario 2,
the amount of GHG emissions per monetary unit is even higher and ranges from 2.54 (ratio 6.61/2.60,
Serbia/Germany) to 2.95 (ratio 6.61/2.24, Serbia/Spain), the ratio of scenarios 2, 4, and 6 in Figure 11 b,
Table 7. Regardless of the fact that Serbia consumes the least amount of money for the same amount
of consumed energy and produced water, in comparison with Germany and Spain, which in their
energy production use the so-called “green energy”, Serbia produces from 2.41 to 2.8 times (with pump
operation option “b”) and from 2.54 to 2.95 times (with pump operation option “a”) higher amount of
GHG per monetary unit. Analyzing the amount of tons of GHG emissions, Serbia emits from 1.61
(ratio 1018.18/630.24, Serbia/Germany) to 2.19 (ratio 1018.18/463.13, Serbia/Spain) times higher amount
of GHG in tons. The results show that the amount of consumed energy normally affects the GHG
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 20 of 21

emissions, but the amount of GHG emissions depends on the source of the obtained energy for driving
the PU in the WDS. Since production costs are related only to the operation of one pump, it is not
difficult to calculate the costs and GHG emissions for the combined operation of two, three, and four
pumps. Normally, the variability in costs and GHG emissions is influenced by the main functional
unit—flow, which is variable on both the daily and annual basis. This results in the variability of other
parameters and directly depends on water consumption.
End of life for water PU considers recycling process where materials such as steel, aluminium,
copper, and other are recovered, and this lowers costs, energy, and GHG emission (Table 6). This
positive effect on cost, energy, and GHG emission is reflected through factors erec and grec (i.e., their
negative values).

5. Conclusions
Presented in this study is the LCA/LCC model for assessing the costs, energy consumption, and
GHG emissions during the PU lifecycle in WDS. Based on this research, it can be concluded that Serbia
consumes the least amount of money for the same amount of consumed energy and produced water,
in comparison with Germany and Spain, which in their energy production use the so-called “green
energy”. Also, Serbia produces a higher amount of GHG per monetary unit (€). By using “green
energy”, GHG emissions can be significantly reduced, especially when Serbia is concerned, because it
generates a considerably higher amount of energy from thermal power plants. The results presented
in this paper show that the EU countries with notably higher prices of electrical energy also have a
few times lower GHG emissions. Investment in alternative energy sources will increase the price of
electrical energy, but will also significantly reduce GHG emissions.
The developed LCA/LCC model for evaluation of PU can be implemented to any PUs in the
WDS system with necessary modification of input values for each of the components of PU and using
EcoInvent 3 LCI database. Future research will be focused on PU optimization and their operation in
the current WDS supply and the monitoring of the possible reduction of PU efficiency through more
prolonged exploitation.

Author Contributions: The contribution of the authors to this manuscript can be defined as conceptualization, M.J.,
and G.O.; methodology, M.J. and V.K.; software, B.A. and M.I.M.; validation, M.J. and M.O.; formal analysis, M.J.;
investigation, M.O.; resources, V.K.; data curation, S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.J.; writing—review
and editing, S.S.; visualization, B.A. and G.O.; supervision, S.S.; project administration, M.J.
Funding: This research was partially funded by Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Development of
the Republic of Serbia under the Grant 401-00-00589/2018-09.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ferreira, F.J.; Fong, J.A.; Almeida, A.T. Ecoanalysis of Variable-Speed Drives for Flow Regulation in Pumping
Systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 58, 2117–2125. [CrossRef]
2. Burton, F.L.; Stern, F. Water and Wastewater Industries: Characteristics and DSM Opportunities; U.S. Department
of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
3. Tegeltija, S.; Lazarevic, M.; Stankovski, S.; Cosic, I.; Todorovic, V.; Ostojic, G. Heating circulation pump
disassembly process improved with augmented reality. Therm. Sci. 2016, 20, S611–S622. [CrossRef]
4. Cabrera, E.; Cobacho, R.; Pardo, M.A. Energy Audit of Water Networks. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2010,
136, 669–677. [CrossRef]
5. Stjepanovic, A.; Stojcic, M.; Stjepanovic, S. Hybrid Power Energy Source Based on Pem Fuel Cell/Solar
System. J. Mechatron. Autom. Identif. Technol. 2019, 4, 5–8.
6. Loss, A.; Toniolo, S.; Mazzi, A.; Manzardo, A.; Scipioni, A. LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe
bursting systems for relining water pipelines. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 128, 458–469. [CrossRef]
7. Uche, J.; Martínez-Gracia, A.; Círez, F.; Carmona, U. Environmental impact of water supply and water use in
a Mediterranean water stressed region. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 88, 196–204. [CrossRef]
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1181 21 of 21

8. Fantin, V.; Scalbi, S.; Ottaviano, G.; Masoni, P. A method for improving reliability and relevance of LCA
reviews: The case of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of tap and bottled water. Sci. Total Environ. 2014,
476–477, 228–241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Chang, Y.; Choi, G.; Kim, J.; Byeon, S. Energy Cost Optimization for Water Distribution Networks Using
Demand Pattern and Storage Facilities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1118. [CrossRef]
10. Herstain, L.; Filion, Y.; Hall, K. Evaluating environmental impact in water distribution system design.
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2009, 15, 241–250. [CrossRef]
11. Wu, W.; Maier, H.; Simpson, A. Multiobjective optimization of water distribution systems accounting for
economic cost, hydraulic reliability, and greenhouse gas emissions. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49, 1211–1225.
[CrossRef]
12. Makov, T.; Meylan, G.; Powell, J.; Shepon, A. Better than bottled water?—Energy and climate change impacts
of on-the-go drinking water stations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 143, 320–328. [CrossRef]
13. Arden, S.; Ma, X.; Brown, M. Holistic analysis of urban water systems in the Greater Cincinnati region: (2)
resource use profiles by emergy accounting approach. Water Res. X 2019, 2, 1000012. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Schaefer, T.; Udenio, M.; Quinn, S.; Fransoo, J.C. Water risk assessment in supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,
208, 636–648. [CrossRef]
15. Nault, J.; Papa, F. Lifecycle Assessment of a Water Distribution System Pump. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag.
2015, 141, A4015004. [CrossRef]
16. Filion, Y.R.; MacLean, H.L.; Karney, B.W. Life-Cycle Energy Analysis of a Water Distribution System.
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014, 10, 120–130. [CrossRef]
17. Hydraulic Institute, Europump and the US Department of Energy’s Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT).
Pump Life Cycle Costs: A Guide to LCC Analysis for Pumping Systems. Available online: https://www1.
eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_assistance/pdfs/pumplcc_1001.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2019).
18. Trifunovic, N. Introduction to Urban Water Distribution; Taylor & Francis/Balkema: Leiden, The
Netherlands, 2005.
19. Senk, I.; Ostojic, G.; Jovanovic, V.; Tarjan, L.; Stankovski, S. Experiences in developing labs for a supervisory
control and data acquisition course for undergraduate mechatronics education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ.
2015, 23, 54–62. [CrossRef]
20. EPANET Application for Modeling Drinking Water Distribution Systems. Available online: https://www.epa.
gov/water-research/epanet (accessed on 24 February 2019).
21. Vojvodinaprojekt. Preliminary Design of High Pressure Pump Stations STRAND; Vojvodinaprojekt: Novi Sad,
Serbia, 2005.
22. Idel0 chik, I.E.; Fried, E. Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance; Hemisphere Pub. Corp.: Washington, DC, USA, 1986.
23. Hajdin, G. Mechanics of Fluid—Introduction to Hydraulics; Faculty of Civil Engineering: Belgrade, Serbia, 2002.
24. Municipal Water Company project. Determining water consumption; Municipal Water Company: Novi Sad,
Serbia, 2017.
25. Statista. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/595803/electricity-industry-price-germany
(accessed on 14 January 2019).
26. Statista. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/595813/electricity-industry-price-spain/
(accessed on 14 January 2019).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).